Khushboo Upadhyay

C.C. No.1135 of 2024 1 of 15

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

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT NIZAMABAD

Present: Smt. Khushboo Upadhyay I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-I Additional

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad.

FAC: V Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-V Additional

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad.

Wednesday, the 25 th day of July, 2025

Calendar Case No. 1135 of 2024

Between:-

The State through the Circle-Inspector of Police, Dichpally Circle. … Complainant AND

Karrolla Ramu @ Ramulu, S/o. Narsaiah @ Mallaiah, Age: 31 years, Occ: Labour, R/o. H.No. 1-50/ 1, Nadipally Village of Dichpally Mandal. … Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. G. Ramakrishna,learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, and of Sri. R. Ravi Babu, learned Assistant Legal Aid Counsel for the accused, and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a case filed by the State represented by the Circle-Inspector of

Police, Dichpally Circle against the accused in crime no. 337 of 2023 of

Dichpally Police Station for the offence punishable under section 394 of the

Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).

2.Brief averments of the case of prosecution:- The accused used to regularly consume alcohol and beat his wife often, due to which, he got separated with his wife before the caste elders. From that day onwards, the accused used to do labour work in the day time and sleep at Peddamma

25.07.2025 FAC: V AJFCM, Nizamabad

C.C. No.1135 of 2024 2 of 15

temple, Nadipally. On 03.12.2023 in the afternoon hours, the accused went to the house of LW1/ Dasari Naresh at around 15:00 hours, and from there, they went to CMC side and roamed there. Later, the accused and LW1 went to the grocery store of LW6/ Prabhudas, where when LW1 removed his purse for some work, the accused observed money in the purse of LW1, and as the accused was in need of money for drinking alcohol, the accused took the money and grabbed the phone of LW1. Later, the accused offered alcohol to

LW1, and they went to the shop of LW6, where Yellareddy Chandrakala/ LW5 was present, and the accused purchased two Good Day Prestige whisky bottles 180 ml each, two water packets, and two plastic glasses and went to

CMC ground and sat under a tree.

2.1.After consuming some alcohol, the accused said to LW1 that he wants to go to the bathroom, and he went behind LW1, took a piece of broken KF beer bottle, and slit the throat of LW1 from behind. When LW1 tried to defend, the accused had dstabbed him in the stomach with the piece of beer bottle.

Later, the accused took Rs. 18,000/- from the purse of LW1 and ran away.

Hence, on 04.12.2023 at about 1900 hours, LW1 went to the police station and lodged the report.

2.1.Basing on the contents of the report, LW13/ U. Mahesh, the Sub-

Inspector of Police, Dichpally Police Station registered a case in crime no. 337 of 2023 for the offences punishable under sections 394 of IPC, issued the first information report, and took up the investigation. As the case is grave in nature, LW13 informed LW14/ K. Krishna, the Circle-Inspector of Police,

25.07.2025 FAC: V AJFCM, Nizamabad

C.C. No.1135 of 2024 3 of 15

Dichpally Circle, and on receiving the information, LW14 visited Dichpally

Police Station, and took the case diary from LW13. In the course of investigation, LW14 examined and recorded the statement of LW1. Then,

LW14 visited the house of LW1 at Nadipally Village, where he examined and recorded the statements of LW2/ Dasari Limbavva, LW3/ Abbinamain

Narsavva, and LW4/ Abbinamaina Yadaiah, and owing to the late hours in the night, LW14 could not conduct the scene of offence panchanama.

2.2.LW14 visited the scene of offence situated at Devanagar Village CMC ground, where he secured the presence of two witnesses i.e., LW8/

Bommenamaina Chinna Gangaram and LW9/ Daminamaiana Nadpi Poshetty, conducted the scene of offence panchanama, and drew rough sketch of the scene by preserving it in the crime details form. LW14 seized two empty bottles of 180 ml good day prestige whisky, two plastic glasses, two empty water packets, one piece of KF beer bottle before LW8 and LW9 by affixing the signed panch chits. Later, LW14 examined and recorded the statements of

LW5/ Yellareddy Chandrakala, and LW6/ Yellareddy Prabhudas at the scene of offence.

2.3.On 05.12.2023, on receipt of reliable information, LW13 along with his staff rushed to the Railway Station, Dichpally at about 13:00 hours, he apprehended the accused, and gave intimation to LW14. LW14 rushed to the

Railway Station, Dichpally, and interrogated the accused, upon which, the accused voluntarily confessed his guilt, and he conducted the confession-cum- recovery panchanama in the presence of LW10/ Chinthapanti Rajaram, and

25.07.2025 FAC: V AJFCM, Nizamabad

C.C. No.1135 of 2024 4 of 15

LW11/ Boddula Maruthi, and seized Rs. 7,500/-, and a GIVA mobile by affixing the signed panch chits. LW14 examined and recorded the statement of LW7/

Pandith Sanjay.

2.4.Later, LW14 brought the accused to the police station at 15:00 hours, affected his arrest by issuing the arrest memo duly informing the grounds of arrest to him, and his relatives and complied with section 50 of Cr.P.C. LW14 deposited the seized case property before the Court vide CPR No. 17 of 2024.

Later, LW14 obtained the medical certificate of PW1 from LW12/ T. Nanda

Kumar who treated LW1, and opined that the injuries are simple in nature. On completion of the investigation, LW14 laid the charge sheet.

3.This Court took cognizance for the offence punishable under section 394 of IPC against the accused. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him in compliance with section 207 of Cr.P.C.

4.The accused was examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable under section 394 of IPC. The charge was framed, and its contents were read over and explained to him in the vernacular language, for which he denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In the course of trial, to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW8, marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 and M.O.1 to M.O.5. The evidence of LW3 to LW5, LW9, and LW11 was given up by the learned APP.

6. The accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C. for the incriminating substances available in the testimony of the prosecution

25.07.2025 FAC: V AJFCM, Nizamabad

C.C. No.1135 of 2024 5 of 15

witnesses, for which he denied the same to be true and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard arguments of both sides.

8.Now the point for determination is:-

Did the prosecution bring home the guilt of the

accused for the offence punishable under section 394

of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

9.Point:- From the above facts, it can be seen that the case of the prosecution is that the accused voluntarily caused hurt to PW1 while committing robbery. To establish this, the testimonies of PW1 to PW8 are available. PW1 in his examination in chief testified that on 03.12.2023 at 04.00

PM, the accused came to his house, and took him to Devanagar Camp, where the accused purchased Good Day Whiskey and two glasses. After that, they consumed alcohol, and by then, it was 05.30 PM. After that, they went to the grocery store to purchase cigarette, and while they were sitting in the

Devanagar Camp area, on the pretext of going to the washroom, the accused went behind him, and hit him with a beer bottle on his head, and had slit his throat, and stabbed him on the stomach, due to which, he sustained bleeding injuries on his throat and stomach. After that, he pushed the accused, went to the village and informed about it to LW2. Then, he was taken to the

Government General Hospital, Nizamabad for treatment. On 04.12.2023, he along with LW2 went to the police station and lodged the report i.e., Ex.P1. He stated that he can identify the accused.

25.07.2025 FAC: V AJFCM, Nizamabad

C.C. No.1135 of 2024 6 of 15

9.1.In the cross-examination, he stated that he is acquainted with the accused since three years. He was examined by the police at the police station. Apart from the accused, no one else was present at the spot. The accused purchased the alcohol. He did not state to the police that he received sutures. He went to the hospital at 07:30 PM. He ran to his house on foot for 2 kms. The remaining suggestions put to him were denied by him.

9.2.PW2 is the mother of PW1, who in his examination in chief testified that 14 months ago, at about 03.00 PM, the accused came to her house, and took

PW1 along with him to Devanagar Camp. At 06.00 PM, PW1 came running to her with injuries on his throat and stomach, and informed her that the accused had cut his throat and stabbed him on his stomach with a glass bottle. Upon that, she along with PW1 went to the Government General Hospital,

Nizamabad for treatment. On 04.12.2023, he along with PW1 went to the police station and PW1 lodged the report. She stated that she can identify the accused.

9.3.She admitted that she did not witness the incident. At 07:30 PM, they went to the hospital, as the ambulance arrived at that time. He is acquainted with the accused. She admitted that on the day of the incident, PW1 consumed alcohol. The remaining suggestions put to her were denied by her.

9.4.PW3 is the circumstantial witness in this case, who in his examination in chief testified that on 03.12.2023 in between 05.00 to 06.00 PM, the accused and PW1 came to his grocery store at Devanagar, purchased one Thumbs up bottle (250 ml), two water packets, two disposable glasses, and two liquor

25.07.2025 FAC: V AJFCM, Nizamabad

C.C. No.1135 of 2024 7 of 15

bottles (180 ml each). On the next day, he came to know that the accused had injured PW1 with a glass bottle on his neck and stomach. He stated that he can identify the accused. In the cross-examination, he stated that PW1 made the payment for all the items purchased by them. He did not give any receipts to the police. He runs only a grocery store, and on the request of the accused and PW1, he got arranged the liquor bottles. He came to know about the incident through the villagers, and he does not have any personal information about it. He did not witness the incident.

9.5.PW4 is also the circumstantial witness and in his examination in chief, he testified that 04.12.2024 in the morning hours, the accused came to his mobile shop, and purchased a Giva phone for Rs.1,500/-. Later he came to know that the accused purchased the cell phone from stolen money. In the cross-examination, he admitted that he did not file any receipt showing purchase of cell phone by the accused. He came to know about the incident through the visitors of his shop. He did not see the accused stealing the amount from PW1. The remaining suggestions put to him were denied by him.

9.6.PW5 is the panch witness for the confession-cum-recovery panchnama, and in his examination in chief, he testified that on 05.12.2023 at 01.00 PM, the police called him and LW11 to the Railway Station, Dichpally, and asked them to inquire with Ramu. Upon inquiry, the accused confessed that he along with PW1 went to Devanagar, where they purchased liquor from a shop, and they consumed it. The accused stated that he saw some amount with PW1, and with an intention to take away the money from PW1, the accused broke

25.07.2025 FAC: V AJFCM, Nizamabad

C.C. No.1135 of 2024 8 of 15

the bear bottle, and stabbed on the neck and stomach of PW1. Later, the accused took the money from PW1 and ran away from there.

9.7.On the next day, he purchased a Giva cell phone, and he showed the cell phone along with the balance amount of Rs.7,500/- (Rs.500 x 15 notes) to them. Then, the police had seized the cell phone and the cash under the cover of confession-cum-recovery panchanama i.e., Ex.P2 and obtained their signatures. M.O.1 is the Giva cell phone. He stated that he can identify the accused. In the cross-examination, he stated that the CI of police telephoned him. 3 to 4 police officials were present at the railway station. He failed to state the serial number of the cash seized from the possession of the accused. No receipts were seized from the accused. The contents of Ex.P2 were read over to him. He signed on Ex.P2 at Dichpally Railway Station. The remaining suggestions put to him were denied by him.

9.8.PW6 is the doctor who treated PW1 on 03.12.2023, and in his examination in chief, he testified to that extent. Ex.P3 is the medical certificate according to which, PW1 sustained two simple injuries on his throat and abdomen. In the cross-examination, he admitted that the size of each injury is not mentioned in column no.3 of Ex.P3. He also admitted that the certificate column of Ex.P3 is left blank. He also admitted that it is possible for a person to sustain the injuries as mentioned in Ex.P3 upon falling on a hard surface.

The remaining suggestions put to him were denied by him.

9.9.PW7 is the panch witness for the scene offence panchnama who in his examination in chief testified that on 05.12.2023 at around 8.00 A.M., the

25.07.2025 FAC: V AJFCM, Nizamabad

C.C. No.1135 of 2024 9 of 15

police called him and LW9 to CMC Open Ground, Devnagar Village,

Nizamabad, and conducted the scene of offence panchanama with regard to the injury caused to PW1. The police also seized M.O.3 i.e., 2 liquor bottles,

M.O.4 i.e., 2 disposable glasses, M.O.5 i.e., 2 empty water packets, and M.O.6 i.e., broken peaces of beer bottle, and obtained their signatures. Ex.P4 is the crime details form. In the cross-examination, he stated that he had affixed 4 signatures. He failed to say the boundaries of the scene of offence. The remaining suggestions put to him were denied by him.

9.10. PW6 is the official witness, and the Investigating Officer in this case, who in his examination in chief testified on the same lines as that of the investigation done by him. The first information report is marked as Ex.P5. In the cross-examination, he admitted that there is a delay of 1 day in lodging

Ex.P1. He further added that due to throat injury of PW1, he was unable to depose, hence the delay. He admitted that he did not obtain the signature of

PW1 in column no.14 of Ex.P5. He did not file any license to show that LW5 and LW6 are selling liquor in the grocery store. He did not file any CCTV footage of the scene of offence, and further added that there are no CCTV cameras at the scene of offence as the college was closed 20 years ago. The remaining suggestions put to him were denied by him.

9.11. From the above material and the testimonies available on record, it can be seen that there is no eye witness to the alleged incident. To establish the offence punishable under section 394 of IPC, the prosecution has to establish that the accused committed robbery, and while committing so, he voluntarily

25.07.2025 FAC: V AJFCM, Nizamabad

C.C. No.1135 of 2024 10 of 15

caused hurt to PW1. As seen from the testimony of PW1, the accused could not impeach his credibility, and nothing favorable to the accused was elicited in the cross-examination of PW1. According to PW1, he went to the hospital at 07.30 PM, and the same is corroborated with the version of PW2, according to whom, she took PW1 to the hospital at 07.30 PM, and the accused could not impeach the credibility of PW2.

9.12. PW3 is the owner of the grocery store, from where the accused and

PW1 purchased the liquor bottles along with other items. Though in the cross- examination, PW3 admitted that he did not give any receipt towards purchase of the items, however, at this stage, it is pertinent to note that generally, in the grocery stores being run in the villages, no receipt or bills of purchase of items will be given. Mere non-submission of the receipts of purchase of items, ipso facto does not establishes that PW1 and the accused did not purchase anything from the shop of PW3. PW4 is the owner of the mobile shop, from where the accused purchased a Giva phone from the stolen money, and even he did not furnish any receipt to show the purchase of cell phone by the accused.

9.13. Be that as it may, the testimony of PW3 shows the previous conduct of the accused, and the same becomes relevant in this case. However, at this stage, it is pertinent to note that neither PW1, nor PW2 testified that the accused robbed PW1 and took Rs.17,000/- from his purse. Though the panch witness for the confession-cum-recovery panchanma stated that the accused confessed before him that with an intention to take money from PW1, the

25.07.2025 FAC: V AJFCM, Nizamabad

C.C. No.1135 of 2024 11 of 15

accused broke the beer bottle, and injured PW1 on his throat and stomach, and took away the money, however PW1 did not testify if the accused had robbed him.

9.14. The testimonies of all the witnesses available on record establishes the fact that the accused had caused simple injuries to PW1. However, as seen from the testimonies of PW1, and PW2, it can be seen that, the aspect of robbery is not testified by either of them. PW1 did not testify that the accused took away Rs.17,000/- belonging to him, and there is no whisper about the same, even in the testimony of PW2. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the under section 394 of IPC is not established by the prosecution, as the aspect of robbery is not established in this case. However, the testimony of PW1 corroborated with the evidence of PW2, and is supported with the documentary evidence/ medical certificate of PW1 vide

Ex.P3 which shows that PW1 sustained simple injuries on his throat and abdomen in the hands of the accused, thereby establishing the offence punishable under section 323 of IPC, but not under section 394 of IPC.

9.15. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution case, when

judged on the touchstone of totality of the facts and circumstances, does not

generate the unqualified and unreserved satisfaction indispensably required to enter a finding of guilt against the accused for the offence punishable under section 394 of IPC. However, having regard to the evidence on record as a whole, it is possible for this Court to unhesitatingly hold that the charge leveled against the accused has been proved beyond reasonable doubt for the offence

25.07.2025 FAC: V AJFCM, Nizamabad

C.C. No.1135 of 2024 12 of 15

punishable under section 323 of IPC. This Court is of the unhesitant opinion that the prosecution has proved the charge against the accused to the hilt as obligated in law for the offence punishable under section 323 of IPC, and thus, the accused is not entitled to the benefit of doubt.

9.16. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that though the offence established by the prosecution is under section 323 of IPC, and not under section 394 of

IPC, however since the offence punishable under section 323 of IPC is punishable with less imprisonment than the offence punishable under section 394 of IPC, hence, the accused can be convicted for the minor offence as per section 222 of Cr.P.C., which reads thus;

222.When offence proved included in offence charged.

(1) When a person is charged with an offence consisting of several particulars, a combination of some only of which constitutes a complete minor offence, and such combination is proved, but the remaining particulars are not proved, he may be convicted of the minor offence, though he was not charged with it. (2) When a person is charged with an offence and facts are proved which reduce it to a minor offence, he may be convicted of the minor offence, although he is not charged with it. (3) When a person is charged with an offence, he may be convicted of an attempt to commit such offence although the attempt is not separately charged. (4) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorize a conviction of any minor offence where the conditions requisite for the initiation of proceedings in respect of that minor offence have not been satisfied.

9.17. As per sub-section (1), as the offence punishable under section 323 of

IPC being a minor offence is established against the accused, this Court is of the opinion that the accused can be convicted for the offence punishable

25.07.2025 FAC: V AJFCM, Nizamabad

C.C. No.1135 of 2024 13 of 15

under section 323 of IPC. Accordingly, this point is answered partly in the affirmative.

10. IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 394 of IPC, and accordingly, the accused is acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., and his bail bonds, if any, shall stand canceled, after the expiry of appeal period. However, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 323 of IPC, and he is convicted under section 248(2) of Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property deposited before this Court vide CPR No. 17 of 2024 i.e., the net cash of Rs. 7,500/- (Rs. 500 X 15=7, 500/-) was already returned to its original owner vide order in Crl.M.P.

No. 97 of 2024, dated 19.06.2024, and the same is made absolute. M.O.1 i.e.,

Giva cell phone shall be returned to its original owner on proper identification and acknowledgment. M.O.2 i.e., two liquor bottles, M.O.3 i.e., two disposable glasses, M.O.4 i.e., two empty water packets, and M.O.5 i.e., broken peaces of beer bottle shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal period.

Typed to my dictation by my stenographer, corrected by me, and pronounced by me in the open Court on the 25th day of July, 2025.

I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class- cum-I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad FAC: V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class- cum-V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad

11.Plea of guilty on conviction:- Heard the accused on the quantum of sentence, and he submitted that he is poor and prayed to show mercy and impose less fine, and prayed to set off the remand period. He further submitted that he is the sole bread winner of his family, and prayed to take a lenient view.

25.07.2025 FAC: V AJFCM, Nizamabad

C.C. No.1135 of 2024 14 of 15

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence, this Court is not inclined to apply the provisions of the Probation of Offendors Act. The accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 323 of IPC, and accordingly he is convicted under section 248(2) of

Cr.P.C., and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 year (one year only), and further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees

One Thousand Only). In default of payment of fine, the accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The period of detention undergone by the accused during remand to judicial custody is set off under section 428 of Cr.P.C. The accused is apprised of his right to free legal aid before the appellate Court.

I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class- cum-I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad FAC: V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class- cum-V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW1 -None- D. Naresh PW2 D. Limbavva PW3 Y. Prabhudas PW4 P. Sanjay PW5 C. Rajaram PW6 Dr. T. Nanda Kumar PW7 B. Chinna Gangaram PW8 K. Krishna

DOCUMENTS MARKED

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

25.07.2025 FAC: V AJFCM, Nizamabad

C.C. No.1135 of 2024 15 of 15

Ex.P1 Report -Nil- Ex.P2 Confession-cum-recovery panchanama Ex.P3 Medical certificate of PW1 Ex.P4 Crime details form Ex.P5 First information report

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

M.O.1 Giva cell phone - Nil - M.O.2 Two liquor bottles

M.O.3 Two disposable glasses M.O.4 Two empty water packets

M.O.5 Broken pieces of beer bottle

I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class- cum-I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad FAC: V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class- cum-V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad

25.07.2025 FAC: V AJFCM, Nizamabad

C.C. No.2288 of 2021 1 of 15

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

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT NIZAMABAD

Present: Smt. Khushboo Upadhyay I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-I Additional

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad.

Tuesday, the 7 th day of April, 2026

Calendar Case No. 2288 of 2021

Between:-

The State through the Sub-Inspector of Police, Town II Police Station, Nizamabad. … Complainant AND

Sardhar Manjith Singh, S/o. Sardhar Devendhar Singh, Age: 38 years, Occ: Advocate, R/o. H.No. 4-22, Navipet Village, Nizamabad Mandal, now residing at R/o. H.No. 10-3-361, Shivajinagar, Nizamabad. … Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 30.03.2026 in the presence of Sri. Mohd. Raheemuddin , learned Assistant Public Prosec utor, and of Sri. M. Rajendhar Reddy, learned advocate for the accused, and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a case filed by the State represented by the Sub-Inspector of

Police, Town II Police Station, Nizamabad against the accused in crime No.

116 of 2021 for the offences punishable under sections 324, 290, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).

2.Brief averments of the case of prosecution:- LW1/Paramjith Kour went to Nanded of Maharashtra State at her parental house on 22.09.2021 and, after getting treatment for asthma, on 30.09.2021, when she returned to

07.04.2026 I AJFCM, Nizamabad

C.C. No.2288 of 2021 2 of 15

Nizamabad along with her mother/LW2/Rajendar Kour, in this connection, the accused quarreled with LW1 and abused her in filthy language by asking her not to go to her parental house and beat LW1 with a stick and fork and also beat LW2, as a result of which they received simple injuries, and the accused warned them of dire consequences. Hence, on 01.10.2021 at about 07:55 hours, LW1 went to the Police Station and lodged the report.

2.1.Basing on the contents of the report, LW7/G. Naresh, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Town II Police Station, Nizamabad, registered a case in crime

No.116 of 2021 for the offences punishable under sections 290, 324, and 506 of IPC, issued the First Information Report, and took up the investigation. In the course of the investigation, LW7 examined and recorded the statement of

LW1 and LW2. Later, LW7 visited the scene of offence, where he secured the presence of LW4/Yerra Raju and LW5/Mamidi Ramulu, conducted the scene of offence panchanama, and drew a rough sketch of the scene by preserving it in the crime details form, and he did not recover any case property related to this case, and also examined and recorded the statements of LW3/Alpa.

2.2.On 19.10.2021, LW7 served a notice under section 41-A of Criminal

Procedure Code (for short ‘Cr.P.C’) to the accused with instructions to appear

before LW7 to ascertain the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly,

the accused came to the police station and appeared before LW7 and voluntarily confessed to having committed this offence; and LW7 released him with instructions to appear before the Court as and when summoned. Then,

LW7 obtained the medical certificates from LW6/Dr. Rama Chary, who opined

07.04.2026 I AJFCM, Nizamabad

C.C. No.2288 of 2021 3 of 15

that the injuries sustained by LW1 and LW2 were “simple in nature”. On completion of the investigation, LW7 laid the charge sheet.

3. This Court has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under sections 290, 324 and 506 of IPC against the accused. On appearance of the accused, copies of the documents were furnished to him in compliance with section 207 of Cr.P.C.

4.Accused was examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable under sections 290, 324 and 506 of IPC. The charge was framed, its contents were read over and explained to the accused in the vernacular language, for which he denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In the course of trial, to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW6 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. The learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of LW6.

6. Accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C. for the incriminating substances available in the testimony of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied the same to be true and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard both sides.

8.Now the point for determination is:-

Did the prosecution bring home the guilt of the

accused for the offences punishable under sections

290, 324, and 506 of IPC beyond the shadow of

reasonable doubt?

07.04.2026 I AJFCM, Nizamabad

C.C. No.2288 of 2021 4 of 15

9.Point:- From the above facts, it can be seen that the case of the prosecution is that the accused abused PW1 and PW2 in filthy language, had beaten them with hands and fork and threatened them. To establish this, the testimonies of PW1 to PW6 are available. PW1 is the complainant and the victim who in her examination in chief testified that the accused is her husband. On 22.09.2021, she went to Nanded and returned to Nizamabad on 30.09.2021 at 07.00 PM. At 08:30PM, the accused returned home and started fighting with her as to why she came back, and he abused her in filthy language. The accused was in an inebriated state, and he had beaten her and

LW2 with a fork on their hands. She also sustained injury on her chest. The accused also threatened to kill them, as such, they left from the house, and on 01.10.2021, they went to the police station and she lodged the report i.e.,

Ex.P1.

9.1.In the cross-examination, she stated that she does not know how to read

Telugu. Ex.P1 was scribed by someone at the police station on her dictation, and she had affixed her thumb impression. She further added that as she was having injuries on her hand, she could not sign. She gave only one report to the police. She stated to the police that she sustained injuries on her hand and chest, but she does not know, if, why the same is not mentioned in Ex.P1. She denied the suggestion that after 6 months of the marriage, she fought with the accused to reside separately. She further denied the suggestion that she used to leave for Nanded without informing the accused.

07.04.2026 I AJFCM, Nizamabad

C.C. No.2288 of 2021 5 of 15

9.2.PW1 was recalled for further cross-examination, wherein she stated that on 30.09.2021, she gave a report to the police. On confrontation of the report

dated 30.09.2021 (filed by the accused and received by this Court vide order

in Crl.M.P. No.754 of 2025, dated 30.09.2021), she stated that it does not contain her signature. She further added that she had affixed her thumb impression on the report given by her to the police. On 30.09.2021, she lodged a report stating that the accused demanded Rs.15,00,000/- from her, he had hit her mother, due to which her mother sustained injury on her right hand, and the accused had hit her on her chest. The remaining suggestions put to her were denied by her.

9.3.PW2 is the mother of PW1 and in her examination in chief, she testified that on 22.09.2021, PW1 came to her house at Nanded, and she along with

PW1 returned to Nizamabad on 30.09.2021 at 07.00 PM. At around 08.00 to 09.00 PM, the accused returned home and started fighting with PW1 as to why she came back, and he abused them in filthy language. The accused was in an inebriated state, and he had beaten her and PW1 with a fork on their hands. The accused had also hit the head of PW1 to the wall. Later, they left from the house, and on 01.10.2021, they went to the police station and PW1 lodged the report.

9.4.In the cross-examination, she stated that the police did not examine her.

She denied the suggestion that PW1 came to Nanded without informing the accused, and when the accused questioned PW1, PW1 lodged a false report against him. The remaining suggestions put to her were denied by her.

07.04.2026 I AJFCM, Nizamabad

C.C. No.2288 of 2021 6 of 15

9.5.PW3 in his examination in chief testified that he does not know the accused, and he does not know anything about this case, and he had never witnessed anything in this case. The police never examined him. Since the witness resiled from his previous statement, hence, he was declared as hostile by the learned APP. The statement of PW3 under section 161 of Cr.P.C. is marked as Ex.P2.

9.6.PW4 and PW5 are the panch witnesses for the scene of offence panchnama who in their examination in chief testified that they do not know the accused, and they do not know anything about this case. In the year 2021, when they went to the police station on some personal work, the police obtained their signatures on some papers vide Ex.P3 and Ex.P4. Since the witnesses resiled from their previous statements, hence, they were declared as hostile by the learned APP.

9.7.PW6 is the official witness and the Investigating Officer in this case, who in his examination in chief testified on the same lines as that of the investigation done by him. The first information report is marked as Ex.P5, the scene of offence panchnama is marked as Ex.P6, and the medical certificates of PW1 and PW2 are marked as Ex.P7 and Ex.P8 respectively. In the cross- examination, he denied the suggestion that on 30.09.2021, PW1 lodged a report before him, and he suppressed the said fact. He referred PW1 and PW2 to the Government Hospital on 30.09.2021 after 09.00 PM. He admitted that it is not mentioned in Ex.P1 that PW1 sustained injury on her chest. He admitted the delay of 1 day delay in lodging the report. Apart from PW3, he did not

07.04.2026 I AJFCM, Nizamabad

C.C. No.2288 of 2021 7 of 15

examine any other neighbors. The remaining suggestions put to him were denied by him.

9.8.From the above material and the testimonies available on record, it can be seen that the acquaintance between the parties is not disputed. PW1 is the wife of the accused and PW2 is the mother-in-law of the accused. The learned advocate for the accused argued that PW1 admitted to have filed a complaint earlier, however, the same was suppressed in this case. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that when PW1 was recalled for further cross-examination, she did not admit that she lodged two reports before the police. In fact, when the alleged earlier complaint copy was confronted to PW1, she denied her signature on it, and added that she had affixed her thumb impression on the complaint given by her to the police. And the same is evident from Ex.P1, wherein PW1 had affixed her thumb impression. Hence, it cannot be said that

PW1 lodged another report before the police prior to the lodging of Ex.P1.

9.9.Since it is the contention of the accused that PW1 lodged a report prior to Ex.P1, the burden is on the accused to prove the same, however, the accused failed to do so. Even the Investigating Officer also denied the said aspect, hence, the above contention of the accused is not tenable. The next argument made by the learned advocate for the accused is that the doctor was not examined in this case, and no person equivalent to the knowledge as that of the doctor was examined. In support of his arguments, he relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana in Criminal

07.04.2026 I AJFCM, Nizamabad

C.C. No.2288 of 2021 8 of 15

Appeal No.244 of 2022 dated 22.08.2022, wherein, reliance is placed on the following paragraph;

7. On consideration of the above legal preposition, we are of the considered view that, non-examination of a competent medical practitioner, in absence of the doctor who authored a medical report, even if admissible in evidence under section 32 of the Evidence Act, would be bereft of probative value and would virtually amount to denial of valuable right of the accused to cross-examine the medical practitioner, who could have addressed the intricacies of the said report. We, accordingly, hold that if a medical report/injury report/post-mortem report is tendered in evidence in terms of Section 32 of the Evidence Act, by a person who is not the author of the same, such evidence, though admissible, would not have any probative value, unless and until the same is proved by any other doctor, as indicated above, who is equipped with medical science and competent to answer the questions on the merits of such report, as the defence would be deprived of cross-examination with regard to the contents of the report.

9.10. In view of the above judgment, since the medical certificates of PW1 and

PW2 vide Ex.P7 and Ex.P8 are marked through the Investigating Officer but not the doctor for the reasons best known to the prosecution, hence, the same cannot be considered to reach a conclusion in this case, however that would not mean that PW1 and PW2 did not get their treatment done. In fact, Ex.P7 and Ex.P8 reveal that PW1 and PW2 sustained injuries. Having said so, adverting to the offence punishable under section 290 of IPC, though PW1 and

PW2 testified that the accused had abused them in filthy language, however, they failed to specify the abuses hurled by the accused to attract the offence punishable under section 290 of IPC. Such being the case, in the absence of any material, this Court is of the opinion that the offence punishable under

07.04.2026 I AJFCM, Nizamabad

C.C. No.2288 of 2021 9 of 15

section 290 of IPC is not attracted to this case and the prosecution failed to prove it.

9.11. Adverting to the offence punishable under section 324 of IPC, admittedly, the fork was not seized in this case, and when the weapon has not seen the light of the day, then the offence punishable under section 324 of IPC is not said to have been proved. However, after going through the testimony of

PW1, it can be seen that she testified that the accused came to the house in an inebriated stated and has beaten her and her mother with fork on their hands, and she also sustained injury on her chest. Even PW2 testified that the accused had beaten her and PW1 with a fork on their hands.

9.12. PW1 and PW2 stated the same in their statements under section 161 of

Cr.P.C. also, thereby establishing consistency in their statements. Though the fork has not been seized, however, that ispo facto will not lead to acquittal of the accused, when the oral testimonies of PW1 and PW2 establish the overt acts of the accused. Admittedly, except for PW2, who is the mother of PW1, no independent witnesses have been examined in this case. To this extent, it is pertinent to note that since the incident took place inside the house, hence, it’s difficult to expect the presence of independent eye-witnesses at that time.

9.13. In the cross-examination of PW1 and PW2, the accused suggested to

PW1 that she used to leave for Nanded without informing him, however that is of no avail to the accused at all. Though the parts of the body on which PW1 and PW2 sustained injuries is not mentioned in Ex.P1, however, it is pertinent

07.04.2026 I AJFCM, Nizamabad

C.C. No.2288 of 2021 10 of 15

to note that Ex.P1 is the report, which need not be the encyclopedia of the entire incident. In fact, it is clearly mentioned in Ex.P1 that the accused had beaten her with spoon (fork) and had beaten her mother also. Hence, the above defense taken by the accused that PW1 did not specify in Ex.P1 that she sustained injuries on her hand and chest is not tenable as PW1 in her statement under section 161 of Cr.P.C specified that she sustained injuries on her hand and chest. Time and again, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India and various Hon’ble High Courts that FIR is not a detailed chronicle of all the intricate and minute details of an offence.

9.14. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that first information report can be only used to corroborate or contradict the informant’s evidence in the Court, and the accused in this failed to establish any contradictions in the testimonies of PW1 and PW2 with that of the contents of the first information report.

9.15. Considering the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that though the medical certificate is not proved in this case, however, it is pertinent to note that it has been time and again held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of

India and various Hon’ble High Courts that medical certificate is not mandatory (not a sine qua non) to establish an offence punishable under section 323 of

IPC, and while medical evidence strengthens the case, the offense can be established based on oral evidence (testimony) from the victim as well. From the cross-examination of PW1 and PW2, it can be seen that the accused failed to impeach their credibility, and apart from putting suggestions to them, nothing favorable to the accused is elicited.

07.04.2026 I AJFCM, Nizamabad

C.C. No.2288 of 2021 11 of 15

9.16. The accused failed to establish any defense in the cross-examination of

PW1 and PW2. Though PW2 is the mother of PW1, however, she corroborated with the testimony of PW1 and the accused failed to impeach her credibility. Under such circumstances, the ocular evidence on record being corroborated with the contents of the report and the first information report establishes the overt act of the accused hitting his wife and mother-in-law and causing injuries to them, thereby establishing the offence punishable under section 323 of IPC against the accused.

9.17. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that though the offence established by the prosecution is under section 323 of IPC, and not under section 324 of

IPC, however since the offence punishable under section 323 of IPC is punishable with less imprisonment than the offence punishable under section 324 of IPC, hence, the accused can be convicted for the minor offence as per section 222 of Cr.P.C., which reads thus;

222.When offence proved included in offence charged.

(1) When a person is charged with an offence consisting of several particulars, a combination of some only of which constitutes a complete minor offence, and such combination is proved, but the remaining particulars are not proved, he may be convicted of the minor offence, though he was not charged with it. (2) When a person is charged with an offence and facts are proved which reduce it to a minor offence, he may be convicted of the minor offence, although he is not charged with it. (3) When a person is charged with an offence, he may be convicted of an attempt to commit such offence although the attempt is not separately charged. (4) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorize a conviction of any minor offence where the conditions

07.04.2026 I AJFCM, Nizamabad

C.C. No.2288 of 2021 12 of 15

requisite for the initiation of proceedings in respect of that minor offence have not been satisfied.

9.18. As per sub-section (1), as the offence punishable under section 323 of

IPC being a minor offence is established against the accused, this Court is of the opinion that the accused can be convicted for the offence punishable under section 323 of IPC.

9.19. Adverting to the offence punishable under section 506 of IPC, PW1 in her examination in chief testified that the accused threatened to kill them. The same is also mentioned in Ex.P1 as well as in the statement of PW1 under section section 161 of Cr.P.C. Hence, it can be said that the offence punishable under section 506 of IPC is also established against the accused.

9.20. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that the accused is an advocate by profession, which is a learned profession entrusted with upholding justice, the rule of law, and the dignity of the legal system. His conduct, both in Court and in private life, must reflect integrity, restraint, and respect for human dignity.

Resorting to physical violence and threats against his wife and mother-in-law betrays this responsibility and undermines the very values the legal profession is meant to promote; and his responsibility is not only to face the ordinary criminal punishment but also to be held to a higher standard of professional and moral conduct.

9.21. Hence in view of the above discussion, and considering the facts of this case, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution case, when judged on the touchstone of totality of the facts and circumstances, does not generate

07.04.2026 I AJFCM, Nizamabad

C.C. No.2288 of 2021 13 of 15

the unqualified and unreserved satisfaction indispensably required to enter a finding of guilt against the accused for the offences punishable under sections 324 and 290 of IPC. However, having regard to the evidence on record as a whole, it is possible for this Court to unhesitatingly hold that the charge leveled against the accused for the offences punishable under sections 323 and 506 of IPC have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. This Court is of the unhesitant opinion that the prosecution has proved the above charge against the accused to the hilt as obligated in law and thus, he is not entitled to the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, this point is answered partly in the affirmative.

10.IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 290 and 324 of IPC, and accordingly, he is acquitted for the same under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C.. However, the accused is found guilty for the offences punishable under sections 323 and 506 of IPC, and he is convicted for the same under section 248(2) of Cr.P.C. His bail bonds, if any, shall stand canceled after the expiry of appeal period. No order as to case property.

Typed to my dictation by my stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on the 7th day of April, 2026.

I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum- I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad

11.Plea of guilty of the accused on conviction:- On questioning the accused regarding the quantum of sentence, the accused stated that there is

07.04.2026 I AJFCM, Nizamabad

C.C. No.2288 of 2021 14 of 15

nothing to submit. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the occupation of the accused, this

Court is not inclined to apply the provisions of the Probation of Offendors Act or take a lenient view.

10.1. Considering the above discussion, the accused having found guilty for the offences punishable under sections 323 and 506 of IPC, and convicted under section 248(2) of Cr.P.C. is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 (one) month only, and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One

Thousand Only) for the offence punishable under section 323 of IPC. The accused is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five

Thousand Only) for the offence punishable under section 506 of IPC. In default of payment of fine, the accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 (fifteen) days. The accused is apprised of his right to free legal aid before the appellate Court.

I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum- I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW1 Paramajith Kour- None - PW2 Rajender Kour PW3 Alpa PW4 Y. Raju PW5 M. Ramulu PW6 G.Naresh

07.04.2026 I AJFCM, Nizamabad

C.C. No.2288 of 2021 15 of 15

DOCUMENTS MARKED

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P1 Report- Nil - Ex.P2 Statement of PW3 under section 161 of Cr.P.C. Ex.P3 Signature of PW4 on the scene of offence panchanama Ex.P4 Signature of PW5 on the scene of offence panchanama Ex.P5 First information report Ex.P6 Crime details form Ex.P7 Medical certificate of PW1 Ex.P8 Medical certificate of PW2

MATERIAL OBJECTS

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

- Nil -- Nil -

I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum- I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad.

07.04.2026 I AJFCM, Nizamabad

C.C. No. 423 of 2014 1 of 14

IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS (SPL.MOBILE) AT NIZAMABAD

Present: Smt. Khushboo Upadhyay I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-I Additional

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad

FAC:III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Spl.Mobile), Nizamabad

Tuesday, the 6 th day of February, 2024.

CC. No.423 of 2014

Between:- The State through by Sub-Inspector of Police, Navipet Police Station (Cr.No.137 of 2013) … Complainant AND

Kolasa Shiva Kumar, S/o Late Dhasharatham, Age:40yrs, Occ: Private Teacher, R/o Navipet village and Mandal … Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 27.12.2023 in the presence of Sri. Mohd. Raheemuddin, Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the defacto-complainant, and of Sri. N.Srinivas Raju, Learned Counsel for the accused, and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following:-

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 27.12.2023 in the presence of Sri. MD. Raheemuddin, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, and Sri. N. Srinivas Raju, learned advocate for the accused, and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a case filed by the State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police,

Navipet Police Station against the accused in crime No.137 of 2013 for the offences punishable under section 153(A), 506(ii), and 509 of the Indian Penal

Code (hereinafter ‘IPC’).

2.Brief averments of the case of prosecution:- On 28.07.2013 at about 11:00 hours, LW1/ Donthala Praveen along with one Sridhar Reddy and

06.02.2024 FAC: III AJFCM, Nizamabad

C.C. No. 423 of 2014 2 of 14

Thalluri Anil, went to Navipet, and then he went to Mallesh, who is the the owner of Vamshi Tent house and were talking with him. After some time, the accused went to them and said to LW1 that he is a news reporter, and 10 days back, one reporter of Namaste Telangana newspaper wrote wrong news that the accused is contesting in the Sarpanch elections on behalf of MIM party and Owaisi is coming for canvassing on his behalf. Due to writing of such wrong news, none of the Hindus of Navipet have casted their votes to him, except the muslims, who casted 1600 votes to him. The accused further stated that “muslimlaku neethi nijyathi unnadhi kanni, neenu hinduvunainakooda yee hindu lanja koduku naake votty veyyaledu, hinduvulaku neethi nijayathi ledhu.

Yelagu naappai mim abhyarthin ani mudra padhindi, naa venakala 100 mandhi muslimlu unnaru, naaky votlueveyyani hindu lanjakodukula pendlalanu vallatho, nadi roddu meeda dengipista, soostha lanjakodukula pani, nenu vodiovutaku karanamaina yee vokka lanjakodukulani vadhili pettedhi leedhu, nenu navipetalo paatha paristhithi punaravruthaam aittela chesta. Hindu, muslimala madhya kalahalu srustinchi navipetalo rakthapathamu strustrichuthanu, naaky ippudu thelisndhi rajakiyam mela chayalo and rowdism yela cheyalo, ippadinudni choodandi. Hindu muslila madhya mathakalahalanu strustinchi, navipetalo aggi thagilistha, okokadi sangathi ippatinundi chusthuru gaani”. On hearing this, LW1 has recorded the speech of the accused in the memory card of his cell phone and after recording the speech of the accused, the same was heard by LW5 to LW8. The speech of the accused has created ill feelings between hindus and the muslim in the village, as Navipet is a highly communal and sensitive village. The accused used provocative words and

06.02.2024 FAC: III AJFCM, Nizamabad

C.C. No. 423 of 2014 3 of 14

promoted enmity between different communities and also insulted the feelings of hindus. The accused also threatened the reporters i.e., LW1 to LW5 with dire consequences to kill their children on the road, as well as he insulted the modesty of the women of hindu community. Thereafter, LW1 went to the police station and lodged the report.

2.1.Basing on the report, LW11/ A.Shudhakar, Sub-Inspector of Police

Navipet registered a case in crime No.137 of 2013 for the offences punishable under Section 153(A), 509, and 506 IPC. In the course of investigation, LW11 examined and recorded the statement of LW1, and later LW11 seized the memory card “micro sd 2 gb memory card’ under the cover of panchanama in the presence of LW9/ MD Mazhar, and LW10/ Nampally Pavan Kumar.

Thereafter, LW11 has heard the speech of the accused which is recorded in the memory card and found it to be correct. On 29.07.2013, LW11 examined and recorded the statements of LW2 to LW5 i.e., Karipe Malleswar @ Mallesh,

Ramreddy Sridhar reddy, Thaloori Anil and Perla Sayanna, who corroborated with the version of the LW1. On 30.07.2013 LW11 along with his team rushed to the house of the accused at Navipet village, apprehended him at 1930 hours, and interrogated him. During the interrogation, the accused voluntarily confessed to have committed the offence and he was brought to the Police

Station at 2000 hours and his arrest was affected by following all legal formalities, and he was remanded to judicial custody on 31.07.2013. Later, on 31.07.2013, LW11 has examined and recorded the statements of LW6 to LW8 i.e., Vankam Kishore Kumar, Banda Raju and Jadav Sharath. After completion of the entire investigation, LW11 has filed the charge sheet.

06.02.2024 FAC: III AJFCM, Nizamabad

C.C. No. 423 of 2014 4 of 14

3.This Court took cognizance for the offences punishable under sections 153-A, 506(ii), and 509 of IPC against the accused. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him in compliance with section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’).

4.The accused was examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C., and the charge was framed, read over and explained to him in the vernacular language, for which he denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In the course of trial, to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW6 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 i.e., the report, seizure panchanama, and the first information report. MO.1 is the memory card.

6. The accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C. for the incriminating substances available in the testimony of prosecution witness, for which he denied the same to be true. The accused got himself examined as

DW1 by obtaining permission from the Court, and marked Ex.D1 to Ex.D8 i.e., the FIR in crime No.138 of 2013, report given by the accused, certified copy of judgment and decree in OS No.193 of 2010 on the file of Principal Junior Civil

Judge, Nizamabad, certified copy of judgment and decree in CMA No. 17 of

2011 on the file of Hon’ble Principal District Court, Nizamabad, certified copy of

FIR in crime No.129 of 2014 along with certified copy of private complaint, and office copy of legal notice dated 09.07.2015.

7. Now the point for determination is:-

06.02.2024 FAC: III AJFCM, Nizamabad

C.C. No. 423 of 2014 5 of 14

Did the prosecution bring home the guilt of the accused

for the offences punishable under sections 153-A, 506(ii),

and 509 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

8.Point:- PW1 is the complainant, PW2 to PW4 are the eye-witnesses,

PW5 is the panch witness for the seizure panchnama, and PW6 is the

Investigating Officer. The case of the prosecution is that on 28.07.2013 at 11.00 hours, PW1 along with PW3 and PW4 went to the tent house of PW2, and in the meantime, the accused went to the tent house of PW2, abused

PW1 on the pretext of publishing wrong news in Namaste Telangana newspaper due to which none of the hindus casted votes to him. The accused abused PW1 in utmost filthy language and promoted enmity between different communities. The entire speech of the accused was recorded by PW1 in his cell phone. The accused also threatened PW1 to PW4 and LW5 with dire consequences to kill their children on road, and outraged the modesty of hindu women stating that he would get the hindu woman raped on road.

8.1.To establish the above crime against the accused, the prosecution has to prove the following;

a)the accused used words and attempted to promote disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religions on the grounds of religion,

b)the accused threatened to kill PW1 to PW4 and LW5

c)the accused uttered words thereby intending to intrude the privacy of a woman.

8.2.To establish the above, let us appreciate the evidence on record. PW1 supported the case of the prosecution and in his examination in chief, he

06.02.2024 FAC: III AJFCM, Nizamabad

C.C. No. 423 of 2014 6 of 14

deposed in tune with the case of the prosecution. PW1 specifically stated that on 28.07.2013 at 11.00 hours, while he was present at the tent house of PW2, the accused casted aspersions on the news reporters alleging that they would publish any news if they are offered quarter bottles. The accused abused stating that “pendlalanu vallatho, nadi roddu meeda dengipista”, “navipetalo paatha paristhithi punaravruthaam aiyyela chesta, hind muslima madha kalhalu strustinchi”, and further abused that he would cut down down the legs of their children. PW1 recorded the entire incident through his phone, and later lodged the report i.e., Ex.P1.

8.3.In the cross-examination, PW1 admitted that he does not the capacity of the memory card of his phone. The accused suggested that he lodged a report against PW1 and others, which was registered vide crime No.138 of 2013, as such PW1 pressurized him to withdraw the case. Since the accused refused to withdraw the case, as such this false case is filed against him.

8.4.PW2 in his examination in chief testified that on 28.07.2013 at 10.00 hours, while PW1, PW3 and PW4 were present at his tent house, the accused came there and abused PW1 as “lanjakoduku”, and “pendlalanu dengutha”.

Thereafter PW2 was cross-examined by the learned APP, wherein PW2 admitted that he stated to the police that the accused stated that he will repeat the old situation in Navipet between Hindu and Muslim. PW2 admitted that the accused abused the mothers and wives of the news reporters, and accused the reports alleging that “lanjakodulu vanda rupayalu quarter kosam pracharam chestaru ani istam vachinatlu matladinadu”.

06.02.2024 FAC: III AJFCM, Nizamabad

C.C. No. 423 of 2014 7 of 14

8.5.In the cross-examination, PW2 admitted that he was not present in

Navipet on the day of the incident after 11.00 hours. Apart from that the cross- examination of PW2 is fraught with suggestions which are denied by PW2.

8.6.PW3 in his examination in chief testified that on 28.07.2013 at 10.30 hours, PW1 and PW4 came to his shop and requested him to accompany them to the tent house of PW2, on which they went to the tent house of PW2 at Navipet. Wherein, after half an hour, the accused came there and abused

PW1 on the pretext of publishing wrong news, abused the wives and children of the news reporters in filthy language, abused the reporters as “lanjakodukulu”, abused the wives of the reporters stating “hindu pellalanu muslim persons tho nadi roddu paina dengipistanu”. The accused further abused the reporters stating that they would do anything for liquor and money.

8.7.In the cross-examination, the accused suggested to PW3 that the shop of PW2 was closed on 28.07.2013, however it was denied by PW3. PW3 admitted that a criminal case was registered against him, however he further added that it resulted in acquittal. Apart from eliciting the above, the remaining suggestions put by the accused were denied by PW3.

8.8.PW4 in his examination in chief testified that on 28.07.2013 at 10.30 hours, while he along with PW1 and others were present at the tent house of

PW2, the accused came to the tent house, abused PW1 stating that he will fuck the wife of PW1 and kill his sons. The accused further abused PW1 that the news reporters would publish any news for money or liquor, abused that the wives of hindu will be fucked on the road by muslim men, and the children of hindus will be killed by muslim men.

06.02.2024 FAC: III AJFCM, Nizamabad

C.C. No. 423 of 2014 8 of 14

8.9.In the cross-examination of PW4, the accused suggested to PW4 that a news was published against the accused in Namaste Telangana stating that he belongs to MIM party, however the same was denied by PW4. Apart from this, the other suggestions put to PW4 were denied by him.

8.10. PW5 in his examination in chief testified that on 28.07.2013 between 4.00 to 4.30 PM, the police seized the memory card of PW1 at the police station before him under the cover of panchnama i.e. Ex.P2, where he heard the recording in the memory card, which contained abusive words. The memory card is marked as MO.1. In the cross-examination, PW5 admitted that he received summons in a case which was reported by the accused. PW5 admitted that he had put two to three signatures on Ex.P2, however on confrontation of Ex.P2, he stated that there are no signatures on the first and second page. The remaining suggestions put to him were denied by him.

8.11. PW6 in his examination in chief deposed on the same lines as that of the investigation done by him. The first information report was marked as

Ex.P3. In the cross-examination, the report given by the accused is marked as

Ex.D1, and the first information report vide FIR No.138 of 2013 is marked as

Ex.D2. PW6 admitted that he did not send the memory card to FSL for confirming the voice in the recording. PW6 also admitted that he did not seize the mobile phone of PW1 through which the alleged recording is recorded.

Remaining suggestions put to him were denied by him.

8.12. DW1 in his examination in chief deposed regarding the social works being taken up by him, and institution of civil suits against Venkat Babu, who is the follower of PW1, and some other person. The judgment and decree in that

06.02.2024 FAC: III AJFCM, Nizamabad

C.C. No. 423 of 2014 9 of 14

suit and the appeal are marked as Ex.D3 to D6. The certified copy of FIR

No.129 of 2014 is marked as Ex.D7, and the office copy of legal notice addressed to the Sub-Inspector, PS Navipet for not investigating the matter is marked as Ex.D8. In the cross-examination of DW1, nothing was elicited by the learned APP. From the evidence on record, the defence taken by the accused is as follows;

(a)he did not visit the tent house of PW2,

(b)the tent house shop of PW2 was closed and PW2 was not in Navipet on the alleged date of incident,

(c)on 28.07.2013 PW1, PW2, PW5 and others went to his house, beat him, and tried to kill him, for which he lodged a report, which was registered vide crime No.138 of 2013, but the police did not take any action, as such he filed a private complaint before this Court, and it was referred, the police has registered the case in crime No.129 of 2014, and the same is pending vide CC

No.532 of 2016, and

(d)the copy of MO.1 was not supplied to the accused and MO.1 was not played in the open Court.

8.13. Before adverting to a detailed discussion with regard to the defence raised by DW1, it is the stage to see if the prosecution has established the guilt of DW1 beyond reasonable doubt. It is to be noted that with regard to the offence under section 153-A of IPC, PW1 to PW4 specially stated in their examination in chief with regard to the specific words used by the accused to

PW1 with regard to the communal riots between hindu and muslims, to get the wife of PW1 and other reporters raped by muslim youth on road, to get the

06.02.2024 FAC: III AJFCM, Nizamabad

C.C. No. 423 of 2014 10 of 14

children of PW1, and other reporters killed by muslim youth. The specific words used by DW1 to PW1 are clearly stated by all the witnesses of the prosecution and are in corroboration with Ex.P1. DW1 could not discredit the testimony of the witnesses of the prosecution to disbelieve their testimonies.

DW1 used muslim men as a medium alleging that he would send 100 muslim men to rape the wives of hindus, which amounts to promoting enmity between the two religions.

8.14. However, from the evidence on record, none of the witnesses including

PW1 stated that DW1 threatened to kill PW1. All the witnesses testified that

DW1 threatened to kill the sons of PW1 and other news reporters, however they are not cited as victims in this case, hence the offence under section 506(ii) of IPC is not established against DW1.

8.15. With regard to the offence under section 509 of IPC as well, no woman is cited as a victim in this case to show that her modesty was insulted by DW1, hence even the said offence is also not established by the prosecution.

8.16. Adverting to the defences taken by DW1, it is to be noted that the social work done by DW1, the participation in election by PW1, or DW1, or the wife of

DW1 is immaterial to this case. As discussed above, DW1 could not shake the credibility of the testimonies on record. Mere suggestions that the tent house of PW2 was closed, or PW2 was not in town would not suffice when all the witnesses of the prosecution have supported the case of the prosecution. DW1 also took the defence that this case is a counter blast to Ex.D1 which is reported by him against PW1 and others, however the same is of no avail in this case, as mere existence of previous enmity would not mean that the

06.02.2024 FAC: III AJFCM, Nizamabad

C.C. No. 423 of 2014 11 of 14

charge sheeted offence did not take place. The learned counsel for the accused argued that MO.1 is empty and does not consist of any recording and since the case of the prosecution is based on the memory card, which is empty, as such the prosecution failed to establish its case.

8.17. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that it is not the case of the prosecution that its entire case is based only on the memory card. Though

MO.1 is empty and contains only songs, however that ipso facto would not mean that no offence took place. The case of the prosecution and the evidence of PW1 is corroborated with the oral evidence of PW2 to PW4, who supported the case of the prosecution in its entirety. PW2 to PW4 being the eye-witnesses to the incident clearly specified the acts of the accused and corroborated with the case of the prosecution, as such the argument of the accused that the case is based entirely on the memory card is not tenable.

There is sufficient oral evidence on record to establish the charge against the accused in this case.

8.18. From the testimonies of all the witnesses of the prosecution, it can be seen that the identity of the accused, his presence and the words used by him are established beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt, and the same could not be disproved by DW1. In view of the above discussion and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution case when judged on the touchstone of totality of the facts and circumstances, generates the unqualified and unreserved satisfaction indispensably required to enter a finding of guilt against DW1. Having regard to the evidence on record as a whole, this Court unhesitatingly holds that

06.02.2024 FAC: III AJFCM, Nizamabad

C.C. No. 423 of 2014 12 of 14

charge leveled against the accused for the offence under section 153-A of IPC has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. However, this Court is of the unhesitant opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against

DW1 to the hilt as obligated in law for the offences under sections 506(ii), and 509 of IPC. Accordingly, this point is answered partly in the affirmative.

9. IN THE RESULT, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 153-A of IPC; accordingly the accused is convicted under section 248(2) of Cr.P.C. The accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 506(ii), and 509 of IPC; and accordingly, the accused is acquitted under section 248(1)of Cr.P.C. M.O-1 i.e., Memory card is to be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

Typed to my dictation by my stenographer, corrected by me, and pronounced by me in the open Court on the 6th day of February, 2024.

I-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class- cum I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad FAC: III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Spl.Mobile), Nizamabad

10.Heard the accused on quantum of sentence being imposed on him, on which the accused pleaded mercy and submitted that he is having two small children and wife, hence prayed to take a lenient view. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on considering the mode and manner of offence held proved by the prosecution, this Court is not inclined to take a lenient view to invoke the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

However, taking into consideration the mitigating circumstances as expressed by the accused and considering the degree of complicity of accused in commission of the offence, this Court is of the view that ends of justice would

06.02.2024 FAC: III AJFCM, Nizamabad

C.C. No. 423 of 2014 13 of 14

meet in awarding a sentence of simple imprisonment. In view of the same, the accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. The accused is appraised of his right to prefer an appeal. On inquiry, he stated that he has got means to prefer an appeal against this judgment.

Typed to my dictation by my stenographer, corrected by me, and pronounced by me in the open Court on the 6th day of February, 2024.

I-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class- cum I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad FAC: III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Spl.Mobile), Nizamabad

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW1 DW1Kolasa Shiva Kumar D. Praveen PW2 K.Malleshwar PW3 Thalluri Anil PW4Ramireddy Sridhar PW5Md.Majar PW6A.Sudhakar

DOCUMENTS MARKED

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P1 Ex.D1FIR in crime No. 138 of Report lodged by PW1 2013 Ex.P2 Ex.D2 Seizure panchanamaReport given by the accused Ex.P3 Ex.D3Certified copy of judgment in First Information Report

OS No.193 of 2010 on the file

of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad Ex.D4Certified copy of decree in OS No.193 of 2010 on the file of

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Nizamabad Ex.D5Certified copy of judgment in

CMA No. 17 of 2011 on the

file of Hon’ble Principal District Court, Nizamabad. Ex.D6Certified copy of decree in

06.02.2024 FAC: III AJFCM, Nizamabad

C.C. No. 423 of 2014 14 of 14

CMA No. 17 of 2011 on the

file of Hon’ble Principal District Court, Nizamabad. Ex.D7Certified copy of FIR vide Cr.No. 129/2014 along with certified copy of private complaint Ex.D8 Office copy of legal notice,

dt: 09.07.2015.

Ex.D9FIR in crime No. 138 of 2013

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

MO.1 MemoryCard

I-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class- cum I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad FAC: III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Spl.Mobile), Nizamabad.

06.02.2024 FAC: III AJFCM, Nizamabad

C.C. No.272 of 2018 1 of 1

Old C.C.No.475 of 2015

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

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT NIZAMABAD

Present: Smt. Khushboo Upadhyay I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-I Additional

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad.

FAC: V Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-V Additional

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad.

Monday, the 24 th day of November, 2025

Calendar Case No. 272 of 2018

(Old Calendar Case No.475 of 2015)

Between:-

The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, Dichpally Police Station. … Complainant AND

1. Mohammed Riyaz Khan, S/o. Afsar Khan, Age: 29 years, Occ: Driver, R/o. Quilla, Dichpally Village and Mandal.

2. Repanna Ramanaiah, S/o. Gangaram, Age: 44 years, Occ: Driver, R/o. H.No. 1-1-401/A, Vinayka Nagar, Nizamabad. … Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 20.11.2025 in the presence of Sri. G. Ramakrishna, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, and of Sri. MA. Majeed, learned counsel for accused no.1 and 2, and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a case filed by the State, represented by the Sub-Inspector of

Police, Dharpally Police Station, against accused no.1 and 2 (for short ‘A1 and

A2’) in Crime No.158 of 2015 for the offences punishable under sections 304-A and 338 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).

2.Brief averments of the case of prosecution:- On 12.06.2015 at about 09.00 PM, the deceased/ Angoth Ramu started from Dichpally Railway Station

24.11.2025 FAC: V AJFCM, Nizamabad

C.C. No.272 of 2018 2 of 2

Old C.C.No.475 of 2015 Area to Doosgaon Village to bring grocery on his Hero Glamour bike bearing no. TS16CTR6583 and after taking grocery articles, at about 10:30AM, while the deceased was returning to Doosgaon, an auto bearing no. AP01V2449 was proceeding towards Dichpally Railway Station from Dichpally Village along with LW6/Thalari Raju and A1, who is the driver of the auto drove the auto in a rash and negligent manner and collided to the motorcycle of the deceased from the back side, as a result of which, the deceased fell down on the road. At the same time, a Borewell Lorry was proceeding to Nizamabad from

Hyderabad side and A2, who is the driver of the lorry, drove it in a rash and negligent manner and ran over the lorry on the legs of the deceased, resulting which, the deceased sustained multiple bleeding injuries to his body.

2.1.After the incident, the deceased was shifted to the Government General

Hospital, Nizamabad in 108 ambulance for treatment, and as his health was deteriorating, he was advised by the doctors to be shifted to Hyderabad, and while the deceased was being shifted to Hyderabad in the ambulance, and they reached near Dichpally Railway Station, at about 01:30 PM, the deceased succumbed to injuries. In the above accident, LW6 received grievous injuries.

After receiving information, on 12.06.2015 at 14:00 hours, LW1/Angoth

Chandar lodged a report before Dichpally Police Station.

2.2.Basing on the contents of the report, LW15/Katta Narender Reddy, the

Sub-Inspector of Police, Dichpally Police Station, registered a case in crime

No.158 of 2015 for the offence punishable under section 304-A of IPC, issued the First Information Report, and took up investigation. In the course of

24.11.2025 FAC: V AJFCM, Nizamabad

C.C. No.272 of 2018 3 of 3

Old C.C.No.475 of 2015 investigation, LW15 examined and recorded the statement of LW1. Later,

LW15 visited the scene of offence situated on the main road of Nizamabad -

Dichpally, infront of the bus stand, Dichpally, where he secured the presence of LW10/ Lakavath Kishan and LW11/ Malavath Ravi, conducted the scene of offence panchanama, and drew a rough sketch of the scene by preserving it in the crime details form. Then, LW15 brought the crime vehicles i.e., auto bearing no. AP01V2449, and the borewell lorry bearing no. AP25AQ2277 to the police station.

2.3.Later, LW15 along with LW10 and LW11 rushed to the Mortuary Room,

Government General Hospital, Nizamabad, where he observed the dead body of the deceased, and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of LW10 and LW11, and photographed the dead body of the deceased with the help of LW5/ Erupudi Ramprasad, and subjected the body to post mortem examination, LW12/ Dr. R. Sridhara Chary conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. LW15 examined and recorded the statements of LW2/Angoth Suvali, LW3/ Angoth Lalitha, LW4/Angoth Santhosh and LW5. On 13.06.2015, LW15 rushed to RR Life Line Hospital, Nizamabad where LW6 was undergoing treatment, and he examined and recorded the statement of LW6.

2.4. On 13.06.2015, LW15 issued notice under section 41-A of the Criminal

Procedure Code (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) to A2, upon which, A2 appeared before

LW15 and furnished the sureties. Later, LW15 verified the documents of the borewell lorry bearing no. AP25AQ2277 as well as that of A2 and found them

24.11.2025 FAC: V AJFCM, Nizamabad

C.C. No.272 of 2018 4 of 4

Old C.C.No.475 of 2015 to be in order. Then, he issued instructions to A2 to appear before the Court or the police as and when summoned. Then, LW15 examined and recorded the statement of LW8/Chamakura Lakpathi Reddy. On 20.06.2015, LW15 issued notice to A1 under section 41-A of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’), upon which, he appeared before LW15, and furnished the sureties.

Later, LW15 verified the documents of the Auto bearing no. AP01V2449 as well as that of A2 and found them to be in order, and issued instructions to A1 to appear before the Court or the Police as and when summoned.

2.5.Later, LW15 examined and recorded the statement of LW9/K. Bhusan.

Then, LW15 obtained the post mortem examination report of the deceased from LW12, who opined the cause of death of the deceased as multiple injuries. Later, LW15 obtained the medical certificate of LW6 from LW13 wherein he opined that injuries sustained by LW6 are grievous in nature. As per the medical reports, LW15 added section 338 of IPC to the existing section of law. Later, LW15 filed a requisition before LW14/G. Pavan Kumar, Assistant

Motor Vehicle Inspector, Nizamabad to conduct inspection of the crime vehicle, and he conducted the inspection of the crime vehicle, and opined that the accident did not occur due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle. On completion of investigation, LW15 laid the charge sheet.

3.This Court took cognizance for the offences punishable under sections 304-A and 338 of IPC against A1 and A2. On appearance of A1 and A2, copies of the documents were furnished to them in compliance with section 207 of

Cr.P.C.

24.11.2025 FAC: V AJFCM, Nizamabad

C.C. No.272 of 2018 5 of 5

Old C.C.No.475 of 2015

4.A1 and A2 were examined under section 251 of Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable under sections 304-A and 338 of IPC. The charge was orally read over and explained to them in the vernacular language, to which they denied the same, pleaded not guilty, and claimed to be tried.

5.In the course of trial, in order to prove the guilt of A1 and A2, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW8 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P9. The evidence of LW10 was given up by the learned APP. The concerned police failed to produce LW2 to LW4, LW6, LW8, and LW13 despite several conditional orders, hence, their evidence is closed.

6.A1 and A2 were examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating substances appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which they denied the same and did not adduce any defence evidence.

7.Heard arguments of both sides.

8.Now the point for determination is:-

Did the prosecution bring home the guilt of A1 and A2

for the offences punishable under sections 304-A and

338 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

9.Point:- From the above facts, it can be seen that the case of the prosecution is that due to the rash and negligent driving of A1 and A2, it resulted in the death of the deceased and even LW6 sustained injuries in the said accident. To establish this, the testimonies of PW1 to PW8 are available.

PW1 is the complainant who in his examination in chief testified that at about 8

24.11.2025 FAC: V AJFCM, Nizamabad

C.C. No.272 of 2018 6 of 6

Old C.C.No.475 of 2015 years ago, when he was in the fields while working as a Uppadhi Haami in his village, he received a phone call from known persons who stated that his son/

Ramu met with an accident when he went to bring provisions to Dichpally.

While returning back, one auto collided with his son from the opposite direction, upon which his son fell down on road, and at that time, one borewell ran over on the body of his son, due to which his son sustained injuries.

Immediately, he rushed to Dichpally bus stand and observed that his son was in a conscious state and received bleeding injuries on his stomach.

Immediately, they dialed 108 and shifted him to Government Hospital,

Nizamabad for treatment. Later, on the advise of the doctor, they shifted his son to Hyderabad for better treatment, however, on the way, when they reached Dichpally, the deceased succumbed to injuries. On the same day, he went to the police station and lodged the report i.e., Ex.P1.

9.1.In the cross-examination, he admitted that he does not know who has written Ex.P1. He also stated that he does not know how the accident occurred. He is not the eye witness of the accident. The remaining suggestions put to him were denied by him.

9.2.PW2 is the panch witness for the scene of offence and the inquest panchnama, and in his examination in chief, he testified that on 12.06.2015, at around 02:30 PM, the police conducted scene of offence and inquest panchanama near Grampanchayath, Nadipally with regard to the accident in which Ramu died, before him and LW10 and obtained their signatures. Ex.P2 is the crime details form along with rough sketch, Ex.P3 is the inquest

24.11.2025 FAC: V AJFCM, Nizamabad

C.C. No.272 of 2018 7 of 7

Old C.C.No.475 of 2015 panchanama. In the cross-examination, only suggestions were put to him, which were denied by him.

9.3.PW3 is the eye-witness in this case, who in his examination in chief testified that in the year 2015, while he was going to Dichpally in an auto from

Doosgaon Village, and they reached Dichpally Bus Stand, he saw Ramu coming in the opposite direction on his bike, and Ramu collided to the auto, and fell down. In the meantime, a bore well lorry bearing no.2277 came and ran over Ramu, due to which, Ramu sustained injury on his legs and head.

While Ramu was under the lorry, Ramu informed to him that he hails from

Doosgaon Village. He failed to identify the driver of the auto and the bore well lorry. In the cross-examination, PW3 admitted that he did not see the driver of the bore well lorry. Apart from this, the remaining suggestions were put to him, which were denied by him.

9.4.PW4 is the doctor who conducted the post mortem examination of the deceased and in his examination in chief, he testified to that extent and further stated that the post mortem examination was conducted from 04:30 PM to 05:30 PM. Basing on the finding of post mortem examination, he issued the report vide Ex.P3 mentioning the cause of death as head injury. The learned advocate for A1 and A2 reported no cross-examination for PW4.

9.5.PW5 is the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector who in his examination in chief testified that he inspected the crime vehicle bearing no.AP25AQ2277 on 15.06.2015 at 0430 PM at PS Dichpally, and issued a report vide Ex.P4 mentioning that the accident did not occur due to any mechanical defects in

24.11.2025 FAC: V AJFCM, Nizamabad

C.C. No.272 of 2018 8 of 8

Old C.C.No.475 of 2015 the vehicle. And he also inspected the vehicle bearing no.AP01V2499 on 22.06.2015 at PS Dichpally, and issued the report vide Ex.P5 mentioning that the accident did not occur due to any mechanical defects in the vehicle. The learned advocate for A1 and A2 reported no cross-examination for PW5.

9.6.PW6 is the photographer, who in his examination in chief testified that on 12.06.2015 at about 09.00 AM, the Sub Inspector of Police, PS Dichpally called him to the Mortuary room, Government Hospital, Nizamabad, and asked him to photograph the dead body of Ramu. Upon that, he photographed the dead body, and handed over the photographs to the police. In the cross- examination, he stated that he did not give any receipt to the police after photographing the body. The remaining suggestions put to him were denied by him.

9.7.PW7 is the owner of the auto bearing no.AP25V12499, and in his examination in chief, he testified that he owned the above auto, but later, he handed over the auto to his brother-in-law/ Boranna. After that, he does not know how his brother-in-law dealt with the auto. He does not know anything about this case, as he was out of country. The police did not examine him.

Since the witness resiled from his previous statement, hence, he was declared as hostile by the learned APP. The statement of PW7 under section 161 of

Cr.P.C. is marked as Ex.P7.

9.8.PW8 is the official witness and the Investigating Officer in this case, who in his examination in chief testified on the same lines as that of the investigation done by him. The first information report is marked as Ex.P8, and

24.11.2025 FAC: V AJFCM, Nizamabad

C.C. No.272 of 2018 9 of 9

Old C.C.No.475 of 2015 the medical certificate of LW6 is marked as Ex.P9. In the cross-examination, he admitted that PW1 did not give any descriptive particulars of the driver of the crime vehicles. Apart from PW3, he did not examine any other person at the scene of offence. Basing on the statements of PW7 and LW8, he arrayed

A1 and A2 in this case. He did not file any requisition for test identification parade of A1 and A2 before this Court. The remaining suggestions put to him were denied by him.

9.9.From the above material and the testimonies available on record, it can be seen that admittedly, the deceased died in a road accident and even LW6 sustained injuries. As mandated under section 304-A of IPC, the identity of the driver of the crime vehicle, the rash or negligent act of the driver and such act resulting in the death of a person are to be established by the prosecution.

Adverting to the facts of this case, to establish the identity of the driver of the crime vehicle, the prosecution has examined only PW3, who in his cross- examination admitted that he did not see the driver of the bore well. Even in his examination in chief also he failed to identify the driver of the auto and the bore well. Under such circumstances, considering the testimony of the sole eye-witness, this Court is of the opinion that nothing favorable to the prosecution is available from the testimony of PW3.

9.10. Though the owner of the auto as well as the bore well are cited as a witness in this case, however, the owner of the bore well is not examined by the prosecution, and though the owner of the auto was examined, he did not support the case of the prosecution, hence he was declared as hostile by the

24.11.2025 FAC: V AJFCM, Nizamabad

C.C. No.272 of 2018 10 of 10

Old C.C.No.475 of 2015 learned APP. Apart from the above testimonies, there is no material available on record to establish the identity of the driver of the crime vehicles, or to establish the fact that the above crime vehicles were handed over by their respective owners to A1 and A2. Even LW6, who is the injured in this case is not examined by the prosecution for the reasons best known to them.

9.11. Under such circumstances, it is clear that the identity of the offender is not established in this case. When such is the case, then, though the death of the deceased is established, however, in the absence of the identity of the offender being established, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution case, when judged on the touchstone of totality of the facts and circumstances, does not generate the unqualified and unreserved satisfaction indispensably required to enter a finding of guilt against A1 and A2. Having regard to the evidence on record as a whole, it is not possible for this Court to unhesitatingly hold that the charge leveled against A1 and A2 has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. This Court is of the unhesitant opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against A1 and A2 to the hilt as obligated in law and thus, they are entitled to the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, this point is answered in the negative.

10.IN THE RESULT, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 304-A and 338 of IPC, and they are acquitted under section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 and A2, if any, shall stand canceled after the expiry of appeal period. No order as to case property.

24.11.2025 FAC: V AJFCM, Nizamabad

C.C. No.272 of 2018 11 of 11

Old C.C.No.475 of 2015 Typed to my dictation by my stenographer, corrected by me, and pronounced by me in the open Court on the 24th day of November, 2025.

FAC: V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class- cum-V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW1 A. Chander- None - PW2 M. Ravi PW3 G. Chinna Balaiah PW4 Dr. R. Sridhara Chary PW5 G. Pavan Kumar PW6 E. Ram Prasad PW7 K. Bhushan PW8 Katta Narender Reddy

DOCUMENTS MARKED

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P1 Report- Nil - Ex.P2 Crime details form Ex.P3 Inquest panchanama Ex.P4 Post morterm examination report Ex.P5 Motor vehicle inspection report of Bore well lorry bearing no. AP25AQ2277. Ex.P6 Motor vehicles inspection report of Auto bearing no. AP01V2449. Ex.P7 Statement of PW7 under section 161 of Cr.P.C Ex.P8 First information report Ex.P9 Medical certificate of LW6

FAC: V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class- cum-V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad.

24.11.2025 FAC: V AJFCM, Nizamabad

C.C. No.120 of 2021 1 of 10

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

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT NIZAMABAD

Present: Smt. Khushboo Upadhyay I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-I Additional

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad.

Monday, the 23 rd day of March, 2026

Calendar Case No. 120 of 2021

Between:-

The State through the Sub-Inspector of Police, Town II Police Station, Nizamabad. … Complainant AND

A.D. Srinivas @ Adla Dasarath Srinivas, S/o. Dasharath, Age: 48 years, Occ: LIC Development Officer, R/o. Flat No. 305, Sai Ganga Residency, Vinayaka Nagar, Nizamabad. … Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 16.03.2026 in the presence of Sri. Mohd. Raheemuddin, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, and of Sri. Bitla Ravi, learned counsel for the accused, and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a case filed by the State represented by the Sub-Inspector of

Police, Town II Police Station, Nizamabad against the accused in crime No.

102 of 2020 for the offence punishable under section 420 of the Indian Penal

Code (for short ‘IPC’).

2.Brief averments of the case of prosecution:- The accused was a close friend of the father of LW1/Raja Shekar, and LW1's father suffered a brain stroke and was admitted at Hyderabad KIMS Hospital, due to which the accused took advantage of the ill health of LW1's father and said believing words to LW1 by making LIC policies in favour of his family members; on that

23.03.2026 I AJFCM, Nizamabad

C.C. No.120 of 2021 2 of 10

LW1 paid a total amount of Rs.2,15,850/- by net cash and through Google Pay to the accused's account. Later, LW1 went to the LIC office to claim the medical bill of his father; then he came to know that there were no LIC policies in the name of his father and his family members; the accused did not pay the amount at LIC office and cheated LW1. On 14.09.2020 at 11:00 hours, LW1 went to the Police Station and lodged the report.

2.1.Basing on the contents of the report, LW7/Syed Ayub, the Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Town II, Nizamabad registered a case in crime No. 102 of 2020 for the offences punishable under sections 420 and 409 of IPC, and issued the first information report. In the course of the investigation, LW7 examined and recorded the statement of LW1. Later, LW7 visited the scene of offence situated at Kasabgally where he secured the presence of LW5/M.A. Javeed and LW6/Dovle Umakanth, conducted the scene of offence panchanama, and drew a rough sketch of the scene by preserving it in the crime details form.

Later, LW7 examined and recorded the statement of LW2/Jamalpur Megana.

On 16.09.2020, LW7 visited the scene of offence and examined and recorded the statement of LW2 and LW3/Ankari Ravi.

2.2.As per the statements of the witnesses and collected evidence, the offence punishable under section 420 of IPC only against the accused is well established, and the offence punishable under section 409 of IPC is deleted.

On 25.09.2020, LW7 served a notice under section 41-A of Criminal Procedure

Code (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to the accused with instructions to appear before LW7 to ascertain the facts and circumstances of the case; accordingly, the accused

23.03.2026 I AJFCM, Nizamabad

C.C. No.120 of 2021 3 of 10

appeared before LW7 and voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence; LW7 released him with instructions to appear before the Court or

Police as and when summoned. Later, on completion of the investigation, he laid the charge sheet.

3. This Court has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under section 420 of IPC against the accused. On appearance of the accused, copies of the documents were furnished to him in compliance with section 207 of Cr.P.C.

4.The accused was examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under section 420 of IPC. The charge was framed, and its contents were read over and explained to the accused in the vernacular language, for which he denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In the course of trial, to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW5 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. The learned APP has given up the evidence of LW2 and LW6.

6. The accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C. for the incriminating substances available in the testimony of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied the same to be true and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard both sides. Now the point for determination is:-

Did the prosecution bring home the guilt of the

accused for the offence punishable under section 420

of IPC beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt?

8.Point:- From the above facts, it can be seen that the case of the prosecution is that the accused cheating PW1 by taking Rs.2,15,850/- from him on the pretext of providing medical reimbursement for the treatment of his

23.03.2026 I AJFCM, Nizamabad

C.C. No.120 of 2021 4 of 10

father. To establish this, the testimonies of PW1 to PW5 are available. PW1 is the complainant who in his examination in chief testified that he knows the accused. His father is a press reporter and LIC Agent. On 11.05.2019, his father suffered brain stroke, due to which, he was admitted to Kims Hospital.

The accused is the friend of his father, and the accused started telephoning him inquiring about the health of his father, and further inquired about the expenditure for the treatment. Later, the accused asked him to secure the bills stating that he will get medical reimbursement.

8.1.On 19.05.2019, at the instance of the accused as he stated that he will take care of the medical claim, PW1 transferred Rs.30,000/- to the accused through phonepe. One day, the accused approached him and stated that they have to create one FD of Rs.1,00,000/-, and further stated that if the FD is not made, they will not get the medical reimbursement. Upon that, on 31.05.2019, he gave cash of Rs.1,00,000/- to the accused. On 28.06.2019, the accused went to his house along with two persons projecting them as LIC officers, and stated that there is due of Rs.53,850/- of the medical bills, upon that he gave cash of Rs.53,850/- and handed over all the medical bills worth Rs.4,00,000/- approximately. On inquiring with the accused about the medical claim the accused stated that the process is on going. On 10.10.2019, he gave cash of

Rs.12,000/- to the accused on his demand to take care of the food expenses of the LIC officers.

8.2.In the month of December 2019, the accused informed him that the medical claim is pending at Kamareddy, and if he pays Rs.20,000/- to him, the

23.03.2026 I AJFCM, Nizamabad

C.C. No.120 of 2021 5 of 10

bill will be forwarded to Nizamabad. Upon that, he transferred Rs.20,000/- to the accused through phonepe. When he visited the LIC office at Nizamabad, he came to know that the accused has a nature of cheating people, and later, when he inquired with the accused about the status of the medical claim, the accused pacified him by stating that the medical claim will be given soon. One day, when he went to the house of the accused to inquire about the status of the medical claim, the accused threatened him of false prosecution and denied receipt of any amount. Later, he went to the police station and lodged the report i.e., Ex.P1. The pen drive containing call recordings (16 in number) between PW1 and the accused (filed along with certificate under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act) is marked as Ex.P2, and the bank account statement of PW1 from 01.12.2019 to 15.12.2019 is marked as Ex.P3.

8.3.In the cross-examination, PW1 admitted that his father used to work as

LIC agent with the accused. His father did not have any medical policy. He did not apply for any medical claim for the treatment of his father. The remaining suggestions put to him were denied by him.

8.4.PW2 in his examination in chief testified that he knows the accused. The father of PW1 is an LIC agent, and when he was suffering with ill health and admitted into the hospital, the accused on the pretext of getting the medical claim took Rs.2,15,000/- from PW1 in his presence through various modes.

Later, since, the accused failed to get the medical claim, as such, he along with PW1 visited the office of the accused twice, and demanded for the money, upon which, the accused promised to return back. However, the accused failed

23.03.2026 I AJFCM, Nizamabad

C.C. No.120 of 2021 6 of 10

to return the money. Later, PW1 went to the police station and lodged the report. The witness identified the accused present in the Court hall as AD

Srinivas. In the cross-examination, he failed to state the date on which he visited the office of the accused. He failed to specify the dates and the amount given by PW1 on each date to the accused. The remaining suggestions put to him were denied by him.

8.5.PW3 in his examination in chief testified that he knows the accused, who is LIC Development Officer. The father of PW1, who is his younger paternal uncle is an LIC agent, and working with the accused. When the father of PW1 was suffering with ill health and admitted into KIMS hospital, Hyderabad, the accused on the pretext of getting the medical claim took Rs.2,15,000/- (Rs.1,00,000/- in the form of cash on 28.05.2019, and Rs.53,000/- in the form of cash on 28.06.2019) from PW1 in his presence, and further gave amount to the accused through various modes. The accused kept on postponing the matter on pretext or the other, but, he failed to get the medical claim. When they demanded for the return of money, the accused denied to have received any amount from PW1. Later, PW1 went to the police station and lodged the report. The witness identified the accused present in the Court hall as AD

Srinivas. In the cross-examination, he failed to say the denomination of the amount given by PW1 to the accused. The remaining suggestions put to him were denied by him.

8.6.PW4 is the panch witness for the scene of offence panchnama who in his examination in chief testified that on 14.09.2020 at around 11:30 AM, while

23.03.2026 I AJFCM, Nizamabad

C.C. No.120 of 2021 7 of 10

he along with LW6 were going from Nartaj Talkies to Bada Bazaar, Nizamabad on foot, the police came there and called them into the house of PW1 and conducted the scene of offence panchanama before them with regard to the transaction which took place between the accused and PW1, and obtained their signatures. Ex.P4 is the crime details form. In the cross-examination, he failed to specify the boundaries of the scene of offence with directions. The remaining suggestions put to him were denied by him.

8.7.PW5 is the official witness and the Investigating Officer in this case, who in his examination in chief testified on the same lines as that of the investigation done by him. The first information report is marked as Ex.P5. In the cross-examination, only suggestions were put to the witness, which were denied by him.

8.8.From the above material and the testimonies available on record, it can be seen that though PW1 stated that he gave Rs.2,15,850/- to the accused, however, PW1 failed to substantiate his claim by means of documentary evidence. The bank statement/ Ex.P3 does not specify if any of the transactions reflecting therein was made to the accused. PW1 testified that he had given some amount through phonepe, however, PW1 failed to produce the phonepe receipt/ UTR number or any other details.

8.9.PW2 and PW3 supported the testimony of PW1 stating that they were present when PW1 made payment to the accused in the form of cash and various modes, however, they failed to specify the dates on which PW1 had made the payment to the accused and further failed to specify the

23.03.2026 I AJFCM, Nizamabad

C.C. No.120 of 2021 8 of 10

denominations. It is further to be noted that PW2 and PW3 are the friend and brother of the father of PW1 respectively, hence, relying upon their oral testimonies without any corroboration by means of documentary evidence is unsafe.

8.10. To constitute an offence punishable under section 420 of IPC, the prosecution ought to have filed documentary evidence establishing the transfer of cash from the account of PW1 to the account of the accused, however, it failed to do so. As admitted by PW1, his father did not have insurance policy as well. Be that as it may, without there being any proof of any sort of payment made by PW1 to the accused, it is difficult for this Court to rely on the oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses.

8.11. The prosecution has to establish that the accused had a fraudulent or dishonest intention at the very time the promise was made, but the prosecution failed to do so. Be that as it may, having filed Ex.P3, the prosecution failed to rely on the transaction under which, the amount was given by PW1 to the accused. PW1 also failed to file any documentary evidence to establish that his father was admitted into the hospital for ill-health. According to PW1, he handed over the original bills worth Rs.4,00,000/- to the accused; but PW1 failed to file any copies of the bills as well, and PW1 also failed to initiate any action against the accused for possessing the original bills of his father.

8.12. At this stage, it is pertinent to go through Ex.P1, and its contents goes to show that allegedly, the accused took the LIC policy of PW1’s father. However,

PW1 did not mention about this in his examination in chief. If the contents of

23.03.2026 I AJFCM, Nizamabad

C.C. No.120 of 2021 9 of 10

Ex.P1 are believed to be true, then, PW1 ought to have filed the documents pertaining to his father’s LIC policy, but he failed to do so. Even Ex.P1 is silent about the persons in whose presence, PW1 had given the amount to the accused. It is not mentioned anywhere in Ex.P1 that PW1 along with PW2 and

PW3 approached the accused seeking return of the amount taken by him. The above discussion goes to show the contradictions in the testimony of PW1 and the contents of Ex.P1 which is lodged by him.

8.13. Such being the case and considering the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish the dishonest intention of the accused to cheat PW1, and that PW1 gave

Rs.2,15,850/- to the accused. Hence in view of the above discussion and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution case, when judged on the touchstone of totality of the facts and circumstances, does not generate the unqualified and unreserved satisfaction indispensably required to enter a finding of guilt against the accused. Having regard to the evidence on record as a whole, it is not possible for this Court to unhesitatingly hold that the charge leveled against the accused has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. This Court is of the unhesitant opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the accused to the hilt as obligated in law and thus, he is entitled to the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, this point is answered in the negative.

9.IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 420 of IPC. Accordingly, the accused is acquitted

23.03.2026 I AJFCM, Nizamabad

C.C. No.120 of 2021 10 of 10

under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., and his bail bonds, if any, shall stand canceled after the expiry of appeal period. No order as to case property.

Typed to my dictation by my stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on the 23rd day of March, 2026.

I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum- I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW1 Rajashekar- None - PW2 A. Ravi PW3 Jamalpur Raju PW4 MA. Javeed PW5 Syed Ayub

DOCUMENTS MARKED

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P1 Report- Nil - Ex.P2 Pen drive containing call recordings (16 in number) between PW1 and the accused (filed along with certificate under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act) Ex.P3 Bank account statement of PW1 from 01.12.2019 to 15.12.2019 Ex.P4 Crime details form Ex.P5 First information report

I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum- I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad.

23.03.2026 I AJFCM, Nizamabad