Ms. K. Pavani

Fair 1 CC.No. 491 of 2021

Date: 29.11.2025

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

KORUTLA.

Saturday, the 29th day of November, 2025

Present: Smt. K. Pavani, Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Korutla.

Calendar Case No. 491 of 2021

in

(Cr.No. 150/2021)

Between:-

The State represented through the Sub Inspector of Police, Kathalapur.

....Complainant

And

Jangam @ Janagam Prabhakar, S/o. Ramulu, Age: 63 yrs, Vyshya, R/o. Korutla..

..…Accused

Section of law:U/Sec.337, 338 IPC.

Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the court:Found not guilty

In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec.337, 338 IPC, Sentence or order: and consequently he is acquitted U/Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused shall remain in force for a period of 6 months from the date of judgment as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C for preferring appeal to the higher Court, from this judgment by prosecution or by the defacto complainant. Since no property is

Fair 2 CC.No. 491 of 2021

Date: 29.11.2025

deposited there is no order with regard to property. @@@

This case came up before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor, on behalf of prosecution and of Sri . G. Rajesh Kanna , Advocate for Accused and having stood over for determination, this day the court delivered the following:-

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

1The State represented through the Sub-Inspector of Police, Police

Station, Korutla laid charge-sheet against the accused in Crime

No.150/2021 for offences U/Sec.3 3 7 , 33 8 IP C .

2 The case of the prosecution is nutshell is that:- On 29-10-2021 at 14:30 hrs, the complainant Gaddam Srinivas came to the PS and lodged and lodged written complaint, in which he stated that, he is resident of Rudrangi village & Mandal and doing agriculture for his livelihood. On 24-10-2021 at about 10:45 hrs his father in law Utnoori Chandra Shekar, his wife Gaddam

Sindhujarani and his son Vijwal aged about 3-yrs old, started from Raikal on his Passion Pro motor cycle bearing No. TS-21-C-8382 to come to Rudrangi village. On the way, at about 12:15 hrs when they reached to nearby X road at Thandrial village, at the same time before his father in law's motor cycle bearing No. AP-15-AP-8370 drove by its rider namely Janagam Prabhakar in rash and negligent manner and suddenly applied the brakes on the middle of road without any indication, due to which his father in law's motor cycle hits to his motor cycle and fell down on the ground due to which his wife

Fair 3 CC.No. 491 of 2021

Date: 29.11.2025

received bleeding injury over his head. His father in law got fractured his left hand and left leg and his son has received scratches over his face. The same was witnessed by Chennaveni Vijay and immediately shifted to the Govt.

Hospital Korutla in a ambulance. As he was staying with them he caused delay in reporting the matter. Finally, he requested to take necessary action.

3Basing On the above complaint, the LW-08 has registered a case in Cr.

No 150/2021 U/s 337 IPC issued FIRs and sent the copies of FIR to the all concerned officers and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, examined and recorded the statement of Lw-1 at PS in CD part-II. Later, the LW-08 along with men visited the scene of offence i.e. X road Thandrial village where he secured the presence of the witnesses LWs 2 to LW4 examined them and recorded their detailed statements in CD part-II.

Observed the scene of offence and drew a rough sketch of the scene of offence and incorporated the details in CDF under crime detail from before the panchas LW5 and LW6. Subsequently, the LW9 took up further investigation in this case. Visited the scene of offence and re-examined the witnesses LW1 to LW4, in which all the witnesses reiterated the same earlier stated before LW-8, hence did not re-record their statement in CD. Since the offence u/sec. 337 IPC is punishment under less than for 7 years, the LW-9 has secured the presence of the accused and on interrogation the accused has voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence. Later, prepared a notice u/sec. 41-A Cr.P.C on 20-06-2021 against the accused and served the same with instructions to appear before him on 12-11-2021 at 10.00 hrs

Fair 4 CC.No. 491 of 2021

Date: 29.11.2025

with his ID proof and along with the documents of the crime vehicle. The accused appeared before the LW-9 on 12-11-2021 at 10.00 hrs with his ID proofs and also produced relevant documents pertaining to the crime vehicle. On verification all documents found in validity. Further the notices u/sec. 41-A Cr.P.C served against the accused with instructions to appear

before the Honorable Court, whenever he received summons from the

Honorable Court. The LW-9 has collected the Medical certificate from

Vyshnavi hospital at Korutla, in which the Medical Officer LW-7 Orth-

Korutla, treated the injured LW2 & LW3 and issued MCs, in which he stated that, the LW-2 received simple and Grievous injuries, the LW-3 received simple injuries, the kid has received simple injuries. On that LW-9 altered the section from 337 IPC to 337, 338 IPC and submit to Hon'ble court and also concerned.

4The case was taken on file against accused by my predecessor for offences U/Sec.337, 338 IPC against accused, the case was numbered as

C.C.No.491 of 2021 and summons were issued to the accused as per Sec.204

Cr.P.C.

5On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated U/Sec.207 r/w Sec.238 Cr.P.C.

6The accused was examined U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C for the offences

U/Sec.337, 338 IPC were read over and explained to him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly the matter was posted for trial.

Fair 5 CC.No. 491 of 2021

Date: 29.11.2025

7For proving its case, prosecution had examined PW1 to PW7 out of (9) cited witnesses and Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 were marked. Report filed by the concerned police that whereabouts for LW4 not known.LW6 was given up by the prosecution. Hence their evidence was closed.

8 The list of witnesses examined by the prosecution are as follows:-

PW1 – G. Srinivas– is the Complainant/son-in-law of the injured

PW2 – U. Chandra Shekar– is the Injured person

PW3 – G. Sindhuja Rani – is the Injured person

PW4 – T. Vinod – is the panch for CDF

PW5 – Dr. A. Linga Murthy – is the Medical Officer and issued MC

PW6 – B. Kishtaiah– is the 1st Investigating Officer.

PW7 – A. Rajitha – is the 2nd Investigating Officer.

9 The list of documents exhibited by the prosecution are as follows:-

Ex.P1 – is the Complaint

Ex.P2 – is the CDF Panchanama

Ex.P3 – is the MC of PW.2

Ex.P4 – is the MC of PW.3

Ex.P5 – is the FIR 10 List of Documents marked on behalf of the defence:

- Nil - 11After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined

U/Sec.313 r/w Sec.281 Cr.P.C for the incriminating circumstances appeared

Fair 6 CC.No. 491 of 2021

Date: 29.11.2025

against him in the evidence of PW1 to PW5 for which he denied the truthfulness of the evidence and reported no defence evidence on his side.

12.Heard learned Asst. Public Prosecutor, and learned counsel for the accused.

13.Now the points for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution could successfully bring home the

guilt of the accused by proving the charges for the offences

U/Sec.337, 338 IPC, beyond reasonable doubt?.

14.However, this court has weighed the essential ingredients of section 337 of IPC carefully as follows:-

Section 337:- Causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others

Whoever causes hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.

15. The essential ingredients Under Sec.338 of IPC causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others:

i) Accused did some act.

ii) He did it rashly or negligently.

iii) The act was such as to endanger to human life or personal safety of others iv) Grievous hurt was caused in consequence of such

Act.

Fair 7 CC.No. 491 of 2021

Date: 29.11.2025

To prove it case, Prosecution examined,

16. PW1 is the Complainant, PW2 & PW3 are the Injured persons, PW4 is the panch for CDF and PW5 is the Doctor, PW6 and PW7 are the

Investigating officers.

17.PW1/complainant has deposed that LW2 is his uncle. LW3 is his wife.

LW4 is the witness to the incident. He has lodge complaint on J.

Prabakar(accused) dated 29-10-2021. The incident took place on 24.10.2021 at around 12.15 PM. LW2, LW3 and his son name Vijval (3 years old) were going from Raikal to Rudrangi on Passion Pro Bike. The incident took place at Thandriyal X-Road. The accused was going on Super

Splendor Motorcycle bearing No. AP15 AP8370. The accused without giving any indicator applied the breaks in the middle of the road. Due to the negligent act of accused LW2, LW3 and his son dashed the motorcycle and fell down. His Uncle/LW2 received injuries and his left hand and leg got fracture, LW3 received bleeding injuries on head and Left hand and Left Leg, his son received injuries right side of the head, Nose and also rashes on left hand. LW4 informed him about the incident and he himself took LW2, LW3 and his son in Ambulance to Govt Hospital Korutla. After that they shifted them to Vaishnavi Hospital for better treatment. Police examined him and recorded his statement.

Fair 8 CC.No. 491 of 2021

Date: 29.11.2025

During the cross-examination he admitted that the vehicle has original

RC and Insurance papers but he did not submit the before the court. He admitted that the accused did not dashed the vehicle. He admitted that he did not submit any medical reports regarding injuries before the court. He stated that LW2 has driving license but he has not submitted before the court.

18. PW2/injured has deposed that PW1 is his son-in-law. LW3 is his daughter. He does not have prior acquaintance with the LW4, but he has seen him on date of the accident who shifted him in Ambulance to

Government Hospital, Korutla. He does not know the accused. On 24.10.2021 at about 10:45 A.M. he along with LW3 and his grandson by name Vijval(3 years old) were going from Raikal to Rudrangi on his Passion pro bike, he was riding the bike and LW3 was the pillion rider. When they reach to Thandriyal X-road one super splendor vehicle was going in-front of his vehicle and he has applied sudden breaks without any indication as such they have dashed the super splendor vehicle and fell down. At the time his vehicle speed was around 30kmph. Due to the act of the super splendor vehicle driver he has received fractured injuries on his left leg and left shoulder and also LW3 received injuries on her head and his grandson received injuries on his hands and face. He came to know through others the driver of the super splendor vehicle is by name Janagam Prabakar i.e.,

Accused who runs Kirana Business at Korutla. One person who is resident

Fair 9 CC.No. 491 of 2021

Date: 29.11.2025

of Thandriyal village has shifted me, LW3 and his grandson to Government

Hospital, Korutla in Ambulance. For better treatment they were shifted to

Vaishnavi Private Hospital, Korutla by the PW1. Police examined him and recorded his statement.

During the cross-examination he admitted that he has not submitted the documents relating to his vehicle and also his driving license in the present case. He stated that he did not know the colour of the accused vehicle. He admitted that at the time of incident he did not know the name of the accused.

19. PW3/Injured has deposed that PW1 is her husband. PW2 is her father.

She does not have prior acquaintance with the LW4. She does not have prior acquaintance with the accused. On 24.10.2021 she along with her father/PW2 and with her 3 years old son were traveling from Raikal to

Rudrangi village at 10:40 AM. PW2/her father was driving the vehicle B.No.

TS 21 C 8382 she and her son were the pillion riders. When they reach the

Thandriyal X-road one vehicle splendor bike B.No. AP 15 AP 8370 came in a rash and negligent manner and suddenly applied brakes in front of their vehicle without any indication, due to this PW2 loss control over the vehicle and she, her son and PW2 fell down. Due to this she received stitches on her left side of head and also received injuries on her left hand, PW2 got fracture injuries on his left hand and leg. Her son received scratches on his face, left leg and hand. LW4 witness the incident and called Ambulance and

Fair 10 CC.No. 491 of 2021

Date: 29.11.2025

shifted them to Government Hospital, Korutla. She has seen the accused on the date of accident. She came to know the name of the accused as Jangam

Prabakar.

During the cross-examination she stated that, she, PW2 and his son were traveling from Raikal to Rudrangi. She does not know whether the driving license is submitted before the police. She was unconscious after the incident occurred she does not know the names of the surrounded persons. She has seen the accused at the time of the accident but she did not remember if seen now. She does not know the colour of the accused vehicle. She denied the suggestion.

20. PW4/panch for CDF has deposed that he knows LW6 who is another panch witness. On 29.10.2021 in the morning hrs after 10:00 am, Police

Kathalapur conducted CDF panchanama in his presence and also in the presence of LW6 at Thandriyal X-road, main road regarding Bike accident.

Police incorporated crime details in it and drew a rough sketch. After completion of panchanama he and LW6 signed on it.

During the cross-examination he stated that, he does not know accused name and his details. He does not know any facts of the case but panchanama was conducted in his presence.

21. PW5/Medical Officerhas deposed thathe received requisition from SI of Kathalapur dated: 23.11.2021 to examine injured person by names: 1)

PW2/Chandra Shekar, S/o.Rajam, age: 52 years r/o.Valgonda village. He examined him on 24.10.2021 and found the following injuries: 1) Proximal

Fair 11 CC.No. 491 of 2021

Date: 29.11.2025

Humerus fracture on left side shoulder. The Injury Grievous in nature. 2)

Left Fibular- head fracture left knee. The Injury is Grievous in nature. 3)

Abrasion over left knee 2 x 1 cm. The Injury is simple in nature. On the same day he issued MC on 23.11.2021. He examine PW3/Sinduja Rani,

W/o. Srinivas, age: 29 years r/o. Rudrangi village. He examined her on 24.10.2021 and found the following injuries: 1) Laceration of 2 x 1 cm over scalp. The Injury is simple in nature. 2) Abrasion 2 x 1 cm over Zygomatic area. The Injury is simple in nature. 3) Abrasion over left knee 2 x 1 cm.

The Injury is simple in nature. On the same day he issued MC on 23.11.2021.

During the cross-examination he stated that the police was sent him a requisition on 23.11.2021. On the same day he has issued the MC. PW2 and PW3 inform him they got injuries on 24.10.2021, as they fell down from the Bike. He does not know the reasons for the delay. The injuries are possible when a person falls from the Bike.

22. PW6/1st Investigating Officer has deposed thathe received complaint from PW1 on 29.10.2021 at 14:30 hrs, he registered case in the Cr. No.

150/2021, U/Sec.337, 338 IPC against accused and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation he examined and recorded the statements of PW1 at PS. he visited scene of offence at Thandriyal village X-road where he secured the presence of witnesses i.e., LW2 to LW4, he examined and recorded their statements and conducted CDF

Fair 12 CC.No. 491 of 2021

Date: 29.11.2025

panchanama in the presence of mediators i.e., LW5 and LW6 (Ex.P2-CDF).

He handed-over entire CD file to LW9 for further investigation.

During the cross-examination he stated that he has not mentioned the delay for registering the FIR. He did not refer to the injured to the hospital.

He has acquaintance with LW1 to LW6. He has recorded the statements of witnesses at the scene of offence.

23. PW7/2nd Investigating Officer has deposed that he has taken CD file from PW6 for further investigation. She has verified the investigation done by the PW6 found it on proper lines. She visited the scene of offence and re- examined the witnesses LW1 to LW4 in which all the witnesses reiterate the same, earlier stated before PW6 and hence did not re-record their statements. She served 41-A Cr.P.C notice to the accused on 20.06.2021 and instructed accused to appear before her on 12.11.2021. Accused complied the notice. She received MC of LW2/PW2 and LW3/PW3 from PW5

Vaishnavi Hospital, Korutla.(Ex.P3 and Ex.P4). Based on the MC Ex.P3 and

Ex.P4 she added section of law 338 IPC. After completion of investigation she filed charge-sheet before this Hon’ble Court against the accused, u/sec.

337, 338 IPC.

During the cross-examination she stated that she did not register the

FIR. The delay reasons are mentioned. PW6 has collected the MC. PW6 has recorded the statements of LW1 to LW6. She does not know that PW6 has acquaintance with the complainant. She did not recover the driving license from injured person.

Fair 13 CC.No. 491 of 2021

Date: 29.11.2025

Appreciation of evidence:-

24. Now it has to be seen whether prosecution could able to connect the accused with the accident. In this regard, prosecution examined PW1 who is the complainant and husband of PW3 who upon receipt of information about the accident, lodged the report Ex.P1, he is not an eye witness to the incident. His evidence is hearsay in nature, hence his evidence is of no consequence to the case of the prosecution. PW2 and PW3 who are eye witnesses and injured to the accident deposed that on 24.10.2021 at about 10:45 am when they were traveling from Raikal to Rudrangi village, when they reached the Thandriyal X-road. One vehicle Splendor Bike No. AP-15-

AP-8370 came in a rash and negligent manner and suddenly applied breaks infront of their vehicle without any indication due to this PW2 and PW3 sustained injuries. LW4 witnessed the incident and shifted them to Govt hospital, Korutla for better treatment and then they were shifted to

Vaishnavi Private Hospital Korutla by PW1. PW2 and PW3 came to know the name of accused through others. During the cross-examination of PW3, she deposed that she was unconscious after the incident occurred. She has seen the accused at the time of the accident but she does not remember if seen now. She does not know the colour of the accused vehicle. On perusal of 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2 and PW3, they have not stated before the police about the physical features of the driver of crime vehicle. PW4 who is projected as mediators for crime detail form clearly deposed in his cross- examination that he does not know the name of the accused and his

Fair 14 CC.No. 491 of 2021

Date: 29.11.2025

details. PW5 is the Doctor who treated PW2 and PW3 corroborated the version of PW2 and PW3 but during the cross-examination he stated that the police has sent him a requisition on 23.11.2021 to examine injured persons. On the same day he has issued the MC. PW2 and PW3 informed him they got injuries on 24.10.2021, as they fell down from the Bike. PW5 himself admitted he did not know the reasons for the delay, and also stated that the injuries are possible when a person falls from the bike. On perusal of Ex.P3(MC of PW2) and Ex.P4(MC of PW3) it clearly shows that the medical certificate was issued on 23.11.2021. The incident occurred on 24.10.2021 and the complaint was given on 29.10.2021, the delay reasons are not explained by the prosecution. Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 does not show that

PW2 and PW3 were examined on 24.10.2021. No fresh injuries are mentioned in Ex.P3 and Ex.P4. Hence unexplained delay makes Medical

Evidence unreliable. Further the instant case, prosecution failed to examine LW4 who is the eye witness to the incident. Non examination of the eye witness is fatal to the case of the prosecution.

25.Admittedly, the alleged accident took place on 24-10-2021. PW3 deposed before the Court on 09-10-2025 i.e., four years after the accident.

PW3 herself admitted in her cross-examination that she does not remember the accused if seen now. The evidence of Pw.3 identifying the accused by her as the driver of the crime vehicle four years after the accident having seen him from a distance on the alleged date of accident is highly improbable to believe. Further, PW2 and PW.3 has also not stated anything about the

Fair 15 CC.No. 491 of 2021

Date: 29.11.2025

physical features of the accused in their statement made before the police.

The evidence of PW2 and Pw.3 is improvised version from their earlier statement made before the police. Pw.6 and PW7 also stated that except basing on the complaint/Ex.P1 by PW.1, he has not collected any documents to show that accused drove the crime vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused injuries to PW.2 and PW3. In view of latches on the part of the investigating officer and weak piece of evidence of PW.3 as to the identity of the accused four years after the accident and so also non disclosure of physical features of the accused before the police by PW.3, I find that a reasonable doubt will arise as to the complicity of the accused in the accident. Further the mediator for scene of offence panchanama even though he has supported the case of the prosecution but clearly stated deposed in his cross-examination that he does not know any facts of the case but panchanama was conducted. Even as per the evidence of PW.2 and PW3 who are injured/Eye witnesses, that the crime vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner by the accused but as seen from the rough sketch under

Ex.P2 does not depict any tyre marks or skid marks which creates amount of doubt as to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. What needs to be seen here is whether the accused was driving his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. It is clear from the prosecution witnesses, that no evidence has been led to show that the accused was driving the crime vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and he suddenly applied brakes in the middle of the road without any indicator. The occurrence of the accident

Fair 16 CC.No. 491 of 2021

Date: 29.11.2025

itself does not give rise to an assumption of rashness or negligence. Further, the injured, PW-2 and PW3 has not given a trustworthy deposition of the manner in which the crime vehicle was being driven. The prosecution also failed to give any other documentary or ocular evidence regarding the condition in which the crime vehicle was being driven, without any indicator or any indication of rash and negligent driving.

26. In the present case, the investigating officer has also failed to state the approximate speed of crime vehicle at the time of the accident, speed limit of the road, or the manner in which the traffic was moving and about the status of traffic signal, the skid marks etc. In the present case, as already noted above, the prosecution could not discharged the onus of proving the ingredients of offence in question and thus, the accused person is entitled to benefit of doubt.

27. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec.337, 338 IPC and consequently he is acquitted

U/Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of 6 months from the date of judgment as per Sec.437-A

Cr.P.C., for preferring appeal to the higher Court, from this judgment by prosecution or by the defacto complainant. Since no property is deposited there is no order with regard to property.

(Typed to my dictation by Typist, after corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this 29 th day of November, 2025)

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Korutla.

Fair 17 CC.No. 491 of 2021

Date: 29.11.2025

:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE WITNESSES EXAMINED ::

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW1 – G. Srinivas– is the Complainant/son-in-law of the injured

PW2 – U. Chandra Shekar– is the Injured person

PW3 – G. Sindhuja Rani – is the Injured person

PW4 – T. Vinod – is the panch for CDF

PW5 – Dr. A. Linga Murthy – is the Medical Officer and issued MC

PW6 – B. Kishtaiah– is the 1st Investigating Officer.

PW7 – A. Rajitha – is the 2nd Investigating Officer.

FOR DEFENCE:

-None- Exhibits Marked FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1 – is the Complaint

Ex.P2 – is the CDF Panchanama

Ex.P3 – is the MC of PW.2

Ex.P4 – is the MC of PW.3

Ex.P5 – is the FIR

FOR DEFENCE: - Nil -

Material Objects Marked

-NIL-

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Korutla.

Fair Page 1 of 17 C.C.No.386 of 2017

Date:29.11.2025

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

KORUTLA.

Saturday, the 29thday of November, 2025.

Present: Smt. K. Pavani, Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Korutla.

C.C. No. 386 of 2017

in

Cr.No. 146 of 2017

Between:

The State represented through Sub-Inspector of Police, Korutla.

...Complainant

A N D

Rudra Srinivas, S/o. Mallaiah, Age: 44 yrs, Caste: Padmashali, R/o. Vivekananda road, Korutla.

...Accused

Section of law:U/sec.420, 468, 471 IPC

Plea of the Accused:Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the court:Found not guilty :In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the Sentence or order offences punishable u/sec. 420, 468, 471 of IPC andconsequentlytheyareacquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of 6 months from the date of judgment as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C for preferring appeal to the higher Court, from this judgment by prosecution or by the defacto complainant. Since no property is deposited there is no order with regard to property * * *

Fair Page 2 of 17 C.C.No.386 of 2017

Date:29.11.2025

This case came up before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor, on behalf of prosecution and of Sri. B. Raghu, Advocate for Accused and having stood over for determination, this day the court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The State being represented through the Sub-Inspector of Police,

Korutla, laid charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.146/2017 for the offences punishable U/sec.420, 468, 471 IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution is nutshell is that:-

On 22.07.2017 at 11.30 hrs the complainant Renjarla Narsaiah came to the PS and lodged a English computerized typing complaint, in which stated that he is resident of Bheemunidubba Korutla proper. He is resident of Korutla and his son-in-law by name Dandeboina Venkati got the house property bearing Municipal H.No. 1-1-122/2 covering an extent of 270 Sq.

Yards in Sy. No. 358 situated at Korutla proper as he has purchased the said plot of land from its original owner Jangampalli Raji reddy through sale deed on 12.06.2006 and subsequently he constructed, however in the said land and accordingly the Korutla Municipality allotted H.No. 1-1-122/1 to the said property. One Rudra Srinivas is doing real estate business and habituated criminal acts and against him so many civil and criminal cases are pending the said Rudra Srinivas by forging his signature created a fake agreement of sale dated 05-07-2005 alleged to have been executed by him agreeing to sell the above mentioned property whatever knowing the proper

Fair Page 3 of 17 C.C.No.386 of 2017

Date:29.11.2025

knowledge on total plot area he mention the total area to him of Rs.

4,00,000/- by received Rs.3,00,000/- from him as advance. That basing on the above said forged agreement of sale the Rudra Srinivas has filed a suit for specific performance of contract against him and two others before the

Hon'Ble senior Civil Court judge at Jagtial vide O.S No. 110 of 2007 in which

on his application the Hon'ble court sent the forged agreement of sale for expert opinion vide I.A. No 510 of 2011 along with some of his admitted signatures. After examination of his signatures the examiner of Kashyap's

International Forgery Detection Bureau gave his written opinion given finding that the signature appearing on the agreement of sale dated 05-07- 2005 submitted by Rudra Srinivas in a Court is forged one. The suit filed by

Rudra srinivas was also dismissed. The Xerox copy of forged agreement of sale along with expert report are filed. Finally he requested to take necessary action.

On receipt of the above complaint the LW-7 has registered a case in

Cr.No.146/2017 U/Sec. 420,471,468 IPC and issued FIR to all the concerned and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation he examined and recorded the statements of the LW1 at PS. Visited the scene of offence where secured the presence of the LW2 to LW4 they were examined and recorded their detailed statements in CD part-11. Observed the scene of offence and drew a rough sketch of the scene of offence under crime detailed form before the panchas LW5 and LW6. Since the offence

Fair Page 4 of 17 C.C.No.386 of 2017

Date:29.11.2025

u/sec. 420, 471.468 IPC punishment extend to seven years and also liable to fine. As the accused previously involved several criminal cases if the accused released on bail and he will be committed other offences and accused is possibility that he may jump on bail which is difficult to produce him before the Hon'ble Court. The accused also caused tomparing the evidence by threatening the witnesses. Hence the above circumstances the I.O. did not serve the Notice U/sec 41-A Cr.P.C and made his arrest and produced before the Hon'ble Court. On 05-08-2017 at 15.00 hrs, on reliable information the

LW-7 along with men rushed to the house of accused at Korutla proper and arrested the accused and interrogated in which the accused has voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence. Later brought him to PS Korutla at 16.00 hrs and issued arrest memos against him by informing the arrest grounds to him and his relatives. The accused was produced before the

Medical Officer Govt. Maternity Hospital, Korutla for his health check up and certificate and sent him for judicial remand on the same day.

3.The case was taken on file against accused by my predecessor for offences punishable U/sec.420, 468, 471 IPC.

4. On appearance of the accused copies of documents was furnished to them as per Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

5.The Accused examined u/Sec.239 Cr.P.C for the offences u/Sec.420, 468, 471 IPC, this court heard the prosecution and the accused, upon considering the submissions made and also the denial by the accused about

Fair Page 5 of 17 C.C.No.386 of 2017

Date:29.11.2025

the accusation, charges as per Sec.240(1) Cr.P.C. for the offences u/Sec.

420, 468, 471 IPC were framed and explained to accused person in Telugu as per Sec.240(2) Cr.P.C and having understood the charges framed against them, they denied the charges and on question of plea of guilt, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the trial against the accused.

6.For bringing home the guilt of the accused persons by proving the substance of accusation for the offences beyond reasonable doubt, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW4 out of (7) cited witnesses and exhibited

Ex-P1 to Ex-P5. Report was filed by the concerned Police for LW3 that whereabouts of LW3 not known. Hence the evidence of LW3 was closed.

Subsequently after giving sufficient opportunities, the Court pleased to close the evidence of remaining witnesses. Inspite of giving several adjournment the Investigating officer failed to appear before the Court, since the matter is pertaining to 2017 the Court was pleased to close the evidence of

LW7/Investigating Officer.

7. The list of witnesses examined by the prosecution are as follows:-

PW1- R. NarsaiahComplainant

PW2 – D. VenkateshCircumstantial witness

PW3 – Jangampalli Raja ReddyCircumstantial witness

PW4 – S. GangadharPanch for CDF

Fair Page 6 of 17 C.C.No.386 of 2017

Date:29.11.2025

8. The list of documents exhibited by the prosecution are as follows:-

Ex.P1is the complaint

Ex.P2is the Report of handwriting expert and its enclosures(4 in no.)

Ex.P3is the Certified copy of agreement of sale dated: 05.07.2005.

Ex.P4is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3

Ex.P5is the CDF

9. Material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution are:

- - Nil - -

10.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined

U/Sec.313 r/w 281 of Cr.P.C., enabling him to explain personally the incriminating circumstances appeared against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which the accused denied the truthfulness of the evidence testified by the prosecution witnesses for which the accused denied as false and reported no defence evidence. Written arguments filed by prosecution as well as defence counsel along with citations.

11.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused.

Fair Page 7 of 17 C.C.No.386 of 2017

Date:29.11.2025

12.Now the point for determination is :-

Whether the prosecution could successfully bring home  the guilt of the accused by proving the charges for the offences u/Sec.420,468,471 IPC beyond reasonable doubt ?

. Section 420 of the Indian Penal code(IPC) pertains to

cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.

Under Section 420 IPC states that :

“Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

U/sec.468 of IPC is states that :

“Forgery for purpose of cheating—Whoever commits forgery intending that the 1 [document or electronic record forged] shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

U/sec.471 of IPC is states that :

“The accused created a false document . The accused intended to use the forged document for cheating”

Fair Page 8 of 17 C.C.No.386 of 2017

Date:29.11.2025

13. In order to attract the offence of cheating under section 420 of IPC, it is for the prosecution to establish that there was dishonest intention to deceive the victims that in pursuance of such dishonest intention, the accused induced the victims to deliver some valuable security or property; that upon such inducement or deception, victims parted with the property in favour of the accused.

14. Mensrea is an indispensable component of the offence of cheating u/sec.420 IPC. To hold a person guilty of offence of cheating it has to be shown that his intention was dishonest at the time of making the promise. It is necessary for the prosecution to show that the accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise. A bare reading of the provision of sec.415 r/w sec.420 IPC would clearly lead to a conclusion that fraudulent or dishonest inducement on the part of the accused must be at the inception and not at a subsequent stage and it is obligatory on the part of the prosecution to project that the accused at the time of making the promise or representation entertained fraudulent or dishonest intention in his mind. Fraudulent intent is absolutely essential to warrant a conviction of the offender for the offence u/sec. 420 IPC.

15.Having considered the legal position coupled with the facts germane to the case of the prosecution now let us see whether the prosecution was

Fair Page 9 of 17 C.C.No.386 of 2017

Date:29.11.2025

able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the charged offences.

To prove its case prosecution examined as;

16. PW1/complainant has deposed that LW2 is his son-in-law. He knows LW3 and LW4. He has prior acquaintance with the accused. There was land dispute between him and accused regarding the land in Sy.No.

404 to an extent of 50 guntas situated at Korutla shivar. He did not compromised for the 50 guntas of land. LW2/D. Venkatesh had purchased an open plot measuring 270 Sq. yards in Sy.No.358 situated at Korutla from LW4. Previously LW4 purchase the above mentioned land from

LW3/Gonela Lingareddy. PW1 was entrusted with the construction work at

LW2’s open plot. Since he has not compromised for the 50 guntas of land, accused assumed that he was the owner of LW2’s open plot i.e., 270 Sq.

yards in Sy.No.358 and created fake and forged documents of 10 rupees stamp papers stating that accused has sold it for the consideration of Rs. 4 lakhs. The contents of document was accused had given an amount of

Rs. 3 lakhs to PW1 towards and 1 lakh would be given at the time of registration. He got notice from the Hon’ble Sub Court Jagtial and on the instructions of the Hon’ble Court the alleged forged document was sent for handwriting expert. After receiving the report the suit was dismissed on the ground that the signatures did not match alleged forged document, hence

Fair Page 10 of 17 C.C.No.386 of 2017

Date:29.11.2025

he has filed present case against the accused. Police examined him and recorded his statement.

During the cross-examination PW1 stated thatthe suit is decreed in favour of accused in respect of land in Sy.No. 404 to an extent of 50 guntas situated at Korutla. He admitted that one Gonela Nadipi Bakkaiah and

Gonela Lingareddy/LW.3 are the original pattedar of land in Sy.No. 358 of

Korutla. One gonela Gangadhar is agnate of Gonela Nadipi Bakkaiah. He has not purchase any land from Gonela Gangadhar. He did not know whether accused has filed civil suit against him and G. Gangadhar and P.

Bhaskar Rao vide O.S. No. 110 of 2007 on the file Hon’ble Senior civil

Judge’s court, Jagtial. He did not know that the suit was dismissed for

default on 22.09.2015. He further stated that he has send Ex.P3 for expert opinion in the above suit. He did not remember whether he has filed private complaint dated: 05.02.2013 before the JMFC, Metpally against the accused, B. Rajendar and S. Raju alleging that they have created Ex.P3 and

Patharla Satyanarayana and Md. Raoof were cited as witnesses in the said complaint. He does not know whether the said complaint was referred to PS

Korutla and FIR was registered vide Cr.No. 38/2013, U/sec. 193, 504, 506

IPC. He does not know the complaint filed by PW1 was closed as false report by the police after investigation. The witnesses in private complaint are not cited in the present case. He is not educated. He did not know who has scribed the complaint. He further stated that he has given the

Fair Page 11 of 17 C.C.No.386 of 2017

Date:29.11.2025

complaint. He admitted that there is previous dispute with accused regarding land in Sy. No. 404 to an extent of 50 guntas mentioned in Ex.P1 as well as in his 161 statement.

17.PW2 has deposed that PW1 is his father-in-law. He knows LW3 and

LW4. He knows the accused. In the year 2006 he purchased plot from LW3 to an extent of 270 Sq. yards in Sy.No. 358 situated at outskirts of Korutla town near Bheemunidubba. There was land dispute between PW1 and accused regarding the land. Accused created fake document regarding the above said land, stating the PW1 has sold his land to the accused without his knowledge. Accused has scribed all the contents of document. PW1 also did not had knowledge about the fake document. The alleged forged document was sent for handwriting expert. After receiving the report the signatures did not matched. Hence PW1 have filed present case against the accused

During the cross-examination he admitted that PW1 is his father-in- law. He is running in medical shop in Korutla for the last 20 years. He admitted that PW3 has no land in Sy. No. 358 to and extent of 270 Sq. Yards situated at Korutla. He admitted that the original pattedar of Sy. No. 358 is

Gonela Gangadhar. He did not know whether the PW1 has purchased the land to an extent of 299 Sq. Yards in Sy. No. 358 from original pattedar

Gonela Gangadhar through an agreement of sale. He did not know whether the PW1 entered into an agreement sale with the accused in respect of the

Fair Page 12 of 17 C.C.No.386 of 2017

Date:29.11.2025

property and measuring 299 Sq. Yards in Sy. No. 358 which he has purchased the same in Gonela Gangdhar for a total consideration of Rs. 4 lakhs and out of which he received an amount of Rs. 3 lakhs from the accused towards earnest money and executed an agreement of sale in favour of the accused in respect of above said property. He admitted that the accused filed a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale against

PW1 vide O.S. No. 110 of 2007 and the file of Hon’ble SCJ, Jagtial. He does not know whether PW1 had filed a complaint against the accused. Bondula

Rajendar and S. Raju before the JMFC at Metpally in year 2013. He did not know whether any previous FIR has been issued against accused and two others in Cr. No. 38 of 2013 of PS Korutla, U/sec. 103, 504 and 506 IPC. He does not know whether this case is closed by the police after investigation treating the same as civil in nature. He admitted that he did not state to the police that there are land disputes between PW1 and accused. PW1 informed him about forged agreement of sale. He admitted that he did not had personal knowledge about agreement of sale.

18. PW3/Circumstantial witness tuned antagonistic to the case of prosecution and he volte faced in the witness box.

19.PW4/panch witness for CDF has deposed that he knows LW5 who is another panch witness. In the year 2017 at around 12:00 PM Police Korutla conducted CDF panchanama in his presence and also presence of LW5 at the land of PW1 which is situated at Bheemunidubba, Korutla Town

Fair Page 13 of 17 C.C.No.386 of 2017

Date:29.11.2025

regarding disputes between PW1 and accused. Police incorporated Crime details and after completion of panchanama he and LW5 signed on it.

During the cross-examination he stated that he has signed on Ex.P5 at land of PW1. He does not remember the contents of Ex.P5. He further adds that he has signed on Ex.P5 relating to the land. He does not have personal relationship with PW1 but he belongs to his caste.

20. It is the case of the prosecution that accused created a fake document/agreement of sale i.e.,Ex.P3 stating that PW1 sold the land in

Sy.No. 358 to an extent of 270 Sq. yards and forged 10 rupees stamp paper for a consideration of Rs. 4 lakhs. LW2/PW2 has purchased the land in

Sy.No. 358 to an extent of 270 Sq.yards from LW4/PW3 and previously

LW4/PW3 purchase the land from LW2/PW2. The contents of the document was accused has given an amount of Rs. 3 lakhs to PW1 and 1 lakh would be given at the time of registration. As per the version of PW1 accused assumed that he was the owner of LW2’s/PW2 open plot in Sy.No. 358 to an extent of 270 Sq. yards. PW2 also deposed in the similar lines of PW1. The said alleged forged document was sent for handwriting expert and the signatures did not matched i.e.,Ex.P2. PW2 further stated that accused has scribed the contents of the document. During the cross-examination of PW2, he admitted that PW3/LW4 had no land in Sy.No. 358 to an extent of 270

Sq. yards. He further admitted that original pattedar in Sy. No. 358 is Gonela

Fair Page 14 of 17 C.C.No.386 of 2017

Date:29.11.2025

Gangadhar. It was further elicited that PW1 informed him about the forged agreement of sale. He has no personal knowledge of agreement of sale.

Hence the evidence of PW2 is hearsay evidence, not clear and inconsistent.

The evidence of PW1 and PW2 are not in corroboration with regard to the ownership of the above said land. If PW2 has no title or claim, accused gaining benefit from creating document is doubtful. There is an absence of motive with regard to alleged forged document. The two versions cannot stand together. PW1 and PW2 further admits about the previous enmity and civil disputes with the accused regarding 50 guntas of land in Sy.No. 404. It was further elicited that the suit was decreed in favour of the accused regarding the above said land. Hence established enmity creates possibility of false implication. PW1 and PW2 deposed that the “signatures did not match” however the said handwriting expert not examined. Expert opinion is only corroborative but not conclusive proof. No contemporaneous admitted signatures were produced. However it was further elicited that the Civil suit pending was dismissed for default. Prosecution failed to prove the due execution of Ex.P3. No attestor and scribers were examined. The intention that the accused has used the alleged forged document knowingly is not proved. PW3 did not support the case of the prosecution. PW4 who is panch witness for CDF clearly deposed in his cross-examination that he does not remember the contents of Ex.P5. LW3 and PW3 who are alleged to be the original owners of the land in Sy.No. 358 to an extent of 270 Sq. yards did

Fair Page 15 of 17 C.C.No.386 of 2017

Date:29.11.2025

not support the case of the prosecution. None of the witness could confirm who purchased the above said land and who executed the alleged agreement of sale except the testimonies of PW1. Ownership and chain of transactions are completely unproved. Only family member (interested witness) i.e.,

PW2/son in law of PW1 examined. Hence the evidence of PW1 and PW2 is mutually contradictory, hearsay, uncorroborated and unreliable. No independent witnesses have been examined. Ownership of the property is not proved, alleged forged document is not proved. Inordinate and unexplained delay between the alleged commission of offence and filing of the complaint/FIR is not explained by the prosecution. The investigating officer not examined by the prosecution to clarify the said ambiguity.

21Therefore, in view of the above discussion, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove offecnes u/secs.420, 460, 471 IPC establish and, thereby, miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are not sufficient enough to prove the guilt of accused. Hence, benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused.

22.In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable u/sec. 420, 460, 417 IPC and consequently he is acquitted U/Sec.248(1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of 6 months from the date of judgment as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C for preferring

Fair Page 16 of 17 C.C.No.386 of 2017

Date:29.11.2025

appeal to the higher Court, from this judgment by prosecution or by the defacto complainant. Since no property is deposited there is no order with regard to property (Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this 29 th day of November, 2025).

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Korutla.

:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE WITNESSES EXAMINED ::

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW1- R. NarsaiahComplainant

PW2 – D. VenkateshCircumstantial witness

PW3 – Jangampalli Raja ReddyCircumstantial witness

PW4 – S. GangadharPanch for CDF

FOR DEFENCE:

- None -

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1is the complaint

Ex.P2is the Report of handwriting expert and its enclosures(4 in no.)

Fair Page 17 of 17 C.C.No.386 of 2017

Date:29.11.2025

Ex.P3is the Certified copy of agreement of sale dated: 05.07.2005.

Ex.P4is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3

Ex.P5is the CDF

FOR DEFENCE :

- NIL -

Material Objects Marked -NIL-

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Korutla.

Fair 1 of 17 CC.No.120 of 2020

Date: 29.11.2025

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT KORUTLA.

Friday, the 29th day of November, 2025

Present: Smt. K. Pavani, Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Korutla.

C.C.No.120 of 2020

In

(Cr.No. 10/2020)

Between:-

The State represented through the Sub Inspector of Police, Medipalli

....Complainant

And

Sate Ramulu, S/o.Vittal, Age:45 years, R/o.H.No. 3-26, Kalyapur village, Ranjal Mandal, Nizamabad district. …Accused Section of law:U/Sec.304-A IPC

Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the court:Found not guilty

Sentence or order: In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/s.304-A IPC, and consequently he is acquitted U/Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused shall remain in force for a period of 6 months from the date of judgment as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C for preferring appeal to the higher Court, from this judgment by prosecution or by the defacto complainant. Since no property is deposited there is no order with regard to property.

@@@

Fair 2 of 17 CC.No.120 of 2020

Date: 29.11.2025

This case came up before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor, on behalf of prosecution and of Sri.Ch. Prem Kumar, Advocate for Accused and having stood over for determination, this day the court delivered the following:-

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

1.The State represented through the Sub-Inspector of Police,

Police Station, Korutla laid charge-sheet against the accused in

Cr.No.10/2020 for the offence punishable U/Sec.304-A IPC.

2.A synoptical resume of the prosecution version is that on 05.03.2020 at 09:45 hrs the complainant/LW-1 Bathula Venkatesh s/o Anjaiah came to PS Medipalli and lodged a written Telugu complaint stating he is a native of Pallamalli village, Cheemakurthi

Mandal, Prakasham Dist, now residing at LIC colony of Korutla and attending mesri work for livelihood. There are four persons working with him and everyday he used to distribute them works and providing Tiffin's and meals. As usually on i.e., 05.03.2020 at 06.00

AM he woke up his workers and sent two workers i.e., Kunchala

Shiva and Vemu Naveen for attending pending work of Mohan sir r/o

Puranipet of Jagitial and they left to Jagitial on CD Deluxe Motorbike bearing no. AP-27-BN-2847 of Naveen, later at about 07:45 hrs they informed him that they were unable to complete the work they have informed the same to Raghu who is brother-in-law of Mohan and were returning to Korutla on same motorbike. Later at 09:30 AM Kunchala

Peddanna r/o Jagitial informed him over phone that while the Naveen

Fair 3 of 17 CC.No.120 of 2020

Date: 29.11.2025

and Shiva were returning to Korutla they met with accident which took place in front of the Andhra bank and died on spot, on that immediately he rushed to the spot and enquired about the same and he came to know that while the Naveen and Shiva were returning from Jagitial on the motorcycle bearing no. AP-27-BN-2847 and they were reached Andhra Bank ATM at Medipalli, the driver of RTC bus bearing no. AP-25-Y-0018 drove his Bus by rash and negligent manner and dashed to Shiva and Naveen who were coming on the

Motorbike from opposite direction, due to which they fell down on the road and the bus tire ran over the head of Shiva, caused crush injury and succumbed to instant death and also the bus tire ran over the waist of Pillion rider Naveen and caused crush injury and also received severe bleeding injuries over his head and succumbed to instant death. Therefore the complainant requested to take necessary action against the driver of the RTC bus bearing No. AP-25-Y-0018 who driven the bus by rash and negligent manner and dashed to the deceased persons and caused to instant death.

3. On receipt o the above complainant the LW-18 (S1 of Police PS

Medipalli) has issued FIR and submitted to all concerned officers and informed the facts to his superior officers. During the course of investigation the LW-18 examined and recorded the statement of LW.

1/complainant in part-II CD. Later LW-18 along with his men

Fair 4 of 17 CC.No.120 of 2020

Date: 29.11.2025

proceeded to the scene of offence situated at Medipalli on NH road.

On reaching the scene of offence, the LW-18 secured the presence of two mediators i.e., LW-12 & LW-13 drafted the CDF in the presence of same mediators duly incorporating the mandate particulars of the scene of offence in the CDF. The scene of offence is situated to the south direction and with a distance of 1 Kms from PS Medipalli. The scene of offence is situated on NH-63 road, in front of the Andhra

Bank Medipalli. To the North of scene of offence there is a Andhra

Bank ATM, to the South there is a new construction building of Pothu

Ganesh, to the East there is NH-63 road leading to Jagtial from

Korutla and to the west side there is also NH-63 road leading from

Korutla to Jagtial and also there is a culvert. During the course of investigation the LW-18/S1 of Police PS Medipalli has come to know that the D-1 was native of Gundlapalli village of Maddipadu Mandal,

Prakasham Dist. and D-2 is Ambedkarnagar, Mangamur (V),

Santhanuthalapadu (M), Prakasham Dist., now present they were working at Bathula Venaketsh/complainant. Due to not available of family members of deceased D-1 and D-2 and as per their request the dead bodies of D-1 and D-2 shifted to Govt. Community Health

Centre Korutla and kept the bodies in the mortuary of Govt. hospital

Korutla for safe custody under escort of PC-3240 and informed the duty Medical officer Korutla. Later the LW-18 has handed over the CD file to CI of Police Korutla for further investigation as the case is

Fair 5 of 17 CC.No.120 of 2020

Date: 29.11.2025

Grave in nature. Subsequently the LW-19/C1 of Police Korutla took up further investigation of this case. During the course of further investigation. LW-19 along with LW-18/S1 of Police PS Medipalli proceeded to Mortuary at Govt. community health centre Korutla, where the dead bodies of D-1, D-2 were preserved in the mortuary.

The LW-19 also directed SI Medipalli (LW-18) to attend the Inquest over the body of D-2. During the course of further investigation the

LW-19 got photographs of the body of D-1 through LW-11. Secured the presence of complainant/LW-1 re-examined and re-recorded his statement in part-11 CD.

4. LW-19 also procured the presence of witnesses LW-2 to LW-5, examined them in detailed and recorded their statements in part-II

CDs. Thereafter the LW-19 procured the presence of mediators i.e.,

LW-14 & LW-15 and examined the body of deceased D-1 in their presence and conducted the Inquest over the body of D-1 in the presence of mediators and witnesses.

5.The case was taken on file against accused by my predecessor for offence u/sec. 304-A IPC against accused, the case was numbered as C.C. No.120 of 2020 and issued summons to the accused as per

Sec.204 Cr.P.C.

6.On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated u/Sec.207 r/w Sec.238 Cr.P.C. The

Fair 6 of 17 CC.No.120 of 2020

Date: 29.11.2025

accused was examined under section 251 of Cr.P.C. The substance of accusation for the offence U/sec. 304-A IPC was explained to accused in Telugu to which he denied and claimed to be tried.

7.For proving its case, prosecution had examined PW.1 to PW.9 out of (19) cited witnesses and Ex.P1 to Ex.P11 were marked. LW8,

LW.9, LW.16, LW.17 & LW.19 were given up by the prosecution.

Report filed by the concerned police for LW.3, LW.4, LW.14 & LW.15.

Hence their evidence was closed.

8.The list of witnesses examined by the prosecution are as follows:-

PW1 – B. Venkatesh – Complainant

PW2 – Ch. Venu/J. Venu – Panch witness for CDF

PW3 – G. Madhusudhan – Panch witness for CDF

PW4 – P. Ganesh – Eye witness

PW5 – A. Bhumareddy – RTC duty conductor

PW6 – G. Nagesh – Photographer

PW7 – V. Shiva Narayana – Elder brother of D2

PW8 – D. Subbarao – Cousin brother of D2

PW9 – N. Srinivas – 1st Investigating Officer

Fair 7 of 17 CC.No.120 of 2020

Date: 29.11.2025

9. The list of documents exhibited by the prosecution are as follows:-

Ex.P1 – is the complaint

Ex.P2 –is the CDF panchanama

Ex.P3 – is the 161 statement of PW4

Ex.P4 –is the 161 statement of PW5

Ex.P5 – is the 4 photographs in number along with CD

Ex.P6 –is the FIR

Ex.P7 – is the inquest panchanama of D1

Ex.P8 – is the inquest panchanama of D2

Ex.P9 – is the PME report of D1

Ex.P10 – is the PME report of D2

Ex.P11- is the MVI report.

List of Documents marked on behalf of the defence:

-Nil-

10.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined u/Sec.313 r/w Sec.281 Cr.P.C for the incriminating circumstances appeared against him in the evidence of PW.1 to PW.9 for which he denied the truthfulness of the evidence and reported no defence evidence on his side.

Fair 8 of 17 CC.No.120 of 2020

Date: 29.11.2025

11.Heard learned Asst. Public Prosecutor, and learned counsel for the accused.

12. Now the points for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution could successfully bring

home the guilt of the accused by proving the charges for

the offence u/Sec. 304-A IPC beyond reasonable doubt?.

13.However, this court has weighed the essential ingredients of section 304-A of IPC carefully as follows:-

1) There must be death of the person in question

2) The accused must have caused such death and

3) That such act of the accused was rash or negligent and that it did not amount to culpable homicide State of Punjab Vs Balwinder Singh (2012) 2 SCC 182.

14.In order to attract Sec.304-A of IPC the death must be a direct result of rash or negligent act of the accused and the act must be sufficient cause without intervention of another act of negligence. It must be the causa causans, it is not enough that it may have been the causa sine qua non. There must be a direct nexus between the death of the person and the rash and negligent act. The cause of death is the primary point and negligent and rash act is the next point.

Sec.304-A of IPC presupposes the negligent act.

It is the case of the prosecution that accused drove the TS RTC

Hire with bus B.No. AP-25-Y-0018 in rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased no.1 & deceased no.2. The deceased D1/K. Shiva

Fair 9 of 17 CC.No.120 of 2020

Date: 29.11.2025

& D2/V. Naveen received severe injuries and died at Government

Community Hospital, Korutla while undergoing treatment.

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

To prove it case, Prosecution examined,

16. PW.1/complainant has deposed that deceased no.1/Shiva and deceased no.2/Naveen was working as his employee(Mestri) in construction. Around 4 years ago he went to Jagtial to attend the work while returning to Korutla they met with an accident. He received a call from PS Medipalli that two persons were died in a road accident caused by RTC bus belongs to Bodan Depot, his mobile number is with one of the deceased and seeing that police called him. Immediately he went to scene of offence deceased no.1 & 2 were died in a road accident. Police shifted D1 & D2 to Govt. Hospital, Korutla for PME. He gave a complaint on the same day.

During the cross-examination he stated that he does not remember the date of his complaint. He got information about the accident from the police. He stated that he does not know the bus number and accused. He does not know who has scribe the complaint.

Fair 10 of 17 CC.No.120 of 2020

Date: 29.11.2025

He further stated that he does not know whether the compensation has been given to the victim family.

17.PW.2/Panch witness for CDF has deposed that he know LW13.

Police Medipalli conducted CDF panchanama regarding accident at

Medipally, Andhra Bank in his presence and LW13. Around 4 years back, he and LW13 signed on CDF panchanama.

During the cross-examination he stated that he did not remember exact date of panchanama but it was in the year 2000. He stated that he does not know the contents of the Ex.P2. He has signed on Ex.P2 on the instructions of the police at Andhra Bank Medipally.

He stated that he did not know the details of the deceased. He admitted that he does not know any facts of the case and he has signed on the instructions of police.

18. PW.3/another panch witness for CDF has deposed that he does not have acquaintance with PW2. Police Medipally conducted CDF panchanama regarding accident at Medipally, Andhra Bank in his presence and PW2. Around 4 years back in the month of March. He did not know the name of the deceased. He and PW2 signed on CDF panchanama.

During the cross-examination he stated that three members were died in the accident. He knows the contents of Ex.P2. He stated

Fair 11 of 17 CC.No.120 of 2020

Date: 29.11.2025

that he does not know the name of the accused. He does not know the name of the deceased persons but they belong to Andhra. One of the person among them was Shiva. The RTC bus came in the Opposite direction. The bus was coming in speed manner from Korutla to Jagtial and the bike was coming in the opposite direction. The bus over took the bike in speed manner by dashing. He stated that he did not remember the RTC bus number.

19.PW.4 and PW.5 tuned antagonistic to the case of prosecution and they volte faced in the witness box. During examination by the learned APP as per Sec. 154 of Indian Evidence Act read with Sec.12 proviso of Cr.P.C, nothing could be elicited or culled out in favour of prosecution from PW.4 & PW.5.

20. PW.6/Photographer has deposed that on 06.03.2020 Medipally police called him to take the photographs of deceased D1 & D2 at the scene of offence near Andhra Bank Medipally. He hand-over the 5 photos along with CD to Medipally police.

During the cross-examination he stated that police did not examined him and recorded his statements. He takes photographs regularly of PS Medipally. He admitted that he did not know any facts of this case.

Fair 12 of 17 CC.No.120 of 2020

Date: 29.11.2025

21. PW.7 has deposed that Deceased No.2 is his younger brother.

Deceased No.1 is friend of Deceased No.2. He know LW7. LW8 is his relative. He does not know LW9. Around 5 years back D1 and D2 were returning on bike after completion of work from Medipally to Korutla.

He came to know that one RTC bus dashed D1 and D2’s bike due to which D1 & D2 died on the spot.

During the cross-examination he stated that police examined him and recorded his statement. He did not know the owner, where D1 and D2 works. He stated that he does not know the person who caused the accident.

22.PW.8 has deposed that Deceased No.2 is his cousin brother. D1 is friend of D2. He know PW7 and LW8. He did not know LW9. D1 and

D2 were attending work under one Mestri for livlihood. Around 5 years back he received phone call from Mestri r/o. Korutla that while D1 and

D2 were returning on bike after completion of work from Medipally to

Korutla, one RTC bus dashed D1 and D2’s bike due to which D1 and

D2 died on the spot.

During the cross-examination he stated that he does not know the person who caused the accident. He does not know Bus number.

He further stated that he did not witnessed the incident. Police did not examined him and not recorded his statement.

Fair 13 of 17 CC.No.120 of 2020

Date: 29.11.2025

23.PW.9 who is the Investigating officer deposed that 05.03.2020 at 19.45 hrs, he registered case in Cr. No. 10/2020 U/sec. 304-A

IPC against accused and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded statement of

PW1 at PS. He along with men proceeded to scene of offence at

Medipally National Highway-63 and conducted CDF panchanama in the presence of mediators i.e., LW12 and LW13 and he secured the presence of witnesses LW6 and LW8, he examined and recorded their statements. He handed-over CD file for further investigation.

LW19 verified the investigation done by him and found that on proper lines. He along with LW19 proceeded to mortuary Govt.

Hospital, Korutla where D1/Kunchela @ Gunji Shiva and

D2/Vemula Naveen. LW19 conducted inquest panchanama and photographed the dead body of deceased no.1. He conducted inquest panchanama and photographed the dead body of deceased no.2. with the help of LW11/PW6. LW19 sent a requisition to the

Doctor/LW16 to conduct autopsy over the dead body of the deceased no.1 and no.2. LW19 examined and recorded the statements of LW2, LW3, LW4, LW5, LW6 and LW10, LW19 received

PME report of the deceased no.1 and 2 from LW16. LW19 gave requisition to the LW17/AMVI for the purpose of inspection of crime vehicle. LW19 served 41-A Cr,PC notice to the accused and he complied the notice. LW19 have collected MVI report from LW17.

Fair 14 of 17 CC.No.120 of 2020

Date: 29.11.2025

After completion of investigation LW19 filed charge-sheet before this

Hon’ble court u/sec. 304-A IPC against the accused.

During the cross-examination he denied all the suggestion.

24.In order to prove the first and foremost ingredient of Sec.304-A

IPC that “There must be death of the persons in question”, the evidence of PW.1 to PW.9 coupled with documentary evidence under

Ex.P1 to Ex.P9 are very much clearly discloses the death of deceased, undisputedly the evidence of PW1 to PW9 is fully corroborated the same, hence the prosecution successfully proved the first essential ingredient of sec.304-A IPC.

25.The 2nd essential ingredient for Sec.304-A IPC that “The accused must have caused such death”. On careful scrutinization of the entire gamut of evidence which is not establishing the identity of Accused who alleged to have been caused the accident. As per the case of the prosecution PW1 is the complainant, PW7 & PW8 are the brothers of deceased no.2. PW2 and PW3 are panch witnesses for CDF and PW4 is the eye witness. PW4 did not support the case of the prosecution.

The evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it may be said that there is no sufficient evidence on record connecting the accused with the crime, the prosecution is able to prove the unfortunate incident.

However, merely establishing the factor of death in a road incident by itself alone is not sufficient to hold that the accused is the then the driver of the crime vehicle and he drove the same in a rash and

Fair 15 of 17 CC.No.120 of 2020

Date: 29.11.2025

negligent manner at the relevant point of time. On the other hand, the case of the accused as per the cross examination is that a false case is claimed to be foisted for claiming compensation. In the absence of any such material on record, the accused can be acquitted on giving benefit of doubt. Therefore, merely proving the death caused by bus would not sufficient to convict the accused for offences punishable under sections 304-A of IPC.

26.The 3rd and last important ingredient for the offence U/s.304-A

IPC is that “That such act of the accused was rash or negligent and that it did not amount to culpable homicide”, for which though the prosecution witnesses establishes the death of deceased caused due to the injuries that were received by him in the accident, but any of the prosecution witnesses did not satisfactorily explained that the

Accused is the driver of the accident vehicle. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to establish the act of rashness of negligence on the part of accused in the present case, and, thereby, miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are not sufficient enough to prove the guilt of accused. Hence, benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused.

27.Thus, in view of the above discussion,the court is opined that, the material witnesses couldn't establish the identity of the accused.

There is nothing on record to establish the guilt of accused. And in

Fair 16 of 17 CC.No.120 of 2020

Date: 29.11.2025

the absence of any other independent evidence on record to corroborate the evidence of PWs.1 to PW.9 it is not safe to base conviction upon the accused. In the absence of any sufficient oral or documentary evidence on record to corroborate the evidence of PW.1 to PW.9 this court is of the opinion that the essential ingredients for the offence U/Sec. 304-A of IPC, against the accused is not sufficiently made out by the prosecution against accused.

28. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.304-A IPC and consequently he is acquitted

U/Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of 6 months from the date of judgment as per

Sec.437-A Cr.P.C., for preferring appeal to the higher Court, from this judgment by prosecution or by the defacto complainant. Since no property is deposited there is no order with regard to property.

(Typed to my dictation by Copyist, after corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this 29th day of November, 2025)

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Korutla.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW1 – B. Venkatesh – Complainant

PW2 – Ch. Venu/J. Venu – Panch witness for CDF

PW3 – G. Madhusudhan – Panch witness for CDF

PW4 – P. Ganesh – Eye witness

Fair 17 of 17 CC.No.120 of 2020

Date: 29.11.2025

PW5 – A. Bhumareddy – RTC duty conductor

PW6 – G. Nagesh – Photographer

PW7 – V. Shiva Narayana – Elder brother of D2

PW8 – D. Subbarao – Cousin brother of D2

PW9 – N. Srinivas – 1st Investigating Officer

FOR DEFENCE:

-None-

Exhibits Marked

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 – is the complaint

Ex.P2 –is the CDF panchanama

Ex.P3 – is the 161 statement of PW4

Ex.P4 –is the 161 statement of PW5

Ex.P5 – is the 4 photographs in number along with CD

Ex.P6 –is the FIR

Ex.P7 – is the inquest panchanama

Ex.P8 – is the inquest panchanama

Ex.P9 – is the PME report of D1

Ex.P10 – is the PME report of D2

Ex.P11- is the MVI report.

FOR DEFENCE:

Nil

Material Objects Marked

-NIL-

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Korutla.

Fair 1 CC.No.217 of 2019

Date:29.11.2025

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

KORUTLA.

Saturday, the 29th day of November, 2025

Present: Smt. K. Pavani, Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Korutla.

C.C.No. 217 of 2019

Between:-

The State represented through the Sub Inspector of Police, P.S Korutla (Cr.No.225/2019).

.... Complainant

And

A1. Dokka Raju @ Sathyam, S/o.Khathal, Age:29 years, R/o. Allamaiah gutta of Korutla.

A2. Dokka Hari Prasad, s/o. Khathal, Age: 30 years, R/o. Allamaiah gutta of Korutla.

…Accused No,1 & 2

Section of law:U/Sec.420 IPC, Sec.7(1) (a) (1) of Essential Commodities Act 1955.

Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the court:Found not guilty

Sentence or order: In the result, the Accused No.1 & 2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable u/Sec.420 of IPC and Sec. 7(1) (a) (I) of Essential CommoditiesAct1955and consequently he is acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C for the above said offence. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of 6 months from the date of

Fair 2 CC.No.217 of 2019

Date:29.11.2025

judgment as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C for preferring appeal to the higher Court, from this judgment by prosecution or by the defacto complainant. As no property like PDS rice is produced before this court no order is passed against the property @ @ @

This case came up before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor, on behalf of prosecution and of Sri. Md. Mubeen Pasha, Advocate for Accused and having stood over for determination, this day the court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The State represented through the Sub-Inspector of Police, Police

Station, Korutla laid charge sheet against the accused in

Cr.No.225/2019 for the offences punishable U/Sec. 420 IPC, Sec.7 (1)

(a)(I) of Essential Commodities Act 1955.

2.A synoptical resume of the prosecution version is that, on 11-06-2019 at 20:00 hours, he along with his men PCs. 1717, 3450 were conducting vehicle checking Allamaiah gutta of Korutla at about 20:30 hrs two Mopeds vide B/No.AP-36-P-2078, TS-21-C-1907 were coming to Korutla. On that he stopped the said vehicles and found 3 quintals 50 KGs of PDS rice bags. Immediately, he took custody of both drivers and on enquiry, to them they did not produced any valid

Fair 3 CC.No.217 of 2019

Date:29.11.2025

documents for transporting the rice and they revealed their names as

A-1.Dokka Sathyam, A-2.Dokka Hari Prasad. He secured the presence of two panchas and on interrogation the accused A-1 & A-2 were stated they were decided to earn money easy way by purchasing

PDS rice from the common people of various villages at lower price and selling the same on higher price to the Shops at Korutla. As usual on 11-06-2019 while they loaded 3 quintals 50 KGs PDS rice bags and while they were transporting the PDS Rice of Civil Supply department without having any valid license or permit from the concerned department and apprehended. Recorded the confession of accused and seized the two Mopeds vide B/No.AP-36-P-2078, TS-21-

C-1907 and brought them to PS along with seized property to PS 20.30 hrs and registered sue-motto case vide Cr.No.225/2019,u/s 420 IPC, Sec 7(1)(a)(1) of Essential Commodities Act and took up the investigation.

3.During the course of investigation LW-7 has examined and recorded the statements of LW-1 & in part-II CD who are the assisted the I.O and LW-3 & LW-4 is operator of weigh bridge and Godwon officer. As per the provision U/Sec. 41-A Cr.PC. the LW-7 prepared a notices and served to the accused on 11-06-2019 duly obtained their signatures, in which instructed them to appear before the I.O. On or

before 17-06-2019 at 10.00 hours along with ID proof and sureties to

Fair 4 CC.No.217 of 2019

Date:29.11.2025

enlarged them on bail, if they fail to submit their identity or sureties they may be arrested and produce before the competent court. The same was enclosed herewith before Hon'ble court for kind perusal. On 17-06-2019 the accused A-1 & A-2 appear before LW-7 with sufficient sureties and ID proofs to effect with bail. As such after verification of their documents, The LW-7 again prepared a Notice u/sec. 41-A-

Cr.P.C notice against the accused with a direction to appear before the Hon’ble Court after receipt of the summon from the Hon’ble

Court.

4.On a requisition letter sent by the LW-7, the Tahsildar of Korutla has given, in reply letter with directions to the Godown Officer (LW-4) to receive the seized stock from the SI of Police Korutla. As per the directions of Tahsildar, the Godown Officer (LW-4) has received the seized stock from SI of Police Korutla under proper acknowledgment receipt. At the time Supply, the weight of the PDS rice is reduced 3 quintals & 50 Kgs. Hence, the LW-7 recorded the statement of

Godown Officer LW-4 in part-II CD. Lw-8 took up the investigation from the LW-7 found on proper lines.

5.Upon consideration of the material placed before the Court, cognizance as per Sec.190(1)(b) Cr.P.C for the offences u/Sec. 420 of

IPC, Sec.7 (1) (a)(1) of Essential Commodities Act 1955 was taken

Fair 5 CC.No.217 of 2019

Date:29.11.2025

against accused no.1 & 2 and summons were issued to accused as per Sec.204 Cr.P.C.

6.On appearance of the accused no.1 & 2, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated u/Sec.207 r/w Sec.238 Cr.P.C.

Accordingly on receipt of the summon the Accused no.1 & 2 appear

before this Court.

7.The Accused no.1 & 2 were examined u/Sec.239 Cr.P.C for the offences u/Sec.420 IPC, Sec.7 (1) (a)(1) of Essential Commodities Act 1955, this court heard the prosecution and the Accused no.1 & 2, upon considering the submissions made and also the denial by the accused no.1 & 2 about the accusation, charges as per Sec.240(1)

Cr.P.C. for the offences u/Sec. 420 IPC, Sec.7 (1)(a)(1) of Essential

Commodities Act 1955 were framed and explained to accused no.1 & 2 persons in Telugu as per Sec.240(2) Cr.P.C and having understood the charges framed against him, he denied the charges and on question of plea of guilt, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the trial against the accused no.1 & 2.

8.For proving their case, prosecution had examined PW.1 to PW.3 out of (8) cited witnesses. LW.1 & LW.3 were given up by the prosecution.

Death certificate filed for LW.5. Hence, the evidence of LW1, LW3 and

LW5 was closed. Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 were marked.

Fair 6 CC.No.217 of 2019

Date:29.11.2025

9. The list of witnesses examined by the prosecution are as follows:-

PW.1 – K. Sampath - Police personal and Assist the I.O.

PW.2 – K. Gangadhar – Godown Officer

PW.3 – G. Raju Naik – Investigating Officer

10. The list of documents exhibited by the prosecution are as follows:-

Ex.P1 is the Badratha receipt

Ex.P2 is the Confession and Seizure panchanama

Ex.P3 is the Suo-moto complaint

Ex.P4 is the FIR

Ex.P5 is the weigh receipt

The list of documents exhibited by the defence are as follows:-

-Nil-

List of Material objects marked:

-Nil-

11. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the Accused examined

U/Sec.313 r/w Sec.281 Cr.P.C for the incriminating circumstances appeared against them in the evidence of PW.1 to PW.4 for which they denied the truthfulness of the evidence and reported no defence evidence on their side.

Fair 7 CC.No.217 of 2019

Date:29.11.2025

12.Heard learned Asst. Public Prosecutor, and learned counsel for the accused.

13.Now the points for determination are:-

Whether the prosecution could successfully bring home the

guilt of the accused by proving the charges for the offences

u/sec. 420 IPC, Sec.7(1)(a)(1) of Essential Commodities Act 1955

beyond reasonable doubt?.

It is the case of prosecution that the accused purchased PDS rice meant for supplied at subsidiary rates from the poor and down trodden. Accused diverted the PDS rice at higher price to gain money illegally and the police Korutla seized 3 quintals and 50 Kgs of PDS rice under the cover of confession and seizure panchanama and registered the case u/sec.420 IPC,Sec.7(1)(a)(I) of Essential

Commodities Act 1955.

14.PW1 has deposed that on 11.06.2019 at around 20:00 PM, he along with LW7 while conducting patrolling near Allamaiah gutta of Korutla. They found (2) Two wheeler TVS XL B.No. AP-36-P- 2078 and TS-21-C-1907 found in suspicion manner they stooped vehicles and checked. They found PDS rice four bags carrying each vehicle. On interrogation the drivers of the vehicles did not show any valid permission concerned department. Immediately LW7 secured in the presence of mediators LW5 and LW6 and conducted confession and recovery panchanama. Accused No.1 and 2 further

Fair 8 CC.No.217 of 2019

Date:29.11.2025

confessed that they purchased PDS rice from the locality of

Allamiahgutta Korutla and selling them to Kirana shops at higher price. They seized 3 quintals 50 Kgs of PDS rice in 4 bags from the possession of accused no.1 and 2 and total 4 bags. They have brought the PDS rice along with the seized PDS rice to the PS. LW7 registered suo-motto case and handover the seized PDS rice to

MLS point Godown at Korutla/LW4. LW7 examined him and recorded his statements.

During the cross-examination of PW1 he stated that he along with LW7 and LW1 went to Allamaiah gutta and conducted vehicle checking. Vehicle checking took place for 1 hour. In one hour they checked 25 vehicles. Vehicle checking took place from 08.00 PM to 09.00 PM. They prepared check list of the vehicles checked. There were no government logo on the bags. Accused no.1 & 2 purchased the rice from village of Yakenpur. They did not conduct enquiry with the villagers of Yakenpur. A1 and A2 sold the rice in

Ricemills. He did not conduct enquiry with the ricemill owner. They did not conduct enquiry bike owners.

15. PW2/Godown Officer has deposed that on 15.06.2019 the concerned police filed requisition to receive the seized PDS rice.

Accordingly, he has taken custody and measuring the quantity of seized PDS rice weighed 3 quintals and 50 Kgs of PDS rice in 4

Fair 9 CC.No.217 of 2019

Date:29.11.2025

bags and issued badhratha receipt for the same. Police examined him and recorded his statement.

During the cross-examination PW2, stated that he did not know when the PDS rice seized. He did not know where the PDS rice was kept for 4 days. There were no government logo on the plastic bags. He was handed-over seized rice by DTS.

16. PW3/Investigating Officer has deposed that this is suo-motto case registered in Cr.No. 225/2019, u/sec. 420 IPC, Sec. 7(1)(i)(a) of EC

Act. While conducting vehicle check at Allamaiah gutta Korutla at around 20:30 hrs two mopeds vide B.No. AP-36-P-2078, TS-21-C- 1907 while coming to Korutla he stoped the vehicles and found illegally possession of PDS rice 3 quintals 50 kgs without having any valid licence or permit from the concerned department. On interrogation they stated their names as Dokka Sathyam/A1 and

Dokka Hariprasad/A2 and they purchased PDS rice from the nearby villagers of Korutla at lower price and selling them to higher price to various shops at Korutla. Immediately he secured the presence of mediators LW5 and LW6 and conducted confession and seizure panchanama. He weighed stored PDS rice 3 quintals 50 Kgs at Maheshwara weigh bridge. He came to PS along with seized property and 2-mopeds registered suomoto case against the accused no.1 and 2. During the course of investigation he

Fair 10 CC.No.217 of 2019

Date:29.11.2025

examined and recorded the statements of LW1 and LW2. He gave a requisition to Tahsildar Korutla safe custody of seized property. On the instructions of Tahsildar Korutla he handover the seized PDS rice to MLS Point Korutla to LW4/Godown officer. He Served the 41-A Cr.P.C. to accused no.1 and 2 and they complied the notice.

After completion of Investigation he filed the charge-sheet before this Hon’ble Court u/sec.,420 of IPC, Sec.7(1)(a)(i) of EC Act against the accused no.1 and 2. He examined and recorded the statements of LW4 and further he handed-over CD file to LW8 for further investigation.

During the cross-examination PW3, stated that the vehicle checking was carried out for 2 hours. He did not know how many vehicles were checked within 2 hours. He weighed the rice at the rice-mill. Total quantity of the rice was 3 quintals 50 kgs. Toally there were 3 bags. He has recorded the statements of LW4. He did not know on which date he handed-over rice to Godown officer. The rice was kept in police station for period of 6 days. There is no government logo on the bags. He did not record the statements of rice-mill owners. He did not conduct enquiry regarding the owners of the moped vehicles.

17. In this case except the evidence of PW2/Godown Officer, he stated that only on requisition of PS Korutla he received 3 quintals of PDS

Fair 11 CC.No.217 of 2019

Date:29.11.2025

rice and he has hand over the seized PDS rice weighing 3 quintals in rice in 4 bags and accordingly he has taken the custody and weighed the rice, more than this he did not know any thing about this case and the investigating officer i.e., PW3 and PC i.e., PW1 there is no other corroborating evidence to convict the accused to this offence.

More over none of the independent witnesses are supported to the case of prosecution, the investigating officer is interested witnesses so only basing on the evidence of investigating officer the accused cannot be convicted. Though the investigating officer handed over the rice to

Godown Officer, Korutla and obtained acknowledgment from him but the investigating officer did not choose to collect any report from him that the seized rice is PDS rice or not. It is not enough for the prosecution to prove that the rice was seized from the possession of the accused. The prosecution is also expected to prove that seized rice is PDS rice. Astonishingly the investigating officer failed to conduct his investigation in such a way to establish that the seized rice was PDS rice. The aforesaid discussions leads meet to hold that the prosecution miserably failed to establish that the rice was seized from the possession of the accused and also that the alleged rice was PDS rice.

Hence this court is of the opinion that the ingredients of Sec.7 of E.C

Act are not made out by the prosecution case.

Fair 12 CC.No.217 of 2019

Date:29.11.2025

The accused is also charged for the offence U/sec.420 of IPC. In order to sustain the charge U/sec.420 of IPC the prosecution firstly must prove that the accused has deceived the victim and got some property delivered to him. But in the present case in hand, though it is the case of the prosecution that the accused allegedly deceived the public; but the investigating officer did not choose to examine any of the persons from whom he was allegedly purchasing the PDS rice and also to the public to whom he was selling the PDS rice at higher price.

Thus there is no material and evidence on record that the accused has deceived any person and also got any property from the other persons and was gaining illegally by selling at higher rates. Hence this court is of the opinion that Sec.420 of IPC is also not applicable to this case.

Thus, in view of the above discussion, this court is of the opinion that in the absence of any other independent evidence on record to corroborate the evidence of PW1 to PW3, it is not safe to base conviction upon the Accused. In the absence of any sufficient oral or documentary evidence on record to corroborate the evidence of

PW1 to PW3 this court is of the opinion that the essential ingredients for the offence U/Sec.420 IPC and Section 7 of Essential Commodities

Act is not sufficiently made out by the prosecution against accused

As such, the Accused is entitled for benefit of doubt for the above said offence. Since the material witnesses who were examined by

Fair 13 CC.No.217 of 2019

Date:29.11.2025

prosecution turned hostile, there is nothing on record to establish the guilt of accused. Hence, I hold the point as against to the prosecution.

18. In the result, the Accused no.1 & 2 arefound not guilty for the offences punishable u/Sec.420 of IPC and Sec. 7(1) (a) (1) of Essential

Commodities Act 1955 and consequently they are acquitted

U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C for the above said offence. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of 6 months from the date of judgment as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C for preferring appeal to the higher Court, from this judgment by prosecution or by the defacto complainant. As no property like PDS rice is produced before this court no order is passed against the property.

(Typed to my dictation by the Copyist, after corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 29 th day of November, 2025).

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Korutla

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW.1 – K. Sampath - Police personal and Assist the I.O. PW.2 – K. Gangadhar – Godown Officer PW.3 – G. Raju Naik – Investigating Officer

Fair 14 CC.No.217 of 2019

Date:29.11.2025

FOR DEFENCE:

-None-

Exhibits Marked

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 is the Badratha receipt Ex.P2 is the Confession and Seizure panchanama Ex.P3 is the Suo-moto complaint Ex.P4 is the FIR Ex.P5 is the weigh receipt

FOR DEFENCE: -Nil-

Material Objects Marked: -NIL-

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Korutla

fair 1 of 9 CC.No. 642 of 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

KORUTLA.

Present: Smt.K.Pavani,

Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Korutla.

Friday, the 08th of May, 2026

C.C.No. 642 of 2025

Between:-

The State represented through the Sub Inspector of Police, PS Korutla.

.... Complainant

And

A1:MD. Ifran S/o Nawab Pasha, Age-24 yrs, Caste-Muslim R/o H.No.5-2- 15, Khilla Gadda, Jagtial.

A2:Asia Begum W/o Nawab Pasha, Age-40 yrs, Caste-Muslim R/o H.No. 5- 2-15, Khilla Gadda, Jagtial.

A3:Samreen Begum W/o Mohmmad Sadiq, Age-24 yrs, Caste-Muslim R/o H.No.18-4-154/15, Kallakunta colony, Siddipet district.

A4:Fareen Begum D/o Md. Nawab Pasha, Age-18 yrs, Caste- Muslim R/o H.No. 5-2-15, Khilla Gadda, Jagtial.

A5:Mohammad Imran S/o Mohammad Nawab, Age-28 yrs, Caste- Muslim R/o H.No.5-2-15, Khilla Gadda, Jagtial.

.…Accused No.1 to 5 @ @ @

This case came up before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Asst.Public Prosecutor, on behalf of prosecution and of Sri. Boini Sathyanarayana, Advocatefor accused no.1 to 5 and having stood over for determination, this day the court delivered the following: - fair 2 of 9 CC.No. 642 of 2025

J U D G M E N T

1.The State represented through the Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station,

Korutla laid charge sheet against the Accused No.1 to 4 in Cr.No.415/2025 for the offences punishable U/Sec.85 BNS and Sec.4 of DP Act.

2.A synoptical resume of the prosecution version is that on 08.11.2025 at 17.00 hrs. the complaint Sana Begum W/o Md Irfan, Age-19 yrs, Caste-

Dudedkula R/o. Urban colony, Korutla town came to PS: Korutla town and lodged complaint on 01.05.2025 she got married with Md. Irfan S/o Nawab

Pasha, Age-24 yrs, Caste-Muslim R/o H.No.5-2-15, Khilla Gadda, Jagtial in the presence of their caste elders as per caste tradition. As per the demand of the her husband and his parents, her parents gave as a dowry of Rs. 1 lakh in cash, 4 grams of gold, and a two-wheeler Motorcycle worth Rs. 1 lakh

Rupees, 2- lakhs worth house hold articles. Two days after her wedding, her husband parents threatened her to do all the work and beat her. After three or four days, her parents came to Jagtial and took her to Korutla. After few days, her husband brought some elders to Korutla and took her to Jagtial.

After taking her to Jagtial, her husband Irfan, her sister-in-laws Samreen and

Farheen scolded her and beat her. Again, when her parents came to know about the matter, they brought her back to Korutla. After few days, her husband parents talked to their Maulana Moolsab in the presence of elders

MD Moiz Khan and Shahbaz and sent her back, they were then hired somewhere else in Jagtial. Complainant mother-in-law Asia Begum was in the hospital with a broken leg. When she went to the hospital, her sister-in- fair 3 of 9 CC.No. 642 of 2025 laws Samreen, Farheen, brother-in-law Imran and her husband Irfan said, “Give your your gold and bring extra dowry. Who will bear all these expenses?” They scolded and beat her. In this way, they tortured her mentally and physically. After her mother-in-law got better, she went to see her mother-in-law again. That day, her mother-in-law Asia husband Irfan, all came together and beaten her, saying, "Give your gold and bring extra dowry and her sister-in-laws Samreen, Farheen, brother-in-law Imran threatened to perform second marriage to her husband if she did not bring the extra dowry.

They threatened to kill her right here if she does not bring extra dowry.

Finally, she requested to take necessary action.

3.On receipt of the above complaint. LW-8 registered a case in Cr.No.415/2025 u/sec 85 BNS. Sec4 of DP Act and issued FIR, sent the copies to officials and as well as the Hon'ble Court.

4.During the investigation, the LW-8 summoned LW-1 to PS:Korutla and examined the LW-1 and recorded her detailed statement in CD Part-II at PS:

Korutla and collected marriage card and photos from LW-1.

5.During the investigation, the LW-8 visited scene of offence, Where, LW-8 secured the presence of two mediators i.e., LWs - 6&7 and observed the scene of offence shown by LW-1,incorporated observations in crime detail form and a rough sketch of the the investigation, the LW-8 secured the presence of LW- 2 to LW-5 and examined them scene of offence was also drawn in the fair 4 of 9 CC.No. 642 of 2025 presence of two mediators i.e. LWs-6&7. During and recorded their statements in detail in CD Part-IIs.

6.During the investigation, on 09-11-2025, the LW-08 had served notice U/sec, 35 BNSS on the accused persons A-1 to A-5 by directing them to appear

before him on 10-11-2025 at 12:00 hrs, along with their identity proof &

passport size photos.

7.On 10-11-2025, the accused persons A-1 to A-5 came to PS: Korutla and appeared before LW-8 and produced their identity proof i.e.,copy of his

Adhaar card & passport-size photos. Accordingly, the LW-8 interrogated the accused persons A-1 to A-5 thoroughly, on interrogation, the accused persons A-1 to A-5 voluntarily confessed to having committed this offence.

Later, LW-8 served u/s 35 BNSS against the accused A-2 & A-3 with instructions to attend the Hon'ble JFCM Korutla as and when received the summons from the Hon'ble Court.

8.The case was taken on file against accused no.1 to 5 for offence U/sec.85

BNS and Sec.4 of DP Act against Accused No.1 to 5.

9.The Accused No.1 to 5 are examined U/Sec.262 BNSS for the offences

U/Sec.85 BNS, Sec.4 of DP Act and this court heard the prosecution and the accused no.1 to 5 and upon considering the submissions made and also the denial by the accused no.1 to 5 about the accusation. For the offences U/Sec.

85 BNS, Sec.4 of DP Act were framed and explained to Accused No.1 to 5 in vernacular language having understood the charges framed against them, fair 5 of 9 CC.No. 642 of 2025 they denied the charges and on question of plea of guilt, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the trial against the Accused No.1 to 5 commenced

10. For proving it’s case, prosecution examined PWs.1 to PWs.5 and out of 8 cited witnesses, got exhibited Exs.P1 to Ex.P8 as documentary evidence. LW.3,

LW.6 & LW.7 given up by the prosecution. Hence the evidence of LW.3, LW.6 & LW.7 were closed.

11.After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the Accused No.1 to 5 were examined under section. 351 BNSS for the incriminating material found against them in the prosecution witnesses to which they denied the same and reported no defense evidence. Hence, the defense evidence closed.

12.Heard learned Asst.,Public Prosecutor, and learned counsel for the Accused

No.1 to 4.

13.Now the point for determination is that :-

Whether the prosecution could successfully bring home the guilt

of the Accused No.1 to 5 by proving the charges for the offences

u/sec.85 BNS and sec.4 of DP Act beyond reasonable doubt?.

POINT:- 14.The prosecution to support and substantiate its case has examined PW1 to

PW5.

PW1 to PW4 witnesses have turned antagonistic PW1 is the complainant, PW2 is the mother of PW1, PW3 and PW4 are caste elders to the case of prosecution and they volte faced in the witness box. During cross fair 6 of 9 CC.No. 642 of 2025 examination by the learned APP as per Sec.157 of Bharatiya Sakshya

Adhiniyam(BSA)-2023 read with Sec.181 provision of BNSSnothing could be elicited or culled out in favour of prosecution from PWs.1 to PW.4.

15.PW5 who is the investigating officer deposed that on 08.11.2025 at 17:00 hrs, he received complaint from PW1 and he registered a case in Cr.No. 415/2025, u/sec. 85 of BNS and sec. 4 of DP Act against accused no.1 to 5 and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation. He examined and recorded statement of PW1 at PS. Immediately he visited LW1’s house at

Urban colony at Korutla and conducted CDF panchanama in the presence of mediators LW6 to LW7. Further he examined and recorded statement of PW2,

LW3, PW3 and PW4. On 09.11.2025 he served 35(3) BNSS notice to accused no.1 to 5. Further accused no.1 to 5 complied the notice. After completion of the investigation he filed charge-sheet before this Court, u/sec. 85 of BNS and sec. 4 of DP Act against the accused no.1 to 5.

16.During the course of cross examination of PW5, he stated that, he did not examined the witness regarding dowry amount taken by A1 to A5. He has not examined any independent witness. He has not submitted any cash receipts regarding the gold. He did not submit any vehicle number and RC. On the same day he has conducted CDF and he has drawn the sketch map. He denied the suggestion that the mediators of the CDF are police stock witness.

He further denied that accused No.1 to 5 never harassed PW1 and never demanded for additional dowry. He further denied that A1 to A5 are falsely implicated in this case.

fair 7 of 9 CC.No. 642 of 2025

17. In these circumstances, although the prosecution examined the Investigation

Officer who conducted investigation of this case as PW.5, in the absence of any evidence incriminating against the A1 to A5 with the alleged offences, the evidence of PW.5 is of no use to the prosecution who is always interested in the outcome of case of prosecution.

18. In view of the above discussed evidence, it is seen that there is no evidence from the independent witnesses. All the witnesses failed to support the case of Prosecution, basing on this evidence, this Court is inclined to come to the conclusion that essential ingredients for the offence under Section 85 BNSS.

Sec 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against A1 to A5 are not established by the

Prosecution enabling accused no.1 to 4 for acquittal and the point is answered accordingly.

19.In the result, the Accused No.1 to 5 are found not guilty for the offences punishable u/sec.85 BNS and sec.4 of DP Act and consequently they are acquitted U/Sec.271(1) BNSS. The bail bonds of the Accused No.1 to shall remain in force for a period of 6 months from the date of judgment as per

Sec.480 BNSS for preferring appeal to the higher Court, from this judgment by prosecution or by the defacto complainant. Since no property is deposited there is no order with regard to property.

(Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade- III, after corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 08 th day of May, 2026).

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Korutla.

fair 8 of 9 CC.No. 642 of 2025

:: Appendix of Evidence ::

:: Witnesses Examined ::

For Prosecution:

Prosecution Name of witnesses Description Witness No.

PW-1 Sana Begum Complainant

PW-2Aliya BegumMother of the PW1

PW-3 Md Moiz khanCaste elder

PW-4Mohammed ShahbhazCaste elder

PW-5P. RamachandramInvestigating Officer

For Defense: -- Nil --

:: Exhibits Marked ::

For Prosecution:

Exhibit No. Description of the Exhibit Proved by/Attested by

Ex.P1 Signature on the complaintPW.1

Ex.P2Statement of U/sec.180 BNSSPW.1

Ex.P3Statement of U/sec.180 BNSSPW.2

Ex.P4Statement of U/sec.180 BNSSPW.3

Ex.P5Statement of U/sec.180 BNSSPW.5

Ex.P6ComplaintPW.5

Ex.P7FIRPW.5 fair 9 of 9 CC.No. 642 of 2025

Ex.P8CDF panchanamaPW.5

For Defense: -- Nil --

Material Objects Marked: -- Nil --

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Korutla