Smt. Jabisetti Sowkhya

CC No.46 of 20191Dt :07-04-2025

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

FIRST-CLASS(MOBILE),MULUGU

Present:Smt. J.SOWKHYA,

Addl. JuniorCivil Judge-cum-

J.F.C.M(Mobile), Mulugu

This the 7 day of April, 2025.

C.C.No.46of 2019

Between:

The State of Telangana,throughS.| of Police, Mangapet.

...Complainant.

AND

Adibabu, S/o. Musalaiah,Age:35 yrs, Occ: Budugula Coolie, R/o.Vagoddugudemvillage, Mulugu District.

. Accused.

on 07-01-2025beforeme for This caseis coming final hearingin thepresenceof learnedAPP, on behalf _of prosecutionandSri.Ch.Venugopalcharyadvocate

“for the accused and matterhaving been heard, and

‘over forconsiderationtillthisday,thiscourt ~stood

: deiverey the following:

ooh’

CC No.46 of 20192Dt :07-04-2025

DENT

1.TheSub-InspectorofPolice,P.S.Mangapetfiled charge sheet in Cr.No.219/2018 against the accusedfor the offencepunishableU/s.341,294 and 324 of IPC.

2.The case of the prosecutionin brief is that on 07- 11-2018at20:30hoursPW1lodgedareportby alleging thatin the year 2005 she got love marriage with accusedand theyblessedwith two daughters.In this connection,since from the last year, accusedwas addictedto alcoholand usedto pick up quarrelswith her. For which, about3 monthsago, she came to her maternalhome at Rajupeta village and residing there.

On 07-11-2018evening at about 19:00 hours, she went to shop to purchasecrackers to her children and while

returning to home, on reaching bus stand, meantime,

accusedconsumedalcohol, obstructedher, picked up quarrel with her, abusedher in filthy languagefor not coming to him, and beat her with stick on her head and left hand.Due to which, she received bleedinginjuries andfell on theground,for whichaccusedfled away from there. On that, passers shifted her to her mother’s house.

3.Basingon the reportof PW1, PW5 registered a case in Cr.No.219/2018for the offenceunderSection.341, 294,324IPC., andtookup theinvestigation.During the courseinvestigationhe recordedthe statementof PW1 “at-.PS,visitedthesceneof offenceRajupet village :)thepresenceof LWs 2 to6 recorded their

steten)tsanddraftedscene

ofobservation

te CV8o “AM ye

CC No.46 of 20193Dt :07-04-2025

panchanamapresenceof PW4 andLW8 and also seized the Jamoilstickwhich theaccusedusedtobeatthe victim at scene of offence in the presenceof mediators

LWs.7 and 8.

4.On 18-12-2018PW5 receivedMedical certificateof

PW1 fromMedicalofficerLW9/Dr.MD. Ayesha,in which hegaveopinionthat,thePW1,sustainedinjuries grievousinNature.OnstrengthoftheMedical

CertificateissuedbyMedicalOfficer.Pw5altered sectionof law from 324 IPC to 326 IPC. On completion of investigationPW5 laid chargesheetagainstaccused for the offencepunishableU/s.341, 294, 326 of IPC.

5.Consideringthechargesheetandmaterialon recordthisCourttookcognizancefor theoffence punishableU/s.341,294, 326 of IPC., againstaccused.

On appearanceof accused, copies of documents were

furnishedu/Sec.207 of CrPC as required.

6.Accusedis examinedU/sec.239Cr.P.C explaining thechargesreadoverleveledagainsthim for the offencespunishableU/s.341, 294, 326 of IPC., for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.Duringthecourseof trialprosecutionexamined

PWs.1 to 5 and got exhibitedEx.P1 to P4 andMO1 i.e

Jamoil stick.

8.After the closure of Prosecution evidence,Accused isexaminedU/Sec.313ofCrPC.explainingthe incriminatingevidenceappearingagainsthim, in the prosecutionswitnesses,for which he pleadedall such evidence. is false and reported no defence evidence.

9.-Heard both sides . Perused record.

oh"ANS

CC No.46 of 20194Dt :07-04-2025

10.Now, the point that arises for determinationis:

i) Whethertheprosecutionbring hometheguilt of

Accused for the offence punishable U/s.341, 294, 326 of

IPC. beyondall reasonabledoubt?” ii) To whatresult?

EVIDENCEON RECORD:

11.PW1 deposedthat,on07.11.2018on thatday

Diwalifestivalshetookhernephewtopurchase crackersandwhilereturningtohomefromthebus

stand her husband came there and asked her to came

alongwith her for whichshe statedthatfirst you go will comeafter wards, for which he abusedher in filthy languageand bether with thestick on her headand handdue to which she sustainedbleedinginjuryon her head and fractureinjury to her left hand thumbshe fell on thegroundherhusbandleft herthere.Some unknown personsrescued her took her to hospital and informed to her parents.

Duringthecrossexaminationshedeposedthat accusedis having first wife.She doesnot know at the time of marriageaccusedwas alreadymarried.She deposedthatAccusedcall her to cometo his house.

She addedaccusedquarreledwith her for living with firstwife and with her in samehouse jointly.And she : denied remaining suggestions.

yee ots

CC No.46 of 20195Dt :07-04-2025

12.PW2 deposedthatin theyear2018whilehe was on main road at Rajput he witness accusedbet the

PW1 with stickandimmediatelyhe took thestickfrom his hand and rescuedthe PW1.PW1 sustainedinjury on her head, hands and on the back side.

During the cross examinationhe deposedthathe doesnot know thereasonfor disputebetweenthe accusedandPW1.He is deniedto a suggestionthat without knowing the facts of this case,heis deposing false.

13.| PW3 deposedthat about6 years ago on one day when he was present at his home one person informed him that Al bet PW1 due to which she fell down.

During the cross examinationhe deposedthat he was at his home at the time of incident.The accused andPW1 wereliving separatelyat thetimeof alleged incident. They never held panchayathbetween Accused and PW1 regardingthe disputesbetweenthem.

14,PwW4 who is the mediatorto sceneof offence panchanamahaveturnedhostileand did not support thecaseof prosecution.Duringcrossexaminationby

Lrd App nothingnew was elici ted .

15.PW5who is the|.0havedeposedtheentire chronologicaleventsmentionedin the chargesheet.

During theCross examinationPW-1 lodgedreportby stating the reason of quarrel as she was residing at her parentshouse.PW1andaccusedwereliving “separatelyfrom3months.Accusedresidingat x._eighbdoring village.PW1 did not mentionedin Ex.P1 that. the \namesof theeyewitnessesexceptstated

CNGaAY‘

CC No.46 of 20196Dt :07-04-2025

somepersons.At 07.00PM it was darkness.He admittedPW1didnotmentiontheaccusedgotthe

MO1 alongwithhim.He addedduringinvestigation

PW-2 statedthataccusedboughttheMO1 alongwith him. And he deniedremainingsuggestions.

Dision, Decision,Reasons thereon:

16.It is thecaseof prosecutionis thataccused voluntarilyobstructedthe Pwl and bet her with MO1 by abusingher.PW1 deposedthat,On07.11.2018on thatdayDiwali festivalshetookhernephewto purchasecrackersand while returningto homefrom the bus stand her husbandcame thereand askedher to comealong with her for whichshe statedthatfirst you go, | will comeafterwards,for which he abused her in filthy languageand bet her with the stick on her head and handdue to which she sustainedbleeding injuryon her head and fractureinjury to her left hand thumbshefell on thegroundherhusbandleft her there.Some unknown persons rescuedher took her to hospitalandinformedtoherparents.PW2 deposed that in the year 2018 while he was on main road at

RajputhewitnessedaccusedbetthePW1 withstick and immediatelyhe took the stick from his handand rescuedthePW1.PW1 sustainedinjury on her head, hands and on the back side.

17.Now it is to be seenas to whetherthe prosecution

Ould able to establish that the accused is

Essentizingredientsof an offence of wrongful restraint

U/sec\34)IPC are:-

—

CC No.46 of 20197Dt :07-04-2025

(i)thattherewassomevoluntaryobstruction caused;

(ii)thattheobstructionwassuchas to preventany person from proceeding in any direction;

(iii)thatthepersonobstructedhadarightto

proceed in that direction.

18.But here in this case, the victim himself has not

deposed anything in this regard. It is not found in the

above discussed evidence that the accused obstructed

thevictimfromproceedinginanydirection.She deposedthatshetookhernephewtopurchase crackersandwhile returningto home from thebus

stand her husband came there and asked her to came

along with her for whichshestatedthatfirst you go will comeafterwards,for whichhe abusedher in filthy languageand bet her with the stick on her head and handdue to which she sustainedbleeding injuryon her head and fracture injury to her left hand thumb she fell on thegroundher husbandleft her there.As such, offenceU/S 341 of IPC is not proved.It is thereforethe prosecutionfailed to prove the offence under sec 341

IPC.

19.To proveanoffenceundersection326IPC, the

prosecution is to establish

326. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerousweapons or means—

Whoever, except in the case provided for by “section. 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt by means » Ofany * instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or “anyinstrumentwhich, used as a weapon of offence, is

one

CC No.46 of 20198

Dt :07-04-2025

likely to causedeath,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 meansof any substancewhich 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 withimprisonmentforlife, or with imprisonmentof either descriptionfor a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

20.UnderSection320 in TheIndianPenalCode, 1860,thefollowingkinds ofhurt(First)onlyare- Emasculation.designatedas “Grievous”: (Secondly) —

Permanent privation of the sight of either eye.

(Thirdly)— Permanentprivationof the hearingof

either ear,

(Fourthly) —Privation of any member or joint.

(Fifthly) — Destructionor permanent impairingof the memberor joint.(Sixthly) — Permanent dis-figuration

of the head or face.

(Seventhly)—Fractureor dislocation of a boneor tooth.

(Eighthly)—Anyhurtwhichendangers life orwhich

causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty

daysin severe bodilypain,orunabletofollow his

ordinary pursuits

21..Here in this case, the learned MO was not examinedandmedical certificatemarkedwith ation officer.As per medical certificate, it was hat she foundgrievous injury on head which is

ow’

CC No.46 of 20199%Dt :07-04-2025

a lineal teararound5 cm.In her opinion,injury is grievousin nature,causedby Rod or stick . The victim herself has deposedthatshe sustainedbleeding injury on her head and fractureinjury to her left hand thumb shefellonthegroundherhusbandleftherthere.

Attributingthe offencethe prosecutiondid not file any medicalrecordto show the fractureinjury to Pwl1 .In Ex P4 only the doctor have mentionedthat she found grievous injury on head which is a lineal tear around 5 cm.

22.In Mathai v. Stateof Kerala, (2005)3 SCC 260: 2005SCC (Cri) 695: 2005SCC OnLineSC 87 at page 263, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that:

“Somehurtswhichare not like thosehurts which arementionedin thefirst sevenclauses,are obviouslydistinguishedfroma_ slighthurt,may neverthelessbe more serious. Thusa wound may cause intense pain, prolonged diseaseor lasting injury to the victim, althoughit doesnot fall within any of the first seven clauses.Before a conviction for the sentenceof grievous hurt can be passed,one of the injuries defined

in Section 320 must be strictly proved, and the eighth

clauseis no exceptionto the generalrule of law that a penal statutemust be construedstrictly." "The expression“any instrumentwhich, used as a weaponof offence,is likely to causedeath"in S.

326IPC hasto be gaugedtakingnoteof theheadingof =thesection.Whatwouldconstitutea"dangerous

weapon'\would depend upon the facts of each case and

no generisation can be made." ))by Peace

CC No.46 of 201910Dt :07-04-2025

23:In thepresentcasetheingredientsof Section 326 IPC are not madeout fromthe evidence broughton record.As seenfromthe recordMO.1 is nota deadly weaponwhich causesgrievous hurt as contemplated with thefactorsof sec326IPC. To prove theguiltyof accusedu/sec 326 IPC, the prosecutionmust prove the

use of deadly weapon. Furthermore, the evidence is not

supportedby themedicalevidence with regardto the fractureinjury.Additionallyneither P.W.1 oranyother witness hadnot mentioned the abusive words that are

utteredby the accusedin thereport

nor deposed

beforethiscourtto provethe

offenceu/sec.294(b) IPC specifically.Thepre-requisiteof Section294(b) of IPC speaks that the utteranceof obscene words must have beendone in public place and such occurrence must

have caused annoyance to others. A vague or general

statementin theFIR and in evidence that the accused showered obscenewords is not enough to constitute an

offence under Section 294(b). It is necessary to state

the words utteredby the accused. The complaint or the

FIR, as the casemay be, shall contain the wordsspoken to by the accused,which, according to the prosecution, would attractthe offence under Section 294(b) of the

Indian Penal Code. In this case the informant has not statedin her evidence the exact obscene words uttered by theaccused.Here in this instant casethe exact obscenewordshavenotbeen provedasperthe discussion made above. Thus, the ingredients of section 294(b)of theI.P.C. remained far fromproof.

From the evidenceof thePW1, the alleged

whichstandscorroboratedby the

medical

nce. aswellas theevidenceof thePW2 it is

ne

CC No.46 of 201911Dt :07-04-2025

establishedbeyondallreasonabledoubtthatthe

accused person, voluntarily caused hurt to the alleged

victimwithMO1attheplaceandtimeofthe occurrence.Apart from some flaws in the investigation, no major contradictionswhatsoevercould be proved by

thelearneddefensecounselduringthecross

examinationof thewitnessesled by theprosecution.

The evidence of witnessesdoes not suffer any infirmity

and inconsistency, the prosecution clearly established

the incident.The Courts always are concernedwith the

merit of statementsof particular witnesses.

25.Under such circumstances,it is very difficult for

the court to ascertain whether the incident caused by

deadly weapon or dangerous weapon, hence conviction

deservesto be undersection324 of IPC and not under section326 of IPC,as prosecutionhas failed to establish that the incident occurred using deadlyweapon as per the factorsof Sec 326 IPC .

26.In the instancecase,prosecutionprovedupon theprosecutiontoprovethefollowingingredients undersection324of IPC beyondall reasonabledoubt.

(i) The accusedby his actcausedbodilypain,disease, or infirmity to Pwl.

(ii) Thattheaccuseddid suchactintentionallyor with knowledge that it would cause bodily pain etc.,

(iii) Accusedcausedit by meansof instrumentstabbing

..or cutting etc.,

27.Theaccusedinitially chargedwith the offence ufsec. 33 6 ofIPC. Butsince,thefactsthatareproved } : against]he accusedis undersec.324of IPC, which is

CC No.46 of 201912Dt :07-04-2025

minor to thechargedoffencewhich includedin the same.Havinginvokingthe sec.222of Cr.P.C., thiscourt

having consideringthe evidencebrought on record,

found the accusedguilty for the offence under Sec.324 of IPC. Accordingly,the point is answered.

28.Thus,fromtheabovediscussion,it is proved beyondreasonabledoubtthattheaccusedSri.B.

Adibabu voluntarilycausedgrievoushurt to Pwl and therebycommittedan offencepunishable U/S 324 of IPC. Hence,hefoundguiltyfortheoffenceunder

Sec.324of IPC.

ot

Addl.judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Mulugu.

CC No.46 of 201913Dt :09-04-2025

09-04-2025:Accused producedbefore me on executionof NBW which was issuedon 07-04-2025.

HEARING ON SENTENCE

29.Heardtheaccusedonthepointof sentence.He has submittedthat he has no criminal case except this is pending againsthim. He is havingold agemotherandshe will sufferif heissenttoJail.Heprayedforleniencytowardshis conviction.

BENEFIT OF PO ACT

30.Consideringthe natureof the offenceand its social impact | am inclined not to give benefit of the Probation of Offenders

Act. Any leniencytowardsthe accusedwill causebad impacton the society.

ORDER

31.The prosecutionis held to have succeededin establishingthechargeU/Sec.324IPC againsttheaccused beyondallreasonabledoubt.OnconvictionU/S-324IPC, accusedsentencedtoundergofour(4)monthssimple imprisonmentand to pay fine of Rs. 500/-in defaultof payment fine he shallundergo, furthersimpleof 15 days: the inaprisonment

Mol Shall be atyslDelopeeory

32. The bail bond of the accusedstandsdischarged.

33.Copy of the judgmentbe furnishedto the accusedfree of U/Sec.363 CrPC.

(Typed to my dictation, by PA corrected and pronounced by me in the Open court on this the] day of April, 2025.)

<osh dae

Addl. Judicial Magistrateof First Class,

Mulugu.

CC No.46 of 201914Dt 07-04-2025

nHF EVIDENCE ::

WITNESSESEXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE:

PW.1: B.Sujatha- None -

PW.2: S.Kiritam

PW.3: Buchaiah

PW.4: G.Rajaratnam

PW.5: Ch.Venkateshwarlu

EXHIBIT!RKED

FOR PROSECUTION:EEI

Ex.P1:reportlodgedby PW1 —Ex.P2: signatureon CDF markedthroughPW4

Ex.P3:FIR markedthroughPWS

Ex.P4 : MC markedthroughPW5

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MOl1:JamoilStick

ate

Addl.judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Mulugu.

C.C. No. 463/2022Dt: 20-02-2025

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM- ADDL.

JUDICIAL FIRST-CLASS MAGISTRATE (MOBILE), MULUG.

PRESENT: Smt. J. SOWKHYA, Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum J.F.C.M

(Mobile), Mulug.

This day the 20th day of February, 2025.

CC.No. 463 of 2022

Between:

The State of Telangana through SHO PS. Venkatapuram (Cr. No. 129/2020)

...Complainant.

AND

A1: Bega Satyanarayana, S/o. Bhaskar Rao, Age: 26 years.

A2: Bega Bhaskar Rao, S/o. Muthyalu, Age: 42 years.

Both are resident of Besthagudem village, Venkatapuram mandal, Mulugu District.

...Accused. No.1 and 2.

Section of law: U/Secs.304-A of IPC., Sec.181, 180, 196 of MV Act. Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the court:Found not guilty

Sentence or order:In the result, Accused No.1 is found not guilty for the offences punishable

U/Sec.304-A IPC., Sec.181 of MV Act.,

A2 found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Secs. 180, 196 of MV

Act. Accordingly they are acquitted

U/Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused No.1 and 2 shall remain in force after expiry of appeal period.

No property is deposited no order as to property.

C.C. No. 463/2022Dt: 20-02-2025 @@@

This case is coming for final hearing before me in the presence of

Learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri. E. Ravi Prasad

Reddy, Advocate for the accused No.1 and 2 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

1. The accused is prosecuted for the offences punishable U/Secs.304-A of

IPC., Sec.181 of MV Act against A1 and Sec.180, 196 of MV Act against A2.

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

The brief facts of the case that on 17-11-2020 at 09.00 hours the PW-1 came to PS Venkatapuram and lodged a petition in which he stated that on 16-11-2020 evening at 07.00 PM his son/Deceased/D. Santhosh started from their house on his two wheeler bearing no. AP 20 AS 4045 in order to attend his agricultural works in Vadagudi village when he reached near Vadagudi

Center, one tractor bearing no. Ts 04 EF 2949 Forguzen was coming in opp- site direction and the driver of the tractor by name Bega Satyanarayana/Ac- cused drove the tractor in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motor cycle of his son, as a result of which his son sustained heavy injury on his right shoulder, on neck and sustained heavy fractures on below right leg, on receiving the information from the villagers immediately he rushed to the spot and shifted his son to Venkatapuram government hospital where the doctors examined and given first aid advised to shift his son to MGM hospi- tal, Warangal for better treatment on which they they were shifting his on to

MGM hospital, Warangal on the way on 16-11-2020 night at 11.30 hours his son lost his breath. He further added that the driver of the tractor drove the vehicle in drunken condition in a high speed in rash and negligent manner

C.C. No. 463/2022Dt: 20-02-2025 and dashed to the motor cycle of his son. Hence he requested to take neces- sary action.

3.On receipt of above complaint from PW-1, the LW-14 has registered a case vide Cr.No.129/2020, U/Sec.304 (A) IPC, issued FIR and took up investi- gation.

4.During the course of investigation, the LW-14 has examined PW-1 and recorded his statement at PS. Later he visited the scene of offence at

Vadagudem and inspected the scene minutely and taken the photographs of the scene with the help of LW-7 and draw a rough sketch of the scene and drafted crime detail form in the presence of mediators Lws.10 and 11, thereafter he visited mortuary room of Govt. Hospital, Venkatapuram and secured the witnesses Lws.2 to 7 and examined and record their statements and conducted inquest panchanama in the over the dead body of the de- ceased in the presence of LW-7 and LW8. After he sent a requisition to the

Medical Officer for conducting autopsy over the dead body of the deceased.

After completion of autopsy the dead body was handed over to its blood relatives.

6.The LW-12/Dr. Nambi Kishore who conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased opined in PME report that the cause of death of deceased was due to " Vital organ damage caused upon due to traffic accident".

7.The LW-13 who Inspected the crime vehicle opined in MVI report that "the accident occurred was not due to any mechanical defects of the vehi- cle".

8.On 18-11-2020 the accused A1 and A2 appeared before LW-14 and vol- untarily confessed to have committed this offence, produced the documents of the crime vehicle. The LW-14 perused the same and found on proper lines

C.C. No. 463/2022Dt: 20-02-2025 and valid except the Insurance document of the crime vehicle and the driv- ing license of the accused. Accordingly the LW-14 served notice U/Sec.41-A

Cr.P.C, to accused No.1 and 2 and instructed to appear before the Honoable court on receipt of summons. Hence charge.

9. Considering the charge sheet and material on record this Court took cognizance for the offence punishable U/Sec.304-A IPC., Sec.181 of MV Act.

Against A1 and Sec. 180, 196 of MV Act against A2.

10. On appearance of accused copies were furnished to them U/Sec. 207 of CrPC as required.

11. Accused No.1 and 2 examined U/Sec. 251 of CrPC the substance of ac- cusation which constitutes an offence punishable U/Secs.304-A of IPC,

Sec.180, 181, 196 of MV Act., was read over and explained, for which ac- cused persons are pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Upon invita- tion for trial the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 7, got marked Exs.P1 to P8.

12. After completion of prosecution evidence, the examination U/Sec.313 of CrPC dispensed with as there is no incriminating material available against the accused No.1 and 2. The defence not chosen to adduce any evidence.

13.Heard arguments on both sides and perused the record.

14.Now, the point for determination is:

i) “Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused N

for the offence punishable U/Sec.304-A IPC., Sec.181 of MV Act., against

A1 and Sec. 180, 196 of MV Act against A2 beyond reasonable doubt?”

ii) To what relief?

C.C. No. 463/2022Dt: 20-02-2025

15. EVIDENCE ON RECORD:

In order to prove the guilt of the accused No.1 and 2 the prosecution examined Pws.1 to 7. Since PW.1 to 7 have not supported the case of the prosecution and Ex.P1 is the signature on report. Exs. P2 to P7 are the

Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements. Ex.P8 is the inquest panchanama. The Learned

APP given up the remaining witnesses.

Answer to Point:

16. Upon the scrutiny, it shows that Pws-1 to 3 who are the father, mother and own elder brother of the deceased respectively, turned hostile and deposed that in the year 2020 deceased met with an accident and they do not know the facts of this case. PWs-4 to 6 who are the eye witnesses to the incident deposed that they do not know anything about this case and they do not witness anything pertaining to this case. During the cross exam- ination of Pws 1 to 6 by Learned APP nothing was elicited in favor of the prosecution except putting suggestions which were denied by them.

17. PW-7 is the panch witness for inquest panchanama deposed that about 4 years ago Police conducted panchanama at Venkatapuram Govern- ment hospital on the dead body of the D. Santhosh, he came to know that the deceased died in an accident. During cross examination by counsel for the accused he admitted that he does not know anything about this case and he signed on some papers he does not know the contents of it.

18.In the case on hand the PW’s 1 to 3 who are the complainant and rela- tives of the deceased have completely turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution therefore the learned Prosecutor with the permis- sion of the Court cross-examined them, but nothing was elicited except putting suggestions which were denied by them. In view of the testimonies given by the witnesses Pw1 to 6 the learned Prosecutor has given up the re-

C.C. No. 463/2022Dt: 20-02-2025 maining listed witnesses on record including the official witnesses. Hence, there is no evidence available on record to prove the offence alleged against the accused.In view of the fact and totally hostile evidence of Pws.1 to 6 the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused No.1 and 2.

In the result, Accused No.1 is found not guilty for the offences pun- ishable U/Sec.304-A IPC., Sec.181 of MV Act., A2 found not guilty for the of- fences punishable U/Secs. 180, 196 of MV Act. Accordingly they are acquit- ted U/Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused No.1 and 2 shall remain in force after expiry of appeal period. No property is deposited no order as to property.

(Typed by me on my official laptop corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on 20 th day of February, 2025).

Sd/-

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class Mulugu.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: PW1: D. Veeraswamy -None- PW2: D. Vijaya PW3: D. Sathish PW4: K. Rama Rao PW5: M. Venkatesh PW6: B. Jagadheesh PW7: M. Srinivas

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1: is the signature on report marked through PW1. Ex.P2 : 161 CrPC statement marked through PW1. Ex. P3: 161 CrPC statement marked through PW2. Ex. P4: 161 CrPC statement marked through PW3.

C.C. No. 463/2022Dt: 20-02-2025

Ex. P5: 161 CrPC statement marked through PW4. Ex. P6: 161 CrPC statement marked through PW5. Ex. P7: 161 CrPC statement marked through PW6. Ex.P8: is the inquest panchanama marked through PW7.

FOR DEFENCE: -Nil- MATERIAL OBJECTS: -Nil -

Sd/-

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class Mulugu.

C.C. No. 463/2022Dt: 20-02-2025

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM- ADDL.

JUDICIAL FIRST-CLASS MAGISTRATE (MOBILE), MULUG.

PRESENT: Smt. J. SOWKHYA, Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum J.F.C.M

(Mobile), Mulug.

This day the 20th day of February, 2025.

CC.No. 463 of 2022

Between:

The State of Telangana through SHO PS. Venkatapuram (Cr. No. 129/2020)

...Complainant.

AND

A1: Bega Satyanarayana, S/o. Bhaskar Rao, Age: 26 years.

A2: Bega Bhaskar Rao, S/o. Muthyalu, Age: 42 years.

Both are resident of Besthagudem village, Venkatapuram mandal, Mulugu District.

...Accused. No.1 and 2.

Section of law: U/Secs.304-A of IPC., Sec.181, 180, 196 of MV Act. Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the court:Found not guilty

Sentence or order:In the result, Accused No.1 is found not guilty for the offences punishable

U/Sec.304-A IPC., Sec.181 of MV Act.,

A2 found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Secs. 180, 196 of MV

Act. Accordingly they are acquitted

U/Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused No.1 and 2 shall remain in force after expiry of appeal period.

No property is deposited no order as to property.

C.C. No. 463/2022Dt: 20-02-2025 @@@

This case is coming for final hearing before me in the presence of

Learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri. E. Ravi Prasad

Reddy, Advocate for the accused No.1 and 2 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

1. The accused is prosecuted for the offences punishable U/Secs.304-A of

IPC., Sec.181 of MV Act against A1 and Sec.180, 196 of MV Act against A2.

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

The brief facts of the case that on 17-11-2020 at 09.00 hours the PW-1 came to PS Venkatapuram and lodged a petition in which he stated that on 16-11-2020 evening at 07.00 PM his son/Deceased/D. Santhosh started from their house on his two wheeler bearing no. AP 20 AS 4045 in order to attend his agricultural works in Vadagudi village when he reached near Vadagudi

Center, one tractor bearing no. Ts 04 EF 2949 Forguzen was coming in opp- site direction and the driver of the tractor by name Bega Satyanarayana/Ac- cused drove the tractor in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motor cycle of his son, as a result of which his son sustained heavy injury on his right shoulder, on neck and sustained heavy fractures on below right leg, on receiving the information from the villagers immediately he rushed to the spot and shifted his son to Venkatapuram government hospital where the doctors examined and given first aid advised to shift his son to MGM hospi- tal, Warangal for better treatment on which they they were shifting his on to

MGM hospital, Warangal on the way on 16-11-2020 night at 11.30 hours his son lost his breath. He further added that the driver of the tractor drove the vehicle in drunken condition in a high speed in rash and negligent manner

C.C. No. 463/2022Dt: 20-02-2025 and dashed to the motor cycle of his son. Hence he requested to take neces- sary action.

3.On receipt of above complaint from PW-1, the LW-14 has registered a case vide Cr.No.129/2020, U/Sec.304 (A) IPC, issued FIR and took up investi- gation.

4.During the course of investigation, the LW-14 has examined PW-1 and recorded his statement at PS. Later he visited the scene of offence at

Vadagudem and inspected the scene minutely and taken the photographs of the scene with the help of LW-7 and draw a rough sketch of the scene and drafted crime detail form in the presence of mediators Lws.10 and 11, thereafter he visited mortuary room of Govt. Hospital, Venkatapuram and secured the witnesses Lws.2 to 7 and examined and record their statements and conducted inquest panchanama in the over the dead body of the de- ceased in the presence of LW-7 and LW8. After he sent a requisition to the

Medical Officer for conducting autopsy over the dead body of the deceased.

After completion of autopsy the dead body was handed over to its blood relatives.

6.The LW-12/Dr. Nambi Kishore who conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased opined in PME report that the cause of death of deceased was due to " Vital organ damage caused upon due to traffic accident".

7.The LW-13 who Inspected the crime vehicle opined in MVI report that "the accident occurred was not due to any mechanical defects of the vehi- cle".

8.On 18-11-2020 the accused A1 and A2 appeared before LW-14 and vol- untarily confessed to have committed this offence, produced the documents of the crime vehicle. The LW-14 perused the same and found on proper lines

C.C. No. 463/2022Dt: 20-02-2025 and valid except the Insurance document of the crime vehicle and the driv- ing license of the accused. Accordingly the LW-14 served notice U/Sec.41-A

Cr.P.C, to accused No.1 and 2 and instructed to appear before the Honoable court on receipt of summons. Hence charge.

9. Considering the charge sheet and material on record this Court took cognizance for the offence punishable U/Sec.304-A IPC., Sec.181 of MV Act.

Against A1 and Sec. 180, 196 of MV Act against A2.

10. On appearance of accused copies were furnished to them U/Sec. 207 of CrPC as required.

11. Accused No.1 and 2 examined U/Sec. 251 of CrPC the substance of ac- cusation which constitutes an offence punishable U/Secs.304-A of IPC,

Sec.180, 181, 196 of MV Act., was read over and explained, for which ac- cused persons are pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Upon invita- tion for trial the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 7, got marked Exs.P1 to P8.

12. After completion of prosecution evidence, the examination U/Sec.313 of CrPC dispensed with as there is no incriminating material available against the accused No.1 and 2. The defence not chosen to adduce any evidence.

13.Heard arguments on both sides and perused the record.

14.Now, the point for determination is:

i) “Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused N

for the offence punishable U/Sec.304-A IPC., Sec.181 of MV Act., against

A1 and Sec. 180, 196 of MV Act against A2 beyond reasonable doubt?”

ii) To what relief?

C.C. No. 463/2022Dt: 20-02-2025

15. EVIDENCE ON RECORD:

In order to prove the guilt of the accused No.1 and 2 the prosecution examined Pws.1 to 7. Since PW.1 to 7 have not supported the case of the prosecution and Ex.P1 is the signature on report. Exs. P2 to P7 are the

Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements. Ex.P8 is the inquest panchanama. The Learned

APP given up the remaining witnesses.

Answer to Point:

16. Upon the scrutiny, it shows that Pws-1 to 3 who are the father, mother and own elder brother of the deceased respectively, turned hostile and deposed that in the year 2020 deceased met with an accident and they do not know the facts of this case. PWs-4 to 6 who are the eye witnesses to the incident deposed that they do not know anything about this case and they do not witness anything pertaining to this case. During the cross exam- ination of Pws 1 to 6 by Learned APP nothing was elicited in favor of the prosecution except putting suggestions which were denied by them.

17. PW-7 is the panch witness for inquest panchanama deposed that about 4 years ago Police conducted panchanama at Venkatapuram Govern- ment hospital on the dead body of the D. Santhosh, he came to know that the deceased died in an accident. During cross examination by counsel for the accused he admitted that he does not know anything about this case and he signed on some papers he does not know the contents of it.

18.In the case on hand the PW’s 1 to 3 who are the complainant and rela- tives of the deceased have completely turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution therefore the learned Prosecutor with the permis- sion of the Court cross-examined them, but nothing was elicited except putting suggestions which were denied by them. In view of the testimonies given by the witnesses Pw1 to 6 the learned Prosecutor has given up the re-

C.C. No. 463/2022Dt: 20-02-2025 maining listed witnesses on record including the official witnesses. Hence, there is no evidence available on record to prove the offence alleged against the accused.In view of the fact and totally hostile evidence of Pws.1 to 6 the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused No.1 and 2.

In the result, Accused No.1 is found not guilty for the offences pun- ishable U/Sec.304-A IPC., Sec.181 of MV Act., A2 found not guilty for the of- fences punishable U/Secs. 180, 196 of MV Act. Accordingly they are acquit- ted U/Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused No.1 and 2 shall remain in force after expiry of appeal period. No property is deposited no order as to property.

(Typed by me on my official laptop corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on 20 th day of February, 2025).

Sd/-

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class Mulugu.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: PW1: D. Veeraswamy -None- PW2: D. Vijaya PW3: D. Sathish PW4: K. Rama Rao PW5: M. Venkatesh PW6: B. Jagadheesh PW7: M. Srinivas

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1: is the signature on report marked through PW1. Ex.P2 : 161 CrPC statement marked through PW1. Ex. P3: 161 CrPC statement marked through PW2. Ex. P4: 161 CrPC statement marked through PW3.

C.C. No. 463/2022Dt: 20-02-2025

Ex. P5: 161 CrPC statement marked through PW4. Ex. P6: 161 CrPC statement marked through PW5. Ex. P7: 161 CrPC statement marked through PW6. Ex.P8: is the inquest panchanama marked through PW7.

FOR DEFENCE: -Nil- MATERIAL OBJECTS: -Nil -

Sd/-

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class Mulugu.

OS No. 59 of 2020 Dt: 27-03-2024

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: MULUG.

This the 27 th day of March, 2024.

PRESENT: Smt. J. SOWKHYA,

Addl. Junior Civil Judge,

Mulug.

OS No. 59 of 2020

Between:

N. Seetha Ram Reddy, S/o. Late Appa Reddy, Age: 75 years, Occu: Retd. Teacher, R/o. H.No. 11-27-194, Vasavi Colony, Warangal city and District.

.......Plaintif

And

1. Golkonda Suresh, S/o. Mallaiah, Age: 35 years, Occu: Pvt. Employee,

2. Pusala Srinu, S/o. Suraiah, Age: 30 years, occu: Pvt. Employee.

3. Pusala Mahesh, S/o. Agaiah, Age: 29 years, Occu: Pvt. Employee.

4. R. Kiran, S/o. Lingaiah, Age: 31 years, Occu: Pvt. Employee.

5. Arsham Naveen, S/o. Srinu, Age: 30 years, Occu. Pvt. Employee.

6. Pasula Chiranjeevi, S/o. Sambaiah, Age: 31 years, Occu: Pvt. Employee.

7. Jannarapu Ashok, S/o. Poshaiah, Age: 32 years, Occu: Pvt. Employee.

8. Erra Buchaiah, S/o. Ellaiah, Age: 33 years, occuL Pvt. Employee.

All are resident of Maharajula colony, Mohammed Ghouse pally village, Mallampally, Mulugu district.

....... Defendant no. 1 to 8.

This suit is coming up before me for fnal hearing in the presence of Advocate, Mohammed Azam for the plaintif and the defendants no. 1 to 8 remained set exparte upon perusing the material on record and after hearing this Court made the following:

JUDGMENT

1. The averments of the plaint are follows as hereunder:

The plaintif submitted that he is the owner and possessor of house with open place bearing Gram Panchayath H.No. 2-48, to an extent of Ac. 0.30

OS No. 59 of 2020 Dt: 27-03-2024

guntas, situated at Masohammed Ghousepally village, Mallampally, Mulugu

District. The petitioner submitted that the suit schedule property inherited from his natural mother, i.e N. Kanakamma who died in the month of

November, 1999 leaving behind plaintif as only legal heir since from the date of inheritance, the plaintif is in continuous and interrupted peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same with all attendant ownership rights thereof. The plaintif constructed house along with three side boundary wall, east side boundary wall was made with only stones and also praying

Grmpanchayath tax regularly. The right, title ad possession of the plaintif over the suit schedule property is well known fact to the neighboring land owners, near and dear. Thus the tile has been fown to the plaintif from the right rightful owner and except the plaintif nobody have any manner of right, title and possession over the suit schedule property much less the defendants herein at any point of time. The plaintif is herewith fling the relevant and necessary documents for kind perusal of the Hon’ble Court and the same may kindly be read as part and parcel of the plaint. The plaintif relied documents are clinching proof to show the manner of right, title and possession over the suit schedule property. The plaintif submitted that the defendants are strangers to the suit schedule property and they does not having any right, title or interest whatsover the suit schedule property. In the recent past, the price of the land hiked enormously and due to which the the shit schedule property gained much importance in the locality. The defendants have put a sore eye over the SSP and with a malafe and ill-intention to grab the SSP, they started causing interference with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintif over the SSP. The plaintif subject to availability of funds started construction of east side brick boundary wall at SSP. The plaintif further submitted that the plaintif intended to proceed with his further construction of boundary wall, for which while he dumping the construction material at SSP, on 27-07-2-2020 all of a sudden the defendants herein who are no way concerned to the SSP, obstructed the plaintif and his labors. For which the plaintif questioned about their illegal acts, but the defendants without

OS No. 59 of 2020 Dt: 27-03-2024

showing their illegal acts, but the defendants without showing their manner of right or interest silently left the spot. In continuation of their illegal acts again on 12-08-2020, taking advantage of absence of the plaintif over the SSP, the defendants and their yesmen tried to damage the boundary wall over the SSP, when the plaintif came to know such illegal and high handed activities of the defendants, the plaintif rushed to the sport and with the help of his family members and well wishers, he could resist the illegal and high handed activities of the defendants and their yesmen from doing all such illegal and high handed acts and protected his property. When the plaintif questioned about their illegal acts, without showing any documentary evidence the defendants and their yesmen abused the plaintif in flthy language and openly declared that they will occupy the SSP at any cost and disposes him there from. It is submitted that immediately after the incident, the plaintif approached the concerned police station and lodged a complaint against the defendants narrating above all illegal acts of the defendants and their yes men, but the police shown their in ability and simply advised the plaintif no approach the court of law, since the dispute is civil in nature. The plaintif submitted that the plaintif being, law abiding citizen and innocent old age person, not having any infuence either in the locality or money and muscle power and he unable to resist the illegal and high handed activities of the defendants without aid and assistance of the Hon’ble court. The defendants are taking advantage that the plaintif being the innocent old age person, regularly making rounds around the SSP in order to cause loss to the plaintif as well as to grab the suit schedule property. Having left with no other option, the plaintif constrained to seek the indulgence of the Hon’ble Court to seek the redressal of his grievance. Hence the suit.

2. Summons were issued to the other side and despite receiving summons, the defendants 1 to 8 did not appear before the Court and there was no representation on behalf of the defendants 1 to 8, as such the defendants 1 to 8 were set exparte to the proceedings.

OS No. 59 of 2020 Dt: 27-03-2024

3. In order to prove his case, the plaintif N. Seetha Ram Reddy got examined herself as PW1 and got exhibited Ex. A1 to Ex. A9.

4. Heard the learned Counsel for the plaintif and perused the record .

5. Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the plaintif is entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction against the defendants, restraining the defendants, their agent, henchmen or anybody claiming through them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintif over the suit schedule property?

6. ANSWER TO POINT:

In the chief examination afdavit fled by Pw1, he had reiterated the contents mentioned in his plaint. Therefore, narration of those factual matrix over again will would shows the continues possession of plaintif over suit schedule property. Though the defendants were served with summons, but they did not appear before court and did not choose to contest the suit and the evidence relied upon by the plaintif is unchallenged and unrebutted. The documentary evidence would clearly go to show that the plaintif is in possession over the suit schedule property. On careful perusal of the document’s exhibited by the plaintif, Ex. A1 : is the Original House

Tax Payment receipt, Dt. 31-03-2020. Ex. A2 : is the Original House Tax

Payment receipt, Dt. 13-11-2019. Ex. A3 : is the Original House Tax Payment receipt, Dt. 31-03-2019. Ex. A4: is the Original House Tax Payment receipt,

Dt. 17-03-2017. Ex. A5: is the Original House Tax Payment receipt, Dt. 26-

07-2014. Ex. A6: is the Original House Tax Payment receipt, Dt. 20-04-2005.

Ex. A7: is the Original ownership Certifcate, Dt. 12-08-2020. Ex. A8: is the

Original Simple Sale deed, Dt. 08-01-1971. Ex. A9: is the Original simple sale deed, Dt. 10-10-1971. it would prove his possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of fling of the suit and the plaintif is in possession of the suit schedule property.

OS No. 59 of 2020 Dt: 27-03-2024

7. In a suit for perpetual injunction, the plaintif is required to establish his/her possession as on the date of fling of the suit for seeking the relief and by virtue of exhibiting the documents, which are unchallenged by the defendants 1 to 8 as the defendants 1 to 8 were set exparte, the plaintif could successfully prove his possession over the suit schedule property and therefore, the plaintif is entitled for the relief claimed by him. Therefore, the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintif. This point is answered accordingly.

In the result, the Suit of the plaintif is decreed without costs, granting perpetual injunction in favour of the plaintif and against the defendants 1 to 8, restraining thedefendants 1 to 8, their agents, henchman or anybody claiming through them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintif over the suit schedule property.

(Typed on my ofcial laptop to my dictation corrected and pronounced by me in the court on the 27th day of March, 2024)

Addl. Junior Civil Judge,

Mulug.

::Appendix of Evidence::

For Plaintif:

PW1: N. Seetha Ram Reddy

For Defendant:

-None-

OS No. 59 of 2020 Dt: 27-03-2024

::Documents marked on behalf of::

For Plaintif:

Ex. A1 : is the Original House Tax Payment receipt, Dt. 31-03-2020.

Ex. A2 : is the Original House Tax Payment receipt, Dt. 13-11-2019.

Ex. A3 : is the Original House Tax Payment receipt, Dt. 31-03-2019.

Ex. A4: is the Original House Tax Payment receipt, Dt. 17-03-2017.

Ex. A5: is the Original House Tax Payment receipt, Dt. 26-07-2014.

Ex. A6: is the Original House Tax Payment receipt, Dt. 20-04-2005.

Ex. A7: is the Original ownership Certifcate, Dt. 12-08-2020.

Ex. A8: is the Original Simple Sale deed, Dt. 08-01-1971.

Ex. A9: is the Original simple sale deed, Dt. 10-10-1971.

For Defendant:

-NIL-

Sd/-

Addl. Junior Civil Judge,

Mulug.

CC.No.252 of 2024Date:16-04-2025

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

MULUGU

Present: Smt. J. SOWKHYA,

Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- J.F.C.M (Mobile), Mulugu

FAC Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Mulugu

This the 16th day of April, 2025.

C.C.No.252 of 2024

Between: The State of Telangana, through Prohibition and Excise Inspector Mulugu.

... Complainant.

And

Nunavath Premalatha, W/o.Pedduniak, Age:35 yrs, Occ: Coolie, R/o.Weavers Colony, Mulugu Mandal and District.

... Accused

This case coming before me on16-04-2025 for final hearing in the pres- ence of learned A.P.P., for the State and of Sri.Rangoju Bixapathi, advocate for accused and matter having been heard this court delivered the following :

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

1. The Prohibition and Excise Inspector Mulugu filed charge sheet vide

COR.No.201/2023 against the accused for the offence punishable under sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of TS Prohibition Act.

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

On 24-06-2023 at about 06.30 AM on reliable information of illegal possession of ID liquor, for sale, LW3/Ch.Venkanna, along with PWs.2 and 3, staff were conducting raids at Mulugu village and found accused in suspicious manner. On noticing them, accused tried to flee away but was apprehended.

On search of the bag, they found (02) polythene covers, each filled with (01)

CC.No.252 of 2024Date:16-04-2025

ltr. Of ID liquor, containing in all (02) ltrs. of ID.liquor. On enquiry by ac- cused and revealed accused identity particulars. As such, they seized the con- traband under cover of panchanama by drawing two samples of 180 ml. each for chemical analysis.

3. LW3/Ch.Venkanna, registered a case in COR. No.201/2023, under Sec.7(a) r/w 8(e) of TS Excise Act. LW3/Ch.Venkanna, issued notice under section 41 of Cr. P.C., to the accused and released her on personal bail, after obtaining sufficient sureties and took up the investigation.

4. During the course of investigation out of (2) samples (1) sample forwarded to the Government Chemical examiner of Prohibition and Excise Warangal.

The LW5/M.Neelima Swapna Latha, examined and opined that the samples was illicitly distilled liquor having suspended particles and sediment, it is inju- rious to health and unfit for consumption, vide report CE.No.708/2023, Dt.03- 07-2023 at Sl.No.5726.

5. Seized property was confiscated and contraband was destroyed, as per the orders of Dy.Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise, Warangal before District

Prohibition and Excise Officer, Bhupalpally on 27-10-2023

6. Further, the LW3/Ch.Venkanna, seized the above contraband, duly drawn (2) samples at random, each sample containing about (180) ml. of I.D. liquor for chemical and sealed them by affixing the chits duly signed by the Panchas and Officer and apprehended the accused person under cover of Panchanama.

7. LW3/Ch.Venkanna, registered a case against the accused in C.O.R.

No.201/2023, Dt.24-06-2023, u/s.7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.Prohibition Act,.

LW3/Ch.Venkanna, issued notice under section 41 of Cr. P.C., to the accused and released her on personal bail, after obtaining sufficient sureties.

CC.No.252 of 2024Date:16-04-2025

8. During the course of investigation, out of (2) samples (1) sample has been forwarded to the Government Chemical Examiner of Prohibition and Excise,

Warangal (LW5/M.Neelima Swapna Latha) for chemical examination. The

LW5/M.Neelima Swapna Latha, examined and opined that the sample was Il- licitly distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health vide her report C.E.No.708/2023, Dt.03-07-2023 in SL.No.5726.

9. The seized case property I.D. liquor (excluding samples) has been confis- cated and I.D. liquor ordered for destruction by the Deputy Commissioner of

Prohibition and Excise, Warangal, proceedings Cr.No.85/2018/P&E/B3, Dt.

05-10-2023. On 27-10-2023 the above case property I.D. liquor (excluding samples) has been destroyed under the supervision of the District Prohibition and Excise Officer, Bhupalapally under cover of a Panchanama. Original de- struction orders and original destruction Panchanama are enclosed in C.O.R.

No.201/2018. Hence charge.

10. Considering the charge sheet and material on record this Court took cog- nizance for the offence punishable U/Sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition

Act.,against the accused and issued process. On appearance of accused copies were furnished to her U/Sec.207 of CrPC as required.

11.Accused is examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C, for commission offence under sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act., the charge was framed read over and explained in vernacular language to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

12. Upon invitation for trial the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 4, got marked Exs.P1 to P5.

CC.No.252 of 2024Date:16-04-2025

13. After the closure of Prosecution evidence, accused is examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.PC. explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against her, in the prosecution witnesses, for which she pleaded all such evidence is false and re- ported no defence evidence.

14. Heard the learned APP and learned defence counsel. Perused the mate- rial on record.

15. Now the point for determination is :

(i)Whether the prosecution brought home the guilt of accused for the offence punishable u/S.7(A)r/w 8(e) of TS Prohibition Act.,beyond all reasonable doubt?

(ii) To what result?

ANSWER TO THE POINT:

16. PW1 who is investigating officer who laid charge sheet in his chief ex- amination testified the chronological events of the investigation which are similar to the allegations made in the charge sheet and in his cross-examina- tion, he stated that he did not mention the details of neighbors to scene of of- fence, and he did not file any documents of the house of accused and he de- nied remaining suggestions.

17. PW2 who is the panch witness for seizure panchanama turned hostile and deposed that no seizure panchanama conducted in his presence. PW3 who is the panch witness for seizure and destruction panchanama turned hostile and deposed that no seizure and destruction panchanama conducted in his pres- ence. During cross examination by Lrd APP nothing new was elicited in favor of the prosecution.

CC.No.252 of 2024Date:16-04-2025

18. PW4 who is the panch witness deposed that Excise Police conducted de- struction panchanama in his presence about 2 years back. During the cross ex- amination he deposed that, he does not know the contents of Ex.P2 and he did not witness who drafted the Ex.P2.

19. According to the prosecution, accused is found in possession of (02) liters of I.D liquor in a plastic can by virtue of smell of the contents of the polythene cover LW3/Ch.Venkanna, identified it was ID liquor and whereas the contra- band was seized and destroyed in the presence of two mediators i.e PW3 &

PW4.

20. Unless the prosecution establishes that the contraband is seized from the possession of the accused to prove the offence. Added to this, both the media- tors for the seizure and destruction panchanama of the contraband have turned hostile. The learned APP given up remaining witnesses.

21. Coming to the evidence of PW1, which is formal in nature and would es- tablish the factum of registered COR, sending the samples to analysis, destruc- tion of the contraband, but not useful to connect the accused with the offence.

No other independent witnesses were examined by the prosecution except the official witness to prove the case. In the light of the said defence, the first and the foremost thing which the prosecution must prove is the ownership of the said house. In other words, the prosecution must prove that the said house be- longs to the accused. But curiously, the prosecution did not choose to produce any scrap of paper to prove the said crucial averment. At least, the prosecution ought to have adduced some oral evidence by examining the panchayat secre- tary or some respectable elders of the village to prove the factum of ownership of the house. In the absence of any evidence, it is difficult for this court to come to a conclusion that the house in question belongs to the accused and that 02 litrs of ID liquor which was allegedly found was kept by the accused

CC.No.252 of 2024Date:16-04-2025

therein for the purpose of sale to the public. For the foregoing discussions, this court holds that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilty of the accused much less than beyond reasonable doubt.

In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable

U/s.7(A) r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act., accordingly acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds shall be in force for a period of six months as required under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. No property deposited and no order as to property.

(Typed to my dictation by P.A, corrected and pronounced by me in the court on the 16 th day of April, 2025).

Sd/-

FAC: Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mulugu.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW1:M.SudheerKumar -None- PW2: P.Raju PW3: N.Chandraiah PW4: L.Raju

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P1: COR marked through PW1-Nil- Ex.P2: destruction panchanama marked through PW1 Ex.P3: signature on seizure panchanama marked through PW2 Ex.P4: signature on seizure panchanama marked through PW3 Ex.P5: signature on destruction panchanama marked through PW3

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL-

Sd/-

FAC:Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mulugu