K Sai Sri

CC.No.580 of 2018 1 Dt:29 -04-2025

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

KOTHAGUDEM.

Dated this, the 29th day of April, 2025.

Present: KUKKALA SAI SRI,

II Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Kothagudem.

C.C.No. 580 of 2017

(Crime No. 466 of 2014)

Between: The State through S.I of Police, P.S. Chunchupally

......Complainant

And

1.Nagelli Narendra Kumar S/o Komaraiah, Age: 22 years, Caste: Madiga, Occ: Cooking work, R/o NK Nagar, Kothagudem.

... Accused

@@@ This case is coming before me for final hearing on 27.02.2025 in the presence of Learned A.P.P.O for complainant and of Sri. V.V. Sudhakar Rao, Learned Counsel for accused, upon perusal of material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police Chunchupally police station filed charge sheet in

Cr.No.466/2014 for the offence punishable U/sec. 304(A), 337, 338 of Indian Penal Code (herein after stated as IPC) and Sec.3, 181, 196 of Motor Vehicle Act (herein after stated as MV Act)against the accused person.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is that

On 17.11.2014 at 16.40 hours the complainant came to police station and lodged a report stating that on 17.11.2014 at morning hours he along with his grandfather and four others i.e., L. Venkatanarasamma/LW2, L. Anasuryamma/LW6, B.

Nagamani/LW7, V. Yalamanda/LW8 boarded the auto bearing No. AP 20 TC 6440 with a view to proceed to Palvoncha to attend a death ceremony and after completion of

Page No.1

CC.No.580 of 2018 2 Dt:29 -04-2025

ceremony they boarded the same auto with a view to return to their village. On the way the auto reached to Nageswar talkies, meanwhile one Hero Honda Splender motor cycle bearing No.AP BL 5448 coming towards Kammavari Kalyana Mandapam to main road drove the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the auto, on that auto turn turtle, resulting which complainant and other occupants of the sustained bleeding injuries. On seeing the same their villager Lingam Lakshmaiah/LW5 shifted them to

Government Hospital, Kothagudem, his grandfather succumbed to injuries. Later, he known the driver name as Nagelli Narendra Kumar/Accused person. Finally, he requested to take necessary action against the accused person.

Basing on the report of LW1, LW18 registered a case in Cr.No.466/2014 U/sec.

304(A), 337 of IPC and took up investigation. During the course of investigation LW18 examined and recorded the Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statements of LW1 to LW9 and sent a requisition to LW14 to treat the injured persons i.e., LW1, LW2, LW6 to LW8 and visited scene of offence and photographed the deceased body through LW9 and drafted the rough sketch of the scene of offence by securing the presence of mediators i.e., LW10 and LW11 and conducted inquest on deceased in the presence of LW12 and LW13.

During the course of investigation LW18 sent a requisition to LW16 to conduct PME over body of the deceased and also sent a requisition to LW17 to inspect crime vehicle and collected the reports.

After completion of the investigation, LW15 filed charge sheet against

Accused for the offences punishable U/sec.304(A), 337, 338 of IPC.

3.The case was taken on file against the offence U/sec. 304(A), 337, 338 of IPC and issued summons to the accused person.

Page No.2

CC.No.580 of 2018 3 Dt:29 -04-2025

4.On appearance of the accused before the court, case copies were furnished to him as contemplated U/sec.207 Cr.P.C.

5.Accused was examined U/sec.251 Cr.P.C and the substance of accusation levelled against the accused for the offence U/sec.304(A), 337, 338 of IPC, explained to him in his vernacular language for which he denied the same, not pleaded guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial on behalf of prosecution LW1 to LW4, LW6 to LW8,

LW11 and LW13 to LW18 were examined as PW1 to PW14 respectively and Marked Ex.P1 to P11. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of LW5, LW9,

LW10 and LW12 accordingly the Prosecution side evidence was closed.

7.After closer of the prosecution evidence, accused was examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating circumstances established in prosecution evidence in telugu, for which he denied the incriminating material and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard both sides.

09.Now the point for determination is as follows:- “Whether the Prosecution has established the guilt against the accused for

the Offence U/sec. 304(A), 337, 338 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubts? “

10. POINT:- It is the allegation of prosecution that the accused person committed offence

U/sec.304(A), 337, 338 of IPC. To substantiate its case, Prosecution has examined PW1 to

PW14 and marked Ex.P1 to P11.

Page No.3

CC.No.580 of 2018 4 Dt:29 -04-2025

Witnesses Examined : PW1 is the Complainant/injured, PW2, PW5 to PW7 are the injured persons, PW3 and PW4 are the eye witnesses, PW8 is the panch witnesses for

CDF, PW9 and PW10 are the doctors who treated the injured persons, PW11 is the panch witness for inquest, PW12 is the doctor who issued PME report, PW13 is the Motor

Vehicle inspector, PW14 is the investigating officer. Exhibits Marked : P1 to P11.

Given Up Witnesses: LW5, LW9, LW10 and LW12.

11.PW1 is the complainant/injured andduring the chief examination of PW1, he testified before the court that, in the year 2014 he along with the deceased person and

LW2, LW6 to LW8 boarded an auto for attending a death ceremony at Palvoncha and after completion of the said ceremony they all boarded the same auto at Palvoncha for proceeding to their village and on reaching Nageswar talkies, one motor cycle came in high speed and dashed the auto, due to which the auto turn turtle, resulting he received internal injuries and other occupants also received simple and grievous injuries, while undergoing treatment deceased succumbed to injuries. LW3 to LW5 were proceeding on motor cycles along with them at the time of accident. He stated that he cannot say the name of the accused and cannot identify him and also he cannot say the motor cycle bearing number.

In the cross examination of PW1, he stated that scene of offence is inclined towards down side and accused was coming from upside direction. He admitted that generally the vehicle proceeds in high speed while going towards down side and the vehicle proceeds slowly while moving towards upside. He further admitted that scene of offence is a busy locality with houses and peoples.

Page No.4

CC.No.580 of 2018 5 Dt:29 -04-2025

13.PW2 is the injured person andduring the chief examination of PW2, she testified

before the court that, in the year 2014 she along with the deceased person and PW1 and

LW6 to LW8 boarded an auto for attending a death ceremony at Palvoncha and after completion of the said ceremony they all boarded the same auto at Palvoncha for proceeding to their village and on reaching Nageswar talkies, one motor cycle came in high speed and dashed the auto, due to which the auto turn turtle, resulting she received shoulder injuries and other occupants also received simple and grievous injuries, while undergoing treatment deceased succumbed to injuries. LW3 to LW5 were proceeding on motor cycles along with them at the time of accident. She stated that she cannot say the name of the accused and cannot identify him and also she cannot say the motor cycle bearing number.

In the cross examination of PW2, she stated that scene of offence is inclined towards down side and accused was coming from upside direction. She admitted that generally the vehicle proceeds in high speed while going towards down side and the vehicle proceeds slowly while moving towards upside. She further admitted that scene of offence is a busy locality with houses and peoples. She further deposed that she cannot say how the accident was occurred. She admitted that the accident was occurred due to the auto driver drove the auto in high speed.

14.PW3 is the eye witness andduring the chief examination of PW1, he testified

before the court that, in the year 2014 deceased person and PW1, PW2 and LW6 to LW8

boarded an auto for attending a death ceremony at Palvoncha and after completion of the said ceremony they all boarded the same auto at Palvoncha for proceeding to their

Page No.5

CC.No.580 of 2018 6 Dt:29 -04-2025

village and on reaching Nageswar talkies, one motor cycle came in high speed and dashed the auto, due to which the auto turn turtle, resulting she received shoulder injuries and other occupants also received simple and grievous injuries, while undergoing treatment deceased succumbed to injuries. He along with LW5 were proceeding on one motor cycle and LW4 proceeded on another motor cycle along with the auto. He identified the accused person. He deposed that he cannot say the motor cycle bearing number.

In the cross examination of PW3, he stated that it takes 30 minutes to reach

Kothagudem from Palvoncha. He further deposed that he did not witness how the accident was occurred. He admitted that he did not see the accused at the time of accident. He stated that scene of offence is inclined towards down side and accused was coming from upside direction. He admitted that generally the vehicle proceeds in high speed while going towards down side and the vehicle proceeds slowly while moving towards upside. He further admitted that scene of offence is a busy locality with houses and peoples.

15.PW4 is the eye witness and during the chief examination of PW4, he deposed that, in the year 2014 deceased person and PW1, PW2 and LW6 to LW8 boarded an auto for attending a death ceremony at Palvoncha and after completion of the said ceremony they all boarded the same auto at Palvoncha for proceeding to their village and on reaching Nageswar talkies, one motor cycle came in high speed and dashed the auto, due to which the auto turn turtle, resulting she received shoulder injuries and other occupants also received simple and grievous injuries, while undergoing treatment deceased succumbed to injuries. PW3 and LW5 were proceeding on one motor cycle and

Page No.6

CC.No.580 of 2018 7 Dt:29 -04-2025

he proceeded on another motor cycle along with the auto. He identified the accused person present in the court hall and he said the motor cycle bearing number 5448.

In cross examination of PW4, he stated that it takes 30 minutes to reach

Kothagudem from Palvoncha. He further deposed that he did not witness how the accident was occurred. He admitted that he did not see the accused at the time of accident. He stated that scene of offence is inclined towards down side and accused was coming from upside direction. He admitted that generally the vehicle proceeds in high speed while going towards down side and the vehicle proceeds slowly while moving towards upside. He further admitted that scene of offence is a busy locality with houses and peoples.

16.PW5 is the injured person and during the chief examination of PW5, she deposed that, at about 11 years ago they boarded an auto from Palvoncha to Nayakulagudem and when they reached pattaigudem hospital the accused suddenly rushed on the road, then the auto driver in order to escape the accident applied break suddenly on that the auto turn turtle due to which she received injuries on her left shoulder, left hand, ribs and other parts of the body. PW2 also sustained injuries on her shoulder and the deceased died on the spot.

In cross examination of PW5, she stated that she cannot say the motor cycle bearing number and auto bearing number. She stated that apart from the driver there were 7 occupants in the auto at the time of the accident and she sat in the corner of the auto. She further deposed that police did not examine her and she did not tell the contents to police as stated in her chief examination. She has seen the accused on the date of incident. She admitted that there is a way at the scene of offence to enter into

Page No.7

CC.No.580 of 2018 8 Dt:29 -04-2025

the other side of the road.

17.PW6 is the injured person and during the chief examination of PW6, he deposed that, at about 11 years ago they boarded an auto from Palvoncha to Nayakulagudem and when they reached pattaigudem hospital the accused suddenly rushed on the road, then the auto driver in order to escape the accident applied break suddenly on that the auto turn turtle due to which they lost conscious. Later, they were shifted to hospital.

In cross examination of PW6, he deposed that police never examined him and never recorded his statement. He further deposed that he does not know the facts of the case.

18.PW7 is the injured person and during the chief examination of PW7, she deposed that, at about 9 years ago when she along with PW1 to PW6 and LW5 travel in an auto coming from Palvoncha to Nayakulagudem. Accused person drove a bike in speedy manner and dashed the auto. She identified the accused person present in the court hall.

She received head and back injury and they went shifted to Government hospital.

In cross examination of PW7, she stated that including the driver they were 10 occupants in the auto at the time of the accident. She deposed that she along with PW2 and PW5 were sat on back side of the auto. She admitted that she did not witness the accident how it occurred.

19.PW8 is the panch witness for CDF and during the chief examination of PW8, he deposed that in the year 2014 police drafted CDF/Ex.P2 in his presence and in the presence of LW10 and obtained his signatures on the same and he knows the contents of Ex.P2.

Page No.8

CC.No.580 of 2018 9 Dt:29 -04-2025

In cross examination of PW8, he deposed that, he does not know the contents of

CDF/Ex.P2 and police obtained his signature on the same. He admitted that scene of offence is a busy locality and everyone should go slowly.

20.PW9 is the Doctor who treated the PW2, PW5 and PW6 and during the chief examination of PW9, he deposed that on 17.11.2014 he examined PW2 following injuries which were one defuse contusion on left shoulder and arm they are fresh injuries, simple in nature. Patient has been treated as out patient on 17.11.2014. And also Examined

PW5 following injuries 1. Contusion left shoulder on later aspect, X-ray left shoulder shows Fracture left clavicle which is grievous in nature. 2. Contusion left chest injury to 10th and 11th ribs ? Crack fracture 10th and 11th ribs suspicion in grievous injury. Patient has been treated as out patient. And also examined PW6 following injury contusion left knee with Haemarthorosis, X-ray Crack fracture lateral condyle of left tibia grievous in nature. Patient has been treated as out patient.

In cross examination of PW9, he deposed that he examined Vadugu Yelamandaiah

S/o Rajaiah but not examined the PW6/Vadugu Yelamandaiah S/o Ramaiah. He further stated that they should maintain out patient register but he has not mentioned the out patient numbers in Ex.P3 to P5. He admitted that he has not mentioned on what basis he has issued Ex.P3 to P5 and he admitted that he had issued the Ex.P3 to P5 after one month of the accident.

21.PW10 is the Doctor who treated the PW1 and PW7 and during the chief examination of PW10, he deposed that he received requisition from SHO PS I town

Kothagudem (Chunchupally) on 17.11.2014 of PW1 and the following are his

Page No.9

CC.No.580 of 2018 10 Dt:29 -04-2025

observations: Contusion injury with bruise of size 10 x 4 x 1 cm on left side of umbilicus on abdomen which was fresh and simple in nature. Which was caused due to RTA. He further deposed the he received requisition from SHO PS I town Kothagudem (Chunchupally) on 17.11.2014 of PW7 and the following are his observations: 1. Abrasion injury of size 3 x 1cm on Right side forehead above eye which was fresh and simple in nature. 2. Abrasion injury of Size 4 x 1 cm on Right knee joint which was fresh and simple in nature and were caused due to RTA.

In cross examination of PW10, he deposed that PW1 and PW7 were treated as out patient and they should maintain out patient register but he has not mentioned the out patient numbers, date and time in Ex.P6 and P7. He further admitted that police referred the PW1, PW7 to him.

22.PW11 is the Panch witness for inquest panchanama and during the chief examination of PW11, he stated that at about 10 years ago police drafted inquest panchanama of Venkaiah/deceased in his presence and in the presence of LW12 and obtained their signatures on the same. He further deposed that, he found that deceased received injuries on the back of his head and he came to know the cause of death was an accident.

In cross examination of PW11, he deposed that, he does not know the contents of the inquest/Ex.P8. He admitted that to brought the dead body of the deceased at the instance of Police he signed on it.

23.PW12 is the Doctor who conducted PME and during the chief examination of

PW12, he deposed that on 18.11.2014 he received a requisition from SHO I town

Page No.10

CC.No.580 of 2018 11 Dt:29 -04-2025

Kothagude (Chunchupally) to conduct Postmortem examination over the body of deceased by name Lingam Venkaiah and on requisition of police he conducted the

Postmortem examination and issued PME report and further deposed that the death was caused due to head injury with brain injury with chest injury, fracture ribs and splenic injury.

Nothing worthwhile elicited from his cross examination except mere denial of suggestions.

24.PW13 is the Motor vehicle inspector and during the chief examination of PW13, he deposed that he received requisition from Sub inspector of Police PS I town

Kothagudem on 26.11.2014 to inspect the crime vehicle Hero Honda Splender motor cycle bearing No.AP 16 BL 5448. On same day at 17.40 hours at the premises of PS of I town Kothagudem, he inspected the crime vehicle and found the following damages. 1.

front shock absorbers both bended, 2. Petrol tank dented, 3. front mud guard broken, 4.

front head light broken the vehicle was checked and found that the breaks were efficient and at the time of his inspection valid driving license and insurance were not produced and he is of the opinion that the accident occurred was not due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle and issued MVI report.

In cross examination of PW13, he deposed that, he has not gone to scene of offence for inspection of the crime vehicle. He admitted that after 10 days of the accident he inspected the motor vehicle at the police station premises. He further admitted that he only inspected the motor cycle and not the auto. He deposed that there may be possibility of causing above damages to motor cycle while it dashed the divider while driving.

Page No.11

CC.No.580 of 2018 12 Dt:29 -04-2025

25.PW14 is the Investigating Officer and during the chief examination of PW14, he deposed that he received requisition from PW1 on 17.11.2014 at 16.40 hours based on which he filed FIR vide Cr.No.466/2014 U/sec.304(A), 337 of IPC and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation on the same day he examined and recorded the statements of PW1 to PW7, LW5, LW9 and gave a requisition to PW9 to treat and issue medical certificates of PW1, PW2, PW5 to PW7 and also got the scene offence and dead body photographed through LW9 and drafted the rough sketch of scene of offence in the presence of PW8 and LW10 and also secured the presence of

PW11 and LW12 and held inquest in their presence and also sent requisition to PW12 to issue PME report after examination. After completion of PME handed over the deceased dead body to PW1 and also sent a requisition to PW13 to inspect the crime vehicle and issue a report. Later, he collected the Medical certificates of the injured persons from

PW9 and collected PME report from PW12 and also collected MVI report from PW13 who inspected the crime vehicle. He gave sec.41A cr.p.c notice to the accused person.

After completion of investigation and finding them on correct lines he filed the charge sheet U/sec.304(A), 337, 338 of IPC, Sec.3, 181, 196 of MV Act.

In cross examination of PW14, he admitted that on the date of accident ten persons were travelling in the auto and he neither file any case against auto driver nor examined him. He further admitted that he did not mention the condition of the auto and damage occurred due to dashing of crime vehicle. He further admitted that he did not examine the surrounding persons/by standers at the scene of offence and only examined injured person. He further deposed that scene of offence is down road.

Page No.12

CC.No.580 of 2018 13 Dt:29 -04-2025

26. “In order to establish the offence U/sec. 304(A) of IPC.”

(i)There must be death of a person,

(ii)The death must be caused due to rash or negligent act of the accused,

(iii)The act of the accused did not amount to culpable homicide.

27.“In order to establish the offence U/sec. 337 of IPC.”

(i)The act must be caused due to rashness or negligence on the offenders behave,

(ii)The act must have caused physical hurt as to endanger life or personal safety of others,

28. “In order to establish the offence U/sec. 338 of IPC.”

(i)The act must be caused due to rashness or negligence on the offenders behave,

(ii)The act must have caused grievous hurt as to endanger life or personal safety of others,

29.(i) There must be death of the person:

On perusal evidence of PW1 to PW4, PW11 and PW12 and on perusal of Ex.P1,

Ex.P8, Ex.P9, Ex.P11 is issued by the PW14 on receipt of report by PW1, basing on which

Ex.P8 i.e., Inquest panchanama is carried out and Ex.P9 i.e., PME report issued by PW12 after conducting postmortem examination over the body of the deceased.

By considering the above oral and documentary evidence on record, the death of the person is established by the prosecution.

30.On perusal of evidence of PW1, PW2, PW5, PW6 and PW7 who were the occupants of the auto deposed that they went to Palvoncha for attending death ceremony and they proceeded in an auto and after completion of the ceremony while

Page No.13

CC.No.580 of 2018 14 Dt:29 -04-2025

they returning to their village and reached Nageshwar Talkies, one motor cycle came from beside in high speed and dashed the auto due to which the auto turn turtle and they received simple and grievous injuries.

31.On perusal of evidence of PW3 and PW4 who witnessed the accident deposed that on that day they proceeded on motor cycle along with the auto and deposed that when they reached Nageshwar Talkies, one motor cycle came in high speed from a lane and entered on high way and dashed the auto due to which the auto turn turtle and they received simple and grievous injuries.

From the evidence of PW1 to PW7 it is clearly established that on the date of the accident they are travelling in the auto along with the deceased person.

32. As to the identification of the accused person, on perusal of evidence of PW1 and

PW2 they are not identified the accused person and not stated the motor cycle bearing number. Further deposed that they are unable to say how the accident was occurred.

And on perusal of evidence of PW3 and PW4, they identified the accused person.

From the above said discussion, the identification of accused person is established.

(ii) The death must be caused due to rash or negligent act of the accused.

IN THE RESULT:- The Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable

U/sec.304(A), 337, 338 of IPC and accordingly he is acquitted U/sec. 255(1) Cr.P.C for the said offence.

The bail bonds of accused shall stand discharged after expiry of 6 months as per

Sec.437A of Cr.P.C. Noorder as to the property as there was no property seized.

Page No.14

CC.No.580 of 2018 15 Dt:29 -04-2025

Dictated to my stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in

open court on this the 03rd day of April, 2025.

sd/-xxxx

II ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

KOTHAGUDEM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

LW1/PW1B. RamaiahComplainant LW2/PW2L. VenkatanarasammaInjured LW3/PW3Lingam VeeriahEye witness LW4/PW4Lingam AnjaiahEye witness LW6/PW5L.AnasuryammaInjured LW8/PW6V.YelamandaInjured LW7/PW7B.Nagamaniinjured LW11/PW8Y.Seetharama PrasadPanch witness for CDF LW15/PW9Ch.Krishna Prasadis the doctor LW16/PW10 V.Kishoreis the doctor LW13/PW11 L.ApparaoPanch witness for inquest panchanama LW16/PW12 B.Janardhanis the doctor LW17/PW13 Dhanraj Bajajis the Motor Vehicle Inspector LW18/PW14 N.Venkatramis the Investigating Officer

WITNESS EXAMINED OF BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

-NIL-

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

Ex.P1Is the signature on the report. Ex.P2Is the CDF Ex.P3Is the MC of PW2 issued by PW9 Ex.P4Is the MC of PW5 issued by PW9 Ex.P5Is the MC of PW6 issued by PW9

Page No.15

CC.No.580 of 2018 16 Dt:29 -04-2025

Ex.P6Is the MC of PW1 issued by PW10 Ex.P7Is the MC of PW7 issued by PW10 Ex.P8Is the inquest panchanama Ex.P9Is the PME report issued by PW12 Ex.P10Is the MVI Report Ex.P11Is the FIR

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

-NIL-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

--NIL--

sd/-xxxx

II ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

KOTHAGUDEM.

Page No.16

CC.No.1223 of 2019 1 Dt: 28-11-2025

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

KOTHAGUDEM.

Dated this, the 28th day of November, 2025.

Present: K. SAI SRI,

I Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Kothagudem.

C.C.No. 1223 of 2019

in

(Crime No. 10 of 2019 of PS Chandrugonda)

Between: The State through S.I of Police. P.S. Chandrugonda

...Complainant

And

1.Marakala Rambabu, S/o Venkata Krishna, Age: 26 years, Caste: SC, Occ: Electrician, R/o Ramachandra Rao Banjara, Khammam.

... Accused

@@@ This case is coming before me for final hearing on 03.11.2025 in the presence of Learned A.P.P.O for complainant and of Sri. D. Samanth, Learned Counsel for accused, upon perusal of material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Chandrugonda police station filed charge sheet in

Cr.No.10/2019 for the offence punishable U/sec. 304(A) of IPC against the accused person.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is that

On 03.03.2019 at 11.30 hours the complainant came to PS and lodged a report stating that on 13.02.2019 at about 11.00 AM, his brother and the accused person went to Paloncha to attend an Annaprasanna function on the accused's bike bearing

No.TS 04 EL 9348 and at about 4 PM, the accused person called from his brother's phone and informed them that near Chandragonda, they had fallen from the bike, and his

Page No.1

CC.No.1223 of 2019 2 Dt: 28-11-2025

brother had received injuries. He also said that they were taking him to the Government

Hospital, Kothagudem, for treatment. On receiving the information, he along with his mother, brother, and relatives, immediately went to the Government Hospital,

Kothagudem. They found his brother lying on a bed with a serious head injury and liver damage. The doctors stitched his head wound and advised them to shift him to

Khammam Hospital for better treatment as his liver was bleeding. They immediately shifted him in an ambulance to Aarogya Hospital, where surgery was performed, but the liver bleeding did not stop.

From there, he was taken to Century Hospital, Hyderabad, on 19.02.2019. He was treated there from 19.02.2019 to 22.02.2019. Due to financial problems, they shifted him to Gandhi Hospital, Hyderabad, and later, as the treatment was not satisfactory, they shifted him to NIMS Hospital. Unfortunately, on the way to NIMS, his brother passed away on 22.02.2019 at about 10.00 PM. They brought his body home on 23.02.2019 and performed the last rites. Later, on 25.02.2019, in the morning hours, villagers questioned how the accident occurred because the bike did not have any major damage, and the accused person did not receive any injuries, yet his brother suffered fatal injuries. When asked, the accused person remained silent and did not give any explanation. Due to these suspicious circumstances, the village elders advised them to lodge a report. Therefore, on 03.03.2019, at about 11.00 AM, they lodged the report.

The delay in filing the report occurred because they were occupied with hospital procedures, shifting between hospitals, and performing the funeral rituals. Now they have serious doubts regarding the actual cause of his brother's death. Finally, he requested to take necessary action against the accused person.

Page No.2

CC.No.1223 of 2019 3 Dt: 28-11-2025

Basing on the report of LW1, LW19 registered a case in Cr. No.10/2019 U/sec.

304(A) of IPC and took up investigation. During the course of investigation LW19 examined and recorded the statement of LW1 and visited the scene of offence and drafted the rough sketch of scene of offence in the presence of LW14 and LW15 and proceeded to village of the deceased and gave a requisition to Tahsildhar to be present at the exhumation and PME and he sent LW10.

Later, held inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of LW11,

LW12 and LW13 and got the dead body photo-graphed through LW6 and requested

LW18 and LW17 to conduct PME on the deceased and after PME the body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased. Later, secured the presence of LW1, LW2, LW9,

LW3 to LW5, LW7, LW8 and LW10, examined and recorded their statements and LW19 gave a requisition to LW16 for the inspection of crime vehicle and issue report on the same.

On 06.03.2019 at 10.00 hours the accused surrendered before LW19 and he served 41 A Cr.p.c. notice to him. On 18.03.2019 LW19 obtained the MVI report from

LW16 and on 27.03.2019 obtained letter of advice from SDPO Kothagudem forwarded viscera to FSL, Warangal and received the receipt on 28.03.2019 vide RFSL (WGL)/720/TOX/328/19. On 23.05.2019 received RFSL report. And on 15.07.2019 received the release order of the crime vehicle bearing No. TS 04 EL 9348. Later, LW19 obtained final opinion report from LW17 and LW18 and after completion of investigation and found them on correct lines filed charge sheet.

3.The case was taken on file against the offence U/sec. 304(A) of IPC and issued

Page No.3

CC.No.1223 of 2019 4 Dt: 28-11-2025

summons to the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused before the court, case copies were furnished to him as contemplated U/sec.207 Cr.P.C.

5.Accused was examined U/sec.251 Cr.P.C and the substance of accusation levelled against the accused for the offence U/sec.304(A) of IPC, explained to him in his vernacular language for which he denied the same, not pleaded guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial on behalf of prosecution LW1, LW2, LW6, LW9 to LW11,

LW14, LW16, LW18 and LW19 were examined as PW1 to PW10 respectively and Marked

Ex.P1 to P10 and Ex.D1. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of LW3 to LW5, LW7, LW8, LW12, LW13, LW15 and LW17. Accordingly the prosecution side evidence was closed.

7.After closer of the prosecution evidence, accused was examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating circumstances established in prosecution evidence in telugu, for which he denied the incriminating material and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard the arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and Learned Defence counsel for accused.

9.Perused the entire material available on the record.

10.Now the point for determination is as follows:- “Whether the Prosecution has established the guilt against the accused for the Offence U/sec. 304(A) of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt? “

Page No.4

CC.No.1223 of 2019 5 Dt: 28-11-2025

11. POINT:-

It is the allegation of prosecution that the accused person committed offence

U/sec.304(A) of IPC. To substantiate its case, Prosecution has examined PW1 to PW10 and marked Ex.P1 to P10. Witnesses Examined : PW1 is the Complainant, PW2 is the wife of Deceased, PW3 is the eye witness, PW4 is the panch witness to the inquest, PW5 is the photographer, PW6 is the panch witness for CDF, PW7 is the Motor Vehicle

Inspector, PW8 is the doctor/conducted PME, PW9 is the Investigating Officer, PW10 is the Revenue Inspector. Exhibits Marked : P1 to P10 and D1. Given Up Witnesses: LW3 to LW5, LW7, LW8, LW12, LW13, LW15 and LW17.

12.PW1 is the complainant and during his chief examination deposed that the deceased was his brother. On 13.02.2019, at about 10.00 AM, the accused, along with the deceased, went to Paloncha on a bike. While they were returning from Paloncha and reached Chandrugonda at about 4.00 PM, he received a call from an unknown person from the deceased's mobile phone, informing him that his brother was lying on the road with injuries and was being shifted to the Government Hospital.

Then, he along with LW2, LW3, and one Marakala Lakshmi, went to the Government

Hospital, Kothagudem, and found the deceased unconscious with a head injury. The doctors informed them that the deceased's liver was damaged. They remained at the

Government Hospital, Kothagudem, for one day. On the next day, as the doctors stated that the condition of the deceased was serious, they shifted him to Aarogya Hospital,

Khammam. From there, he was shifted to Century Hospital, Hyderabad, where he underwent treatment for three days. Later, he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, and thereafter to NIMS Hospital. On the way to NIMS, the deceased died.

Page No.5

CC.No.1223 of 2019 6 Dt: 28-11-2025

After completing the funeral rituals, PW1 and others questioned the accused, in the presence of the village elders, about what had actually happened to the deceased. They observed that the accused had no injuries, and the bike also had no damage, which created suspicion regarding the accused's explanation. Suspecting negligence on the part of the accused, they approached the police station and lodged Ex. P1.

During the cross examination of PW1, he admitted that the distance between the scene of the offence and police station is about 2 kilometers. He further admitted that he does not know how the deceased fell down at the scene of the offense, as he did not witness the incident. He also stated that he did not submit any medical reports to the police. He further admitted that he did not mention in Ex. P1 the names of the village elders in whose presence the panchayat was conducted.

13.PW2 is the wife of deceased and during her chief examination deposed that in the year 2019, her husband/deceased and the accused person were proceeded to

Paloncha from Ramachandra Banjara on one Glamour bike bearing No. TS 04 EL 9348.

The accused was driving the bike, and her husband/deceased was the pillion rider. While they were returning from Paloncha, at about 4 PM, she received a call from accused, who informed her that they had met with an accident. Immediately, she went to the scene of offence and on observation she found that the bike was not damaged and the accused had not sustained any injuries. However, her husband/deceased, who was the pillion rider, had received a head injury. They immediately shifted her husband/deceased to the government hospital, Kothagudem. On the advice of the doctors there, they took him to

Arogya Hospital, Khammam, where he underwent treatment for about 5 days. Later,

Page No.6

CC.No.1223 of 2019 7 Dt: 28-11-2025

they shifted him to Century Hospital, Hyderabad and due to financial capacity, thereafter shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Hyderabad. Later, shifted to Gandhi Hospital, while he was shifting from Gandhi Hospital to NIMS, on the way he died. On 03.03.2019,

PW1 lodged Ex.P1 in the police station.

During cross examination of PW2, she deposed that she came to know about the incident only through the accused, but she herself did not witness the incident. She was confronted with her Sec. 161 CrPC statement, and the portion from line 7 to line 11 of her Sec.161 CrPC statement was marked as Ex.D1.

14.PW3 is the eye witness and during his chief examination deposed that on 13.02.2019 at about 3:30 to 3:45 PM, while he was going from Chandragonda to

Kothagudem, he saw the accused along with another person coming on a two-wheeler bearing No.9348 at a high speed. The accused was driving the bike, which was, as they were coming at high speed from the front side, they fell into a canal. He stated that he went into the canal and took out the accused, the deceased, and the bike. He came to know their names after asking them at the spot. On enquiry, the accused revealed his name as Rambabu. Then, he called 108, and when the ambulance arrived, he shifted the deceased and accused into the ambulance.

During cross examination of PW3, he deposed that the scene of offence is located on a highway. He admitted that he did not state the time at which he witnessed the incident in his Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement. He further admitted that he did not hand over the mobile phone with which he made the 108 ambulance call.

15.PW4 is the Panch witness for inquest and during his chief examination deposed

Page No.7

CC.No.1223 of 2019 8 Dt: 28-11-2025

that in the year 2019, police conducted inquest panchnama of the deceased in his presence and he has seen the dead body of the deceased. He received injury to his stomach in an accident. After conducting panchnama, police obtained his signature.

During cross examination of PW4, he deposed that deceased is his cousin, and about three to four days after the death of the deceased, inquest panchnama was conducted. And he deposed that he did not read over the contents of Ex.P2/Inquest panchnama. He further admitted that he signed on Ex.P2 on the instruction of the police as he was present while conducting the inquest panchnama.

16.PW5 is the photographer and during his chief examination deposed that the name of his photo studio is A1 Photo Studio, situated at VM Banjara. In the year 2018, the police called him to take photographs of a dead body. The dead body was in an agricultural field and had already been buried. He stated that he took the photographs of the dead body after it was exhumed and placed at the same spot.

During cross examination of PW5, he deposed that he did not produce any proof to show that he was running a photo studio. He further admitted that he did not give the registration certificate of his studio to the police. He also stated that deceased is his brother. He admitted that he did not give any bill to the police for taking the photographs.

17.PW6 is the panch witness for CDF and during his chief examination deposed that about four years ago, police came to Thippanpally Down Area/scene of offence and drafted rough sketch of scene of offence in his presence and in the presence of LW15.

Page No.8

CC.No.1223 of 2019 9 Dt: 28-11-2025

During cross examination of PW6, he admitted that he signed on Ex. P3 in the police station.

18.PW7 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector and during his chief examination deposed that previously he worked as Asst. Motor Vehicle Inspector, Kothagudem from 2019 to 2022. He deposed that on 18.03.2019, he received a requisition from S.H.O. P.S.

Chandragonda to inspect the crime vehicle and to issue a report. He inspected the vehicle in the premises of Chandragonda Police Station and found that the headlight of the vehicle was damaged. He opined that the accident did not occur due to any mechanical defect in the vehicle. He then issued his inspection report accordingly.

During chief examination of PW7, he deposed that generally, immediately after an accident, he is required to inspect the concerned vehicle/seized vehicle and issue a report. He admitted that he cannot state the exact condition of the vehicle on the date of the accident if the inspection is conducted 10 to 15 days after the occurrence. He further admitted that he did not file any document to show that he was working as an

Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, Kothagudem on the date he inspected the crime vehicle.

19.PW8 is the Doctor who conducted PME and during his chief examination deposed that in the year 2019 he worked in CHC, Penuballi, Khammam. He deposed that on 03.03.2019 he received a requisition from SHO PS Chandrugonda to conduct PME over the deceased. On the same day, he along with LW17 conducted PME and opined that cause of death is due to Poly trauma leads to Hypovolemic shock due to hemorrhage leads to Cardio Respiratory arrest and issued a PME report and also final

Page No.9

CC.No.1223 of 2019 10 Dt: 28-11-

2025 opinion.

During chief examination of PW8, he admitted that LW17 conducted the post- mortem examination, and he only assisted him. He denied to the suggestion that, if the dead body had been buried and exhumed after one week, the body would be putrefied.

He deposed that they can identify the injuries on the body. He further deposed that he does not know whether the body would putrefy only after rigor mortis. He admitted that they sent viscera samples to the FSL for examination. He also admitted that he did not mention in the post-mortem report/Ex. P5 the names of the persons who identified the deceased's body. He further stated that the post-mortem was conducted after the body was identified by the concerned relatives.

20.PW9 is the Investigating Officer and during his chief examination deposed that he received requisition from PW1, on 03.03.2019 at 11.30 hours based on which he filed

FIR vide Cr.No.10/2019 U/sec.304(A) of IPC and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statement of PW1 and visited the scene of offence and drafted the rough sketch of scene of offence in the presence of

PW6 and LW15 and proceeded to village of the deceased and gave a requisition to

Tahsildhar to be present at the exhumation and PME then he sent LW10. Held inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of PW4, LW12 and LW13 and got the dead body videographed through PW5 and requested PW8 and LW17 to conduct PME on the deceased and after PME the body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased.

Later, secured the presence of PW1 to PW3, LW3 to LW5, LW7, LW8 and LW10, examined and recorded the statement and he gave a requisition to PW7 for the inspection of crime vehicle and issue report on the same and on 06.03.2019 at 10.00 hours the accused

Page No.10

CC.No.1223 of 2019 11 Dt: 28-11-

2025 surrendered before him and he served 41 A Cr.p.c. notice to him. On 18.03.2019 he obtained the MVI report from PW7 and on 27.03.2019 obtained letter of advice from

SDPO Kothagudem forwarded viscera to FSL, Warangal and received the receipt on 28.03.2019 vide RFSL (WGL)/720/TOX/328/19. And on 23.05.2019 received RFSL report.

And on 05.06.2019 he obtained the final report from PW8 and LW17 and on 15.07.2019 he received the release order of the crime vehicle bearing No. TS 04 EL 9348. Later, he have obtained final opinion report from PW8 and LW17 and after completion of investigation and found them on correct lines filed charge sheet.

During cross examination of PW9, he admitted that as per CDF/Ex. P3, no canal was present. He further admitted that it was mentioned in the report/Ex. P1 that the deceased fell from his bike and was admitted to the hospital, but he did not file any out- patient details of the deceased. He also admitted that he did not visit the government hospital to inquire about the deceased, nor did he submit any records from Arogya

Hospital, Khammam. Regarding the deceased, he did not examine or collect any details from Century Hospital, Hyderabad, nor did he collect the death certificate from KIMS

Hospital, or any records from Gandhi Hospital. He further admitted that there was a delay of 23 days in lodging Ex.P1/report. After 23 days, he seized the crime vehicle. He admitted that he did not obtain signatures of PW10 on Ex. P2 and Ex. P5 to show that it was conducted in his presence. He also admitted that he did not investigate the reason for the delay in lodging the report/Ex. P1. Finally, he admitted that in the photographs attached along with the charge sheet, LW10 was not present in any of the photographs.

21.PW10 is the Revenue Inspector and during his chief examination deposed that on 03.03.2019, SHO PS Chandrugonda addressed a letter to MRO, Pennuballi Mandal for

Page No.11

CC.No.1223 of 2019 12 Dt: 28-11-

2025 exhumation of the body. On the oral instruction of the MRO, he went to the burial ground located at Ramchandrarao Banjara, Pennuballi Mandal for the exhumation. At the time of the exhumation, the SI of SHO PS Chandrugonda along with two doctors and four villagers were present. In their presence, the deceased's body was exhumed from the burial site and a post-mortem examination was subsequently conducted.

During cross examination of PW10, he admitted that he did not submit any report regarding the proceedings conducted in his presence. He further admitted that he did not state in his Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement that the deceased's body was exhumed and on the spot doctors conducted the post-mortem. He admitted that he did not mention in his

Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement the time at which he reached the burial ground at

Ramchandrarao Banjara, Pennuballi Mandal for exhumation. He also admitted that in

Ex.P5, in the body identification column, he did not endorse his signature and not endorsed his signature in inquest panchnama/Ex.P2.

22.Before summing up of the evidence available on record, it is pertinent to note the essential ingredients of the Section 304A IPC:

(i)Death of a person.

(ii)Caused by negligence or rash act.

(iii)No intention to cause death.

(iv)Direct connection between act and death.

In order to prove the guilt of the accused person, the prosecution must establish all the ingredients.

Page No.12

CC.No.1223 of 2019 13 Dt: 28-11-

2025

(i) Death of a Person:

From the testimony of the witnesses, it is clearly established that the deceased sustained injuries and ultimately died as a result of the incident. There is no dispute or question regarding the fact of the deceased's death, and this element of the offence stands conclusively proved.

(ii) Caused by Negligence or Rash Act:

It is elicited from the testimony of PW1 and PW2, they were not eyewitnesses and they came to know about the incident through others. Their testimony is hearsay regarding the circumstances of the incident. PW3, who is the only eyewitness, stated that the accused was driving at high speed and that both the accused and deceased fell into a canal. However, he did not state that the accused was driving rashly or negligently.

He also did not mention the time of the incident in his Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement.

Further, the investigating officer admitted that in Ex. P3/CDF, no canal was present, no canal was shown at the scene, casting doubt on PW3's account.

23.From the evidence of PW7/MVI, it is elicited that the vehicle inspection was conducted 23 days after the incident. He admitted that he cannot reliably ascertain the condition of the vehicle at the time of the accident if inspected after such a delay. While no mechanical defects were reported, this does not confirm or implicate the accused person.

Investigating Officer/PW9 admitted multiple procedural lapses and failure to collect hospital records, death certificate, or in-patient/out-patient details. Delay in lodging Ex.P1 and absence of signatures. Investigating Officer/PW9 admitted that no

Page No.13

CC.No.1223 of 2019 14 Dt: 28-11-

2025 medical records were collected from hospitals, nor was the death certificate of the deceased obtained.

24.Further, the post-mortem report/Ex. P5 and Ex.P6 confirms death due to polytrauma leads to hypovolemic shock due to hemorrhage leads to cardio-respiratory arrest, but it does not establish negligence or rashness on the part of the accused.

Eye-witness/PW3's testimony is inconsistent with his Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement, and the presence of a canal is disputed. His statement does not explicitly establish rash or negligent driving, which is the core ingredient of Sec.304A IPC. P.M.E. and final opinion/Ex. P5 and P6 confirms cause of death, but does not assign responsibility to the accused person, and the delayed MVI inspection diminishes its reliability. No evidence directly links the accident to negligent driving.

25.So, in order to prove the guilt of the accused person, the prosecution must establish all the aforesaid ingredients. In this case, while the death of the deceased is undisputed, the prosecution has failed to prove rash or negligent driving by the accused person. There is no credible evidence linking the accused's driving to the fatal injuries.

The discrepancies in eye-witness testimony, the investigative lapses, and the delayed FIR introduce reasonable doubt regarding the accused's culpability.

26.Considering the totality of evidence, the prosecution has not established beyond reasonable doubt that the accused caused the death by rash or negligent act. The accused is therefore entitled to the benefit of doubt.

Page No.14

CC.No.1223 of 2019 15 Dt: 28-11-

2025 IN THE RESULT:- The Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable

U/sec.304(A), 337of IPC and accordingly he is acquitted U/sec. 255(1) Cr.P.C for the said offence.

The bail bonds of accused shall stand discharged after expiry of 6 months as per

Sec.437A of Cr.P.C. Noorder as to the property.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 28th day of November, 2025.

sd/xxx

I ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

KOTHAGUDEM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

PW1M. Nageswar RaoComplainant PW2M. Shantha KumariWife of Deceased PW3K. MalleshEye witness PW4M. SrinuPanch witness for inquest PW5M. MadhuPhotographer PW6Sd. RafiPanch witness for CDF PW7T. RambabuMotor Vehicle Inspector PW8Dr. S. Chandrasekhar ReddyDoctor PW9K. PrasadInvestigation Officer PW10Sk. Jani MiyaRevenue Inspector

WITNESS EXAMINED OF BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

-NIL-

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

Ex.P1is the report. Ex.P2is the inquest panchanama

Page No.15

CC.No.1223 of 2019 16 Dt: 28-11-

2025

Ex.P3is the CDF Ex.P4is the MVI Report Ex.P5is the PME report Ex.P6is the final opinion, dated. 05.06.2019 Ex.P7is the FIR Ex.P8is the FSL report WGL/TOX/328/2019, dated. 04.05.2019 along with receipt Ex.P9is the requisition to MVI Ex.P10is the letter issued by the SHO PS Chandrugonda to Tahsildar for exhumation of dead body, dated. 03.03.2019

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

Ex.D1:

Ex.D1is the portion of line 7 to line 11 sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

--NIL--

sd/xxx

I ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

KOTHAGUDEM.

Page No.16

Page Nos.1 of 13 C.C.No.613/2018.

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

KOTHAGUDEM.

Dated this, 30th day of April, 2025.

Present: KUKKALA SAI SRI,

II Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Kothagudem.

C.C.No. 613/2018

Cr.No.57 of 2017 of P.S. Annapureddypalli

Between:- The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Annapureddypalli. …Complainant

And

1.Mayara Venkamma W/o Chennaiah, Age: 75 years, Caste: Kuruma, Occ: Coolie, R/o Damaracherla village of Chandrugonda Mandal.

2.Shaik Jayanthi Begam W/o Mahaboob Ali, Age: 65 years, Caste: Muslim, Occ: House wife, R/o Chandrugonda village and mandal.

3.Varadi Satyanarayana S/o Veeraiah, Age: 54 years, Caste: Viswabrahmin, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Ayyanapalem village, Chandrugonda Mandal.

4.Valla Bhaskar S/o Ramaiah, Age; 56 years, Caste: Kapu, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Ayyannapalem village, Chandrugonda Mandal. (Died) …Accused No.1 to 4

* * *

This case is coming before me on 07.04.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Prosecution and Learned legal aid counsel Sri. K. Pullaiah for Accused No.1 to 4 upon hearing both sides, considering the material available on record and the matter having stood over consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

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

1. The State represented by its Sub-Inspector of Police, Annapureddypalli Police

Station filed a charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 4 in Cr.No. 57/2017, for the offence punishable under section 447, 379 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (here in after stated as IPC).

2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are as follows;-

Page Nos.2 of 13 C.C.No.613/2018.

On19.12.2017 at 13.00 hours the complainant came to police station and lodged a report stating that he possessed a land to an extent of 1-00 acre in Sy.No. 39A in

Gumpena Revenue Division and he has been cultivating the same since 1964 and the boundaries to that land are on east land of Katta Vasu, on west eucalyptus orchard of A.

Venkanna, on south land of M. Venkata Swamy and on north land of A. Rambabu are situated. In the month of July, 2017 the complainant planted paddy seedling in his land and when the same is ready for harvesting, on 25.11.2017 at about 11.00 AM all the accused persons along with some other coolies/workers after having knowledge of his absence in the village criminally trespassed into his land and harvested the paddy and taken away the 20 bags of paddy worth of Rs. 20,000/-. The same was witnessed by one

B. Hanumantha Rao, Sk. Yakub Pasha, Sk. Lala Saheb and informed to him about the commission of theft of paddy from his land. Later, the complainant lodged the report after consulting the village elders. Finally, he requested to take necessary action against the accused persons.

3. Basing on the report, LW14 registered a case in Cr.No.57/2017, U/sec.447, 379 r/w 34 of IPC and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, LW14 examined and recorded the Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements of LW1 and visited the scene of offence and drafted the rough sketch of scene of offence in the presence of mediators i.e., LW9 and LW10 and obtained the presence of LW2 to LW8 examined and recorded their Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statements. Later, LW14 handed over the CD file to LW15 then LW15 resume further investigation.

As part of further investigation, LW15 gave requisition to LW13 to furnish the details of land in Sy. No. 39/A at Gumpena Village and collected the same. On 05.05.2018 the accused No.1 to 4 surrendered before LW15 and he secured the presence

Page Nos.3 of 13 C.C.No.613/2018.

of LW11 and LW12 conducted confession panchanama and also recovered the Rs.5000/- from the possession of accused persons and recorded confession and seizure panchanama. LW15 served Sec. 41 A Cr.P.C notice to accused No.1 to 4. After completion of investigation found them on correct lines, LW15 filed charge sheet U/sec. 447, 379 r/w 34 of IPC.

4.The case was taken on file against the offence U/sec. 447, 379 r/w 34 of IPC and issued summons to the accused persons.

5.On appearance of the accused No.1 to 4 before the court, case copies were furnished to them as contemplated U/sec.207 Cr.P.C.

6. The accused No.1 to 4 were examined U/sec.239 Cr.P.C and charges were framed

U/Sec.240 of Cr.P.C for the offence U/sec.447, 379 r/w 34 of IPC against accused No.1 to 4, read over and explained to them in their vernacular language for which they denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. To bring home the guilt of accused No.1 to 4, the prosecution has examined PW1 to

PW7 and got marked exhibits P1 to P7 and MO.1. Learned APP has given up the evidence of witnesses LW2, LW4, LW5, LW7 to LW9, LW13 and LW15.

8. After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused No.1 to 3 were examined

U/sec.313 Cr.P.C with reference to the incriminating circumstances/material appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

9. Heard both side arguments and perused the material available on record.

Page Nos.4 of 13 C.C.No.613/2018.

10.Now, the Point that arises for consideration is:

“Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the Accused

for the offence punishable U/sec. 447, 379 r/w 34 of IPC beyond all

reasonable doubts?” POINT:- In order to bring home the guilt of the accused person as stated Supra, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW7 and got marked Ex.P1 to P7 and MO.1.

Witnesses Examined: PW1 is the Defacto complainant, PW2 is the eye witness, PW3 is the circumstantial witness, PW4 is the panch witness for CDF, PW5 and PW6 are the panch witness for confession and recovery panchanama, PW7 is the investigating Officer in this case.

Given up Witnesses: Learned App has given up the evidence of the remaining witnesses ( LW2, LW4, LW5, LW7 to LW9, LW13 and LW15).

Exhibits Marked: Ex.P1 is the Report, Ex.P2 is the pahani from the year 2017, Ex.P3 is the MRO letter relating to the above said land, Ex.P4 is the CDF, Ex.P5 is the signature of PW5 on the confession and seizure panchanama, Ex.P6 is the FIR, Ex.P7 is the confession and seizure panchanama, MO.1 is the cash of Rs. 5,000/-.

11.In view of the rival contentions, the entire evidence is perused.

12.PW1 is the defacto complainant, he deposed that his father purchased land to an extent of 1.00 acre in Sy.No. 39A at Kattugudem village in the year 1964, since then, his father used to cultivate the said land and after demise of his father, he is cultivating the same. In the month of July, 2017 he planted paddy seedling and after 3 months the same was ready for harvesting, then all the accused persons along with some other persons criminally trespassed into his land and committed theft of 20 bags of paddy worth of Rs.

20,000/- and the same was witnessed by LW2 to LW4 and they informed the same to him.

Page Nos.5 of 13 C.C.No.613/2018.

In cross examination of PW1, he deposed that land situated in Sy. No.39A in

Kattugudem village and he does not know the Revenue Division. He admitted that he lodged report/Ex.P1 after lapse of 20 days. He further deposed that he handed over the land documents and 3 pahani copies to the police. He admitted that in the year 2017

Telangana Government has issued digital pass books to the Pattadhars and admitted that he did not file the digital pass book pertaining to the said land.

13.PW2 is the eye witness, and during the chief examination, he deposed that in the year 2017, while they were working in their agricultural fields all the accused persons criminally trespassed into the land of PW1 and harvested the paddy crop and committed theft of 20 bags of paddy worth of Rs. 20,000/-. He along with LW2 and LW4 witnessed the same and questioned the accused persons but they did not respond. Later, they informed the same to PW1. He further deposed that, the same was referred to village elders but accused persons did not heed the words of the village elders. After one month PW1 lodged Ex.P1.

In cross examination of PW2, he deposed that on informing about the incident PW1 immediately rushed to his field. He admitted that he does not know the

Survey number, ownership or title particulars of the said field.

14.PW3 is the circumstantial witness and during the chief examination, he deposed that, his field is situated adjacent to the PW1 and he raised eucalyptus plantation in his field and PW1 raised paddy in his filed. About 50 years ago, the father of PW1 purchased one acre of land which is situated in Sy. No.39 from one Mayara Nagaiah. He further deposed that about 7 years ago, while he was watering his field all the accused persons criminally trespassed into the land of PW1 and harvested the paddy crop and committed

Page Nos.6 of 13 C.C.No.613/2018.

theft of 20 bags of paddy worth of Rs. 20,000/-. Later, LW4 called PW1 and informed about the incident.

In cross examination of PW3, he deposed that upon information from LW4 about the incident PW1 immediately rushed to his field. He further deposed that he does not know personal knowledge as to the sale transactions of said one acre land and he came to know from his father that PW1 purchased the said one acre land from one Mayara

Nagaiah.

15. PW4 is the panch for CDF and during the chief examination, he deposed that, about 6 years ago in the afternoon hours SI of Police came to scene of offence relating to a theft of paddy crops and drafted rough sketch of scene of offence in his presence and in the presence of LW9 and obtained their signatures and he knows the contents of the Ex.P4

In cross examination of PW4, he admitted that police has not mentioned the

Survey number of scene of offence in Ex.P4.

16.PW5 and PW6 are the panch witnesses for confession and seizure panchanama, deposed that about 6 years ago police called them to PS Annapureddypalli and obtained their signatures on some papers and they do not know the contents of the same. PW5 identified his signature on the same which was marked as Ex.P5. They turned hostile, then learned APP sought permission to declare them as hostile and cross examined with the permission of the court.

In cross examination, nothing was elicited from the evidence of PW5 and PW6 to prove the allegations against the accused persons.

Page Nos.7 of 13 C.C.No.613/2018.

17.PW7 is the Investigating Officer and during the chief examination, he deposed that, he received requisition from PW1 on 19.12.2017 at 13.00 hours based on which he filed FIR vide Cr.No.57/2017 U/sec.447, 379 r/w 34 of IPC and took up the investigation.

During the course of investigation on the same day he examined and recorded the statements of PW1 and visited the scene of offence and drafted the rough sketch of scene of offence in the presence of PW4 and LW9 and secured the presence of PW2,

PW3, LW2, LW4, LW5, LW7, LW8 and examined and recorded their statements. Later, he handed over the CD file to LW15 he took up further investigation. As part of further investigation, he gave a requisition to LW13 to furnish the details of the land in Sy. No.

39/A at Gumpena Revenue Village and have collected the same from LW13. On 05.05.2018 the accused No.1 to 4 surrendered before LW15 and he secured the presence of PW5 and PW6 conducted confession panchanama and also seized Rs.5,000/- from the possession of accused persons and recorded confession and seizure panchanama and also served Sec.41A Cr.P.C notice to Accused No.1 to 4. After completion of investigation and finding them on correct lines he filed the charge sheet U/sec.447, 379 r/w 34 of IPC.

In cross examination of PW7, he deposed that alleged land/scene of offence is situated in Sy. No. 39A to an extent of 1-00 acre at Gumpena village, Annapureddypalli

Mandal erstwhile Chandrugonda Mandal and as per Ex.P2 the said land is in the name of

Mayara Adhilaxmi and PW1 did not file any document to show that the same purchased from One Mayara Adhilaxmi or from her family members. In the year 2017 Telangana

Government has issued digital pass books to the Pattadhars and admitted that PW1 did not file the digital pass book pertaining to the said land.

Page Nos.8 of 13 C.C.No.613/2018.

19.Before coming into the merits of the case to prove the guilt of accused persons for the offence punishable U/sec. 447 of IPC, the following essentials must be established in prosecution evidence.

(i) Accused persons must enter into or upon property in the possession of another person and

(ii) With an intent commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property.

20.In order to prove the guilt of the accused persons for the offence punishable

U/sec. 379 of IPC, the following essentials must be established in prosecution evidence.

(i) Accused persons had dishonest intention,

(ii) The subject matter of theft must be any movable property,

(iii) and the property must be taken out of the possession of any person without consent and moves that property in order to such taking.

21.On perusal of testimony of PW1, he deposed that in the year 1964 his father purchased the land and since then they cultivating the said land. In order to prove the possession of said land he filed Ex.P2 and Ex.P3. On perusal of Ex.P3/letter issued by

MRO which shows that Survey No.39/1 to an extent of 1-00 acre is under the possession of PW1 but prosecution has failed to examine the father of the document/MRO who issued Ex.P3.

22.On perusal of depositions of PW2 to PW4 and PW7, it clearly shows that they does not know any particulars as to the alleged land. Moreover, PW1 and PW7 admitted that in the year 2017 Telangana Government has issued digital pass books to the pattadhars

Page Nos.9 of 13 C.C.No.613/2018.

but PW1 failed to produce the same before this court in order to establish his ownership/title over the said land.

As per Sec. 114 (g) of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, court can draw an inference when evidence which could be and he is not produced would, if produced, be unfavorable to the person who withholds it. In this case PW1 has legal obligation to produce the relevant documents of said land to prove his ownership/possession but he failed to produce the documents and he withholds them. From the above, the court drawn a presumption that if PW1 produces the documents, it would unfavorable to him.

23.In order to show that PW1 is in possession of the said land on the date of the incident, he filed Ex.P2 which is a pahani pertaining to the year 2017. On perusal of

Ex.P2, one Mayara Adhilaxmi W/o Appadu is the pattadhar of the said land. It is relevant to quote that there are plethora of judgments of Apex Court stating that Single pahani document does not confer any title over the land.

24.From the above discussion, this court is of opinion that PW1 is failed to prove his ownership or his possession over the said land as to the date of the incident.

25.As to the offence punishable U/sec. 379 of IPC, one of the ingredient envisaged

U/sec. 379 of IPC i.e., property must be taken out of the possession of any person, in this case PW1 failed to establish his possession over the said land.

26.On perusal of deposition of PW7, on 05.05.2018 all the accused persons surrendered before him and confessed about the commission of theft of 20 bags of paddy from the land of PW1, on that PW7 conduct confession and seizure panchanama in the presence of PW5 and PW6 and recovered an amount of Rs. 5,000/- from the possession of accused persons. PW5 and PW6 who are the panch witnesses for

Page Nos.10 of 13 C.C.No.613/2018.

confession and seizure panchanama turned hostile and not supported the prosecution version.

27.It is pertinent to discuss about the legal provisions as to the admissibility of confession under Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the principle that “no confession made to a police officer is admissible” is firmly ingrained in Sec.25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. But, there are certain exceptions to it. If it is made in the presence of a Magistrate, it can be relied on as per Sec. 26 of Indian Evidence Act. Further, a limited exception to this aspect is also made in Sec.27 of the Evidence Act. By way of a proviso to the proceeding sections prohibiting the admissibility of confession made to police, Sec.27 provides limited exception to the embargo in Sec.25 of the Evidence Act. What is permitted in Sec.27 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is “so much of information in the confessional statements of the accused leading to the discovery or recovery of a fact” and nothing more than that. So much of the information that led to the discovery of a fact although it was made to police while the accused was in their custody is admissible.

28.From the deposition of PW7, It is established that MO.1 was recovered from the possession of accused persons but the confession made by the accused persons not leading to the discovery of MO.1.

As per Sec. 27 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 the confession or any statement of accused persons is admissible only when it leads to discovery of fact or material objects.

29.From the discussion, it clearly established that no fact or material object was discovered from the confessional statement of accused persons as such it is hit by Sec.

25 of Indian evidence Act, 1872.

Page Nos.11 of 13 C.C.No.613/2018.

30.From the discussion made supra, prosecution has miserably failed to prove that accused persons criminally trespassed into the land of PW1 and harvested the paddy crop and committed theft of 20 bags of paddy.

31.On perusal of deposition of PW7 and Ex.P7, it clearly shows that PW7 seized MO.1 i.e., cash of Rs. 5,000/- from the possession of accused persons but as per the averments of Ex.P1 20 bags of paddy was the stolen property, no whisper as to the person to whom accused persons had sold away the paddy. Money which was seized from the possession of accused persons might be their own money.

32.Learned defense counsel vehemently contended that there was a delay of 20 days in lodging Ex.P1 which raises doubts about the incident.

On perusal of Ex.P1 and Ex.P6, it clearly shows that offence had taken place on 25.11.2017 and PW1 lodged Ex.P1 on 19.12.2017 and there was 20 days delay in lodging

Ex.P1 and the same was not explained properly by PW1.

From the above discussion, this court is of opinion that 20 days delay in lodging

Ex.P1 is an unreasonable delay and which creates doubt as to the incident.

33. From the aforesaid discussion, prosecution has miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused persons for the offence punishable U/sec. 379, 447 r/w 34 of IPC beyond reasonable doubts. This is a fit case to grant benefit of doubt to accused persons.

Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered in favour of the accused persons.

Page Nos.12 of 13 C.C.No.613/2018.

33.IN THE RESULT: The Accused persons are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.379, 447 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly he is convicted U/sec. 248(1)

Cr.P.C for the said offence.

Case property, MO.1 i.e., Cash of Rs. 5,000/- which was given as interim custody vide Crl.Mp No.7059/2018 dated 17.11.2018 shall made absolute.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30th day of April, 2025.

sd/xxx II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kothagudem

:: Appendix of Evidence ::

:Witnesses examined:

For prosecution:

PW.1/LW.1Sk. Saiduluis the defacto complainant PW.2/LW.3Sk. Lala Sahebis the Eye witness PW.3/LW.6A. Venkannais the circumstantial witness PW.4/LW.10 M, Venkata Swamyis the panch witness for CDF PW.5/LW.11 Sd. Arif Pashais the panch witness for confession and seizure panchanama PW.6/LW.12 V. Venkateswarluis the panch witness for confession and seizure panchanama PW.7/LW.14 K. Prasadis the Investigating Officer

For Defence:- NONE-

Documents marked:

For prosecution:

Ex.P.1:is the Report Ex.P.2:is the pahani from the year 2017 Ex.P.3:is the MRO letter relating to the above said land Ex.P.4:is the CDF Ex.P.5:is the signature of PW5 on the confession and seizure panchanama Ex.P.6:is the FIR Ex.P.7:is the confession and seizure panchanama

Page Nos.13 of 13 C.C.No.613/2018.

For Defence: - -Nil-

Material objects marked:

MO.1:- is the cash of Rs. 5,000/-.

sd/xxx II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Kothagudem

Page Nos.1 of 12 C.C.No.68/2015.

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

KOTHAGUDEM.

Dated this, 17th day of September, 2024.

Present: KUKKALA SAI SRI,

II Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Kothagudem.

C.C.No. 68/2015

Cr.No.78 of 2012 of P.S. III town, Kothagudem

Between:-

The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. III town, Kothagudem. …Complainant.

And

Accused:MD. Abdul Malik S/o Javeed, Age: 21 years, Occ: Vegetable Business, R/o H.No. 4-4-25, 1st ward, Gajula Rajam Basthi, Kothagudem. …Accused

* * *

This case is coming before me on 13.08.2024 for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Prosecution and Sri. A. Ravi Kumar, counselfor Accused upon hearing both sides, considering the material available on record and the matter having stood over consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

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

1. The State represented by its Sub-Inspector of Police, III town, Kothagudem Police

Station filed a charge sheet against the Accused in Cr.No.78/2012, for the offence punishable under section 417 of IPC.

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

On 05.04.2012 at 19.45 hours the complainant came to PS and lodged a report stating that accused by name Md. Abdul Malik made false promises by saying the complainant that he had been in love with the complainant since three years. On

Page Nos.2 of 12 C.C.No.68/2015.

believing the words of accused person the complainant allowed him to participate in sexual intercourse, due to which the complainant got pregnancy. Upon which, the complainant and her family members went to accused house and asked him to marry the complainant, thereupon, the accused told them that he will marry the complainant after delivery. Later, the complainant gave birth to a male baby and asked him to marry her, on that the accused rejected to marry the complainant. Finally, the complainant requested to take necessary action.

3. Basing on the report, LW9 registered a case in Cr.No.78/2015, U/sec.417, 420 of IPC.

During the course of investigation LW9 examined and recorded the Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements of LW1 to LW5 and visited the scene of offence and drafted rough sketch of scene of offence in the presence of mediators i.e., LW7 and LW8. LW9 handed over the

CD file to LW10 and he conducted further investigation.

During the course of investigation LW10 filed a requisition before the

Hon’ble court with a requested to summon the LW1, her child accused for collecting DNA

profile to conduct paternity test at AP FSL, Hyderabad and the same was allowed vide

Crl.MP No.3527/2012.

LW10 arrested the accused on 26.12.2012 and produced him before this

Hon’ble court and he was sent to judicial custody. Later on 07.01.2013 the LW10 got

produced the accused, LW1 and child of LW1 before the F.S.L for paternity test. The

LW10 has also examined the LW7 and recorded his statement. Again on 18.11.2015 LW1, child of LW1 and accused were produced before AP FSL for collecting DNA profiles.

LW10 handed over the CD file to LW11. LW11 collected the DNA profile test, which is opined that accused is not the biological father of the male child and LW1 is the biological mother of the male child.

Page Nos.3 of 12 C.C.No.68/2015.

After completion of investigation, LW11 filed the charge sheet.

4. Cognizance was taken against the offences punishable U/sec. 417 of IPC and issued summons to accused person and copies of document was supplied to him as contemplated U/sec.207 Cr.P.C.

5. The accused person was examined U/sec.251 Cr.P.C and the substance of accusation levelled against him for the offence U/sec. 417 of IPC, read over and explained to him in telugu for which he denied the same pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. The prosecution to bring home the guilt of accused, has examined LW1 to LW3 and

LW7, LW9 to LW11 and got examined as PW1 to PW7 and marked exhibits P1 to P3 and given up the evidence of LW4 to LW6 and LW8. Hence, the prosecution side evidence was closed.

7. After closure of the prosecution evidence the accused was examined U/sec.313

Cr.P.C with reference to the incriminating circumstances/material appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, he denied the same. And reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the materials available on record.

9.Now, the Point for determination is

“Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the Accused

for the offence punishable 417 of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubts?”

POINT:- The burden of proof lies on the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused person beyond all reasonable doubt. In order to establish the guilt of the

Page Nos.4 of 12 C.C.No.68/2015.

accused persons as stated Supra, the prosecution has examined, PW1 to PW7 and got got marked Ex.P1 to P3.

Witnesses Examined: PW1 is the Defacto Complainant, PW2 and PW3 are the eye witnesses, PW4 is the panch for CDF, PW5 to PW7 are the Investigating officers.

Given up Witnesses: Learned App has given up the evidence of the remaining witnesses

LW4 to LW6 and LW8.

For Prosecution side exhibits Marked: Ex.P1 is CDF, Ex.P2 is the FIR, Ex.P3 is the report.

For Defence side exhibits Marked: Ex.D1 is the DNA report, dated: 23.02.2015, Ex.D2 is the DNA report(prior to the report).

10.Learned APP submitted that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the above offence by examining PW1 to PW7 and by marking exhibits P1 to P3. She further submitted that all the eye witnesses corroborated the evidence of PW1 and the defence solely relied upon the DNA report which is only a corroborative evidence. Prosecution has proved all the ingredients of Sec.417 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore prayed to convict the accused for the above section of Law.

11.The stand of the accused is that he is innocent, unjustly implicated in this case and that no way connected with the alleged commission of offence. The Learned counsel for the accused filed written arguments stating that the PW2 and PW3 i.e., eye witnesses, their testimony cannot be believed as they were interested witnesses. It is the contention of the defence counsel that Ex.D1 i.e., DNA report which shows that accused

Page Nos.5 of 12 C.C.No.68/2015.

persons is not the biological father of child of PW1. Hence, the ingredients of Sec.415 of

IPC did not attract in this case. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against the accused and stated that the present case was falsely foisted against the accused, and prayed to acquit the accused.

12.PW1 is the defacto complainant deposed that since 2008 both the complainant and accused are in love and in 2010 accused promised to marry her in the month of

Ramzan. On believing the promise of accused they had sexual intercourse at her cousin home/LW3 and as a result of intercourse she got conceived. She deposed that in the year 2010 she used to work as field officer at Swayamkrushi, Burgampahad and the accused was used to visit her room regularly. Accused stated to her maternal uncle/LW4 that he will marry her. Then they called his family members to her paternal uncle/LW5 and informed the same, on which accused family members stated that after delivery they will perform the marriage. After delivery they approached the accused family members, the accused denied to marry her by stating that child is not mine. Then she lodged the report/Ex.P3.

In cross examination of PW1, she categorically admitted that she did not mention all the statements as deposed in chief examination in her report/Ex.P3. She admitted that they were sent to DNA examination prior to the lodging the report/Ex.P3 and after lodging report and the DNA report reveals that accused is not the biological father of her son.

13. PW2 is the mother of PW1, corroborated the testimony of PW1.

In cross examination of PW2, she admitted that they have not given any complaint against the accused from 2010 to 2012 and also they did not file any written report

Page Nos.6 of 12 C.C.No.68/2015.

before the elders of their community. She categorically admitted that PW1 along with

her son and the accused person went to the DNA test on the advice of the elders and in report stated that accused is not the biological father of the son of PW1.

14.PW3 is the eye witness, deposed that PW1 and accused person used to visit her house oftenly and when she enquired about the same, the accused replied that they love each other and he will marry PW1. She deposed that in the year 2010 about one week or 10 days before Ramzan they both had physical relationship at her house upon questioning the accused, he promised on Quran and said that he will marry the PW1.

During the cross examination of PW3, she deposed that she is the witness and she used to allow the accused and PW1 to her house. PW3 had denied all the suggestions given by the defence counsel.

15.PW4 is the panch witness for CDF, he deposed that on 05.04.2012 at about 8.00

PM police came to the scene of offence and drafted rough sketch of scene of offence in the presence of him and LW8 and obtained their signatures.

During the cross examination of PW4, he deposed that he went to the house of

Musthak for collection of vegetable amount and he does not know what was written in

CDF.

16.PW5 is the Investigating Officer, deposed that on 05.04.2012 at about 19.45 hours he received requisition from PW1 and he issued FIR i.e., Ex.P2, U/sec.417, 420 of IPC and as part of investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of PW1, PW2, LW4 and LW5 and drafted CDF i.e., Ex.P1. Then, he handed over the CD file to LW10.

In cross examination of PW5, he admitted that there was a delay of nearly 125 days for lodging the report i.e., Ex.P3 and not explained the reason for delay in Ex.P3. He

Page Nos.7 of 12 C.C.No.68/2015.

admitted that he did not examine the owner of the house where the accused and PW1 alleged to resided at Burgampahad and as per the DNA report accused is not the biological father of the son of PW1 and the same was marked as Ex.D2. He further admitted that panch witnesses does not belongs to the areas of the alleged offence and

PW2, PW3, LW4 and LW5 are close relatives of PW1 and he did not examine the independent witnesses belongs to that area.

17. PW6 is the another Investigating Officer, deposed that he taken the CD file from

PW5 and as a part of investigation he recorded the statements of PW3 and LW6 and he filed a requisition before this Hon’ble court for DNA profile of PW1 and accused. On 26.12.2012 arrested the accused and produced before this court and he was sent to the judicial custody and on 07.01.2013 as per the orders of the Hon’ble court produced PW1 along with child and accused before the FSL. Later, he handed over the CD file to LW11.

In the cross examination of PW6, he admitted that Ex.D2(prior to the report) reveals that the accused is not the biological father of son of PW1.

18.PW7 is the investigating officer who collected the DNA report and filed charge sheet, deposed that he taken the CD file from PW6 and as a part of investigation collected DNA profile test and filed the charge sheet.

In the cross examination of PW7, he admitted that Ex.D1(DNA report) reveals that the accused is not the biological father of son of PW1 and he did not examine the director of the FSL.

19. Before discussing the merits of the case, let us have a look into Sec.415 of IPC which reads as follows;

Page Nos.8 of 12 C.C.No.68/2015.

Cheating whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to “cheat”.

A cursory perusal of the above provision would make it clear that there are at least three essential ingredients constituting an offence of cheating which should be made out from the materials available on record. They are as follows:- (1)Deception of any person; (2)Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person

(i) to deliver any property to any person or;

(ii) to consent that any person shall retain any property, or and (3)Intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or

is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or

property.

20.From the above Sec.415 of IPC, has two parts, while in the first part, the person must dishonestly or fraudulently induce the complainant to deliver any property; in the second part, the person should intentionally induce the complainant to do or omit to do a thing. That is to say, in the first part, inducement must be dishonest or fraudulent. In the second part, the inducement should be intentional.

Page Nos.9 of 12 C.C.No.68/2015.

A guilty intention is an essential ingredient of the offence of cheating and the intention to deceive should be in existence at the time when the inducement was offered.

Thus, so far as the second part of Sec.415 is concerned, property, at no stage, is involved. Here it is the doing of an act or omission to do an act by the complainant, as a result of intentional inducement by the accused, which is material. Such inducement should result in the doing of an act or omission to do an act as a result of which the person concerned should have suffered or was likely to suffer damage or harm in body, mind reputation or property.

21.On summing up the entire evidence available on record, from the testimony of

PW1, PW2 and PW3 it is clear that accused made a promise to marry PW1 and on believing that promise PW1 had sexual intercourse with the accused person.

It is well settled proposition of law that mere promise to marry and later on withdrawing the said promise will not amount to an offence of cheating as defined

U/sec.415 of IPC. In the instant case, the accused made promise to marry PW1 in the presence of the witnesses and had sexual intercourse with the PW1, later refused to marry her. Accused practiced the deception on PW1 and intentionally inducing the PW1.

22.The learned Defence counsel relied on DNA report i.e., Ex.D1 and D2. DNA report which is an expert evidence as per section 45 of Indian Evidence Act, which is not a conclusive proof of evidence and it is an supportive piece of evidence.

23.It clearly establishes that accused intentionally made false promise and induced the PW1 to share his bed.

Page Nos.10 of 12 C.C.No.68/2015.

From the discussion made supra, the prosecution has proved all the essential ingredients to constitute an offence punishable U/sec.417 of IPC.

24.On summing up of entire evidence, this court considered that prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused person beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly point No.

(I) is answered in favour of the prosecution and against the accused person.

25.IN THE RESULT: Accused is found guilty for the charge U/Sec. 417 of IPC, accordingly he is Convicted U/Sec. 255 (2) of Cr.P.C for the above offence.

Sd/-xxx

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kothagudem

Questioning on sentence

26.When the accused questioned on sentence proposed to be imposed, for which he stated he is the only person to look after their family and his old aged parents, by submitting the above they requested the Court to take a lenient view. Since the offence with which accused found guilty by this Court is punishable under Section 417 of IPC the punishment provided for the said offence is imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both.

27.Having considered the applicability of the provisions of Section 4 of P.O Act and having considered the nature of the offence, I feel that it is not a fit case to invoke the provisions of Section 4 of P.O. Act.

28.Having considered the representation made by the accused and the facts and circumstances of the case on hand and also considering his family status, the accused is

Page Nos.11 of 12 C.C.No.68/2015.

convicted and liable to pay an amount of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence punishable u/sec.417 of IPC, in default of payment of the fine amount accused person shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 months and the detention period of 6 days i.e., from 26.12.2012 to 31.12.2012 (both days inclusive) undergone by the accused shall be set off u/sec.428 of Cr.P.C.

29.The copy of this judgment is supplied to the accused u/sec.353(4) Cr.P.C, further the right of appeal against this judgment is informed to accused and when the accused is enquired about his means, he informed that he has means to engage counsel in preferring an appeal.

No order as to the property, as there was no property seized.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in

the open court on this the 17th day of September, 2024.

Sd/-xxx

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Kothagudem

:: Appendix of Evidence ::

Witnesses examined:

For prosecution: PW1Md. ShamaDefacto complainant PW2Md. Jareena BegumMother of PW1 PW3Md. Thajunissa BegumEye witness PW4Md. Abdul BasheerPanch witness for CEF PW5J. BikshamaiahInvestigating Officer PW6Ch. Madhusudhan ReddyInvestigating Officer PW7P. Devendar RaoInvestigating Officer

For Defence:- NONE-

Documents marked:

For prosecution:

Ex.P1Is the CDF

Ex.P2Is the FIR

Page Nos.12 of 12 C.C.No.68/2015.

Ex.P3Is the Report

For Defence: -

Ex.D1:-DNA report, dated: 23.02.2015.

Ex.D2:-DNA report (prior to the report).

Material objects marked:

- Nil -

Sd/-xxx

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Kothagudem

// True Copy//

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kothagudem

CC.No.232 of 2016 1 Dt: 12.05.2026

9IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

KOTHAGUDEM.

Dated this, the 12th day of May, 2026.

Present: K. SAI SRI,

I Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Kothagudem.

C.C.No. 232 of 2016

in

(Crime No. 143 of 2013 of PS Julurupad)

Between:

The State through S.I of Police, P.S. Julurupad

......Complainant

And

1.Maloth Drowpathi, D/o Surya, W/o Banoth Jangal, Age: 47 years, Caste: Lambada, Occ: Teacher in UPS at Kommugudem R/o Suraram village of Kothagudem Mandal.

2.Gaddala Vidhyasagar, S/o Rathnam, Age: 50 years, Caste: Madiga, occ: Govt Techer, R/o Pegallapadu of Yerrupalem Mandal.

3.Bollam Rajendra Prasad S/o Chandar Rao, Age; 38 years, Caste: Mala, Occ: Car Driver, R/o H. No. 10-6-117/1, Mamillagudem, Khammam.

4.Mamidi Nagaraju, S/o Pullaiah, Age: 32 years, Caste: Madiga, Occ: Real - Estate business, R/o Madaram Shaligouravaram Mandal of Nalgonda District.

5.Thadikamalla Nagaraju, S/o Venkatanarayana, Age: 35 years, Caste: Vyshya, Occ: Real - Estate business, R/o Dathasai Apartment Poshamma bag Plot No. 302 Hyderabad.

6.Daraveni Komaraiah S/o Mallaiah, Caste: Golla, R/o Ananthram of Illanthakunta Mandal of Karimnagar District Pharmacist Yashoda Hospital Laxmi Medical Shop.

... Accused No.1 to 6

@@@

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 11.05.2026 in the presence of Learned A.P.P for complainant and of Sri. A. Ravi Kumar, Learned Counsel for accused No.1 and 2, Smt. N. Prathiba, Learned Counsel for accused No.3, Sri. L. Satyanarayana, Learned Counsel for accused No.4 and 5 upon perusal of material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

Page No.1

CC.No.232 of 2016 2 Dt: 12.05.2026

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police Julurupad police station filed charge sheet in

Cr.No.143/2013 for the offence punishable U/sec. 403, 409 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (herein after stated as IPC) against the accused No.1 to 6.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is that

On 10.10.2013 at 16.00 hours the complainant came to Police Station and lodged a report stating that he had been working as MEO, Julurupad, 2012 and that in the year 2009, two teachers working under the jurisdiction of his office, namely accused

No.1 and 2 had allegedly prepared and created false medical bills of their family members and on the strength of such false bills, accused No.1 claimed medical reimbursement and sanctioned an amount of Rs. 1,80,000/- and accused No.2 also claimed medical reimbursement and got sanctioned an amount of Rs. 1,80,000/-, total

Rs. 3,60,000/-. And that the complainant was directed to lodge report against accused

No.1 and 2 vide RC No. 7281/B3/B2/Estt/2013-1 & 3, dated. 01.10.2013 and 07.10.2013 and DEE AP, Hyderabad vide RC No. 5407/02/11/2010, dated. 21.09.2013. Finally, the complainant requested to take necessary action against all the accused persons.

3.Basing on the complaint of LW1, LW10 registered a case in Cr.No.143/2013

U/sec.403, 409 r/w 34 IPC and issued FIR and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, LW10 examined the defacto complainant/LW1 and recorded his Sec. 161

Cr.P.C statement and visited scene of offence and drafted crime detail form (CDF) and rough sketch of the scene by securing the presence of mediators LW4 and LW5. On 03.11.2013 LW10 examined and recorded the statement of LW2. On 15.11.2013 accused

No.1 and 2 surrendered before him as they got anticipatroy bail, conducted confession

Page No.2

CC.No.232 of 2016 3 Dt: 12.05.2026

panchanama of accused No.1 and 2 in the presence of LW6 and LW7. Later, LW10 handed over the CD file to LW111.

(i)LW11 took up further investigation and as part of investigation, on 12.12.2014 LW11 sent a requisition to Resident Medical Officer, Yashoda Hospital as to the genuinity of inpatient number details. On 19.12.2014 LW11 received the report from

RMO, Yashoda Hospital, Somajiguda stating that IP number ws not issued by Yashoda

Hospital and they were fabricated. Later, LW11 handed over the CD file to LW12.

(ii)LW12 took up further investigation and as part of investigation, on 02.11.2015 he arrested accused No.3 and conducted panchanama by securing the presence of LW8 and LW9. Basing on the confession of accused No.3, accused No.4 to 6 names were added, accused No.6 was died on 06.04.2010. On 03.11.2015 accused No.3 was produced before this court and he was remanded to judicial custody. After completion of investigation, found them on correct lines, LW12 filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 6 for the offence U/sec. 403, 409 r/w 34 of IPC.

4.The case was taken on file against the offences U/sec. 403, 409 r/w 34 of IPC for accused No.1 to 6 and issued summons to the accused No.1 to 6.

5.On appearance of the accused No.1 to 6 before the court, case copies were furnished to them as required U/sec.207 Cr.P.C.

6.Prosecution filed death certificate of Accused No.6 and the datails tallied. Hence, the case against accused No.6 is abated. Accused No.1 to 5 were examined U/sec.239

Page No.3

CC.No.232 of 2016 4 Dt: 12.05.2026

Cr.P.C and framed charges U/sec. 240 Cr.P.C against Accused No.1 to 5 for the offences

U/Sec. 403, 409 r/w 34 of IPC and the same was explained them in their vernacular language for which they denied the same, not pleaded guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.During the course of trial on behalf of prosecution, LW1 and LW3 to LW12 were examined as PW1 to PW11 respectively and Marked Ex.P1 to P13. Learned APP has given up the evidence of LW2, accordingly the prosecution side evidence was closed.

8.After closer of the prosecution evidence, accused No.1 to 5 were examined

U/sec.313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating circumstances established in prosecution evidence in their vernacular language, for which they denied the incriminating material and reported no defence evidence.

9.Heard both sides and perused the material available on record.

10.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the Prosecution has established the guilt against the accused No.1

to 5 for the Offence U/sec. 403, 409 r/w 34 of IPC beyong all reasonable doubt?

POINT :-

11.It is the allegation of prosecution that the accused persons committed offence

U/sec. 403, 409 r/w 34 IPC. To substantiate its case, Prosecution has examined PW1 to

PW11 and marked Ex.P1 to P13.

12.Before discussing the evidence available on record, in order to establish the offence U/sec.403 of IPC, the prosecution must prove the following essentials:

Page No.4

CC.No.232 of 2016 5 Dt: 12.05.2026

(i)The property is movable property belonging to another;

(ii)The accused dishonestly misappropriated or converted it to their own use;

(iii)Dishonest intention at the time of such misappropriation or conversion;

13.In order to establish the offence U/sec. 409 of IPC, the prosecution must prove the following essentials:

(i)The accused is a public servant;

(ii)Entrustment of property or dominion over the property;

(iii)Dishonest misappropriation or conversion or using violent of trust;

(iv)Resulting wrongful loss to Government or beneficiary;

14.In order to establish the offence U/sec. 34 of IPC, the prosecution must prove the following essentials:

(i)Criminal Act done by several persons;

(ii)Common intention;

(iii)Participation of each accused in furtherance such common intention;

15.PW1 stated that he worked as MEO, Julurupad from 2012 to 2015 and lodged

Ex.P1 on the instructions of the DEO, Khammam and Director of School Education,

Hyderabad vide RC No. 7281/B3/B2/Estt/2013-1 & 3, dated. 01.10.2013 and 07.10.2013 and DEE AP, Hyderabad vide RC No. 5407/02/11/2010, dated. 21.09.2013. He identified accused No.1 and 2. In cross examination he admitted that he had no personal knowledge of the alleged misappropriation, did not mention the reason for delay in lodging Ex.P1, did not enclose departmental proceedings with the report/Ex.P1. He admitted corrections in Ex.P1 without initials, and specifically admitted that he did not see the medical bills and did not file them along with Ex.P1.

Page No.5

CC.No.232 of 2016 6 Dt: 12.05.2026

16.PW2 stated that in the year 2013, police obtained his signature on some blank papers. At this stage learned APP sought permission to declare him as hostile and further examined U/sec. 154 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and nothing is elicited.

17.PW3 stated about the alleged manipulation of patient names in hospital IP numbers and stated that the names in the records were fabricated. However, in cross examination, he admitted that he deposed by seeing written notes and did not produce any hospital records pertaining to the relevant IP Numbers i.e., 110098 and 126870.

18.PW4 and PW5 stated that police never conducted confession panchanama in their presence, and accused No. 1 and 2 never confessed anything in their presence. Police never examined them and never recorded their statement. They identified their signatures on confession cum panchanma of accused No.1 and 2. At this stage learned

APP sought permission to declare them as hostile and further examined U/sec. 154 of

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and nothing is elicited.

19.PW6 stated that in the year 2013 at about 5.00 PM police drafted rough sketch of scene of offence in his presence in MEO Office at Julurupad. However, in cross examination, he stated that he did not send any requisition from police through his higher officials. He stated that generally they shall enter the nature of work in register but he did not submit the said register to the police.

20.PW7 stated that on 02.11.2015 at about 4.00 PM accused No.3 confessed about the offence and stated that accused No.4 and 5 acting as real-estate brokers, and arranged medical reimbursement to the mother of accused No.1 and 2 by taking

Page No.6

CC.No.232 of 2016 7 Dt: 12.05.2026

commission. In cross examination, PW7 admitted that he was on official duty elsewhere at the relevant time, and had no permission from Tahsildar to act as panch witness. He stated that no written requisition was issued and corrections in Ex.P8 were not endorsed by him. He stated that he was deposing by seeing notes written on his palm.

21.PW8 stated that in the month of November, 2015 police called him to the police station and obtained his signature on some papers. He does not know the contents of the same. At this stage learned APP sought permission to declare him as hostile and further examined U/sec. 154 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and nothing is elicited.

22.PW9/Investigating Officer, his evidence is go in line with the report U/sec. 173

Cr.P.C, filed by PW11 and through him FIR is marked as Ex.P10. In cross examination, he admitted that PW1 did not submit any documents with Ex.P1 and reason was not mentioned for delay in lodging Ex.P1 as well as Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1. He admitted that the specific date of alleged incident was not mentioned in Ex.P1 as well as in Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1. He admitted that he did not collect medical bills with regard to the alleged incident. He further admitted that he did not collect any proof to show that accused No.1 to 3 misappropriated an amount of Rs. 3,60,000/- as alleged by the PW1. He also admitted that corrections and whiteners were present in Ex.P10 and

P1 without endorsement.

23.PW10/Investigating Officer, his evidence is go in line with the report U/sec. 173

Cr.P.C, filed by PW11 and through him report received from RMO, Yashoda Hospital on 19.12.2014 with regard to IP Number 126870 is marked as Ex.P11. In cross examination, he admitted that he did not enclose the copy of requisition which was sent to RMO,

Page No.7

CC.No.232 of 2016 8 Dt: 12.05.2026

Yashoda Hosptial, Hyderabad with charge sheet. He admitted that he did not examine the person one Komaraiah who was working as Pharmacist in Dhanalaxmi medical stores and had issued the fabricated bills as stated by PW3 in his Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement. He admitted that he did not collect the reports, dated. 23.07.2010, 06.01.2011, 19.07.2010 and 31.10.2012.

24.PW11/Investigating Officer, his evidence is go in line with the report U/sec. 173

Cr.P.C, filed by him, through him report received from RMO, Yashoda Hospital on 19.12.2014 with regard to IP Number 110098 is marked as Ex.P12 and confession panchanama of accused No.3 is marked as Ex.P13. In cross examination, he admitted that he did not give any written requisition to PW7 and PW8 to act as panch witnesses. He admitted that he did not collect the alleged fake bills with regard to the misappropriated amounts and also not collected the reports. He clearly admitted that he did not collect the departmental proceeding documents. He admitted that he did not collect any documents to show that accused No.1 to 3 misappropriated an amount of Rs.

1,80,000/- as alleged by the PW1.

25.Prosecution allegation is that accused No.1 and 2 while working as teachers and therefore public servants, dishonestly claimed medical reimbursement of an amount of

Rs. 1,80,000/- each by producing false medical bills, thereby causing wrongful loss to the

Government, at the out set, it is to be noted that the best evidence in a case of this nature would be the original reimbursement bills, sanction proceedings, treasury vouchers, hospital admission registers and departmental files. None of these fundamental documents have not been placed before this court.

Page No.8

CC.No.232 of 2016 9 Dt: 12.05.2026

26.Pw1/defacto complainant clearly admitted in cross examination that he had no personal knowledge of the alleged misappropriation, that he did not mention the reason for the substantial delay in lodging Ex.P1 and most importantly he did not see the alleged medical bills nor produce them along with Ex.P1. PW3 stated about fabrication of patient names in hospital IP numbers. However, his evidence is wholly unsupported by documentary proof. He admitted that he deposed by seeing notes written on a paper and further admitted that he did not produce any records relating to IP numbers i.e., 10098 and 126870. In the absence of original hospital registers or certified extracts, his oral testimony cannot be safely relied upon.

27.Investigating Officer/PW9 to PW11 categorically admitted that they did not submit any supporting documents, medical bills and departmental records. They admitted no proofs were collected to show that accused No.1 and 2 actually misappropriated Rs. 1,80,000/- as alleged by PW1. They did not secure any proof of actual disbursement or misappropriation. These admissions go to the very root of the matter. Hence, the prosecution has failed to place before the court the documents said to have been fabricated. For the U/sec. 403 of IPC, dishonest misappropriation of movable property must be affirmatively established.

28.Coming to Sec. 409 of IPC, the prosecution must further prove entrustment or dominion over Government property. Mere proof that accused No.1 and 2 are public servants is not sufficient. There must be evidence that Government funds stood entrusted to them or that they had dominion over the same in their official capacity. In the present case, there is absolutely no evidence on record regarding the sanction of

Page No.9

CC.No.232 of 2016 10 Dt: 12.05.2026

reimbursement, mode of disbursement, receipt of amount by the accused persons.

Prosecution has failed to establish essential ingredients of Sec. 409 of IPC.

29.coming to Sec. 34 of IPC, the implications of accused No.3 to 5 rests almost entirely on the alleged confession of accused No.3 in Ex.P8. PW8 turned hostile and stated that police merely obtained her signature on papers. PW7 admitted that he was on official duty elsewhere, that no proper permission was taken from the Tahsildar, that no written requisition was issued by the police and that he deposed by looking at notes written on his palm. The alleged confession panchanama regarding accused No.1 and 2 through PW4 and PW5 also unproved, as both witnesses turned hostile and denied confession proceedings. The confession of a co-accused is only a weak piece of corroborative evidence and cannot be treated as substantive evidence against the co- accused in the absence of independent corroboration.

30.In the present case, there is no recovery, no documentary link, no independent witness connecting accused No.4 and 5 with the alleged reimbursement claims.

31.As from the above discussion, the prosecution miserably failed to prove that the

Accused persons committed offences punishable U/sec.403, 409 r/w 34 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the Accused persons deserves for acquittal. Hence, it is a fit case to grant benefit of doubt to the Accused persons.

IN THE RESULT:- The Accused No.1 to 5 are found not guilty for the offence punishable

U/sec.403, 409 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted U/sec. 248(1) Cr.P.C for the said offence.

Page No.10

CC.No.232 of 2016 11 Dt: 12.05.2026

The bail bonds of accused persons shall stand discharged after expiry of 6 months as per Sec.437A of Cr.P.C.No order as to the property.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 12th day of May, 2026. sd/xxx

I ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

KOTHAGUDEM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

Prosecution Name of Witness Description Witness No.

1.K. Srinivasa RaoComplainant

2.K. Laxman RaoPanch for CDF

3.Dr. Venkata ReddyCircumstantial witness

4.B. SevyaPanch for confession of accused No.1 and 2

5.Ch. SrikanthPanch for confession of accused No.1 and 2

6.Sk. MastanPanch for CDF

7.B. BaluPanch for cnfession accused No.3

8.B. BheekuluPanch for cnfession accused No.3

9.R. AnjaiahInvestigating Officer

10.N. GouthamInvestigating Officer

11.P. SrinivasInvestigating Officer

WITNESS EXAMINED OF BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

-NIL-

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

Exhibit Description of the Exhibit Proved by

No. Ex.P1 is the reportPW1

Page No.11

CC.No.232 of 2016 12 Dt: 12.05.2026

Ex.P2 is the proceedings of DEO, Khammam videPW1

RCNo.7281/B2/B6/Estt/2010-3,

dated.07.10.2013 Ex.P3is the proceeding of Director of SchoolPW1 Education, Hyderabad vide RC No. 5407/D2-1/2010, dated.21.09.2013 Ex.P4 is the signature of PW2 on CDFPW2 Ex.P5is the signature of PW4 on confessionPW4 panchanama of accused No.1 and 2 Ex.P6is the signature of PW5 on confessionPW5 panchanama of accused No.1 and 2 Ex.P7is the CDFPW6 Ex.P8is the relevant portion of confessionPW7 panchanama of accused No.3 Ex.P9is the signature of PW8 on confessionPW8 panchanama of accused No.3 Ex.P10is the FIRPW9 Ex.P11is the report received from RMO, YashodaPW10 Hospital on 19.12.2014 with regard to IP Number 126870 Ex.P12is the report received from RMO, YashodaPW11 Hospital on 19.12.2014 with regard to IP Number 110098 Ex.P13is the confession panchanama of accused PW11 No.3

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

-NIL-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL- sd/xxx

I ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

KOTHAGUDEM.

Page No.12