Smt. K.lalitha Devi

-- 1--

APWG140002782026

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)-

CUM-I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::

TADEPALLIGUDEM.

PRESENT: Smt. K. Lalitha Devi,

I Addl Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-I Addl Judl Magistrate of I Class,

TADEPALLIGUDEM.

Friday, this the 15th day of May, 2026

CALENDER CASE No. 106/2026

Between:

The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Chebrole Police station. –-Complainant

And

Bagata Siva, S/o.Sanni Babu, aged 34 years, Gandhi Bomma Center, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District. --- Accused

This case is coming on 13.05.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of the Sri. A. Ravi Prasad, Assistant Public Prosecutor for prosecution and the learned legal aid counsel for the accused and the matter having stood for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Chebrole Police Station filed charge sheet against accused for the offence under Sections 331(4), 305(a) of BNS in

Cr.No.151/2025 of Chebrole Police Station.

2.Case of the prosecution in brief is:

(a) On 05.07.2025, PW.1 U.Ganga locked her house and went to Warangal along with her husband to visit her mother-in-law’s house. On 06.07.2025 at -- 2-- about 9.15 Am, their relative Isukapati Lakshmi Kantham informed over phone that the doors of her house were found open. Immediately, they returned and reached home at 4.30 PM on the same day, she found their main door opened and noticed that the iron safe inside the house was also opened, upon verification she found missing of the following items i.e., one pair of gold mangal sutralu(4 gms), gold coin(2 gms), silver glass-1 (weight unspecified), worth of Rs.30,000/-.

L.W.1 Ganga gave report to the police. Basing on the said report, L.W.10 Sub

Inspector of Police registered the case in Cr.151/2025 of Chebrole P.s. for the offences under sections 331(4), 305(a) B.N.S and investigated into the case.

(b) During investigation, he recorded the statements of witnesses, visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch. L.W.9 Sub Inspector of Police,

Unguturu apprehended the accused on 22.08.2025 at 18.00 hours, at the margin of Unguturu-Telaprolu main road, Anandapuram cross road, Garapadu village,

Unguturu mandal Krishna District in Cr.56/2025 and recorded the confessional statement of the accused before the mediators. In pursuant of confession of the accused, recovered the above stolen property belongs to the crime of this case.

On 22.09.2025 L.w.10 Sub Inspector of Police, produced the accused by obtaining PT warrant. Hence, the charge.

3.On 17.02.2026 cognizance was taken under Section 331 (4), 305 or 317 (2) BNS against the accused.

4.On producing the accused from District Jail, Eluru, copies were furnished to the accused under Section 230 BNSS and accused was examined U/Sec.262

BNSS. for the substance of accusation made in the charge sheet for which accused denied as false. Charges under Section 331 (4), 305 or 317 (2) BNS are framed against him, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, for trial.

5.In the course of trial prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and got marked

Exs.P1 to P4 and MOs.1 to 3. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as APP) given up the evidence of LW.4/D.Rajesh, -- 3--

LW.5/D.Raghu, LW.6/T.Daveedu and LW.7/A.Sairam.

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 351 BNSS by explaining the incriminating material appearing in the prosecution evidence. Having understood the same, the accused denied the allegations and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard the learned APP and the learned defence counsel. Perused the record.

8.Now, the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving the guilt of the accused for the offences under Sections 331 (4), 305 or 317 (2) of BNS beyond reasonable doubt”?

POINT:

9.In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined

PW.1 to PW.6 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.4. MOs.1 to 3 were also marked. PW.1 is the defacto complainant, P.W.2 is the husband of P.w.1, P.W.3 who noticed the house doors of P.W.1 were opened and then he informed the same to P.W.1 over phone, P.W.4 is mediator, P.Ws.5 and 6 are the Investigating Officers.

10.PW.1 U.Ganga and P.W.2 L.Mahipal Reddy deposed that on 07.5.2025 at about 10.00 PM, they both went to Warangal by locking their house doors and on the next day, they were informed by their neighbours that their house doors were found opened, immediately, they reached their house and found that the doors were broke opened and noticed their iron safe was also broke open and on verification, they found missing of one pair gold mangalasutras-4 gms, gold coin- 2 gms and silver glass. Then, they gave Ex.P1 complaint to the police. They deposed that recently they were informed by the police that the police recovered the stolen property and seized as M.Os.1 to 3 i.e., two gold mangalasutras, gold chain and silver glass. During cross-examination, they both contended in one voice that they did not hand over the broken lock to the police or bills pertaining to

M.Os.1 to 3.

-- 4--

11.P.W.3 Isukapati Lakshmi deposed that she know P.W.1 who is working as

ANM of their village and that on 06.07.2025 at about 9.30 Am she went to

Badampudi village on her personal work and observed the house doors of P.W.1 were broke opened, on that, she called P.W.1 and enquired about her presence in the house, P.W.1 stated that she was out of town and requested her to go and verify inside the house, then she entered inside the house and found articles were in pel-mel condition and almirah lock was opened. Then, she intimated the same to P.W.1 and that P.W.1 returned home and found missing of gold ornaments and gave report to the police. During her cross-examination, she admitted that she is not an eye witness to the incident. She stated that she did not mention the reasons of her arrival near to the house of P.W.1 on the alleged date of offence.

12. P.w.4 T.V.Ramana deposed that on 22.08.2025, at the request of P.W.5 S.I of police, he along with L.W.7 A.Sai Kumar went to Telaprolu main road,

Anandapadu to Garapadu cross road, where police caught hold the accused, recorded the confessional statement of accused who also confessed the theft of gold articles and bikes in other crimes. Basing on the confession of accused, police recovered M.Os.1 to 3 from his possession under the cover of Ex.P2 which is the marked portion of mediator report dt.22.08.2025 at about 6.00 PM and he identified the accused. During cross-examination, he stated that on the request of

P.W.5 he acted as mediator to Ex.P2 which was drafted by P.w.5 at the place of arrest and seizure.

13.P.W.5 U.Govind S.I of police, Unguturu P.S. deposed that on 22.08.2025 on receipt of credible information, he along with his staff and mediators proceeded to

Telaprolu main road, Anandpadu cross-road Garapadu village, while conducting vehicle checking, the accused came on pulsar motorcycle bearing No.AP 40 EC 3392, they caught hold the accused when the accused tried to fled away, on enquiry, he disclosed his name and identity partiulars as accused in this case, they recorded the confessional statement of accused, basing on the said confession, he seized M.Os.1 to 3 under the cover of Ex.P2/mediators report and -- 5-- that the accused also confessed bout the commission of theft of gold articles and bikes in other crimes. On 22.08.2025, he produced the accused for judicial remand by informing to the SHO, Chebrole.

14. P.W.6 M.Suryabhagavan S.I of police, Chebrole P.S. deposed that on 06.07.2025 at about 9.00 PM on receipt of complaint from P.W.1, he registered the case in Cr.151/2025 of Chebrole P.S. under Ex.P3 FRI. On the next day, he visited the scene of offence, drew Ex.P4 rough sketch. On 22.08.2025 P.W.5 informed about the arrest of accused in connection with Cr.56/2025 of Unguturu village about recovery of stolen property pertaining this crime along with other crime properties. On 22.09.2025 he obtained PT warrant and produced the accused before the court. He filed charge sheet against the accused. During cross-examination, he admitted that the offence was committed on 05.07.2025 where as the complaint was given on 06.07.2025. He further adds that P.W.1 returned home and observed the commission offence on 06.07.2025 and immediately gave report. He did not obtain signature of P.W.1 in Ex.P3 FIR in

Col.No.11. He admitted that there is no direct eye witnesses to the commission of offence.

15.On an overall appreciation of the evidence, it is evident that PW.1, being the victim, has not stated anything regarding the identity or description of the offender who committed the theft of her gold and silver ornaments (Mos.1 to 3).

Further, she is not an eyewitness to the occurrence. Therefore, there is no direct evidence to connect the accused with the commission of theft of Mos 1 to 3 from the house of PW1. Hence, it cannot be conclusively held that the accused committed the theft of Mos.1 to 3 from the house of PW1 by house breaking by night and accordingly, the offence under Section 331(4) and 305(a) of BNS is not proved against the sole accused.

16.However, the prosecution has clearly established the identity of the stolen property. PW.1 categorically identified MOs.1 to 3 MO.1 is Gold Mangala suthrams-2, MO.2 is Gold coin and MO.3 is Silver glass belongs to her.

-- 6--

There is no dispute or challenge regarding the identity of the said property. The same was recovered during the course of investigation and duly linked to the present case. Therefore, the identity of the case property stands proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Now, it has to be examined whether the alternative charge under Section 317(2) of BNS is made out against the accused.

17.PW.2 is the mediator in whose presence the accused was apprehended and 22.08.2025, including Mos.1 to 3, were recovered. The evidence of PW.3- SI of Police has corroborated with the evidence of PW.2 in all material particulars relating to the apprehension of the accused and recovery of the stolen property.

Nothing substantial has been elicited in their cross-examination to discredit their testimonies.

18.The contention of the defence that PW.2 is a stock witness does not merit acceptance. Admittedly, PW.2 is a working Village Revenue Officer (VRO), and except making a bald suggestion during cross-examination, the defence has not placed any material on record to substantiate the said allegation. On the contrary, the evidence of PW.2 is consistent, cogent, and trustworthy, and his testimony stands duly corroborated by the evidence of PWs.3 and 4.

19.Further, the recovery of MOs.1 to 3, along with other stolen gold and silver articles and two motorcycles, was effected pursuant to the disclosure statement made by the accused while in police custody. Therefore, that portion of the confession which led to the discovery of the incriminating material is clearly admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The recovery of MOs.1 to 3 from the possession of the accused constitutes a strong incriminating circumstance and lends substantial corroboration to the prosecution case. Hence, the recovery proceedings cannot be doubted.

20.It is also pertinent to note that, apart from the present case property, several other stolen vehicles pertaining to different police stations were recovered at the instance of the accused by PW.3, the SHO, Unguturu Police Station, -- 7--

Krishna District, which has no connection whatsoever with Chebrole Police

Station. This circumstance further strengthens the prosecution case and indicates a consistent pattern of conduct on the part of the accused, thereby lending further assurance to the prosecution version.

21.It is an admitted fact that the accused was found in possession of multiple stolen properties, including MO.1. The accused have not offered any explanation as to how he came into possession of Mos 1 to 3. In such circumstances, a presumption under Illustration (a) to Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act can safely be drawn that the accused were in possession of stolen property knowing it to be stolen. This presumption squarely attracts the offence under Section 317(2) of BNS.

22.Though there appears to be a minor inconsistency in the evidence regarding whether the scene of offence is a busy locality or not, such discrepancy is trivial in nature and does not go to the root of the prosecution case. It is well settled that minor contradictions which do not affect the core of the case can be safely ignored.

23.Further, there is no material on record to show that the police or prosecution witnesses had any motive to falsely implicate the accused in this case. In the absence of any such circumstances, the defence plea of false implication cannot be accepted.

24.Therefore, on a careful evaluation of the entire evidence on record, this

Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence under Section 331(4) and 305(a) of BNS against the accused. However, the prosecution has successfully established that the accused was found in possession of stolen property and failed to account for the same. Accordingly, the offence under Section 317(2) of BNS is proved against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

25.IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the charge under

Section 331 (4), 305 or 317 (2) and accordingly he is acquitted under Section -- 8-- 271(1) BNSS. However, the accused is found guilty for the charge under Section 317(2) BNS and accordingly they are convicted under Section 271 (2) BNSS.

The Bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per

Section 481(1) of BNSS. The seized property i.e. MO.1 is Gold Mangala suthrams-2, MO.2 is Gold coin and MO.3 is Silver glass which was already given to PW.1 vide orders in Crl.MP. 426/2026 dated 24-04-2026 shall be made absolute after expiry of appeal time

Partly typed to my dictation to the Stenographer-Gr.I and partly typed by me on my laptop, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 15th day of May, 2026.

Id/-K. Lalitha Devi, I Addl Civil Judge (Junior Division) cum I Addl Judl Magistrate of I Class, Tadepalligudem.

Hearing on Question of Sentence:

1 .Accused stated that he is having wife and minor children and he is the sole bread winner of his family . Hence prayed to take lenient view.

2.In view of the nature of offence, where the accused has committed thefts of several vehicles and further they are seems to be habitual offenders as such the provisions of PO Act cannot be applied to the accused in the given circumstances and no lenient view can be taken.

3.In the result, the ac cused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec. 331(4) or 305(a) of BNS and hence he is acquitted U/s.271(1) BN SS for the said charge. But accused is found guilty for the offence under section 317(2) B NS and he is convicted under section 271(2) BNSS for the said offence. The accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year and also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) in default of fine amount, simple imprisonment for one month for the -- 9-- offence under Section 317(2) BNS. The remand period of the accused from 22-09-2025 to till today shall set off to the conviction period under section 468 BNSS. The seized property i.e. MO.1 is Gold Mangala suthrams-2, MO.2 is Gold coin and MO.3 is Silver glass which was already given to PW.1 vide orders in Crl.MP. 426/2026 dated 24-04-2026 shall be made absolute after expiry of appeal time.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW.1:U.Ganga-NONE- PW.2:L.Mahipal Reddy. PW.3:I.Lakshmi Kantham. PW.4:T.V.R Mohana Rao PW.5:U.Govindu, IO PW.6:M.Surya Bhagavan, IO

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1:Complaint given by PW.1 to the police. Ex.P2: Marked portion of Mediators report, dated 22.08.2025 at 6:00 PM. Ex.P3:Original F.I.R. Ex.P4:Rough sketch.

F OR DEFENCE : -- NIL --

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO.1:Gold Mangala suthrams-2 MO.2:Gold coin MO.3:Silver glass

Id/-K.L.D., IACJ(JD) cum IAJFCM, TPG.

-- 10--

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)-

CUM-I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::

TADEPALLIGUDEM.

CALENDER CASE No.106/2026

1. Date of offence:05.07.2025

2. Date of complaint or report:06.07.2025

3. Date of apprehension of Accused :22.08.2025 on PT Warrant

4. Date of release on bail of accused :In judicial custody.

5. Date of commencement of trial:24.04.2026

6. Date of close of trial:13.05.2026

7. Date of sentence or Order:15.05.2026

8. Explanation of delay if any:Due to non-production of witnesses by the prosecution

COMPLAINANT:

State: Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Chebrole Police Station

ACCUSED:

Bagata Siva, S/o.Sanni Babu, aged 34 years, Gandhi Bomma Center, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District

Cr.No.: Cr.No.151/2025 Section of Law : Under Section 331 (4), 305 or 317 (2) BNS Plea of the Accused: Pleaded not guilty Finding of Court: Found guilty for the offence under Section 317(2) BNS

Sentence/Order: In the result, the ac cused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec. 331(4) or 305(a) of BNS and hence he is acquitted U/s.271(1) BN SS for the said charge. But accused is found guilty for the offence under section 317(2) BNS and he is convicted under section 271(2) BNSS for the said offence. The accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year and also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) in default of fine amount, simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 317(2) BNS. The remand period of the accused from 22-09-2025 to till today shall set off to the conviction period -- 11-- under section 468 BNSS. The seized property i.e. MO.1 is Gold Mangala suthrams-2, MO.2 is Gold coin and MO.3 is Silver glass which was already given to PW.1 vide orders in Crl.MP. 426/2026 dated 24-04-2026 shall be made absolute after expiry of appeal time

Sd/-K. Lalitha Devi,

Seal I Addl Civil Judge (Junior Division) cum I Addl Judl Magistrate of I Class, Tadepalligudem.

Copy submitted to the Hon'ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, West Godavari District.

1

APWG140015132020

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM- I

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS : TADEPALLIGUDEM.

PRESENT: Smt. K. Lalitha Devi,

I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (Junior Division)-CUM-

I ADDITIONAL JUDL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

TADEPALLIGUDEM.

Wednesday, this the 13th day of May, 2026.

C.C.No.993/2020

Between:

The State Rep.,by S u b - Inspector, Chebrole Police Station. …Complainant

And

Kodi Rama Krishna, S/o Lakshmipathi, 39 years, Coolie, R/o H.No.6-11, Indiramma Colony, Tallapuram Village, Unguturu Mandal.

...Accused

This case came up before me for final hearing on 11.05.2026 in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State, and of Sri D.D.Raju, Advocate for accused, on perusal of material on record and upon hearing both sides, matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMEN T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Chebrole Police Station filed a charge sheet in Crime No.241/2020 for the offence punishable under Section 8 (b) of

A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as "the Excise

Act") against the accused.

2.The brief averments of the case of prosecution is that:

On 03.08.2020 at about 07.15 A.M, PW.3/SI of Police, Chebrole Police 2

Station along with his staff went to the scene i.e. near Chebrole Railway Gate,

Chebrole Village, Unguturu Mandal along with mediators, where the accused left his bag and skulk away from the scene on seeing police. The police caught him and taken into custody, while the accused was having illicit arrack. On enquiry by PW.3, the accused confessed that he bought illicit arrack from an unknown person at outskirts of Nallajerla Mandal and selling the same in his village for wrongful gain. He purchased the same in low cost and selling the same to the people, in the meantime, the police caught hold him red handedly.

PW.3 seized 3 litres of illicit arrack contained in 3 litres plastic bottles and he separated sample for sending for analysis.

b)PW.3 arrested the accused on 03.08.2020 at 8-00 A.M. and brought the accused along with seized property to Chebrole Police Station. He registered a case in Crime No.241/2020 under Section 8(b) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020. FIR was issued to all concerned and took up investigation. He left the police station and visited the scene of offence, examined witnesses and recorded their statements. Later, he examined his staff and recorded their statements. The sample was sent to the Prohibition and Excise Department Laboratory, Kakinada for chemical analysis report and received on 13.08.2020 that “indian made liquor”. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed under Section 8 (b) of A.P. Prohibition

Act, 1995.

3.On receipt of charge sheet, this case was taken on file for the offence under Section 8(b) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995, against sole accused.

4.On appearance of the accused copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (herein after referred as 'Cr.P.C.', for the sake of brevity).

5.When examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., the accused denied the allegations leveled against him. After perusing the entire material on record and on hearing both sides, a charge was framed against the accused under

Section 8 (b) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 which was read over and explained 3 to him in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed the case to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, Pws.1 to 3 were examined, Exs.P1 to P6 and MO.1 were exhibited. The evidence of L.W.2-

Sudhiparapu Appa Rao, VRA, Chebrole, LW.4-Manelti Naga Raju, LW.5-S.

Naga Raju, P.C.1412, Chebrole Police Station and LW.6-D.Suresh Kumar,

P.C.2289 of Chebrole Police Station is given up by prosecution.

7.On closure of evidence let in by the prosecution, the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating material available against his, for which, their plea was total denial and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the counsel appearing for accused. Perused the material on record.

9.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that Pws 1 and 3 were examined by the prosecution and they corroborated with each other and proved the seizure of contraband from the possession of Accused. He further argued that the sample is tested and proved to be Illicitly Distilled Liquor. Hence, the prosecution is succeeded in showing that the accused is in possession of 3 liter of ID arrack beyond permit and proved its case against the Accused and prayed to convict the accused.

10.Learned counsel appearing for accused would contend that P.Ws.1 to 3 are

Government Officials and their evidence is not corroborated with the evidence of any independent witness, as such it is not sufficient to prove the case of the prosecution.

Learned counsel appearing for accused would contend that Excise Official should have made an attempt to secure the panchayatdars from the immediate vicinity of the scene of offence, but he did not do so and it throws a doubt about the version of the

P.W.3. Learned counsel appearing for accused would contend that except the self serving testimony of Government Officials, absolutely there is no evidence on record to prove the recovery of the property from the possession of accused and its disposal. He would further contended that in the absence of any corroborative evidence from independent source as to the recovery of ID liquor from the 4 possession of accused, or that the very same property was tested by the chemical analyst and the property was destroyed, it is unsafe to conclude that the accused committed the offence punishable under Sec. 8(b) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment)

Act, 1995.

11.Point for determination is:- “Whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 8

(b) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 beyond reasonable doubt?”

12.The case of the prosecution is that on 03.08.2020 at about 07-15 a.m., near

Chebrole railway gate, the accused was found in possession of 03 liters of ID arrack in a bag, on confession of accused ID arrack was seized. Prosecution in order to substantiate its case examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.4 and

M.O.1 to prove the guilt of accused.

13.PW.1, the then VRO, Chebrole deposed that on 03.08.2020 around 7-00 AM, on request of SI of Police, Chebrole along with his VRA and himself, proceeded to

Chebrole Railway Gate, where on seeing them, accused tried to escape from that place, on that the SI caught hold him and on enquiry, he disclosed his identity particulars and confessed that he is selling ID liquor in his village at higher price by purchasing the same from Nallajerla area to have wrongful gain. The police seized his bag and found three litres of ID liquor and PW.3/SI of Police seized the said ID liquor and drew sample and arrested the accused in their presence. Mediators report was drafted by LW.2 and he signed on it.

14.During his cross examination he stated that he did not obtain any written permission from his superior to act as mediator. He did not receive any written summons from the police to act as mediator. As he was suffering from fever, mediators report was drafted by his subordinate staff. He admitted that the boundaries of scene of offence are not mentioned in Ex.P1 mediators report. Further, there was a correction of date in Ex.P1 mediators report.

15.PW.2 deposed that in 2018 while he was on duty, he was informed by the 5 police that they have arrested the accused in respect of liquor offence. But, he does not know the details of the accused and other things. Police examined him and recorded his statement.

16.PW3, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Chebrole Police Station, deposed that on 03.08.2020 at about 07.15 AM, while conducting a raid along with his staff, they reached near Chebrole Railway gate. At that time location, they found accused was carrying a bag in suspicion manner and on seeing them, he tried to ran away. Then, he caught hols him and on verification, they found three ID arrack bottles in his possession. During preliminary enquiry, he admitted that he had purchased liquor at lower price from various places near wine shops in Pentapadu and was selling the same at higher price for profit. He revealed his name and address particulars. PW.3 seized all three bottles and drawn one bottle as a sample under mediators report in the presence of mediators. Then, he arrested the accused and brought to the police station.

b) A case was registered in Crime No.241/2020 under Section 8(b) of A.P.

Prohibition Act, 2020. FIR was submitted to concerned court and officials. Again

PW.3 visited the scene of offence and drew rough sketch, examined witnesses and recorded their statements. He also examined his staff who accompanied with him at the time of raid and he sent the accused for judicial remand.

c)On 05.08.2020 he sent the sample to the Chemical Examiner, Kakinada for analysis under a letter of advice (Ex.P5), and subsequently he received chemical examiner report and the report confirmed it as Indian made liquor (Ex.P6).

17.During his cross-examination, he admitted that the scene of offence is a busy locality, and a major panchayat area with VRO and VRA available, yet no written notice was issued to secure independent mediators. No photographs were taken at the scene, nor was any enquiry made to verify the accused’s purchase. He further admitted that the accused was neither seen selling nor transporting liquor in his direct presence.

18.The prosecution has relied solely on the oral testimony of Pws.1 and 3, with no independent witness examined. PW.3 admitted during cross-examination that the 6 place of offence is a busy locality with several residential houses nearby. PW.1 also admitted that he did not comply with the procedure mandated under Section 100 (4)

Cr.P.C. In a populated area, independent mediators could have easily been secured if genuine efforts were made. This raises doubt on his version, and in the absence of independent corroboration, it is not safe to place sole reliance on their evidence. At the outset, to substantiate the findings of this Court, it is pertinent to refer to the decisions of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh relevant to the present context.

Our Hon'ble High Court in Mudavath Mothia Vs.State Of A.P.

reported in 2002 1 ALT(Cri) 437= 2002 0 Supreme(AP) 232 at para No.5, it was held as follows:- “Once the excise officials are entrusted with the investigation of cognizable offence, they become police officials and the excise officials can never say that they are not the police officials. When once they become police officials, the confession recorded by them in the proceedings is inadmissible.” It is further held that: “When the independent witnesses are not examined by the prosecution, the prosecution theory of seizing the contraband from the custody of the accused has to be looked with suspicion. The non-examination of independent mediators is fatal to the prosecution version. The seizure proceedings drafted also cannot be considered in view of the bar under Secs. 25 and 27 of the Indian EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 and Sec. 161 of Cr. P. C.”

19.Further our Hon'ble High CourtS. BABU SAHEB ALIAS

BABUVS.STATE OF A.P reported in 2010 (1) ALT(Cri) 32 at para No.16, it was held as follows:- “When the police conducting the search in a colony or at a place wherein there is possibility of securing the presence of independent mediators, the excise officials or prohibition officers are bound to take the local respectable independent inhabitants. They must make sincere efforts to secure local respectable mediators. That is the mandate of Section 100 (4) of Cr. P. C. As referred to in the above provisions, the excise officials are also authorized to issue an order in writing asking them to act as mediators under subsection (4) of Section 100 Cr.P. C. The object of Section 100 Cr. P. C. is to ensure confidence in the neighbours and in the public in general that a genuine search has been made and incriminating material has been really found and not planted. The presence of independent respectable mediators at a search is always desirable and the presence of mediators of any other locality would not only weaken, but 7 sometimes destroy the prosecution case.”

20.In the case on hand, the prosecution failed to secure the independent mediators and failed to examine any independent witness rather than the interested witnesses to establish the guilt of the accused and failed to follow proper procedure prescribed Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C while seizing the contraband. Hence, viewed from any angle there is no credibility to the prosecution witnesses to establish the guilt of the accused and his evidence cannot be believed. Therefore, the material produced by the prosecution is not sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Thereby, the point is decided in favour of the defense and against to the prosecution.

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

Sec.8(b) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020, and accordingly, he is acquitted under Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C., The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months under Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C., M.O.1 sample bottle under

C.P.No.26/2026 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed directly to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade –III of this Court, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 13 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-K.Lalitha Devi,

I Additional Judl Magistrate of I Class Tadepalligudem.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:-

PW.1:M. Puri Jagannadha Rao.

PW.2: K. Satyanarayana.

PW.3:I. Veeraraju, SI of Police.

For Defence:- None

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution:-

Ex.P1: Mediators report 8

Ex.P2:Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2. Ex.P3:Original FIR. Ex.P4:Rough sketch. Ex.P5: Letter of Advice Ex.P6:Chemical Analysis report.

For Defence:- --Nil--

MATERIAL OBJECTS

M.O.1:Sample bottle.

Id/-K.L.D.,

I AJFCM,

TPG 9

FORM- A

CALENDERCASE No:993/2020

ComplainantThe State:Rep., by Sub Inspector of Police, Chebrole Police Station.

Represented byAssistant Public Prosecutor Accused Kodi Rama Krishna, S/o Lakshmipathi, 39 years, Coolie, R/o H.No.6-11, Indiramma Colony, Tallapuram Village, Unguturu Mandal.

Represented bySri D.D.Raju

FORM- B

Date of Offence03.08.2020 Date of First Information Report03.08.2020 Date of Charge sheet24.12.2020 Date of framing of charges08.07.2024 Date of commencement of evidence24.02.2026 Date of which judgment is reserved- Date of the Judgment13.05.2026 Date of Sentencing Order, If any-

Sd/-K.Lalitha Devi,

I Additional Judl Magistrate of I Class Tadepalligudem.

10

Accused Details

Rank ofName of DateofDate ofOffencWhetherSentencPeriodof the AccusedArrestReleasee s Acquittee Detention Accuse don Bailcharged or impose Undergone s withconvictedduring trial dforpurpose of Section 428 Cr.P.C 03.08.2020 10.08.2020 UnderAcquitted Acquittal-- Accused.KodiRamaSection Krishna,S/o 8 (b) of Lakshmipathi, A.P.Prohi 39 years, Coolie, R/o H.No.6-11, bition Indiramma Act, 1995 Colony, Tallapuram Village, Unguturu Mandal.

Sd/-K.Lalitha Devi,

I Additional Judl Magistrate of I Class Tadepalligudem.

FORM- C

A. Prosecution

RANKNAMENATURE OF EVIDENCE

PW1M. Puri Jagannadha Rao.VRO

PW2 K. Satyanarayana.Govt. Employee

PW3I. Veeraraju, SI of Police.SI of Police.

B. Defence Witnesses,if any:

RANKNAMENATURE OF EVIDENCE

------

C. CourtWitnesses,ifany:

RANKNAMENATURE OF EVIDENCE

---- Explanation for delay:Nil

Sd/-K.Lalitha Devi,

I Additional Judl Magistrate of I Class Tadepalligudem.

Copy submitted to the Hon'ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, West Godavari District.

1

APWG140001232026

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)-

CUM- I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::

TADEPALLIGUDEM.

PRESENT: Smt. K. Lalitha Devi,

I Addl Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-I Addl Judl Magistrate of I Class,

TADEPALLIGUDEM.

Friday, this the 15th day of May, 2026

CALENDER CASE No. 44/2026

Between:

The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ganapavaram Police station. –-Complainant

And

1. Pemmadi Asirvadam, S/o.Mulagalayya, aged 36 years, Savithri nagar, Yanam. Now at Siva Krishna Colony, Outskirts of Drivers colony, Thurangi Village, Kakinada Rural.

2. Kala Krushna Arjuna @ Krishnarjun @ Arjun, S/o.Chinna Apparao, aged 42 years, D.no.2-141, Z Bhavaram village, Karapa Mandal, Kakinada District. --- Accused

This case has come up on 13.05.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of the Sri. A. Ravi Prasad, Assistant Public Prosecutor for prosecution and learned Legal Aid counsel for the 1st accused, Sri N.Swamy and Sri P.Bhupal, advocates for the 2nd accused and the matter having stood for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Ganapavaram P.S filed charge sheet against

A1 and A2 for the offences under Sections 379 or 411 of IPC in Cr.No.101/2024 of Ganapavaram Rural Police Station.

2

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

a) On 24.05.2024 at 5.00 AM, L.W.1 B.Srinu @ Srinivasa Rao and his family members woke up and found that his auto bearing No.AP 39 TB 009 was missing. Some unknown culprits committed theft of their auto and escaped with booty along with stolen property worth of Rs.30,000/- and after searching the surrounding places and villages, on 03.06.2024 at 8.00 AM, he gave report to police. Basing on his report, L.W.8-Sub Inspector of police, Ganapavaram P.S registered the case in Cr.101/2024 of Ganapavaram P.S and investigated the case. During investigation, police visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch, recorded the statements of witnesses and on receipt of credible information police apprehended the accused and recorded their detailed confession statements, got drafted the mediators report, seized the stolen properties i.e., motorcycles and auto bearing No. AP 39 TB 0091 worth of

Rs.30,000/- (Chasses No. MA1LE2FXSK3G34417 and Engine No.RJ9F2078732) under the cover of mediators report and arrested the accused in Cr.136/2025 of

Pithapuram town P.S. On execution of PT warrant, police produced A1 before the court on 19.12.2025. The Investigating officer has served Notice against A2 on 20.01.2026.

3.Upon perusal of the charge sheet material and other accompanying documents, this Court took cognizance of the offences under Section 379 or 411

IPC against accused 1 and 2.

4.After appearance of accused, copies of the documents were furnished to them under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Accused were examined under Section 239

Cr.P.C. Charges under Sections 379 or 411 IPC were framed. The charges were read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The case was therefore posted for trial.

5.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and marked Exs.P1 to P5. MO.1 was marked.

6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused 1 and 2 were examined 3 under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The substance of incriminating evidence is read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they denied as false and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard the learned APP and the learned legal aid counsel and so also the learned counsel for the 2nd accused. Perused the record.

8. Now the point for consideration is “Whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving the guilt of the accused 1 and 2 for the offences under Sections 379 or 411 IPC beyond reasonable doubt”?

POINT:

9.To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 3, got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 and M.O.1. PW.1 P.W.1/B.Srinivasa Rao deposed that on 24.05.2024 at about 5.00 AM he woke up and found missing of his auto bearing No.AP 39 TB 0091 which was parked in front of his mother-in-law’s house situated at Chilakampadu village, then he searched in and around the vicinity for about a week and finally, he gave Ex.P1 report to the police on 03.06.2024 and later the police informed him that they recovered the property under M.O.1 - Auto bearing No.AP 39 TB 0091. In his cross-examination, he stated that he did not hand over any purchase bills relating to his auto to the police and that he did not know the exact time of commission of theft. He admitted that he is not an eye-witness to the offence.

10.P.W.2/P.Suribabu-VRO of Pithapuram deposed that on 07.11.2025 at about 5.00 PM at the request of SHO, Pithapuram, he along with L.W.7

K.V.V.Satyanarayana as mediators went to Thimmapuram village where police conducted vehicle checking, police caught hold accused persons coming in an auto, questioned them about the vehicle, when they tried to skulk away, the police caught hold them and on their enquiry, the accused confessed about the commission of theft of motor cycles at various places including present crime under Ex.P2/Mediators report. Basing on the said confession, police seized the 4 property i.e., M.O.1 under the cover of mediators report/Ex.P3 mediators report dt.7.11.2025 at 3.30 PM from the scrap iron shop of A2/Kalla Krishnarjuna at Z

Bhavaram VIllage. He identified A1. In the cross-examination by the counsel for 1st accused, he stated that police issued written summons to him to act as mediators, but he did not file the same before the court. He stated that he obtained oral permission from MRO. . During the cross-examination by the counsel for the 2nd accused, he stated that he did not mention the chassis number or engine number relating to crime vehicles in mediators report.

11.P.W.3/A.Mani Kumar – S.I of police deposed that on 03.06.2024 at 8.00

AM, basing on report given by P.W.1, L.W.8/SI of police registered a case in

Cr.101/2024 of Ganapavaram P.S for the offence under section 324 of IPC in

Ex.P4 FIR and that during investigation, he visited the scene of offence at

Chilakampadu village, observed the scene of offence and drew Ex.P5 rough sketch and that later he received CD file. During investigation the stolen property i.e., auto bearing No.AP 39 TB 0091 was recovered on 07.11.2025 from the possession of the accused and that on filing PT warrant against A1, he was produced before the court and served Sec.41-A Cr.P.C notice to A2 and caused production before court. In the cross-examination of counsel for the 1st accused, he admitted that he filed charge sheet only in this case. He did not reexamine the witnesses. He stated that in general they were questioned by superior officer as to pending offences

12.On an overall appreciation of the evidence, it is evident that PW.1, being the victim, has not stated anything regarding the identity or description of the offender who committed the theft of his motorcycle (MO.1). Further, he is not an eyewitness to the occurrence. Therefore, there is no direct evidence to connect the accused with the commission of theft. Hence, it cannot be conclusively held that the accused committed the theft of MO.1, and accordingly, the offence under

Section 379 of IPC is not proved.

13.The prosecution has clearly established the identity of the stolen property.

5

PW.1 categorically identified MO.1 as his auto bearing No. AP 39 TB 0091 There is no dispute or challenge regarding the identity of the said vehicle. The same was recovered during the course of investigation and duly linked to the present case. Therefore, the identity of the case property stands proved beyond reasonable doubt.

14.Now, it has to be examined whether the alternative charge under section 411 of IPC is made out against the accused.

15.PW.2 is the mediator in whose presence A1 and A2 were apprehended and 11 motorcycles and one auto under MO.1, were recovered. PW.3, the

Investigating Officer, has corroborated the evidence of PW.2 in all material particulars relating to the apprehension of the accused and recovery of the stolen property. Nothing substantial has been elicited in their cross-examination to discredit their testimony. The contention of the defence that PW.2 is a stock witness does not merit acceptance. Except making a bald suggestion, no material has been placed on record to substantiate the same. On the other hand, the evidence of PW.2 is consistent, cogent, and inspires confidence. His testimony is duly corroborated by the evidence of PW.3.

16.The recovery of MO.1 and other vehicles was effected pursuant to the disclosure made by A1 and A2 while in police custody. The portion of the confession leading to the discovery of the stolen property is admissible under

Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The fact that the vehicles were recovered from a place identified by the accused, i.e., market yard, Ganapavaram, which is not an obvious or easily accessible place for such storage, lends strong corroboration to the prosecution case. Hence, the recovery cannot be doubted.

17.It is also pertinent to note that apart from the present case property, several other stolen vehicles pertaining to different police stations were also recovered at the instance of A1 and A2. This circumstance further strengthens the case of the prosecution and indicates a pattern of conduct on the part of the accused.

18.It is an admitted fact that A1 and A2 were found in possession of multiple 6 stolen motorcycles, including MO.1. The accused have not offered any explanation as to how they came into possession of the said vehicles. In such circumstances, a presumption under Illustration (a) to Section 114 of the Indian

Evidence Act can safely be drawn that the accused were in possession of stolen property knowing it to be stolen. This presumption squarely attracts the offence under Section 317(2) of BNS.

19.Though there appears to be a minor inconsistency in the evidence regarding whether the scene of offence is a busy locality or not, such discrepancy is trivial in nature and does not go to the root of the prosecution case. It is well settled that minor contradictions which do not affect the core of the case can be safely ignored.

20.Further, there is no material on record to show that the police or prosecution witnesses had any motive to falsely implicate the accused in this case. In the absence of any such circumstances, the defence plea of false implication cannot be accepted.

21.Therefore, on a careful evaluation of the entire evidence on record, this

Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence under Section 379 of IPC against A1 and A2. However, the prosecution has successfully established that A1 and A2 were found in possession of stolen property and failed to account for the same. Accordingly, the offence under

Section 411 of IPC is proved against A1 and A2 beyond reasonable doubt.

22.IN THE RESULT, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the charge under

Section 379 IPC and accordingly they are acquitted under Section 248(1) CRPC.

However, A1 and A2 are found guilty for the charge under Section 411 IPC and accordingly they are convicted under Section 248(2) CRPC. The Bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per Section 437-A IPC.

The seized property i.e. MO.1 – Auto bearing No. AP 39 TB 0091 which was already given to PW 1 vide orders in Crl.MP. 444/2026 dt: 28-04-2026 shall be made absolute after expiry of appeal time.

Partly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer-Gr.I and partly typed by 7 me on my laptop, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 15 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-K.Lalitha Devi,

I Addl Civil Judge (Junior Division) cum I Addl Judl Magistrate of I Class, Tadepalligudem.

Hearing on question of Sentence

1.On hearing the question of sentence, both the accused stated that they are having elderly parents and also wife and minor children. They are the sole bread winners of their families. Hence prayed to take lenient view.

2.In view of the nature of offence, where the accused has committed thefts of several vehicles and further they are seems to be habitual offenders as such the provisions of PO Act cannot be applied to the accused in the given circumstances and no lenient view can be taken.

3. In the result accused 1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.379 of IPC and hence they are acquitted

U/s. U/s.248 (1) Cr.P.C. for the said charge. But accused 1 and 2 are found guilty for the offence under section 411 I PC and they are convicted under section 248(2) of CR.P.C. for the said offence. The accused 1 and 2 are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- (Rupees

Fiv e Thousand only) each, in default of fine amount, simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 411 IPC.

The seized property i.e. MO.1 – Auto bearing No. AP 39 TB 0091 which was already given to PW 1 vide orders in Crl.MP. 444/2026 dt: 28-04-2026 shall be made absolute after expiry of appeal time.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW1:B.Srinivasa Rao-NONE- PW2:P.Suribabu PW3:A.Mani Kumar (IO) 8

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1:Report given by PW.1 to police. Ex.P2:The marked portion in mediators report dt.07.11.25 at 11.AM Ex.P3 :The marked portion in mediators report dt.07.11.25 at 3.30 AM Ex.P4:Original FIR Ex.P5:Rough sketch

FOR DEFENCE:-- NIL --

Id/-K.L.D., IACJ(JD)-cum-IAJFCM,TPG.

9

CALE NDAR & JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)-

CUM-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: TADEPALLIGUDEM.

CALENDER CASE No.44/2026

1. Date of offence:24.05.2024

2. Date of complaint or report:03.06.2024

3. Date of apprehension of Accused :19.12.2025-A1, 20.01.26-A2

4. Date of release on bail of Accused :As is in judicial custody.

5. Date of commencement of trial:28.04.2026

6. Date of close of trial:12.05.2026

7. Date of sentence or Order:15.05.2026

8. Explanation of delay if any:Due to non-production of witnesses by the prosecution

COMPLAINANT:

State: Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police,Ganapavaram Police Station

ACCUSED:

1. Pemmadi Asirvadam, S/o.Mulagalayya, aged 36 years, Savithri nagar, Yanam. Now at Siva Krishna Colony, Outskirts of Drivers colony, Thurangi Village, Kakinada Rural.

2. Kala Krushna Arjuna @ Krishnarjun @ Arjun, S/o.Chinna Apparao, aged 42 years, D.no.2-141, Z Bhavaram village, Karapa Mandal, Kakinada District.

Cr.No.: Cr.No.101/2024

Section of Law : Under Section 379 or 411 IPC

Plea of the A1 & A2: Pleaded not guilty

Finding of Court: Found guilty for the offence under Section 411 IPC

Sentence/Order: In the result accused 1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.379 of IPC and hence they are acquitted U/s. U/s.248 (1) Cr.P.C. for the said charge. But accused 1 and 2 are found guilty for the offence under section 411 IPC and they are convicted under section 248(2) of CR.P.C. for the said offence. The 10 accused 1 and 2 are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- (Rupees

Fiv e Thousand only) each, in default of fine amount, simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 411 IPC.

The seized property i.e. MO.1 – Auto bearing No. AP 39 TB 0091 which was already given to PW 1 vide orders in Crl.MP. 444/2026 dt: 28-04-2026 shall be made absolute after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/-K.Lalitha Devi,

Seal I Addl Civil Judge (Junior Division) cum I Addl Judl Magistrate of I Class, Tadepalligudem.

Copy submitted to the Hon'ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, West Godavari District.

1

APWG140005912019

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)-

CUM-I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::

TADEPALLIGUDEM.

PRESENT: Smt. K. Lalitha Devi,

I Addl Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-I Addl Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

TADEPALLIGUDEM.

Thursday, this the 14th day of May, 2026.

CALENDAR CASE No.279/2019

Between:

The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Nallajerla Police Station. ---Complainant

And

Polipalli Ramachandra Rao, S/o Satyam, Age 40 years, D.NO.49-1-85, ESI Bus Stop, Gunadala, Vijayawada, Driver of Lorry bearing No.AP 24 W 7488.---Accused

This case has come up before me on 12.05.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Prosecution and of Sri. K.V.V.

Satyanarayana, Advocates for Accused; and upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following.

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Nallajerla Police Station filed charge sheet against the sole accused in Crime No.245/2018 for the offence punishable under

Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as I.P.C) of Nallajerla

Police Station.

2

2.The prosecution’s case in brief, is as, follows:

a) Deceased No.1/Kankipati Suri Babu is resident of Vanukuru Village of

Penamaluru Mandal. The deceased no.2/Kankipati Shiva Sankar is the son of deceased no.1. The 1st decesed was doing betel leaves business and 2nd deceased used to work in Priya Pickles in Vijayawada and he is unmarried. The deceased 1 and 2 decided to go to Krishnavaram Village, where the son-in-law of 1st deceased is residing to attend the occasion of Eurmudi from their village on 27.11.2018 at about 3-00 P.M. on motorcycle bearing No.AP 16 CE 9230. The 2nd deceased was the driver and the 1st deceased was the pillion rider. When they reached near the scene of offenc, the accused lorry bearing No.AP 24 W 7488 drove in rash and negligent manner coming in the same direction i.e. from

Bhimadole side to Nallajerla side and dashed the motorcycle of deceased on its rear side. As a result, both deceased had fallen down on the road and immeditely, the lorry of the accused had ran over them. Then, the deceased had trapped under the wheels of the crime vehicle and died due to severe injuries.

b)On 27.11.2018 at 10-00 P.M., PW.1 came to Nallajerla Police Station and presented a report. Based on the strength of report of PW.1, PW.8/SI of Police,

Nallajerla Police Station registered a case in Cr.No.245/2018 under Section 304-A

IPC and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, he examined witnesses and recorded their statements. He visited the scene of offence, observed and drafted the scene observation report and took photographs of the scene and conducted inquest over the dead bodies of both deceased in the presence of mediators at Government Hospital Mortuary, Tadepalligudem on 28.11.2018 and forwarded the dead bodies to the Medical Officer for conducting autopsy.

c)PW.6, who is cousin of accused driver has produced the accused before

PW.8. PW.8 served notice under Sec. 41-A Cr.P.C. to the accused. Upon completion of investigation, PW.8 filed charge sheet for the offence under Section 304-A IPC against the accused. Hence, the charge.

3

3.Based on the material on record, this court took cognizance for the offence under section 304-A of IPC, against sole accused.

4.After appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to him under section 207 Criminal Procedure Code. The accused was examined under

Section 251 Criminal Procedure Code, for the offence under section 304-A IPC, for which accused denied as false, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In the course of trial, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to P.W.8 and got marked

Exs.P.1 to P.11. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of remaining witnesses. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of accused.

6.After closing the prosecution evidence, accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. by granting an opportunity to offer his explanation on the incriminating material evidence available against him, for which he denied as false and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard the learned A.P.P and learned defence counsel. Perused record.

8.Point for Determination:

“Whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 304-A IPC beyond reasonable doubt”?

POINT:

9.To prove its case, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 8. PW.1 deposed that on 27.11.2018 at about 7-15 p.m. he received information as to the occurrence of accident near Nimmakayala Yard, Highway, Nallajerla. Immediately, he proceeded to the scene and found two male dead bodies under the lorry tyre.

Then he gave complaint to Nallajerla P.S. the said crime lorry registration bearing

No.AP 24 W 7488. He came to know the deceased persons. On 28.11.2018 at 6- 30 a.m. on the request of SI of Police, he visited the scene of offence and observed the same, wherein he found the blood stains with lorry tyre marks and the crime lorry. The SI of Police took the photographs of the scene of offence and 4 drew rough sketch of the scene of offence. One VRA by name Sk.Sardar/LW.11 drafted the scene observation report on which he signed as one of the witness.

10.He further deposed that on 28.11.2018 at 8-00 a.m. to 12-00 noon, police conducted inquest over the dead bodies of deceased Nos. 1 and 2 at Area

Hospital, Tadepalligudem in his presence. He drafted the inquest reports and signed as witness. On physical examination of the injuries on the dead bodies, it was opined that both deceased died due to the injuries sustained in the lorry accident. During his cross-examination, it was elicited that he was not an eye witness to the accident. He admitted that e acted as mediator to Nallajerla Police in hundred around cases.

11.PW.2 deposed that he used to work in Dasari Filling Station, Nallajerla. In the year 2018 at around 7-00 p.m. when two persons coming on motorcycle, one lorry which was coming in a same direction from Bhimadole to Nallajerla, hit the motorcycle on its back side due to which the deceased persons fell under the tyres of lorry and died on the spot. The crime lorry bearing No.AP 24 W 7488.

then he saw the accused got down from the lorry and flee away from the spot.

Then police came to the spot and shifted the dead bodies. He identified the driver of crime vehicle and accused.

12.PW.3 deposed that he is working as Coolie in Lemon yard. Few year ago, an accident took place near their godown where two persons died on the spot and he does not know the details of crime vehicle and its driver and the manner in which the accident was occurred. During his cross-examination, it was elicited that he does not have prior acquaintance wit the accused. However, he could identify the accused after seven years though no test identification parade was conducted by the police. It was further elicited that he does not know whether the crime vehicle is loaded or unloaded at the time of accident.

13.PW.4 deposed that he does not know anything about this case. Police never examined him.

14.PW.5 deposed that the deceased 1 and 2 are her husband and son. At about seven years ago, he husband and he son were going on motorcycle from 5

Vijayawada to Annavaram and they reached near lemon market yard, Nallajerla, one lorry which was coming on their behind and hit the motorcycle of the deceased due to which they fell on the road and the said lorry ran over the bodies of deceased nos. 1 and 2 due to which they died on the spot. He further deposed that he does not know the details of the crime vehicle and its driver.

15.PW.6 deposed that he does not know anything about the case facts. He was not examined by the police.

16.PW.7, the then Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Tadepalligudem deposed that on 28.11.2018 at 10-30 A.M. on the requisition of SI of Police,

Nallajerla P.S., he conducted the postmortem examination of deceased one

Kankipati Suribabu and found injuries. Approximate time of death between 18 to 36 hours prior to postmortem examination. He found that the cause of death was due to hemorrhage shock due to intra cranial bleed due to injury to vital brain and other visceral organs. Accordingly, he issued postmortem report of deceased no.1.

17.On 28.11.2018 at 01-00 P.M. on the requisition of SI of Police, Nallajerla

P.S., he conducted the postmortem examination of deceased one Kankipati

Suribabu and found injuries. Approximate time of death between 18 to 36 hours prior to postmortem examination. He found that the cause of death was due to hemorrhage shock due to intra cranial bleed due to injury to vital brain and other visceral organs. Accordingly, he issued postmortem report of deceased no.2.

18.PW.8, the then SI of Police, Nallajerla P.S. deposed that on 27.11.2018 at 10-00 p.m. basing on complaint given by PW.1, he registered a case in

Cr.No.245/2019 for the offence U/Sec. 304-A of IPC and issued FIR copies to concerned officials. On the same day, he proceeded to the scene of offence at

Lemon market yard, Nallajerla along with PW.1 and shifted the dead bodies of deceased 1 and 2 to Area Hospital, Tadepalligudem. He examined PW.1 at scene of offence. On 28.11.2018, he again proceeded to the scene of offence along with

PW.1 and LW.10-Shaik Shattar, where he observed the scene, drafted scene observation report and drew rough sketch and took photographs. He also 6 examined Pws. 2 to 4 at scene and proceeded to Area Hospital, Tadepalligudem and examined witnesses and recorded their statements. On the same day, he conducted inquest over the dead bodies of deceased 1 and 2 in the presence of inquestdhars and mediators. On his requisition, Medical Officer conducted autopsy and MVI inspected the crime vehicle. On 30.11.2018, he examined Pw.6, who is owner of crime vehicle. He served Sec. 41-A Cr.P.C. notice to the accused.

19. Upon careful scrutiny of the entire evidence on record, it is evident that, except for the sole testimony of PW2, there is no eyewitness to the alleged incident. Though PWs 3 to 5 were projected as eyewitnesses, they did not support the case of the prosecution and were declared hostile. However, from the overall oral and documentary evidence available on record, it stands established that the deceased died in a road traffic accident that occurred on 27-11-2018.

20.A careful analysis of the testimony of PW2 reveals that, although he claimed to have witnessed the accident while working at the filling station, a person engaged in work would not ordinarily be in a position to continuously observe surrounding events. At best, he might have witnessed the aftermath of the accident after it had already occurred. Therefore, he cannot conclusively depose as to the manner in which the accident occurred or as to whose fault led to the accident.

21.Thus, his evidence is relevant only to a limited extent, namely, with regard to the identification of the accused and the offending lorry, but not for establishing rashness or negligence on the part of the accused. Moreover, the identification of the accused by PW2 was made after a lapse of seven years. Admittedly, PW2 had no prior acquaintance with the accused, and no Test Identification Parade was conducted during the course of investigation. Ordinarily, no person would be expected to remember the features of another person whom he had merely seen briefly while allegedly fleeing from the scene after the accident. Therefore, the identification of the accused by PW2 does not inspire confidence and cannot be safely relied upon.

7

22.On an overall appreciation of the evidence on record, it is undisputed that the deceased died in the accident that occurred in the year 2018. However, there is no cogent and convincing material on record to establish that the accused was driving the offending lorry bearing No. AP 24 W 7488 or that the accident occurred due to any rash or negligent act attributable to him, thereby causing the death of the deceased.

23. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that there is no reliable and cogent evidence on record to establish either that the accused was driving the offending vehicle at the relevant point of time or that the accident occurred due to any rash or negligent act on his part. Consequently, it cannot be held that the death of the deceased was the direct result of any act attributable to the accused.

24.IN THE RESULT, the sole Accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 304-A of IPC and thereby he is acquitted under section 255 (1) Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per 437 (A) of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and pro- nounced by me in open Court this the 14 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-K. Lalitha Devi,

I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

TADEPALLIGUDEM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW.1:Rudrapaka Lakshmana Murthy.- None - PW.2:G. Mohana Venkata Atchutha Ramaiah. PW.3:N. Durga Rao. PW.4:P. Chinnabbai. PW.5:K. Satyavathi. PW.6:Uppalapati Raju. PW.7:Dr.T. Rajesh Kumar.

8

PW.8:V. Chandra Sekhar.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1:Complaint given to police. Ex.P2: Scene observation report. Ex.P3:Inquest report of deceased Nos. 1 and 2. Ex.P4:Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.3. Ex.P5:Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.4. Ex.P6:Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.6. Ex.P7:Postmortem report of deceased No.1. Ex.P8:Postmortem report of deceased No.2. Ex.P9:Original FIR. Ex.P10:Rough sketch. Ex.P11:Motor Vehicle Inspector report.

FOR DEFENCE:- Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-- NIL --

Id/-K.L.D.,

I AJFCM,

TPG 9

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)-CUM-

I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::

TADEPALLIGUDEM.

CALENDER CASE No.279/2019

1. Date of offence:27.11.2018

2. Date of complaint or report:27.11.2018

3. Date of apprehension of Accused :Section 41-A(1) Cr.P.C. notice served

4. Date of release on bail of Accused :--

5. Date of commencement of trial:09.01.2026

6. Date of close of trial:07.05.2026

7. Date of sentence or Order:14.05.2026

8. Explanation of delay if any:Due to non-production of witnesses by the prosecution COMPLAINANT:

The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Nallajerla Police Station.

ACCUSED:

Polipalli Ramachandra Rao, S/o Satyam, Age 40 years, D.NO.49-1-85, ESI Bus Stop, Gunadala, Vijayawada, Driver of Lorry bearing No.AP 24 W 7488.

Cr.No.:Cr.No.245/2018 Section of Law :Under Section 304-A IPC Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty Finding of Court:Found not guilty

Sentence/Order: IN THE RESULT, the sole Accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 304-A of IPC and thereby he is acquitted under section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per 437 (A) of Cr.P.C.

Sd/-K. Lalitha Devi,

I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

TADEPALLIGUDEM.

Copy submitted to the Hon'ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, West Godavari District.

-- 1--

APWG140010272019

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)-

CUM-I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::

TADEPALLIGUDEM.

PRESENT: Smt. K. Lalitha Devi,

I Addl Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-I Addl Judl Magistrate of I Class,

TADEPALLIGUDEM.

Friday, this the 15th day of May, 2026

CALENDER CASE No. 505/2019

Between:

The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Tadepalligudem Rural Police station. –-Complainant

And

1. Rajulapati Durga Rao, S/o Veeraju, 27 years, Mason Work, R/o Pedatadepalli Village, B.C.Colony, Tadepalligudem Mandal.

2. Rajulapati Venkata Lakshmi, W/o Veeraju, 48 years, Working in NIT Collega, R/o Pedatadepalli Village, Tadepalligudem Mandal. --- Accused

This case has come on 12.05.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of the Sri. A. Ravi Prasad, Assistant Public Prosecutor for prosecution and Sri V. Leela Krishna, Learned Counsel for the accused and the matter having stood for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Tadepalligudem Rural P.S filed charge sheet against A1 and A2 for the offences under Section 498-A, 326, 323 of IPC in

Cr.No.98/2019 of Tadepalligudem Rural Police Station.

-- 2--

2.Case of the prosecution in brief is:

(a) PW1/Rajulapati Naga Devi, the de facto complainant, was studying

Intermediate at the relevant time. A1 allegedly followed her and expressed his love towards her, stating that he would marry her. However, PW1 initially refused his proposal on the ground that they belonged to different castes and that her mother was also not agreeable to the marriage. Subsequently, on 05.11.2012, A1 took PW1 to Dwaraka Tirumala, where they exchanged garlands in a temple.

Thereafter, on 26.11.2012, their marriage was registered at the Sub-Registrar

Office, Tadepalligudem. After marriage, PW1 and A1 resided along with PW2, who is the mother of PW1. A1 was working as a mason. It is alleged that, from the last few years, A1 became addicted to vices and started physically assaulting and abusing PW1 and harassing her both mentally and physically at the instigation of

A2, on the ground that she had not brought dowry. It is further alleged that A1 demanded PW1 to get her mother’s house registered in her name and also demanded purchase of a motorcycle, pursuant to which PW2 paid an amount of

Rs.40,000/- to A1. Thereafter, PW1 was blessed with two daughters and one son.

However, A1 allegedly did not change his behaviour.

(b) While matters stood thus, on 10.05.2019 at about 9:00 P.M., A1 allegedly came to the house in a drunken condition, abused PW1 and her mother/PW2 in filthy language. When PW1 questioned the conduct of A1, he allegedly picked up a plastic chair and attempted to beat PW1. At that time, PW2 intervened to rescue

PW1, and in the process, the chair hit the fingers of the right hand of PW2, causing bleeding injuries and exposing the finger bones. On hearing their cries, neighbours gathered at the spot and admonished A1. It is further alleged that A2, the mother-in-law of PW1, also came there, supported A1, harassed PW1 on the ground that she had not brought dowry, abused her and beat her with hands.

Thereafter, PW2 was shifted to Government Hospital, Tadepalligudem, and admitted for treatment.

(c) On 11.05.2019 at about 1:30 P.M., PW1 approached Tadepalligudem Rural

Police Station and presented a written report before LW8/Sub-Inspector of Police, -- 3--

Tadepalligudem Rural Police Station. Based on the said report, a case in Crime

No.98 of 2019 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 324 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC, and investigation was taken up. LW8 visited the Government Hospital, Tadepalligudem, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. On the same day, he also visited the scene of offence situated at Pedatadepalli Village, inspected the scene, prepared a rough sketch, secured mediators and recorded their statements.

(d) On 20.06.2019 at about 10:00 A.M., the accused allegedly appeared before

LW8/Sub-Inspector of Police and surrendered before him. Thereupon, notices under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. were issued to them and they were released. LW7/Dr.

V. Sujatha, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Area Hospital, Tadepalligudem, who treated

PW2, issued a wound certificate opining that the injuries sustained by PW2 were grievous in nature. Based on the said medical opinion, LW8 altered the section of law from Section 324 IPC to Section 326 IPC and filed an alteration memo before the Court. After completion of investigation, LW8 filed the charge sheet against A1 and A2 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 326 and 323 read with

Section 34 IPC. Hence, the charge.

3.On 31.07.2019 cognizance was taken under Section 498-A IPC against A1 and A2 and Section 326, 323 IPC against A1.

4.After appearance of A1 and A2, copies were furnished to them under

Section 207 Cr.P.C. and they were examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C. for the substance of accusation made in the charge sheet for which accused denied as false. Charge under Sections 498-A, 326, 323 has framed against accused, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, for trial.

5. In the course of trial, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and got marked

Exs.P.1 to P.8. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of

Lws.5 to 7 –A.Satyanarayana, K.Ramu and Dr.Sujatha-CAS.

6.After closing the prosecution evidence, accused 1 and 2 were examined -- 4-- under section 313 Cr.P.C. by granting an opportunity to offer their explanation on the incriminating material evidence available against them, for which they denied as false and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard the learned A.P.P and the learned counsel for the accused 1 and 2.

Perused record.

8.Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the prosecution was able to bring home the guilt of accused for the offences under Sections 498-A, 326 and 323 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

To bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under

Section 498-A IPC, the prosecution is required to establish that PW1/victim was subjected to physical or mental cruelty by A1 and A2. Further, in order to prove the offence under Section 326 IPC, the prosecution must establish that A1 voluntarily caused grievous hurt to PW2 by using a dangerous weapon or means.

9.In order to substantiate its case, though the prosecution cited as many as eight witnesses, it examined only PWs.1 to 5. However, all the material witnesses, namely PWs.1 to 4, turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution.

10.PW1, who is the wife of A1 and daughter-in-law of A2, deposed that her marriage with A1 was performed in the year 2011 and that they were blessed with three children. She further stated that certain petty disputes arose between them, which were subsequently placed before the elders and compromised. According to her, the elders obtained her signatures on certain papers, but she was unaware of the contents thereof. Since PW1 did not support the prosecution case, she was treated as hostile and was cross-examined by the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor after obtaining permission of the Court. However, nothing useful could be elicited in her cross-examination to support the prosecution version.

-- 5--

11.PW2, who is alleged to be the injured witness and mother of PW1, also did not support the case of the prosecution. She too was declared hostile and subjected to cross-examination by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

However, her evidence also did not advance the case of the prosecution in any manner.

12.Likewise, the remaining witnesses examined by the prosecution also failed to support its case and were treated as hostile. Thus, the only evidence remaining on record is that of the Investigating Officer, who merely spoke about the steps taken during the course of investigation. His evidence is purely formal in nature and does not establish either the alleged harassment meted out to PW1 or the causing of grievous injuries to PW2 by A1.

13.It is an undisputed fact that A1 is the husband of PW1 and A2 is her mother- in-law. Though the relationship between the parties stands established, the prosecution has failed to prove that PW1 was subjected to cruelty or harassment at the hands of A1 and A2 so as to attract the ingredients of Section 498-A IPC.

Equally, the prosecution failed to prove that PW2 sustained grievous injuries at the hands of A1 by use of any dangerous weapon or means so as to constitute an offence under Section 326 IPC.

14.In view of the hostile testimony of the material witnesses and in the absence of any cogent, convincing and corroborative evidence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the guilt of A1 and A2 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 326 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the accused.

15.In the result, the accused i.e A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the charge under Section 498-A, 326, 323 IPC and accordingly they are acquitted under

Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The Bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Partly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer-Gr.I and partly typed by me -- 6-- on my laptop, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 15 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-K. Lalitha Devi,

I Addl Civil Judge (Junior Division) cum I Addl Judl Magistrate of I Class, Tadepalligudem.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

P.W.1: R.Naga- None - P.W.2: B.Koteswara Rao P.W.3: A.Varalakshmi P.W.4: G.Mangatayaru P.W.5: B.Srinivas

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1: Signature of P.W.1 on the complaint Ex.P2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement f P.w.1 Ex.P3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement f P.w.2 Ex.P4: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement f P.w.3 Ex.P5: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement f P.w.4 Ex.P6: FIR Ex.P7: Rough sketch Ex.P8: Wound certificate

F OR DEFENCE : -- NIL --

Id/-K.L.D., IACJ(JD) cum IAJFCM, TPG.

-- 7--

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)-

CUM-I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::

TADEPALLIGUDEM.

CALENDER CASE No.505/2019

1. Date of offence:Prior to 10.05.2019

2. Date of complaint or report:10.05.2019

3. Date of apprehension of Accused :Section 41-A Cr.P.C. notice served

4. Date of release on bail of Accused :--

5. Date of commencement of trial:04.05.2026

6. Date of close of trial:08.05.2026

7. Date of sentence or Order:15.05.2026

8. Explanation of delay if any:Due to non-production of witnesses by the prosecution

COMPLAINANT:

State: Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Tadepalligudem Rural Police Station.

ACCUSED:

1. Rajulapati Durga Rao, S/o Veeraju, 27 years, Mason Work, R/o Pedatadepalli Village, B.C.Colony, Tadepalligudem Mandal.

2. Rajulapati Venkata Lakshmi, W/o Veeraju, 48 years, Working in NIT Collega, R/o Pedatadepalli Village, Tadepalligudem Mandal.

Cr.No.: Cr.No.98/2019 Section of Law : Under Section 498-A, 326, 323 IPC Plea of the Accused: Pleaded not guilty Finding of Court: Found not guilty

Sentence/Order: IN THE RESULT, the accused i.e A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the charge under Section 498-A, 326, 323 IPC and accordingly they are acquitted under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The Bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per Section 437 of Cr.P.C.

Sd/-K. Lalitha Devi,

Seal I Addl Civil Judge (Junior Division) cum I Addl Judl Magistrate of I Class, Tadepalligudem. Copy submitted to the Hon'ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, West Godavari District.