Sri. Jithendar Thoutam

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I

CLASS, DUBBAK

Present:-Sri.T.Jithendar

Judicial Magistrate of I Class

Thursday, the 23rd day of April, 2026

C.C.No .209 of 2017

Between:- The State rep.by the Sub Inspector of Police, Dubbak P.S.

...Complainant

AND

Sangepu Yellaiah S/o. Mallaiah, Age:55 years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o.Peddacheekode village, Dubbak mandal, Siddipet District. …Accused

This case is coming on 23-4-2026 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant; and of Sri.M. Venkateshwar Rao, Advocate for the Accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, court delivered the following:

: : JUDGMENT : :

1)The Sub Inspector of Police, Dubbak Police Station laid a charge sheet in

Cr.No.72/2017 against Accused for the offences punishable U/s. 324, 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

2)The brief contents of the final report are as follows:

(i)On 26-05-2017 at 20:00 hours, complaint received from Chelukala

Yellareddy, S/o. Balraju, came to the police station stating that on 26-05- 2017 in the morning around 7:00 AM, he burned the grass in his field near his land and went home after a few hours. After afternoon, Alugulla Raju, a person living next to his house, told him that the grass cut in his adjacent field also burned. While he was going and extinguishing the fire, Sangepu Ellayya,

2 of 12 CC NO. 209 of 2017

Fair

S/o.Mallaiah, came to him and said, 'he burned his field because of him,' abused him with unspeakable vulgar words, took a stick, beat him severely, injured him. Therefore, he requested you to take necessary appropriate action.

(ii) On receipt of the petition, LW8 registered a case in Cr. No. 72/2017 U/s.324, 504 of IPC. During the course of investigation, LW8 examined LWs 1 to 4 and recorded their statements, sent LW1 & 2 to Government Hospital,

Dubbak for treatment. A crime scene investigation conducted in the presence of witnesses i.e., LWs 5 & 6, a scene map drawn, and a stick seized from the scene, affixed slips signed by the panchas. During the further course of investigation, LW8 collected MC of victim/LW1 from Lw7 who treated the victim sustained injury in “SIMPLE NATURE”. After completion of investigation LW8 filed charge sheet against accused for the offences punishable U/s. 324, 504 of IPC.

3) This court took cognizance, on the police report, of the offences punishable

U/s.324, 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) against the Accused and issued summons to him.

4) On the appearance of the said Accused before the Court, copies of documents were furnished to him as required U/s. 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C). He is examined U/s. 239 Cr.P.C, the substance of accusation made against Accused read over, explained to him in his vernacular language for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5) On behalf of the prosecution, Lws.1 to 5, 7 & 8 were examined as PWs.1 to 7 and Exs.P1 to P5 were marked. Police filed the report along with death certificate of Lw6, hence his evidence closed.

3 of 12 CC NO. 209 of 2017 Fair

6) After the closure of prosecution evidence, the Accused examined U/s. 313

Cr.P.C. The incriminating evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses was read over to him to which he completely denied and stated that he do not want to produce any evidence on his behalf. Hence, defence evidence was closed.

7) Heard arguments of learned A.P.P for the prosecution and the learned counsel

for the accused. The Learned APP filed written argument quoting the

citation held in between 1). In Abdul Sayeed Vs State of Madhya Pradesh,

the Honb’e Supreme Court, 2). State of UP Vs Krishna Master, it was

held, 3).In State of UP Vs Hari Chand, the court held, 5). In State of UP

Vs MK Anthony, the Supreme court held: 6). In Koli Lakhmanbhai

Channabhai Vs State of Gujarath, it was held, 7). In State of UP Vs

Naresh. A perusal of the aforesaid decisions relied on by the Learned APP, it can be said that there cannot be any dispute with regard to principles laid down in the decisions cited by him. However, it is most respectfully mentioned that each and every case should be decided on its own merits.

Keeping in mind the afore principles of law, a perusal of the decisions referred as above I am of the view that the facts and circumstances in the cited cases and as has discussed earlier the facts and circumstances in the present case are different and distinct and therefore, the cited case laws are not applicable to the facts of the present case.

8)Now the point that arose for determination is as follows:

“Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the Accused for

the offences punishable U/s. 324, 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 of

the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) beyond reasonable doubt”.

4 of 12 CC NO. 209 of 2017

Fair

9) (i)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. From the above sections, it appears that the following are the ingredients of the said Section:

a) To prove that the accused caused by his act bodily pain, disease or infirmity to the complainant;

b) That he did such act intentionally or with knowledge that he could cause the pain etc.,

c) That it was unprovoked;

d) That the accused caused it by means of an instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting or by an instrument, which used as a weapon is likely to cause death; or by means of fire, etc.; or by means of any poison, etc., or by means of any substance which is deleterious to the human body to inhale, etc., or by means of any animal.

(ii) For securing the conviction U/Sec.324 IPC, the prosecution had to establish that the accused voluntarily caused bodily pain with the knowledge 5 of 12 CC NO. 209 of 2017 Fair that thereby he was likely to be cause hurt to PW1 and such hurt was caused by means of an instrument referred to in the section. In order to sustain conviction U/Sec.324 IPC, the prosecution must necessarily prove that the accused not only caused hurt, but caused such hurt by means of any instrument as referred to in the section and nothing short of it will suffice. The prosecution is to prove that the Accused have committed the offence with intention or knowledge of causing hurt and there cannot be a voluntarily causing of hurt unless there is an intention of causing hurt and knowledge that grievous hurt was likely to be caused by the act. Intention or knowledge being the main ingredient, not only hurt must be caused by the act but the Accused must have intended to cause hurt or must have had knowledge that hurt was likely to be caused.

(ii) For proving the guilty for the offence U/s. 504 IPC the prosecution has to prove that:-

1. The accused intentionally insulted someone.

2. He thereby intended to give him provocation.

3. He knew that it was likely that such provocation would cause that person to commit a breach of the peace or to commit any other offence.

Having regard to facts and circumstances of this case and upon vigilant evaluation of evidence, it could be seen that the prosecution is alleging that.

10) Having considered the legal position coupled with the facts germane other case of the prosecution now let us see whether the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the Accused beyond reasonable doubt for the charged offences.

6 of 12 CC NO. 209 of 2017

Fair

11) On conscientious scrutinization of the material evidence on record, PW1 deposed that on 26-5-2017 afternoon about 2 P.M while he is trying to stop the flames in his fields the accused came to him and beat him with a stick on his legs thereby he received bleeding injury, as such he went to police station and lodged a complaint, LWs 2 & 3 rescued him from the Accused. He also deposed that Accused beat him on the ground that he is putting fire to the haystack of Accused, then he lodged a report in the police station. But PW1 fairly admitted in his cross examination that Ex.P1 is written by his son and police, his son accompanied him in giving Ex.P1, the PS is in a distance of 6

KM from the scene of offence, there is a delay of 7 hours in reporting the offence. He added that bleeding injuries received by him hence he was advised to go for hospital first. He also admitted that the accused might be doing cattle business. The above said elicitation in the cross examination of

PW1 assumes most significant in the light of defence of Accused.

12) PW2 deposed that he know PW1 & 2 and Accused, on 26-5-2017 Pw1 came to his house where he received a phone call stating that his haystack is burning as such Pw1 rushed there and he followed him, but the accused beat

Pw1 with stick on his legs on the ground that the flames will come to his fields also, LW2 rescued the Pw1, he returned from the said place, when he tried to rescue the Accused pushed him hence he fled away, he can identify the stick used by the Accused. But PW2 fairly admitted in his cross examination that the SI of police recorded his statement, he do not know whether the Accused does oxes business or not. He also admitted that he has not stated to the police that PW1 came to him and he received the phone call stating that his haystack is burning as such PW1 rushed there, he has not stated the length and width of MO1 and he has not stated the stick belong to 7 of 12 CC NO. 209 of 2017 Fair which tree. The above said elicitation in the cross examination of PW2 assumes most significant in the light of defence of Accused.

13) Pw3 deposed that he know Pw1, Pw2, Lw4 and Accused, on 26-5-2017 afternoon at 2:00 PM at the agricultural land of Pw1 haystock attacked by flames and he informed the same to Pw1 and arrived to there and while Pw1 & 2 stopping the flames and he too joined them in stopping the flames in the meantime the Accused came there and beat Pw1 with a stick on the ground that his oxen and crop will be damaged due to flames, aa such he taken the stick from Accused advising him to sit and talk together. But Pw3 fairly admitted in his cross examination that the flames were stopped in the land of a Sonaboyina Rajaiah, the accused is his caste person, the accused used to do cattle business, on the morning of day of incident the accused burnt his haystack in his land, Pw1 house is adjoin to his house and he sold his building to him. The above said elicitation in the cross examination of PW3 assumes most significant in the light of defence of Accused.

14) PW4 deposed that Pw1 is his father, he know Pw2 & 3 and Accused, about 9 years back on 26-5-2017 afternoon at 2:00 PM at the agricultural land of

PW1 haystack attacked by flames and Pw3 informed the same to Pw1 and arrived to there and while PW1 & 2 stopping the flames in the meantime the accused came there and beat PW1 with a stick on the ground that his oxen and crop will be damaged due to flames, as such PW2 & 3 stopped that accused advising him to sit and talk together. He also deposed that Pw1 shifted to Government hospital for treatment, his mother informed him the incident as such he went to hospital, as such they filed this case against the accused. Pw4 fairly admitted in his cross-examination that he did not

8 of 12 CC NO. 209 of 2017

Fair personally witnessed the incident, that the Accused used to do cattle business. The above said elicitation in the cross examination of PW4 assumes most significant in the light of defence of Accused, as Pw4 did not personally witnessed the incident, hence his evidence does not inspire the confidence of the court.

15) Adding to the above, the material witness i.e., Pw5 is antagonistic to the case of prosecution as he resiled from his earlier statement, nothing favourable elicited from his cross examination. More particularly Pw5 deposed that he know Lw6 who is not alive, he know accused and Pws 1 to 3 the police did not conduct scene of offence panchanama in his presence, but about 9 years back, when he went to police station on some personal work, there the police obtained his signature on some papers without disclosing any reason, now he can identify his signature. Moreover, nothing significant was elicited from

PW5 during his cross examination; his evidence does not materially advance the prosecution’s case and is of little assistance in establishing the guilt of the accused.

16) PW6 deposed that on his examination of PW1 on 26-5-2017 he found laceration over left shin, swelling and tenderness over right shin, which are simple in nature, accordingly he issued the injury certificate of Pw1. But

Pw6 fairly admitted in his cross examination that he do not remember whether the Pw1 accompanied by police or not, he treated PW1 in

Government Hospital, Dubbak, a part from the injuries mentioned in Ex.P3 no other injuries found by him, he do not remember the time of treatment given to Pw1, Pw1 treated as out patient, in Ex.P3 the time of examination is not mentioned, on the same day of examination he given Ex.P3 to the police.

9 of 12 CC NO. 209 of 2017 Fair

The above said elicitation in the cross examination of PW6 assumes most significant in the light of defence of Accused.

17) Pw7 is the investigation officer deposed in his evidence which is nothing but repetition of averments of chargesheet, the repetition of the same facts again over does not serve any useful purpose. But PW7 fairly admitted in his cross examination that Ex.P1 is written complaint lodged by Pw1, there is a delay of 8 hours in lodging Ex.P1, none of the adjacent land owners of the scene were examined by him. He also admitted that he do not know whether the accused was having 15-20 cattles at the time of incident or not, he do not know whether the faces and other body parts of cattles were burned any haystack of accused also burnt in the incideent. The above said elicitation in the cross examination of PW7 assumes most significant in the light of defence of Accused.

18) According to the case of prosecution, Pws 2 to 4 are eye witnesses to the offence, PW1 is victim/injured. PW2 though stated to be the villager, but he is not in a position speak whether the Accused does cattle business or not which is not in dispute, therefore, the evidence of PW2 does not inspire the confidence of court. PW3 is the neighbour of PW1 and he purchased the house from the Pw1, and moreover he did not spellout on which part of body of PW1 he received injury therefore, this court unable to place reliance in the evidence of PW3. The evidence of Pw1 to 4 are not supported by any corroboration from any independent witnesses sufficiently to the satisfaction of the case.

19)According to Ex.P1 the Accused caused attempt to fracture of leg of PW1 but his testimony only to revears beating, on leg, does not spellout the nature of

10 of 12 CC NO. 209 of 2017

Fair injury and whereas Pw6 also stated that the injuries are simple in nature,

Ex.P3 does not reflect the weapon with which the injuries are inflicted. The

Ex.P1 is silent about the presence of Pws 2 & 3 at the time of incident.

20) On careful scrutinization of the material record, the alleged incident took place on 26-5-2017, as per the Ex.P3 panchanama conducted on 27-5-2017 when MO1 shown to have seized from the place of offence, but it was deposited before this court on 21-9-2017 i.e., after abnormal gap of morethan 4 months without any plausible or convincing explanation.

21) The sum and substance of the above discussion, made it clear that the evidence on record is vague and inconsistent. It generates a reasonable doubt on the very case of prosecution, the evidence on record is relatively weak, vague, inconclusive and generated a reasonable doubt. There is no amount of doubt and suspicion regarding truth and creations on the evidence of prosecution and its witnesses and it is loaded with prejudice, suffers from inherent impossibilities.

22)The said evidence of Pws 1 to 6 doesn’t establish any of the ingredients of

Section 504 of IPC. But except the PW1 any other independent witnesses whispered anything about the alleged threatening, hence the same is not sufficiently established by the prosecution. Consequently, it must be held that the prosecution failed to prove the charge for the offence U/s. 504 of IPC.

23) On perusal of the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution, made it clear that except filing a formal charge sheet, the investigating officer did not conduct any independent investigation. The prosecution simply washed off its hands by dumping the material submitted by PW1.

11 of 12 CC NO. 209 of 2017 Fair

24) There are significant contradictions, omissions and improvements in the evidence of Pws1 to 7 and those discrepancies are material discrepancies which would affect the core of the prosecution case and after exercising due care and caution sifting through the evidence by separating the truth from the false-hood and the exaggerations and improvements, this court is of the considered view that the residuary evidence is not sufficient for convicting the accused as there are significant and material discrepancies touching the core of the case. Therefore, taking into the factors pertaining to the credibility of the witnesses, the surrounding circumstances, probabilities and by scrutinizing, evaluating and assessing the evidence on its merits, as the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Conclusion:-

25) In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable

U/s.324, 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)., hence the Accused thus acquitted U/s. 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused shall be in force for a period of six months as required U/s. 437-A Cr.P.C. M.O.1 case property is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

(Directly typed to my dictation by Stenographer-Grade III, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on the 23 rd day of April, 2026).

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

DUBBAK.

APPENDIXOFEVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

P.W.1: Ch. Yellareddy Nil P.W.2: A. Laxmipathi P.W.3: Almundha Raju

12 of 12 CC NO. 209 of 2017

Fair

P.W.4: Ch. Thirupathi Reddy P.W.5: J. Rajaiah P.W.6: Dr. G. Sai Ram P.W.7:B. Subhash Goud

EXHIBITS MARKED

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P1: Report Nil Ex.P2: Signatue appearing on scene of offence cum seizure panchanama Ex.P3: Medical certificate Ex.P4: First information report Ex.P5: Scene of offence panchanama along with rough sketch.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

MO1: Stick Nil

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

DUBBAK.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, DUBBAK

Present:-Sri.T.Jithendar

Judicial Magistrate of I Class

Monday, the 4th day of May, 2026 CC.No .109 of 2017 Between:- The State rep.by the Sub Inspector of Police, Dubbak P.S.

...Complainant

AND

A1: Reshma @ Reshma Sulthana S/o. Jahangeer, Age:40 years, Occ: Beedi roller, R/o. Chellapur village, Dubbak mandal.

A2: Azeemabegum @Azeemabhi W/o. Md.Shadulla, Age:61 years, Occ: Beedi roller, R/o. Chellapur village, Dubbak mandal.

…Accused No. 1 & 2

This case is coming on 4-5-2026 final hearing and disposal in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant; and of Sri.M. Venkateshwar Reddy , Advocate for the Accused No.1 & 2and having stood over for consideration till this day, court delivered the following:

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

(1)The Sub Inspector of Police, Dubbak Police Station laid a charge sheet in

Cr.No.35/2017 against the Accused No.1 & 2 for the offences punishable

U/s.448, 324, 504, R/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

(2)The brief contents of the final report are as follows:

(i) On 13-3-2017 at 17:30 hours received complaint from Smt.Reeyana, came to PS, lodged a petition stating that on 13.3.2017 at approximately 13:30 hours, while the complainant taking resting in her house, there was a knock at the door, her daughter, Asha, aged about 18 years, opened the door, 2 of 13 CC No.109 of 2017 Fair whereupon the complainant’s husband, Jahangir, accompanied by his second wife, Reshma, and her father, Azeemuddin, forcibly and without consent entered the premises of the complainant, immediately thereafter, the said Jahangir initiated a quarrel and abused the complainant in filthy and derogatory language. The altercation subsequently escalated, and all the aforesaid persons, acting in furtherance of their common intention, physically assaulted the complainant. During the course of the assault, the complainant was beaten with hands and also struck with a cricket bat. As a result of the said acts, the complainant sustained injuries, including a contusion on her left shoulder, caused by the blow inflicted with the cricket bat. The acts of the accused persons are unlawful and constitute cognizable offences under the applicable provisions of law, the statement concludes with a formal request for the police to take necessary legal action against the individuals mentioned (Jahangir, Reshma, Azeemuddin) for the physical and verbal abuse.

(ii)On receipt of the petition of LW1, LW8 registered the case in Cr.

No.35/2017, U/s.448, 324, 504 R/w 34 of IPC. During the course of investigation, LW8 examined LWs 1 to 4 conducted a scene of offence panchanama and also drawn rough sketch map in the presence of LWs 5 & 6.

On 23-6-2016 LW8 served 41(A) notice against the Accused, Accused No.1 & 2 are surrendered voluntarily before LW8 admitted their guilt. After completion of investigation LW8 filed charge sheet against the Accused

No.1 & 2 for the offences punishable U/s.448, 324, 504 R/w 34 of IPC.

(3)This court took cognizance, on the police report, of the offences punishable

U/s.448, 324, 504, R/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) against

3 of 13 CC No.109 of 2017

Fair the Accused No.1 & 2 and issued summons to them.

(4)On the appearance of the said Accused No.1 & 2 before the Court, copies of documents were furnished to them as required U/s. 207 of Code of

Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C). They are examined U/s. 239 Cr.P.C, the substance of accusation made against Accused No.1 & 2 read over, explained to them in their vernacular language for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

(5)On behalf of the prosecution, L ws.1 to 8 were examined as P.Ws.1 to 8 and

Exs.P.1 to P.6 were marked.

(6)After the closure of prosecution evidence, the Accused No.1 & 2 examined

U/s. 313 Cr.P.C. The incriminating evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses was read over to them to which they completely denied and stated that they do not want to produce any evidence on their behalf.

Hence, defence evidence was closed.

(7)Heard arguments of learned A.P.P for the prosecution and the learned counsel for the accused. From the tenor of cross examination it is the defence of the accused that a false case have been foisted against the accused.

(8)Now the point that arose for determination is as follows:

“Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the Accused

No. 1 & 2 for the offences punishable U/s.448, 324, 504, R/w 34 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) , beyond reasonable doubt”.

(i) The person must have committed criminal trespass, meaning they 4 of 13 CC No.109 of 2017 Fair unlawfully entered or remained in a property.

(ii) Entry into Specific Places: The trespass must occur in a:

1. Building, tent, or vessel used as a human dwelling; or

2. Building used for the custody of property.

This means the law protects both residential premises and property storage areas, like warehouses.

(iii)Unlawful Entry or Remaining: The person must have entered or remained unlawfully. This is key—if the entry is authorized or the person is allowed to stay, it would not be considered trespass.

(iv) Intention to Commit the Act: The offense can also involve the intent to commit another offense or the knowledge that the act was illegal, even if the entry itself wasn't for a malicious purpose

(i) 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. From the above sections, it appears that the following are the

5 of 13 CC No.109 of 2017

Fair ingredients of the said Section:

a) To prove that the accused caused by his act bodily pain, disease or infirmity to the injured;

b) That he did such act intentionally or with knowledge that he could cause the pain etc.,

c) That it was unprovoked;

d) That the accused caused it by means of an instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting or by an instrument, which used as a weapon is likely to cause death; or by means of fire, etc.; or by means of any poison, etc., or by means of any substance which is deleterious to the human body to inhale, etc., or by means of any animal.

(ii) For securing the conviction U/Sec.324 IPC, the prosecution had to establish that the accused voluntarily caused bodily pain with the knowledge that thereby he was likely to be cause hurt to PW1 and such hurt was caused by means of an instrument referred to in the section. In order to sustain conviction U/Sec.324 IPC, the prosecution must necessarily prove that the accused not only caused hurt, but caused such hurt by means of any instrument as referred to in the section and nothing short of it will suffice. The prosecution is to prove that the Accused have committed the offence with intention or knowledge of causing hurt and there cannot be a voluntarily causing of hurt unless there is an intention of causing hurt and knowledge that grievous hurt was likely to be caused by the act. Intention or knowledge being the main ingredient, not only hurt 6 of 13 CC No.109 of 2017 Fair must be caused by the act but the Accused must have intended to cause hurt or must have had knowledge that hurt was likely to be caused.

(ii) For proving the guilty for the offence U/s. 504 IPC the prosecution has to prove that:-

1. The accused intentionally insulted someone.

2. He thereby intended to give him provocation.

3. He knew that it was likely that such provocation would cause that person to commit a breach of the peace or to commit any other offence. Having regard to facts and circumstances of this case and upon vigilant evaluation of evidence, it could be seen that the prosecution is alleging that.

(9)Having considered the legal position coupled with the facts germane other case of the prosecution now let us see whether the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the Accused beyond reasonable doubt for the charged offences.

(10)As per the case of prosecution PW1 is the victim, PW2 & 3, 6 are the eye witnesses, PW4 & 5 panch witnesses for scene of offence panchanama,

PW7 is the doctor, Pw8 is the Investigation Officer.

(11)On conscientious scrutinization of the material evidence on record, PW1 deposed that LW2 is her daughter and LW3 is her co-sister LW4 is her father, she know LW5 & 6, A1 and A2 are her sister in laws, about 8 years when she along with LW2 slept in their home at Pedda Cheekode in afternoon hours, in the meantime Accused No.1 & 2 came to their house

7 of 13 CC No.109 of 2017

Fair and knocked the door, when Lw2 opened the doors, A2 beat on her back,

Lw1 beat her with a bat on her left hand elbow on the ground that she is spoiling her marital life, A2 also beat her on her face, slapping her, as such she along with LW2 went to the police station, and gave complaint against the accused, she can identify the bat through which injuries caused. She identified that the bat in open court, hence marked as MO1, she went to

Government Hospital, Dubbak. But PW1 fairly admitted in her cross examination that A1 and her husband are living separately for the last 4-5 years, her parents are necked out A1 and her husband with an advise to live separately and thereby they are living separately. She also admitted that A1 filed a dowry harassment case against her husband, she added that she is no way concerned with it. The above said elicitation in the cross examination of PW1 assumes most significant in the light of defence of Accused.

(12)PW2 deposed that Pw1 is her mother, LW3 is junior paternal aunt, Lw4 is her grandfather, on 13-3-2017 at 1:00 PM Accused No.1 & 2 came to their house and knocked the door, when she opened the doors, A1 beat Pw1 with a bat on her left hand elbow on the ground that she is spoiling her marital life and also abused her, A2 also beat Pw1 on her face, slapping her and also bet on her back, as such she along with PW1 went to the police station, and gave complaint against the accused, they went to Government Hospital,

Dubbak. But Pw2 fairly admitted in her cross examination that she do not know from when A1 and her husband are living separately, her grand parents are keeping A1 and her husband with an advise to live separately and thereby they are living separately. She also admitted that A1 filed a dowry harassment case against her husband. She added that they are no 8 of 13 CC No.109 of 2017 Fair way concerned with it. The above said elicitation in the cross examination of PW2 assumes most significant in the light of defence of Accused.

(13)Pw3 deposed that Pw1 is his daughter, Pw2 is her daughter, LW3 is the co- sister of Pw1, A1 is the his daughter in law, A2 is mother of A1, about 8 years back Pw1 made phone call to him and informed that A1 & A2 bet her indiscriminately as such they came to Dubbak and he noticed that PW1 received injury over elbow due to hit by bat, he taken her to police station, police gave him a slip to shift Pw1 to hospital, Government Hospital,

Dubbak doctors treated PW1. But PW3 fairly admitted in his cross examination that the disputes are continuing in between Accused No.1 and her husband, as per the advise of the elders Accused No.1 and her husband are living separately from them. He added that they lived separately for some time and later they resided together with them. He also admitted that he has sold all the properties, A1 filed a dowry harassment case against her husband. The above said elicitation in the cross examination of PW3 assumes most significant in the light of defence of Accused.

(14)Adding to the above, the material witnesses i.e., Pws 4 & 6 are antagonistic to the case of prosecution as they resiled from their earlier statements, nothing favourable elicited from their cross examinations.

More particularly PW4 deposed that he know LW6, he do not know anything about the facts of the case, nothing in this case took place in his presence, police obtained his signature on blank paper, he can recognize his signature. PW6 deposed that she know PW1 & 2, she do not know anything about the case, she has not witnessed anything. Nothing

9 of 13 CC No.109 of 2017

Fair favourable elicited from the cross examination of Pws 4 & 6 stating that they are deposing false. Hence, the evidence of Pws 4 & 6 is no way helpful to the case of prosecution.

(15)PW5 deposed that he know PW4, in the year 2017 at Peddacheekode village at the house of A1 the police conducted panchanama in a room which appears to be the articles the said bat and obtained his signature and also noted the boundaries for the said place viz., East:Open place, West:

Open land of Kankanala Chandram, North: Sonaboina Narayana House,

South: House of Mahabub, the police readover the contents of the same to him and he has signed on it and the police also drawn rough sketch on it.

He again says that the panchanama conducted at the house of husband of

PW1. But Pw5 fairly admitted in his cross examination that he is the ward member of the said locality, he know the said house is belongs to the husband of PW1, the panchanam written by ASI of police, there are five to six persons present at the time of panchanama, there are no kids in the house of PW1. The above said elicitation in the cross examination of

PW5 assumes most significant in the light of defence of Accused.

(16)Pw7 deposed that on 13-3-2017 she examined PW1 and issued medical certificate, on his examination of PW1 he found injuries viz., abrasion over left elbow, blunt injury to upper back, blunt injury to cheek, blunt injury to head, the injury is simple in nature. The above said elicitation in the cross examination of PW7 assumes most significant in the light of defence of Accused.

10 of 13 CC No.109 of 2017 Fair (17)PW8 is the investigation officer deposed all the chronological events of his investigation which is nothing but repetition of averments of chargesheet, the repetition of the same facts does not serve any useful purpose. But

PW8 fairly admitted in his cross examination that the complaint given by is a written complaint, there is a delay of 4 hours in reporting the offence, he do not know whether a dowry harassment case is pending in between the brother of Pw1 and A1 or not. The above said elicitation in the cross examination of PW8 assumes most significant in the light of defence of

Accused.

(18)The evidence of Pws 1 & 2, are not supported by any corroboration from any independent witnesses sufficiently to the satisfaction of the case.

Therefore, keeping in view of the previousdisputes and criminal cases of the evidence of Pw1 & 2 in absence of any corroboration from independent witnesses, does not inspire the confidence of the court. Keeping in view of the pre existing land dispute the evidence of Pws1 to 3 requires corroboration. Moreover, the panch witnesses, for the scene of offence are turned hostile, therefore the charged offences at the scene and physical features mentioned in Ex.P3 are doubtful. In Ex.P5 the age of the injuries is not mentioned. Pw3 is not personally witnessed the incident, therefore, his evidence does not inspire the confidence of the court.

(19) On careful scrutinization of the material record, the alleged incident took place on 13-3-2017, as per the Ex.P3 panchanama conducted on 13-3-2017 when MO1 shown to have seized from the place of offence, but it was deposited before this court, on 12-5-2017 i.e., after abnormal gap of

11 of 13 CC No.109 of 2017

Fair morethan 2 months without any plausible or convincing explanation.

(20)The sum and substance of the above discussion, made it clear that the evidence on record is vague and inconsistent. It generates a reasonable doubt on the very case of prosecution, the evidence on record is relatively weak, vague, inconclusive and generated a reasonable doubt. There is no amount of doubt and suspicion regarding truth and creations on the evidence of prosecution and its witnesses and it is loaded with prejudice, suffers from inherent impossibilities.

(21)Thus except the evidence of interested witnesses PW1 & 2uncorroborated testimonies of Pws 3 to 7, there is no other supporting evidence. As a matter offact, the said evidence of PWs1, 2 doesn’t establish any of the ingredients ofSection 504 of IPC. But except the PW1 any other independent witnesses whispered anything about the alleged threatening, hence the same is not sufficiently established by the prosecution.

Consequently, it must be held that the prosecution failed to prove the charge for the offence U/s. 504 of IPC.

(22)On perusal of the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution, made it clear that except filing a formal charge sheet, the investigating officer did not conduct any independent investigation. The prosecution simply washed off its hands by dumping the material submitted by PW1.

(23)There are significant contradictions, omissions and improvements in the evidence of Pws1 to 8 and those discrepancies are material discrepancies which would affect the core of the prosecution case and after exercising due care and caution sifting through the evidence by separating the truth 12 of 13 CC No.109 of 2017 Fair from the false-hood and the exaggerations and improvements, this court is of the considered view that the residuary evidence is not sufficient for convicting the accused as there are significant and material discrepancies touching the core of the case. Therefore, taking into the factors pertaining to the credibility of the witnesses, the surrounding circumstances, probabilities and by scrutinizing, evaluating and assessing the evidence on its merits, as the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Conclusion:- (24)In the result, the Accused No.1 & 2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/s. 448, 324, 504 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)., hence the Accused No.1 & 2 thus acquitted U/s. 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused shall be in force for a period of six months as required U/s. 437-A Cr.P.C. MO1 case property is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

(Directly typed to my dictation by Stenographer-Grade III, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, on the 4 th day of May, 2026).

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

DUBBAK.

APPENDIXOFEVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW.1: Riyana Nil PW.2: Asha PW.3: Md. Mathar PW.4: S. Prabhakar PW.5: D. Kishan

13 of 13 CC No.109 of 2017

Fair

PW.6: Shaheeda PW.7: Dr. K. Mallikarjun PW.8: Md. Nayeemuddin

EXHIBITS MARKED

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P1: Report Nil Ex.P2: Signature on the scene of offence cum seizure panchanama Ex.P3: Scene of offence cum seizure panchanama Ex.P4: Sec 161 Cr.P.C statement of Shaheeda Ex.P5: Medical certificate Ex.P6: First information report

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

MO1: Bat Nil

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

DUBBAK.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

DUBBAK

Present:-Sri.T.Jithendar

Judicial Magistrate of I Class

Wednesday, the 29th day of April, 2026

C.C.No .214 of 2018

Between:- The State rep.by the Sub Inspector of Police,

Dubbak P.S. ...Complainant

AND

A1 Mandala Anjaiah S/o. Rajaiah, Age:46 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Thimmapur village, Dubbak mandal.

A2 Mandala Devalaxmi S/o. Anjaiah, Age:44 years, Occ: Beediroller, R/o. Thimmapur village, Dubbak mandal …Accused No.1 & 2

This case is coming on 29-4-2026 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant;and of Sri.S. Laxminarayana, Advocate for the Accused No.1 & 2 and having stood over for consideration till this day, court delivered the following: ::JUDGMENT: :

1)The Sub Inspector of Police, Dubbak Police Station laid a charge sheet in Cr.No.92/2016 against Accused No.1 & 2 for the offences punishable U/s.447, 427, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

(IPC).

2)The brief contents of the final report are as follows:

(i)On 22-06-2016 at 12:00 PM, received complaint from Maddela

Lingam, S/o. Ramayya, came to the police station, stating that in the year 2006, he purchased 15 Guntas of land from Mandala Laxmi,

W/o.Ramayya, out of Survey Nos. 735/D, 737/D, he stating that

2 of 11 CC No.214 of 2018

Fair

Mandala Anjaiah, S/o.Rajayya, who is adjacent to this land, is removing the boundary stones shown when Mandala Laxmi sold the land to him and is obstructing the cultivation of the land. Although the land was measured and boundary stones were placed in the presence of elders earlier, on 14-06-2016, while Gonepally Parsharamulu driving a tractor to cultivate his land, Mandala Anjaiah and Anjaiah's

W/o.Devalaxmi illegally entered his land, obstructed the cultivation, and threatened to kill him if he cultivated. He also stating that there was a delay due to negotiations with the village elders regarding this matter, requested that appropriate action to be taken.

(ii) On receipt of the petition from LW1, LW8 registered the case in Cr.

No.92/2016 U/s.447, 427, 506 R/w 34 of IPC. During the course of investigation, LW8 examined LWs1 to 5 and conducted a scene of offence panchanama and also drawn rough sketch map in the presence of LWs 6 & 7. On 23-6-2016 LW8 served 41(A) notice against the

Accused, the Accused surrendered voluntarily before LW8 and admitted their guilt. Aftercompletion of investigation Lw8 filed charge sheet against Accused No.1 & 2 for the offences punishable

U/s.447, 427, 506 R/w 34 of IPC.

3) This court took cognizance, on the police report, of the offences punishable U/s.447, 427, 506 R/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the Accused No.1 & 2 and issued summons to them.

4) On the appearance of the said Accused No.1 & 2 before the Court, copies of documents were furnished to them as required U/s. 207 of

Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C). They are examined U/s. 239 3 of 11 CC No.214 of 2018 Fair

Cr.P.C, the substance of accusation made against Accused No.1 & 2 read over, explained to them in their vernacular language for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5) On behalf of the prosecution, L. Ws.2 to 4, 6 to 8 were examined as

PWs.1 to 6 and Exs.P1 to P4 were marked. The police filed the report along with death certificate of LW1, hence his evidence closed.

LW5 is not in a position to attend the court due to ill health and prayed to close his evidence, hence evidence of LW5 closed.

6) After the closure of prosecution evidence, the Accused No.1 & 2 examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C. The incriminating evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses were read over to them to which they completely denied and stated that they do not want to produce any evidence on their behalf. Hence, defence evidence were closed.

7) Heard arguments of learned A.P.P for the prosecution and the learned counsel for the accused. The Learned APP filed written Arguments and relied on citations reported in 1). Pandurang vs State of

Hyderabad, Virendra Singh vs State of MP, 2). State of UP v.

Vinod Kumar, 3). Vijendra Singh v. State of U.P., Ganpathi v.

State of Tamil Nadu.A perusal of the aforesaid decisions relied on by the Learned APP, it can be said that there cannot be any dispute with regard to principle laid down in the decisions cited by the defence counsel. However, it is most respectfully mentioned that each and every case should be decided on its own merits. Keeping in mind the afore principle of law, a perusal of the decisions referred as above

I am of the view that the facts and circumstances in the cited cases

4 of 11 CC No.214 of 2018

Fair and as has discussed earlier the facts and circumstances in the present case are different and distinct and therefore, the cited case laws are not applicable to the facts of the present case.

8)Now the point that arose for determination is as follows:

“Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the

Accused No.1 & 2 for the offences punishable U/s.447, 427, 506

R/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) beyond reasonable doubt”.

9)(i) The essential ingredients for proving the case U/s. 447 IPC are as follows:. The defacto complainant was in possession of the property.

2. The accused entered into or upon the property unlawfully or having entered into or upon such property lawfully remains there with an intention to:

a) Commit an offence.

b) Intimidate.

c) Insult.

d) Annoy any person in possession of property.

(ii) For proving the guilty for the offence U/s.427 IPC the prosecution has to prove that:-

1. Accused committed mischief.

2. Such mischief cause loss or damage amounting to not lessthan

Rs.50/-.

Ingredients of Offense U/s. 506:

5 of 11 CC No.214 of 2018 Fair

(i)Criminal Intimidation: The primary act here is criminal intimidation, which means threatening someone with harm in order to cause fear, coercion, or pressure. This is defined under Section 503 of the IPC. For Section 506, the intimidation must include a serious threat.

(ii)Threat of Death or Grievous Hurt: The threat must be of causing death or grievous hurt to the victim or to their family members.

(iii)Grievous Hurt is defined in Section 320 of the IPC and refers to injuries that are serious, such as those that endanger life or cause severe permanent damage to any part of the body.

(iv)Intent to Cause Fear or Coercion: The person must threaten the victim in such a way as to instill fear of death or grievous harm. This could involve verbal threats, gestures, or other forms of intimidation meant to terrorize or force compliance.

10) Having considered the legal position coupled with the facts germane other case of the prosecution now let us see whether the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the Accused No.1 & 2 beyond reasonable doubt for the charged offences.

11)As per the case of prosecution PW1 is the eye witness, PW2 is the complainant son, PW3 is the complainant wife, Pw4 & 5 are the panch witnesses, PW6 is the Investigation Officer.

12) On conscientious scrutinization of the material evidence on record,

PW1 deposed that he know LW1 & Accused, on 14-6-2016, LW1 called him to plough his land in Sy. No.735/d, 737/d by tractor, but

A1 & A2 stated not to plough the land and they will beat LW1 if he plough the land.

6 of 11 CC No.214 of 2018

Fair

13) PW2 deposed that LW1 is his father, he know PW1, Lw3 is his mother, on 14-6-2016 while PW1 ploughing their land Sy. No.735/d, 737/d under his supervision Accused No.1& 2 illegally trespassed into his land and obstructed the tractor, threatened to kill if they again enters into the land, as such they went to PS, and LW1 made complaint against the Accused. But PW2 fairly admitted in his cross examination that he accompanied to Pw1 for giving Ex.P1, they purchased the subject land in Sy. No.735/d, he do not know how many persons are having the land in Sy. No.735/d & 737/d he know the accused are having the land adjoining to his land. The above said elicitation in the cross examination of PW2 assumes most significant in the light of defence of Accused.

14) Pw3 deposed that Lw1 is her husband who is not alive, she know

PW1, PW2 is her son, she know the A1 & A2 about 9 years back while they are cultivating their agricultural land situated at

Thimmapur village through the PW1 through the tractor, in the meantime the Accused No1 & 2 came against the said tractor and obstructed them, not allowed them to cultivate the land, and also abused threatened to kill them and also removed the boundary stones.

She also deposed that after waiting for two days when they did not come for panchayath through the elders, they have approached the police and lodged a report against the accused, Pw1 witnessed the incident, herself and PW2 also present at that time. The above said elicitation in the cross examination of PW3 assumes most significant in the light of defence of Accused.

7 of 11 CC No.214 of 2018 Fair

15) PW4 deposed that he know LW1, Pw1 to 3 and Accused, in the year 2016 while she was working as maskuri at the request of the police he signed on some papers stating as panchanama at the agricultural land of Accused No.1 and LW1, he verified the spot and noticed that

Accused No.1 has encroached some extent of land of LW1, he can say the boundaries for the same viz., East & North: Land of accused,

South : Open place, West: land of LW1, he signed on the panchanama and rough sketch, after the contents of the panchanama he signed on it. But PW4 fairly admitted in his cross examination that he do not know the extent of land of LW1 and Accused, he has not witnessed the encroachment, he do not know the survey numbers of land of the both sides, he do not know who erected the boundary stones and who removed the same, he do not remember whether he has signed on the

Ex.P2 without knowing and without reading the contents of the same or not. The above said elicitation in the cross examination of PW4 assumes most significant in the light of defence of Accused.

16) PW5 deposed that he know PW4, on 26-6-2016 on the complaint given by LW1 stating that A1 & A2 have illegally trespassed into the land of LW1 in Sy. No.735/D, 737/D and also removed the boundary stones as such the police conducted panchanama at the agricultural land of LW1 and he noticed the boundaries stones removed, he signed on the panchanama papers, he do not know the boundaries, the police read over the contents of the same to him and also drawn a rough sketch in his presence. But Pw5 fairly admitted in his cross examination that he do not have any relatives in Thimmapur village, he was the press reporter at the time of the alleged offence, he used to

8 of 11 CC No.214 of 2018

Fair move closely with the police at the time of Ex.P2, at request of police he went to the place of incident from Dubbak, there are many villagers of the said village present at the time of panchanama, he do not know whether the Accused are having the land in the same survey number or not, at request of police he signed on ExP2. The above said elicitation in the cross examination of PW5 assumes most significant in the light of defence of Accused.

17) PW6 is this the investigation officer deposed in his evidence which is nothing but repetition of averments of chargesheet, the repetition of the same does not serve any useful purpose. But Pw6 fairly admitted in his cross examination that LW1 came with written complaint to PS, the complaint given by LW1 written in PS, the extent of land in each survey number is not mentioned in the complaint and he has not enquired, he has visited the scene of offence. The above said elicitations in the cross examination of PW6 assumes most significant in the light of defence of the accused that a false case foisted to harass him, keeping inview of pre-existing disputes.

18)The evidence of Pws1 & 2 are not supported by any corroboration from any independent witnesses. Therefore, keeping in view of the previous disputes and criminal cases of the evidence of Pws1 & 2 in absence of any corroboration from independent witnesses, does not inspire the confidence of the court. Moreover, the Pw1 being an independent spellout the alleged trespass and obstruction. Pw2 also does not spellout about the damage.

9 of 11 CC No.214 of 2018 Fair

19) Adding to the above from the case of the prosecution and as well as from the testimony of the court Pws 1 & 2 it is crystal clear that the alleged offence took place on 14-6-2016 and whereas Ex.P1 made on 22-6-2016 and there is no plausible explanation for the delay of (8) days caused in lodging in Ex.P1. Moreover the scene of offence is not sufficiently proved to the satisfaction of the court. Keeping in view of the pre existing land dispute the evidence of Pws 1 & 2 requires corroboration. Except the oral testimonies of Pws 1 to 6 there is no documentary evidence submitted by the prosecution to substantiate the possession of PW1 over the subject land, as well the damage caused to the poles.

20) The sum and substance of the above discussion, made it clear that the evidence on record is vague and inconsistent. It generates a reasonable doubt on the very case of prosecution, the evidence on record is relatively weak, vague, inconclusive and generated a reasonable doubt. There is no amount of doubt and suspicion regarding truth and creations on the evidence of prosecution and its witnesses and it is loaded with prejudice, suffers from inherent impossibilities.

21) Thus except the evidence of interested witnesses Pws1 to 3 uncorroborated testimonies of PWs 3 to 6, there is no other supporting evidence. As a matter of fact, the said evidence of Pws1, 2 doesn’t establish any of the ingredients of Section 506 of IPC. In the charge sheet, it was alleged that the accused threatened the victim with dire consequences to kill him. But except the PW1 & 2 any other

10 of 11 CC No.214 of 2018

Fair independent witnesses whispered anything about the alleged threatening, hence the same is not sufficiently established by the prosecution. Consequently, it must be held that the prosecution failed to prove the charge for the offence U/s. 506 of IPC.

22) On perusal of the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution, made it clear that except filing a formal charge sheet, the investigating officer did not conduct any independent investigation. The prosecution simply washed off its hands by dumping the material submitted by

PW1.

23) There are significant contradictions, omissions and improvements in the evidence of Pws1 to 6 and those discrepancies are material discrepancies which would affect the core of the prosecution case and after exercising due care and caution sifting through the evidence by separating the truth from the false-hood and the exaggerations and improvements, this court is of the considered view that the residuary evidence is not sufficient for convicting the accused as there are significant and material discrepancies touching the core of the case.

Therefore, taking into the factors pertaining to the credibility of the witnesses, the surrounding circumstances, probabilities and by scrutinizing, evaluating and assessing the evidence on its merits, as the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Conclusion:-

24) In the result, the Accused No. 1 & 2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/s. 447, 427, 506 R/w 34 of the Indian Penal 11 of 11 CC No.214 of 2018 Fair

Code, 1860 (IPC)., hence the Accused No.1 & 2 thus acquitted U/s.

248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused shall be in force for a period of six months as required U/s. 437-A Cr.P.C. Since no property is deposited before this court, hence no order as to property.

(Directly typed to my dictation by Stenographer-Grade III, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on the 29 th day of April, 2026).

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

DUBBAK.

APPENDIXOFEVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

P.W.1: Gonepally Parsharamulu Nil P.W.2: Maddela Gopala Kishan P.W.3: M. Rajamani P.W.4: G. Kailasam P.W.5: Sriram Ramakrishna P.W.6:G. Limbadri

EXHIBITS MARKED

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P1: Report Nil Ex.P2: Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P3: First information report Ex.P4: Scene of offence panchanama along with rough sketch map

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Nil Nil

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

DUBBAK.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

DUBBAK

Present:- Sri.T.Jithendar

Judicial Magistrate of I Class

Friday, the 17th day of April, 2026

C.C.No . 44 of 2026

Between:-

The State rep. by the Sub Inspector of Police, Thoguta P.S.

....Complainant

AND

A1: Ponnam Sridhar S/o. Komuraiah, Age:42 years, Occ: Lawyer, R/o. Molangur village, Shankarpatnam mandal, Karimnagar District. Now at Plot No.212, Thyagarayanagar, Road No.1 Beside TVS Show Room lane, Dr AS Rao Nagar Kapra Medchal Malkaji District.

A2: Ponnam Laxmi@ Vijayalaxmi w/o. Chinna Komuraiah, Age:54 years, Occ: Homemaker, R/o.H. No.1-42/2, R/o. Molangur village, Shankarpatnam mandal, Karimnagar District.

A3: Ponnam Chinna Komuraiah, S/o. Late Narsaiah, Age:59 years, occ: agriculture, R/o.H. No.1-472/2 R/o. Molangur village, Shankarpatnam mandal, Karimnagar District.

A4: Ponnam @ Kola Saritha W/o.Ramesh, Age:43 years, Occ: Government teacher R/o.H.No.10-2-453/3/1/1, Adithyanagar, near water tank, Kothayaswada, Karimnagar town

A5: Kola Ramesh S/o. Mallaiah, Age:49 years, Occ: Government teacher, R/o. H. No.10-2-453/3/1/1 Adithyanagar, near water tank, Kothayaswada, Karimnagar town.

… Accused No. 1 to 5

This case is coming on 17-4-2026 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor Sri. R. Bhaskar Reddy for the Accused No.1 to 5 and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

JMFC, DUBBAK 2 of 7 CC. No. 44 of 2026

Fair

: : JUDGMENT : :

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Thoguta Police Station laid a charge sheet in

Cr.No.67/2025 against Accused No.1 to 5 for the offences punishable U/s. 85

BNS & Sec 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. The brief contents of the final report are as follows

(i) On 21.8.2025 at 12:30 hours received a complaint from Smt. Ponnam

Hemalatha @ Meenakshi W/o. Sridhar, Age: 34 years, Occ: Homemaker,

R/o.Molangur village of Shankarpatnam Mandal of Kairimagar District Now at

Yellareddypet village of Thoguta Mandal came to PS, lodged a telugu written petition stating that, on 16-02-2023 she got second marriage with one Ponnam

Sridhar S/o. Komuraiah Age: 42 years, Occ: Lawyer, R/o.Molangur village, in the presence of elders as per Hindu traditions, at the time of their marriage her parents have given (20) tulas gold, (15) lacks net cash and 2,00,000/- rupees worth House articles as dowry. After their marriage, they stayed 20 days at

Molangaur village. Later both couple went to Hyderabad andtaken a rented at ECIL Hyderabad. There they lead their conjugal life happily for some days. Sine one year her husband had debts and he needed money and harassed her mentally and physically to bring the additional dowry from her parental house and also harassing her to register her parents land the land located at

Yellareddypet village outskirts on his name. Later her mother in law Ponnam

Vijayalaxmi W/o. Komuraiah, Age:62 years, Father in law Ponnam

Komuraiah, Age: 68 years, her elder sister in law Saritha W/o Ramesh,

Age:40 years and her husband Ramesh, Age 48 years, R/o. Karimnagar were came to ECIL Hyderabad who stayed there and harassed her mentally and physically to bring the additional dowry from her parental house otherwise

JMFC, DUBBAK 3 of 7 CC. No. 44 of 2026

Fair they will perform another marriage to her husband, about one year ago her husband sold her total 20 thulas gold. On knowing this the complainant asked to her husband why did you sold out the gold? Then her husband beat to her and sent her to her parental house. Since the time of this incident her husband did not taken her with him, in this regard the complainant went to Woman

Police Station, Siddipet. There the police persons were counseling them.

But her husband and her in laws did not compromised. Hence, she requested to take necessary action against them as per law.

(ii) As per the content of above petition from Lw1, Lw-08 registered a case in

Cr.No.67/2025 U/s.85 BNS and Sec.3 & 4 D.P act and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, Lw-8 communicated the original FIR to the Hon'ble Court as well as copies of FIRs to all the concerned and examined LWs1 & 2 at PS, recorded their statements. Later on 23-10- 2025 LW-8 along with men visited Yellareddypet village and examined Lws3 to Lw6 and recorded their statements. After that Lw-8 collected the wedding photos and Wedding card of Lw-1 and Accused Al from Lw-2 and also collected the one audio copied Pen drive from Lw-2, audio copied to this pen drive from Lw-2 Mobile. Then LW8 collected a Section 63(4)(C) of the BSA

Act-2023 certificate from Lw-2. On 26-10-2025 Lw-08 along with men visited Hyderabad and examined LW-7 (who neighbours of the Lw1's

House at ECIL HYD) and recorded his statement.

(iii)While the investigation is under progress, on 22.10.2025 the Accused A1 came to PS, surrendered before Lw-08 and admitted his guilt of this offence. Then

Lw-8 served the notice U/s.35 (3) BNSS to Accused. While the investigation is under progress, on 26.12.2025 the A2 to A5 were came to PS,

JMFC, DUBBAK 4 of 7 CC. No. 44 of 2026

Fair surrendered before LW-8 and admitted their guilt voluntarily, upon which

LW-8 served notice U/s.35 (3) BNSS against the Accused. After completion of investigation the police filed charge sheet against Accused NO.1 to 5 for the offences U/s.85 BNS & Sec 3 & 4 of DP Act.

3. This court took cognizance, on the police report, of the offences punishable

U/s. 85 BNS & Sec 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the Accused No. 1 to 5 and issued summons to them.

4. On the appearance of the said Accused No.1 to 5 before the Court, copies of documents were furnished to them as required U/s.230 of Bharatiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita. They are examined U/s.274 BNSS and for the offences punishable U/s.85 BNS & Sec 3 & 4 of DP Act against Accused No.1 to 5 read over, and explained to them in their vernacular language for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. On behalf of the prosecution, LW1 to 3 examined as PW1 to 3 and Ex.P1 to P4 were marked. The learned Asst. Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of Lws 4 to 8.

6. As there were no incriminating circumstances appearing against the Accused

No.1 to 5 in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the examination of the

Accused No.1 to 5, U/s. 351 BNSS was dispensed with. The Accused No. 1 to 5 do not choose to examine any defence witnesses nor mark any documents.

7. Heard arguments of learned APP for the prosecution and the learned counsel

for the Accused.

JMFC, DUBBAK 5 of 7 CC. No. 44 of 2026

Fair

8. Now the point that arose for determination is as follows:

“Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the Accused No.1

to 5 for the offences punishable U/s. 85 of BNS, Sec 3 & 4 of DP Act, beyond

reasonable doubt”.

9. Having considered the legal position coupled with the facts germane to the case of the prosecution now let us see whether the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the Accused beyond reasonable doubt for the charged offences.

10.On careful scrutinization of the material evidence available on record, the material witnesses including the complainant/victim antagonistic to the case of prosecution as they resiled from their earlier statements. More particularly the victim/PW1 deposed that A1 was her husband, A2 & A3 are the mother and father of A1 and A4 is the sister of A1, A5 is the husband of A4, in the year 2023 her marriage with the Accused No.1 was solemnized. She also deposed that after marriage, she joined the society of Accused No.1 for matrimonial life, she and Accused lead happy marital life for most of the period, recently, due to some petty mis-understandings and on the ill-advice of some of their relatives, she orally reported the matter to police, upon which the police obtained her signatures on some written papers without explaining the contents of said papers to her, infact there was no harassment physically, mentally and ill treatment by any of the accused, she was not examined by the police in connection with this case. Pw2 deposed that A1 was the husband of Pw1, he is the father of Pw1, A2 & A3 are the mother and father of A1, in the year 2023

Pw1 marriage with the Accused No.1 was solemnized, after the marriage, Pw1 joined the society of Accused No.1 for matrimonial life, PW1 and Accused

JMFC, DUBBAK 6 of 7 CC. No. 44 of 2026

Fair lead happy marital life for most of the period. He also deposed that recently, due to some petty mis-understandings and on the ill-advice of some of their relatives, Pw1 orally reported the matter of police, upon which the police obtained her signatures on some written papers withhout explaining the contents of said papers to him, infact there was no harassment physically, mentally and ill treatment by any of the Accused, he was not examined by the police in connection with this case. PW3 deposed that Pw2 is her husband,

A1 was the husband of Pw1, she is the mother of Pw1, A2 & A3 are the mother and father of A1, in the year 2023 Pw1 marriage with the Accused No.1 was solemnized, after the marriage, Pw1 joined the society of Accused No.1 for matrimonial life, Pw1 and accused lead happy marital life for most of the period, recently, due to some petty mis-understandings and on the ill-advice of some of their relatives, Pw1 orally reported the matter to police, upon which the police obtained her signatures on some written papers without explaining the contents of said papers to her, infact there was no harassment physically, mentally and ill treatment by any of the accused, she was not examined by the police in connection with this case. The prosecution could not establish that they were deposing falsely. Nothing incriminating against the Accused No. 1 to 5 are elicited out of them. Ex.P1 to P4 itself does not prove anything.

Hence, on careful consideration of the entire material available on record, there seems to be no evidence to connect the Accused No.1 to 5 with the above crime. Hence, this Court holds that the prosecution could not prove the guilt of the Accused No.1 to 5 for the offences U/s.85 BNS & Sec 3 & 4 of DP Act, beyond reasonable doubt. Point answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

JMFC, DUBBAK 7 of 7 CC. No. 44 of 2026

Fair

Conclusion:

11. In the result, the Accused No.1 to 5 found not guilty for the offences punishable U/s. 85 BNS & Sec 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The Accused

No.1 to 5 thus acquitted U/s.248(1) BNSS. The bail bonds of the Accused shall be in force for a period of six months as required U/s. 480 of BNSS.

Since there is no property deposited in this case, there is no order as to property.

(Directly typed to my dictation by Stenographer-Grade III, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, on the 17 th day of April, 2026).

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

DUBBAK.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

P.W.1: P. Hemalatha @ Meenakshi Nil P.W.2: Gajwel Rajaiah P.W.3: Gajwel Mangamma Nil

EXHIBITS MARKED

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P1: Complaint Nil Ex.P2: Sec 161 Cr.P.C statement of P. Hemalatha @ Meenakshi Ex.P3: Sec 161 Cr.P.C statement of Gajwel Rajaiah Ex.P4: Sec 161 Cr.P.C statement of Gajwel Mangamma

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Nil Nil

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

DUBBAK.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

Dubbak

Present:-Sri.T.Jithendar

Judicial Magistrate of I Class

Monday, the 20th day of April, 2026

C.C.No .140 of 2020

Between:- The State rep. by the Sub Inspector of Police,

Dubbak PS ....Complainant

AND

Dandu Yellaiah S/o. Mallaiah, Age:56 years, Occ: Tractor driver cum owner, R/o. Peddagundavelly village, Dubbak mandal. … Accused This case is coming on 20-4-2026 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant; and of Sri. R. Bhaskar Reddy, Advocated for the Accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

: : JUDGMENT : :

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Dubbak Police Station laid a charge sheet in

Cr.No.1/2020 against Accused for the offences punishable U/s. 304(A) of

Indian Penal Code and Sec 181 & 196 Motor Vehicle Act.

2. The brief contents of the final report are as follows

(i) On 1-1-2020 at 0600 hours, received complaint from Vasuri Mahesh

S/o.Yellaiah, came to Dubbak PS, lodged a telugu written petition in which he stating that, on 31-12-2019 night around 1900 hours the complainant’s father by name Yellaiah S/o. Mallaiah Age:63 years, Occ:

labour was going to Thimmapur village from Thornala village to bring meat, by his TVS XL moped of bearing No.AP 230 4583 and while he was returning to Thornala village near Bangaru Maisamma substation, meantime the driver of Tractor bearing No. AP 36 J 6260 and trolley

2 of 6 CC. No. 140 of 2020

Fair

No.AP 36 J 6261 was suddenly stopped the tractor without any indications, as there are no radium stickers on the tractor trolley the complainant's father have accidentally hit the tractor trolley. On that the complainant’s father have received injuries on his head and nose, surrounding people have looked that complainant’s father and then

Gundelly Sathaiah S/o. Pochaiah has identified the complainant’s father and called the complainant, immediately the complainant reached there and he found that the Mallaiah Age:50 years, R/o.Peddagundavelly village, immediately his father was shifted to the Government General

Hospital, Siddipet for treatment by Ambulance and there the duty doctors have checked his father and they declared that his father was dead.

Hence he requested to take legal action as per the law.

(ii) Basing on the contents of the above petition from Lw1, Lw-11 has registered a case in Cr.No.01/2020, U/s.304 (A) IPC and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, Lw-11 has communicated the original FIR to the Hon'ble Court as well as copies of

FIRs to all the concerned Lw-11 has examined Lw-1 at PS and recorded his statement. Later Lw-11 along with men visited the scene of offence at Thimmapur village out skirts and secured the two panchas i.e., LW 5 & 6 and prepared the crime conducted scene of offence panchanama along with rough sketch. Later Lw-11 along with men visited Government

Hospital, Siddipet observed the dead body minutely and secured the presence of two mediators i.e., Lw-7 & 8 and conducted inquest panchanama over the dead body and the details were incorporated in that inquest panchanama and subjected the dead body for PME. While the

3 of 6 CC. No. 140 of 2020

Fair duty medical officer Lw-9 holding autopsy over the dead body. After

Lw-11 has examined LWs-2 to 4 and recorded their statements. After completion of PME dead body handed over to his blood relatives for performing last rites under proper acknowledgement.

(iii)While the investigation is under progress, on 04/01/2020 the accused came to PS, surrendered voluntarily before LW-11 and admitted his guilt.

Later Lw-11 has served notice U/s 41-A Cr.P.C. against the accused. In this case, Lw-11 has collected the PME report, in which the duty medical officer/LW-9 has opined that the cause of death is due to "Head

Injury”. In this case, LW-10 has inspected the crime vehicle and opined that the accident occurred, not due to any mechanical defects of the

Vehicle. After completion of investigation the police filed charge sheet against Accused for the offences U/s. 304(A) of Indian Penal Code and

Sec 181 & 196 Motor Vehicle Act.

3. This court took cognizance, on the police report, of the offences punishable U/s. 304(A) of Indian Penal Code, Sec 181 & 196 Motor

Vehicle Act against the Accused and issued summons to him.

4. On the appearance of the said Accused before the Court, copies of documents was furnished to him as required U/s.207 of Code of Criminal

Procedure (Cr.P.C). He examined U/s. 251 Cr.P.C and for the offences punishable U/s. 304(A) of Indian Penal Code and Sec 181 & 196 Motor

Vehicle Act against Accused read over, and explained to him in his vernacular language for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4 of 6 CC. No. 140 of 2020

Fair

5. On behalf of the prosecution, LWs.1 to 4 were examined as P.Ws.1 to 4 and Exs.P.1 to P5 were marked. The learned Asst. Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of Lws 5 to 11.

6. As there were no incriminating circumstances appearing against the

Accused in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the examination of the Accused U/s. 313 Cr.P.C. dispensed with. The Accused did not choose to examine any defence witnesses nor mark any documents.

7. Heard arguments of learned APP for the prosecution and the learned counsel for the accused.

8. Now the point that arose for determination is as follows:

“Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the Accused for the offences punishable U/s. 304(A) of Indian Penal Code and Sec 181 & 196 Motor Vehicle Act beyond reasonable doubt”.

9. Having considered the legal position coupled with the facts germane to the case of the prosecution now let us see whether the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the Accused beyond reasonable doubt for the charged offence.

10. On careful scrutinization of the material evidence available on record, all the material witnesses including the complainant are antagonistic to the case of prosecution as they resiled from their earlier statements. More particularly the complainant/PW1 deposed that deceased Yellaiah is his father, he know LWs 2 to 4, he came to know that his father Yellaiah died in a accident, hence at request of elders he put his signatures on some white papers relaing to the accident. He also deposed that he never

5 of 6 CC. No. 140 of 2020

Fair lodged complaint against the accused, he do not know how the accident took place. PW2 deposed that deceased Yellaiah is her husband she know LWs 1 to 3, she came to know that her husband Yellaiah died in a accident, she do not know how the accident took place. Pw3 deposed that deceased Yellaiah is his villager, he know LWs 1, 3 & 4, he came to know that Yellaiah died in a accident, he do not know how the accident took place, he did not witnessed the accident personally. PW4 deposed that deceased Yellaiah is his villager, he know LWs1, 2 & 4, he came to know that Yellaiah died in a accident, he do not know how the accident took place, he did not witnessed the accident personally. The prosecution could not establish that they were deposing falsely. Nothing incriminating against the accused is elicited out of them. Exs.P1 to P5 itself does not prove anything. Hence, on careful consideration of the entire material available on record, there seems to be no evidence to connect the accused with the above crime. Hence, this Court holds that the prosecution could not prove the guilt of the Accused for the offences

U/s.304(A) of IPC, Sec 181, 177 & 196 of MV Act beyond reasonable doubt. Point answered in favour of the Accused and against the prosecution.

Conclusion:-

11. In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable

U/s.304(A) of Indian Penal Code, Sec 181 & 196 Motor Vehicle Act..

The Accused thus acquitted U/s.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the

Accused shall be in force for a period of six months as required U/s. 437-

6 of 6 CC. No. 140 of 2020

Fair

A Cr.P.C. Since there is no property deposited in this case, there is no order as to property.

(Directly typed to my dictation by Stenographer-Grade III, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on the 20 th day of April, 2026).

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

Dubbak.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

P.W.1:V. Mahesh Nil P.W.2: V. Lachavva P.W.3: G. Sathaiah P.W.4: Ch. Venkataiah

EXHIBITS MARKED

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P1: Signature on alleged complaint Nil Ex.P2: Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of V. Mahesh Ex.P3: Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of V. Lachavva Ex.P4: Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of G. Sathaiah Ex.P5: Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Ch. Venkataiah

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Nil Nil

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

Dubbak.