Ms Karanjia Bhavana

Page No.1 of 11 C.C.No.412 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS AT MAHABUBNAGAR

Tuesday, this the 24th day of February, 2026

Present:Smt. Karanjia Bhavana, IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class

MAHABUBANGAR

C.C.No.412 OF 2022

(Old C.C.No.252 of 2014)

BETWEEN:

The State of Telangana, Rep., by Sub Inspector of Police, Mahabubnagar Rural Police Station, Mahabubnagar District. …COMPLAINANT

AND

1.Mohd.Abdul Khaleel S/o Mohd.Abdul Raheem, age:48 years, Occu:business, R/o H.NO.1-10-65/4, Shashabgutta, Mahabubnagar. 2.. M.A.Samad Siddiqi @ Md.Jaweed S/o Farooq Siddiqi, R/o H.NO.1- 10-55/A, (old), New address, H.No.1-10-14/P, Shashabgutta, Mahabubnagar.

3.Majar Ali S/o Md.Jahangeer, age: 70 years, Occu:business, R/o New Town, Mahabubnagar. …ACCUSED Nos.1 to 3 ***** This Case is coming on 03-02-2026 fore me for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State and of Sri

Maqsood Bin Ahmed Zakeer, Learned defense Counsel for the

accused persons, upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

The Sub-inspector of Police Station Mahabubnagar Rural, filed charge- sheet against the accused in Crime No.309/2012 for the offences punishable under Section 420, 468 r/w 34 of IPC.

IV Addl.JMFC

Page No.2 of 11 C.C.No.412 of 2022

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that:- On 10.10.2012 at 09:00 hours, a complaint was received from Smt. Ghousiya Begum, W/o

Mohd. Osman Ali Sab, aged 53 years, resident of Christianpally, Palakonda

Road, Mahabubnagar in which she stated that she came to know about the cheating committed by Mr. Mohd. Abdul Khaleel/A1 and others after receiving a legal notice dated 01.09.2012 from an advocate at

Mahabubnagar. She alleged that Accused No.1 and several associates colluded and fraudulently created a false and fabricated General Power of

Attorney (GPA) in his favour by misusing the certified copy of her Sale Deed bearing Document No. 4076/1981, registered on 28.12.1981 at the Sub-

Registrar Office, Mahabubnagar. By impersonation and misrepresentation

before the Sub-Registrar, they got the GPA registered as Document No.

49/2008 dated 25.03.2008. On the basis of the said GPA, the accused allegedly occupied and sold plots formed in her land and some persons constructed houses thereon. She further alleged that the accused manipulated revenue records by increasing the extent of her land from

Ac.0-20 guntas to Ac.0-32 guntas and obtained a Patta Pass Book in the name of an impersonator. She stated that she is in lawful possession of Ac.0- 20 guntas, had obtained permission for house construction, and had availed and repaid a housing loan of Rs.6,00,000/- from the State Bank of India. She also alleged that the accused persons are influential and have threatened her and her family with dire consequences if she deposes against them.

Hence, L.W.1 requested that to take necessary legal action against the accused persons.

3.Basing on the contents of L.W.1, L.W.8/Md.Amjad Ali, SI of

Police, PS Rural Mahabubnagar has registered Crime No.309/2012, u/Sec.420, 468 r/w 34 of IPC., took up the investigation.

IV Addl.JMFC

Page No.3 of 11 C.C.No.412 of 2022

4.During the course of investigation, examined and recorded the statements of LW-1/Smt.Ghousiya Begum; LW2/Md.Osman Ali;

LW3/Chevuri Chandrakala; LW4/Khamrunnisa Begum; LW5/Muneera

Begum. Later, visited the scene of offence and examined the scene in the presence of LW6/Mohd. Raheemuddin and LW7/Mohd. Chand Pasha and prepared scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch in

Crime Detail Form. Later, A1 obtained anticipatory bail vide

Crl.P.No.9441 of 2012 by furnishing sureties. urther

L.W.9/G.Rajeshwar Goud, SI of Police, PS Rural Mahabubnagar who assumed the charge for further investigation of this case.

5.During the course of further investigation on 13.12.2015

LW.9 apprehended the A2 and A3 and issued notice u/Sec.41(A)(1)

Cr.P.C to the accused. After completion of investigation L.W.9 filed the charge sheet for the offence punishable u/Sec.420, 468 r/w 34 of IPC against accused A1 to A3.

6.This case was taken on file by taking cognizance of the offence under Sections 420 and 468 r/w 34 of the IPC against A1 to A3.

Upon the appearance of the accused A1 to A3, copies of the documents was furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C.

7.Accused A1to A3 were examined under Section 239 of the

Cr.P.C., and after hearing the prosecution and the counsel for the accused, and upon considering the material on record, a charge under

Sections 420 and 468 read with Section 34 of the IPC was framed, read over, and explained to them. For which, they denied the allegations,

IV Addl.JMFC

Page No.4 of 11 C.C.No.412 of 2022 pleaded not guilty, and claimed to be tried.

8.In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined defacto complainant/LW1/Smt.Ghousiya Begum as PW1; witness/LW2/Md.Osman

Ali as PW2; victim/LW3/Chevuri Chandrakala, as PW4; mediator for scene of offence panchanama/LW6/Mohd. Raheemuddin, as PW3 and LW8/Md.

Amjad Ali, Sub Inspector of Police, PS Rural Mahabubnagar who investigated the case and filed the charge sheet as the Investigating Officer as PW5. The prosecution has given up the evidence of L.W.7/Md.Chand Pasha. Based on the report filed by the Police Ps Rural Mahabubnagar, the evidences of

L.W.4/Khamrunnisa Begum and L.W.5/Muneera Begum.

9.After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused A1 to

A3 were examined under Section 313 of the CRPC., during which they denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence and pleaded their false implication. However, they did not let in any evidence in defence.

10.Heard the arguments from both sides.

11.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P1 to P8 and proved its case against the accused for the charged offense beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore A1 to A3 is liable to be punished in accordance with law.

12.On the contrary, the counsel for A1 to A3 contended that there is no trustworthy evidence on record and that no reliance can be placed on the evidence of PWs 1 to 8. Thus, the prosecution has failed

IV Addl.JMFC

Page No.5 of 11 C.C.No.412 of 2022 to establish its case against A1 to A3 beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore A1 to A3 has to be acquitted.

13. Now the Point for consideration:-

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

POINT:-

14.In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to establish that the accused with an intention have voluntarily created false and fictitious General Power of Attorney caused by placing the photograph of another lady in place of PW1/defacto-complainant, and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 420, 468 r/w 34 of IPC

15.In a criminal trial, the burden of proving all essential elements are necessary to establish the charge against the accused always rests on the prosecution, and there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused until the contrary is proved.

Criminality is not to be presumed, subject, of course, to certain statutory exceptions.

16.The case of the prosecution are that A1 to A3 have created false and fictitious General Power of Attorney by impersonation and later sold the entire land by converting into house plots to various purchasers. Therefore, the burden is on the prosecution to prove its case as alleged in the manner.

IV Addl.JMFC

Page No.6 of 11 C.C.No.412 of 2022

17.PW1 is the victim and defacto-complainant deposed that she had land in Survey No.106 to an extent of 20 Guntas situated at Marlu and never sold land to anyone and it is still with her and paying all kinds of taxes and electricity bills. Thus, lodged Ex.P1 report regarding house of land registration number. She deposed that she never executed any General Power of Attorney in favour of anyone.

18.During cross-examination, PW1 has stated that she did not know the persons owning the land in the said survey number and that she is in possession of her land and she did not lodge any complaint with the higher officials against the use of General Power of Attorney.

19.PW2/Mohd.Osman Ali, husband of PW1 also deposed that he owns land in the same survey number to an extent of 20 Guntas and

LW3/Chevvuri Chandrakala also owns to the same extent. PW1 has purchased a land from one Narayana Reddy and Hemalatha in the year 1981 vide registered Sale Deed No.4076 and in the year 2001 obtained permission from Sarpanch, Christianpally for construction of house and in the year 2003 obtained housing loan for Rs.5,50,000/- from SBI,

Mahabubnagar and constructed the house and got municipal bearing

No.14-10-87/3. But in the year 2012, received legal notice from

LW3/C.Chandrakala, for which they gave reply and later L.W.3 lodged a report. He further deposed that neither he nor PW1 executed General

Power of Attorney nor sold the above land to any one and that A1 and others have executed 12 registered sale deeds in respect of their land by impersonation.

IV Addl.JMFC

Page No.7 of 11 C.C.No.412 of 2022

20.During cross-examination, PW2 admitted that they are in possession of the said land and that no one has grabbed the land and that no execution in respect of their land has taken place and that they have not sustained any loss. He further admitted that the GPA was executed in the year 2008, and the present case was filed in the year 2012, and that he was not aware of the GPA until the filing of the case.

21.PW3/Mohd. Raheemuddin, one of the mediator deposed as to the conducting of scene of panchnamma Ex.P2.

22.PW4/C.Chandrakala has deposed that she owns agriculture land in Sy.No.106 to an extent of 0.20 guntas and later A1 to A3 encroached and occupied illegally in the year 2001 and that the agriculture land belongs to PW1.

23.During cross-examination, she admitted that she filed a civil suit against A1 in O.S.NO.66 of 2015 on the file of Senior Civil Judge,

Mahabubnagar, on the ground of encroachment. She then admits that the defendants in the said suit constructed a residential house and are residing therein.

24.PW5/Investigating Officer deposed as to the lines of investigation.

25.During cross-examination, he has deposed that he did not examine Tahsildar to know about the disputed land and did not collect

IV Addl.JMFC

Page No.8 of 11 C.C.No.412 of 2022 any documents pertaining to this case, and did not seize the original patta, passbook, and GPA. He then admitted that PW1 was in possession of land to the extent of 610 sq. yards and also in possession of 0.20 guntas of land. PW4 did not lodge any complaint against the accused. He further admitted that he did not collect the original documents, did not compare them with the allegedly forged documents, and did not send them to the FSL to verify whether the documents were forged.

26.PWs 1 and 2 did not whisper anything about the forgery of

GPA alleged to have been created by the accused. PW1 never stated that the accused sold the plots on the basis of a false or fictitious GPA. In fact,

PW1 and PW2 admitted that they are in possession of their lands.

27.PW5 also admitted that PW1 was in possession of 0.20 guntas of land even at the time of lodging the report.

28.PW4 another victim simply deposed that A1 to A3 encroached her agriculture land to an extent of 0.20 guntas. She never stated that A1 to A3 have created false GPA and sold the house plots. She then admitted that she filed O.S.No.66/2015 on the file of Senior Civil

Judge, Mahabubnagar, against A1 which is pending.

29.PW5/Investigating Officer did not collect original GPA alleged to have been created by the accused in the year 2008. Similarly, he has not examined the purchasers to whom A1 to A3 sold the property basing on the forged GPA. Except oral evidence, there is no other evidence to tag A1 has created false and fictitious GPA by impersonation. There is no basis to tag

IV Addl.JMFC

Page No.9 of 11 C.C.No.412 of 2022

A1 for the offence of forgery and cheating. In-fact PW4, the victim already proceeded with civil suit against A1 which is pending since 2015. There is no scientific evidence with regard to forgery. When PWs 1 and 2 are in possession of their respective lands, a case of creating a false GPA by the accused cannot be attributed. The best person to say with regard to sale of house plots are the purchasers to whom the accused sold in the year 2008.

30.In this regard, the counsel for the accused relied upon the judgment reported in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India between Usha

Chakraborty and another Vs. State of West Bengal and another dated 03.01.2023, wherein it was held at para 11 as under:- “In the aforesaid circumstances, coupled with the fact that in respect of the issue involved, which is of civil nature, the respondent had already approached the jurisdictional civil court by instituting a civil suit and it is pending, there can be no doubt with respect to the fact that the attempt on the part of the respondent is to use the criminal proceedings as weapon of harassment against the appellants. The indisputable facts that the respondent has filed the pending title suit in the year 2015, he got no case that he obtained an interim relief against his removal from the office of Secretary of the School Managing Committee as also the trusteeship”.

31.PW5, Investigating Officer has not collected the original GPA and did not compare with other documents to fasten liability on the accused person with regard to forgery. In fact, no such document has been seized and no document has been sent to FSL for comparison and experts opinion. It appears that, in order to satisfy the complainant party, the accused has been charge-sheeted. Even otherwise, if the entire prosecution evidence as it stands is taken into consideration, it is not clear as to what

IV Addl.JMFC

Page No.10 of 11 C.C.No.412 of 2022 act amounts to forgery committed by the accused and how and in what manner it was committed. The evidence of PWs 1 and 2 further goes to show that they are in possession of their respective lands, and PW4 has already instituted a civil suit against A1, which has been pending since 2015. Therefore, there is no acceptable evidence with regard to cheating and forgery.

32.The primary facts of cheating and forgery has not been proved and established by the prosecution. The oral evidence of PWs 1 to 5 is not sufficient enough to tag the accused for the charged offence.

33.On careful examination of the entire evidence of prosecution including the testimonies of PWs 1 to 5 coupled with the documentary evidence under Exs.P.1 to P.8, this Court feels that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the guilt of A1to A3for the charged offenses beyond all reasonable doubt, and therefore, A1to A3has to be Acquitted.

Hence, point answered accordingly.

34.In the result, A1 to A3 are found not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 r/w 34 of IPC., and they are acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 to A3 if any, shall stand discharged after expiry of the appeal period as per

Section 437-A Cr.P.C. Since no property is deposited, there is no order with regard to the property.

Typed to my dictation, correction, pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24 th day of February, 2026

IV Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubnagar.

IV Addl.JMFC

Page No.11 of 11 C.C.No.412 of 2022

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Prosecution Name of witness Description witness No.

1.Ghousia Begum Complainant and injured

2.Mohd.Usman Ali Witness

3.Mohd.Raheemuddin Mediator for scene of offence panchanama

4.Chandrakala Victim

5.Md.Amjad Ali Investigating Officer.

FOR DEFENCE - None -

EXIBITS MARKED FOR

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

Ex.P.1ReportP.W.1 Ex.P.2Scene of offence P.W.3 panchanama Ex.P.3Certified copy of registeredP.W.3 sale deed Doc.No.1791/1981 Ex.P.4CC of GPA P.W.4 Doc.No.49/B4/2008 Ex.P.5CC of Pattadar PassbookP.W.4 Ex.P.6CC of Registered sale deed P.W.4 Doc.No.4076/1981 Ex.P.7Translation from Urdu to P.W.4 English of Sale deed Doc.No.4076/1981 Ex.P.8First Information ReportP.W.6

FOR DEFENCE

Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS

- Nil -

IV Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubnagar.

IV Addl.JMFC

Page No.1 of 11 C.C.No.874 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS AT MAHABUBNAGAR

Friday, this the 7th day of November, 2025

Present:Ms Karanjia Bhavana, IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class

MAHABUBANGAR

C.C.No.874 OF 2022

(Old C.C.No.8 of 2017) BETWEEN:

The State of Telangana, Rep., by Sub Inspector of Police, Mahabubnagar Rural Police Station, Mahabubnagar District. …COMPLAINANT

AND

1.Bolgam Raju S/o Chennaiah, age:40 years, Occu:ARPC 147 of AR Head Quarters, Mahabubnagar, R/o H.No.3-74, Yenugonda Mahabubnagar.

2.Bolgam Yadamma W/o Bolgam Raju, age:38 years, Occu: Household, R/o H.No.3-74, Yenugonda, Mahabubnagar.

…ACCUSED ***** This Case is coming on 3-11-2025 fore me for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State and of Sri T.Chandrasekhar, Learned defense Counsel for the accused, upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.This case is filed by the Sub Inspector of Police,

Mahabubnagar Rural Police Station against accused in Crime

No.481/2016 for the offence punishable under Sections 447, 323, 427, 341, 353, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC (inshort ‘IPC’).

Page No.2 of 11 C.C.No.874 of 2022

2. The case for the prosecution, in brief, are that: on 03.12.2016 at 1200 hours, L.W.1 Ediga Bharathamma lodged a report stating that she has three sons and one daughter, all married and living separately. She has been residing with her aged husband in her own house at Yenugonda. Her elder son, Raju, has been frequently quarreling with them and severely harassing them. He has also been harassing his two brothers by falsely projecting himself as a police officer. He has been demanding that the entire family land be given to him and has been threatening them with dire consequences. Further, on 02.12.2016 at about 1200 hours, at the instigation of the said Raju (Accused No.1), his wife Yadamma (Accused No.2) trespassed into their agricultural land, damaged the bore starter, and caused a loss of about 5,000/-. On 03.12.2016 at about 0800 hours, when L.W.1 and ₹ her husband questioned them about the incident, on the instigation of

Accused No.1, Accused No.2 Yadamma assaulted L.W.1 and her husband with her hands at their house, forcibly restraining them at

B.C. Colony, Yenugonda, and abused them in filthy language.

3.Subsequently, when they approached the Rural Police

Station to lodge a complaint, both Accused No.1 Raju and Accused

No.2 Yadamma attacked them again and beat their second son, Ravi.

When the police intervened to stop the altercation, Accused Nos.1 and 2 obstructed the police officers in the discharge of their legitimate duties and created a nuisance at the police station. They also quarreled with the Sub-Inspector of Police. Hence, L.W.1 requested that necessary legal action be taken against the accused persons.

Page No.3 of 11 C.C.No.874 of 2022

4.Basing on the above complaint of L.W.1, L.W.9/K.Shiva

Kumar, SI of Police, PS Rural Mahabubnagar has registered a case in crime No.481/2016, u/Secs.447, 323, 427, 341, 353, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and opened the probe.

5.During the course of investigation, LW.9/K.Shiva

Kumar SI of police, Rural Mahabubnagar examined and recorded the statement of LW.1/Ediga Bharathamma, L.W.2/Bolgam Chennaiah

Goud, L.W.3/Bolgam Ravi Goud and L.W.4/Vadla Yadaiah. Further

L.W.9 visited 1st scene of offence situated at the agricultural fields of

L.W.1 at Yenugonda limits, secured the presence of mediators of

L.W.5/M.Ramesh and L.W.6/Adivi Mallesh Yadav conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch in Crime Details Form.

Later L.W.9 visited the house of accused at BC colony area, secured the presence of mediators of LW.7/Sudharshan Goud and

LW.8/Md.Jalal conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch in Crime Details Form.

6.On 28.12.2016 LW.9/SI of Police, PS Rural Police served notice u.Sec.41(A) (1) Cr.P.C to the accused and after completion of the investigation, LW.9/SI of Police, PS Rural

Mahabubnagar filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence u.Sec.447, 323, 427, 341, 353, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

Page No.4 of 11 C.C.No.874 of 2022

7. This court has taken cognizance for the offences punishable u/Secs.447, 323, 427, 341, 353, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC against accused A1 and A2. On appearance of accused A1 and A2, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated u/Sec.207 of

Cr.P.C.

8.The accused A1 and A2 were examined under section 251 of

Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Sec.447, 323, 427, 341, 353, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. The substance of accusation was read over and explained to them in their vernacular language, for which they denied the same, and pleaded not guilty.

9. In support of its case, prosecution has examined defecto- complainant-cum-victim/L.W.1/Bharathamma as P.W.1, eye witnesses/L.W.2/Bolgam Chennaiah Goud, L.W.3/Bolgam Ravi Goud and L.W.4/Vadla Yadaiah as Pws 2 to 4, mediators for scene of offence panchanama/L.W.7/Sudharshan goud and L.W.8/Md.Jalal as

P.Ws.5 and 6. L.W.9/K.Shiva Kumar, SI of Police, PS Rural

Mahabubnagar who investigated the case and filed the charge sheet as P.W.7. Based on the report given by the Police PS Rural

Mahabubnagar, the evidence of L.W.5/M.Ramesh and L.W.6/Adivi

Mallesh Yadav is closed in this case.

10.After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused A1 and

A2 were examined U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating

Page No.5 of 11 C.C.No.874 of 2022 circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which they denied the evidence and reported no defence evidence in t he i r support.

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

12. Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for accused and perused the case record.

13.Now the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution proved it’s case against the

accused A-1 and A2 beyond all reasonable doubt?.

POINT

14.In the matter at hand, the court is tasked with determining whether the prosecution has successfully proven its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts regarding the charge levied against accused.

15.The accused A1 and A2 stands charged under Section 326, 324, 323, 504 of the Indian Penal Code . Central to this case is the question of whether the prosecution has effectively established a case under the aforementioned sections.

Page No.6 of 11 C.C.No.874 of 2022

16.It is fundamental in criminal trials that the burden of proving all essential elements required to establish a charge against the accused rests squarely upon the prosecution. Furthermore, it is vital to recognize the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused until proven otherwise. Criminality cannot be presumed; exceptions to this principle exist within statutory frameworks.

17.Before delving into the evidence presented by the prosecution, it is prudent to have a comprehensive understanding of the provisions outlined under Section 326 , 324, 323, 504 of IPC .

Section 447 of IPC:- Punishment for criminal trespass

Whoever commits criminal trespass shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.

Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)

outlines the punishment for intentionally causing harm to another person with full awareness of the consequences. According to Section 323, any individual who voluntarily inflicts injury, excluding cases covered under Section 334, can be sentenced to imprisonment for up to one year, fined up to one thousand rupees, or both. 

Section 427 of IPC. Mischief causing damage to the

amount of fifty rupees.— Whoever commits mischief and thereby causes loss or damage to the amount of fifty rupees or

Page No.7 of 11 C.C.No.874 of 2022 upwards,shallbepunishedwith imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

Section 341 of IPC. Punishment for wrongful restraint.—

Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.

Section 353 of IPC:

Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from

discharge of his duty. Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person to the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

Section 504 of IPC: Intentional insult with

intent to provoke breach of the peace

Page No.8 of 11 C.C.No.874 of 2022

Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

Section 506 of IPC Punishment for criminal intimidation Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both;

If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt,

etc – and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, of with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.

18.Upon reviewing the statutory provisions and adhering to the cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence, it becomes imperative to scrutinize the evidence put forth by the prosecution in this case.

19.After perusal of material available on record it can be seen that, PW.1 to P.W.4 who are crucial and eyewitness to the incident and P.W.1 who is complainant cum victim deposed that she do not

Page No.9 of 11 C.C.No.874 of 2022 know anything about this case, she did not any report befoe the

Police, but her village elders obtained her signatures on some blank papers without informing the contents of it and like wise P.W.2 to

P.W.4 who are eye witnesses to the alleged incident deposed that they do not know anything about this case and they do not witness any alleged incident. Police never examined and nor recorded their statement. PWs-1 to PW-4 did not support their earlier statements and turned hostile. Further it is noted that PW-1 to PW-4 did not utter single word with regard to happening of alleged incident and involvement of Accused A-1 and A2. As such their evidence is no way helpful to the prosecution.

20.PW.5/Sudershan Goud and P.W.6/Jalal who are the mediators for the scene of offence panchanama deposed that police never conducted any scene of offence panchanama in his presence, and they did not affix their signatures on scene of offence panchanama. PW.5 and P.W.6 turned hostile to the case of prosecution.

During examination in the nature of cross by the learned

APP nothing could be elicited in favour of prosecution from PW.1 to

PW.4.

21.PW.7/Shiva Kumar, SI of police has deposed the chronological events of his investigation in his chief examination, which is similar to the allegations made in the charge sheet.

22.The sole testimony of investigating officer could not be relied upon without any corroboration by either material witnesses or by

Page No.10 of 11 C.C.No.874 of 2022 any independent evidence on record. PW1 to PW4 have not stated anything against accused A1 and A2. Hence, there is no iota of evidence to fasten the criminal liability on the accused persons for the offence punishable under sections 447, 323, 427, 341, 353, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC In view of the above reasons, the prosecution failed to establish the involvement of accused persons in the case.

23.In such circumstances, the prosecution failed to establish the ingredients of sections 447, 323, 427, 341, 353, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC against accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts and accordingly they are acquitted.

Point answered accordingly.

24. IN THE RESULT, the Accused A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence under Sections 447, 323, 427, 341, 353, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. Accordingly, Accused A1 and A2 are acquitted under Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C.. The bail bonds of the accused persons shall stand cancelled after expiry of six months period as per under

Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.Since no property is deposited, there is no order with regard to the property

Typed to my dictation, correction, pronounced by me in the open court on this the 7 th day of November, 2025.

IV Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Mahabubnagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

15.

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

P.W.1: Bharathamma - None -

Page No.11 of 11 C.C.No.874 of 2022

P.W.2: Bolgam Chennaiah P.W.3:Ravi Goud P.W.4:Yadaiah P.W.5:Sudershan Goud P.W.6:Jalal P.W.7:Shiva Kmar

EXIBITS MARKED FOR

FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P.1: Signature of P.W.1 on report Ex.P.2: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1 Ex.P.3 Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2 Ex.P.4:Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3 Ex.P.5:Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4 Ex.P.6:Report of L.W.1 toPolice Ex.P.7:First Information Report Ex.P.8: First Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P.9: Second scene of offence panchanama

FOR DEFENCE

Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS

- Nil -

IV Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubnagar.

Page No.1 of 11 C.C.No.541 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS AT MAHABUBNAGAR

Monday, this the 2nd day of March, 2026

Present:Smt. Karanjia Bhavana, IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class

MAHABUBANGAR

C.C.No.541 OF 2022

(Old C.C.No.328 of 2018)

BETWEEN:

The State of Telangana, Rep., by Sub Inspector of Police, Mahabubnagar Rural Police Station, Mahabubnagar District. …COMPLAINANT

AND

1.Yelka Devender S/o Sayanna, age: 35 years, Occu:agriculture, R/o H.No.2-58, Manikonda village, Mahabubnagar Mandal.

2.Yelka Pentamma W/o Sayanna, age: 58 years, Occu:agriculture, R/o 2-58, Manikonda village, Mahabubnagar Mandal.

…ACCUSED Nos.1 and 2 ***** This Case is coming on 10-02-2026 fore me for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State and of

Sri G.Gopal, Learned defense Counsel for the accused

persons, upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.This case is filed by the Sub Inspector of Police,

Mahabubnagar Rural Police Station against accused A1 and A2 in

Crime No.131/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 504 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code (inshort ‘IPC’).

IV Addl.JMFC

Page No.2 of 11 C.C.No.541 of 2022

2. The case for the prosecution, in brief, are that:On 16.04.2018 at 09:00 hours, L.W.1, Dulla Karrenna, lodged a report stating that on 15.04.2018 at about 17:00 hours, the accused, A1 and his mother, Yelka Pentamma (A2), assaulted the complainant with a stick and abused him in filthy language. It is alleged that the incident occurred as the complainant’s cattle had entered the field of

Devender’s uncle and drank water there. During the course of the assault, the complainant sustained a bleeding injury. Hence, L.W.1 requested that legal action be taken against the accused.

3.Basing on the above complaint of L.W.1, L.W.8/G.Bhaskar

Reddy, Sub.Sub Inspector of Police, Rural PS Mahabubnagar has registered a case in crime No.131/2018, u/Secs.324, 504 r/w 34 of IPC and opened the probe.

4.During the course of investigation, LW.8/ SI of police,

Rural Mahabubnagar examined and recorded the statement of

LW.1/Dhulla Karrenna. Later L.W.8 visited the scene of offence which is situated at agricultural land of Pendam Krishnaiah in the limits of Manikonda village, secured the presence of mediators

L.W.5/Myakali Raju and L.W.6/Ganji Cinna Buchi conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch of scene in Crime

Details Form. Further LW.8 examined and recorded the statements of L.W.2/Pendyamu Krishnaiah, LW.3/Pendyamu Ramesh and

L.W.4/Pendyamu Kurumurthy.

IV Addl.JMFC

Page No.3 of 11 C.C.No.541 of 2022

5.LW.7/Dr.M.Narender Civil Assistant Surgeon,

Government General Hospital, Mahabubnagar who treated the injured and furnished MC in which he opined that the L.W.1 sustained injuries are simple in nature.

6.On 22.5.2018 the A1 and A2 came to PS admitting their guilt, then L.W.8 served notice u/Sec.41(A) Cr.P.C to the accused

A1 and A2. On collecting Medical Certificate of LW.1 and after completion of the investigation, LW.8 filed the charge sheet for the offences u/Secs.324, 504 r/w 34 of IPC against the accused.

7. This court has taken cognizance for the offences punishable u/Secs.323, 504 r/w 34 of IPC against accused A1 and A2.

On appearance of accused persons, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated u/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

8.The accused A1 and A2 were examined under section 251 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Sec.323, 504 r/w 34 of IPC.

The substance of accusation was read over and explained to them in the vernacular language, for which they denied the same, and pleaded not guilty.

9. To prove case, the prosecution has examined complainant and injured/L.W.1/Dhulla Karrenna as P.W.1, eye witnesses/

L.W.2/Pendyamu Krishnaiah, L.W.3/Pendyamu Ramesh and

LW.4/Pendyamu Kurumurthy as P.Ws.2 to 4, mediator for scene of offence panchanama/LW.5/Myakali Raju and L.W.6/Ganji Chinna

IV Addl.JMFC

Page No.4 of 11 C.C.No.541 of 2022

Buchi as P.Ws.5 and 7, L.W.7/Dr.M.Narender, Civil Assistant

Surgeon, Government General Hospital, Mahabubnagar who treated the L.W.1 is examined as P.W.8 and LW.8/G.Bhaskar Reddy, Sub

Inspector of Police, PS Rural Mahabubnagar who investigated the case and filed the charge sheet as P.W.6.

10.After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused A1 and

A2 were examined U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which they denied the evidence and reported no defence evidence in their support.

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

12.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the prosecution examined PWs1 to 8 and marked Exs.P1 to P8 and proved its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore the accused are liable to be convicted as per law.

13.Now the point for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts or not?

POINT:-

14.In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to establish that the accused with a common

IV Addl.JMFC

Page No.5 of 11 C.C.No.541 of 2022 intention has voluntarily caused hurt to PW1/Injured with a deadly weapon or by any other means and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 323, 504 r/w 34 of IPC.

15.In a criminal trial, the burden of proving all essential elements are necessary to establish the charge against the accused always rests on the prosecution, and there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused until and unless the contrary is proved. Criminality is not to be presumed:

subject to, of course to some statutory exceptions.

16.The evidence on record is the evidence of PWs 1 to 6.

17.Now the first point to be determine is whether

PW1/injured has sustained injuries or not?

18.To establish the said fact, the prosecution has placed oral testimony of PW1 besides Ex.P8 Injury certificate of him.

19.PW1, the injured and defacto-complainant has deposed that about seven years ago while he was engaged in grazing cattle, his castles went into the fields of the accused and drank water, on seeing the same, accused started abusing him in filthy language, and came and caught hold of his collar and further A2 who is mother of A1 beat him with a stick on his head causing injury due to which, he fell down. Ex.P1 is the report.

IV Addl.JMFC

Page No.6 of 11 C.C.No.541 of 2022

20.Ex.P.8 is the Injury Certificate which goes to show that PW1 has sustained laceration on Occital region of 2 x 1 cm in size and another injury in parilel of size 4 x 1 cm., which are simple in nature and fresh.

21.PW1 was cross-examined but no suggestion was attributed that no such injury has been sustained.Even otherwise,

A1 and A2 have not denied the injury.Thus, the prosecution has proved the fact that PW1 has sustained injury.

22.Now the next point is to be determine is whether A1 and A2 with common intention has voluntarily caused hurt to

PW1 with a stick?

23.To establish the fact, again the prosecution has relied upon the oral testimony of PW1 beside PW2 to PW4 who are eye witnesses.

24.PW1 deposed that while he was grazing cattle, his cattle went into the field of A1 and A2 and drank water and on seeing the same A1 got hold of the collar of PW1 and A2 bet him on his head with a stick causing head injury due to which, he fell unconscious.

IV Addl.JMFC

Page No.7 of 11 C.C.No.541 of 2022

25.The incident occurred on 15.04.2018 at 5:00 p.m., in the field. Ex.P.1 report was lodged on 16.04.2018 at 9:00 A.M., and there is a delay of more than 16 hours and the delay has not been explained.

26.During cross-examination, P.W.1 deposed that on the same day of incident, the Police came to Government General

Hospital and recorded his statement. Ex.P1 report was also scribed by the Police at Government Hospital on the date of incident.

27.PW6, the Investigating Officer has deposed that he received Ex.P1 report on 16.04.2018 at 9:00 p.m. Thus, the oral evidence of PW1 is not corroborating with regard to lodging of report on the date of incident.

28.PW6, has not seized the stick used in the Commission of

Offence by A2 who is mother of A1. Ex.P.8 Wound Certificate goes to show that PW1 went to Government General Hospital,

Mahabubnagar, at about 7:30 p.m., on 15.04.2018. PW1 says that the Police came to Government General Hospital on the date of incident and recorded his statement and also scribed Ex.P1 report.

The said report is not filed before the Court. But Ex.P1 shows the report was lodged on 16.04.2018 but not on 15.04.2018. Hence, there

IV Addl.JMFC

Page No.8 of 11 C.C.No.541 of 2022 is a serious discrepancy with regard to lodging of report and recording of statement of PW1 by PW6.

29.Be it noted, PW2/K.Krishnaiah categorically deposed that he did not know anything about the case and he did not witness any incident that took place and was never examined by the Police.

30.PW3/P. Ramesh also deposed as deposed by PW2.

31.PW4/P.Kurumurthy, also deposed as deposed by PW2 and

PW3.

32.PWs 2 to 4 are eye witnesses to the incident dated 15.04.2018, but they did not support the case of the prosecution as alleged in the manner and even they did not support the testimony of PW1 with regard to A1 and A2 causing hurt with a stick. The said witnesses completely given goby to their earlier statements made before PW6, the Investigating Officer. Exs.P2 to P4 are the statements.

33.PW5 and PW7, the mediators for the scene of offence

Panchanama also turned hostile and did not support its case.

34.The only evidence available on record is the evidence of PW1 whose evidence goes uncorroborated with regard to the material particulars of the incident dated 15.04.2018. The

IV Addl.JMFC

Page No.9 of 11 C.C.No.541 of 2022 suspicion of the report made on 15.04.2018 before PW6 as stated by PW1 is fatal to the prosecution case. Therefore, the entire evidence of PW1 has to be viewed with suspicious/doubt with regard to the incident and causing hurt by A1 and A2 with a stick.

35.It is no doubt true, the injured evidence has to be considered, if in the absence of corroborating evidence if found to be trustworthy and reliable. But PW1 evidence says that he lodged a report before the Police that to at the Government General

Hospital, Mahabubnagar on the date of incident which is not

before the Court. Therefore, it goes very root of the genesis of the

incident. If, Ex.P1 is taken into consideration that PW1 has lodged a report on 16.04.2018, then the evidence of PW1 with regard to report and statement on 15.04.2018 has to be brushed aside. Therefore, in the absence of the evidence, it is very difficult to accept the testimony of PW1/injured which goes uncorroborated on the material particulars.

36.On careful examination of the entire evidence of the prosecution including the testimonies of PWs 1 to 8, this Court feels that the prosecution has proved the fact that PW1 has sustained injury on his head but failed to prove that the said injury was caused by A1 and A2 with a stick. Thus, the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the charged offence beyond all reasonable doubt. Consequent thereto,

IV Addl.JMFC

Page No.10 of 11 C.C.No.541 of 2022 the accused 1 and 2 have to be acquitted. Point answered accordingly.

37. the In result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty of the offense punishable under Section 323, 504 r/w 34 of IPC., and accordingly they are acquitted under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 and A2 if any, shall stand discharged after expiry of the appeal period. Since no property is deposited, there is no order with regard to the property.

Typed to my dictation, correction, pronounced by me in the open court on this the 2 nd day of March, 2026

IV Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubnagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Prosecution Name of witness Description witness No.

1.Karrenna Complainant and injured

2.Krishnaiah Eye witness

3.Ramesh Eye witness

4.Kurumurthy Eye witness

5.M.Raju Mediator for scene of offence panchanama

6.G.Bhaskar Reddy Investigating Officer

7.G.Chinna Buchanna Mediator for scene of offence panchanama

8.Dr.M.Narender Who treated the L.W.1

IV Addl.JMFC

Page No.11 of 11 C.C.No.541 of 2022

FOR DEFENCE - None -

EXIBITS MARKED FOR

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

Ex.P.1ReportP.W.1 Ex.P.2Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2 P.W.2 Ex.P.3Section 161 Cr.P.C statementP.W.3 Ex.P.4Section 161 Cr.P.C statementP.W.4 Ex.P.5Signature on the scene of offence P.W.5 panchanama Ex.P.6First Information ReportP.W.6 Ex.P.7Scene of offnece panchanamaP.W.6 Ex.P.8Medical Certificate of P.W.1P.W.6 Ex.P.9Signature on scene of offence P.W.7 panchanama

FOR DEFENCE

Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS

- Nil -

IV Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubnagar.

IV Addl.JMFC

CC.No.811 of 2022 1 of 10 Dated: 27-08-2024

.IN THE COURT OF SPL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS, MOBILE COURT AT MAHABUBNAGAR

Tuesday, this the 27th day of August, 2024

Present:Ms Karanjia Bhavana,

IV Addl Judicial Magistrate of First Class, FAC. Spl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mobile Court, Mahabubnagar

C.C.No. 811 OF 2022

BETWEEN:

The State of Telangana, Rep., by Sub Inspector of Police, Mohammadabad Police Station, Mahabubnagar District. …PROSECUTION

AND A1: Patel Balraj, S/o. Venkanna, aged 56 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Kondapur village of Gandeed Mandal.

A2: Patel Srinu @ Srinivasulu, S/o. Venkanna, aged 52 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Kondapur village of Gandeed Mandal.

A3: Patel Shekar, S/o. Balraj, aged 30 years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o. Kondapur village of Gandeed Mandal.

A4: Patel Mohan Babu, S/o. Srinivasulu, aged 24 years, Occ: Student, R/o. Kondapur village of Gandeed Mandal. …ACCUSED Nos.1 to 4. ***** This Case is coming on 27.08.2024 before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State and of Sri E.Ramulu, Counsel for the accused, upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court delivered the following:

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

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Mohammadabad has filed charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 4 in Crime No.90/2021 for the offences punishable U/Secs.324, 504 r/w 34 of IPC.

CC.No.811 of 2022 2 of 10 Dated: 27-08-2024

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case is that:

On 11-06-2021 at 4-00 pm, the complainant Patel Gopal(LW1), lodged a report. He stated that on 23-12-2020 his daughter Aruna purchased land in Sy.No.6/ru/2 extent of Ac.1-03 acres from younger brother of LW.1/P.Gopal, his daughter also got patta pass book for the above said land. On the same day at 7-00 am LW.1/P.Gopal and his wife

Sujatha/LW2 went to above land and while levelling land with JCB, meantime their coparceners A1/Patel Balraj, A2/Srinu, A3/Shekar and

A4/Mohan Babu went to there and beat the LW.1/complainant and his wife/LW2 Sujatha with stick by abusing and alleging that the above land belongs to them, as a result the complainant and his wife sustained bleeding injuries and requested to take legal action.

3. Based on the above complaint, LW.8/C.Ramudu, Sub Inspector of police, Mohammadabad Police Station, registered a case in Cr.No.90 of 2021 u/Secs.324, 504 r/w 34 IPC and took up the investigation. During the course of the investigating LW.8/Sub Inspector of police examined and recorded the statements of LW.1/Patel Gopal and LW.2/Sujatha,

LW.3/Smt. Boru Shyamalamma and LW.4/Balsurgonda Venkataiah and sent LW.1/P.Gopal and LW.2/Sujatha to Govt., General Hospital for treatment, visited scene of offence and secured the mediators

CC.No.811 of 2022 3 of 10 Dated: 27-08-2024

LW.5/Bomras Yellaiah and LW.6/Kaplapur Venkataiah conducted scene of offence panchanama and and drew rough sketch.

4.On 20-06-2021, LW.8/Sub Inspector of police served a notice u/Sec.

41-A of the Cr.P.C to A1 to A4. Dr.Ramya (LW7) treated the injured

LW1/P.Gopal and LW.2/Sujatha, issuing wound certificates and stating that their injuries were simple in nature. Upon completing the investigation, a charge sheet was filed. Hence, the charge.

5.The case was taken on file by taking cognizance for the offence under section 324, 504 r/w 34 IPC was taken against the accused and on appearance of the accused copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated u/Secs.207 Cr.P.C and after furnishing copies of documents accused were examined u/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C for the substance of accusation for the offence U/secs.324, 504 r/w 34 IPC for which the accused denied the accusation and on questioning on plea of guilt they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.On appearance of accused before this court and on hearing the learned Asst., Public Prosecutor on behalf of State and learned counsel for accused and on considering the material on record charges u/Secs.324, 504 r/w 34 IPC has been framed, read over and explained to them in their

CC.No.811 of 2022 4 of 10 Dated: 27-08-2024

known language for which they denied the allegation, pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.

7.To prove its case, the prosecution has examined LW.1/Patel Gopal complainant and injured as PW.1, LW.2/Patel Sujatha eyewitness and injured as PW.2, LW.3/Smt. Boru Shyamalamma eyewitness as PW.3,

LW.4/Balsurgonda Venkataiah eyewitness as PW.4, LW.5/Bomras

Yellaiah and LW.6/Kaplapur Venkataiah panch witnesses for crime details form as PW.5 and PW.6, LW.7/Dr.Ramya treated the injured and issued medical certificates as PW.7 and LW.8/C.Ramudu, Sub Inspector of police and investigating officer as PW.8. In support of oral evidence Exs.P1 to P7 are marked.

8. After, the closure of prosecution evidence, Accused were examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C., for which they denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution and pleaded their false implication and reported no defence evidence.

9.Heard arguments from the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned defence counsel.

10.Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved its case against the accused Nos.1 to 4 for the charged offence beyond all reasonable doubt”?

CC.No.811 of 2022 5 of 10 Dated: 27-08-2024

POINT:

11.According to the prosecution, on 11-06-2021 at 7:00 am, PW.1, along with PW.2 (his wife), went to their land situated in Sy.No.6/ru/2, with an extent of Ac.1-03 guntas, accompanied by a JCB machine to clear the bushes. At that time, A1 to A4 arrived and objected, claiming that the land belonged to them and then beat PW.1 and PW.2 with sticks, causing injuries to their hands and legs, and further abused them using highly inappropriate language.

12.The prosecution must establish their case as alleged in the manner described.

13.The first point to determine is whether PW.1/Patel Gopal and

PW.2/Patel Sujatha sustained injuries caused by sticks.

14.To establish this fact, the prosecution examined the evidence of

PW.1 and PW.2, the injured parties, along with the evidence of PW7, Dr.

Ramya.

15. PW.1 and PW.2 testified that in the year 2021, they went to their land for cultivation purposes. At that time, A1 to A4 beat them with sticks.

They later called the police by dialing 100, who then arrived and referred them to the hospital for treatment.

CC.No.811 of 2022 6 of 10 Dated: 27-08-2024

16. PW.7, the Medical Officer, testified that on 11-06-2021 at 2:05 pm, she examined PW.1 and PW.2 and found the following injuries: 1) blunt trauma on the right hand, blunt injury on the left shoulder, and pain over the right hand. She stated that the injuries were simple in nature and might have been caused by a stone or stick. Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 are the wound certificates of PW.1 and PW.2.

17.PW.1, PW.2 and PW.7 were cross-examined on the grounds that the injuries mentioned in Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 could have been caused by a fall on a hard surface. The fact remains that the injuries sustained by PW.1 and

PW.2 were not denied, except for the suggestion that they were caused by a fall on a hard surface. Thus, the prosecution has proven that PW.1 and

PW.2 sustained simple injuries as mentioned in Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 wound certificates.

18.The next point to determine is whether A1 to A4 caused injuries to

PW.1 and PW.2 with sticks.

19.To establish this fact, the prosecution presented the evidence of

PW.1, PW.2, PW.3 (Smt. Borsu Shamalamma), and PW.4 (Balsuragonda

Venkataiah), who are eyewitnesses. Ex.P1, the report, indicates that A1 to

A4 attacked PW.1 and PW.2 with sticks, causing injuries to their legs and hands. PW.1 and PW.2 also testified that A1 to A4 attacked them with

CC.No.811 of 2022 7 of 10 Dated: 27-08-2024

sticks, causing injuries to their legs and hands. However, Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 do not disclose any injuries to the legs but only a sole injury on the right hand and left shoulder. Therefore, the medical evidence does not corroborate the ocular evidence regarding the injuries. If A1 to A4 had indeed beaten PW.1 and PW.2 with sticks, it would have likely caused more injuries rather than just a simple injury on the right hand and left shoulder. PW.8, the investigating officer, did not seize any sticks used in the commission of the offense, which undermines the credibility of PW.1 and PW.2 regarding A1 to A4 causing injuries with sticks. As a result, the oral evidence does not corroborate the contents of Ex.P1 report and Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 wound certificates. Therefore, their evidence becomes unreliable and untrustworthy.

20. It should be noted that PW.3/Shyamala and PW.4/Venkataiah, who claimed to be eyewitnesses to the incident on 11-06-2021, did not attribute anything about the incident or against the accused. They stated that they do not know anything about the facts of the case and that their statements were not recorded by the police. Moreover, Ex.P1 report, does not disclose the names of PW.3 and PW.4, even though it was made at 4:00 pm on the date of the incident. The presence of PW.1 and PW.2 at 7:00 am on 11-06-2021 at the place of occurrence has to be doubted. A suggestion was made that a false case was fabricated due to a land dispute.

CC.No.811 of 2022 8 of 10 Dated: 27-08-2024

21. Although PW.1 and PW.2 claimed that they were beaten indiscriminately by the accused with sticks all over their bodies, PW.7, the medical officer, did not find any such injuries except for one simple injury.

This contradicts the claim that the accused attacked them with sticks, which explains why PW.8 did not seize any sticks. Even the injury noted on PW.1 was only a reportof pain in the right hand, which does not constitute an injury. Similarly, PW.2 sustained pain over the left shoulder and right hand, but PW.7 described it as a blunt injury. She also admitted that the injury could have been caused by a fall on a hard surface.

Considering the nature of the injuries, the entire evidence of PW.1 and

PW.2 becomes questionable. There is no ring of truth in the testimony of

PW.1 and PW.2 regarding the accused attacking them with sticks.

Therefore, no implicit reliance can be placed on the oral evidence of PW.1 and PW.2, which is uncorroborated by the evidence of PW.3, PW.4, and the medical evidence from PW.7.

22. On careful examination of the entire prosecution evidence including the testimony of PW.1 to PW.8 coupled with Ex.P1 to P7 this court feels that the prosecution has utterly failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the charged offence beyond all reasonable doubt. Consequent there to the accused must be acquitted.

CC.No.811 of 2022 9 of 10 Dated: 27-08-2024

23.In the result, the accused Nos.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offense punishable u/Sec.324, 504 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and consequently they are acquitted under Sec.248(1) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure. The bail bonds of the Accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per under Sec.437 of Cr.P.C. As there is no property was deposited, hence no order as to the property.

Typed to my dictation, correction, pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27th day of August, 2024.

IV ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

FAC SPL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

MOBILE COURT, MAHABUBNAGAR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR COMPLAINANT FOR ACCUSED

PW-1Gopal.

PW-2Sujatha.

PW-3Shyamala.:: NONE ::

PW-4Venkataiah.

PW-5Yellaiah.

PW-6Venkataiah.

PW-7Dr.Ramya.

PW-8C.Ramudu, Sub Inspector of police.

CC.No.811 of 2022 10 of 10 Dated: 27-08-2024

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR COMPLAINANT

Ex.P1Is the Report.

Ex.P2Is Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3.

Ex.P3Is Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.4.

Ex.P4Is the Medical Certificate of PW.1.

Ex.P5Is the Medical Certificate of PW.2.

Ex.P6Is the First Information Report.

Ex.P7Is the Scene of offence panchanama.

FOR ACCUSED

:: NIL::

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

:: NIL::

IV ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

FAC SPL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

MOBILE COURT, MAHABUBNAGAR.

CC.No.595 of 20221Dated: 26-06-2025

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS AT MAHABUBNAGAR

Thursday, this the 26th day of June, 2025

Present:Ms Karanjia Bhavana, IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

MAHABUBANGAR

C.C.No.595 OF 2022

BETWEEN:

The State of Telangana, Rep., by Sub Inspector of Police, Mahabubnagar Rural Police Station, Mahabubnagar District.

…Complainant

AND

Koravath Gopal S/o Harichander, age; 28 years, occu:Auto driver R/o H.No.4-55, Regadigadda thanda, Venkatapur village.

***** …ACCUSED

This Case is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State and of Sri V.Gopal, Counsel for the accused, upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court delivered the following:

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

The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Mahabubnagar Rural has filed charge sheet against accused in Crime No.262 of 2022 for the offence punishable u/Sec.354-A, 323, 506 of IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief are that:On 16.05.2022 at 15:00 hours, the complainant/Anjibai lodged a report stating that on 14.05.2022 at around 23:30 hours, her husband Ravi Naik had gone to attend a marriage function of his relatives. In the meantime, the accused came to her house, while pulling at the door and accused caught hold of her hair through the window, scratched her face with his nails, and abused her in filthy language. The complainant cried out for help, during which she

CC.No.595 of 20222Dated: 26-06-2025

sustained injuries on her head and her bangles were broken. At that moment, one of the neighbours, L.W.3 – Katravath Shanthi Bai, came to the spot. On seeing her, the accused fled the scene. Hence, L.W.1 requested to take necessary legal action be taken against the accused.

3.Basing on the above complaint of L.W.1, L.W.7/K.Ravi SI of

Police, PS Rural Mahabubnagar has registered a case in crime No.262/2022, u/Secs.354-A, 506 of IPC and opened the probe.

4.During the course of investigation, LW.7/K.Ravi SI of police examined and recorded the statement of LW.1/Mudavath Anji Bai and sent her to Government General Hospital, Mahabubnagar for treatment. L.W.7 accompanied L.W.1 visited the scene of offence situated at L.W.1’s house bearing No.2-45 at Regaddigadda, secured the presence of mediators

L.W.4/V.Narya Naik and L.W.5/M.Prakash conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch in Crime Details Form. Further L.W.7 recorded the statement of L.W.2/Mudavath Ravi and L.W.3/Katravath

Shanthi Bai.

5.The L.W.6/Dr.Vishnu Tiwari, Medical Officer, Government

General Hospital, Mahabubnagar who treated L.W.1 and furnished medical certificate in which the injuries sustained by L.W.1 are simple in nature. On 16.5.2022 L.W.7 served the notice u/Sec.41-A(1) Cr.P.C to the accused and directed him to appear before the Hon’ble Court as when receive the summons from the Hon’ble Court. After collecting medical certificate and after completion of the investigation, L.W.7 filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable u/Sec.354-A, 323, 506 of IPC.

6. This court has taken cognizance for the offence punishable u/Sec.354-

A, 323, 506 of IPC against accused. On appearance of accused, copies of documents was furnished to him as contemplated u/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

CC.No.595 of 20223Dated: 26-06-2025

7.Accused is examined U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C and Charge u/Sec.354-A, 323, 506 of IPC against the accused was read over and explained to him in his vernacular language, for which he denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8.In support of its case, prosecution has examined defecto- complainant-cum-victim/L.W.1/MudavathAnjiBaiasP.W.1, witnesses/L.W.2/Mudavath Ravi naik and L.W.3/Katrvth Shanthi Bai as

P.Ws.2 and 3, mediator for scene of offence panchanama/L.W.5/M.Prakash as

P.W.4, L.W.7/K.Ravi, Sub Inspector of Police, Mahabubnagar Rural who investigated the case and filed the charge sheet against the accused as P.W.5.

The prosecution has given up the evidence of LW.4/V.Narya Naik and

L.W.6/Dr.Vishnu Tiwari, Medical Officer, Govt.General Hospital,

Mahabubnagar in this case.

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

U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied the evidence and reported no defence evidence in his support.

10.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for accused and perused the case record.

11.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and got marked EXs.P.1 to P.8 and proved its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and liable to be convicted as per law.

12.On the contrary, the learned defence counsel maintained that the evidence on record is not trustworthy and no reliance can be placed on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 to base to conviction and thus, the accused has to be acquitted?

CC.No.595 of 20224Dated: 26-06-2025

13.Now the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution could prove its case against the

accused by proving the charge for the offence punishable

u/Sec.354-A, 323, 506 of IPC against accused beyond

reasonable doubt?

POINT:

14.In the matter at hand, the court is tasked with determining whether the prosecution has successfully proven its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts regarding the charge levied against him.

15.The accused stands charged under Sections 354-A, 323, 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Central to this case is the question of whether the prosecution has effectively established a case under the aforementioned sections.

16.It is fundamental in criminal trials that the burden of proving all essential elements required to establish a charge against the accused rests squarely upon the prosecution. Furthermore, it is vital to recognize the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused until proven otherwise. Criminality cannot be presumed; exceptions to this principle exist within statutory frameworks.

16.Before delving into the evidence presented by the prosecution, it is prudent to have a comprehensive understanding of the provision outlined under Sections 354-A, 323, 506 of the IPC

ection S 354A :- Sexual harassment and punishment for sexual

harassment 1

1. A man committing any of the following acts—

1. physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures; or

2. a demand or request for sexual favours; or

3. showing pornography against the will of a woman;

CC.No.595 of 20225Dated: 26-06-2025

or

4. making sexually coloured remarks, shall be guilty of the offence of sexual harassment.

2. Any man who commits the offence specified in clause (i) or clause (ii) or clause (iii) of sub-section (1) shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

3. Any man who commits the offence specified in clause (iv) of sub-section (1) shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

Section 323 of IPC:- Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt

Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

Section 506 of IPC :- Punishment for criminal intimidation

Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both;

If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc – and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, of with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.

17.Upon reviewing the statutory provisions and adhering to the cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence, it becomes imperative to

CC.No.595 of 20226Dated: 26-06-2025

scrutinize the evidence put forth by the prosecution in this case.

18.To establish this fact, the prosecution has relied on the oral testimonies of PW-1 to PW-5.

19.In this matter, the prosecution has presented oral testimony of PW1 to PW.4. PW1/M.Anji Bai is the de-facto complainant and victim,

PW.2/Mudavath Ravi and P.W.3/Shanthi Bai are the witnesses and

P.W.4/M.Prakash, mediator for the scene of offence panchanama. P.W.5 is the investigation officer.

20.P.W.1/M.Anji Bai, defacto complainant- cum- victim deposed in her evidence that she did not lodge any report before the police against the accused, but village elders obtained her thumb impression on some blank papers without disclosing the contents. P.W.2/Mudavath Ravi and

P.W.3/Shanthi Bai who are witnesses to the incident resiled from their earlier statements and stated that they do not know anything about the case.

21. As such PW1 to PW3 were declared as hostile by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor with the permission of the Court, but nothing was elicited from them when questions were put by her.

CC.No.595 of 20227Dated: 26-06-2025

22.P.W.4/M.Prakash one of the mediator for scene of offence panchanama turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and stated that no scene of offence panchanama was conducted in his presence but police obtained his signature on some blank papers and he did not know the contents of those papers.

22. P.W.5, who is the investigation officer, testified chronological events of his investigation in his chief examination, which is similar to the allegations made in the charge sheet.

24.Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and as seen from the testimonies of P.Ws.1 to P.W.3 who are material witnesses and P.W.4 who is panch witness for scene of offence panchanama to the case on hand have turned hostile to the case of the prosecutionandresiled fromtheirearlierstatements. The only witness is the investigation officer who testified the chronological events of the investigation but nothing can be elicited by the prosecution to show that the accused caught hold hairs of P.W.1 through the window and scratched face with his nails and abused P.W.1 in filthy language. Since prosecution failed to adduce cogent evidence against the accused and having considered the surrounding circumstances,In the absence of corroboration a sole testimony of investigation officer cannot be relied to base of conviction upon accused person. Since there is no sperk of evidence against the accused as such the accused is entitled for acquittal.

25.In such circumstances, the prosecution failed to establish the ingredients of sections 354-A, 323, 506 of IPC against accused beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly he is acquitted.

Point answered accordingly.

26. In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offences

CC.No.595 of 20228Dated: 26-06-2025

punishable under Sections 354-A, 323, 506 of IPC and consequently accused is acquitted under Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of six months period as per under Sec.437-A of

Cr.P.C. Since no property is deposited, there is no order with regard to the property.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 26 th day of June, 2025.

IV Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Mahabubnagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

PW.1: M.Anji Bai - None - P.W.2: Mudavath Ravi P.W.3: Shanthi Bai P.W.4: M.Prakash P.W.5: K.Ravi

EXIBITS MARKED FOR

FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P.1: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1 Ex.P.2: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2 Ex.P.3: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3 Ex.P.4: Signature of P.W.4 on scene of offence panchanama Ex.P.5: Report of L.W.1 to Police Ex.P.6: First Information Report Ex.P.7: scene of offence panchanama Ex.P.8: Medical certificate of P.W.1

FOR DEFENCE

-Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS

- Nil -

IV Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Mahabubnagar.