Sri. K. Dasharatha Ramaiah

1

IN THE COURT OF HONBLE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT :: BHAINSA

Present:-Sri K.DASHARATHA RAMAIAH.,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Bhainsa.

Friday, the 28 th day of June, 2019

C.C No.398 of 2017

Between:- State by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Lokeshwaram Police station. …. Complainant

And

A1: Gaddam Sudarshan Reddy s/o Bhoja Reddy, age: 38 years, Caste: Reddy, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Raipur Kandly (v) of Lokeshwaram mandal, A2: Pippera Chinna Devanna S/o Gangaram, age: 50 years, Occ: Agriculture, Caste: Kurma, R/o Raipur Kandly (v) of Lokeshwaram mandal,

A3: Manewar Govind S/o Linganna, age: 48 years, Occ: Agriculture, Caste: Kurma, R/o Raipur Kandly (v) of Lokeshwaram mandal,

...Accused

Offence Under I P C.:Under section 427, 324, r/w 34 of IPC Plea of the Accused:Pleaded not guilty Finding of the Court:Found not guilty

Sentence of Order: In the result, accused A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offences Under section 324, 427 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and they are accordingly acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused A1 to A3 shall be in force for a period of six months from this day as provided under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

This case coming on 27.06.2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor on behalf of state and Sri.T.Ravinder Singh, Advocate for Accused A1 to A3 and after hearing their arguments and upon perusing the material on record, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, Lokeshwaram police station filed a charge sheet in Crime number 36/2017 against the accused A1 to A3 for the offenses punishable under sections 427, 324, r/w 34 of IPC.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 16.05.2017 at 0015 hours Pw1/ Gilkari Sai Prasad lodged complaint stating that on 15.05.2017 while he returning to Rajura village at about night 0930 2 hours on the way at raipur kandly village, he received a call from his

Harvester vehicle driver as he leased his vehicle to LW3, that the

Harvester touched one electrical wire snapped to the ground, immediately PW1 rushed to the scene to resolve, but due to late night to the electricity department infavour did’nt gave LC till next day morning for which the Kandly villager i.e., accused persons A1 to A3 abused and beat the driver, damaged their vehicle. Hence, Pw1 filed complaint for taking necessary action against accused persons.

3.Basing on the above complaint Pw-6 registered a case in

Cr.No.36/2017 U/Sec. 427, 324, r/w 34 of IPC and took up investigation.

During investigation Pw6 examined, recorded Lws 1 to 6 statements and visited scene of offence secured the presence of two mediators

Lws7 & 8 and seized the crime weapons. Subsequently, on 17.05.2017

A1 to A3 surrendered before Pw6 who were produced before court for judicial remand. After completion of investigation Pw6 filed charge sheet against accused persons.

4.After due consideration, the case was taken file against A1 to

A3 under section 427, 324, r/w 34 of IPC and on their appearance all the copies of documents were furnished to accused persons as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.The accused A1 to A3 were examined under section 239 Cr.P.C.

for the offences under sections 427, 324, r/w 34 of IPC explaining the accusations made against accused persons, which was read over and explained to them in their regional language to which they denied and claimed to be tried. To prove the guilt of the accused persons, prosecution examined Six (6) witnesses, got marked Ex.P1 to P7. After closure of prosecution evidence, the incriminating evidence against the accused persons was read over and explained to them as provided

U/sec 313 Cr.P.C. in their regional language to which accused A1 to A3 denied reporting no defense evidence.

6.Heard both sides.

Now the point for determination is:

Whether prosecution is fruitful in proving the guilt of A1 to

A3 for the offences under sections 427, 324 R/W 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

The learned counsel for the prosecution argued and mainly relied on 3 the evidence given by Pws.1, 4 to 6 to prove the guilt of the accused persons, whereas the defacto complainant/ Pw1 had deposed that he owns Harvesting Machine for which Lws.2 to 5 work under him and about 1 ½ yrs back his employee Tinku/ Lw5 informed him that in night hours some villagers of Kandy vg beat them as some electric wire was snapped off while transporting their harvesting machine, immediately

Pw1 informed the same to police Lokeshwaram over phone and rushed to the spot. In the mean time one constable went to scene of offence who in turn called Pw1 to Police station where Pw1’s signatures were obtained on white paper except this Pw1 knew nothing. Pw2 panch turned hostile but another panch Pw3 deposed that about two years back while he was coming to his house, police called him and conducted CDF as one harvesting machine damaged electric wire. Pw4 deposed that on 15.05.2017 at 10.00 pm while he was on patrolling duty he received phone call from his Head Constable that some quarrel is going on at Lokeshwaram old bus stand and on reaching there he saw A1, one eicher vehicle front wind shield was damaged and its driver injured PW4 also deteriorating on inquiry he came to know that while transporting harvester machine in either vehicle one electric wire but driver of eicher vehicle didn’t stop his vehicle as such to stop it they broke its wind shield. Pw4 further deposed that when he informed A1 not to take law into his hands, he once again along with other two persons bet driver as such Pw4 shifted driver with vehicles to

PS Lokeshwaram. Pw5 deposed on examining injured/ Lw5 he issued

Ex.P5 opining that injuries are simple in nature. Pw6 investigation officer reiterated the contents of his charge sheet about the investigation done by him.

7.On the other hand learned counsel for the accused persons A1 to

A3 in his defense intensely argued that accused didn't commit any of the offenses as alleged by the prosecution and the same cannot be elicited by the evidence given by the prosecution witnesses Pw1 to

Pw6, as Pw1/ defacto complainant himself turned hostile. During cross examination of Pw3 who admitted that he do not know the contents of panchanama and he put his signature on the instructions of police. Pw4 in cross admitted that he dont know, how wind shield of eicher vehicle was broken nor how driver sustained injuries as he was not present at that time. Pw4 specifically admitted that he do not know other persons details who were present at the scene. Pw5 admitted that no age of injury was mentioned and Pw6 admitted that he didn’t examine

Ravindra Chary, Head constable of PS. Lokeshwaram who informed to 4

Pw4. Pw6 specifically admitted that there is a delay of four hours and he didn’t ascertained the damage done by accused persons. It is argued that in view of several discrepancies and hostility of main independent witnesses prosecution failed to establish accused guilt which gives rise to benefit of doubt.

8. After careful perusal of material on record and the evidence placed from both parties through Pws.1 to 6 this court made following observations while determining the point that whether accused had committed the alleged offences or not;

(a) It is observed from the evidence put forth by prosecution as per Pw1, the defacto complainant was not present at the scene at the time of occurrence of incident nor he is aware as to who beat his driver

Tinku / Lw5 and Pw1 himself admitted that he didn’t filed any complaint except admitting his signature on complaint mentioning that his signature was obtained by police on white papers when he visited

Police Station Lokeshwaram, itself raises suspicion as to the allegations made against the accused persons. As it is noted that due to Harvester machine trasporting on eicher vehicle one electric wire in

Kandi vg was snapped off but prosecution failed to elicit as to how and by whom the eicher vehicle was stopped. More so, in the light of admissions of Pw4, the only one witness who narrated about the occurrence of incident which he came to know through others also specifically admitted that he cannot say who beat Lw5 or damaged wind shield of their vehicle.

(b) From the material on record, it is also observed that the investigating officer Pw6 as admitted failed to examine one Raghava

Chary working as Head Constable in his Police Station through whom

Pw4 was informed about the quarrel, directing Pw4 to visit scene is fatal to the prosecution case. None of the witnesses examined by prosecution had deposed in its favor except Pw5 whose evidence might ascertain about the injuries sustained by Lw5 but not to make out who beat him. The sole panch Pw3 though deposed that CDF was conducted in his presence had turned hostile deposing that he do not know the content ofpanchanama and he put his signature on the instructions of police also raised ambiguity about the investigation done by Pw6.

5

In the result, accused A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offences Under section 324, 427 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and they are accordingly acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C as the same were not proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. The bail bonds of the accused A1 to A3 shall be in force for a period of six months from this day as provided under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed by me, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 28th day of June, 2019.

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Bhainsa.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution For Defence:

PW.1: G.Sai Prasad-None- PW.2: Md.Pasha PW.3: Y.Shiva Reddy PW.4: Pramod PW.5: Dr.Shiva Prasad Reddy PW.6 : J. Ramesh

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P1 is the signature of PW1 on Complaint Ex.P2 is the 161 statement of PW1 Ex.P3 is the signature of PW2 on Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P4 is the signature of PW2 on Crime Details Form Ex.P5 is the Medical Certificate Ex.P6 is the FIR Ex.P7 is the Scene of offence panchanama

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

- Nil –

M.O’s Marked - Nil –

Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Bhainsa.

6

Tabular Form with Judgment

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

BHAINSA.

C.C.No. 398 OF 2017

1Calendar Case No.: CC.No. 398 of 2017 2Name of the P.S.: Lokeshwaram 3Section of Law: 427, 324, r/w 34 of IPC 4PCOR. No.: 5Name and description of : A1: Gaddam Sudarshan Reddy s/o Bhoja Reddy, age: 38 years, Caste: Reddy, Occ: accused Agriculture, R/o Raipur Kandly (v) of Lokeshwaram mandal, A2: Pippera Chinna Devanna S/o Gangaram, age: 50 years, Occ: Agriculture, Caste: Kurma, R/o Raipur Kandly (v) of Lokeshwaram mandal, A3: Manewar Govind S/o Linganna, age: 48 years, Occ: Agriculture, Caste: Kurma, R/o Raipur Kandly (v) of Lokeshwaram mandal, 6Date of offence: 15.05.2017 7Date of complaint: 16.05.2017 8Date of Apprehension: 17.05.2017 9Released on bail: -- 10 Commencement of trail: 14.02.2019 11 Close of Trial: 25.06.2019 12 Date of Judgment: 28.06.2019 13 Reasons for delay: -- 14 Sentence of order: In the result, accused A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offences Under section 324, 427 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and they are accordingly acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C as the same were not proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. The bail bonds of the accused A1 to A3 shall be in force for a period of six months from this day as provided under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

BHAINSA.

Copy submitted to The Hon’ble I- Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

Copy to The Superintendent of Police, Nirmal. .

1

IN THE COURT OF HONBLE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT :: BHAINSA

Present:-Sri K.DASHARATHA RAMAIAH.,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Bhainsa.

Friday, the 28 th day of June, 2019

C.C No.351 of 2016

Between:- State by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Basar Police station. …. Complainant

And

A1: Elayathwar Prasad s/o Devanna, age: 22 years, Caste: Vadla, Occ: Tractor driver, R/o Vittoli village of Mudhole. A2: Kalewar Sravan s/o Bojiram, age: 22 years, Caste: SC Mala, Occ: Tractor driver, r/o Vittoli village of Mudhole mandal. A3: Jangam Mallesh s/o Sattaiah, age: 25 years, Caste: SC Mala, Occ: Tractor driver, R/o Ruvvi village A4: Machuwar Sai Prasad s/o Ramulu, R/o Borigaom village of Modhole mandal. A5: Garepally Sattagoud s/o Narsagoud, R/o Vittoli village of Mudhole Mandal. A6: Bala Laxminarayana s/o Potanna, age: 40 years, Caste: Golla, Occ: owner of tractor, R/o Gannara village of Mudhole mandal.

...Accused

Offence Under I P C.:Under section 379 of IPC Plea of the Accused:Pleaded not guilty Finding of the Court:Found not guilty

Sentence of Order:In the result, the accused No.1 to 6 are found not guilty for the offence Under sections 379 of Indian Penal Code, and they are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C . The unmarked property deposited vide CP No.63/2016 which was returned to its owner towards interim custody shall be made absolute after expiry of appeal time.

This case coming on 27.06.2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor on behalf of state and Sri. T.Ravinder Singh, Advocate for Accused A1 to A6 and after hearing their arguments and upon perusing the material on record, this court delivered the following:- 2

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, Basar police station filed a charge sheet in Crime number 49/2016 against the accused A1 to A6 for the offenses punishable under sections 379 of Indian Penal Code.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 13.04.2016 at 23.00 hours while PW1 along with PW2 & PW3 proceeding to Salapur village for conducting village visit, at about 0530 hours they observed three tractors bearing No.TS01EC 9207 trolly No.TS01BTR6544,

AP01E5389 trolly NO.AP1V8159 and AP01AE5010 driven by accused

A1, A2 & A3 in suspicion manner, immediately police stopped them and on enquiry police came to know that A1, A2 & A3 illegally transporting sand from Salapur river without valid license or permit from the concerned department, on the instructions of their owners i.e., accused A4 to A6 to sell the sand at higher prices. Hence, Pw1 filed complaint for taking necessary action against accused persons.

3.Basing on the above complaint Pw-8 registered a case in

Cr.No.49/2016 U/Sec. 379 of IPC and took up investigation. During investigation PW8 examined and recorded the statements of Pws 1 to 6 & Lws3 & 5. Subsequently, on 14.04.2016 at 16.00 hours A1 to A6 voluntarily surrendered before P.S., Basar who were produced before this court for judicial remand. After completion of investigation Pw8 filed charge sheet against accused persons.

4.After due consideration, the case was taken file against A1 to A6 under section 379 of IPC and on their appearance all the copies of documents were furnished to accused persons as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.The accused A1 to A6 were examined under section 239 Cr.P.C.

for the offences under sections 379 of IPC explaining the accusations made against accused persons, which were read over and explained to them in their regional language to which they denied and claimed to be tried. To prove the guilt of the accused persons, prosecution 3 examined Eight (8) witnesses, got marked Ex.P1 to P9 After closure of prosecution evidence, the incriminating evidence against the accused persons was read over and explained to them as provided U/sec 313

Cr.P.C. in their regional language to which accused A1 to A6 denied reporting no defense evidence.

6.Heard both sides.

Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution is fruitful in proving the guilt of accused

No.1 to 6 for the offences Under sections 379 of Indian Penal Code, beyond all reasonable doubt?

7. The learned counsel for the prosecution had examined Pws.1 to 8 and mainly relied on the evidence of Pws.1 to 3 & 8 among them,

Pws.1 to 3 had reiterated the entire contents of their statements given to Investigating officer/ Pw8 that on13.04.2016 when they were conducing village visit in Salarpur vg, on next day at about 0530 hrs they saw three tractors bearing No’s 9207/6544, 5389/8159 & 5010 were coming in opposite direction with sand load and on suspicion they stopped, inquired with drivers who revealed their names as Prasad,

Shravan & Mallesh transporting sand without any valid license from

Godavai River on the instructions of their owners SaiPrasad, Sathagoud & Laxmi Narayana. Thereafter Pw1 conducted confession cum seizure panchanama and shifted the tractors to PS Basar. Pws. 4 to 7, who had turned hostile deposing that no panchanama was conducted in their presence. Pw8 reiterated the entire contents of charge sheet about the investigation done by him. Basing on the above evidence prosecution submitted that the offense against the accused persons are proved beyond reasonable doubt and they are liable to be convicted.

8. The counsel for the accused had argued that except Pws to 3 & 8 no other independent witnesses had supported the prosecution case as the remaining prosecution witnesses Pws.4 to 7 had turned hostile, compelling the prosecution to solely rely on the above interested witnesses. During cross of Pws.1to 3 & 8 they admitted that they did 4 not informed about the illegal transportation of sand to the concerned revenue authorities nor they stated registration numbers of crime vehicles in their statements. Further it is argued that accused persons

A1 to A6 did not commit any offenses as alleged by the prosecution which cannot be established with the evidence of Pws.1 to 8 as such the accused persons are entitled for the benefit of doubt.

9. After perusal of Pws.1 to 8 depositions, it is clear that the prosecution had failed to prove that the accused persons A1 to A6 were involved in illegal transportation of sand as it is noted that no specific place about seizure of crime vehicle was elicited. More particularly it is admitted by Pws.1 to 3 & 8 that they didn't informed about the sand transportation of sand to revenue authorities to verify illegal authorities and that all panch witnesses Pws.4 to 7 who are independent had turned hostile deposing that no panchanama was conducted in their presence itself casts cloud about allegations against accused persons. Therefore, the evidence of Pws.1 to 8 is not helpful to the prosecution in any manner to establish the guilt of the accused A1 to A3 beyond reasonable doubt with regard to allegations made against them. Therefore, considering the material available in this case, I'm of the considered opinion that the prosecution had failed to bring home the guilt of accused A1 to A6 for the offences 379 of IPC with which they are charged and accordingly accused persons are entitled for the benefit of doubt.

10.In the result, the accused No.1 to 6 are found not guilty for the offence Under sections 379 of Indian Penal Code, and they are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C and the accused are set at liberty. The bail bonds of the accused No.1 to 6 shall be in force for a period of six months from this day as provided under Section 437-A of

Cr.P.C. The unmarked property deposited vide CP No.63/2016 which was returned to its owner towards interim custody shall be made absolute after expiry of appeal time.

Typed by me, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 28th day of June, 2019.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

BHAINSA

5

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution For Defence:

PW.1: S.Chandra Prakahs-None- PW.2: S.Venkati PW.3: A.Srinivas PW.4: Laxman PW.5: B.Sailu PW6: M.Vittal PW7: G.Devanna PW8: P.Narsingh

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P1 is the confession cum seizure panchanama Ex.P2 is the Complaint Ex.P3 is the 161 statement of PW4 Ex.P4: is the 161 statement of PW5 Ex.P5: is the 161 statement of PW6 Ex.P6 & 7: is the signature of PW7 on scene of offence and confession cum seizure panchanama Ex.P9: Scene of offence panchanama

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

- Nil –

M.O’s Marked - Nil –

Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Bhainsa.

6

Tabular Form with Judgment

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT BHAINSA.

C.C.No. 351 OF 2016

1Calendar Case No.: CC.No. 351/2016 2Name of the P.S.: Basar 3Section of Law: 379 IPC 4PCOR. No.: 5Name and description of : A1: Elayathwar Prasad s/o Devanna, age: 22 years, Caste: Vadla, Occ: Tractor driver, R/o accused Vittoli village of Mudhole. A2: Kalewar Sravan s/o Bojiram, age: 22 years, Caste: SC Mala, Occ: Tractor driver, r/o Vittoli village of Mudhole mandal. A3: Jangam Mallesh s/o Sattaiah, age: 25 years, Caste: SC Mala, Occ: Tractor driver, R/o Ruvvi village A4: Machuwar Sai Prasad s/o Ramulu, R/o Borigaom village of Modhole mandal. A5: Garepally Sattagoud s/o Narsagoud, R/o Vittoli village of Mudhole Mandal. A6: Bala Laxminarayana s/o Potanna, age: 40 years, Caste: Golla, Occ: owner of tractor, R/o Gannara village of Mudhole mandal.

6Date of offence: 13.04.2016 7Date of complaint: 13.04.2016 8Date of Apprehension: 14.04.2016 9Released on bail: -- 10 Commencement of trail: 25.06.2019 11 Close of Trial: 26.06.2019 12 Date of Judgment: 28.06.2019 13 Reasons for delay: -- 14 Sentence of order: In the result, the accused No.1 to 6 are found not guilty for the offence Under sections 379 of Indian Penal Code, and they are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C . The unmarked property deposited vide CP No.63/2016 which was returned to its owner towards interim custody shall be made absolute after expiry of appeal time.

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

BHAINSA.

Copy submitted to The Hon’ble I- Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

Copy to The Superintendent of Police, Nirmal.

7 .

1

IN THE COURT OF HONBLE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT :: BHAINSA

Present:-Sri K.DASHARATHA RAMAIAH.,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Bhainsa.

Friday, the 28 th day of June, 2019

C.C No.70 of 2016

Between:- State by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Basar Police station. …. Complainant

And

A1: Pendyal Laxman s/o Bhumanna, age: 21 years, Caste: Padmashali, Occ: Tractor driver, R/o Chinchala village of Mudhole. A2: Sirimala Shanker s/o Gangadher, age: 48 years, Caste: Padmashali, Occ: Agriculture, r/o Elegaon village of Bhainsa mandal. A3: Karande Prabhaker s/o Lalu, age: 32 years, Caste: Mala, Occ: Tractor driver, R/o Kirgul A4: Borrolla Pedda Babu s/o Muttanna, age: 55 years, Caste: Mala, Occ: Owner of tractor, R/o Timmapr village of Bhainsa mandal.

...Accused

Offence Under I P C.:Under section 379 of IPC Plea of the Accused:Pleaded not guilty Finding of the Court:Found not guilty

Sentence of Order:In the result, the accused No.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offence Under sections 379 of Indian Penal Code, and they are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C and the accused A1 to A4 are set at liberty. The unmarked property deposited vide CP No.04/2016 which was returned to its owner towards interim custody shall be made absolute after expiry of appeal time.

This case coming on 27.06.2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor on behalf of state and Sri. T.Ravinder Singh, Advocate for Accused A1 to A4 and after hearing their arguments and upon perusing the material on record, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, Basar police station filed a charge sheet in Crime number 3/2016 against the accused A1 to A4 for the offenses punishable under sections 379 of Indian Penal Code.

2

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 08.01.2016 at 05.00 hours while PW1 along with PW4 & LW1 proceeding to Salapur village for conducting village visit, at about 6.00 p.m., they observed two tractors bearing No.AP01AG281 & AP01AH-3172 driven by accused

A1 & A3 in suspicion manner, immediately police stopped them and on enquiry police came to know that A & A3 transporting sand from

Salapur river without having any valid license or permit from the concerned department, on the instructions of their owners i.e., accused

A2 & A4. Hence, Pw1 filed complaint for taking necessary action against accused persons.

3.Basing on the above complaint Pw-5 registered a case in

Cr.No.3/2016 U/Sec. 379 r/w 34 of IPC and took up investigation.

During investigation Pw5 effected the arrest of A2 & A3 by issuing the arrest forms, later he examined, recorded PW1, 4, Lws1, 4 & 5.

Subsequently, on 12.01.2016 at 10.00 hours A2 & A4 voluntarily surrendered before PW5. After completion of investigation Pw5 filed charge sheet against accused persons.

4.After due consideration, the case was taken file against A1 to A4 under section 379 r/w 34 of IPC and on their appearance all the copies of documents were furnished to accused persons as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.The accused A1 to A4 were examined under section 239 Cr.P.C.

for the offences under sections 379 r/w 34 of IPC explaining the accusations made against accused persons, which was read over and explained to them in their regional language to which they denied and claimed to be tried. To prove the guilt of the accused persons, prosecution examined Five (5) witnesses, got marked Ex.P1 to P5. After closure of prosecution evidence, the incriminating evidence against the accused persons was read over and explained to them as provided

U/sec 313 Cr.P.C. in their regional language to which accused A1 to A4 denied reporting no defense evidence.

6.Heard both sides.

Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution is fruitful in proving the guilt of accused

No.1 to 4 for the offences Under sections 379 r/w 34 of Indian Penal

Code, beyond all reasonable doubt?

3

7. The learned counsel for the prosecution had examined Pws.1 to 5 and mainly relied on the evidence of Pws.1, 4 & 5 who reiterated the entire contents of their statements given to Investigating officer that on 08.01.2016 at about 6.00 pm when they, along with Pw5 were conducting village visit in Salarpur vg, they saw two tractors coming in opposite direction with sand load and on suspicion they stopped, inquired with drivers who revealed their names as Pendyal laxman,

K.Prabhakar transporting sand without any valid license on the instructions of their owners Shankar & Pedababu. Thereafter Pw1 conducted confession cum seizure panchanama and shifted the tractors to PS Basar. Further Pws.2 & 3 had turned hostile deposing that no panchanama was conducted in their presence. Pw5 reiterated the entire contents of charge sheet about the investigation done by him. Basing on the above evidence prosecution submitted that the offense against the accused persons are proved beyond reasonable doubt and they are liable to be convicted.

8. The counsel for the accused A1 to A4 had vehemently argued that except Pws 1, 4 & 5 no other independent witnesses had supported the prosecution case as the remaining prosecution witnesses Pws.2 & 3 had turned hostile, as such the prosecution solely relied on the above interested witnesses. During cross of Pws.1, 4 & 5 they admitted that they did not informed about the illegal transportation of sand to the concerned revenue authorities nor they stated about Engine or Chasis numbers of crime vehicles. Further it is argued that accused persons A1 to A4 did not committ any offences as alleged by the prosecution which cannot be established with the evidence of Pws.1 to 5 as such the accused persons A1 to A4 are entitled for the benefit of doubt.

9. After perusal of Pws.1 to 5 depositions, it is clear that the prosecution had failed to prove that the accused persons A1 to A4 were involved in illegal transportation of sand as it is noted that no specific place about seizure of crime vehicle. Their numbers were mentioned more particularly it is admitted by both Pws.1 & 4 that they didn't informed about the sand transportation of sand to revenue authorities and that both panch witnesses Pws.2 & 3 deposing that no panchanama was conducted in their presence itself casts cloud finding tractors on that date. Therefore, the evidence of Pws.1 to 5 is not helpful to the prosecution in any manner to establish the guilt of the 4 accused persons beyond reasonable doubt with regard to allegations made against them. Therefore, considering the material available in this case, I'm of the considered opinion that the prosecution had failed to bring home the guilt of accused A1 to A4 for the offences 379 r/w 34of IPC with which they are charged and accordingly accused persons are entitled for the benefit of doubt.

10.In the result, the accused No.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offence Under sections 379 of Indian Penal Code, and they are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C and the accused are set at liberty. The bail bonds of the accused No.1 to 4 shall be in force for a period of six months from this day as provided under Section 437-A of

Cr.P.C.The unmarked property deposited vide CP No.04/2016 which was returned to its owner towards interim custody shall be made absolute after expiry of appeal time.

Typed by me, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 28th day of June, 2019.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

BHAINSA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution For Defence:

PW.1: S.Chandra Prakash-None- PW.2: A.Naresh PW.3: A.Raju PW.4: S.Venkati PW.5: P.Narsingh

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P1& P2 is the signature of PW2 on scene of offence and confession cum seizure Ex.P3 & 4 is the signature of PW3 on scene of offence and confession cum seizure Ex.P5 is the FIR

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

- Nil –

M.O’s Marked - Nil –

Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Bhainsa.

5

Tabular Form with Judgment

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

BHAINSA.

C.C.No. 70 OF 2016

1Calendar Case No.: CC.No. 70 of 2016 2Name of the P.S.: Basar police station 3Section of Law: 379 IPC 4PCOR. No.: 5Name and description of : A1: Pendyal Laxman s/o Bhumanna, age: 21 years, Caste: Padmashali, Occ: Tractor driver, accused R/o Chinchala village of Mudhole. A2: Sirimala Shanker s/o Gangadher, age: 48 years, Caste: Padmashali, Occ: Agriculture, r/o Elegaon village of Bhainsa mandal. A3: Karande Prabhaker s/o Lalu, age: 32 years, Caste: Mala, Occ: Tractor driver, R/o Kirgul A4: Borrolla Pedda Babu s/o Muttanna, age: 55 years, Caste: Mala, Occ: Owner of tractor, R/o Timmapr village of Bhainsa mandal.

6Date of offence: 08.01.2016 7Date of complaint: 08.01.2016 8Date of Apprehension: 08.01.2016 9Released on bail: -- 10 Commencement of trail: 19.06.2019 11 Close of Trial: 25.06.2019 12 Date of Judgment: 28.06.2019 13 Reasons for delay: -- 14 Sentence of order: In the result, the accused No.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offence Under sections 379 of Indian Penal Code, and they are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C and the accused are set at liberty. The bail bonds of the accused No.1 to 4 shall be in force for a period of six months from this day as provided under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.The unmarked property deposited vide CP No.04/2016 which was returned to its owner towards interim custody shall be made absolute after expiry of appeal time.

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

BHAINSA.

Copy submitted to The Hon’ble I- Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

Copy to The Superintendent of Police, Nirmal.

1

IN THE COURT OF HONBLE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS 

AT :: BHAINSA

Present:­Sri K.DASHARATHA RAMAIAH.,

 Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Bhainsa.

Friday, the 28 th day of June, 2019

C.C No.352 of 2016

Between:­ State by the Sub­Inspector of Police, Basar Police station. …. Complainant

And

A1: Gadewar Chandu s/o Eerba, age: 65 years, Caste: Mala SC, Occ: Coolie, R/o Bidrelli village of Mudhole mandal. A2: Gadewar Uttam s/o Chandu, age: 40 years, Caste: Mala SC, Occ: Coolie, r/o Bidrelli village of Mudhole mandal.

...Accused

Offence Under I P C.:Under section 326, 290(b) r/w 34 of IPC Plea of the Accused:Pleaded not guilty Finding of the Court:Found not guilty

Sentence of Order:In the result, the accused A1 & A2 found not guilty for the offences under sections 326, 294(b) r/w of IPC are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. No property was produced before this court, hence there is no order with regard to property.

This case coming on 27.06.2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor on behalf of state and Sri.Ravi Pande, Advocate for Accused and after hearing their arguments and upon perusing the material on record, this court delivered the following:­

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, Basar police station filed a charge sheet in Crime number 60/2016 against the accused A1 & A2 for the offenses punishable under sections 326, 290(b) r/w 34 of Indian Penal

Code.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 05.05.2016 at 14.00 hours Pw1/ Gadewar Vanamala lodged complaint stating that on 2 05.05.2016 at about morning 08.30 hours, accused A1 & A2 came to her house and started quarrel abusing in filthy language and beat her with hands and stick causing injuries to her left hand. Hence, Pw1 filed complaint for taking necessary action against accused persons.

3.Basing on the above complaint Pw­5 registered a case in

Cr.No.60/2016 U/Sec. 326, 290(b) r/w 34 of IPC and took up investigation. During investigation Pw6 examined, recorded Pws.1 statement drafted Crime Detail Form and draw the Rough sketch in the presence of mediators i.e., LW5 & PW4. Later examined and record the statements of PW2, 3 & LW3. Subsequently, on 09.05.2016 A1 & A2 surrendered before Pw5 who were produced before this court for judicial remand. After completion of investigation Pw5 filed charge sheet against accused persons. 

4.After due consideration, the case was taken file against A1 & A2 under section 326, 290(b) r/w 34 of IPC and on their appearance all the copies of documents were furnished to accused as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.The accused A1 & A2 were examined under section 239 Cr.P.C. for the offences under sections 326, 290(b) r/w 34 of IPC explaining the accusations made against accused persons, which was read over and explained to them in their regional language to which they denied and claimed to be tried. To prove the guilt of the accused persons, prosecution examined Five (5) witnesses, got marked Ex.P1 to P8. After closure of prosecution evidence, the incriminating evidence against the accused persons was read over and explained to them as provided U/sec 313 Cr.P.C. in their regional language to which accused A1 & A2 denied reporting no defense evidence.

6.Heard both sides.

Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution is fruitful in proving the guilt of accused

A1 & A2 for the offences under sections 326, 294(b) r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt? 

3

7. The learned counsel for the prosecution examined Pws.1 to 5 and mainly relied on the evidence given by Pw5 who is the investigating officer as all the prosecution witnesses including the defacto complainant, eye and panch witnesses examined as Pws.1 to 4 had turned hostile. During the examination in chief of Pw1 the defacto complainant deposed that she do not know anything about the case and she never lodged any complaint before police except that accused had some quarrel with her when she started Kirana business in their village.

Pw1 specifically deposed that she and accused persons amicably settled on the advice of village elders. Pws.2 & 3 the independent and circumstantial witnesses deposed they do not know anything about the case nor police examined or recorded their statements. Further Pw4 the panch witness for scene of offense & inquest panchanamas declared hostile as he deposed no panchanama was conducted in his presence.

Pw5 the investigating officer had reiterated the entire contents of the charge sheet about the investigation done by him.

8.On the other hand learned counsel for the defense argued that accused had never committed any of the offenses as alleged by the prosecution and the same cannot be elicited by the evidence given by the prosecution witnesses Pw1 to Pw5. Further it was argued that all other witnesses Pws.1 to 4 I.e eye witnesses and panch witnesses had turned hostile and nothing corroborative evidence was elicited by prosecution except relying on Pw5 evidence. The counsel for the accused argued that as it is evident that the allegations on the accused persons were not proved nor supported by any independent witnesses as such the accusations against the accused person not proved beyond reasonable doubt by prosecution. Hence, the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt and acquitted. 

9.On careful perusal of the entire material available on record and the depositions of Pw1 to Pw5, it is observed and is clearly evident that including the defacto complainant and all the prosecution witnesses I.e independent eye witnesses and panch witnesses had turned hostile deposing against the case of prosecution. In view of the material available 4 on the record and hostile evidence of the main material witnesses it is evident that the evidence of Pws.1 to 5 is not helpful to the prosecution in any manner to establish that the accused persons had committed the alleged offenses nor proved their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Therefore, considering the material available in this case, I'm of the considered opinion that the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt.

In the result, the accused A1 & A2 found not guilty for the offences under sections 326, 294(b) r/w 34 of IPC are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused A1 & A2 shall be in force for a period of six months from this day as provided under Section 437­A of

Cr.P.C. No property was produced before this court, hence there is no order with regard to property.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 28th day of June, 2019.

Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Bhainsa.

 APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution For Defence: 

PW.1: G.Vanamala­None­ PW.2: Gadewar Bhojaram PW.3: D.Laxman PW.4: B.Laxman PW.5: P.Narsingh

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P1 is the Complaint Ex.P2 is the 161 statement of PW1 Ex.P3 is the 161 statement of PW2 Ex.P4 is the 161 statement of PW3 Ex.P5 is the Signature of PW4 on scene of offence panchanama 5

Ex.P6 is the FIR Ex.P7 is the Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P8 is the Medical certificate

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

­ Nil –

M.O’s Marked ­ Nil –

Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Bhainsa.

6

Tabular Form with Judgment

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

BHAINSA.

C.C.No. 296 OF 2014

1Calendar Case No.: CC.No. 352 of 2016 2Name of the P.S.: Basar 3Section of Law: 326, 290(b) r/w 34 of IPC 4PCOR. No.: 5Name and description of : A1: Gadewar Chandu s/o Eerba, age: 65 years, Caste: Mala SC, Occ: Coolie, R/o Bidrelli village accused of Mudhole mandal. A2: Gadewar Uttam s/o Chandu, age: 40 years, Caste: Mala SC, Occ: Coolie, r/o Bidrelli village of Mudhole mandal. 6Date of offence: 05.05.2016 7Date of complaint: 05.05.2016 8Date of Apprehension: 09.05.2016 9Released on bail: ­­ 10 Commencement of trail: 25.06.2019 11 Close of Trial: 26.06.2019 12 Date of Judgment: 28.06.2019 13 Reasons for delay: ­­ 14 Sentence of order: In the result, the accused A1 & A2 found not guilty for the offences under sections 326, 294(b) r/w of IPC are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. No property was produced before this court, hence there is no order with regard to property.

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

BHAINSA.

Copy submitted to The Hon’ble I­ Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

Copy to The Superintendent of Police, Nirmal. .

1

IN THE COURT OF HONBLE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT :: BHAINSA

Present:-Sri K.DASHARATHA RAMAIAH.,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Bhainsa.

Friday, the 5 th day of July, 2019

C.C No.307 of 2016

Between:- State by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Bhainsa Town Police station. …. Complainant

And

Mohd Ameer Ahmed S/o Jabir Ahmed, age: 30 years, Caste: Muslim, Occ: Business, R/o Madina colony, Bhainsa.

...Accused

Offence Under I P C.:Under section 341, 294(b), 323 of IPC against accused Plea of the Accused:Pleaded not guilty Finding of the Court:Found not guilty

Sentence of Order: In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences Under sections 341, 294(b), 323 and he is accordingly acquitted under section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. The unmarked property, if any shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

This case coming on 04.07.2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor on behalf of state and Sri.Muneer Ahmed, Advocate for the accused and after hearing their arguments and upon perusing the material on record, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, Bhainsa Town police station filed a charge sheet in Crime number 78/2016 against the accused for the offenses punishable under sections 341, 294(b), 323 of IPC against accused .

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 01.05.2016 at 21.00 hours Pw1/ Javid Khan came to Police Station Bhainsa town and stated that on 01.05.2016 at about 20.00 hours PW1 went to Barimamgally by his motor cycle when he reached near beef market at Ahmed chowdari Hotel at the mean time the accused stopped PW1, questioned him why PW1 is commenting on the MIM party in Face Book and abused him in filthy language beating PW1 with hands on his body along with accused friends. Hence, Pw1 filed complaint for taking necessary action against accused.

3.Basing on the above complaint Pw-6 registered a case in Cr.No.78/2016 2

U/Sec. 341, 294(b), 323 of IPC and took up investigation. During investigation

Lw6 examined, recorded Pw1. Later PW6 visited scene of offence where Lw6 recorded the statements of Pws.2 & 3 and secured two mediators PW4 & PW5 and prepared CDF drafted rough sketch of scene of offence. On 03.05.2016 at 11.00 hours LW6 arrested the accused who was produced before this court for judicial remand. After completion of investigation Pw6 filed charge sheet against accused.

4.After due consideration, the case was taken file under sections 341, 294(b), 323 of IPC against accused and on his appearance all the copies of documents were furnished to accused as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.The accused was examined under section 251 Cr.P.C. for the offences under sections 341, 294(b), 323 of IPC explaining the accusations made against him, which was read over and explained to him, in his regional language to which he denied and claimed to be tried. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined Six (6) witnesses, got marked Ex.P1 to P5. After closure of prosecution evidence, the incriminating evidence against the accused was read over and explained to him as provided U/sec 313 Cr.P.C. in his regional language to which accused denied reporting no defense evidence.

6.Heard both sides.

Now the point for determination is:

Whether prosecution is fruitful in proving the guilt of accused for the offences under sections 341, 294(b), 323 of IPC against accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

7. The learned counsel for the prosecution put forth that all the prosecution witnesses including the defacto complainant, eye and panch witnesses turned hostile. During the examination in chief of Pw1 the defacto complainant deposed that on 01.05.2016 while he was going to beef market accused stopped him with whom PW1 had argued about political issues, except this PW1 do not know anything about the case nor he never lodged any complaint before police. Pws.2 & 3 the independent and circumstantial witnesses deposed they do not know anything about the case nor police examined or recorded their statements. Further Pws 4 & 5 the panch for scene of offence panchanama declared hostile as he deposed no panchanama was conducted in their presence. PW6 the investigating officer reiterated the contents of charge sheet. On the other hand learned counsel for the defense strenuously argued that accused had never committed any of the offences as alleged by the prosecution and the same cannot be elicited by the evidence given by the prosecution witnesses Pw1 to Pw6. Further it was argued that all other 3 witnesses Pws.1 to 5 I.e eye witnesses and panch witnesses had turned hostile and nothing corroborative evidence was elicited by prosecution. The counsel for the accused argued that as it is evident that the allegations on the accused person were not proved nor supported by any independent witnesses as such the accusations against the accused person not proved beyond reasonable doubt by prosecution. Hence, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt and acquitted. 

8.On careful perusal of the entire material available on record and the depositions of Pw1 to Pw6, it is observed that it is clearly evident that including the defacto complainant and all the prosecution witnesses I.e independent eye witnesses and panch witnesses had turned hostile deposing against the case of prosecution. In view of the material available on the record and admissions by the main material witnesses it is evident that the evidence of Pws.1 to 6 is not helpful to the prosecution in any manner to establish the identity of the accused person to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, considering the material available in this case, I'm of the considered opinion that the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt.

In the result, the accused found not guilty for the offences under sections 341, 294(b), 323 of IPC is acquitted under section 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months from this day as provided under

Section 437­A of Cr.P.C. No property was produced before this court, hence there is no order with regard to property.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 5th day of July, 2019.

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Bhaisnsa.

4

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution For defence: PW.1: Javeed Khan -None- PW.2: Axeez Chowdari PW.3: Shaik Javed Ahmed PW.4: Abdul Moiz PW.5: V.Vittal PW.6 : Abdul Nazeer

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P1 is the Report Ex.P2 is the 161 statement of PW1 Ex.P3 is the 161 statement of PW2 Ex.P4 is the 161 statement of PW3 Ex.P5 is the signature of PW4 on scene of offence panchanama Ex.P6 is the signature of PW5 on scene of offence panchanama Ex.P7 is the FIR

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

- Nil –

M.O’s Marked - Nil –

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Bhainsa.

5

Tabular Form with Judgment

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT Bhainsa.

C.C.No.307 OF 2016

1Calendar Case No.: CC.No. 307/2016 2Name of the P.S.: Bhainsa Town 3Section of Law:Under section 341, 294(b), 323 of IPC 4Crime No.: 5Name and description of : Mohd Ameer Ahmed S/o Jabir Ahmed, age: 30 accusedyears, Caste: Muslim, Occ: Business, R/o Madina colony, Bhainsa. 6Date of offence: 01.05.2016 7Date of complaint: 01.05.2016 8Date of Apprehension of : 03.05.2016 Accused 9Released on bail: 10Commencement of trail: 03.05.2019 11Close of Trial: 03.07.2019 12Date of Judgment: 05.07.2019 13Reasons for delay: -- 14Sentence of order:In the result, the accused found not guilty for the offences under sections 341, 294(b), 323 of IPC is acquitted under section 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months from this day as provided under Section 437­A of Cr.P.C. No property was produced before this court, hence there is no order with regard to property.

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

Bhainsa. Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble I- Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

Copy to: The Superintendent of Police, Nirmal.