Ms. Khushboo Upadhyay

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal

Warangal, PDJ Court Complex · Warangal · Telangana

Based on 41 recent orders

MS. KHUSHBOO UPADHYAY, I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal, is posted at Warangal, PDJ Court Complex, Warangal, Telangana, India. 41 court orders on record since 2020. 13 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, EP, OS cases.

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

CC/2836/2017 Acquitted

SHO P.S. Mills colony vs Katkuri Raju

29 Jan 2020

1 C.C.No.2836 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF I-ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS, WARANGAL.

Dated, this the 29 th day of January, 2020.

PRESENT: Ms. Khushboo Upadhyay,

I-Addl.Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Warangal.

CALENDER CASE No.2836 of 2017

BETWEEN:

The State of Telangana through Sub-Inspector of Police,

P.S. Mills colony. … Complainant

AND

Katkuri Raju. … Accused

This case is coming up for hearing on 29.1.2020 before me in the presence of Smt.M. Santhoshi, Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri.T. Sriram, Learned Advocate for the Accused, and upon perusing the material papers available on record and upon hearing the Counsel on both sides, and the matter having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-

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

01. The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Mills colony, filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.326 I.P.C. in Crime No.158/2017.

02. The brief allegations in the charge sheet as follows :-

On 17.5.2017 at 20.00 hours the complainant /LW1-Maripelly Swaroopa came to the PS and lodged a report in which she stated that there are previous disputes between herself and the accused. Since 15 days, LW3 is suffering with ill-health and she is staying at the house of LW1. On 17.5.2017 at 18.00 hrs, the accused came to our house in inebriated condition and abused his son/Sathwik who was playing in front of the house. When LW2 questioned the accused, the accused grew wild, abused LW2 in filthy language, picked up a stick and beat her due to which she fell down and sustained fracture injury over her right leg. When

LW1 interfered to rescue LW2, the accused abused and beat her with hands.

03. On the receipt of the above complaint, LW9/SI-of Police registered a case in

Crime No.158/2017 for the offence punishable U/Sec.326 I.P.C., issued F.I.R. and took up the investigation.

I-AJMFC, WGL.

2 C.C.No.2836 of 2017

During the course of investigation, LW9 examined and recorded the statements of LW1/ Maripelly Swaroopa at the PS. Later he visited the scene offence and drafted the CDF in the presence of LW6 and LW7/Nampelly Ranjith

Kumar and Pitta Prakash. He also seized the stick which was used in the commission of the offence before the same mediators. He examined them and recorded the statements of LW3 to LW5/Katkuri Rani, Katkuri Jayalaxmi and

Nampelly Yellaiah. LW8/the Medical Officer examined LW2/Maripelli Laxmi and recorded her statement in part.

04. The cognizance was taken for the offence punishable for U/Sec.326 I.P.C., by this Court.

05. On appearance of the accused, the copies of relevant documents were furnished to him as contemplated U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

06. Accused was examined U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable

U/Sec.326 I.P.C. Charge was orally explained to him in the vernacular language for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

07. The prosecution has examined PW1 to PW6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P9, the details of which are incorporated in the Appendix at the end. The evidence of

LW6 to LW8 was given up by the Learned APP as the material witnesses turned hostile due to compromise.

08. Accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. for the incriminating substances available in the testimony of prosecution witnesses for which he denied the same and reported no defense evidence.

09. Now the point for determination is :- “Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the accused for

the offence punishable under Sec.326 I.P.C. as alleged beyond all

reasonable doubt ?

10. Heard arguments from both sides.

11. POINT : To bring home the guilt of the accused for the above mentioned offence, the prosecution shall establish that the accused beat LW2 with a stick and caused fracture injuries to her.

I-AJMFC, WGL.

3 C.C.No.2836 of 2017

12. To establish the above offence against the accused, the prosecution has examined the complainant as PW1, the victim as PW2, the eye witnesses as PW3 to PW5 and the Investigation Officer as PW6.

13. PW1 did not support the case of the prosecution and testified that there was no dispute between herself and the accused. She further deposed that she did not give any complaint against the accused, but she signed on the complaint at the instance of village elders. Since PW1 resiled from her previous statement, she was declared as hostile by the learned APP.

PW2 who is the victim in this case also deposed on similar lines as that of

PW1 and further stated that she sustained injuries as she fell down and nothing new was stated by her.

14. PW3 to PW5 who are the eye witnesses in this case deposed that they do not know anything about the facts of this case and they did not witness anything.

Since they resiled from their previous statement, they were declared as hostile by the learned APP.

15. PW6 who is the Investigating Officer in this case deposed the averments of the charge sheet and about the investigation done by him in this case. Apart from this he also stated that PW1 to PW5 stated before him as in their Sec.161 CrPC statements. Apart from this nothing else was deposed by PW6. During the cross- examination of PW6, nothing was elicited.

16. After perusing the testimonies of PW1 to PW5, nothing against the accused was deposed by the witnesses. The material witness i.e., PW2 did not support the case of the prosecution. The other witnesses in this case also turned hostile and did not tune to the story of the prosecution. The evidence of PW6 alone cannot be looked into and the same is not sufficient to establish and believe the story of the prosecution.

In the absence of any cogent, corroborative and independent evidence, story of the prosecution cannot be believed. That the prosecution has failed to establish its story beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt, the accused is entitled for the benefit of doubt as contemplated under criminal jurisprudence and he is entitled for clean acquittal.

I-AJMFC, WGL.

4 C.C.No.2836 of 2017

17. IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable

U/Sec.326 I.P.C. and accordingly, he is acquitted for the same U/Sec.248(1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after appeal time is over. The unmarked case property i.e., the stick shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me, in the open Court on this the 29 th day of January-2020) -sd/-

I-ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

WARANGAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW1 – Marripelly Swaroopa – None –

PW2 – Marripelly Laxmi

PW3 – Katkuri Rani

PW4 – Katkuri Jayalxmi

PW5 – Nampelly Yellaiah

PW6 – S. Ravi

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 – Signature of PW1 on complaint.

Ex.P2 – Original FIR

Ex.P3 – Crime details form

Ex.P4 – Wound certificate of LW2

Ex.P5 – 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1

Ex.P6 – 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2

Ex.P7 – 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3

Ex.P8 – 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW4

Ex.P9 – 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW5

MATERIAL OBJECTS:

– Nil – -sd/-

I-ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

WARANGAL.

I-AJMFC, WGL.

CC/639/2019 Acquitted

STATE OF TELANGANA vs Praveen Kumar Kode

21 Jan 2020

- 1 -

IN THE COURT OF I-ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS, WARANGAL.

Tuesday, the 21 st day of January, 2020.

PRESENT: Ms. Khushboo Upadhyay,

I-Addl.Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Warangal.

CALENDER CASE No.639 OF 2019

BETWEEN:

The State of Telangana through Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. WPS, Warangal. … Complainant

AND

A1 : Kode Praveen Kumar, S/o.Late Ramulu, Age: 29 years,Occ:Software Engineer, r/o.Hyderabad, A2: Kode Sharada, S/o.Late Ramulu, Age:53 yrs, Occ:House wife, r/o.Hyderabad. … Accused

This case is coming up for hearing on 21-01-2020 before me in the presence of Smt.M.Santoshi, Learned Senior Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri.B. Konda Reddy, Learned Advocate for the Accused, and upon perusing the material papers available on record and upon hearing the Counsel on both sides, and the matter having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-

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

01.The Sub-Inspector of Police, W.P.S. Warangal filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/Sec.498-A of I.P.C. and Sec.3 and 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act, in Crime No.147/2018.

02.The brief allegations in the charge sheet as follows :-

On 31.12.2018 at 14.00 hrs, the complainant/LW1-Kode Vishwaja came to the PS and lodged complaint in writing stating that her marriage was solemnized with A1 on 30.6.2018 and at the time of her marriage, her parents gave 15 tulas of gold,

Rs.2,00,000/- cash and other house hold articles. After few weeks of her marriage, the accused harassed her for want of additional dowry and stated that she should secure job in Software company. They used to take away her salary every month, abuse her and beat her on pretext or the other. A1 also used to suspect her character and necked her out - 2 - of the house. On 14.10.2018, a panchayat was held where the accused admitted his guilt and promised to look after her well but after few days he again started harassing her to fetch dowry on the occasion of Diwali and beat her.

03. On the receipt of the above complaint, LW8/K. Sujatha, S.I. of Police registered a case in Crime No.147/2018 for the offences punishable U/Sec.498-A of I.P.C. and Sec.3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, issued F.I.R. and took up the investigation.

During the course of investigation LW8 examined and recorded the statements of the LW1 to LW3/Kode Vishwaja, Bojja Vijayalaxmi, Bojja

Koteshwar Rao. Later she visited the scene of offence, examined the scene minutely and incorporated physical features of the scene in crime detail form in the presence of mediators LW4 to 7/Kompinti Ramdev, Inimula Shoban babu, Sabbani Jyothi and

Sabbani Pushkar, examined and recorded their statements.

04. The cognizance was taken for the offences punishable for U/Sec. 498-A of I.P.C. and

Sec.3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by this Court.

05. On appearance of the accused, the copies of relevant documents were furnished to them as contemplated U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

06. Accused were examined U/Sec. 239 of Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable

U/Sec.498-A of I.P.C. and Sec.3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Charges were framed, read over and explained to them in the vernacular language for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

07. The prosecution has examined PW1 and PW2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3, the details of which are incorporated in the Appendix at the end.

- 3 -

08. Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. examination was dispensed with as there were no incrimianting substances available in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses.

09. Now the point for determination is :- “Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the accused for the

offences punishable under Sec.337 498-A of I.P.C. and Sec.3 and 4 of the

Dowry Prohibition Act as alleged beyond all reasonable doubt ?

10. Heard arguments from both sides.

11. POINT :

To bring home the guilt of the accused for the aforesaid offences, the prosecution shall establish that the accused harassed LW1 mentally and physically and demanded

additional dowry from her.

To prove the above said offence against the accused, the prosecution has examined the defacto complainant as PW1 and the mother of PW1 as PW2. The evidence of LW3 to LW12 was given up by the learned APP as PW1 and PW2 who were the material witnesses turned hostile.

12. PW1 who is the complainant and victim in this case testified that after her marriage, petty disputes arose between her and the accused for which the matter was placed before the elders and settled there. The elders have obtained her signature on blank paper, but she did not give any complaint against the accused. Apart from this nothing else was deposed by PW1. Since PW1 resiled from her previous statements, she was declared as hostile by the learned APP.

13. PW2 who is the mother of PW1 also testified on similar lines to that of PW1 and nothing else was stated by her and she was also declared as hostile by the learned APP.

- 4 -

14. Perused the material available on record, nothing incriminating is elicited in the evidence of PW1 and PW2 as they stated that they do not know anything about the facts of this case. Apart from the testimonies of PW1 and PW2, nothing else is there on record.

After going through the testimonies of PW1 and PW2, this Court has not found a single attribution attributed against the accused that the accused have committed the alleged acts. Without there being any evidence, accused cannot be convicted for the aforesaid offences and that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case against the accused as such, the accused is entitled for clean acquittal.

16. IN THE RESULT, the accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec.498-A of I.P.C. and Sec.3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and accordingly, they are acquitted for the same U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused No. 1 and 2 shall stand cancelled after appeal time is over.

(Typed, corrected and pronounced by me, in the open Court on this the 21st day of January-2020 ) -sd/-

I- ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

WARANGAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW1 – Kode Vishwaja – None –

PW2 – Bojja Vijayalaxmi

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 – Signature of PW1 on the complaint

Ex.P2 – 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW1

Ex.P3 – 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW2

MATERIAL OBJECTS:

- Nil - -sd/-

I- ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

WARANGAL.

CC/100778/2014 Acquitted

WPS Warangal-u vs Singu Satish and 2 others

13 Feb 2020

1 C.C.No.778 of 2014

IN THE COURT OF THE I-ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS, WARANGAL

Thursday, this the 13 th day of February, 2020

PRESENT: Ms. Khushboo Upadhyay,

I-Addl.Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Warangal.

CALENDER CASE No.778 of 2014

BETWEEN:

The State of Telangana through Sub-Inspector of Police,

W.P.S. Warangal. … Complainant

AND

A1 : Pendyala Ravi Kumar, S/o.Venkataiah, Age:40 yrs, Occ:Teacher,

A2 : Pendyala Kamalamma, W/o.Venkataiah, Age:60 yrs, Occ:Coolie,

A3 : Pendyala Venkataiah(died), S/o.Rajaiah, Age:66 yrs, Occ:Coolie,

All are R/o.Chaitanya nagar, Warangal.… Accused

This case is coming up for hearing on 13.2.2020 before me in the presence of Smt.M. Santhoshi, Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri.V. Keshav Rao, Learned Advocate for the Accused, and upon perusing the material papers available on record and upon hearing the Counsel on both sides, and the matter having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-

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

01.The Sub-Inspector of Police, W.P.S. Warangal filed a charge sheet against

A1 and A2 for the offences punishable U/Sec.498-A I.P.C., Secs.3 and 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act in Crime No.118/2014.

02.The brief allegations in the charge sheet as follows :-

On 5.9.2014 at 12.00 noon, the complainant/LW1-Pendyala

Dhanalaxmi lodged a report in which she stated that before her marriage with A1, she had physical intimacy with A1 due to which she got pregnant. Then she got married with A1 and after one month A1 went away and switched off his phone.

On that she lodged a complaint, where A1 came along with his family members, accepted his mistake and promised to look after LW1. Since then onwards, the accused are harassing LW1 mentally and physically as to the fact that she has

I-AJMFC, WGL.

2 C.C.No.778 of 2014 insulted them by filing a complaint against the accused and his family. The accused also stole away her 10th and Intermediate certificates and did not return the same. In this regard when a panchayat was called, the accused demanded

Rs.5,00,000/- and further abused LW1 and commented on her complexion.

03.On the receipt of the above complaint, LW8/SI-of Police registered a case in Crime No.118/2014 for the offences punishable U/Sec. 498-A I.P.C., Secs.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, issued F.I.R. and took up the investigation.

During the course of investigation, LW8 has examined and recorded the statement of LW1 to LW3/Pendyala Dhanalaxmi, Mekala Ilamma and Savaram

Raju at the PS. Later he visited the house of LW1, secured the presence of LW4 to

LW7/Borra Sudhakar, Kolepaka Swaroopa, Manda Sampath and Koyyada

Krishna, examined them and recorded their statements.

04. The cognizance was taken for the offences punishable for U/Sec. 498-A

I.P.C., Secs.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, by this Court.

05. On appearance of the accused, the copies of relevant documents were furnished to them as contemplated U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

06. Accused were examined U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable

U/Sec. 498-A I.P.C., Secs.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Charges were framed, read over and explained to them in the vernacular language for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

07.The prosecution has examined PW1 and PW2 and got marked Exs.P-1 to

P-3, the details of which are incorporated in the Appendix at the end.

I-AJMFC, WGL.

3 C.C.No.778 of 2014

08. Sec.313 Cr.P.C. examination was dispensed with as there were no incriminating substances available in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses.

09. Now the point for determination is :- “Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the accused for

the offences punishable under Sec. 498-A I.P.C., Secs.3 and 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act as alleged beyond all reasonable doubt” ?

10. Heard arguments from both sides.

11. POINT :

To bring home the guilt of the accused for the above mentioned offences, the prosecution shall establish that the accused harassed LW1 mentally and physically and further demanded additional dowry from her.

12. To establish the above offences against the accused, the prosecution has examined the complainant/victim as PW1, the mother of PW1 as PW2. The evidence of LW3 to LW8 was given up by the learned APP as PW1 and PW2 turned hostile.

13. PW1 testified that there were some petty disputes between her and the accused for which the matter was placed before the elders and settled there. The elders have obtained her signature on blank paper. She never gave any complaint against the accused and the accused never harassed her at any point in time. She does not know the contents of the complaint. Police did not examine her and did not record her statement. Since PW1 resiled from her previous statement, she was declared as hostile by the learned APP.

PW2 who is the mother of PW1 also deposed on similar lines as that of

PW1 and nothing new was elicited in her evidence. Since she did not support the case of the prosecution, she was also declared as hostile.

I-AJMFC, WGL.

4 C.C.No.778 of 2014

14.Perused the material available on record. After going through the testimonies of PW1 and PW2, nothing incriminating is deposed by the witnesses against the accused. Since the witnesses turned hostile, the prosecution has failed to establish its story beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. Apart from the testimonies of PW1 and PW2, no independent evidence is available on record.

Hence the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused as contemplated under criminal jurisprudence. As such the accused are entitled for clean acquittal.

15. IN THE RESULT, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec. 498-A I.P.C., Secs.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and accordingly, they are acquitted for the same U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 and A2 shall stand cancelled after appeal time is over.

(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me, in the open Court on this the 13 th day of February, 2020) -sd/-

I-ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

WARANGAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW1 – Pendyala Dhanalaxmi – None –

PW2 – Mekala Ilamma

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 – Signature of PW1 on the complaint

Ex.P2 – 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW1

Ex.P3 – 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2

MATERIAL OBJECTS:

– Nil – -sd/-

I-ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

WARANGAL.

I-AJMFC, WGL.

CC/1457/2019 Acquitted

STATE OF TELANGANA vs Barigela Prakash

13 Feb 2020

1 C.C.No.1457 of 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE I-ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS, WARANGAL

Thursday, this the 13 th day of February, 2020

PRESENT: Ms. Khushboo Upadhyay,

I-Addl.Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Warangal.

CALENDER CASE No. 1457 of 2020

BETWEEN:

The State of Telangana through Sub-Inspector of Police,

P.S. Mills Colony. … Complainant

AND

A1: Barigala Prakash,S/o. Dayakar, Age: 24 years, Occ:Student, R/o.Warangal, A2 : Kothuri Pranay, S/o.Bhaskar, Age:24 yrs, Occ:Student, R/o.Warangal. … Accused

This case is coming up for hearing on 13.2.2020 before me in the presence of Smt.M. Santhoshi, Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri.K. Sridhar, Learned Advocate for the Accused, and upon perusing the material papers available on record and upon hearing the Counsel on both sides, and the matter having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-

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

01.The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Mills colony filed a charge sheet against

A1 and A2 for the offences punishable U/Sec.290, 427, 447 and 506 r/w 34 I.P.C.

in Crime No.160/2019.

02.The brief allegations in the charge sheet as follows :-

On 4.5.2019 at 20.00 hrs, the complainant /LW1-Siliveru Jokeb Prashanth lodged a report in which he stated that there were previous disputes between him and A1 and A2. Keeping the same in mind, on 2.5.2019, when LW1 along with

LW2 to LW4 were at the house of LW2 and watching the cricket match, A1 and

A2 were also present there. While things stood so, A1 pushed LW1, kicked his bike and throwed a stone on it due to which it was damaged. On 3.5.2019 at 21.30 hrs, A1 and A2 illegally trespassed into the house of LW1, abused in filthy langauge and threatened to kill him.

I-AJMFC, WGL.

2 C.C.No.1457 of 2019

03.On the receipt of the above complaint, LW7/SI-of Police registered a case in Crime No.160/2019 for the offences punishable U/Sec.290, 427, 447 and 506 r/ w 34 I.P.C., issued F.I.R. and took up the investigation.

During the course of investigation, LW7 has examined and recorded the statement of LW1/Siliveru Jokeb Prashanth at the PS. Later he visited the scene of offence, secured the presence of LW2 to LW4/Kothuri Pradeep, Devulapalli

Sridhar and Syed Sajjad, drafted the scene observation panchanama in the CDF in the presence of LW5 and LW6/Anumula Mallesham and Bandi Venkateshwarlu.

04. The cognizance was taken for the offences punishable for U/Sec.290, 427, 447 and 506 r/w 34 I.P.C., by this Court.

05. On appearance of the accused, the copies of relevant documents were furnished to them as contemplated U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

06. Accused were examined U/Sec.251 of Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable

U/Sec.290, 427, 447 and 506 r/w 34 I.P.C. Charges were orally explained to them in the vernacular language for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

07.The prosecution has examined PW1 to PW3 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P- 4, the details of which are incorporated in the Appendix at the end.

08. Sec.313 Cr.P.C. examination was dispensed with as there were no incriminating substances available in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses.

09. Now the point for determination is :-

I-AJMFC, WGL.

3 C.C.No.1457 of 2019 “Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the accused for

the offences punishable under Sec .290, 427, 447 and 506 r/w 34 I.P.C.

as alleged beyond all reasonable doubt” ?

10. Heard arguments from both sides.

11. POINT :

To bring home the guilt of the accused for the above mentioned offences, the prosecution shall establish that the accused abused LW1 in filthy language and threatened to kill him by trespassing into his house and also damaged his bike.

12. To establish the above offences against the accused, the prosecution has examined the complainant/injured as PW1, the eye-witnesses as PW2 and PW3.

The evidence of LW3, LW5 to LW7 was given up by the learned APP as PW1 to

PW3 turned hostile.

13. PW1 testified that there were some petty disputes between him and the accused for which the matter was placed before the elders and settled there. The elders have obtained his signature on blank paper. He never gave any complaint against the accused and the accused never harassed him at any point in time. He does not know the contents of the complaint. Police did not examine me and did not record his statement. Since PW1 resiled from his previous statement, he was declared as hostile by the learned APP.

PW2 and PW3 who are the eye-witnesses in this case deposed that they do not know anything about the facts of this case and they did not witness the incident. Since they did not support the case of the prosecution, they were also declared as hostile.

14.Perused the material available on record. After going through the testimonies of PW1 to PW3, nothing incriminating is deposed by the witnesses

I-AJMFC, WGL.

4 C.C.No.1457 of 2019 against the accused. Since the witnesses turned hostile, the prosecution has failed to establish its story beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. Apart from the testimonies of PW1 to PW3, no independent evidence is available on record.

Hence the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused as contemplated under criminal jurisprudence. As such the accused are entitled for clean acquittal.

15. IN THE RESULT, the A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec.290, 427, 447 and 506 r/w 34 I.P.C. and accordingly, they are acquitted for the same U/Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 and A2 shall stand canceled after appeal time is over. The un-marked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over.

(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me, in the open Court on this the 13 th day of February, 2020) -sd/-

I-ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

WARANGAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW1 – Siliveru Jokeb Prashanth – None –

PW2 – Kothuri Pradeep

PW3 – Syed Sajjad

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 – Signature of PW1 on the complaint

Ex.P2 – 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW1

Ex.P3 – 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2

Ex.P4 – 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3

MATERIAL OBJECTS:

– Nil – -sd/-

I-ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

WARANGAL.

I-AJMFC, WGL.

CC/100495/2014 Acquitted

S.I.of Police WPS warangal urban vs Md. Mazhar Hussain

03 Feb 2020

1 C.C.No.495 of 2014

IN THE COURT OF I-ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS, WARANGAL.

Dated, this the 3 rd day of February, 2020.

PRESENT: Ms. Khushboo Upadhyay,

I-Addl.Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Warangal.

CALENDER CASE No.495 of 2014

BETWEEN:

The State of Telangana through Sub-Inspector of Police,

W.P.S. Warangal. … Complainant

AND

A2 : Hanifa Begum A3 : Md. Zahurul Hussain A4 : Majeeda Sulthana A5 : Gulam Haqani A6 : Sajida Begum A7 : Syed. Chand Miya, A8 : Abeda Sulthana A9 : Syed. Rasheed A10:Zaheda Sulthana A11:Md. Waheeduddin Sajid @ Sajeed Pasha A12:Naziya Begum A13:Nishanth Jahan … Accused

This case is coming up for hearing on 03-02-2020 before me in the presence of Smt.M. Santhoshi, Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri.K. Sridhar, Learned Advocate for the Accused, and upon perusing the material papers available on record and upon hearing the Counsel on both sides, and the matter having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-

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

01. The Sub-Inspector of Police, W.P.S. Warangal, filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/Sec.498-A I.P.C. Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act in Crime No.93/2013.

02. The brief allegations in the charge sheet as follows :-

On 25.1.2011 at 13.30 hours the complainant /LW1-Aisha Begum came to the PS and lodged a report in which she stated that at the time of her marriage, her

I-AJMFC, WGL.

2 C.C.No.495 of 2014 parents gave Rs.3,00,000/- cash, 18 tulas of gold, 50 tulas of silver and

Rs.2,50,000/- for other house hold articles, towards dowry on the demand of the accused. One month after the marriage, the accused started harassing her mentally and physically for want of additional dowry of Rs.10,00,000/- otherwise he would perform marriage with another woman. The accused on the instigation of his family members beat her, pressed her throat and tried to kill her. The accused also confined her in a room. The accused used to beat her often and threatened to kill her.

03. On the receipt of the above complaint, LW10/SI-of Police registered a case in

Crime No.93/2013 for the offences punishable U/Sec.498-A I.P.C. Sec.3 and 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act, issued F.I.R. and took up the investigation.

During the course of investigation, LW10 examined and recorded the statements of LW1 to LW3/Aisha Begum, Gousia Begum and Md. Zaheeruddin, secured the presence of LW4 to LW9/Md.Yousufuddin, Md. Khaja Ashrafuddin,

Md. Khaja Shujauddin, Md. Feroz Ahmed, Shaik Akram and Syed. Masood, examined them and recorded their statements.

04. The cognizance was taken for the offences punishable for U/Sec.498-A I.P.C.

Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, by this Court.

05. On appearance of the accused, the copies of relevant documents were furnished to them as contemplated U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

06. Accused were examined U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable

U/Sec.498-A I.P.C. Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Charges were orally explained to them in the vernacular language for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

I-AJMFC, WGL.

3 C.C.No.495 of 2014

07. The prosecution has examined PW1 and PW2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3, the details of which are incorporated in the Appendix at the end. The evidence of

LW2, LW4 to LW12 was given up by the Learned APP as the material witnesses turned hostile due to compromise.

08. Sec.313 Cr.P.C. examination was dispensed with as there are no incriminating substances available in the testimony of prosecution witnesses.

09. Now the point for determination is :- “Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the accused for

the offences punishable under Sec.498-A I.P.C. Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act as alleged beyond all reasonable doubt ?

10. Heard arguments from both sides.

11. POINT : To bring home the guilt of the accused for the above mentioned offences, the prosecution shall establish that the accused harassed LW1 mentally and physically for want of additional dowry.

12. To establish the above offences against the accused, the prosecution has examined the complainant/victim as PW1 and the father of PW1 as PW2.

13. PW1 testified that there were some petty disputes between her and the accused, for which the matter was placed before the elders and it was settled there.

However, the elders have obtained her signature on a blank paper. She did not give any complaint against the accused at any time. The police did not examine me and did not record my statement. Since PW1 resiled from her previous statement, she was declared as hostile by the learned APP.

PW2 who is the father of PW1 also deposed on similar lines as that of PW1 and nothing new was stated by him.

I-AJMFC, WGL.

4 C.C.No.495 of 2014

14. After perusing the testimonies of PW1 and PW2, this court opines that the prosecution has failed to establish its story beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt.

There is no coherent and contingent evidence on record to establish the story of the prosecution. In the absence of any evidence, the story of the prosecution cannot be believed. Hence, the accused is entitled for the benefit of doubt as contemplated under criminal jurisprudence and he is entitled for clean acquittal.

15. IN THE RESULT, the accused A2 to A13 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec.498-A I.P.C. Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and accordingly, they are acquitted for the same U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after appeal time is over.

(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me, in the open Court on this the 3 rd day of February-2020) -sd/-

I-ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

WARANGAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW1 – Aisha Begum – None –

PW2 – Md. Zaheeruddin

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 – Complaint of PW1

Ex.P2 – 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW1

Ex.P3 – 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2

MATERIAL OBJECTS:

– Nil – -sd/-

I-ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

WARANGAL.

I-AJMFC, WGL.

Order Record 41 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
OS/500965/2013	Doram Anand vs Gullapelli Veeraswamy	20 Aug 2020	copy of order	—
DVC/20/2018	Vodapalli @ Pendyala Aparna vs Pendyala Nikhil Kumar	20 Aug 2020	copy of order	—
CC/986/2019	MACHARLA CHINNA RAO vs NEELAKURTHI VENKAT REDDY	03 Aug 2020	copy of order	—
CC/987/2019	MACHARLA DEENDAYAL vs NEELAKURTHI VENKAT REDDY	03 Aug 2020	copy of order	—
CC/1441/2019	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Sura Ravi	28 Jul 2020	copy of judgment	Convicted
CC/1454/2019	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Sura Ravi	28 Jul 2020	copy of judgment	Convicted
CC/869/2020	PS INTHEZARGUNJ vs Barupatla Sai	25 Jul 2020	copy of judgment	Convicted
CC/2180/2019	PS Mills colony vs Kalakotla Mahesh	25 Jul 2020	copy of judgment	Convicted
CC/2298/2019	PS MILLS COLONY vs Kalakotla Mahesh	25 Jul 2020	copy of judgment	Convicted
CC/2333/2019	PS MILLS COLONY vs More Prabhu Prasad	13 Jul 2020	copy of judgment	—
CC/100002/2017	sho of Inthezargunj p.s. vs Palakurthy Srinivas	08 Jul 2020	copy of order	—
OS/515/2020	EASY CAPITAL SOLUTIONS vs LEGALA VIJAY BHASKAR REDDY	02 Jul 2020	copy of order	—
CC/100273/2017	Gaddam Shakunthala vs Addagatla Venkateshwarlu	22 Jun 2020	copy of order	—
OS/1133/2019	JANNU ANIL KUMAR vs JANNU SAMUEL @ SAMMAIAH	18 Mar 2020	copy of order	—
CC/1414/2017	SHo P.S WPS Warangal city vs Adapa Venkatesh	18 Mar 2020	copy of judgment	—
CC/1387/2019	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Shaik Rafeeq	17 Mar 2020	copy of judgment	—
CC/103/2019	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Revanth Boddu	15 Feb 2020	copy of order	—
CC/3245/2019	PS MILLS COLONY vs Shivakumar Charukonda	14 Feb 2020	copy of order	—
CC/3659/2019	PS MILLS COLONY vs Bukya Akhil	14 Feb 2020	copy of order	—
CC/1457/2019	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Barigela Prakash	13 Feb 2020	copy of judgment	Acquitted
CC/100778/2014	WPS Warangal-u vs Singu Satish and 2 others	13 Feb 2020	copy of judgment	Acquitted
CC/379/2019	SHO PS MILLSCOLONY vs NALIGANTI ARUN KUMAR	08 Feb 2020	copy of order	—
CC/2513/2019	NAMANI DEVENDER vs BOLLOJU NARESH	08 Feb 2020	copy of order	—
EP/17/2020	MARGADARSHI CHIT FUND PVT LTD., REP. BY ITS FOREMAN BRANCH MANGER vs THATIKONDA SRINIVAS	08 Feb 2020	copy of order	—
EP/386/2018	VEERAGOLI SHYAMPRASAD vs PIDISHETTY RAMESH	08 Feb 2020	copy of order	—
EP/200943/2013	Kapil Chit FUnds PVt. LTd vs A. Satyanarayana and 4 others	08 Feb 2020	copy of order	—
CC/210/2019	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Bairi Kumaraswamy	08 Feb 2020	copy of order	—
CC/3061/2017	PS Wardhannapet- Thotakuri Vijaya Rajendraprasad vs Bairi Kumaraswamy	08 Feb 2020	copy of order	—
CC/3859/2019	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Bhukya Saroja	08 Feb 2020	copy of order	—
CC/3869/2019	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Velikatte Narender	08 Feb 2020	copy of order	—
EP/325/2018	SHRIRAM CHIT PVT LTD vs CHUNCHU SATYANARAYANA	05 Feb 2020	copy of order	—
CC/3162/2018	SBI BATTALA BAZAR BANCH REP BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER G. SRINIVAS vs MANTENA NITHISH KUMAR	04 Feb 2020	copy of order	—
CC/100495/2014	S.I.of Police WPS warangal urban vs Md. Mazhar Hussain	03 Feb 2020	copy of judgment	Acquitted
CC/1241/2018	SHO PS WARDHANNAPET Poshala Narsaiah vs SAMMETA SAILU	03 Feb 2020	copy of judgment	—
CC/2836/2017	SHO P.S. Mills colony vs Katkuri Raju	29 Jan 2020	copy of judgment	Acquitted
OS/719/2019	KUMMARI RAVI vs BITLA SRINIVAS	24 Jan 2020	copy of order	—
EP/200156/2016	Kapil Chit Funds Pvt Ltd rep its Collection Manager M.Manikayam vs J.Sarala and others	24 Jan 2020	copy of order	—
CC/3460/2019	STATE OF TELANGANA vs AALAKUNTA RAVI	22 Jan 2020	copy of judgment	—
CC/639/2019	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Praveen Kumar Kode	21 Jan 2020	copy of judgment	Acquitted
OS/201120/2015	Shaheen Sultana vs Addanki Sreeramulu alias Jayaram	21 Jan 2020	copy of judgment	—
CC/1470/2019	SHO WPS warangal urban vs Mohd Javeed Ali	20 Jan 2020	copy of order	—

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has MS. KHUSHBOO UPADHYAY handled?

MS. KHUSHBOO UPADHYAY has handled 41 court orders since 2020 at Warangal, PDJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 6 orders per month.

What types of cases does MS. KHUSHBOO UPADHYAY hear?

Based on available records, MS. KHUSHBOO UPADHYAY primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases, Domestic Violence Cases) and Civil matters (Execution Petitions, Original Suits) at Warangal, PDJ Court Complex.

Where is MS. KHUSHBOO UPADHYAY currently posted?

MS. KHUSHBOO UPADHYAY is posted as I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal at Warangal, PDJ Court Complex, Warangal, Telangana.

Are judgments by MS. KHUSHBOO UPADHYAY available online?

Yes. 13 judgments by MS. KHUSHBOO UPADHYAY are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does MS. KHUSHBOO UPADHYAY dispose cases?

MS. KHUSHBOO UPADHYAY disposes approximately 6 cases per month, based on 41 orders handled over their tenure at Warangal, PDJ Court Complex.

Since when is MS. KHUSHBOO UPADHYAY serving?

MS. KHUSHBOO UPADHYAY has been serving at Warangal, PDJ Court Complex since 2020.

Case Types

CC 73%

EP 12%

OS 12%

DVC 2%

Posting History

Mar 2020 — Aug 2020

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal · 16 orders
Jan 2020 — Feb 2020

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal · 12 orders
Jan 2020 — Feb 2020

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal · 13 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 5

Convicted 5

Other Judges at this Court

Smt. V.B. Nirmala Geethamba

Principal District and Sessions Judge, Warangal

405 orders

Smt M.padmaja

II Addl. District and Sessions Judge,Warangal

0 orders

Smt J.Maithreyi

I Addl District and Sessions Judge, Warangal

0 orders

Smt. Kshama Deshpande

Spl. Sessions Judge of FTC for POCSO Cases, Warang...

14 orders

Smt. K. Pooja

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal

161 orders

Ms. Ritika Nandikonda

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- I Addl. Judicial M...

64 orders

Ms. Boyidi Valli Venkata Chandraprasanna

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- II Addl. Judicial...

0 orders

Ms. Elluturi Harika

III Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- III Addl. Judici...

135 orders

Smt. Raj Nidhi

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Trial...

191 orders

Sri A.Pradeep

Senior Civil Judge-cum- Assistant Sessions Judge,...

331 orders

← View all judges at Warangal, PDJ Court Complex