Smt K. Rani

Page 1 of 11 JCJ – cum – JMFC Court, Nandimyadaram New CC No.460 of 2023 (Fair) Old CC No.177 of 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM – JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT NANDIMYADARAM

Present:Smt. K.RANI, Junior Civil Judge – cum –

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

P E D D A P A L L I.

FAC: Junior Civil Judge – cum –

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

N A N D I M Y A D A R A M.

TUESDAY, THIS THE 30th DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

CALENDAR CASE No.460 of 2023

(Old CC No.177 of 2016)

Between:

State through the SI of Police, Police Station, Dharmaram (Cr. No.10 of 2016) … Complainant A N D Dharaveni Odelu s/o. Mallaiah, age 44 years, Golla, r/o. Botlavanaparthi village of Dharmaram mandal. … Accused

This case is coming before me on 29.01.2024 for final hearing in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for complainant and Sri. A.Rajesham, Advocates for Accused No.1 to 5 having heard and having been stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

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

The Sub Inspector of Police, Police Station, Dharmaram filed charge sheet against Accused in Cr. No.10 of 2016 of Dharmaram Police Station for offence under Section 447, 290 and 506 of IPC.

Page 2 of 11 JCJ – cum – JMFC Court, Nandimyadaram New CC No.460 of 2023 (Fair) Old CC No.177 of 2016

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

(a) On 05.02.2016 at 14.00 hours LW6 received a Private Complaint under

Section 200 Cr.P.C. filed by the Complainant/Akari Shankaraiah has purchased land admeasuring Ac.0-05 guntas in Sy. No.4 and Ac.0-02 guntas in Sy. No.5A, total admeasuring Ac.0-07 guntas comprising single compact block, situated at

Botlavanaparthi village of Dharmaram mandal of Karimnagar District from one

Vemula Ramanaiah r/o. Botlavanaparthi village through simple sale deed, dt.10.07.2004. The vendor of complainant has delivered vacant possession of the land along with 9 feet way towards southern side of the land to LW1. Later LW1 obtained permission from the Grampanchayat Authorities of Botlavanaparthi village and allotted with house bearing No.1-24 accordingly, he got constructed a pacca house in the said place, residing in it without any interruption from any corner and also paying the house tax and electricity bills regularly.

(b).On 27.11.2015 at 07.30 hours accused criminally trespassed into the land of LW1 by breaking bamboo fencing, claiming the land belongs to him by showing fabricated documents and abused him in filthy language, threatened him with dire consequences to kill. On that the complainant went to Police Station, on 27.11.2015 and lodged complaint, but the accused belongs to ruling political party and also follower of a leader, he got managed the Police, due to which

Page 3 of 11 JCJ – cum – JMFC Court, Nandimyadaram New CC No.460 of 2023 (Fair) Old CC No.177 of 2016 police did not enquire into the matter and failed to any action against the complaint lodged by complainant, more so, accused trying to foist false cases on complainant under one or the other pretext, the complainant approached this

Court and filed the present private complaint. On receipt of the this complaint,

Police registered case against accused in Cr. No.10 of 2016 for the offence

U/Secs.290, 447, 452 and 506 of IPC and took up investigation.

(c)During the course of investigation, LW6 has visited the scene of offence, secured presence of Lws.1 to 3, recorded their statements, observed the scene thoroughly, drew rough sketch map and prepared Crime Detail Form. On 07.02.2016 LW6 served Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. notice on accused, then he apprehended him and on interrogation, he voluntarily confessed to have committed the offence. After completion of investigation, LW6 filed charge sheet against the accused person for offences under Secs.447, 290 and 506 of

IPC.

3.This Court took cognizance of offence under Section U/Secs.290, 447, 452 and 506 of IPC against Accused and numbered the case as CC No.177 of 2016.

4.Later as per the orders of the Hon’ble Principal District and Sessions

Judge, Peddapally, this case is transferred from the Court of Junior Civil Judge –

Page 4 of 11 JCJ – cum – JMFC Court, Nandimyadaram New CC No.460 of 2023 (Fair) Old CC No.177 of 2016 cum – Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Peddapalli to the Court of Junior Civil

Judge – cum – Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandimyadaram and

renumbered as CC No.460 of 2023.

5.On appearance of accused person before this Court copies of documents were furnished to them as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

6.Thereafter the accused were examined U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C, charges for the offences U/Sec.447, 290, 452 and 506 of IPC have been framed, read over and explained to the accused in vernacular language, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and exhibits P1 and P5 are marked through them.

8.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined U/Sec.313

Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence, for which he denied and reported no defence evidence.

9.Heard both sides.

10.Perused the entire record.

Page 5 of 11 JCJ – cum – JMFC Court, Nandimyadaram New CC No.460 of 2023 (Fair) Old CC No.177 of 2016

11.Now the point that arises for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the offence

under Sections 290, 447, 452 and 506 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

12.It is the case of the prosecution that accused with an intention to grab the pathway belonging to the complainant has trespassed into the land of complainant on 27.11.2015 demolishing the bamboo fencing surrounded the land belonging to defacto complainant by showing fabricated documents.

13.To support and substantiate its case, prosecution has examined Pws.1 to 5.

PW1/Akari Shankaraiah, complainant deposed in his evidence that at about 20 years ago he purchased Ac.0-07 guntas of land in two survey numbers each Ac.0- 05 guntas and Ac.0-02 guntas situated at Botlavanaparthi village but he cannot say the survey numbers. He purchased said land from his vendor namely,

Vemula Ramanaiah and constructed a hut and also residing in it. In the year 2016 or 2017 accused came to him by claiming right over the pathway leading from Botlavanaparthi to Buchaiahpalli village, since it is used by him to reach his land. He do not know that accused got purchased one gunta of land but he claimed the said land which is adjacent to the said pathway. Further stated that he alone got right to use the said pathway, but accused claimed the right over the said pathway has removed the fencing around his land. He went to the police and lodged Report.

Page 6 of 11 JCJ – cum – JMFC Court, Nandimyadaram New CC No.460 of 2023 (Fair) Old CC No.177 of 2016

14.PW2/R.Laxman cited as eye witness to the alleged incident has not supported the version of PW1.

15.PW3/S.Venkatesham and PW4/B.Haridasu, being panch witnesses for scene of offence have deposed that about 4 to 5 years ago a quarrel took place in between accused and PW1, then police visited to the house of PW1 and accused, but he was not present at that time and police also obtained his signature on some papers.

16.PW5/K.Laxminarayana, Investigation Officer deposed that, on 05.02.2016 at 14.00 hours he received complaint from this Court, basing on it he registered a case for the offence under Section 290, 447, 452 and 506 of IPC and issued FIR vide Cr. No.10 of 2018. On 06.02.2016 he recorded statements of Lws.1 to 3, visited scene of offence, conducted panchanama in the presence of panch witnesses, prepared Crime Detail Form and also taken photographs of damage bore-well and compound wall and on 07.06.2016 on surrender of accused before him, he served 41-A Cr.P.C. notice to accused and on completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against accused for offence U/Sec.447, 290 and 506 of IPC.

17.During the cross-examination of PW1, it is elicited that he has hand over copy of Sale Deed of his land and stated the boundaries of his land and also house number, survey number and extent of land to the police but he cannot say

Page 7 of 11 JCJ – cum – JMFC Court, Nandimyadaram New CC No.460 of 2023 (Fair) Old CC No.177 of 2016 the survey number of his land. Further PW1 admitted that he has not stated to the police that accused has removed his hut in his statement. PW1 admitted that a criminal case was registered against him on the report of accused vide Cr.

No.166 of 2015 for the offence U/Secs.324, 323, 290 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC. It is elicited from PW1 that he has filed a suit against accused prior to this incident.

18.During the cross-examination of PW5 it is elicited that after the alleged incident, LW1 visited police station and gave complaint, since the complaint was given for non-cognizable offence, case was not registered and only receipt was issued to LW1 on his complaint. Further admitted that after alleged incident crime was registered. He did not collect any ownership certificate of alleged construction by LW1 from Grampanchayat and LW1 did not state the house number of scene of offence construction.

19.On the appreciation of evidence on record, it is the main grievance of

PW1 that accused has trespassed into his land, which is situated at the outskirts of Botlavanaparthi village and stating that accused has damaged the bamboo fencing fixed around his land by claiming the right over the pathway which is adjacent to his land. As per the evidence of PW1, the pathway adjacent to his land belongs to him and he alone got right to use said pathway but accused alleged to purchased the Ac.0-01 guntas of land adjacent to pathway and

Page 8 of 11 JCJ – cum – JMFC Court, Nandimyadaram New CC No.460 of 2023 (Fair) Old CC No.177 of 2016 claiming right over the pathway which is leading from Botlavanaparthi village to

Buchaiahpalli village. Admittedly the prosecution has not marked any of the documents to show that PW1 got the land in the said survey numbers. There is not document on record about the existence of pathway adjacent to the land of

PW1. Unless there is an oral or documentary evidence on record, it cannot arrive to a conclusion about the existence of pathway adjacent to the land of PW1 and he got the sole right to use the said path. Further there is no evidence either or oral or documentary on record except the evidence of PW1 to show about happening of alleged incident. Basing on the oral evidence of PW1 without documentary evidence and corroboration of evidence of other witnesses it cannot be arrived that PW1 got land, adjacent to the pathway which is alleged to be claimed by the accused person. Further there is no evidence on record to show the existence of a hut of fencing in the land of PW1 alleged to be damaged by accused on the date of alleged incident.

20.On the careful analysis of the evidence lead by the prosecution and also the cross-examination conducted by learned counsel for the accused, the version of Pws.1 and 5 that the accused person demolished the compound wall constructed by PW1 upon his land. Prosecution has not got marked exhibits to show that the land upon which alleged compound wall destroyed and alleged incident took place belongs to PW1.

Page 9 of 11 JCJ – cum – JMFC Court, Nandimyadaram New CC No.460 of 2023 (Fair) Old CC No.177 of 2016

21.The prosecution has not brought on record by way of marking any of the documents to show that the alleged disputed land belongs to PW1. It is the failure on the part of the Investigating Officer of non collecting of any documents in respect of the disputed land and also document to show that the disputed land property belongs to PW1. The responsibility cast up on the Investigating Officer to conduct investigation into the documents, but whereas the Investigating

Officer without verifying the documents has filed charge sheet basing on the complaint and statements made by the PW1, which is also lapse on the part of investigation. As per the evidence of Pw1 there are disputes and civil suits are pending in between PW1 and accused person with regard to land alleged to be belonging to PW1. Therefore this Court is of the considered view that without documentary evidence, it can’t be decided whether the criminal trespass committed by the accused or not. Pw1 is an interested witness and based on the evidence of Pw1, it can’t be arrive at the conclusion about the existence of land belonging to PW1 and also existence of pathway alleged to be claimed by the accused has demolished the bamboo fencing on the date of alleged incident. The testimony of interested witnesses is not corroborated with the evidence of independent witnesses.

Page 10 of 11 JCJ – cum – JMFC Court, Nandimyadaram New CC No.460 of 2023 (Fair) Old CC No.177 of 2016

22.This Court is of the considered view that basing upon the interested witness, the accused person cannot be convicted. In these circumstances this

Court is of opinion that accused person is entitled for benefit of doubt.

23.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 290, 447, 452 and 506 of IPC, accordingly, accused is acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused if any, shall stands cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to Stenographer Gr.II, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me, in the open court on this the 30 th day of January, 2024.

Junior Civil Judge – cum –

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Peddapalli, FAC: JCJ – cum – JMFC, Nandimyadaram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW1Akari Shankaraiah- None -

PW2R.Laxman

PW3 S.Venkatesham

PW4B.Haridasu

PW5K.Laxminarayana

Page 11 of 11 JCJ – cum – JMFC Court, Nandimyadaram New CC No.460 of 2023 (Fair) Old CC No.177 of 2016

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1Report

Ex.P2Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW2

Ex.P3Signature of PW3 on panchanama, dt.06.02.2016

Ex.P4Signature of PW4 on panchanama, dt.06.02.2016

Ex.P5First Information Report

Ex.P6Crime Detail Form

FOR DEFENCE:

- Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil -

Junior Civil Judge – cum –

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Peddapalli, FAC: JCJ – cum – JMFC, Nandimyadaram.

Page 1 of 9 JCJ – cum – JMFC Court, Nandimyadaram New CC No.617 of 2023 (Fair) Old CC No.89 of 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM – JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT NANDIMYADARAM

Present:Smt. K.RANI, Junior Civil Judge – cum –

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

P E D D A P A L L I.

FAC: Junior Civil Judge – cum –

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

N A N D I M Y A D A R A M.

TUESDAY, THIS THE 30th DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

CALENDAR CASE No.617 of 2023

(Old CC No.89 of 2016)

Between:

State through the SI of Police, Police Station, Dharmaram (Cr. No.12 of 2016) … Complainant

A N D

A1. Siripuram Hanmandlu s/o. Ramaiah, age 52 years, Vyshya, A2. Siripuram Jamuna w/o. Hanmandlu, age 40 years, Vyshya, A3. Siripuram Sathish s/o. Hanmandlu, age 28 years, Vyshya, A4. Siripuram Mahanth s/o. Hanmandlu, age 21 years, Vyshya, A5. Muthyam Bhagya @ Bhagyalaxmi d/o. Sambaiah, age 50 years, Vyshya, All are r/o. Dharmaram village and mandal. … Accused No.1 to 5

This case is coming before me on 29.01.2024 for final hearing in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for complainant and Sri. G.Linga Reddy, Advocate for Accused No.1 to 5 and having heard and having been stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

Page 2 of 9 JCJ – cum – JMFC Court, Nandimyadaram New CC No.617 of 2023 (Fair) Old CC No.89 of 2016

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

The Sub Inspector of Police, Police Station Dharmaram filed final report against the Accused No. 1 to 5 for the offences punishable under Sections 427 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

2. The facts of the complaint as follows:

That on 04.02.2016 at 1630 hours, the defacto complainant Dodda

Thirupal s/o. Roshaiah/Lw.1 lodged a complaint stating that, about 35 years ago they migrated to Dharmaram village and mandal along with his family for livelihood, he built a house in Ganeshnagar about 17 years ago and living in that house along with his family members. Since five years his neighbours i.e., accused No.1 to 5 have been quarreling with him about his house. His son fell sick at his native place, due to which he went there by locking the doors, there his son and daughter-in-law died, due to which he stayed there for about three months. In the meantime his daughter informed him over phone that in the night hours of 02.02.2016 the accused persons have collapsed the compound wall and caused loss to a tune of Rs.35,000/-. Hence prayed to take necessary action.

2(c).Based on the said complaint, as the offence is non-cognizable, Lw.8 entered the petition contents in GD entry and took permission of this Court, registered a case in Cr. No.12 of 2016, U/Sec.427 of IPC. During the course of

Page 3 of 9 JCJ – cum – JMFC Court, Nandimyadaram New CC No.617 of 2023 (Fair) Old CC No.89 of 2016 investigation, he examined and recorded the statement of Lw.1, Later visited the scene of offence, drew rough sketch and incorporated the observations report in crime detail form, thereafter, completion of investigation filed charge sheet against accused for the offence U/Sec.427 r/w 34 of IPC.

3.On appearance of accused No.1 to 5 persons before the Court, copies of documents were furnished to them as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

4.Thereafter the accused No.1 to 5 are examined U/Sec.251 of Cr.P.C, charges for the offences U/Sec.427 r/w 34 IPC have been framed, read over and explained to the accused No.1 to 5 persons in vernacular language, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and

Ex.P1 to P5 are marked through them.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused No.1 to 5 are examined

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against them in the prosecution evidence, for which they denied and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard both sides. Perused the entire record.

Page 4 of 9 JCJ – cum – JMFC Court, Nandimyadaram New CC No.617 of 2023 (Fair) Old CC No.89 of 2016

8.Now the point that arises for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused No.1 to 5 for the

offences under Sections 427 r/w 34 IPC of Indian Penal Code beyond all

reasonable doubt?

Point:

9.It is the case of the prosecution that accused persons has demolished the compound wall of the house of defacto complainant.

10.The prosecution to support and substantiate its case has examined Pws.1 to 5. PW1/A.Kavitha/defacto complainant deposed in her evidence that LW1 namely, Dodda Tirupal is her father and he is no more. Further she deposed that at about 6 to 7 years ago when her parents went to their native place Sakalakonda village of Vinjamur mandal of Nellore District to attend death ceremony of her brother and his wife, in the absence of her parents, on one day in the early hours at about 5.00 am her neighbours woke up them and informed about the demolishing of compound wall of her parents house. Her father has constructed a house at about 20 years near Gas Office, Ganeshnagar, Dharmaram. After the construction of houses on the both sides, but accused persons claimed one feet of land from the land of her father to be belonging to them and several panchayats took place in this regard. While so, she came to know from the neighbours of the said house that accused persons has demolished the compound wall due to the

Page 5 of 9 JCJ – cum – JMFC Court, Nandimyadaram New CC No.617 of 2023 (Fair) Old CC No.89 of 2016 disputes with regard to said one feet of land. After the incident her parents returned to Dharmaram and lodged report.

11.PW2/Eruka Ramesh husband of PW1 stated that he along with his family are residing adjacent to the house of LW1, at the time of occurrence of the incident. At about seven years ago on one day in the night hours at about 12.30 to 1.00 am some persons have woke up them informing that some sounds were coming from the house of LW1. Then he saw the compound wall was demolished and also saw accused No.1 to 5 while leaving the place of demolish compound wall.

12.PW3/Tatipalli Sai and PW4/Shaik Viraz being cited as panch witnesses did not supported prosecution case at to the conduct of panchanama by police on 06.02.2016 in their presence.

13.PW5/K.Laxminarayana, Investigation Officer deposed that on 04.02.2016 he received complaint from LW1 and after taking permission from this Court, he registered case in Cr. No.12 of 2016 for the offence U/Sec.427 of IPC and issued

FIR, recorded statements of Lws.1 to 4, conducted panchanama in the presence of panch witnesses, prepared Crime Detail Form and took photographs of scene of offence. He got arrested accused No.1 to 5 and remanded them to Judicial

Page 6 of 9 JCJ – cum – JMFC Court, Nandimyadaram New CC No.617 of 2023 (Fair) Old CC No.89 of 2016 custody. On completion of investigation filed charge sheet against accused for the offence U/Sec.427 of IPC.

14.During cross-examination of PW1, it is elicited that she did not stated the names of panchayat elders and about conducting panchayat between her father and accused, to police at the time of recording her statement. Further elicited that she did not state the name of owner of house in which she is residing and she stated to the police that on the date of alleged incident the neighbour of my parents informed her in early hours at 5.00 am about demolishing of compound wall of her parents house. She denied the suggestion that she did not state to police that disputes in between her parents and accused raise in respect of one feet land existing in between her parents house and accused house. Since her father has lodged report, she do not know whether any document pertaining to her parents house given to police or not.

15.During the cross-examination of PW2, it is elicited that one Tarala

Kanthavva is residing on the backside of house of LW1. On the northern side

Mamidipalli Laxmi Rajam house is situated and on the eastern side house of one

Naresh is situated. He cannot say the name of owner of his house and he do not know names of persons, woke up on the date of alleged incident and informed

Page 7 of 9 JCJ – cum – JMFC Court, Nandimyadaram New CC No.617 of 2023 (Fair) Old CC No.89 of 2016 about the sounds that were coming from the house of LW1. At the time of informing to the police about the alleged incident, LW1 was not present.

16.On the appreciation of evidence on record it is the main grievance of the

Pws.1 and 2 that accused persons on the date of alleged incident has demolished the compound wall of the house belonging to LW1 in his absence. As per the evidence of Pws.1 and 2, the alleged incident happened to be in the mid night hours and they came to know about the demolish of compound wall from some persons but they were not present at the time of alleged incident hence Pws.1 and 2 are the circumstantial witnesses. PW2 stated that he has saw accused No.1 to 5 while leaving the place from the place of demolished house. As per the evidence of PW1, she stated that on the information of the neighbours of LW1 she came to know that accused persons has demolished the compound wall due to the disputes with regard to one feet land. But PW2 being the husband of PW1 further stated that he saw the accused persons while leaving the place of demolish. Admittedly, Pws.1 and 2 are the daughter and son-in-law of LW1 and interested in the outcome of the case. Except the piece of evidence of PW2 that he saw the accused persons at the place of incident, itself does not shows that accused persons are involved in the demolish of the compound wall of house of

LW1. There are no eye witnesses to the alleged incident. Further the prosecution has not examine any of the neighbours of the alleged place of

Page 8 of 9 JCJ – cum – JMFC Court, Nandimyadaram New CC No.617 of 2023 (Fair) Old CC No.89 of 2016 offence. Mere presence of the accused persons at the place of offence does not itself establishes that the accused persons are involved in the act of demolishing of the compound wall. Therefore based on the evidence of circumstantial and interested witnesses, it cannot be arrived at a conclusion that accused persons have committed the alleged offence. Therefore prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused persons beyond reasonable doubt, Hence they are entitled for benefit of doubt.

17.In the result, accused No.1 to 5 are found not guilty for an offences under

Secs.427 r/w 34 IPC. Accordingly, accused No.1 to 5 are acquitted under

Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused if any, shall stands cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to my Stenographer Gr.II, transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me, in the open court on this the 30 th day of January, 2024.

Junior Civil Judge – cum –

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Peddapalli. FAC: JCJ – cum – JMFC, Nandimyadaram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW1A.Kavitha- Nil -

PW2Eruka Ramesh

Page 9 of 9 JCJ – cum – JMFC Court, Nandimyadaram New CC No.617 of 2023 (Fair) Old CC No.89 of 2016 PW3Tatipalli Sai

PW4Shaik Viraz

PW5K.Laxminarayana

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1Report, dt.04.02.2016

Ex.P2Signature of PW3 on panchanama, dt.06.02.2016.

Ex.P3Signature of PW4 on panchanama, dt.06.02.2016.

Ex.P4First Information Report

Ex.P5Crime Detail Form

FOR DEFENCE:

- Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil -

Junior Civil Judge – cum –

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Peddapalli. FAC: JCJ – cum – JMFC, Nandimyadaram.

Page 1 of 8 JCJ – cum – JMFC Court, Nandimyadaram

CC No.823 of 2023 (Fair)

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM – JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT NANDIMYADARAM

Present:Smt. K.RANI, Junior Civil Judge – cum –

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

P E D D A P A L L I.

Junior Civil Judge – cum –

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

NANDIMYADARAM.

WEDNESDAY, THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

CALENDAR CASE No.823 of 2023

Between:

The State Telangana, through Police Station, Dharmaram. (COR. No.189/2023) … Complainant A N D

Bodasu Rajitha, W/o. Rajaiah, Age: 29 Yrs, R/o. Dongaturthi village. … Accused

This case is coming before me on 31.01.2024 for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for complainant and Sri. P. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate for Accused having heard and having been stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

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

The Police Station, Dharmaram Station filed charge sheet against the accused person in Cr. No.1898/2023 for the offence U/sec. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of TS

Prohibition & Excise Act.

Page 2 of 8 JCJ – cum – JMFC Court, Nandimyadaram

CC No.823 of 2023 (Fair)

2(a).The case of the prosecution is that, on 06.09.2023 at 16.00 hours on receipt of reliable information regarding illegal possession, selling of illicitly

Distilled liquor by the Accused, and selling of ID liquor with adulteration and spurious liquor. Lw5/T. Satyanaarayana, secured the presence of the Panch witnesses Lw1 and Lw2 and proceeded to the spot for conducting raid and they found a person absconding from scene of offence. On enquiry, she disclosed her details and also revealed that in order to gain lawful profits she is selling the ID liquor near her house to the needy persons. During the search they found 04

Liters ID liquor. Lws.3 and 4 have 180 ml ID liquor from accused, in quarter bottle from the above liquor. Each sample was sealed as per the procedure and affixed with a sign chit containing the signatures Lw1 and Lw2. The Officer has seized the above contraband under cover of the panchanama in the presence of

Lw1 and Lw2. Basing on the panchanama, Lw5 registered a case against the person in Cr. No.189/2023, dt.06.09.2023, U/Sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of TS Prohibition & Excise Act, 1995 and took up for further investigation.

(c)From the facts and evidence collected during the course of investigation it is established that the accused was selling the ID liquor in the surrounding areas to the needy persons and after investigation of the case filed charge sheet for the

Page 3 of 8 JCJ – cum – JMFC Court, Nandimyadaram

CC No.823 of 2023 (Fair)

offence U/sec. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of TS Prohibition & Excise Act 1995 against the accused.

3.The case was taken on file for the offence punishable U/sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of TS Prohibition & Excise Act against the accused person and on appearance of the accused person. The copies of case documents were furnished to him as contemplated U/sec.207 Cr.P.C. The accused was examined U/sec. 239 Cr.P.C.

and charges framed against him for the offence punishable U/sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of

TS Prohibition & Excise Act, for which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.In order to establish its case, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 to Pw.3 and got marked Ex.P1 to P.4.

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

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. for the incriminating material present in the prosecution evidence for which he denied and reported no defence evidence.

6.Heard both sides.

Page 4 of 8 JCJ – cum – JMFC Court, Nandimyadaram

CC No.823 of 2023 (Fair)

7.Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused for the

offence punishable U/sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of TS Prohibition Act, beyond all

reasonable doubt?

POINT:

8.It is the case of the prosecution that accused person was found in constructive possession of 04 Ltrs of ID Liquor and thereby committed for the offences U/sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of TS Prohibition Act.

9.Prosecution to support and substantiate its case, has examined Pws.1 to 3.

Pw.1/Merugu Mahesh depose in his evidence at about 5 to 6 months ago police conducted panchanama in his presence and seized ID liquor from the possession of one woman namely Swarupa. No one confessed before him about anything.

PW2/L. Sathish, Police Constable depose in his evidence on 06.09.2023 at about 04.00 pm Lw.5/T. Satyanarayana SI of Police as received information about the sale of ID liquor as such he along with Lw.3 went to Dongathurthi village. On enquiry with the villagers they came to know one accused/Bodasu Rajitha was selling ID liquor. In front of the house of accused they found a two plastic bottles can containing 04 litters of ID liquor. Lw.5 conducted panchanama and seized the ID liquor in the presence of panch witnesses. PW3/T. Satyanarayana,

Page 5 of 8 JCJ – cum – JMFC Court, Nandimyadaram

CC No.823 of 2023 (Fair)

Investigating Officer deposed in his evidence that on 06.09.2023 at 16.00 hours on credible information about the sale of I.D. Liquor by one Bodasu

Rajitha/Accused, as such he along with his staff and panch witnesses intercepted into the house of accused and on search of house, they found (4) ltrs of

I.D.Liquor in the house of accused. Then he conducted panchanama in the presence of panch witnesses and drawn the sample and the seized (4) ltrs. of

I.D.Liquor in the presence of accused. He along with seized property and accused returned to the police station registered the case vide FIR No.189 of 2023 dated 06.09.2023for an offence U/Sec.7(A) R/w 8 (e) of T.S. of

Prohibition Act and served 41-A Cr.P.C. notice to accused. On completion of investigation, filed charge sheet against accused.

10.Section 7A. Prohibition and Penalties: (Telangana State Prohibition Act) The production, manufacture, storage, possession, Prohibition of collection, purchase, sale and transport of arrack is hereby production etc., of arrack. Prohibited.

Section 8. Whoever,-

(a) …..

(b) …..

(c) …..

(d) …..

(e) contravenes the provisions of section 7A shall on conviction be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend up to five years and with fine which shall not be less than rupees ten thousand but which may extend up to rupees one lakh.

Page 6 of 8 JCJ – cum – JMFC Court, Nandimyadaram

CC No.823 of 2023 (Fair)

11.On the appreciation of the evidence of prosecution witnesses,

Pw.1(Merugu Mahesh) panch witnesses, initially supported the prosecution case as to seizure of ID liquor from the possession of one Swaroopa, further he identified the accused standing in the Court Hall as the same person from whom

ID liquor was seized but he could not with stand in the cross-examination with the fact of seizure of ID liquor from the possession of accused. P.W.2 and 3 being police personnel, this court is of considered view that the accused person cannot be convict based on the evidence of them without corroboration of independent witnesses, as they are interested witnesses to bring the guilt to home. Police has not examined any independent witnesses to show that accused was selling of the seized ID liquor at the time alleged seizure. The evidence on record is not sufficient to convict the accused person as the prosecution failed to prove nexus in between the seized ID-liquor and alleged offence against accused person beyond reasonable doubt.

12.On considering the evidence on record, prosecution failed to prove the guilty of accused person beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, accused person is entitled for benefit of doubt.

Page 7 of 8 JCJ – cum – JMFC Court, Nandimyadaram

CC No.823 of 2023 (Fair)

13.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence U/Sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of T.S. Prohibition Act, 1995. Accordingly, she is acquitted U/Sec.248(1) of

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused person, if any, shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. No property order made since no property deposited.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me, in the open court on this the 31 th day of January, 2024.

Junior Civil Judge – cum –

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Peddapalli. FAC: Junior Civil Judge – cum –

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Nandimyadaram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR COMPLAINANT: FOR ACCUSED:

PW1Merugu Mahesh- None -

PW2L. Sathish

PW3T. Satyanarayana

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR COMPLAINANT:

Ex.P1A portion of confession – cum – Seizure Panchanama, dt: 06.09.2023

Ex.P2First Information Report

Ex.P3FSL Report

Ex.P4Crime Detail Form, dt.06.09.2023

Page 8 of 8 JCJ – cum – JMFC Court, Nandimyadaram

CC No.823 of 2023 (Fair)

FOR ACCUSED:

- Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil -

Junior Civil Judge – cum –

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Peddapalli. FAC: Junior Civil Judge – cum –

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Nandimyadaram.

Page 1 of 7 JCJ – cum – JMFC Court, Nandimyadaram

CC No.822 of 2023 (Fair)

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM – JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT PEDDAPALLI

Present:Smt. K.RANI, Junior Civil Judge – cum –

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

P E D D A P A L L I.

FAC: Junior Civil Judge – cum –

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

NANDIMYADARAM.

THURSDAY, THIS THE 25th DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

CALENDAR CASE No.822 of 2023

Between:

The State Telangana, through The Prohibition & Excise Station, Peddapalli. (COR. No.190/2023) … Complainant A N D

Azmeera Mounika, D/o. Sama Nayak, Age: 24 Yrs, Caste: Lambada, R/o. Banjerupalli Village. … Accused

This case is coming before me on 25.01.2024 for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for complainant and Sri P. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate for Accused having heard and having been stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

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

The Sub Inspector of Police, Dharmaram Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused person in Cr. No.190/2023 for the offence U/Sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of TS Prohibition & Excise Act.

Page 2 of 7 JCJ – cum – JMFC Court, Nandimyadaram

CC No.822 of 2023 (Fair)

2(a).The case of the prosecution is that, on 07.09.2023 at 06.00 hours on receipt of reliable information regarding illegal possession, selling and transportation of illicitly Distilled liquor by the Accused, and selling of ID liquor with adulteration and spurious liquor. Lw3 (K. Thirupathi), Lw.4(G.

Madhusudhan Reddy) and Lw.5 (T. Satyanarayan) secured the presence of the

Panch witnesses Lw1 and Lw2 and proceeded to the spot for conducting raid and they found a person along with the contraband. On enquiry, she disclosed her details and also revealed that in order to gain lawful profits she is selling the ID liquor near her house to the needy persons. During the search they found 09

Liters ID liquor. LW5 has drawn two samples from the above liquor. Each sample was sealed as per the procedure and affixed with a sign chit containing the signatures Lw1 to Lw5. The Officer has seized the above contraband under cover of the panchanama in the presence of Lw1 and Lw2. Basing on the panchanama, Lw5 registered a case against the person in Cr. No.190/2023, dt.24.09.2023 U/Sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of TS Prohibition & Excise Act, and took up for further investigation.

(b).During the course of investigation Lw5 recorded the statements of Lw.3 and 4, later Lw.5 has served notice U/Sec. 41-A Cr.P.C to the auucsed

Page 3 of 7 JCJ – cum – JMFC Court, Nandimyadaram

CC No.822 of 2023 (Fair)

(c)From the facts and evidence collected during the course of investigation it is established that the accused was selling the ID liquor in the surrounding areas to the needy persons and after investigation of the case filed charge sheet for the offence U/Sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of TS Prohibition & Excise Act, against the accused.

3.The case was taken on file for the offence punishable U/Sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of TS Prohibition & Excise Act against the accused person and on appearance of the accused person. The copies of case documents were furnished to her as contemplated U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C. The accused was examined U/Sec. 239 Cr.P.C.

and charges framed against her for the offence punishable U/Sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of

TS Prohibition & Excise Act, for which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.In order to establish its case, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked Ex.P1 to P4.

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

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. for the incriminating material present in the prosecution evidence for which she denied and reported no defence evidence.

6.Heard both sides.

Page 4 of 7 JCJ – cum – JMFC Court, Nandimyadaram

CC No.822 of 2023 (Fair)

7.Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused for the

offence punishable U/Sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of Telangana State Prohibition Act,

beyond all reasonable doubt?”

POINT:

8.It is the case of the prosecution that accused person was found in constructive possession of 09 Ltrs of ID Liquor and thereby committed for the offences U/Sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of TS Prohibition Act.

9.Prosecution to support and substantiate its case, has examined

Pw.1/T.Santhosh panch witness did not support the prosecution case as to the conduct of panchanama by Pw.3/Sub Inspector of Police at the house of the accused on 07.09.2023. Pw3/T. Satyanarayana, Investigating Officer deposed in his evidence about the receipt of the credible information about the sale of ID liquor by the accused and upon the raid on the house of the accused they found 09 Liters of ID liquor in the house of the accused. Thereafter, Pw3 has conducted panchanama and seized the 09 Liters ID liquor. Thereafter he returned police station and registered case against the accused and on completion of investigation she filed charge sheet.

10.Section 7A. Prohibition and Penalties: (Telangana State Prohibition Act): The production, manufacture, storage, possession,

Page 5 of 7 JCJ – cum – JMFC Court, Nandimyadaram

CC No.822 of 2023 (Fair)

Prohibition of collection, purchase, sale and transport of arrack is hereby production etc., of arrack. Prohibited.

Section 8. Whoever,-

(a) …..

(b) …..

(c) …..

(d) …..

(e) contravenes the provisions of section 7A shall on conviction be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend up to five years and with fine which shall not be less than rupees ten thousand but which may extend up to rupees one lakh.

11.On the appreciation of the evidence of prosecution witness, PW1 being the panch witness has turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case as to the conduct of the panchanama and seizure of ID liquor in his presence. There is nothing on record, except the evidence of Pw.2 and 3 to convict the accused to the alleged offence. But Pw.2 and 3 being police personnel, this court is of considered view that the accused person cannot be convict on the evidence of

Pw.2 and 3, without corroboration of independent witnesses, as they are interested witnesses to bring the guilt to home. Police has not examined any independent witnesses to show that accused was selling of the seized ID liquor at the time alleged seizure. The evidence on record is not sufficient to convict the accused person as the prosecution failed to prove nexus in between the seized

ID-liquor and alleged offence against accused person beyond reasonable doubt.

Page 6 of 7 JCJ – cum – JMFC Court, Nandimyadaram

CC No.822 of 2023 (Fair)

12.On considering the evidence on record, prosecution failed to prove guilty of accused person beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, accused person is entitled for benefit of doubt.

13.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence U/sec. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of T.S. Prohibition Act, Accordingly, she is acquitted U/Sec.248(1) of

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused person, if any, shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me, in the open court on this the 25 th day of January, 2024.

Junior Civil Judge – cum –

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Peddapalli. FAC:JCJ – cum - JMFC, Nandimyadaram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR COMPLAINANT: FOR ACCUSED:

PW1:T. Santhosh- None -

PW2:G. Madhusudhan Reddy

PW3:T. Sathyanarayana

Page 7 of 7 JCJ – cum – JMFC Court, Nandimyadaram

CC No.822 of 2023 (Fair)

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR COMPLAINANT:

Ex.P1:Signature of PW1 on panchanama, dt.07.09.2023.

Ex.P2:FIR Report.

Ex.P3:A portion of Confession – cum – seizure panchanama, dt: 07.09.2023.

Ex.P4: FSL Report.

FOR ACCUSED:

- Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil -

Junior Civil Judge – cum –

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Peddapalli. FAC:JCJ – cum - JMFC, Nandimyadaram.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS : AT : NANDIMYADARAM

Present:Sri N. Venkat Sachin Reddy, Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Nandimyadaram.

SATURDAY , ON THIS THE 28 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER , 2024.

CC NO. 39 of 2024

Between:- The SHO PS DHARMARAM. Cr.No.67 of 2024.

...Complainant

AND

A1.Edulla Kanukavva, W/o.Lasmaiah, Aged:58 years, SC Madiga, R/o.Pathipaka village. A2. Lanka Shankaravva, W/o.Anjaiah, Aged:45 years, SC Madiga R/o. Pathipaka village. A3. Sunke Mallavva, W/o.Lachaiah, Aged:43 years, SC Madiga R/o. Pathipaka village. A4. Garipelli Pochavva, W/o.Narsaiah, Aged:50 years, SC Madiga R/o. Pathipaka village. A5. Bathini Posavva, W/o.Rajaiah, Aged:51 years, SC Madiga R/o. Pathipaka village. A6. Kothuri Durgavva, W/o.Swamy, Aged:41 years, SC Madiga R/o. Pathipaka village. A7. Jillella Rajeswari, W/o.Ramesh, Aged:41 years, SC Madiga R/o. Pathipaka village. A8. Bathini Bhagyasri, W/o.Anjaiah, Aged:24 years, SC Madiga R/o. Pathipaka village. A9. Elmadasari Narsavva, W/o.Sailu, Aged:55 years, SC Madiga R/o. Pathipaka village. A10. Lanaka Lachavva, W/o.Lachaiah, Aged:56 years, SC Madiga R/o. Pathipaka village. … Accused 1 to 10.

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of learned APP for the Complainant, upon hearing, perusal of the material on record the matter having stood over the consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

OFFENCE UNDER SECTIONS 341,325 r/w 34 of IPC

A W A R D :: ::

This case is suo-motto advanced from 25.11.2024 to this day i.e., on 28.09.2024. in view of National Lok Adalath. Defacto complainant and Injured/LW2 present. Accused No.2 to 5 and 8 to 10 are present.

Identity particulars of the LW1/Complainant and Accused No.2 to 5 and 8 to 10 verified and found to be correct. LW1/Complainant and Accused

No.2 to 5 and 8 to 10 are stated that they entered into compromise with free will and consent without any coercion or undue influence. LW2 further submitted that LW3/injured who is her brother and is in

Andhra Pradesh also compromised and unable to come to court.

Accordingly, Accused No.1 to 10 are acquitted U/Sec. 320(8) Cr.P.C for offence U/Sec.341,325 r/w 34 of IPC. The bail bonds if any of accused shall stands cancelled after expiry period and sureties are discharged.

The case is settled before the National Lok-Adalath.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, Corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 28th day of September, 2024.

Sd/-

Junior Civil Judge-cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Nandimyadaram.