Ms.Jyothsna Gunti

C.C. No.338 of 2019 Date:22-04-2025

IN THE COURT OF I-ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

AT KOLLAPUR.

Tuesday, the 22nd day of April, Two Thousand Twenty Five.

Present: Ms. Jyothsna Gunti, I-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kollapur.

C.C. No.338 of 2019

Between:

State through Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station, Kodair.

...Complainant

And

A1 Puchala Parameshwar Reddy, s/o Sai Reddy, age : 60yrs, Caste :

Reddy, Occ : Business, r/o Mahmadapur village of Pangal mandal

A2 Rachuri Sunil @ Sunil Shetty, s/o Sairaja, age : 38yrs, Caste :

Vyashas, Occ : Business, r/o Sathapur village of Peddakothapally mandal

A3 Jakkula Nagaraju, s/o Narsaiah, age : 35yrs, Caste : Golla, Occ :

Bolero Driver, r/o Gopulapur village of Pangal mandal

...Accused.

***

This case is coming up before me for final hearing on 17-04-2025 in the presence of Learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor for the State and of Sri. T. Siva Reddy Learned counsel for the Accused upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day the court delivered the following:-

C.C. No.338 of 2019 Date:22-04-2025 :: J U D G M E N T ::

The Sub Inspector of Police, Police Station, Kodair laid charge sheet against Accused No.1 to 3 in crime No.62/2018 for the offence

U/s 420 IPC & Sec.7(A) of E.C. Act, 1955.

1. The case of the prosecution is that on 3rd September 2018 at about 4:00 PM, LW1 lodged a report stating that the police, while patrolling near Yattam and Kondaraopally Chourasta, intercepted a

Bolero vehicle bearing No. TS05UA2269. Upon inspection, they found 75 white bags suspected to be Public Distribution System (PDS) rice, weighing approximately 35 quintals. LW1 reached the spot upon receiving the information and conducted a panchanama of the seized rice. The driver of the Bolero informed the police that he had transported the rice from the house of A2 in Satapur village under the instructions of A1. The rice was handed over to LW3

Sharada, a ration shop dealer, for safe custody, and the vehicle was deposited at the police station. LW1 gave report to police.

2. LW13, Sub-Inspector of Police registered the case vide in

Cr.No.62/2018, for the offences U/s 420 IPC & Sec.7(A) of E.C.

Act, took up the investigation and filed charge sheet.

3.On considering the material papers on record, this court has taken cognizance against the Accused No.1 to 3 for the offences punishable U/s 420 IPC & Sec.7(A) of E.C. Act.

4.On appearance of Accused No.1 to 3, the case copies were furnished to them as per section 207 Cr.P.C. The Accused No.1 to 3

C.C. No.338 of 2019 Date:22-04-2025 were examined u/s.239 Cr.P.C. charges were framed for the offences punishable U/s 420 IPC & Sec.7(A) of E.C. Act, charges were explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, For Trial.

5.During the course of trial, prosecution examined PW1 to PW5 and marked Ex.P1 & P2.

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the Accused No.1 to 3 were examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. for the incriminating circumstances which appeared in the evidence of prosecution witnesses are explained to them, they denied and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

7.Heard the arguments of both sides.

Now, the point for determination :

1) Whether the prosecution could able to prove the guilt

of the Accused No.1 to 3 for the offences punishable U/s 420

IPC & Sec.7(A) of E.C. Act, beyond all reasonable doubt?

8.On perusal of the record, PW1 (the complainant) deposed regarding the receipt of information from a sub-inspector and subsequent seizure of rice and panchanama. In his cross- examination, he admitted that the accused were not caught transporting the rice directly from any ration shop or PDS godown and marked Ex.P1

C.C. No.338 of 2019 Date:22-04-2025

9.PW2, a police constable who accompanied PW1, stated that the rice was stored in gunny and plastic bags. He admitted that he did not know the test to identify whether the rice was PDS rice and that he identified A1 and A2 based on the statement of the driver (A3).

10.PW3, the ration dealer to whom custody of rice was handed, stated in her chief that she did not give any written acknowledgment for the rice. In cross-examination, she admitted she did not know whether the rice was PDS rice and to whom it belonged.

11.PW4 and PW5 turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case.

A. On Section 7(a) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955:

12.The essential requirement to prove an offence under Section 7(a) of the E.C. Act is that the accused must have contravened any order made under Section 3 of the Act regulating or prohibiting the production, supply, or distribution of an essential commodity. In the present case: There appears no conclusive evidence or chemical analysis report confirming that the seized rice is PDS rice.

PW1 and PW2 admitted that no direct seizure from any PDS  godown or fair price shop was made.

PW3, who took custody of the rice, could not confirm whether  the rice was PDS rice.

No ration card or stock register from any PDS outlet was  produced.

C.C. No.338 of 2019 Date:22-04-2025

The chain of custody is incomplete, and the prosecution failed  to prove that the rice originated from the PDS system.

B. On Section 420 IPC:

13.For conviction under Section 420 IPC, the prosecution must prove (i) deception, (ii) dishonest inducement, and (iii) delivery of property due to such inducement.

There is no evidence of any inducement or deception by the  accused.

No victim or person alleging to have been cheated has been  examined.

14.The seizure is only based on suspicion, and the driver’s statement implicating A1 and A2 is uncorroborated and inadmissible as it is not a confession recorded under Section 164

CrPC and was made in police custody.

15.Further, two material panch witnesses turned hostile. The remaining witnesses’ testimonies lack direct knowledge or authentication of the rice as PDS rice. No documentary proof was provided by prosecution.

16.In light of the foregoing discussion, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt for the offences under Section 420 IPC and Section 7(a) of the Essential

Commodities Act, 1955. Accordingly, the Accused No.1 to 3 are entitled to be acquitted.

C.C. No.338 of 2019 Date:22-04-2025

In the result, Accused No.1 to 3 are not found guilty for

the offences punishable U/s 420 IPC & Sec.7(A) of E.C. Act,

1955 and accordingly they are acquitted of the same under

section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of Accused No.1 to 3

shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The case

property if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal

time.

Typed to my dictation by D. Subash Kumar, Stenographer G-II, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 22nd day of April, 2025.

I-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kollapur.

:: Appendix of evidence::

Witnesses examined for Prosecution: Defence:

PW1:P. Rammohan

PW2:V. Sudhakar -Nil- PW3:C. Sharada

PW4:D. Nagasheshu

PW5:K. Balreddy ::Exhibits marked for:: Prosecution: Defence:

Ex.P1: Report lodged by PW1-Nil-

Ex.P2: Attested receipt given by LW4

Material object-Nil-

I-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kollapur.

O.S.No.250 of 20241 of 5 Date:22-04-2025

IN THE COURT OF THE 1ST ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AT

KOLLAPUR.

Tuesday, the 22ndday of April, Two Thousand and Twenty Five.

PRESENT: Ms. Jyothsna Gunti, I Addl. Junior Civil Judge,

KOLLAPUR.

O.S. No.250 of 2024

BETWEEN:

1. Madamoni Ramudu, s/o Sayanna, age : 55yrs

2. Madamoni Laxmaiah, s/o Sayanna, age : 52yrs

3. S. Pentameedi Hussain, s/o Peddanna, age : 60yrs

4. S. Pentameedi Kistamma, w/o Hussain, age : 55yrs

5. S. Venkataiah, s/o Hussain, age : 40yrs

All Occ : Agriculture, r/o Paspula village of Kodair mandal

6. Madamoni Sayamma (died) per LR’s Balakistamma, w/o Niranjan, age : 40yrs, Occ : Agriculture, r/o Peddakothapally village and mandal

7. Madamoni Niranjan, s/o Laxmaiah, age : 45yrs, Occ :

Agriculture, r/o Paspula village of Kodair mandal

8. Madamoni Ramulu, s/o Sayanna, age : 40yrs, Occ :

Agriculture, r/o Paspula village of Kodair mandal

9. Madamoni Shekar, s/o Ramulu, age : 35yrs, Occ : Agriculture, r/o Paspula village of Kodair mandal

...Plaintiffs

AND

1. Pilli Pentaiah, s/o Mashanna, age : 70yrs

2. Pilli Venkata Swamy, s/o Pentaiah, age : 45yrs

3. Pilli Krishna, s/o Pentaiah, age : 38yrs

O.S.No.250 of 20242 of 5 Date:22-04-2025

4. Pilli Shivudu, s/o Pentaiah, age : 36yrs

5. Pilli Krishnaiah, s/o Karraiah, age : 40yrs

6. Pilli Sreenu, s/o Karraiah, age : 38yrs

7. Pilli Savari, s/o Mashanna, age : 65yrs

8. Gunthakoru Sathyam, s/o Venkataiah, age : 55yrs

9. Gunthakoru Ramulu, s/o Venkataiah, age : 45yrs

All Occ : Agriculture, r/o Devalthirumalapur village of

Peddakothapally mandal

...Defendants

***

This suit is coming up before me for final hearing on 08.04.2025 in the presence of Sri. B. Bhaskar Reddy,

Learned Counsel for the plaintiffs and the defendants having been set exparte and upon perusing the material papers on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants for declaration of title and recovery of possession of land in

Sy.No.100 to an extent of Ac.0-30gts situated in the limits of

Paspula village sivars of Kodair mandal declaring the plaintiffs as owners and possessors.

O.S.No.250 of 20243 of 5 Date:22-04-2025

The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:-

1.That the plaintiffs are the owners and possessors of land in Sy.No.100 to an extent of Ac.13-16gts situated in the limits of Paspula village sivars of Kodair mandal. The suit land is inherited from their ancestors and they are enjoying the same since many years. Plaintiffs were also obtained ryth pass books and title deeds in their favour in respect of Ac.13-16gts of land in Sy.No.100. Due to drought, the plaintiffs were migrated to different places for labour work along with their families and by taking advantage of absence of plaintiffs from the village, the defendants who are having their land on the Eastern side of land in Sy.No.100, occupied Ac.0-30gts of land (hereinafter referred to as suit schedule property) out of Ac.13-16gts, in

Sy.No.100 and the defendants are disturbed bund in between the land of plaintiffs and defendants and they are cultivating the suit schedule land illegally. Recently, eight months ago, when the plaintiffs returned to their village, came to know about illegal interference of defendants in the suit schedule land.

2.Immediately, plaintiffs placed the matter before the village elders, surveyed the total extent of Ac.13-16gts of land in

Sy.No.100 along including suit schedule land and fixed boundaries. But, the defendants postponed to vacate the suit schedule land on one or other pretext and to hand over the possession of the same to the plaintiffs. Finally, on 27.10.2024, the plaintiffs demanded the defendants to deliver the vacant

O.S.No.250 of 20244 of 5 Date:22-04-2025

possession of suit schedule land to them, but in vain. Hence, the present suit.

3.On receipt of the summons, defendants failed to appear

before the court. Hence, they were set Ex-parte. Thereafter, no

petition was filed to set aside the Ex-parte order.

4.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and perused the documents.

Now the points for determination are:-

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to declare them as owners and possessors of suit schedule property as prayed for?

2. To what relief?

POINT 1:-

5.In order to substantiate the averments of the plaint, the plaintiff No.7 examined as PW-1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6 and filed his affidavit in chief by reiterating the contents of the plaint.

6.Coming to the documentary evidence, Ex.A1 is theCC of pahani for the year 2003-04, Ex.A2 is the CC of pahani for the year 2017, Ex.A3 is the CC of pahani for the year 2009, Ex.A4 is the CC of pahani for the year 2001-02, Ex.A5 is the attested copy of survey or panchanama and sketch map and Ex.A6 is the Dharani details of suit schedule land.

7.The evidence of PW-1 coupled with Ex’s.A1 to A6 documents categorically establishes that the suit schedule

O.S.No.250 of 20245 of 5 Date:22-04-2025

property belongs to the plaintiffs and it appears that they are in possession over the suit schedule property. The testimony of

PW1, both oral and documentary, remained unrebutted. Hence, the evidence of PW-1 and the material on the record, clinchingly proves the case of the plaintiffs and thus the plaintiffs are entitled to declare them as owners and possessors of suit schedule property.

Point No.1 is answered in favour of plaintiffs.

POINT NO:2:-

IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs in

favor of the plaintiffs and against defendants for

declaration of title and recovery of possession of suit

schedule land.

Typed to my dictation by D. Subash Kumar, Stenographer G-II, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 22ndday of April, 2025.

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge,

Kollapur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For the Plaintiffs For the Defendants.

PW1M. Niranjan-Set exparte -

O.S.No.250 of 20246 of 5 Date:22-04-2025

Documents Marked

For the Plaintiffs For the Defendants.

Ex.A1: CC of pahani for the year 2003- 04

Ex.A2:CC of pahani for the year 2017 -Nil- Ex.A3:CC of pahani for the year 2009

Ex.A4:CC of pahani for the year 2001- 02

Ex.A5:Attested copy of survey of panchanama and sketch

Ex.A6: Dharani details of plaintiffs over the suit land

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge,

KOLLAPUR.

C.C. No.463 of 2019 1 of page 5 Date:21-04-2025

IN THE COURT OF II-ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

AT KOLLAPUR.

Monday, the 21st day of April, Two Thousand Twenty Five.

Present: Ms. Jyothsna Gunti, I-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kollapur, FAC II-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kollapur.

C.C. No.463 of 2019

Between:

State through Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station, Pentlavelly.

...Complainant

And

Bijanamula Shubash, s/o Ramudu, age : 40yrs, Caste : Vadde, Occ :

Driver, r/o Koppunur village of Chinnambavi mandal

...Accused.

***

This case is coming up before me for final hearing on 16-04-2025 in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri. P. Balaswamy, Learned counsel for the Accused upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day the court delivered the following:- :: J U D G M E N T ::

The Sub Inspector of Police, Police Station, Pentlavelly Village and Mandal laid charge sheet against Accused in crime No.39/2019 for the offence U/s 304-A IPC & Sec.196 of M.V. Act.

C.C. No.463 of 2019 2 of page 5 Date:21-04-2025

1. The brief facts of the case are that on 14.07.2019 at about 7:30

PM, the son of the complainant (PW1), while returning to pentlavelly village from peddakothapally on his motorcycle bearing registration number AP 20 2AG 8196, collided with a tractor trolley bearing No.

TS 31 TR 8275, which was parked on the main road without any warning indicator. It is alleged that the driver of the tractor had detached the trolley from the tractor engine and had gone away, leaving the trolley unattended in a hazardous manner on the road, thereby causing the death of the complainant’s son on the spot. On 15.07.2019, PW1 lodged a report with the police.

2. LW15, Sub-Inspector of Police registered the case vide in

Cr.No.39/2019, for the offences U/s 304-A IPC & Sec.196 of

M.V. Act, took up the investigation and filed charge sheet.

3.On considering the material papers on record, this court has taken cognizance against the Accused for the offence punishable

U/s 304-A IPC & Sec.196 of M.V. Act.

4.On appearance of accused, the case copies were furnished to them as per section 207 Cr.P.C. The Accused was examined u/s.239

Cr.P.C. charges were framed for the offences punishable U/s 304-A

IPC & Sec.196 of M.V. Act, charges were explained to him in

Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Hence, For Trial.

5.During the course of trial, prosecution examined PW1 to PW4 and marked Ex.P1.

C.C. No.463 of 2019 3 of page 5 Date:21-04-2025

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the Accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. for the incriminating circumstances which appeared in the evidence of prosecution witnesses are explained to them, they denied and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

7.Heard the arguments of both sides.

Now, the point for determination :

1) Whether the prosecution could able to prove the guilt

of the accused for the offence punishable U/s 304-A IPC &

Sec.196 of M.V. Act, beyond all reasonable doubt?

8.PW1, in his cross-examination, admitted that he did not witness the accident, and further did not know who parked the trolley or who was responsible for the incident. He also admitted he had no personal knowledge of the facts of the case.

9.PW2 and PW3, similarly, did not add anything incriminating and echoed the same lack of knowledge as PW1.

10.PW4, in cross-examination, stated that he was present at the scene of offence but admitted that he did not know who parked the trolley, when it was parked, and under what circumstances. While he stated that the accused was present at the scene, he did not state that he saw the accused park the trolley, nor did he say that the trolley was negligently parked.

C.C. No.463 of 2019 4 of page 5 Date:21-04-2025

11.Given that the prosecution’s star witness (PW1) and other material witnesses failed to support the case, the learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor closed the evidence of LW4 and LW6 to LW15.

12.In this case, there is no eyewitness who saw the accused park the trolley. No evidence was led to establish the ownership or control of the accused over the vehicle at the time of incident. The mere presence of the accused at the scene, as stated vaguely by

PW4, is insufficient to connect him to the act of negligence.

13.Likewise, the charge under Section 196 of the Motor Vehicles

Act remains unsubstantiated, as no evidence has been placed on record regarding the insurance status of the vehicle or that the accused was driving without insurance.

14.The prosecution has failed to prove who parked the trolley, when it was parked, whether it was negligent, and whether the accused was involved at all.

15.In light of the above analysis, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the accused is entitled to be acquitted.

Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

C.C. No.463 of 2019 5 of page 5 Date:21-04-2025

In the result, Accused is not found guilty for the

offences punishable U/s U/s 304-A IPC & Sec.196 of M.V. Act

and accordingly he is acquitted of the same under section

248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand

cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The case property if

any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by D. Subash Kumar, Stenographer G-II, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 21st day of April, 2025.

I-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kollapur,

FAC II-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kollapur.

:: Appendix of evidence::

Witnesses examined for Prosecution: Defence:

PW1:Kurni Balaswamy

PW2:Kurni Manemma -Nil- PW3:Kurni Pradeep

PW4:Agnoor Mohan Kumar ::Exhibits marked for::

Prosecution: Defence:

Ex.P1: Report lodged by PW1 -Nil-

Material object-Nil-

I-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kollapur,

FAC II-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kollapur.

C.C. No.24 of 2025 Date:22-04-2025

IN THE COURT OF I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

AT KOLLAPUR.

Tuesday, the 22nd day of April, Two Thousand Twenty Five.

Present: Ms. Jyothsna Gunti, I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

KOLLAPUR.

C.C. No.24 of 2025

Between:

State through Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station, Kodair.

...Complainant

And

Nenavath Raju @ Raja Nayak, s/o Neelya, age : 31yrs, Caste : Lambadi, Occ : Farmer, r/o H.No.5-28, Kotha thanda village of Jadcherla mandal, Mahabubnagar District

...Accused.

***

This case is coming up before me for final hearing on 21-04-2025 in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Smt. N. Ramalaxmamma, Learned Legal Aid Counsel for the Accused upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day the court delivered the following:- :: J U D G M E N T ::

The Sub Inspector of Police, Police Station, Kodair laid charge sheet against Accused in Crime No.139/2024 for the offence U/s 85

BNS & Sec.3, 4 of D.P. Act.

C.C. No.24 of 2025 Date:22-04-2025

1. The case of the prosecution is that on 11.12.2024 at around 11:30 AM, LW9 received a complaint from PW1, who alleged that she was married to the accused on 14.04.2017. The couple had three children. At the time of marriage, PW1’s parents allegedly gave Rs. 3,50,000/- as dowry. After one year of marriage, the accused allegedly started harassing her physically and mentally, demanding additional dowry and making allegations of illicit relationships.

2.PW1 further alleged that additional amounts of Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 70,000/- were given as dowry subsequently. It was alleged that the accused was unemployed, addicted to alcohol, used filthy language, and often assaulted PW1 with his hands and sticks for petty reasons and due to suspicion over her character. She eventually reported the matter to the police, which resulted in registration of the case.

3. LW9, Sub-Inspector of Police registered the case vide in

Cr.No.139/2024, for the offences U/s 85 BNS & Sec.3, 4 of D.P.

Act., took up the investigation and filed charge sheet.

4.On considering the material papers on record, this court has taken cognizance against the Accused for the offences punishable

U/s 85 BNS & Sec.3, 4 of D.P. Act.

5.On appearance of accused, the case copies were furnished to him as per section 207 Cr.P.C. The Accused was examined u/s.239

Cr.P.C. charges were framed for the offences punishable U/s 85

BNS & Sec.3, 4 of D.P. Act, charges were explained to him in

Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Hence, For Trial.

C.C. No.24 of 2025 Date:22-04-2025

6.During the course of trial, prosecution examined PW1 to

PW3.

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was not examined under sec. 313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating circumstances appeared against accused, from the evidence of prosecution witnesses.

8.Heard the arguments of both sides.

Now, the point for determination :

1) Whether the prosecution could able to prove the guilt

of the accused for the offences punishable U/s 85 BNS &

Sec.3, 4 of D.P. Act, beyond all reasonable doubt?

9.PW1 (defacto complainant ): In her chief, she acknowledged there were “small skirmishes” and admitted to filing the case, but stated that both parties were now living together and she intended to compromise. She did not support the main allegations and turned hostile.

10.PW2 and PW3 (parents of PW1): Also turned hostile and failed to support the prosecution’s version regarding payment or demand of dowry.

11.Prosecution Did not bring on record any medical evidence, documentary proof of dowry, or independent witnesses.

On Section 85, BNS (Cruelty):

Under Section 85, cruelty includes:

Any willful conduct likely to drive the woman to suicide or cause grave injury, or

Harassment for dowry demands.

C.C. No.24 of 2025 Date:22-04-2025

12.PW1, in her evidence, retracted the core allegations. She admitted there were minor domestic disputes but expressed willingness to continue cohabiting with the accused. She did not support the claim of harassment or physical cruelty. Without corroboration or medical evidence, and with the witness turning hostile, the charge under Section 85 remains unproven.

On Sections 3 and 4, Dowry Prohibition Act:

13.For these sections to apply, the prosecution must prove that:

Dowry was given or demanded,

Such demand was linked to marriage or ongoing marital relationship.

14.While PW1 initially stated that dowry was given and later demanded, she did not support this allegation in court. PW2 and

PW3, the natural witnesses for such a transaction, also turned hostile. No documentary or independent evidence was placed

before the Court.

Thus, the essential ingredients of Sections 3 and 4 have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

15.The prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused under Section 85 of the BNS and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act. The key witnesses turned hostile and no credible evidence was placed before the Court to sustain the charges.

Accordingly, the accused is acquitted.

C.C. No.24 of 2025 Date:22-04-2025

In the result, Accused is not found guilty for the

offences punishable U/s 85 BNS & Sec.3, 4 of D.P. Act; and

accordingly he is acquitted of the same under section

271(1) BNSS. The bail bonds of accused shall stand

cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The case property if

any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by D. Subash Kumar, Stenographer G-II, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 22nd day of April, 2025.

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

KOLLAPUR.

:: Appendix of evidence::

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution: Defence:

PW1:N. Rajeshwari

PW2:M. Lalsingh -Nil- PW3:M. Shanthamma ::Exhibits marked for::

Prosecution: Defence:

-Nil- NIL

Material object-Nil-

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

KOLLAPUR.

C.C. No.24 of 2025 Date:22-04-2025

IN THE COURT OF I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

AT KOLLAPUR.

Tuesday, the 22nd day of April, Two Thousand Twenty Five.

Present: Ms. Jyothsna Gunti, I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

KOLLAPUR.

C.C. No.24 of 2025

Between:

State through Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station, Kodair.

...Complainant

And

Nenavath Raju @ Raja Nayak, s/o Neelya, age : 31yrs, Caste : Lambadi, Occ : Farmer, r/o H.No.5-28, Kotha thanda village of Jadcherla mandal, Mahabubnagar District

...Accused.

***

This case is coming up before me for final hearing on 21-04-2025 in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Smt. N. Ramalaxmamma, Learned Legal Aid Counsel for the Accused upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day the court delivered the following:- :: J U D G M E N T ::

The Sub Inspector of Police, Police Station, Kodair laid charge sheet against Accused in Crime No.139/2024 for the offence U/s 85

BNS & Sec.3, 4 of D.P. Act.

C.C. No.24 of 2025 Date:22-04-2025

1. The case of the prosecution is that on 11.12.2024 at around 11:30 AM, LW9 received a complaint from PW1, who alleged that she was married to the accused on 14.04.2017. The couple had three children. At the time of marriage, PW1’s parents allegedly gave Rs. 3,50,000/- as dowry. After one year of marriage, the accused allegedly started harassing her physically and mentally, demanding additional dowry and making allegations of illicit relationships.

2.PW1 further alleged that additional amounts of Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 70,000/- were given as dowry subsequently. It was alleged that the accused was unemployed, addicted to alcohol, used filthy language, and often assaulted PW1 with his hands and sticks for petty reasons and due to suspicion over her character. She eventually reported the matter to the police, which resulted in registration of the case.

3. LW9, Sub-Inspector of Police registered the case vide in

Cr.No.139/2024, for the offences U/s 85 BNS & Sec.3, 4 of D.P.

Act., took up the investigation and filed charge sheet.

4.On considering the material papers on record, this court has taken cognizance against the Accused for the offences punishable

U/s 85 BNS & Sec.3, 4 of D.P. Act.

5.On appearance of accused, the case copies were furnished to him as per section 207 Cr.P.C. The Accused was examined u/s.239

Cr.P.C. charges were framed for the offences punishable U/s 85

BNS & Sec.3, 4 of D.P. Act, charges were explained to him in

Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Hence, For Trial.

C.C. No.24 of 2025 Date:22-04-2025

6.During the course of trial, prosecution examined PW1 to

PW3.

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was not examined under sec. 313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating circumstances appeared against accused, from the evidence of prosecution witnesses.

8.Heard the arguments of both sides.

Now, the point for determination :

1) Whether the prosecution could able to prove the guilt

of the accused for the offences punishable U/s 85 BNS &

Sec.3, 4 of D.P. Act, beyond all reasonable doubt?

9.PW1 (defacto complainant ): In her chief, she acknowledged there were “small skirmishes” and admitted to filing the case, but stated that both parties were now living together and she intended to compromise. She did not support the main allegations and turned hostile.

10.PW2 and PW3 (parents of PW1): Also turned hostile and failed to support the prosecution’s version regarding payment or demand of dowry.

11.Prosecution Did not bring on record any medical evidence, documentary proof of dowry, or independent witnesses.

On Section 85, BNS (Cruelty):

Under Section 85, cruelty includes:

Any willful conduct likely to drive the woman to suicide or cause grave injury, or

Harassment for dowry demands.

C.C. No.24 of 2025 Date:22-04-2025

12.PW1, in her evidence, retracted the core allegations. She admitted there were minor domestic disputes but expressed willingness to continue cohabiting with the accused. She did not support the claim of harassment or physical cruelty. Without corroboration or medical evidence, and with the witness turning hostile, the charge under Section 85 remains unproven.

On Sections 3 and 4, Dowry Prohibition Act:

13.For these sections to apply, the prosecution must prove that:

Dowry was given or demanded,

Such demand was linked to marriage or ongoing marital relationship.

14.While PW1 initially stated that dowry was given and later demanded, she did not support this allegation in court. PW2 and

PW3, the natural witnesses for such a transaction, also turned hostile. No documentary or independent evidence was placed

before the Court.

Thus, the essential ingredients of Sections 3 and 4 have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

15.The prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused under Section 85 of the BNS and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act. The key witnesses turned hostile and no credible evidence was placed before the Court to sustain the charges.

Accordingly, the accused is acquitted.

C.C. No.24 of 2025 Date:22-04-2025

In the result, Accused is not found guilty for the

offences punishable U/s 85 BNS & Sec.3, 4 of D.P. Act; and

accordingly he is acquitted of the same under section

271(1) BNSS. The bail bonds of accused shall stand

cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The case property if

any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by D. Subash Kumar, Stenographer G-II, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 22nd day of April, 2025.

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

KOLLAPUR.

:: Appendix of evidence::

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution: Defence:

PW1:N. Rajeshwari

PW2:M. Lalsingh -Nil- PW3:M. Shanthamma ::Exhibits marked for::

Prosecution: Defence:

-Nil- NIL

Material object-Nil-

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

KOLLAPUR.