Ms. K. Nirosha

CC No. 290 of 2017 Page 1 of 12

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS (EXCISE), MANCHERIAL

PRESENT: Ms. K. NIROSHA II Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mancherial FAC: Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Excise), Mancherial

Thursday, this the 04th day of July, 2024

CC.No. 290 of 2017

Between:

The State of Telangana through Sub Inspector of Police, PS Srirampur, Mancherial. …Complainant //And//

Kommu Ravi S/o. Late Ellaiah, Age: 30 years, Occ: Coal Filler in KTK-1 Mine, R/o. Ramavaram, Punjabigadda, Kothagudem, Khammam District.

…Accused person

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 06.06.2024 in the presence of Learned APP for the State and Sri. Akula Ravinder, learned Counsel for Accused and having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Srirampur, Mancherial has filed charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC, 3 & 4 Dowry Prohibition Act.

2.Brief facts of the prosecution version is that on 17.03.2011 at 1830 hours, LW-1/Kommu Swapna lodged a petition written in Telugu stating that her marriage was held with Ravi S/o. Late Ellaiah on 09.03.2008. During the marriage, her parents presented net cash Rs.3

CC No. 290 of 2017 Page 2 of 12

Lakhs, gold chain Wg.1 tula, gold ring Wg.1/2 tula and other household articles. After three months of her marriage, she asked her husband about the inclusion of her name in his Singareni company Office records. Since then, her husband started harassing her stating that all his family members do not like her. All his family members harassed her demanding to bring additional dowry amount of Rs. 2 Lakhs and driven her out from the house. However, she resided at in-laws house by tolerating all the harassment by them. Though she was pregnant, they did not take care of her. Her mother came and took her to Srirampur for delivery. She was blessed with a male child and they informed to her husband. Her husband and his family members suspected her fidelity.

A panchayat was held and the elders advised them not to harass her thereafter. Later, she went to in-laws house at Kothagudem and again they harassed her. Later, her husband took her to Bhupalapalli and resided there. His family members came there and harassed. On 09.02.2011, her husband came to attend in DVC case at Mancherial

Court and from there he came to her parents house and quarreled with her and her parents and beat her brothers for divorce. As such, she requested to take necessary action. On receipt of above report, LW- 14/K. Ramachander Rao registered a case in Cr. No. 33 of 2011 U/Sec.

498A IPC, Sec. 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and submitted original

FIR to the honourable Court and copies to all the concerned officers and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, LW-14 examined and recorded the statements of LW 1 to LW3 namely Kommu

CC No. 290 of 2017 Page 3 of 12

Swapna, Gandam Odelu, Gandam Vasanta and visited the

Gandhinagar, RK6 Kotha Road, Srirampur, examined and recorded the statement of LW-4/Pulipaka Lakshmi U/Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. on 26.03.2011, LW-14 arrested the accused and produced before this

honourable Court for Judicial custody.

3.The court took cognizance for the offence U/Sec. 498-A IPC &

Section 3 & 4 DP Act and registered as CC. No. 290 of 2017.

4.After service of summons to accused, accused appeared before this court and he was furnished with the documents of the case as required u/Sec 207 of Cr.P.C. Later the accused is examined U/Sec.

239 Cr.P.C. for the offence U/Sec. 498-A IPC and Sec. 3 & 4 of D.P. Act and he denied the accusation levelled against him and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case proceeded for trial.

5.In order to prove the guilt of accused, prosecution had examined

PW1 to PW8 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 were marked on behalf of prosecution.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, the incriminating circumstances/evidence found against the accused is brought to the knowledge under section 313 Cr.P.C, for which he denied the allegations and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

CC No. 290 of 2017 Page 4 of 12

8. Now the points for determination are:

1) Whether the prosecution could able to prove its case for the offence U/Sec. 498-A IPC, Section 3 & 4 DP Act beyond reasonable doubt ?

2) As to what result ?

P O I N T (1):

9.Before proceeding to appreciate the evidence adduced by the prosecution it would be appropriate to notice Sec.498-A IPC which reads as follow:

Sec.498-A IPC: Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.

Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. For the purposes of this section, “cruelty” means -

(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

CC No. 290 of 2017 Page 5 of 12

10. In order to prove the offence U/Sec.498-A IPC, the prosecution is required to establish the following essential ingredients U/Sec.498-A

IPC:

(a) a person is the husband or relative of the husband;

(b) and shall subject the women to the cruelty;

The main requirement of Sec.498-A IPC is that, the act of cruelty by the husband of the woman or any relative of the husband must be painful and distressing.

11.Marriage is not disputed and hence it is proved that Accused is the husband of PW1. Hence, now, to prove the case of the prosecution against the Accused u/Sec. 498-A IPC, Prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused has subjected PW1 to cruelty as alleged by PW1 through Ex.P1, which must have been driven PW1 to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the PW1 or the accused has shown cruelty against PW1 with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. Also, prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that

Accused has taken dowry from parents/family members of PW1 and that Accused has demanded for any dowry directly or indirectly from

PW1 or her parents thereby to prove accusation against accused under

Section 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

CC No. 290 of 2017 Page 6 of 12

12.The case of the prosecution is that PW1 marriage was performed with Accused/Ravi on 09.03.2008. During the marriage, her parents presented net cash of Rs.3 Lakhs, gold chain weighing 1 thula, gold ring weighing 1/2 thula and other household articles. After three months of her marriage, she asked Accused to include her name in his Singareni

Company Job records. Since then, Accused started harassing her by saying that all his family members dislike her and demanded additional dowry amount of Rs.2 Lakhs and driven her out of the house. Though she was pregnant, Accused and his family did not take care of her. She was blessed with a male child and upon passing this information to

Accused, Accused and his family suspected her fidelity. A panchayat was held and the elders advised them not to harass her thereafter. Post which, she went to in-laws house at Kothagudem and again they harassed her. Later, Accused took her to Bhupalpalli and resided there.

His family members harassed her even there. Accused quarreled with her and her parents and use to beat her brothers demanding divorce by

PW1. Hence, out of no other choice, PW1 reported the matter to Police.

13.To prove the case of the prosecution, prosecution examined PW1 to PW8, Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 were marked. Ex.P1 is report, Ex.P2 is 161 statement of PW4, Ex.P3 is 161 statement of PW7, Ex.P4 is FIR. PW8 is the investigating officer who deposed at to the contents of the charge sheet which is procedural in nature.

CC No. 290 of 2017 Page 7 of 12

14.PW1/K. Swapna reiterated some of the contents of Ex.P1 which is the report, dated 17.03.2011 in her chief examination by learned APP.

In her cross examination, PW1 deposed that after PW1 asked Accused to include her name in the SCCL service records of Accused, he resisted and also harassed PW1 by suspecting her character. Wherein, PW1 later deposed that, her name was entered into the SCCL service records of

Accused. PW1 further deposed that Accused suspected that the male child born to them was not through her and Accused. To support this version of PW1, no oral evidence was brought on record by the prosecution. Indeed, PW2 and PW3 clearly stated in their evidence that, everything they are deposing regarding harassment by the Accused against PW1 was learnt by them through PW1 only, but they never had a chance to stay with PW1 and Accused together and they never witnessed the harassment though being immediate family members of

PW1. The other witnesses i.e. PW5 and PW6 did not support the version of PW1 with regard to harassment. They only stated that, as PW1 shared with them that Accused is harassing PW1 and asked them to join in a panchayat held, they joined the panchayat. PW5 and PW6 further stated that, Accused would promise to take good care of PW1 and would take her back in the panchayat. Also, PW1 deposed that, when PW1 and Accused lived together at Bhupalpally, Accused harassed her mentally and physically which was witnessed by neighbours.

Whereas, LW12/ PW7 did not support the version of PW1 and resiled from his earlier statement. Accused counsel posed various suggestions

CC No. 290 of 2017 Page 8 of 12

with regard to PW1 and her son suffering from Sicklecell Heterozygos disease which is a hereditory one and the same fact was suppressed by

PW1 to PW3 before marrying PW1 to Accused. However PW1 denied all such suggestions. PW1 deposed that panchayats were held at

Bhupalpally and the harassment meted out to her by the accused was witnessed by LW12/PW7 whereas, later PW1 deposed that, during their stay at Bhupalpally, both PW1 and Accused stayed together happily.

Also, PW1 deposed that, Accused harassed her brothers and beaten them demanding divorce from PW1, whereas PW1’s brothers were not brought on record and no such allegation was proved by the evidence of the witnesses of prosecution. Also PW1 deposed that, she did not lodge any report against Accused prior to Ex.P1 whereas she deposed that, at several places of their stay/residence, Accused and her family members harassed her which shows that the harassment was not that grave and serious that PW1 may not favour complaining to the Police about the harassment meted out to her by the Accused and his family. This can rule out the unbearable harassment PW1 is complaining of, as at no point before this Ex.P1, PW1 reported matter to police. This may be implied for the version that PW1 has not undergone such a category of harassment/cruelty as defined in Sec 498A, IPC. Hence, the category of cruelty as defined in sec 498A of IPC which drives a woman/wife to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) cannot be seen from the evidence of PW1 to PW3 and there is no corroboration from the evidence of PW5 and

CC No. 290 of 2017 Page 9 of 12

PW6. It is settled principle of law that any harassment of a married woman and every act that may have resulted on account of differences between the wife and husband cannot be branded as cruelty and will not attract the provision of Section 498-A IPC. It is nowhere the case of

PW1 that the conduct of the accused is of such a nature that PW1 thought of committing suicide or causing grievous injury to her life or limb or health. None of the ingredients of Section 498-A IPC are proved by the prosecution.

15. With regard to dowry aspect, Prosecution must prove that,

Accused has taken dowry from parents/family members of PW1 ( Sec 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act) and that Accused has demanded for any dowry directly or indirectly from PW1 or her parents ( Sec 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act). PW1 to PW3 deposed that Accused was given Rs.

3,00,000, gold chain weighing 1 thula, gold ring weighing 1/2 thula and other household articles. Whereas no evidence was adduced to prove their allegation with regard to receiving of dowry by the Accused either through oral evidence or through Documentary evidence, if any. It is pertinent to mention here that, PW5 who is an elder to the panchayat that is said to have been conducted for the disputes arose between PW1 and Accused deposed that, neither PW2 nor PW1 paid any amount and articles to the Accused which proved otherwise the version of PW1 to

PW3 with regard to giving dowry. Also, it is important to observe that, at one instance during cross examination, Accused counsel posed a

CC No. 290 of 2017 Page 10 of 12

question to PW1, that Accused has purchased gold for PW1 with the 3 lakhs amount gifted as present to the Accused for which PW1 responded that, Accused has purchased gold for her with the amount given by her parents to Accused. This clearly shows that the amount was given on mutually agreement to purchase gold during the time of the marriage to Pw1 and that money was used by the Accused for purchasing gold to PW1. This clearly shows that Accused has not received any dowry amount and prosecution failed to prove as alleged regarding taking of dowry by the Accused from PW1 or her parents.

16. It is pertinent to note that the element of dowry was only not proved i.e. prosecution failed to prove the taking of dowry by the accused, the matter of demand for additional dowry directly or indirectly ( as per section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act) from PW1 or her parents doesn’t arise at all. Hence, prosecution failed to prove the allegation against the accused under section 498A of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of

Dowry Prohibition of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. This point is answered against the prosecution and in favour of the Accused.

POINT (2):

17.In view of above discussion, PW1 to PW3’s evidence did not prove beyond reasonable doubt the cruelty shown by the Accused against

PW1 and the taking of dowry and demand for dowry by the Accused.

The cruelty has defined in Sec 498A must have one which has driven

CC No. 290 of 2017 Page 11 of 12

PW1 to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical), wherein no such evidence to this effect was brought on record through evidence of prosecution. Hence, the evidence of PW1 to PW3 coupled with PW5 and PW6 could not establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and as such, the accusation against the Accused under section 498A of IPC and

Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act could not be proved.

18. In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 498A of IPC and section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and accordingly Accused is acquitted for the said offences under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled and sureties shall be in force for period of (06) months as per Sec.437-A

Cr.P.C.

Partly typed by me and partly typed to my Dictation by the stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 04 th day of July 2024.

II Addl. JCJ-Cum-II Addl. JFCM, Mancherial. FAC. Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class (Excise) Mancherial.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

PW-1 : K. Swapna - None - PW-2 : G. Odelu

CC No. 290 of 2017 Page 12 of 12

PW-3 : Gandham Vasantha PW-4 : Chilumula Bakkakka PW-5 : K. Satyanarayana PW-6 : T. Lingaiah PW-7 : Babar Pasha PW-8 : K. Ramchander Rao

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR : PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 : Report Ex.P2 : 161 statement of PW4 Ex.P3 : 161 statement of PW7 Ex.P4 : FIR

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR : DEFENCE: -Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-Nil-

II Addl. JCJ-Cum-II Addl. JFCM, Mancherial. FAC. Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class (Excise) Mancherial.

CC No. 368 of 2017 Dated:05.08.2024 Page. No. 1

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(EXCISE) MANCHERIAL.

Present : Ms. K.Nirosha II Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- Mancherial FAC:Spl.Judicial Magistrate of I Class (Excise) Mancherial.

Monday, this 05th day of August, 2024.

CC.No.368 of 2017

Between:- The State through the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Ramakrishnapur (Cr.No.42/2016)

...Complainant

//AND//

A1. Baira Mallesh, S/o.Rayalingu, Age:31 yeas, Occ:Private Employee, R/o.H.No.4-118, Kurmapalli village of Mandamarri Mandal.

A2.Baira Komurelly, S/o.Ellaiah, Age:54 years, Occ:SCCL employee, R/o.Kurmapalli village of Mandamarri Mandal.

A3. Baira Anjaiah, S/o.Rayalingu, Age:28 years, Occ:Tapi mestri, R/o.Kurmapalli village of Mandamarri Mandal.

A4.Baira Ravi, S/oi.Rayalingu, Age:26 years, Occ:Private employee, R/o.Kurmapalli village of Mandamarri Mandal.

….Accused

This case is coming for final hearing before me on 04.04.2024 in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for prosecution and of Sri M.Ravinder Rao and Sri B.Divakar, Counsel for the accused, upon hearing them and on perusing the record available, having stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following :-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Ramakrishnapur Police Station has filed the charge sheet against the A1 to A4 for the offence punishable under

Section 447, 427, 506 r/w. 34 of IPC.

CC No. 368 of 2017 Dated:05.08.2024 Page. No. 2

2.The case of the prosecution is that the on 02.04.2016 at 19.30 hours, the de-facto complainant/Bandari Narayana came to Police Station and lodged a Telugu written report stating that, he has land admeasuring

Ac.2.33 guntas in Sy.No.60 at Kyathanpalli shivar and there was a case between him and Baira Mallesh, Baira Komuraiah. On 12.02.2016, judgment was given in his favour. Later, On 25.03.2016 at 07.00 hours to 12.00 hours, he levelled the same land and made fencing around the land with 46 poles, on the same day at 14.00 hours, Baira Mallesh/A1, Baira

Komurelli/A2, Baira Anjaiah/A3 and Baira Ravi illegally trespassed into his land and broken 46 poles which were erected fencing around his land, abused him in filthy language and threatened with dire consequences as the judgment given by the Court was in favour of complainant. Further on 02.04.2016 at 18.00 hours when the complainant was in his land, A1 to A4 abused him in filthy language and threatened with dire consequences keeping the grudges in their mind as the judgment was given in favour of complainant.Hence, he lodged a complaint requesting to take necessary action against A1 to A4. Based on the report LW7/A.Devidas, SI of Police, PS

Ramakrishnapur has registered a case in Cr.No.42/2016 for the offence punishable under Section 447, 427, 506 r/w. 34 of IPC and issued an FIR.

During the course of investigation, PW6/A.Devi Das examined and recorded the statement of PW1 to PW3 and LW4, visited the scene of offence situated at Kyathanpalli shivar in Sy.No.60, caused enquiry, drafted the Crime

Details Form and drawn rough sketch in the presence of LWs.5 and 6.On

CC No. 368 of 2017 Dated:05.08.2024 Page. No. 3

07.04.2016 at 12.00 hours, A1 to A4 came to Police Station, surrendered

before the Investigating Officer and voluntarily admitted their guilt, after

informing the grounds of their arrest to them and to their relatives, effected their arrest by issuing arrest memo. Later, all the accused were released on personal bail on furnishing sureties. After completion of investigation, the

Investigating Officer filed charge sheet against A1 to A4 for the offence punishable under Section 447, 427, 506 r/w. 34 of IPC.

3. On the strength of the contents of the charge sheet, this Court has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 447, 427, 506 r/w. 34 of IPC against Accused No.1 to Accused No.4 and issued them summons.

4.On appearance of Accused No.1 to Accused No.4 before this Court, they were furnished with case copies as required under Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Here in after referred as Cr.P.C).

5.Accused No.1 to 4 were examined U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C and the substance of accusation levelled against them under Section 447, 427, 506 r/w. 34 of IPC are explained to them in their vernacular language for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.To prove the guilt of Accused No.1 to 4, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW6 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P20. The Learned APP has given up the evidence of LW4. The prosecution side evidence is closed.

CC No. 368 of 2017 Dated:05.08.2024 Page. No. 4

7. After closure of the prosecution evidence, Accused No.1 to Accused

No.4 are examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C with reference to the incriminating material appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses for which they pleaded innocence, denied all the incriminating evidence against them as false and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

8.Heard both sides. The learned APP submitted that the case of prosecution is supported by PW1 to PW3 and PW6 and it proves the guilt of all the accused. Hence prayed to convict the accused. Learned counsel for accused contended that there are contradictions by PW1 regarding the occurrence of offence and the case of prosecution is not supported by panch witnesses regarding the occurrence of the offence alleged to have been committed and there is a civil Appeal pending against the PW1 during which this case was filed against the appellants/all accused here, thereby, prosecution miserably failed in proving its case against the accused and hence prayed to acquit all the Accused No.1 to 4.

9. The points that arise for determination are :

I) Whether accused A1 to A3 trespassed into the land of PW1 in

order to commit mischief and threaten PW1 with dire consequences,

thereby committing punishable offences u/sec.447,427 and 506 r/w 34

IPC?

(II) Whether prosecution was able to prove the guilt of accused

for offences u/secs.447, 427, 506 IPC beyond reasonable doubt?”

CC No. 368 of 2017 Dated:05.08.2024 Page. No. 5

Evidence on Record :

10. In order to bring home guilt of accused, prosecution examined Six witnesses. Of these, PW1 is defacto complainant. PW2 and PW3 are presented as eye witnesses to the incident. PW4 and PW5 are presented as panch witnesses to scene observation report. PW6 is the Investigating Officer who registered the crime, investigated into the case and filed charge sheet against accused.

P O I N T (I) :

10.Now, the prosecution has to establish from the evidences on record that the crime scene belongs to PW1 and that the accused trespassed into the crime scene with an intention to commit mischief. The prosecution in order to bring home guilt of accused examined defacto complaint as PW1.

PW1 deposed in his chief examination before this Court that he along with

Bandari Chinaralingu, Bandari Mallaiah and Bandari Rajaiah who are all brothers of his father possessed a land to an extent of Ac.2.33 guntas in

Sy.No.60 at Kyathanpally shivar. They acquired the above said property through his paternal grand father. On 02.04.2016, at about 02.00 p.m, while he was at his land, A1 to A4 illegally trespassed into his land and broken 46 poles which were erected fencing around his land, abused him in filthy language and also threatened him with dire consequences. Due to the fear of A1 to A4, he went to PS Ramakrishnapur and lodged a report/ExP1 against them about the issued. Further he exhibited CC of Judgment and

Decree, Form No.8 and 2 in O.S No.127/2011 as Ex.P2 to Ex.P5. He also exhibited CC of order in CC No.552/75 on the file of Land Reforms Tribunal,

CC No. 368 of 2017 Dated:05.08.2024 Page. No. 6

Nirmal as Ex.P6 and exhibited Pahani related to the above said land as

Ex.P7 to Ex.P13.

11.PW2 and PW3 who are the sons of PW1 supported PW1 regarding the occurrence of offence by the accused and were the eye witnesses to the alleged incident.

12.Prosecution could prove that the said land belongs to PW1 through

Ex.P2 to Ex.P13. Regarding accused committing trespass and mischeif, it is pertinent to note that, accused counsel could elicit contradictions in the evidence of PW1 which are exhibited as DW1 and DW2. PW1 stated in his report to police/Ex.P1 that, all the accused No.1 to 4 trespassed and committed mischief, threatened him with dire consequences on 25.03.2016.

PW1 during his deposition in the open court, contradicted his earlier statements in Ex.P1 and Sec 161 Crpc statement regarding the date of occurrence of offence itself. PW2 and PW3 also deposed that incident of trespassing and destructing the poles occurred on 25.03.2016 whereas PW1 himself contradicted this with his report to police/Ex.P1 during deposing in the open court that, the incident of trespassing occurred on 25.03.2016 and accused committed mischief on 02.04.2016. Further Accused counsel could elicit that PW1 did not inform the police that an appeal vide AS.No. 81/2017 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Mancherial is pending with effect to the above said land i.e. land admeasuring Ac.2.33 guntas in Sy.No.60 at

Kyathanpalli shivar. Also, PW1 deposed during cross examination that after

CC No. 368 of 2017 Dated:05.08.2024 Page. No. 7

accused preferred an Appeal against the judgment and decree in O.S No.

127/2011 on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Mancherial which was decided in favour of PW1, PW1 filed this case against Accused No.1 to 4.

Also, PW1 deposed that, Accused persons had land in Sy,No 60 to an extent of Ac.5-00 gts and that there are disputes between PW1 and Accused No.1 to 4 regarding land boundaries prior to filing of this case.

13.PW4 and PW5 who are the panch witnesses did not support the case of prosecution by turning hostile on stating that Police never visited the scene of offence in his presence and did not prepare the above CDF and

Rough Sketch in their presence.

14.PW6 is the Investigating Officer, whose evidence is procedural in nature and is in line with the contents of Charge sheet laid by him. PW6 confirmed that PW2 and PW3 did not state before him that incident occurred on 02.04.2016 which clearly shows discrepancy with the evidence of PW1 who deposed that On 25.03.2016, accused No. 1 to 4 trespassed and on 02.04.2016 they committed mischeif. From the evidence of PW6 it is clear that PW6 did not confirm the ownership of the above said land as he deposed that he enquired with MRO regarding ownership of the disputed land wherein MRO hasnt furnished any information for the same. It also shows from the evidence and documents on record, PW6 did not enquire for any pending civil cases/Appeals with regard to the disputed land. In view of the above discussion, this point is answered against the Prosecution.

CC No. 368 of 2017 Dated:05.08.2024 Page. No. 8

P O I N T:

15.The prosecution case when judged on the touchstone of totality of the facts and circumstances does not generate the unqualified and unreserved satisfaction indispensably required to enter a finding of guilt against any of the accused. PW1 himself have contradicted on very important facts i.e. occurrence of the offence itself. PW2 and PW3 supported the version of PW1 that is reported by him to police in Ex.P1 and in his statement to Police u/s 161 CrPc. Having regard to the evidence on record as a whole, it is not possible for this Court to hold that the charge leveled against accused No.1 to 4 has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, this court is of the strong view that prosecution failed to establish guilt of A1 to A4 for offence u/sec. 447, 427, 506 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the point is answered against the prosecution.

16. In the result, the Accused No.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 447, 427 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted of the said offences under Section 255(2) of CrPC. The bonds and bail bonds of the accused, if any shall be in force for a period of (06) months as per Sec 437-A of Cr.P.C. No case property.

Partly typed by me and partly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer and after correction

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 05 th day of August, 2024.

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Mancherial FAC:Spl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class (Excise) Mancherial

CC No. 368 of 2017 Dated:05.08.2024 Page. No. 9

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION

PW1(LW1)B.NarayanaComplainant. Eye witness to the incident and son of PW2(LW2)Bandari Nagesh the complainant. PW3(LW3)Bandari RamchanderEye witness to the incident. Panch witness for CDF and rough PW4(LW6)Ojjagiri Kantha Rao sketch. Panch witness for CDF and rough PW5(LW5)Aggi Sathaiah sketch. PW6(LW7)A.Devidas, SI of PoliceInvestigating Officer

FOR DEFENCE – NIL

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P1Report CC of Judgment in O.S No.127/2011 on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Ex.P2

Judge, Mancherial.

Ex.P3CC of decree in O.S No.127/2011, dated:12.02.2016.

Ex.P4CC of form No.8 in O.S No.127/20112

Ex.P5CC of form No.2. CC of order in CC No.552/75 on the file of Land Reforms Tribunal, Ex.P6 Nirmal, dated:30.07.1997. Ex.P7Meeseva pahani pathrika fasli No.1421.

Ex.P8Meeseva pahani pathrika fasli No.1422.

Ex.P9Meeseva pahani pathrika fasli No.1423.

Ex.P10Meeseva pahani pathrika fasli No.1424.

Ex.P11Meeseva pahani pathrika fasli No.1425.

Ex.P12Meeseva pahani pathrika fasli No.1426.

Ex.P13Meeseva pahani pathrika fasli No.1427.

Ex.P14Signature of PW4 on Crime Details Form.

CC No. 368 of 2017 Dated:05.08.2024 Page. No. 10

Ex.P15Signature of PW4 on Rough Sketch.

Ex.P16Signature of PW5 on Crime Details Form.

Ex.P17Signature of PW5 on Asthidwamsa panchanama.

Ex.P18First Information Report.

Ex.P19Scene of offence panchanama.

Ex.P20Rough sketch.

FOR DEFENCE

Ex.D1Relevant portion in ExP1

Ex.D2Relevant portion in 161 CrPC statement of PW1

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED – NIL -

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Mancherial FAC:Spl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class (Excise) Mancherial

CC No. 368 of 2017 Dated:05.08.2024 Page. No. 1

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(EXCISE) MANCHERIAL.

Present : Ms. K.Nirosha II Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- Mancherial FAC:Spl.Judicial Magistrate of I Class (Excise) Mancherial.

Monday, this 05th day of August, 2024.

CC.No.368 of 2017

Between:- The State through the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Ramakrishnapur (Cr.No.42/2016)

...Complainant

//AND//

A1. Baira Mallesh, S/o.Rayalingu, Age:31 yeas, Occ:Private Employee, R/o.H.No.4-118, Kurmapalli village of Mandamarri Mandal.

A2.Baira Komurelly, S/o.Ellaiah, Age:54 years, Occ:SCCL employee, R/o.Kurmapalli village of Mandamarri Mandal.

A3. Baira Anjaiah, S/o.Rayalingu, Age:28 years, Occ:Tapi mestri, R/o.Kurmapalli village of Mandamarri Mandal.

A4.Baira Ravi, S/oi.Rayalingu, Age:26 years, Occ:Private employee, R/o.Kurmapalli village of Mandamarri Mandal.

….Accused

This case is coming for final hearing before me on 04.04.2024 in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for prosecution and of Sri M.Ravinder Rao and Sri B.Divakar, Counsel for the accused, upon hearing them and on perusing the record available, having stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following :-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Ramakrishnapur Police Station has filed the charge sheet against the A1 to A4 for the offence punishable under

Section 447, 427, 506 r/w. 34 of IPC.

CC No. 368 of 2017 Dated:05.08.2024 Page. No. 2

2.The case of the prosecution is that the on 02.04.2016 at 19.30 hours, the de-facto complainant/Bandari Narayana came to Police Station and lodged a Telugu written report stating that, he has land admeasuring

Ac.2.33 guntas in Sy.No.60 at Kyathanpalli shivar and there was a case between him and Baira Mallesh, Baira Komuraiah. On 12.02.2016, judgment was given in his favour. Later, On 25.03.2016 at 07.00 hours to 12.00 hours, he levelled the same land and made fencing around the land with 46 poles, on the same day at 14.00 hours, Baira Mallesh/A1, Baira

Komurelli/A2, Baira Anjaiah/A3 and Baira Ravi illegally trespassed into his land and broken 46 poles which were erected fencing around his land, abused him in filthy language and threatened with dire consequences as the judgment given by the Court was in favour of complainant. Further on 02.04.2016 at 18.00 hours when the complainant was in his land, A1 to A4 abused him in filthy language and threatened with dire consequences keeping the grudges in their mind as the judgment was given in favour of complainant.Hence, he lodged a complaint requesting to take necessary action against A1 to A4. Based on the report LW7/A.Devidas, SI of Police, PS

Ramakrishnapur has registered a case in Cr.No.42/2016 for the offence punishable under Section 447, 427, 506 r/w. 34 of IPC and issued an FIR.

During the course of investigation, PW6/A.Devi Das examined and recorded the statement of PW1 to PW3 and LW4, visited the scene of offence situated at Kyathanpalli shivar in Sy.No.60, caused enquiry, drafted the Crime

Details Form and drawn rough sketch in the presence of LWs.5 and 6.On

CC No. 368 of 2017 Dated:05.08.2024 Page. No. 3

07.04.2016 at 12.00 hours, A1 to A4 came to Police Station, surrendered

before the Investigating Officer and voluntarily admitted their guilt, after

informing the grounds of their arrest to them and to their relatives, effected their arrest by issuing arrest memo. Later, all the accused were released on personal bail on furnishing sureties. After completion of investigation, the

Investigating Officer filed charge sheet against A1 to A4 for the offence punishable under Section 447, 427, 506 r/w. 34 of IPC.

3. On the strength of the contents of the charge sheet, this Court has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 447, 427, 506 r/w. 34 of IPC against Accused No.1 to Accused No.4 and issued them summons.

4.On appearance of Accused No.1 to Accused No.4 before this Court, they were furnished with case copies as required under Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Here in after referred as Cr.P.C).

5.Accused No.1 to 4 were examined U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C and the substance of accusation levelled against them under Section 447, 427, 506 r/w. 34 of IPC are explained to them in their vernacular language for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.To prove the guilt of Accused No.1 to 4, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW6 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P20. The Learned APP has given up the evidence of LW4. The prosecution side evidence is closed.

CC No. 368 of 2017 Dated:05.08.2024 Page. No. 4

7. After closure of the prosecution evidence, Accused No.1 to Accused

No.4 are examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C with reference to the incriminating material appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses for which they pleaded innocence, denied all the incriminating evidence against them as false and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

8.Heard both sides. The learned APP submitted that the case of prosecution is supported by PW1 to PW3 and PW6 and it proves the guilt of all the accused. Hence prayed to convict the accused. Learned counsel for accused contended that there are contradictions by PW1 regarding the occurrence of offence and the case of prosecution is not supported by panch witnesses regarding the occurrence of the offence alleged to have been committed and there is a civil Appeal pending against the PW1 during which this case was filed against the appellants/all accused here, thereby, prosecution miserably failed in proving its case against the accused and hence prayed to acquit all the Accused No.1 to 4.

9. The points that arise for determination are :

I) Whether accused A1 to A3 trespassed into the land of PW1 in

order to commit mischief and threaten PW1 with dire consequences,

thereby committing punishable offences u/sec.447,427 and 506 r/w 34

IPC?

(II) Whether prosecution was able to prove the guilt of accused

for offences u/secs.447, 427, 506 IPC beyond reasonable doubt?”

CC No. 368 of 2017 Dated:05.08.2024 Page. No. 5

Evidence on Record :

10. In order to bring home guilt of accused, prosecution examined Six witnesses. Of these, PW1 is defacto complainant. PW2 and PW3 are presented as eye witnesses to the incident. PW4 and PW5 are presented as panch witnesses to scene observation report. PW6 is the Investigating Officer who registered the crime, investigated into the case and filed charge sheet against accused.

P O I N T (I) :

10.Now, the prosecution has to establish from the evidences on record that the crime scene belongs to PW1 and that the accused trespassed into the crime scene with an intention to commit mischief. The prosecution in order to bring home guilt of accused examined defacto complaint as PW1.

PW1 deposed in his chief examination before this Court that he along with

Bandari Chinaralingu, Bandari Mallaiah and Bandari Rajaiah who are all brothers of his father possessed a land to an extent of Ac.2.33 guntas in

Sy.No.60 at Kyathanpally shivar. They acquired the above said property through his paternal grand father. On 02.04.2016, at about 02.00 p.m, while he was at his land, A1 to A4 illegally trespassed into his land and broken 46 poles which were erected fencing around his land, abused him in filthy language and also threatened him with dire consequences. Due to the fear of A1 to A4, he went to PS Ramakrishnapur and lodged a report/ExP1 against them about the issued. Further he exhibited CC of Judgment and

Decree, Form No.8 and 2 in O.S No.127/2011 as Ex.P2 to Ex.P5. He also exhibited CC of order in CC No.552/75 on the file of Land Reforms Tribunal,

CC No. 368 of 2017 Dated:05.08.2024 Page. No. 6

Nirmal as Ex.P6 and exhibited Pahani related to the above said land as

Ex.P7 to Ex.P13.

11.PW2 and PW3 who are the sons of PW1 supported PW1 regarding the occurrence of offence by the accused and were the eye witnesses to the alleged incident.

12.Prosecution could prove that the said land belongs to PW1 through

Ex.P2 to Ex.P13. Regarding accused committing trespass and mischeif, it is pertinent to note that, accused counsel could elicit contradictions in the evidence of PW1 which are exhibited as DW1 and DW2. PW1 stated in his report to police/Ex.P1 that, all the accused No.1 to 4 trespassed and committed mischief, threatened him with dire consequences on 25.03.2016.

PW1 during his deposition in the open court, contradicted his earlier statements in Ex.P1 and Sec 161 Crpc statement regarding the date of occurrence of offence itself. PW2 and PW3 also deposed that incident of trespassing and destructing the poles occurred on 25.03.2016 whereas PW1 himself contradicted this with his report to police/Ex.P1 during deposing in the open court that, the incident of trespassing occurred on 25.03.2016 and accused committed mischief on 02.04.2016. Further Accused counsel could elicit that PW1 did not inform the police that an appeal vide AS.No. 81/2017 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Mancherial is pending with effect to the above said land i.e. land admeasuring Ac.2.33 guntas in Sy.No.60 at

Kyathanpalli shivar. Also, PW1 deposed during cross examination that after

CC No. 368 of 2017 Dated:05.08.2024 Page. No. 7

accused preferred an Appeal against the judgment and decree in O.S No.

127/2011 on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Mancherial which was decided in favour of PW1, PW1 filed this case against Accused No.1 to 4.

Also, PW1 deposed that, Accused persons had land in Sy,No 60 to an extent of Ac.5-00 gts and that there are disputes between PW1 and Accused No.1 to 4 regarding land boundaries prior to filing of this case.

13.PW4 and PW5 who are the panch witnesses did not support the case of prosecution by turning hostile on stating that Police never visited the scene of offence in his presence and did not prepare the above CDF and

Rough Sketch in their presence.

14.PW6 is the Investigating Officer, whose evidence is procedural in nature and is in line with the contents of Charge sheet laid by him. PW6 confirmed that PW2 and PW3 did not state before him that incident occurred on 02.04.2016 which clearly shows discrepancy with the evidence of PW1 who deposed that On 25.03.2016, accused No. 1 to 4 trespassed and on 02.04.2016 they committed mischeif. From the evidence of PW6 it is clear that PW6 did not confirm the ownership of the above said land as he deposed that he enquired with MRO regarding ownership of the disputed land wherein MRO hasnt furnished any information for the same. It also shows from the evidence and documents on record, PW6 did not enquire for any pending civil cases/Appeals with regard to the disputed land. In view of the above discussion, this point is answered against the Prosecution.

CC No. 368 of 2017 Dated:05.08.2024 Page. No. 8

P O I N T:

15.The prosecution case when judged on the touchstone of totality of the facts and circumstances does not generate the unqualified and unreserved satisfaction indispensably required to enter a finding of guilt against any of the accused. PW1 himself have contradicted on very important facts i.e. occurrence of the offence itself. PW2 and PW3 supported the version of PW1 that is reported by him to police in Ex.P1 and in his statement to Police u/s 161 CrPc. Having regard to the evidence on record as a whole, it is not possible for this Court to hold that the charge leveled against accused No.1 to 4 has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, this court is of the strong view that prosecution failed to establish guilt of A1 to A4 for offence u/sec. 447, 427, 506 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the point is answered against the prosecution.

16. In the result, the Accused No.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 447, 427 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted of the said offences under Section 255(2) of CrPC. The bonds and bail bonds of the accused, if any shall be in force for a period of (06) months as per Sec 437-A of Cr.P.C. No case property.

Partly typed by me and partly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer and after correction

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 05 th day of August, 2024.

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Mancherial FAC:Spl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class (Excise) Mancherial

CC No. 368 of 2017 Dated:05.08.2024 Page. No. 9

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION

PW1(LW1)B.NarayanaComplainant. Eye witness to the incident and son of PW2(LW2)Bandari Nagesh the complainant. PW3(LW3)Bandari RamchanderEye witness to the incident. Panch witness for CDF and rough PW4(LW6)Ojjagiri Kantha Rao sketch. Panch witness for CDF and rough PW5(LW5)Aggi Sathaiah sketch. PW6(LW7)A.Devidas, SI of PoliceInvestigating Officer

FOR DEFENCE – NIL

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P1Report CC of Judgment in O.S No.127/2011 on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Ex.P2

Judge, Mancherial.

Ex.P3CC of decree in O.S No.127/2011, dated:12.02.2016.

Ex.P4CC of form No.8 in O.S No.127/20112

Ex.P5CC of form No.2. CC of order in CC No.552/75 on the file of Land Reforms Tribunal, Ex.P6 Nirmal, dated:30.07.1997. Ex.P7Meeseva pahani pathrika fasli No.1421.

Ex.P8Meeseva pahani pathrika fasli No.1422.

Ex.P9Meeseva pahani pathrika fasli No.1423.

Ex.P10Meeseva pahani pathrika fasli No.1424.

Ex.P11Meeseva pahani pathrika fasli No.1425.

Ex.P12Meeseva pahani pathrika fasli No.1426.

Ex.P13Meeseva pahani pathrika fasli No.1427.

Ex.P14Signature of PW4 on Crime Details Form.

CC No. 368 of 2017 Dated:05.08.2024 Page. No. 10

Ex.P15Signature of PW4 on Rough Sketch.

Ex.P16Signature of PW5 on Crime Details Form.

Ex.P17Signature of PW5 on Asthidwamsa panchanama.

Ex.P18First Information Report.

Ex.P19Scene of offence panchanama.

Ex.P20Rough sketch.

FOR DEFENCE

Ex.D1Relevant portion in ExP1

Ex.D2Relevant portion in 161 CrPC statement of PW1

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED – NIL -

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Mancherial FAC:Spl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class (Excise) Mancherial

CC No. 171 of 2017 Dated:27.06.2024 Page.No. 1

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS (EXCISE) :: AT :: MANCHERIAL

PRESENT : Ms.K.Nirosha, II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mancherial FAC:Spl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Excise) Mancherial

Thursday, this the 27th day of June, 2024.

CC.No. 171 of 2017

Between:

The State of Telangana Rep. SHO of Police Mancherial Police Station (Cr.No.33/2014).

… Complainant //AND//

1. Ailaveni Naga Raju, S/o.Venkati, Age:28 years, Occ:Auto Driver, R/o.Peddanapally area, near Bellampalli Railway Station, Bellampalli, N/o.H.No.20-04-108, Hanuman Nagar, Godavarikhani, Ramagundam.

2. Sk.Mahaboob, S/o.Rahaman, Age:22 years,Occ:Owner of Auto B.No.AP01W 8968 and tyre puncture shop at Caltex, Bellampalli R/o.Caltex Area, Bellampalli. … Accused

This case is coming before me on 06.06.2024 for final hearing in the presence of learned in-charge Asst.Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri P.Lalithaa Prasaad and Ch.Ramesh, counsels for accused, upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Mancherial Police Station filed charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 336 IPC, Sec.3 r/w 181 and 177 of MV Act against Accused No.1 and Sec.5 r/w.180 MV Act against

Accused No.2.

CC No. 171 of 2017 Dated:27.06.2024 Page.No. 2

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 24.01.2014 at 20.15 hours, the complainant came to Police Station and lodged a Telugu written report stating that on 23.01.2014 at 07.30 hours, his friend/Munjala Ramesh was proceeding to Mancherial from Bheemaram on Thollavvagu NH road at that time, the accused No.2 drove the auto rickshaw B.No.AP01W 8968 in rash and negligent manner and dashed said Munjala Ramesh motorcycle from opposite direction. Due to which, he fell down on the road, sustained head injury. Later he was shifted to Government Hospital, Mancherial and from there shifted to Hyderabad Hospital for better treatment.

3. Based on the report, a case in Cr.No.33/2024 was registered for the offence punishable under Section 338 IPC and issued an FIR. During the course of investigation, LW18/Md.Afzal Khan, ASI of Police, Mancherial

Police Station has examined and recorded the statement of LW1 to 3, visited the scene of offence, conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch in the presence of mediators. Later, while undergoing treatment at Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences Hospital, Panjagutta,

Hyderabad, the said injured/Munjala Ramesh was succumbed to injuries on 26.01.2014 at 20.00 hours. On 26.01.2014 at 12.00 hours, the deceased brother-in-law/Bathini Ramakrishna/LW4 lodged a petition at PS

Panjagutta with regard to death of the deceased. On receipt of the said petition, the SHO/LW19 has registered a case in Cr.No.86/2014 for the offence U/sec.304-A IPC of PS Panjagutta. During the course of

CC No. 171 of 2017 Dated:27.06.2024 Page.No. 3

investigation, LW20/SI of Police, PS Panjagutta visited NIMS Hospital,

Panjagutta, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of mediators/LW14 and LW15. At the time of inquest, LW4 to LW7 were examined and recorded their statements. Later, the dead body was shifted to

Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad for PME. The CD file vide Cr.No.86/2014 of

PS Panjagutta was transferred to PS Mancherial on the point of jurisdiction for further investigation. LW16/Dr.P.Vani Sree issue PME report.

4. On receipt of the CD file in Cr.No.86/2014 of PS Panjagutta, on 17.04.2017 the Section of law in this case was altered from 338 IPC to 304-A

IPC. On 29.07.2014, LW21/M.Venkateshwarlu, SI of Police, Mancherial verified the investigation done by LW18 to LW20 and found it on proper lines. On the requisition of LW18, LW17/MVI inspected the crime vehicle and issued report. On 29.07.2014, the owner of the crime vehicle/A2 appeared before the LW21, on interrogation, the accused No.2 revealed that he given his vehicle to accused No.1 and the accused No.1 dashed the deceased at Thollavagu on 23.01.2017. A2 also produced vehicle documents and on verification of all documents, he was served notice U/sec.41- A CrPC.

5.On 13.02.2016, the accused No.1 surrendered before the Police, on interrogation, he confessed about the commission of the offence. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet is filed.

CC No. 171 of 2017 Dated:27.06.2024 Page.No. 4

6.On the strength of the contents of the said charge sheet, this Court has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 336 IPC,

Sec.3/181 and 177 of MV Act against Accused No.1 and Sec.5 r/w.180 MV

Act against Accused No.2 and issued summons to them.

7.On appearance of the accused before this Court, they were furnished with copies of all necessary documents as required under Section 207 of

Code of Criminal Procedure (Here in after referred as Cr.P.C).

8.Accused No.1 and 2 were examined U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C. for the accusation leveled against them under Section 336 IPC, Sec.3/181 and 177 of MV Act against Accused No.1 and Sec.5 r/w.180 MV Act against Accused

No.2, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

9.To prove the guilt of accused, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 7 and got marked documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. The Learned APP has given up the evidence of LW5 to LW8, LW10, LW12 to LW20. The prosecution side evidence is closed.

10.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused No.1 and 2 were examined on 14.09.2022 under Section 313 Cr.P.C with reference to the incriminating material appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which accused pleaded innocence, denied all the incriminating evidence against them as false and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

CC No. 171 of 2017 Dated:27.06.2024 Page.No. 5

11.On 19.01.2024, the counsel for the accused No.2 filed memo for split up the case as NBW is pending against A1 since long time and the concerned

Police file certified copy of case record. Hence, the case against A1 is split up and register as CC No.5/2024.

12.Heard both sides, the learned APP submitted that the matter may be decided on merits. Learned counsel for accused contended that the prosecution miserably failed in proving its case against the accused No. 2.

13.Heard both sides and perused the record.

14.The point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution has proved its case against the accused No.2 for the charges levelled against him under Section

Sec.5 r/w.180 MV Act , beyond all reasonable doubt?

P O I N T:

15.PW1 stated in his chief examination before this Court that on 23.01.2014 at about 07.00 PM the deceased was coming on his motor cycle

B.No.AP01N 0812 from Srirampur to Mancherial, while the deceased was proceeding towards Thollavagu bridge near Reliance Petrol Pump, he met with accident by auto rickshaw which was proceeding in the opposite direction in rash and negligent manner, the deceased got severe injury on

CC No. 171 of 2017 Dated:27.06.2024 Page.No. 6

his head and fell down from his bike. He further deposed that LW2 shifted the deceased in another auto to Government Hospital, Mancherial and he informed PW1 on phone about the incident, on that information, PW1 along with his friend went to the hospital , but the deceased was shifted to

Karimanagar Hospital, then the deceased was shifted to Hospital at

Karimnagar. Later, PW1 came to from family members of deceased that the deceased died at hospital. On 24.01.2014, he went to Police Station and lodged a report .

During cross-examination, nothing contrary to the version of the

Accused No.2 as stated in his Sec.251 CrPC examination and sec 313 CrPC examination was adduced by PW1.

16. PW2 and PW3 are the circumstantial witnesses, also spoke about the incident in the lines of PW1.

During cross-examination, nothing contrary to the version of the

Accused No.2 as stated in his sec 251 CrPC examination and sec 313 CrPC examination was adduced by PW2 and PW3.

17. PW4 is also the circumstantial witness to the alleged incident, where as nothing was elicited from him by the prosecution regarding Accused No.2.

Also, during his cross examination, nothing contrary to the version of the

Accused No.2 as stated in his sec 251 CrPC examination and sec 313 CrPC examination was adduced.

CC No. 171 of 2017 Dated:27.06.2024 Page.No. 7

18. PW5 and PW6 resiled from their earlier statements and hence, learned APP has declared them hostile.

19. PW7 is the Investigating Officer, spoke about the investigation done by him commencing from issuance of FIR till the filing of charge sheet. He deposed that, on 29.07.2014, Accused No.2 who is the owner of the crime vehicle appeared before him and upon interrogation, he admitted his guilt and revealed that he handed over the crime vehicle to Accused No.1 who did not possess any valid driving license. Except this, nothing was elicited from

PW7 against Accused No.2. During cross examination, he denied few suggestions given by the accused counsel.

20. Upon perusal of depositions, exhibits and material available on record, this court found the evidences of PW1 to PW4 are the witnesses for the alleged accident. PW5 and PW6 have resiled from their original version.

PW7 is the Investigating officer who deposed as to the alleged offence and also deposed that, accused No.2 has handed over the crime vehicle to

Accused No.1 who did not possess any valid driving license. The Accused

No.2 herein is the owner of the crime vehicle and the prosecution must establish the guilt of the accused under section 3 read with section 180 of

MV Act, 1988 which reads as follows:

Section 3 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988- Necessity for driving license.—

(1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds

CC No. 171 of 2017 Dated:27.06.2024 Page.No. 8

an effective driving licence issued to him authorizing him to drive the vehicle and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle [other than (a motor cab or motor cycle) hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under sub-section (2) of section 75] unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do.

(2) The conditions subject to which sub-section (1) shall not apply to a person receiving instructions in driving a motor vehicle shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government.

Section 180 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988- Necessity for driving license.—

Allowing unauthorized persons to drive vehicles.—Whenever, being the owner or person in charge of a motor vehicle, causes, or permits, any other person who does not satisfy the provisions of section 3 or section 4 to drive the vehicle shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

21. On perusal of the evidence on record i.e. from PW1 to PW7 and the documents exhibited by the prosecution, it appears that, prosecution could not establish the guilt of the accused no.2 under the section 3 read with section 180 of MV Act, 1988. Hence, this point is answered in favour of the accused and against prosecution.

CC No. 171 of 2017 Dated:27.06.2024 Page.No. 9

22. In the result, the Accused No.2 is found not guilty of the offences punishable U/Sec.5 r/w. 180 of MV Act, 1988 and he is acquitted of the said offences under Section 255(1) of CrPC. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after lapse of appeal period.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer and after correction, pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 27 th day of June, 2024.

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Mancherial I/C Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class(excise) Mancherial

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For prosecution:

PW-1 : O.Kanakaraju PW-2 : S.Ranjith Kumar PW-3 : B.Ramakrishna PW-4 : B.Satyanarayana PW-5 : Dinesh Agarwal PW-6 : K.Veeresham PW-7 : M.Venkateshwarlu

For Defense : -NIL-

Exhibits marked

For Prosecution:

ExP1 : Report given by PW-1. ExP2 : Report given to Panjagutta PS. ExP3 : Sec.161 CrPC statement of PW5. ExP4 : Sec.161 CrPC statement of PW6. ExP5 : First Information Report. ExP6 : CDF along with rough sketch

CC No. 171 of 2017 Dated:27.06.2024 Page.No. 10

ExP7 : PME report. ExP8 : MVI report.

For Defense: - NIL -

Material Objects Marked: - NIL -

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Mancherial I/C Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class(excise) Mancherial

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS EXCISE AT

MANCHERIAL

(Dated on this the 2nd day of July, 2024)

PRESENT: Ms. K. Nirosha

II Addl.JCJ-Cum-JFCM, Mancherial

FAC: Spl. Jdul. Magistrate of First Class (Excise) Mancherial

CC.No. 3 6 OF 202 4

Between:

The State of Telangana, rep.by Station House Officer, Srirampur Police Station. …Prosecution AND

1) Moseen. Shaik Address - caste. Muslim, Occ. Petty Business, R/o H.No. 3-203Water tank area,Water tank area,Water tank area ,Srirampur,Naspur,MANCHERIAL,TELANGANA Advocate - Sri. R.R. Ramulu Legal Aid Counsel ..Sole Accused

DOCKET ORDER : DATED 02 .0 7 .2024

Defacto complainant and the accused are present and they filed an application

U/s.20 of LSA Act stating that they have compromised the matter outside the

Court and settled their case before the Lok Adalath amicably. Hence, compromise

recorded. Vide orders in Cr.MP the prosecution permitted to the charge from 380

IPC to 379 IPC. Perused the record and the offence under Section 454, 379 of IPC

are compoundable in nature and permission accorded under Sec.320(2) Cr.PC to

compound the said offences. In pursuance of the compromise entered by the

defacto complainant. injured persons, the accused are acquitted under Sec. 359(8)

CrPC for the offence under Section 454 and 379 of IPC. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal period. The case

property already given to its original owner/Korra Nagarjuna vide

Crl.M.P.No.22/2024, dated: 18.03.2024 as interim custody is made absolute. .For

used The jail authorities, District Jail, Adilabad are hereby directed to release the

accused forthwith, if he is not required to be detained in any other cases.

Written and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 2nd day of July, 2024..

Sd/-

SPL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS EXCISE,

Page 1 of 2

MANCHERIAL

Page 2 of 2