C.C.No. 160 of 2024 Dated : 28.02.2025
IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM - JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT DAMMAPETA
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHT DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
SMT.KUKKALA SAI SRI
II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class , Kothagudem, FAC: Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Dammapeta.
C.C.No. 160 OF 2024
(Old No.1907/2022, on the file of Court of Additional
Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Sathupally)
Between:
The State of Telangana, rep. by Sub Inspector of Police, Aswaraopeta Police Station. …PROSECUTION
AND
A-1Dasari Rambabu, S/o. Mugayya, Aged:47 years, Occu: Agriculture, A-2Dasari Gangamma, W/o.Rambabu, Aged: 47 years, Occu: Coolie, All are R/oBheemunigudem (Maddikonda) village of Aswaraopeta Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. …ACCUSED No.1 and 2
This case is coming before me on 21.02.2025 for hearing in the presence of Sri S.Srinivasa Rao, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State and of Sri Maram Sathish Kumar, counsel for the Accused, upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court delivered the following:
:: J U D G M E N T ::
Page 1 of 8
C.C.No. 160 of 2024 Dated : 28.02.2025
1.This case is filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, Aswaraopeta
Police Station against A-1 and A-2 in Crime No.61/2021 for the offence punishable under Sec.294(b), 324, 354, 447, 506 of IPC against A-1 and
U/sec. 294(b), 324, 447, 506 r/w.34 of IPC against A-2.
2.Case of prosecution, in conspectus, On 18.03.2021 at about 2000 hours complainant by name Sunnam Kumari came to Police Station
Aswaraopeta and lodged a report stating that she was in possession of agriculture land of Sy.No.130/1/9/AA to an extent of AC:02-20 Gts., and
Sy,No.130/1/4 to an extent of AC:03-20 Gts., Bhemunigudem village of
Aswaraopeta mandal and she got the above said land from her father as inheritance and her father name reflects on Revenue records. She cultivating the above said land and Accused No.1 tried to grab the land, on that complainant approached to ITDA, Mobile Court, Bhadrachalam and she got Injunction in her favour. On 17.03.2021 at about 1600 hours when she along with her family members went to the above said land meanwhile Accused No.1 and 2 started abusing them and both accused persons beat them with stick as a result they sustained injuries and also threatened them by saying they will not leave the above said land and they will kill them. Finally, she requested to take necessary action against the accused No.1 and 2.
Page 2 of 8
C.C.No. 160 of 2024 Dated : 28.02.2025
Basing on the report lodged by LW-1/Sunnam Kumari, the Police,
Aswaraopeta registered a case in Cr.No.61/2021 for the offences referred to above, issued FIR, examined and recorded the statements of witnesses concerned, visited scene of offence, conducted Crime Detail
Form in the presence of LW-7/Thati Kanna Rao and LW-8/Thati Rama
Krishna. A-1 and A-2 were served with notice under Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. On completion of entire investigation, She filed charge sheet.
3. On receipt of charge sheet, the case was taken on file for the offences under Section 294(b), 324, 447, 354, 506 of IPC against the A-1 and 294(b), 324, 447, 506 r/w.34 of IPC against the A-2 by the Court of
Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sathupally and assigned
number vide C.C.No.633/2021.
4. Subsequently, this case has been transferred to the Court of First
Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothagudem for disposal
according to law. On receipt of the said case bundle, new case number was assigned as C.C.No.1907/2022, on the file of the Court of I Addl.
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothagudem. This case has been
transferred to this Court from the Court of Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Dammapeta, on point of jurisdiction, for
disposal according to law. On receipt of record, the case was assigned with new number vide C.C.No.160/2024.
Page 3 of 8
C.C.No. 160 of 2024 Dated : 28.02.2025
5.On appearance of accused, copies of case documents were furnished to them as contemplated under Sec.207 Cr.P.C. The learned
Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dammapeta examined A-1 and A-2 under Sec.239 Cr.P.C., and framed Charges
U/sec.240 of Cr.P.C. for the offences under Section 294(b), 324, 354, 447, 506 r/w.34 of IPC have been framed against A-1 and A-2, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which the Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6.During trial, the prosecution has examined PW-1 to PW-4 and got marked Exs.P-1 to Ex.P-12.
7.There is no incriminating evidence in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, as such, Accused No.1 and 2 was examined under
Sec.313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating material found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which, they denied the same and reported no defence evidence on their behalf. Hence the evidence on behalf of the Accused No.1 and 2 are closed.
8.Heard the arguments of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for Accused No.1 and 2.
9.Perused the entire material available on record.
Page 4 of 8
C.C.No. 160 of 2024 Dated : 28.02.2025
10.Now the point germane for my determinationis ‘whether the
prosecution has proved and established the guilt of A-1 for the
charges under Section 294(b), 324, 447, 354, 506 of IPC against
A-1 and U/Sec.294(b), 324, 447, 506 r/w.34 against A-2 beyond
reasonable doubt’ ?
11.P O I N T :
11(i). According to the case of the prosecution, PW-1 is de-facto complainant/Victim; PW-2 and PW-3 are the eye witnesses in the alleged incident.
11(ii). PW-1 who is defacto-complainant/victim and PW-2 and PW-3, who are eye witnesses to the alleged accident did not support the case of prosecution and turned hostile. PW-1 simply stated that she does not know about the facts of the case. Police obtained her signature on some papers and she does not know the contents of the same. PW-2 and PW- 3 deposed that they do not know anything about the case and they did not witness any accident. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor declared PW-1 to PW-3 and cross examined them. Nothing was elicited to support the case of the prosecution from the cross examination of PW- 1 to PW-3, except marking previous statements as Exs.P-1 to P-4 respectively.
Page 5 of 8
C.C.No. 160 of 2024 Dated : 28.02.2025
11(iii).Now there remains the evidence of PW-4, who is
Investigating Officer and her evidence reveals right from the registration of crime till filing of charge sheet. Her evidence is formal and procedural one. There is no corroboration to the testimony of PW-4/Investigating
Officer, from the evidence of other prosecution witnesses.
11(iv).There is neither direct evidence nor circumstantial evidence to prove the guilt of the accused, except the evidence of Investigating
Officer, who is interested in the case. In the absence of corroboration from defacto complainant/victim and eye witnesses, the interested testimony of Investigating Officer is of no use to the prosecution. There is no iota of evidence on record to believe the prosecution story. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has rightly given up the evidence of remaining witnesses in view of hostile evidence of eye witnesses and de- facto complainant/Victim. Absolutely, there is no evidence on record to substantiate the case of the prosecution and as such A-1 and A-2 are entitled for acquittal. The point is answered accordingly.
11(v).Moreover at this juncture it is relevant to note a decision made in 1994(2) ALT (Crl.P.69(A) Batcha Raju Vs State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Vizianagaram Rural Circle. Wherein it was held that the conviction cannot be given basing on the sole evidence of the police officer without corroboration by disinterested witnesses.
Page 6 of 8
C.C.No. 160 of 2024 Dated : 28.02.2025
In the present case on hand, except the evidence of PW-4, there is no evidence on behalf of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused, which is not believable.
11(vi).Under the above circumstances, I feel that prosecution miserably failed to prove that the accused person committed an offence punishable U/sec.294(b), 323, 326, 506 of IPC. Hence, accused person deserves for acquittal. Hence, it is a fit case to grant benefit of doubt to accused person and prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused person U/sec.294(b), 323, 326, 506 of IPC. Beyond all reasonable doubts.
12.IN THE RESULT, A-1 is found not guilty for the charges under
Sec.294(b), 324, 354, 447, 506 of IPC and accordingly, A-2 is found not guilty for the charges under Sec.294(b), 324, 447, 506 r/w.34 of IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted under Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C., of the said charges. The bail bonds of the Accused shall remain in force for a period of six months as envisaged under Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.
Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 28th day of February, 2025.
Sd/-
(K.Sai Sri)
FAC: JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM -
JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
DAMMAPETA
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
Page 7 of 8
C.C.No. 160 of 2024 Dated : 28.02.2025
FOR PROSECUTION FOR ACCUSED
PW-1Sunnam Kumari
PW-2M.Laxmi :: NONE :: PW-3Sunnam Venkat Rao
PW-4CH.Aruna
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION
Ex.P-1Signature of PW-1 on the original report.
Ex.P-2Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-1.
Ex.P-3Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-2.
Ex.P-4Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-3.
Ex.P-5Original report lodged by PW-1.
Ex.P-6First Information Report.
Ex.P-7Crime Detail Form.
Ex.P-8Report issued by Tahsildar
Ex.P-9Medical Certificates of PW-1
Ex.P-10 Medical Certificate of PW-2 Ex.P-11 Medical Certificate of PW-3 Medical Certificate of LW-3/ Sunnam Jani Ex.P-12 @ Jani Babu
FOR ACCUSED
:: NIL ::
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
:: NIL ::
Sd/-
(K.Sai Sri)
FAC: JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM -
JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
DAMMAPETA
Page 8 of 8