Smt.K.Sowjanya

1

IN THE COURT OF THE XXI METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD AT MEDCHAL, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

PRESENT: Smt. K. SOWJANYA, XXI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Medchal.

Monday the 27th day of September 2021

C.C. No. 943 of 2015

Between:

V.Srinivas Reddy s/o Narender Reddy aged 40 years, occ: Business, r/o H.No.G-3, Sai apartments, Sudarshan Reddy Nagar, Chintal, RR District. ….Complainant

And

K.Rammohan Reddy s/o K.P.Raja Reddy C/o K.Sandhya w/o K.Rammohan Reddy, FROBELS School, Adloor Road, Kamareddy town, Nizamabad District. ..…Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri S.Ravinder Reddy, Advocate for the complainant and of Sri P.Subba Rao, Advocate for the accused and upon perusal of the entire material on record, on hearing the argument of both sides and having stood over the matter for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a complaint filed under Section 190 and 200 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act (for short “the Act).

2.The brief facts as stated in the complaint are that the complainant and the accused are acquainted with each other and out of such acquaintance, the accused requested the complainant for

Rs.20,00,000/- but the complainant could give only Rs.15,00,000/- in

May 2010, which the accused promised to repay within six months i.e.

by December 2010. But even after the stipulated period, the accused has not repaid the amount in spite of repeated demands and finally issued a cheque bearing No.732355 dated 23.03.2011 which was 2 returned by the bank for the reason “insufficient funds” vide cheque return memo dated 11.06.2011 and the return of cheque second time shows the deliberate intention of the accused to evade payment of amount. Therefore the complainant has issued legal notice dated 02.07.2011 for which the accused has issued reply notice dated 22.07.2011 making all false allegations. Hence he filed this complaint.

3.The case was taken cognizance for the offence punishable under

Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and thereafter summons was issued to the accused.

4.The accused was examined under Section 251 of Cr.P.C.

Accusation for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act was read over and explained to him in vernacular language for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to substantiate his case, the complainant had examined himself as PW1 and another witness as PW2. He got marked Exs.P1 to

P6 on his behalf.

6.On completion of the evidence on the side of the complainant, the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of complainant witnesses which he denied as false and no defence evidence was adduced.

7.Heard arguments of both sides.

The learned counsel for complainant has filed written arguments submitting that there is presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act in favour the complainant and that the accused has not placed any material to rebut the said presumption. Ex.P1 cheque is issued in the name of Vaishnavi Granites which is a proprietory concern represented by the accused and it is not the case of the accused that the said firm does not belong to him. He relied on a judgment in the case of MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No.2231 of 2020, DHIRENDRA

SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER. Further, as accused denied the existence of document which he gave to PW1 as security, the same 3 is filed along with the written arguments and prayed to consider the same. He further argued that Exs.P1 to P6 coupled with this document and the presumptions in his favour under Sections 118 and 139 of the

Act prove the guilt of the accused and prayed to convict the accused.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused has argued that the complainant must prove beyond reasonable doubt that there is any legally enforceable debt and that for such discharge of debt, the cheque in question was issued. The complainant is not able to prove the same. Moreover, the accused is a person whereas Ex.P1 is issued in the name of a firm, the relation between the accused and the firm is also not established. Hence the citation relied upon by the complainant is not applicable to the present case on hand. Further, no date of lending loan is mentioned anywhere either in the complaint or in the evidence of PW1. Thus, there is absence of proof of debt. In addition to it, the amount is not accounted by the accused as per his own admission that he has not shown the same in his income tax returns and so unaccounted debt is unenforceable debt. There is no documentary evidence especially any acceptable document to show the debt for discharge of which Ex.P1 is issued. When PW1 has no prior acquaintance with the accused, he lending such huge amount that too without any document, is very unnatural. It is an admitted fact that

PW1 and PW2 are related to each other but the name of PW2 is not mentioned anywhere in the legal notice or in the complaint, hence his presence of PW-2 at the time of transaction becomes doubtful. Thus, the accused has rebutted the presumptions by way of cross-examination and hence he is entitled to acquittal.

8.Now the point for consideration is -

Whether the complainant has proved the guilt of the accused person for the offence charged against him ?

P O I N T :

9.In proof of his case, the complainant has examined himself as

PW1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6. He also examined his relative as

PW2. Both these witnesses have deposed about PW1 lending amount 4 to the accused and the accused issuing Ex.P1 in favour of PW1. The accused has also not denied his signature on Ex.P1/ cheque. Thus, the evidence adduced by the complainant coupled with the fact that the accused has not denied his signature on Ex.P1, it can be held that the complainant is entitled for the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act. It is for the accused to rebut these presumptions. In order to rebut the same, the accused has not adduced any evidence – either oral or documentary on his behalf. Here, the learned counsel for the complainant contends that the accused has failed to adduce any evidence on his behalf and thus failed to rebut the presumptions under the Act. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused has submitted that the accused need not enter into witness box but he can rebut the evidence by way of cross-examination of witnesses. He relied on the case of KRISHNA JANARDHAN BHATT VS. DATTATRAYA G. HEGDE,

dated 11.01.2008 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India wherein it is

held that “P resumptions both under Sections 118 and 139 are rebuttable in nature. Having regard to the definition of the terms proved and disproved as contained in Section 3 of the Evidence Act as also the nature of the said burden upon the prosecution, vis-a-vis an accused it is not necessary that the accused must step into the witness box to discharge the burden of proof.” This court agrees with this contention of the accused as presumptions under the Act arise only if the execution of the document is proved as true. Here, it is the case of complainant that Ex.P1 is issued to repay the hand loan obtained by the accused from the complainant.

10. With regard to the lending of amount, it is elicited from the cross- examination of PW1 that the transaction took place in the house of

PW2 at Kamareddy and at the time of transaction, PW1, PW2 and the accused were present. PW2 has also in his cross-examination deposed that the transaction took place in his house but at Karimnagar. Thus, the place of lending amount is spoken contradictorily by PWs 1 and 2.

Contra to this, it is not stated in the complaint that PW2 was present at the time of transaction. It is the case of complainant that PW2 is his near relative. In that case, if really any transaction took place as alleged, in the presence of PW2, the fact of his presence would be 5 definitely pleaded in the complaint. The complaint is silent about the presence of any third person except PW1 and the accused. Moreover, the accused has contended in his reply notice that he has no personal acquaintance with the complainant but through PW2, who is related to

PW1. It appears that to counter attack this plea of accused, the presence of PW2 at the time of transaction is invented. Hence the evidence of PW2 regarding his presence and also regarding the transaction of PW1 lending amount to the accused is rendered doubtful.

11. Apart from this, as admitted by PWs 1 and 2, no document is executed of the time of lending amount. The amount lent, as alleged, is Rs.15,00,000/-. PW1 does cable business and the relationship between him and the accused is of general acquaintance. An ordinary businessman lending huge amount of Rs.15,00,000/- to a person with whom he has only acquaintance but not any close relation, without execution of a single document, at least a receipt, appears very unnatural. Surprisingly, the presence of any third party either as a witness to the transaction or as a surety for such a huge amount is also not pleaded. Besides this, PW1 has deposed that he does not remember the exact date of lending of amount except that it is lent in

May 2010. This circumstance of not knowing the exact date of lending such huge amount is also unbelievable. For the above reasons, the lending of amount by PW1 to the accused also becomes doubtful.

12. Coming to the cheque Ex.P1, it is dated 23.03.2011 and as per the complaint, it is presented on 10.06.2011 and returned vide cheque return memo dated 11.06.2011. If the amount is lent in May 2010 and after repeated demands a cheque is issued in the month of March 2011, why PW1 has not presented it till three months of its issuance is not understood. To this extent, PW1 stated that he presented the cheque twice – first on 25.04.2011 and next on 10.06.2011.

Admittedly, nothing is brought to record to show the first presentation of cheque or its return by filing any cheque return memo. Further, PW1 in his cross-examination has stated that he has presented the cheque only once but again admits that he presented the same on 25.04.2011 6 and 10.06.2011, and that he has not mentioned in his legal notice that he has presented the cheque for the second time but stated that he issued legal notice for dishonour on the first occasion. A perusal of

Ex.P3/ legal notice shows that it is dated 02.07.2011 showing the cheque was returned on 11.06.2011. Thus, the evidence of PW1 that he issued legal notice for dishonour of cheque on first occasion on 25.04.2011 is falsified by the document Ex.P3. Even otherwise, what prevented PW1 to plead about the first date of presentation of cheque or its return and mention the same in his legal notice is not understood and no explanation is offered for the same. With regard to the scribe of

Ex.P1, PW1 deposed that Ex.P1 is scribed by PW2 whereas PW2 deposed that it is scribed by the accused. In the cases of this nature, it must be proved that there is a legally enforceable debt or other liability subsisting on the date of drawal of cheque. Here in this case, as discussed supra, the aspect of debt is rendered doubtful and the date of issue of cheque has also become doubtful.

13. Further, the cheque is issued in the name of Vaishnavi Granites.

As admitted by PW1, the relation of accused with the said firm is not brought on record. It is the contention of the complainant that the firm is a proprietory firm owned by the accused alone and so there is no need to arraign the firm as a party and there is no requirement to implead his sole proprietary concern as an accused person. The learned counsel for the complainant relied on the suggestions put to

PW1 in his cross-examination that the accused used to hand over signed cheques to PW2 and one of such cheques is misused for filing the present complaint and contended that this suggestion goes to show that the accused has admitted the cheque to be issued by him, hence contends that not issuing any notice to the firm does not effect the complaint. Even if this contention of the complainant is accepted, the relation between the said firm and the accused is not brought on record by adducing any direct evidence by the complainant, in the absence of which this suggestion alone cannot be relied upon to connect the accused with the firm.

7

14. Looking into technical aspects, though PW1 is an income tax assessee, he admitted that he has not mentioned the amount covered under Ex.P1 in his income tax returns. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused, and as held by our Hon’ble High Court in CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2852 OF 2018, dated 28.04.2021, unaccounted debt cannot be said as a legally enforceable det and the failure to disclose the amount in income tax returns or books of accounts of the complainant may be sufficient to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the Act. On this score also, it can be held that the accused was rebutted the presumption u/s.139 of the Act.

15. Now the burden shifts on to the complainant to prove his case. To discharge this burden, the complainant in the course of arguments, has filed the document said to have given to him by the accused as security, at the time of borrowing amount. Admittedly, nothing is pleaded in the complaint about this document, no whisper about the same in the legal notice/Ex.P3 and not even a single averment in his chief examination affidavit. When it is the specific denial of accused that he gave any document to PW1, the said document should have been produced before the court at an earlier stage but the same is not done. In general, a document must be filed along with pleadings and such document must either prove or disprove a relevant fact.

Moreover, when the document is not marked in evidence and it is not subjected to the test of cross-examination, it has no evidentiary value.

Moreover, it is the case specific evidence of PWs 1 and 2 that the document is with PW1. If that is true, why PW1 failed to produce the same along with his pleadings, is not explained. He has not produced the same even when there was denial about the said document by the accused. Coming up with such unmarked document at a very belated stage, carries no evidentiary value and it is eschewed from consideration under Section 164 of the Indian Evidence Act especially when there is denial about the same by the other party. Though no specific notice is issued to PW1 to produce the same, when it is his case that he was in possession of the same even prior to filing of this case, he would have filed the same earlier and would have pleaded about the same in his complaint, but nothing of such sort is done by 8

PW1. Thus, the complainant failed to discharge the burden shifted to him when the accused was able to rebut the presumptions under

Sections 118 and 139 of the Act and hence the accused is entitled to acquittal.

16.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and he is accordingly acquitted under Section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 27 th day of September, 2021.

Sd/-

XXI METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD, AT MEDCHAL

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: ACCUSED: PW-1: V. Srinivas Reddy/Complainant -None-

PW-2: T. Satyadeva Reddy/

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION: ACCUSED Ex.P1 is the Original cheque No.732355 dated 23-03-2011 -Nil- for Rs. 15,00,000/-

Ex.P2 is the Return Memo dated 11-06-2011

Ex.P3 is the Office copy of Legal notice dated 2-7-2011

Ex.P4 is the Original postal receipt dated 2-7-2011

Ex.P5 is Copy of acknowledgement card dated 8-7-2011

Ex.P5 is Copy of reply notice

Sd/-

XXI METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD, AT MEDCHAL

1 C.C.No.1717 of 2015

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE­CUM­XXI 

METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,MEDCHAL, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

PRESENT: Smt. K. Sowjanya,

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge­Cum­XXI Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal.

Friday, dated this the 8th day of October, 2021

C.C.No.1717 of 2015

Between: The State of Telangana by S.H.O. P.S. Jeedimetla. …Complainant

And

A­1: Madas Kenth S/o. Suresh aged about 19 years, Caste: SC ­ Madiga Occ: Student, R/o H.No.29­23/4 Gandhi Nagar, Chinthal.

A­2: Madas Suresh S/o. M. Danaiah aged about 46 years, Occ:Business Caste: SC ­ Madiga, R/o H.No.29­23/4 Gandhi Nagar, Chinthal.

A­3: P. Steven S/o. Ratna Babu aged about 22 years, Occ:Student Caste: SC ­ Mala, R/o H.No.29­58 Gandhi Nagar, Chinthal.

A­4: Ratna Babu @ Ram Babu S/o. Kattaiah aged about 44 years, Occ:Security Guard Caste: SC ­ Mala, R/o H.No.29­58 Gandhi Nagar, Chinthal.

…. Accused Nos. 1 to 4.

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor Smt.Suguna Devi, for the state and of M/s. J. Rama Krishna, Learned Counsel for accused, upon perusal of the entire material on record, on hearing the argument of both sides and having stood over the matter for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub­Inspector of Police, P.S Jeedimetla, filed charge sheet against the accused Nos. 1 to 4 in Crime No.883/2015 for the offence punishable under Sections 324, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

2 C.C.No.1717 of 2015

2.The brief facts of the case are that on 23­9­2015, a court referred complaint lodged by LW­1/Smt.Tadi Vana Kumari, was received in police station alleging that there were some disputes between her Sister's son namely A.Naveen Kumar and his wife Smt. Nirmala and that several panchayats were held between the two families but the matter could not be pacified. Due to interference of both sides, the community pastors and at the request of accused persons, a meeting was held on 27­6­2015, in Christian Fellowship Church, Gandhi Nagar at 7:00 p.m. While they were discussing matrimonial disputes, the accused including

Smt. Nirmala and four others have mercilessly attacked the complainant without any reason by using filthy language and outraged her modesty.

The accused persons used dangerous weapons like sticks and rods and beat them mercilessly. The accused persons have caught hold the hair of her sister, beat them with sticks and thrown them out of the Church.

Immediately, Aravind Kumar "Dialed 100", upon which police came there and directed to them to approach local police station and also to a hospital for treatment. Thereafter they went to Jeedimetla police station and lodged written complaint. Later, went to Ram Hospital at about 11:45 p.m, Basing on the above complaint, the case was registered and after completion of investigation, charge sheet is filed against A­1 to A­4. 

3. The case was taken cognizance for the offence punishable under

Section 324, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. On appearance of A­1 to A­4 before court, the copies of documents were furnished to them under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

3 C.C.No.1717 of 2015

4. Thereafter, the accused A­1 to A­4 were examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. Charge for the offence punishable under Section 324, 506 r/w 34 of IPC, was framed, read over and explained to them in vernacular language for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined Pws1 to 9 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, the A­1 to A­4 were examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C. They denied the prosecution evidence and reported no defence evidence. 

7.Heard arguments of both sides.

8.Now the point for consideration is ­

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of A­1 to 4 for the of­ fence charged against them beyond reasonable doubt?

P O I N T :

9. Out of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, PW­1 is the defacto complainant, PW­2 is her son, PW­3 is her sister and PW­4 is son of PW­3. PW­5 and PW­6 are cited as eyewitnesses, PW­9 is the investigating officer. PW­7 and PW­8 are panch witnesses for scene of offence panchanama. Both these panch witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and they turned hostile by deposing that when they went to police station, police obtained their signatures but no panchanama was conducted in their presence. 

10. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has argued that all the witnesses have supported the prosecution case with regard to the offence 4 C.C.No.1717 of 2015 committed by the accused persons and therefore, the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused and prayed to convict the accused persons. On the other hand, the learned defence counsel has argued that the evidence of PW­1 to PW­4 suffers from omissions and contradictions. He further argued that as per Ex.P1 no injuries sustained by PW­1 are mentioned, the threatening words or the criminal intimidation on the part of accused is also mentioned. Further, no material objects like sticks or rods alleged to have used by the accused persons for the commission of offence are seized. The medical certificate is also not filed or marked before the court and the Doctor who treated the injured is not cited as witness. For the above reasons, no case is made out against the accused for the offence punishable under section 324 of IPC. He further contended that an MOU was entered into between

PW­2 and his wife for return of Rs. 6,00,00/­ and other articles presented at the time of marriage and to evade such payment, this false case is filed. He prayed to acquit the accused. 

11. On perusal of the material available on record, the following are the admitted facts. PW­2 is the son­in­law of A­4. There were disputes between PW­2 and his wife and it was agreed that PW­2 shall pay

Rs.6,00,000/­ to his wife prior to their divorce. In connection with the dispute between PW­2 and his wife, there was a meeting on 27­6­2015 in

Christian Fellowship Church, Gandhi Nagar. Both sides family members have attended the said meeting and subsequent to the meeting, MOU was entered into between the parties in pursuance of discussion. It is also admitted that PW­2 has filed an insolvency petition. 

5 C.C.No.1717 of 2015

With regard to the specific overt acts, PW­1 admitted in her cross examination that she has not mentioned specific overt acts in Ex.P1. A perusal of Ex.P1 Private complaint in this regard shows that all the accused had attacked PW­1, whereas PW­1 in her oral evidence before the court has deposed that A­1 alone beat her. PW­2 has deposed that

A­1 to A­4 had beaten them all and PW­2 sustained injuries. PW­3 in this regard has deposed that the family members of Smt.Nirmala had beaten them all and when they tried to go out of the Church, A­4 caught hold her and PW­1, dragged them by their hands. PW­4 has deposed that A­1 to A­3 beat him and when they came out of the Church, all the accused had beaten them all because of which PW­2 sustained bleeding injuries. PW­5 deposed that the father of PW­1 and brother and mother of Smt.Nirmala beat PW­1 and PW­2. It is the evidence of PW­6 that the father and brother of Smt. Nirmala beat PW­1 to PW­3. Thus, it can be seen that all the witnesses have deposed different versions with regard to the overt acts of the accused persons.

12. Regarding the weapon of offence, Ex.P1shows that dangerous weapons like sticks and rods were used whereas PW­1deposed that A­1 beat her with a stick. PW­2 has deposed that they were beaten with sticks, PW­3 has spoken that sticks and rods were used in the commis­ sion of offence whereas PW­4 has deposed that the accused persons have beaten them indiscriminately. He did not speak anything about any weapon. PW­5 and PW­6 have also not spoken anything with regard to the weapon of alleged offence. PW­9 has admitted that he has not seized any alleged weapon of offence. For the above the contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses coupled with the fact that no weapons 6 C.C.No.1717 of 2015 of the alleged offence are seized, the use of weapon becomes doubtful. In the absence of which no case shall be made out for the offence under section 324 of IPC. 

13. Regarding the purpose of holding meeting, it is mentioned in

Ex.P1 that the meeting was held to settle the matrimonial disputes between Pw­2 and his wife. Whereas PW­1 and PW­2 have deposed only to the extent that the meeting was held to discuss about the previous is­ sue. PW­3 and PW­4 have deposed that the meeting was held regarding the study certificates of Smt. Nirmala. Similarly, PW­5 and PW­6 have also deposed that there was a meeting for degree certificates of Nirmala.

Thus, the very purpose of meeting is also spoken contradictorily from one witness to the other. The alleged offence took place during the course of meeting but the purpose of meeting is itself deposed contradic­ torily creating doubt about the specific event as put forth by the prosecu­ tion. 

14. There are also contradictory versions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses regarding the persons who telephoned "Dial 100".

According to PW­1, she herself has made the call to "100", whereas

PW­2 has deposed that they telephoned "100" without any specification.

Contrary to this, PW­3, PW­4 and PW­6 have deposed that PW­4 has made the call to "Dial 100". This alone does not render the evidence of prosecution doubtful but it definitely creates doubt about veracity of prosecution witnesses. Especially, in view of the circumstances of the case wherein both the parties are related to each other. 

7 C.C.No.1717 of 2015

15. Likewise, there are also contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses regarding lodging of complaint with the police.

According to Ex.P1, it was filed because their earlier complaint filed in police station was not taken any action. Coming to the oral evidence of

PW­1, she deposed that three days after the incident, she went to police station where she was informed that the earlier complaint was lost and so lodged Ex.P1 private complaint. In this connection, PW­2 has deposed that as there was no response from the police, Ex.P1 was lodged. PW­3 has deposed that as there was no response from police, they handed over the case to one Manikyam and on his advise they again gave complaint on 9th August, PW­4 also deposed that one Manikyam was dealing with the case and on 9th August, he advised to give another complaint, so they gave another complaint but as there was no proper response from police, they lodged complaint through their Advocate. 

16. PW­9 in his cross examination stated that he has not made any GD entry with regard to the prior complaint alleged to have lodged by PW­1 in police station. In the absence of any such GD entry and in the absence of any receipt issued by police, the version of prosecution witnesses regarding the earlier complaint lodged by them becomes doubtful.

17. Apart from the above, there is also mention in Ex.P1 private complaint, that the accused persons have outraged the modesty of PW­1.

But according to PW­9, no such offence was made out and so accused were not charge sheeted for the offence under section 354 of IPC. Thus,

Ex.P1 is falsified by the investigation. Further according to Ex.P1, there 8 C.C.No.1717 of 2015 is no mention of any injury, either the place or nature of injury whereas

PW­1 has improved her version before the court deposing that she had bleeding injuries for which she had sutures. Besides this, as elicited rightly in the cross examination of PW­9 that there is no whisper about criminal intimidation in Ex.P1and that he has not referred Pw­1 for medical examination. It is also elicited that there are omission in the evidence of PW­1 and PW­2 on material aspects. Surprisingly,

Ex.P5/Scene of offence panchanama is conducted three months after the alleged incident. Coupled with this, it is elicited in the cross examination of PW­2 that though, offence took place on 27­6­2015, his statement was recorded on 23­9­2015. 

18. Finally, it is seen that the prosecution evidence suffers from contradictions and omissions on material aspects like the overt acts of the accused, the weapon of offence, the purpose of meeting, the persons who informed police and also regarding filing of complaint. In addition to the above, there is a delay of about three months in conducting scene of offence panchanama. Scene of offence panchanama or drawing rough sketch is conducted to note down or to collect any evidence i.e any physical evidence which can be produced and marked before the court as material objects. Nothing of such sort can be found after a gap of three months of incident. Adding to this, the independent panch witnesses for the scene of offence panchanama have turned hostile. It appears that no scene of offence panchanama was conducted. The other aspects spoken to with regard to filing of earlier complaint also appears to be made only to cover lacuna regarding the delay. For all the above reasons, it can be 9 C.C.No.1717 of 2015 held that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and hence the accused Nos. 1 to 4 are entitled for acquittal. 

19.In the result, the accused Nos. 1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 324, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. Accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after completion of appeal time.

Dictated to Stenographer, Transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on the 8 th day of October, 2021. 

SD/­

XXI METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

MEDCHAL

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE: PW­1: Smt. Tadi Vana Kumar/Complainant and injured ­Nil­

PW­2: A. Naveen Kumar/Eyewitness and son of PW­1

PW­3: Smt. A. Vana Kumari/Eyewitness and sister of PW­1

PW­4: B.Aravind/ Eyewitness and Sister of PW­1

PW­5: T. Paramjyothi/Eye witness

PW­6: Smt. T Premalatha/Eyewitness

PW­7: M. Ellaiah/ Panch witness for scene of offence panchanama and rough sketch of the scene

PW­8: M. Chinthaiah/Panch witness for scene of offence panchanama and rough sketch of the scene

PW­9: Sri. B.Srinivas, S.I of police/ Investigating officer and filed the charge sheet 

EXHIBITS MARKED

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

Ex.P1: Report of PW­1 ­Nil­

Ex.P2: Signature of PW­7 on scene of offence panchanama 10 C.C.No.1717 of 2015

Ex.P3: Signature of PW­8 on scene of offence panchanama

Ex.P4: First Information Report

Ex.P5: Scene of offence panchanama

Ex.P6: Rough Sketch`

SD/­

XXI METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

MEDCHAL

11 C.C.No.1717 of 2015

1 C.C.No.1717 of 2015

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE­CUM­XXI 

METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,MEDCHAL, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

PRESENT: Smt. K. Sowjanya,

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge­Cum­XXI Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal.

Friday, dated this the 8th day of October, 2021

C.C.No.1717 of 2015

Between: The State of Telangana by S.H.O. P.S. Jeedimetla. …Complainant

And

A­1: Madas Kenth S/o. Suresh aged about 19 years, Caste: SC ­ Madiga Occ: Student, R/o H.No.29­23/4 Gandhi Nagar, Chinthal.

A­2: Madas Suresh S/o. M. Danaiah aged about 46 years, Occ:Business Caste: SC ­ Madiga, R/o H.No.29­23/4 Gandhi Nagar, Chinthal.

A­3: P. Steven S/o. Ratna Babu aged about 22 years, Occ:Student Caste: SC ­ Mala, R/o H.No.29­58 Gandhi Nagar, Chinthal.

A­4: Ratna Babu @ Ram Babu S/o. Kattaiah aged about 44 years, Occ:Security Guard Caste: SC ­ Mala, R/o H.No.29­58 Gandhi Nagar, Chinthal.

…. Accused Nos. 1 to 4.

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor Smt.Suguna Devi, for the state and of M/s. J. Rama Krishna, Learned Counsel for accused, upon perusal of the entire material on record, on hearing the argument of both sides and having stood over the matter for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub­Inspector of Police, P.S Jeedimetla, filed charge sheet against the accused Nos. 1 to 4 in Crime No.883/2015 for the offence punishable under Sections 324, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

2 C.C.No.1717 of 2015

2.The brief facts of the case are that on 23­9­2015, a court referred complaint lodged by LW­1/Smt.Tadi Vana Kumari, was received in police station alleging that there were some disputes between her Sister's son namely A.Naveen Kumar and his wife Smt. Nirmala and that several panchayats were held between the two families but the matter could not be pacified. Due to interference of both sides, the community pastors and at the request of accused persons, a meeting was held on 27­6­2015, in Christian Fellowship Church, Gandhi Nagar at 7:00 p.m. While they were discussing matrimonial disputes, the accused including

Smt. Nirmala and four others have mercilessly attacked the complainant without any reason by using filthy language and outraged her modesty.

The accused persons used dangerous weapons like sticks and rods and beat them mercilessly. The accused persons have caught hold the hair of her sister, beat them with sticks and thrown them out of the Church.

Immediately, Aravind Kumar "Dialed 100", upon which police came there and directed to them to approach local police station and also to a hospital for treatment. Thereafter they went to Jeedimetla police station and lodged written complaint. Later, went to Ram Hospital at about 11:45 p.m, Basing on the above complaint, the case was registered and after completion of investigation, charge sheet is filed against A­1 to A­4. 

3. The case was taken cognizance for the offence punishable under

Section 324, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. On appearance of A­1 to A­4 before court, the copies of documents were furnished to them under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

3 C.C.No.1717 of 2015

4. Thereafter, the accused A­1 to A­4 were examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. Charge for the offence punishable under Section 324, 506 r/w 34 of IPC, was framed, read over and explained to them in vernacular language for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined Pws1 to 9 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, the A­1 to A­4 were examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C. They denied the prosecution evidence and reported no defence evidence. 

7.Heard arguments of both sides.

8.Now the point for consideration is ­

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of A­1 to 4 for the of­ fence charged against them beyond reasonable doubt?

P O I N T :

9. Out of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, PW­1 is the defacto complainant, PW­2 is her son, PW­3 is her sister and PW­4 is son of PW­3. PW­5 and PW­6 are cited as eyewitnesses, PW­9 is the investigating officer. PW­7 and PW­8 are panch witnesses for scene of offence panchanama. Both these panch witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and they turned hostile by deposing that when they went to police station, police obtained their signatures but no panchanama was conducted in their presence. 

10. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has argued that all the witnesses have supported the prosecution case with regard to the offence 4 C.C.No.1717 of 2015 committed by the accused persons and therefore, the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused and prayed to convict the accused persons. On the other hand, the learned defence counsel has argued that the evidence of PW­1 to PW­4 suffers from omissions and contradictions. He further argued that as per Ex.P1 no injuries sustained by PW­1 are mentioned, the threatening words or the criminal intimidation on the part of accused is also mentioned. Further, no material objects like sticks or rods alleged to have used by the accused persons for the commission of offence are seized. The medical certificate is also not filed or marked before the court and the Doctor who treated the injured is not cited as witness. For the above reasons, no case is made out against the accused for the offence punishable under section 324 of IPC. He further contended that an MOU was entered into between

PW­2 and his wife for return of Rs. 6,00,00/­ and other articles presented at the time of marriage and to evade such payment, this false case is filed. He prayed to acquit the accused. 

11. On perusal of the material available on record, the following are the admitted facts. PW­2 is the son­in­law of A­4. There were disputes between PW­2 and his wife and it was agreed that PW­2 shall pay

Rs.6,00,000/­ to his wife prior to their divorce. In connection with the dispute between PW­2 and his wife, there was a meeting on 27­6­2015 in

Christian Fellowship Church, Gandhi Nagar. Both sides family members have attended the said meeting and subsequent to the meeting, MOU was entered into between the parties in pursuance of discussion. It is also admitted that PW­2 has filed an insolvency petition. 

5 C.C.No.1717 of 2015

With regard to the specific overt acts, PW­1 admitted in her cross examination that she has not mentioned specific overt acts in Ex.P1. A perusal of Ex.P1 Private complaint in this regard shows that all the accused had attacked PW­1, whereas PW­1 in her oral evidence before the court has deposed that A­1 alone beat her. PW­2 has deposed that

A­1 to A­4 had beaten them all and PW­2 sustained injuries. PW­3 in this regard has deposed that the family members of Smt.Nirmala had beaten them all and when they tried to go out of the Church, A­4 caught hold her and PW­1, dragged them by their hands. PW­4 has deposed that A­1 to A­3 beat him and when they came out of the Church, all the accused had beaten them all because of which PW­2 sustained bleeding injuries. PW­5 deposed that the father of PW­1 and brother and mother of Smt.Nirmala beat PW­1 and PW­2. It is the evidence of PW­6 that the father and brother of Smt. Nirmala beat PW­1 to PW­3. Thus, it can be seen that all the witnesses have deposed different versions with regard to the overt acts of the accused persons.

12. Regarding the weapon of offence, Ex.P1shows that dangerous weapons like sticks and rods were used whereas PW­1deposed that A­1 beat her with a stick. PW­2 has deposed that they were beaten with sticks, PW­3 has spoken that sticks and rods were used in the commis­ sion of offence whereas PW­4 has deposed that the accused persons have beaten them indiscriminately. He did not speak anything about any weapon. PW­5 and PW­6 have also not spoken anything with regard to the weapon of alleged offence. PW­9 has admitted that he has not seized any alleged weapon of offence. For the above the contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses coupled with the fact that no weapons 6 C.C.No.1717 of 2015 of the alleged offence are seized, the use of weapon becomes doubtful. In the absence of which no case shall be made out for the offence under section 324 of IPC. 

13. Regarding the purpose of holding meeting, it is mentioned in

Ex.P1 that the meeting was held to settle the matrimonial disputes between Pw­2 and his wife. Whereas PW­1 and PW­2 have deposed only to the extent that the meeting was held to discuss about the previous is­ sue. PW­3 and PW­4 have deposed that the meeting was held regarding the study certificates of Smt. Nirmala. Similarly, PW­5 and PW­6 have also deposed that there was a meeting for degree certificates of Nirmala.

Thus, the very purpose of meeting is also spoken contradictorily from one witness to the other. The alleged offence took place during the course of meeting but the purpose of meeting is itself deposed contradic­ torily creating doubt about the specific event as put forth by the prosecu­ tion. 

14. There are also contradictory versions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses regarding the persons who telephoned "Dial 100".

According to PW­1, she herself has made the call to "100", whereas

PW­2 has deposed that they telephoned "100" without any specification.

Contrary to this, PW­3, PW­4 and PW­6 have deposed that PW­4 has made the call to "Dial 100". This alone does not render the evidence of prosecution doubtful but it definitely creates doubt about veracity of prosecution witnesses. Especially, in view of the circumstances of the case wherein both the parties are related to each other. 

7 C.C.No.1717 of 2015

15. Likewise, there are also contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses regarding lodging of complaint with the police.

According to Ex.P1, it was filed because their earlier complaint filed in police station was not taken any action. Coming to the oral evidence of

PW­1, she deposed that three days after the incident, she went to police station where she was informed that the earlier complaint was lost and so lodged Ex.P1 private complaint. In this connection, PW­2 has deposed that as there was no response from the police, Ex.P1 was lodged. PW­3 has deposed that as there was no response from police, they handed over the case to one Manikyam and on his advise they again gave complaint on 9th August, PW­4 also deposed that one Manikyam was dealing with the case and on 9th August, he advised to give another complaint, so they gave another complaint but as there was no proper response from police, they lodged complaint through their Advocate. 

16. PW­9 in his cross examination stated that he has not made any GD entry with regard to the prior complaint alleged to have lodged by PW­1 in police station. In the absence of any such GD entry and in the absence of any receipt issued by police, the version of prosecution witnesses regarding the earlier complaint lodged by them becomes doubtful.

17. Apart from the above, there is also mention in Ex.P1 private complaint, that the accused persons have outraged the modesty of PW­1.

But according to PW­9, no such offence was made out and so accused were not charge sheeted for the offence under section 354 of IPC. Thus,

Ex.P1 is falsified by the investigation. Further according to Ex.P1, there 8 C.C.No.1717 of 2015 is no mention of any injury, either the place or nature of injury whereas

PW­1 has improved her version before the court deposing that she had bleeding injuries for which she had sutures. Besides this, as elicited rightly in the cross examination of PW­9 that there is no whisper about criminal intimidation in Ex.P1and that he has not referred Pw­1 for medical examination. It is also elicited that there are omission in the evidence of PW­1 and PW­2 on material aspects. Surprisingly,

Ex.P5/Scene of offence panchanama is conducted three months after the alleged incident. Coupled with this, it is elicited in the cross examination of PW­2 that though, offence took place on 27­6­2015, his statement was recorded on 23­9­2015. 

18. Finally, it is seen that the prosecution evidence suffers from contradictions and omissions on material aspects like the overt acts of the accused, the weapon of offence, the purpose of meeting, the persons who informed police and also regarding filing of complaint. In addition to the above, there is a delay of about three months in conducting scene of offence panchanama. Scene of offence panchanama or drawing rough sketch is conducted to note down or to collect any evidence i.e any physical evidence which can be produced and marked before the court as material objects. Nothing of such sort can be found after a gap of three months of incident. Adding to this, the independent panch witnesses for the scene of offence panchanama have turned hostile. It appears that no scene of offence panchanama was conducted. The other aspects spoken to with regard to filing of earlier complaint also appears to be made only to cover lacuna regarding the delay. For all the above reasons, it can be 9 C.C.No.1717 of 2015 held that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and hence the accused Nos. 1 to 4 are entitled for acquittal. 

19.In the result, the accused Nos. 1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 324, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. Accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after completion of appeal time.

Dictated to Stenographer, Transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on the 8 th day of October, 2021. 

SD/­

XXI METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

MEDCHAL

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE: PW­1: Smt. Tadi Vana Kumar/Complainant and injured ­Nil­

PW­2: A. Naveen Kumar/Eyewitness and son of PW­1

PW­3: Smt. A. Vana Kumari/Eyewitness and sister of PW­1

PW­4: B.Aravind/ Eyewitness and Sister of PW­1

PW­5: T. Paramjyothi/Eye witness

PW­6: Smt. T Premalatha/Eyewitness

PW­7: M. Ellaiah/ Panch witness for scene of offence panchanama and rough sketch of the scene

PW­8: M. Chinthaiah/Panch witness for scene of offence panchanama and rough sketch of the scene

PW­9: Sri. B.Srinivas, S.I of police/ Investigating officer and filed the charge sheet 

EXHIBITS MARKED

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

Ex.P1: Report of PW­1 ­Nil­

Ex.P2: Signature of PW­7 on scene of offence panchanama 10 C.C.No.1717 of 2015

Ex.P3: Signature of PW­8 on scene of offence panchanama

Ex.P4: First Information Report

Ex.P5: Scene of offence panchanama

Ex.P6: Rough Sketch`

SD/­

XXI METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

MEDCHAL

11 C.C.No.1717 of 2015

1 of 10 CC No.614 of 2017

Date: 17.04.2026

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

V ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, MEDCHAL-

MALKAJGIRI, UPPAL AT MEDIPALLY

Present:Smt. K. Sowjanya I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum V Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Medchal-Malkajgiri District Uppal at Medipally

Friday, the 17th day of April, 2026

CALENDAR CASE No.614 OF 2017

Between: The State of Telangana through the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ghatkesar Police Station Rachakonda Commissionerate.

....Complainant.

A N D

Md.Mujeeb, S/o. Kareemuddin, aged 28 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o. Chowdariguda village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Medhcal Malkajgiri District.

....Accused

This case came before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of the Learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri P.Sree Ram Reddy, Advocate for the accused and upon perusing the material papers on record, stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

The Sub Inspector Police, P.S. Ghatkesar filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.234 of 2017 for the offence punishable under

Sections 408, 420, 468, 471, 474, 477(A) I.P.C.

2.a.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 09-05-2017 LW1/

Mohammad Aga Mishba Alam, Village Secretary lodged a report with police stating that the accused who is bill collector of Ghanpur village collected house tax and water taxes to a tune of Rs.3,76,000/- and 2 of 10 CC No.614 of 2017

Date: 17.04.2026

escaped from depositing the same in the S.T.O. He has also fabricated the deposited challans i.e., Challan No.5059 dated 16-06-2016 for

Rs.1,71,000/- and forged it as Rs.2,75,000/-, challan No. 2036651 dated 02-11-2016 for Rs.188/- which is forged to Rs.18,880/-, challan

No.203650 dated 02-11-2016 for Rs.1,530/- forged as Rs.15,300/-, challan No.204862 for Rs.690/- forged to Rs.6,900/-, challan No.4954 for

Rs.11,900/- forged to Rs.1,11,900/-, challan No.4953 dated 16-06-2016 for Rs.577/- forged as Rs.58,577/-, challan No.1518 dated 27-04-2016 for Rs.50,000/- forged as Rs.58,000/- and receipt No.1456 for Rs.6,500/- was mentioned in carbon copy as Rs.650/-. Further, the accused made receipt book No.39945 by forgery and not deposited the book amount of

Rs.6,567/-. He has also collected Rs.2 Lakhs towards permission from village people and prevented from depositing in the S.T.O. When questioned him about the said amounts, he was dragging the matter and not attending to his duty.

2.b.Basing on the above report, the case was registered, statements of witnesses were recorded and letters addressed to the S.T.O. Medipally and

S.T.O. Hayathnagar with a request to furnish actual amounts deposited by the accused and attested copies of original challans available in their office. The S.T.O. Medipally furnished attested copy of challan No.266113

dated 08-12-2016 and the amounts deposited by the accused vide the

above challan is Rs.71,537/- is tallied and there is no manipulation. The

S.T.O. Hayathnagar furnished attested copies of original challans available 3 of 10 CC No.614 of 2017

Date: 17.04.2026

at their office. The amounts mentioned in challans Nos.163 dated 04-04- 2016, 513 dated 07-04-2016, 1518 dated 27-04-2016, 4955 dated 16-06- 2016, 4955 dated 16-06-2016, 206520 dated 18-01-2016 and 5059 dated 16-06-2016 are tallied with the challans submitted by the accused to the

Gram Panchayat. The attested copy of challan number 4953 dated 16-04- 2016 furnished by the S.T.O. Hayathnagar shows Rs.8,577/- whereas the challan No.4353 furnished by the accused to the G.P. shows depositing of

Rs.58,577/- thus there is difference of Rs.50,000/-. Similarly challan

No.4954 dated 16-06-2016 furnished by the S.T.O. Hayathnagar shows that he deposited Rs.11,900/- whereas the same challan in the Gram

Panchayat shows Rs.1,11,900/- thus there is variation of Rs.1 Lakh between these two challans. As such the accused was arrested and sent him for remand. Hence the charge.

3.The case was taken cognizance against accused and for the offence punishable under sections 408, 420, 468, 471, 474, 477(A) I.P.C. On his appearance in the court, copies of documents were furnished to him as required under section 207 Cr.P.C. Thereafter accused was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C but he denied the offence. Charges for the offence punishable under sections 408, 420, 468, 471, 474, 477(A) I.P.C.

was framed, read over and explained to both the accused in his vernacular language to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4 of 10 CC No.614 of 2017

Date: 17.04.2026

4.During the course of trial, PW1 to PW3 are examined and Ex.P1 marked on behalf of prosecution. The evidence of remaining witnesses closed after affording ample opportunity.

5.After conclusion of prosecution evidence, both the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the prosecution evidence and reported no defence evidence.

6. Heard both sides’ arguments.

7.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt ?

POINT:-

8.PW1 is the de-facto complainant. He deposed that he worked as

Village Secretary of Edulabad village and he was incharge of Ghanpur village for one year i.e., from 2016 to 2017. At that time the accused was working as Bill Collector at Ghanpur who used to collect house tax and did not remit the same to the government. This amount turned out to be

Rs.3,76,996/-. He came to know about this default during routine checks and on noticing the above default he reported the matter to police after which the accused has deposited the entire amount. He further deposed that he had given copy of challans to the police. The report is marked as

Ex.P1.

5 of 10 CC No.614 of 2017

Date: 17.04.2026

9.A perusal of Ex.P1 reveals that it was lodged by PW1 against the accused alleging that he was working as Bill Collector for Ghanpur Gram

Panchayat in the capacity of which he collected house tax, water tax to a tune of Rs.3,76,996/- and did not remit the same to the S.T.O. The details of challans, the actual amounts deposited and the manipulated amounts are listed out in Ex.P1. There is further mention that the accused had created fake receipt book in which an amount of Rs.6,567/- was deposited. Apart from this, the accused had also collected Rs.2 Lakhs from the villagers towards permission but did not deposit the the same in the S.T.O. The accused was not depositing the said amount and when enquired, he was avoiding and was postponing repayment of amount. He was also not attending the office. There is also mention that Ex.P1 is lodged as per the instructions of higher officials of PW1. This fact of getting instructions from higher officials is not deposed by PW1 in his chief examination.

10.Coming to the cross examination of PW1, he stated that he does not know who appointed the accused as Bill Collector and he has not seen the appointment order in the name of accused. PW1 further stated that he has not received complaint from anyone including PW2, PW3,

LW3/Venumadhava Rao. PW1 admitted that the amount said to have misappropriated was remitted to the government. PW1 was suggested that he himself has made corrections in the bills and that the accused is no way concerned either with the manipulated amounts or with the 6 of 10 CC No.614 of 2017

Date: 17.04.2026

subsequent payments and in spite of it, he lodged false complaint against the accused to escape his liability. Apparently PW1 denied all the above suggestions.

11.PW2 deposed that he was working as ward member where PW1 was

Village Secretary. He specified that he worked from 2013 to 2018 at

Ganapur Gram Panchayat and he came to know through PW1 that the accused was collecting amounts and was not remitting the same to the government. This amount was for Rs.3 Lakhs or Rs.4 Lakhs. He came to know all the above facts through a meeting held by PW1. In his cross examination, PW2 stated that he does not know whether the accused was incharge to Ganapur Gram Panchayat or was working regularly. He also does not know whether PW1 himself collected amounts and did not remit to the government. This witness was also suggested that the accused is no way concerned with the misappropriated amount and that PW1 lodged false complaint against the accused. PW2 had apparently denied these suggestions put to him. Anyhow, the evidence of PW2 is purely circumstantial in nature as he came to know the facts only through PW1.

12.PW3 is cited as one of the victims and according to him, in the year 2017 on one day he went to Gram Panchayat office Ganapur for construction permission and gave Rs.35,000/- and Rs.50,000/- to the accused who was a Bill Collector. The accused gave receipt for the said amount i.e., bank challan with stamp. PW3 showed this challan to the 7 of 10 CC No.614 of 2017

Date: 17.04.2026

secretary, i.e., PW1 who opined that it was a fake receipt and no amount was paid in the bank. Thereafter PW3 gave the said challan to PW1 and demanded the accused for repayment of amount upon which the accused stated to repay the amount, but went on postponing the same. In his cross examination, PW3 stated that the accused has not given any receipt for the amounts paid to him and that he did not give to police the bank challan. He admitted that he has not given to police any document to show that he has land in Ganapur or that he applied for construction permission or any sanction order, if any, given to him demanding to pay

Rs.85,000/- for obtaining permission. PW3 was also suggested that the accused was not working as Bill Collector and that a false case is lodged by PW1 against the accused to cover up the fraud occurred in the office.

PW3 has denied these suggestions.

13.Thus there is oral evidence of PW1 to PW3 and the document Ex.P1, which is the report given to police. Though PW1 deposed about he giving copy of challans to the police, the same are not marked through PW1, for reasons best known. The other witnesses are not examined by the prosecution. The evidence of remaining witnesses was closed after passing conditional orders and giving ample opportunity.

14.The amounts said to have collected by the accused are 1) taxes ( house tax and water tax ) and the other is towards permission and next by creating fake receipt book. Only one independent witness that is PW3 is 8 of 10 CC No.614 of 2017

Date: 17.04.2026

examined to speak about he giving amounts to the accused for permission. As elicited in his cross examination, PW3 has not given to police any document to show about he owning any land or about the officials demanding him to pay certain amount towards permission. The amount under this head is said to be collected by the accused is Rs.2

Lakhs and from PW3 an amount of Rs.85,000/- was collected. There is no record put forth about the persons from whom the other amount of

Rs.1,25,000/- was collected. Admittedly there is no receipt for this amount. PW3 though stated that the accused had given to him a copy of challan, the same is also not before the court. There is no mention of

Rs.85,000/- in Ex.P1 in the list of challans mentioned therein.

15.As mentioned supra, the evidence of PW2 is purely circumstantial in nature which can be used only for corroboration and contradiction.

According to PW2 he came to know about the facts only through PW1.

Thus the evidence of PW1 has attained significance, according to whom he was a Village Secretary while the accused was a Bill Collector. As per

Ex.P1, it was lodged by PW1 on instructions from his superior officers, but none named in Ex.P1, at least the designation of the superior officer.

Apparently no superior officer of PW1 is examined before the court. And he gave complaint to police on noticing misappropriation during his routine checks. It is not known to court whether PW1 was an authorized person to conduct checks, rather there is no evidence to show about the employment of the accused and about PW1 entrusting him with the 9 of 10 CC No.614 of 2017

Date: 17.04.2026

amounts. When grave allegations are alleged against the accused, it is for the prosecution to collect and adduce sufficient oral and documentary evidence, firstly in order to prove the employment of accused and about entrusting amounts to him and then about he misappropriating those funds. In the case on hand, there is no document to speak about the accused being clerk or servant of Gram Panchayat. There is no document to further speak about the factum of endorsement of funds to the accused.

In such a case, the challan numbers noted and said to have given to police by PW1 cannot be connected to the accused. There is no whisper about the investigating agency collecting the fake receipt books, nor there is any document or oral evidence which would indicate about the accused collecting amounts from the villagers towards house tax or water tax. For the foregoing discussion, it is held that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt and hence the accused is entitled to acquittal.

16.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under sections 408, 420, 468, 471, 474, 477(A) IPC and he is accordingly acquitted under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17 th day of April, 2026.

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge -cum - V Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Uppal at Medipally 10 of 10 CC No.614 of 2017

Date: 17.04.2026

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE:

PW-1: Mohd. Aga Misbha AlamNone PW-2: Nunavath Suresh PW-3: Vemula Keshavnandam

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1: Complaint given by PW-1

FOR DEFENCE:

Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil -

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge -cum - V Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Uppal at Medipally

1 of 9 CC No.388 of 2016

Date: 20.04.2026

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

V ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, MEDCHAL-

MALKAJGIRI, UPPAL AT MEDIPALLY

Present:Smt. K. Sowjanya I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum V Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Medchal-Malkajgiri District Uppal at Medipally

Monday, the 20th day of April, 2026

CALENDAR CASE No.388 OF 2016

Between: The State of Telangana through the Sub-Inspector of Police, Nacharam Police Station Rachakonda Commissionerate.

....Complainant.

A N D

1. Vinaysheelan Joseph, S/o. Late. P. Samule Pushparatnam, Age: 43 years, Occ:Business, R/o. H.No. 1-16/126, SD Nagar, Mallapur, Uppal Mandal, RR District. (Abated on 01.08.2023)

2. Shyamala Bala Theresa, W/o. Joseph Vinay Sheelan, Age: 38 years, Occ: Staff Nurse in Sunshine hospital, Paradise, Secunderabad, R/o. H. No. 1-16/126, SV Nagar, Mallapur, Uppal Mandal, RR District.

....Accused

This case came before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of the Learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri P.Venkatesh Goud, Advocate for the accused and upon perusing the material papers on record, stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

The Sub Inspector of police P.S. Nacharam filed charge sheet against accused No.1 and 2 in Crime No.210 of 2016 for the offence punishable under sections 341, 324, 504, 506 IPC.

2 of 9 CC No.388 of 2016

Date: 20.04.2026

2.a.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 26.07.2016 LW1/

Ezekiel Christi lodged a report with police stating that his father-in-law gave one house to his wife, who in turn gifted part of the house to LW1 through gift deed, but his brother-in-law i.e., accused No.1 was staying in the house with his family illegally and was also not allowing him to enter the house stating that the house belongs to him. On 25.07.2016 at about 01:00 PM when LW1 was going out, accused No.1 and 2 both quarreled with him, beat him with stick by abusing him, causing injuries on his left palm and forehead.

2.b.Basing on the above report the case was registered, statements of witnesses were recorded, scene of offence panchanama was conducted and its rough sketch was drawn. On 10.08.2016 both the accused persons surrendered before court and obtained bail. The investigation revealed that LW2/Rachel Christi is sister of accused No.1. Accused No.2 is wife of accused No.1. PW1 is husband of LW2/Rachel Christi. The father of LW2

Samuel Pushparatnam was having three portion house at S.V. Nagar

Mallapur who made a Will in respect of the said house in favor of

LW2/Rachel Christi. After his death, LW2 Rachel has registered the house in the name of LW1/Ezekiel Christi by way of gift deed. In spite of it, he allowed accused No.1 and 2 to reside in front portion of the house and gave another portion to the other brother of LW2 who recently died. This being so, LW1 and LW2 were residing separately at Attapur, Hyderabad because of employment of LW2, but the accused persons were claiming 3 of 9 CC No.388 of 2016

Date: 20.04.2026

the house. Accordingly on 25.07.2016 at about 03:00 PM when LW1 was entering into the house, accused No.1 and 2 wrongfully restrained him, picked up quarrel with him, accused No.1 assaulted on him with a stick causing injury over his left hand and forehead while both the accused have threatened him with dire consequences. Hence the charge.

3.The case was taken cognizance against accused No.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under sections 341, 324, 504, 506 IPC. On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to them as required under section 207 Cr.P.C. Subsequently on 01.08.2023 on a report filed by police about death of accused No.1 and on filing copy of his death certificate, the case against accused No.1 was abated.

4.Thereafter, accused No.2 was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C.

She denied the offence. Charge for the offence punishable under sections 341, 324, 504, 506 IPC was framed, read over and explained to her in vernacular language to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, PWs.1 to 3 are examined and Exs.P1 to

P4 are marked. The evidence of LW2/Rachel Christi was closed as she did not attend the court in spite of service of summons to her. Similarly the evidence of other witnesses was closed after affording ample opportunity to the prosecution for their production.

4 of 9 CC No.388 of 2016

Date: 20.04.2026

6.After conclusion of prosecution evidence, accused No.2 was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. duly putting to her the incriminating evidence in the prosecution case, which is denied by her. She has also reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard both sides’ arguments.

8.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt ?

POINT:-

9.The de-facto complainant is examined as PW1 who deposed to the contents of Ex.P1 stating that his father-in-law transferred a house situated at Mallapur in the name of his wife LW2/Rachel Christie through a Will. The said house consists of three portions, he along with

LW2/Rachel Christie and his father-in-law resided in two portions of the house, while accused No.1 resided in the front portion. Later he shifted to

Attapur but used to visit the above house frequently, but accused No.1 quarreled with him by restraining him to enter into the house and so he approached police who conducted counseling and advised them to approach civil court for property issues. Thereafter on 25.07.2016 when

PW1 went to the house, accused No.1 and 2 restrained him, attacked him with stick causing injuries to PW1 on his left palm and forehead. The accused persons have also threatened PW1 with dire consequences. He 5 of 9 CC No.388 of 2016

Date: 20.04.2026

went to Attapur and got treatment in Usha Mohan Hospital and on the next day lodged complaint with police.

10.In his cross-examination PW1 admitted that the accused are his relatives and they have prior family disputes. He further admitted that prior to this case he gave oral complaint before police Nacharam who gave counseling and advised to approach appropriate court. He further admitted that he lodged complaint on 26.07.2016 and did not mention the reason for delay in lodging complaint on the same day of alleged incident.

He further admitted that he has not mentioned about taking treatment at

Usha Mohan Hospital in Ex.P1. In this regard he explained that after the incident he went to Attapur which is the place of his residence by traveling 20 kilometers in an auto and took treatment in a nearby hospital. He has also admitted that he lodged complaint on 26.07.2016 i.e., on the next day of alleged incident though the police station was at a distance of 1 to 2 kilometers. He has also admitted about not mentioning of specific words of abuse and threat made by accused No.1 and 2 in Ex.P1 or in the previous statement, nor mentioned about the presence of his friend,

B.Shivaramakrishna at the scene of offence. PW1 was unable to say the exact length and width of the stick. More importantly, it is elicited in the cross examination of PW1 that the accused were residing in the house as on the date of offence and they lived for approximately more than 20 years in the same house.

6 of 9 CC No.388 of 2016

Date: 20.04.2026

11.PW2 is cited as eye witness to the incident. He deposed that about nine years ago on one day, he went to the house of PW1 on receiving a phone call from him and found PW1 with injuries. He was informed by

PW1 that his brother-in-law accused No.1 beat PW1 and at the request of

PW1, he went to police station. This witness is not cross examined by the accused. Anyhow, PW2 who is cited as eye witness has not deposed anything about he personally witnessing the incident. It was his specific version that he went to the house of PW1 and not to the scene of offence.

Further, PW1 had also admitted that he did not mention in Ex.P1 about presence of PW2 at the time of alleged incident. In view of all the above, it is held that PW2 is not an eye witness to the incident.

12.PW3 deposed about the investigation done by him, which includes recording the statements of witnesses and conducting scene of offence panchnama and also collecting medical certificate of injured person, after which filing charge sheet against accused No.1 and 2. In his cross- examination, PW3 admitted that the date of offence as per Ex.P1 is 25-07- 2016, whereas it was lodged on 26-07-2016 but no reasons are stated by

PW1 for lodging the complaint with one day delay. He stated that though he visited the scene of offence personally, he has not recovered any material objects from the scene.

ANALYSIS

13.On overall appraisal of the material placed on record, the admitted fact is that LW2/Rachel Christie is the own sister of accused No.1, who 7 of 9 CC No.388 of 2016

Date: 20.04.2026

did not choose to attend the court to depose her evidence. According to prosecution case, the entire dispute is with regard to the house which was said to have given to LW2 by her father, who in turn is said to have gifted the said house in favor of PW1. It is also the prosecution case that the accused, especially accused No.1, was also claiming the same house.

Apparently, there is no document to speak about the Will executed in favor of LW2/Rachel Christie and about the gift deed executed by her in favor of PW1. In these circumstances, the evidence of LW2/Rachel Christie would be of utmost importance to the prosecution case but, as observed supra, she did not choose to attend the court, for the reasons best known.

Further, this fact raises adverse inference against the prosecution case.

14.Besides this, the earlier disputes between the parties is also admitted by PW1. As regards the actual incident, it is said to have occurred on 25-07-2016 at about 3:00 PM, after which PW1 went to

Attapur (the place of residence) which is 20 kilometers away from the scene of offence and there took treatment in a private hospital. And on the next day of incident, he went to police station to report the matter. This action of PW1 in not reporting to the police immediately after the incident though the police station is situated at a distance of 1 to 2 kilometers only from the scene of offence, is not explained. More surprising is the fact that he also did not choose to get treatment of his injuries in a hospital nearby the scene of offence, but instead traveled for about 20 kilometers for the purpose. Adding to it, the Medical Officer is not examined by the 8 of 9 CC No.388 of 2016

Date: 20.04.2026

prosecution, though a petition under section 311 Cr.P.C was filed to recall the medical officer, which was closed by this court after passing conditional orders. All these circumstances would create doubt on the medical report/Ex.P4 as well. The panch witnesses for scene of offence panchnama are also not examined nor any material object i.e., the weapon of alleged offence is not seized. PW2 who is cited as eye witness has not deposed to have witnessed the incident. PW1 has also not stated about presence of PW2 at the time of alleged offence. No doubt, the evidence of injured person is very crucial and the injuries by themselves would be sufficient evidence against the accused. But in the case on hand, there is a shadow on the genuinity of Ex.P4 and about the manner in which PW1 acted upon after he is said to have sustained injuries at the hands of accused. Adding to all the above, the wife of PW1 who is also sister of accused No.1 had not attended the court to depose against her brother and sister-in-law. For all the above reasons, it is held that there is heavy doubt cast upon the prosecution story and the benefit of this doubt shall invariably be extended in favor of the accused and as such, she is entitled to acquittal.

15.In the result, accused No.2 is found not guilty for the offence punishable under sections 341, 324, 504, 506 IPC and she is accordingly acquitted under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. Her bail bonds shall stand cancelled.

9 of 9 CC No.388 of 2016

Date: 20.04.2026

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 20 th day of April, 2026.

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge -cum - V Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Uppal at Medipally

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE:

PW-1: Ezekiel ChristieNone PW-2: B.shiva Krishna PW-3: N.Ramesh, SI of Police

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1: Complaint given by PW-1

Ex.P2: FIR

Ex.P3: Crime Details Form

Ex.P4: Medical Certificate

FOR DEFENCE:

Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil -

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge -cum - V Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Uppal at Medipally