Sri. Kumar Vivek

1 CC. No. 340 of 2012

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

(SPL. MOBILE), NIZAMABAD.

Present: Kumar Vivek

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

(Spl. Mobile), Nizamabad.

Dated this the 19th day of March, 2014

CC. No. 340 OF 2012

(Crime no. 246/2011 of police station, town-IV, Nizamabad.)

BETWEEN: The State through Sub Inspector of police, police station, town-IV, Nizamabad.

...Complainant.

AND

1. Kura Nagesh @ Mahesh s/o Shivanandam, age: 28 yrs, Caste: Vyshya, Occ: employee in Tirumla Tirupathi and company, Kirana shop, r/o H.No.1-1-487, Hanman Nagar, Nizamabad.

2. Katikam Anil Kumar s/o Sudarshan, age: 35 yrs, Caste: Vyshya, Occ: Sri Bhavani kirana shop owner, Phulong x road, Nizamabad, r/o H.No.1-9-49, Phulong chowrastha, Nizamabad.

Accused persons

This case is coming on this day before me for hearing and disposal in the presence of learned APPO for the State and of Sri G. Gangaram advocate for accused no.1 and Sri G. Tulasidas, Sri D. Narendher Reddy and Sri G. Madhusudhan advocates for accused no.2 and having been heard and stood over for consideration, till this day the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The accused persons are arraigned before this Court for the charge of offences punishable under section 3801 of the Indian Penal

Code or in the alternative under section 4112 of the Indian Penal

Code.

2.The Sub Inspector of police, police station, town-IV,

Nizamabad, has filed report under section 173 of the Criminal 1Whoever commits theft in any building, tent or vessel, which building, tent or vessel is used as a human dwelling., or used for the custody of property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. 2Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

2 CC. No. 340 of 2012

Procedure Code with the following averments:

On21.09.2011at6.30a.mthedefacto complainant(PW1)/Shidamshetty Shiva, has lodged a petition stating he is running a kiran shop by name and style Tirumala Tirupathi and

Company besides Nikhil Sai hotel, Hyderabad road, Nizamabad and accused no.1 was working in his shop. On 20.09.2011 at about 09.15 p.m when Pw1 was closing the kirana shop he saw that the accused no.1 was keeping the big packet of Gold Flake cigaratte in the pocket of his trouser. On seeing the same he shouted he questioned and caught hold of him but he escaped from the shop along with the stolen property.

3. Basing on the report, PW4/Md. Thallali Khan, Asst. Sub

Inspector of police, police station, town-IV, Nizamabad has registered a case against the accused no.1 and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, he has examined PW1 and recorded his statement at the police station, town-III, Nizamabad, in part-II case diary. Later he visited the scene of crime situated at Tirumala

Tirupathi and Company Kirana shop, Pragathinagar, Nizamabad, where he conducted scene of offence panchanama and drew rough sketch of the scene in the presence of PW2 and LW3/Md. Ismail. On 22.09.2011 at 10.00 a.m on receipt of reliable information he along with staff rushed to Hanuman Nagar, Nizamabad, and apprehended the accused no.1. On interrogation, the accused no.1 confessed to have committed this offence. He secured the mediators (Pw3 and

Lw4/Nandala Yadagiri) and in their presence he recorded the 3 CC. No. 340 of 2012 confessional statement of the accused no.1 and seized 5 packets of

Gold Flake cigarettes at his instance from his house. Then accused no.1 led PW4 and those mediators to the shop of accused no.2 to whom he had sold the remaining cigarette packets stolen from the shop of Pw1. Then Pw4 apprehended the accused no.2 from his shop and in the presence of above mediators he recorded the confessional statement of the accused no.2 and seized five packets of stolen cigarette packets from his kirana shop. Then PW4 brought the accused persons and the stolen properties to the police station and effected the arrest of the accused persons and produced them before the hon'ble Court for judicial custody. Then he deposited the case properties before the hon'ble Court. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet praying the Court to punish the accused no.1 for the offence punishable under section 380 of the Indian Penal Code and accused no.2 for the offence under section 411 of the Indian

Penal Code.

4. The I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Nizamabad, has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under section 380 of the Indian Penal Code or alternative under section 411 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons.

5. Thereafter, this case was transferred to this Court from I

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Nizamabad, for trial,

as per the proceedings vide dis. no. 6021, dated 25.10.2012, and on receipt of this case, the case was re-numbered in this Court and accordingly proceeded with.

4 CC. No. 340 of 2012

6. After appearance of the accused persons before this Court, copies of documents relied upon by the prosecution, have been furnished to the accused persons as contemplated under section 207 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

7. The accused persons are examined under section 239 of the

Criminal Procedure Code. Charges for the offence punishable under section 380 of the Indian Penal Code against accused no.1 and under section 411 of the Indian Penal Code against accused no.2 have been framed, read over and explained to them in the vernacular language, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8. The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused persons have examined Pw1 to Pw4 and got marked Ex.P1 to

P5 through them apart from marking Mo.1.

9. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused persons are examined under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure

Code by stating the incriminating circumstances found to be appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses against the accused persons for which they denied, and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

10.Heard arguments on both sides.

11.Point for determination:

I. “Whether the prosecution did prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under section 380 against accused no.1 and under section 411 against accused no.2 of the

Indian Penal Code”?

5 CC. No. 340 of 2012

II. “To what finding”?

12. Point number 1: The specific case of the prosecution is that accused no.1 as servant of Pw1 has committed theft of cigarettes of Gold Flake brand from his shop by name and style Tirumala

Thirupathi and Company and sold part of those stolen cigarettes to accused no.2 who received the same knowing the same to be stolen property.

The evidence of PW1 before this Court is that accused no.1 was working in his shop and on 20.09.2011 in his shop by name

Tirumala Thirupathi and Company situated at Devi Chowrastha,

Hyderabad road, Nizamabad, at about 9.30 p.m when he was closing his shop he found that one large packet of Gold Falke cigarettes in the possession of accused no.1 and when he tried to catch accused no.1, accused no.1 pushed him and ran away and he shouted “Donga

Donga”. It is also testified by Pw1 before this Court that he with the help of other workers of his shop chased accused no.1 and caught hold of him and handed over him to the police station, town-IV,

Nizamabad, and lodged report against accused no.1 under Ex.P1.

PW1 has stated during the course of his cross examination that he lodged Ex.P1 on the same day of the incident, that he did not produce any record before the police that accused no.1 was working in his shop that he lodged Ex.P1 at 10.30 p.m and that he handed over

MO.1 on the same day of the incident before the police.

Pw2 is said to be one of the mediators before whom PW4 held scene of offence panchanama in the shop of Pw1. PW2 has 6 CC. No. 340 of 2012 testified in his evidence before this Court that police held panchanama and drew rough sketch of the scene under Ex.P2 in his presence and thereafter obtained his signatures on it. Pw2 has stated during the course of his cross examination that Pw1 is his brother-in-law.

The accused persons are said to have confessed the commission of the offences before PW3 and LW4/N. Yadagiri and PW4 is said to have seized stolen cigarette packets from the possession of the accused persons in the presence of PW3 and LW4/N. Yadagiri.

Pw3 has testified in his evidence before this Court that on 22.09.2011 police held confession cum seizure panchanama under Ex.P3 and

Ex.P4 in his presence and also in the presence of LW4/Nandala

Yadagiri and thereafter obtained their signatures on it. PW3 has stated during the course of his cross examination that since the date of the incident he has been working in the kirana shop of Pw1, that the cigarette packets were lying in the police station about five or six days prior to his visit and holding of panchanama and that PW1 handed over cigarette packets to the police.

PW4 is the investigating officer and he has testified mainly about the registration of the crime under Ex.P5 on the receipt of written report of Pw1, examination and recording of the statement of

PW1, holding of the scene of offence panchanama, apprehension of the accused no.1 on 22.09.2011 at 10.30 a.m and recording of the panchanama under Ex.P3 in the presence of PW3 and LW4/Nandala

Yadagiri and seizure of part of the stolen cigarette packets from the possession of the accused no.1 at his house at Hanumannagar, 7 CC. No. 340 of 2012

Nizamabad, apprehension of the accused no.2 from his shop on 22.09.2011 at 10.35 a.m and recording of the panchanama under

Ex.P4 in the presence of the same mediators, and seizure of remaining stolen cigarette packets from his kirana shop, arrest of the accused persons as per the law and sending them to the hon'ble Court for judicial custody, and filing of charge sheet against accused no.1 under section 380 of the Indian Penal Code and against accused no.2 under section 411 of the Indian Penal Code. PW4 has stated during the course of his cross examination that he did not collect any record that accused no.1 is working in the shop of PW1, PW1 did not hand over the accused no.1 at the time of filing of the police report, and

PW1 lodged Ex.P1 on the next day of the incident in the morning hours.

Ex.P1 is the police report lodged by PW1. Ex.P1 reveals that

Pw1 has alleged therein that he had seen the accused person committing theft of cigarette packet in his shop by keeping it in the pocket of his trousers. There is no evidence of Pw1 before this court that he had seen accused no.1 committing theft of cigarette pockets in his shop by keeping the same in the pocket of his trousers.

Therefore, the recitals of Ex.P1 regarding PW1 seeing the accused no.1 committed theft of cigarettes of Gold Flake brand is not corroborated with the evidence of Pw1 before this Court. The perusal of deposition of PW1 reveals that accused no.1 had found the accused person in possession of Mo.1 at about 9.30 p.m on 20.09.2011 and when accused no.1 tried to flee, Pw1 with the help of other workers of 8 CC. No. 340 of 2012 his shop caught hold of accused no.1 and handed over him to the police concerned and he lodged Ex.P1 on the same day of the incident at about 10.30 a.m. When the alleged incident of Pw1 witnessing that the accused no.1 had committed theft of Mo.1 from his shop took place on 20.09.2011 at about 9.30 p.m it is hard to digest the fact that Pw1 had lodged Ex.P1 on 20.09.2011 at 10.30 a.m, almost 11 hours prior to the occurrence of the alleged incident. Admittedly PW1 did not produce any record before the police to establish that accused no.1 was working in his shop and investigating officer also did not deem it proper to collect the same from Pw1 during the investigation.

It is significant to note that accused no.1 by way of giving suggestions to Pw1 during the course of his cross examination that accused no.1 was not working in his shop, is denying the version of the prosecution that accused no.1 was the worker of Pw1 in his shop.

It is the version of Pw1 that on the same day of the incident on 20.09.2011 he lodged Ex.P1 report. Ex.P1 reveals that it is dated 21.09.2011 and not 20.09.2011. PW1 is said to have handed over accused no.1 before the police concerned on 20.09.2011 at the time of the lodging of Ex.P1. PW4 states during the course of his cross examination that Pw1 did not hand over accused no.1 to him at the police station at the time of the lodging of Ex.P1. The evidence of

PW4 before this Court is that on 22.09.2011 at 10.30 p.m he apprehended the accused no.1. Therefore, there is inconsistency in the evidence of Pw1 and Pw4 regarding the apprehension of the accused no.1.

9 CC. No. 340 of 2012

The cross examination of Pw1 further discloses that he handed over the Mo1 to the police on the same day of the incident.

The cross examination of PW3 reveals that the cigarette packets were handed over to the police by Pw1. The evidence of PW4 is that he seized part of the stolen cigarette packets from the possession of accused no.1 in the presence of PW3 and LW4/Nandala Yadagiri on 22.09.2011 from the house of accused no.1 at Hanuman Nagar,

Nizamabad. The evidence of PW1 and PW3 on the one hand, and the evidence of PW4 on the other hand are also inconsistent with respect to the alleged seizure of part of stolen cigarette packets from the possession of accused no.1. Revelation elicited during the course of cross examination of Pw3 that the cigarette packets were lying in the police station much prior to the holding of the panchanama also caste doubt on the claim of the prosecution regarding making of any seizure of the stolen cigarette packets from the possession of accused no.1 and 2 from their house and shop respectively by PW4 in the presence of PW3 and LW4/Nandala Yadagiri. Moreover there is no identification of the accused persons in the evidence of Pw3 that they are the only persons who have allegedly confessed the commission of the offences

before Pw3 and Lw4/Nandala Yadagiri and it is from their possession

and at their instance only the stolen cigarette packets were seized by

PW4.

The evidence of PW2 by it self will not help the prosecution to establish that the accused persons are guilty of the commission of the charged offences.

10 CC. No. 340 of 2012

Accordingly in view of foregoing discussion this Court fine that the evidence of the prosecution is suffering with several improbabilities and infirmities rendering it untrustworthy to hold that accused no.1 committed theft of Cigarette of Gold Flake as servant of

PW1 from the shop of PW1 and sold the same to accused no.2 who received the same knowing the same to be stolen property.

Therefore, it is held that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt. This point is answered accordingly against the prosecution and in favor of the accused persons.

13.Point no.2: In view of the finding in point no.1, it is held that the accused persons are entitled to be extended benefit of reasonable doubt. This point is answered accordingly against the prosecution and in favour of the accused persons.

14.IN THE RESULT, the accused no. 1 found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 380 of the Indian Penal Code and accused no.1 found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, as such, they are acquitted under section 248(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the accused persons shall remain in force for a period of six months from this date. Mo.1 shall be returned to PW1 after the expiry of the appeal period.

Dictated to the Copyist, transcribed her correct and pronounced

by me in open Court on this the 19th day of March, 2014.

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, (Spl. Mobile), Nizamabad.

11 CC. No. 340 of 2012

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witness examined for

Prosecution:-Defence:- None

PW1( LW1): Shidamshetty Shiva

PW2(LW2): Kuchani Rajendra Prasad

PW3(LW5): Ega Santhosh Kumar

PW4(LW6): Md. Thalali Khan.

EXHIBITS MARKED

Prosecution: Defence:-

-NIL-

Ex.P1: ReportofShidamshetty Shiva, dt. 21.09.2011.

Ex.P2: Crime details form along with rough sketch of the scene, dt.21.09.2011.

Ex.P3: Confessioncumseizure panchanama of accused no.1, dt.22.09.2011.

Ex.P4: Confessioncumseizure panchanama of accused no.2, dt.22.09.2011

Ex.P5: First information report, dt.21.09.2011.

M.Os. MARKED

Mo.1: 12 gold flake packets.

Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

(Spl. Mobile), Nizamabad.

12 CC. No. 340 of 2012

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS (SPL. MOBILE),

NIZAMABAD

CC.No. 340 of 2012

1. Date of offence : 20.09.2011

2. Date of complaint or report: 21.09.2011

3. Date of apprehension of accused: 22.09.2011

4. Date of release on bail : 24.09.2011

5. Date of commencement of trial: 05.02.2013

6. Date of closure of trial: 23.01.2014

7. Date of Judgment : 19.03.2014

8. Explanation of delay or remark : --

Complainant : The State through Sub Inspector of police, police station, town-IV, Nizamabad. Description of the accused: 1. Kura Nagesh @ Mahesh s/o Shivanandam, age: 28 yrs, Caste: Vyshya, Occ: employee in Tirumla Tirupathi and company, Kirana shop, r/o H.No.1-1-487, Hanman Nagar, Nizamabad.

2. Katikam Anil Kumar s/o Sudarshan, age: 35 yrs, Caste: Vyshya, Occ: Sri Bhavani kirana shop owner, Phulong x road, Nizamabad, r/o H.No.1-9-49, Phulong chowrastha, Nizamabad. Accused persons under section: 380 of the IPC against A1 and 411 of the IPC against A2

Finding : Not guilty

Sentence: Acquittal

Judl. Magistrate of First Class (Spl. Mobile), Nizamabad

To: The Hon’ble 1st Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

13 CC. No. 340 of 2012

1 CC. No. 178 of 2012

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, (SPL.

MOBILE), NIZAMABAD.

Present: Kumar Vivek,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

(Spl. Mobile), Nizamabad.

Dated this the 20th day of March, 2014

CC. No. 178 OF 2012

(Crime no. 279/2011 of police station, town-IV, Nizamabad)

BETWEEN: The State through Sub Inspector of Police, police station, town-IV, Nizamabad.

...Complainant

AND

1. Miriyala Gangaram @ Gosam Gangaram s/o Sailoo, age: 20 yrs, Caste: Gosangi, Occ: Labour, r/o H.No.1-13-152, Vinayaknagar near PHC, Nizamabad.

2. Miriyala Ganesh @ Gosam Ganesh s/o Sailoo, age: 23 yrs, Caste: Gosangi, Occ: Scrap business, r/o H.No.1-13-152, Vinayaknagar near PHC, Nizamabad.

3. Miriyala Sailoo s/o Gangaram, age: 60 yrs, Caste: Gosangi, Occ: Labour, r/o H.No.1-13-152, Vinayaknagar near PHC, Nizamabad.

4. Miriyala Rajavva w/o Sailoo, age: 50 yrs, Caste: Gosangi, occ: House wife, r/o H.No.1-13-152, Vinayaknagar near PHC, Nizamabad.

5. Anrashi Gangalaxmi w/o Swamy, age: 21 yrs, Caste: Gosangi, Occ: House wife, r/o Wadloor Yellareddy presently r/o Gosamgalli, Vinayaknagar near PHC, Nizamabad.

…Accused persons

This case is coming on this day before me for hearing and disposal in the presence of learned APPO for the State and of Sri A. Muralidhar advocate for the accused persons, and having been heard and stood over for consideration, till this day the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The accused persons are arraigned before this Court for the charge of an offence punishable under section 3241 r/w 342 of the Indian Penal Code.

2.The Sub Inspector of police, police station, town-IV, Nizamabad, has filed report under section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code with the following averments:

On 24.10.2011 at 09.00 p.m the defacto complainant(PW1)/Karre

Bhumaiah has lodged a petition stating that on 23.10.2011 at about 09.00 p.m 1Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. 2When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.

2 CC. No. 178 of 2012

PW1 warned the public, who were playing cards in his Gosam veedi locality,

Vinayaknagar, Nizamabad, in the mean time the accused no.1 and 2 have intervened, abused PW1 and beat PW1 with stones and when PW2 tried to rescue PW1 from the cluthes of the accused persons the accused persons have also beaten PW2 with a stick on her head as a result of which Pw1 received injury on his chest and both the hands, and Pw2 received bleeding head injury.

3. Basing on the report, LW8/Md. Thallali Khan, Asst Sub Inspector of police, police station, town-IV, Nizamabad has registered a case against the accused persons and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation he has examined and recorded the statement of PW1 and PW2 in part-II case diary and referred them to the government head quarter hospital,

Nizamabad, for medical examination. Later he visited the scene of offence where he conducted scene of offence pachanama and drew rough sketch of the scene in the presence of LW5/Madinam Shekar and LW6/Sk. Wajeed and he also examined PW3 and PW4 and recorded their statements in part-II case diary. On 28.10.2011 at 12.00 a.m on receipt of reliable information he along with his staff rushed to the house of the accused no.1 and 2 and apprehended them. On interrogation the accused no.1 and 2 confessed to have committed this offence along with accused no.3. As such he brought them to the police station and effected their arrest and produced them before the hon'ble Court for judicial remand. Then he handed over the case diary to Lw9/A.Ramulu, Asst. Sub

Inspector of Police, police station, town-IV, Nizamabad. Lw9/A.Ramulu, Asst.

Sub Inspector of Police, police station, town-IV, Nizamabad, resumed case diary from LW8/Md. Thallali Khan, Asst. Sub Inspector of police, police station, town-

IV, Nizamabad, and verified the investigation done by his subordinate and found it on correct lines and investigated into. On 27.10.2011 at 11.30 a.m on receipt of reliable information Lw9/A.Ramulu, Asst. Sub Inspector of Police, police station, town-IV, Nizamabad, along with his staff rushed to Gosamgalli,

Nizamabad, and apprehended the accused no.3. On interrogation the accused 3 CC. No. 178 of 2012 no.3 has voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence. Then he brought the accused no.3 at the police station, town-IV, Nizamabad, and effected his arrest and produced him before the hon'ble Court for judicial remand. On 02.11.2011 the accused no.4 and accused no.5 voluntarily surrendered before the Court and subsequently they were enlarged on bail vide dis no. 1601, dt:

22.11.2011. Then he handed over the case diary to LW10/G. Santhosh Kumar,

Sub Inspector of Police, police station, town-IV, Nizamabad. LW10/G. Santhosh

Kumar, Sub Inspector of Police, police station, town-IV, Nizamabad, resumed case diary from Lw9/A. Ramulu, Asst. Sub Inspector of Police police station, town-IV, Nizamabad, and verified the investigation done by his subordinate and found it on correct lines and investigated into. LW7/Dr. Aparna, Civil Assistant

Surgeon, government head quarter hospital, Nizamabad, who treated the PW1 and PW2 issued their wound certificates has opined that Pw1 and PW2 sustained injuries that are simple in nature. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet praying this Court to punish the accused person for the offences punishable under section 324 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad, has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under section 324 r/w 34 of the

Indian Penal Code against the accused persons.

5. Thereafter, this case was transferred to this Court from I Additional

Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Nizamabad, for trial, as per the

proceedings vide dis. no. 6021, dated 25.10.2012, and on receipt of this case, the case was re numbered in this Court and accordingly proceeded with.

6. After appearance of the accused persons before this Court, copies of documents relied upon by the prosecution, have been furnished to the accused persons as contemplated under section 207 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

7. The accused persons are examined under section 239 of the Criminal

Procedure Code. A charge for the offence punishable under section 324 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code have been framed against the accused persons, which 4 CC. No. 178 of 2012 are read over and explained to them in the vernacular language, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8. The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused persons have examined PW1 to PW4 and got marked Ex.P1 to P5 through them.

9. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the examination of the accused persons under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been dispensed with as there is no incriminating circumstances are found to be appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses against the accused persons.

10.Heard arguments on both sides.

11.Point for determination:

I. “Whether the prosecution did prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt for the offences punishable under section 324 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code”? II. “To what finding”?

12. Point number 1: The specific case of the prosecution is that on 23.10.2011 at about 9.00 p.m at Gosam Veedi, Vinayaknagar, Nizamabad, the accused persons infurtherance of their common intention have voluntarily caused hurt to PW1 by beating him with stones and when PW2 came for rescue of PW1 from the clutches of the accused persons the accused persons she was also beaten by them with a stick on her head.

PW1 and PW2 are said to be the victims at the hands of the accused persons. The evidence of PW1 before this Court is that he know the accused persons as they are his caste people and who are residing in his locality, and he had petty disputes with the accused persons on which he went to the police station for counseling where police had obtained his signature on white papers.

Pw1 has categorically testified in his evidence before this Court that the accused persons did not beat him at any point of time and the police did not examine him and did not record his statement. PW2 has testified before this Court that she know the accused person as they are her caste people and also residing in her locality. PW2 has categorically testified in her evidence before this Court 5 CC. No. 178 of 2012 that the accused person did not beat her at any point of time and police did not examine him and did not record his statement.

PW3 and PW4 are said to be the eye witnesses to the incident and they have testified in one voice before this Court that they do not know anything in this case and that police did not examine him and did not record his statement.

There is no evidence of PW1 to PW4 before this Court thaton 23.10.2011 at about 9.00 p.m at Gosam Veedi, Vinayaknagar, Nizamabad, the accused persons infurtherance of their common intention have voluntarily caused hurt to

PW1 by beating him with stones and when PW2 came for rescue of PW1 from the clutches of the accused persons the accused persons she was also beaten by them with a stick on her head. PW1 to PW4 have turned hostile and they do not support the case of the prosecution. PW1 to PW4 are examined by the learned

APPO under section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act but nothing is elicited to bring home the guilt of the accused persons for the commission of the charged offence. The evidence adduced by the prosecution is contrary to the case of the prosecution and on the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution this

Court do not believe that the accused persons are guilty of commission of the charged offence. Therefore, it is held that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused person beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt.

This point is answered accordingly against the prosecution and in favour of the accused persons.

13.Point no.2: In view of the finding in point no.1, it is held that the accused persons are entitled to be extended benefit of reasonable doubt. This point is answered accordingly against the prosecution and in favour of the accused persons.

14.IN THE RESULT, the accused persons are found not guilty for the offences punishable under section 324 and 342 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, as such, they are acquitted under section 248(1) of the Criminal Procedure

Code. The bail bonds of the accused no. 2 to accused no.5 shall remain in force 6 CC. No. 178 of 2012 for the period of six months from this date. The Superintendent, Dist. Jail,

Nizamabad, is directed to release the accused no.1 if he is not required to be detained in any other case. No case property is deposited in this case as such no order regarding disposal of property is passed.

Typed to my dictation by the Copyist, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 20th day of March, 2014.

Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

(Spl. Mobile), Nizamabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witness examined for

Prosecution:-Defence:-

PW1(LW1): Karre Bhumaiah None

PW2(LW2): Kare Laxmi

PW3(LW3): Madan Sailoo

PW4(LW4): Turpati Krishna

EXHIBITS MARKED

Prosecution:- Defence:-

-NIL-

Ex.P1:Signature of Karre Bhumaiah on police report, dt.24.10.2011.

Ex.P2:Section 161 of the Cr.P.C statement of Karre Bhumaiah, dt.24.10.2011

Ex.P3:Section 161 of the Cr.P.C statement of Karre Laxmi, dt.24.10.2011.

Ex.P4:Section 161 of the Cr.P.C statement of Madan Sailoo, dt.24.10.2011.

Ex.P5:Section 161 of the Cr.P.C statement of Turpati Krishna, dt.24.10.2011

M.Os. MARKED

-NIL-

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, (Spl. Mobile), Nizamabad.

7 CC. No. 178 of 2012

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS (SPL. MOBILE),

NIZAMABAD

CC.No.178 of 2012

1. Date of offence : 23.10.2010

2. Date of complaint or report: 24.10.2010

3. Date of apprehension of accused: 28.10.2011 of A1 and A2 27.10.2011 of A3 02.11.2011 of A4 and A5

4. Date of release on bail : 28.10.2011 of A1 and A2 27.10.2011 of A3 02.11.2011 of A4 and A5

5. Date of commencement of trial: 06.08.2013

6. Date of closure of trial: 06.03.2014

7. Date of Judgment : 20.03.2014

8. Explanation of delay or remark : --

Complainant : The State through Sub Inspector of police, police station, town-IV, Nizamabad.

Description of the accused: 1.Miriyala Gangaram @ Gosam Gangaram s/o Sailoo, age: 20 yrs, Caste: Gosangi, Occ: Labour, r/o H.No.1-13-152, Vinayaknagar near PHC, Nizamabad.

2.Miriyala Ganesh @ Gosam Ganesh s/o Sailoo, age: 23 yrs, Caste: Gosangi, Occ: Scrap business, r/o H.No.1-13-152, Vinayaknagar near PHC, Nizamabad.

3.Miriyala Sailoo s/o Gangaram, age: 60 yrs, Caste: Gosangi, Occ: Labour, r/o H.No.1-13-152, Vinayaknagar near PHC, Nizamabad.

4.Miriyala Rajavva w/o Sailoo, age: 50 yrs, Caste: Gosangi, occ: House wife, r/o H.No.1-13-152, Vinayaknagar near PHC, Nizamabad.

5.Anrashi Gangalaxmi w/o Swamy, age: 21 yrs, Caste: Gosangi, Occ: House wife, r/o Wadloor Yellareddy presently r/o Gosamgalli, Vinayaknagar near PHC, Nizamabad. Offences under section: 324 r/w 34 of the IPC Finding : Not guilty Sentence: Acquittal

Judl. Magistrate of First Class (Spl. Mobile), Nizamabad

To: The Hon’ble 1st Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

8 CC. No. 178 of 2012

1 CC. No. 182 of 2012

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, (SPL.

MOBILE), NIZAMABAD.

Present: Sri Kumar Vivek,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

(Spl. Mobile), Nizamabad.

Dated this the 19th day of March, 2014

CC. No. 182 OF 2012

(Crime no. 12/2011 of police station, town-III, Nizamabad)

BETWEEN: The State through Sub Inspector of police, police station, town-III, Nizamabad. …Complainant

AND

Paradeshi Yashpal s/o Nandu, age: 25 yrs, Caste: Rajputh, Occ: Auto owner and driver, r/o Ramnagar kouta Nanded of Maharastra State.

…Accused person

This case is coming on this day, before me for hearing and disposal in the presence of learned APPO for the State and of Sri M.A.Mubeen advocate for the accused person, and having been heard and stood over for consideration, till this day the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The accused person is arraigned before this Court for the charge of offences punishable under section 498-A1 and 5062 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 33 and 44 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

2.The Sub Inspector of police, police station, town-III, Nizamabad, has filed report under section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code with the following averments:

On 10.01.2011 at 03.00 p.m the defacto complainant(PW1)/Paradeshi 1Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation- For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means-

(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.] 2Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc- and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or 152[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute, unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or With fine, or with both. 3If any person, after the commencement of this Act, gives or takes or abets the giving or taking of dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years, and with fine which shall not be less than fifteen thousand rupees or the amount of the value of such dowry, whichever is more. 4 If any person demands, directly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be, any dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees.

2 CC. No. 182 of 2012

Ranibai has lodged a petition stating that she performed the marriage of her younger daughter(PW2) to the accused person as per their caste customs. At the time of marriage Pw1 presented three tulas of gold and house hold articles to the accused person as dowry. After the marriage Pw2 led happy marrital life for a period of fifteen days. Thereafter the accused persons harassed PW2 to bring additional dowry of Rs.50,000/- but Pw2 expressed inability of her parents as her parents are poor even though the accused person did not stop his harassment. On 07.01.2011 at about 7.00 p.m the accused person beat PW2 with belt and hands on her back, legs and thigh by suspecting her character. PW2 informed the same to her parents.

Due to un tolerable harassment of the accused person PW2 came to the house of her parents.

3. Basing on the report, LW5/G. Bhumaiah, Asst. Sub Inspector of police, police station, town-III, Nizamabad has registered a case against the accused person, and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, he has examined and recorded the statements of PW1 and

LW2/Paradesee Heeralal in part-II case diary. Then he visited the government head quarter hospital, Nizamabad, where PW2 was admitted.

There he had examined PW2 and recorded her statement in part-II case diary and gave requisition to medical officer for her treatment. Then he handed over the case diary to LW6/P. Srishylam, Sub Inspector of police, police station, town-III, Nizamabad. LW6/P. Srishylam, Sub Inspector of police, police station, town-III, Nizamabad resumed case diary from Lw5/G.

Bhumaiah, Asst. Sub Inspector of police, police station, town-III,

Nizamabad, and verified the investigation done by his predecessor and found it on correct lines and investigated into. LW4/Dr. Divya, Civil

Assistant Surgeon, government head quarter hospital, Nizamabad, who treated the Pw2, has opined that PW2 has sustained injuries that are simple in nature. Then he issued and served notices under section 41(A)(1) of the 3 CC. No. 182 of 2012

Cr.P.C on the accused person. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet praying this Court to punish the accused person for the offences punishable under section 498-A and 324 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

4. The I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad, has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under section 498-A and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, and section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, against the accused person.

5. Thereafter, this case was transferred to this Court from I Additional

Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Nizamabad, for trial, as per the

proceedings vide dis. no. 6021, dated 25.10.2012, and on receipt of this case, the case was re numbered in this Court and accordingly proceeded with.

6. After appearance of the accused person before this Court, copies of documents relied upon by the prosecution, have been furnished to the accused person as contemplated under section 207 of the Criminal

Procedure Code.

7. The accused person is examined under section 239 of the Criminal

Procedure Code. Charges for the offences punishable under section 498-A and 324 of the Indian Penal Code 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 have been framed against the accused person, which are read over and explained to him in the vernacular language, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8. The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused person have examined PW1 and PW2 and got marked Ex.P1 and P2 through them.

9. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the examination of the accused person under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been dispensed with as there is no incriminating circumstances are found to be 4 CC. No. 182 of 2012 appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses against the accused person.

10.Heard arguments on both sides.

11.Point for determination:

I. “Whether the prosecution did prove the guilt of the accused person beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt for the offences punishable under section 498-A and 324 of the Indian Penal Code 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961”?

II. “To what finding”?

12. Point number 1: The specific case of the prosecution is that

Pw.2(mother of Pw1) has presented three tulas of gold and other house hold articles as dowry to the accused person on his demand in the marriage of

PW1, and after the marriage of PW1 with accused person, the accused person has subjected PW2 to cruelty by demanding additional dowry of cash of Rs.50,000/- and also suspected her character, and on 07.01.2011 the accused person has beaten PW1 with hands and belt on her back, legs and thighs due to which she sustained simple injuries.

PW1 is the mother of PW2. PW1 has testified in her evidence before this Court that the accused person is her son-in-law, and her daughter(PW2) had petty domestic disputes with the accused person on which she(PW1) went to the police station for counseling where police had obtained her(PW1) signature on white paper. PW1 has categorically testified her evidence before this Court that the accused person did not demand any dowry in her daughter's marriage and also she did not give any dowry in her daughter marriage to the accused person, that accused person did not harass her daughter for additional dowry at any time after the marriage and the accused person also did not subject her daughter to cruelty in any form at any time after the marriage and she did not lodge any police report against the accused person.

PW2 is said to be the victim at the hands of the accused person and 5 CC. No. 182 of 2012 her evidence in chief before this Court is that she know the accused person is her husband, and she had petty domestic disputes with the accused person on which she informed her mother(PW1) about it on which she(PW1) went to the police station for counseling where police had obtained her(PW1) signature on white paper. PW2 has categorically testified in her evidence before this Court that the accused person did not demand any dowry in her marriage, her parents also did not give any dowry in her marriage to the accused person, the accused person did not harass her for

additional dowry at any time after the marriage, and the accused person did

not subject her to cruelty in any form at any time after the marriage. It is also testified by Pw2 before this Court that her father(LW2/Paradese

Heeralal) died about two years ago that and the police did not examine her and did not record her statement.

There is no evidence of PW1 and PW2 before this Court that

Pw.2(mother of Pw1) has presented three tulas of gold and other house hold articles as dowry to the accused person on his demand in the marriage of

PW1, and after the marriage of PW1 with accused person, the accused person has subjected PW2 to cruelty by demanding additional dowry of cash of Rs.50,000/- and also suspected her character and on 07.01.2011 the accused person has beaten PW1 with hands and belt on her back and her legs and thighs due to which she sustained simple injuries. PW1 and PW2 have turned hostile and they did not support the case of the prosecution.

PW1 and PW2 are examined by the learned APPO under section 154 of the

Indian Evidence Act but nothing is elicited to bring home the guilt of the accused person for the commission of the charged offences. The evidence adduced by the prosecution is contrary to the case of the prosecution and on the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution this Court did not believe that the accused person is guilty of commission of the charged offences. Therefore, it is held that the prosecution has utterly failed to 6 CC. No. 182 of 2012 prove the guilt of the accused person beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt. This point is answered accordingly against the prosecution and in favour of the accused person.

13.Point no.2: In view of the finding in point no.1, it is held that the accused person is entitled to be extended benefit of reasonable doubt.

This point is answered accordingly against the prosecution and in favour of the accused person.

14.IN THE RESULT, the accused person is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 498-A and 324 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, as such, he is acquitted under section 248(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the accused person shall remain in force for a period of six months from this date. No case property is deposited in this case as such no order regarding disposal of property is passed.

Typed to my dictation by the Copyist, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 19th day of March, 2014.

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Spl. Mobile), Nizamabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witness examined for

Prosecution:-Defence:-

PW1(LW1): Paradeshi Ranibai-None-

PW2(LW3): Durgabai

EXHIBITS MARKED

Prosecution:- Defence:-

Ex.P2: Section 161 of the Cr.P.C NIL statement of Paradeshi Ranibai,

dt. 10.01.2011.

Ex.P3: Section 161 of the Cr.P.C statement of Durgabai, dt. 10.01.2011.

MOS. MARKED

-NIL-

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, (Spl. Mobile), Nizamabad.

7 CC. No. 182 of 2012

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS (SPL. MOBILE),

NIZAMABAD

CC.No. 182 of 2011

1. Date of offence : 07.01.2011

2. Date of complaint or report: 10.01.2011

3. Date of apprehension of accused: u/s 41(A)(1) of the Cr.P.C notice issued on the accused person

4. Date of release on bail :

5. Date of commencement of trial: 26.07.2013

6. Date of closure of trial: 28.02.2014

7. Date of Judgment : 19.03.2014

8. Explanation of delay or remark : --

Complainant : The State through Sub Inspector of police, police station, town-III, Nizamabad.

Description of the accused: Paradeshi Yashpal s/o Nandu, age:

25 yrs, Caste: Rajputh, Occ: Auto owner and driver, r/o Ramnagar kouta Nanded of Maharastra State.

Offences under section: 498-A and 324 of the IPC and section 3 and 4 of D.P.Act, 1961.

Finding : Not guilty

Sentence: Acquittal

Judl. Magistrate of First Class (Spl. Mobile), Nizamabad

To: The Hon’ble 1st Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

1 CC. No. 22 of 2012

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

(SPL. MOBILE), NIZAMABAD.

Present: Sri Kumar Vivek,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

(Spl. Mobile), Nizamabad.

Dated this the 19th day of March, 2014

CC. No. 22 OF 2012

(Crime no. 355/2010 of police station, town-III, Nizamabad)

BETWEEN: The State through Sub Inspector of Police, police station, town-III, Nizamabad.

...Complainant

AND

1. Gangone Surjeeth s/o Gangone Mohan, age: 30 yrs, Caste: Vanjari, Occ: business, Occ: Vaisnavi Biryani point, r/o Sanjeevaiah colony, Nizamabad.

2. Gangone Suman s/o Gangone Mohan, age: 23 yrs, Caste: Vanjari, Occ: Student, r/o H.No.6-15-391, Sanjeevaiah colony, Nizamabad.

3. Gangone Mohan s/o Narayana, age: 49 yrs, Occ: Business, r/o H.No.6-15-391, Sanjeevaiah colony, Nizamabad.

…Accused persons

This case is coming on 13th day of March, 2014 before me for hearing and disposal in the presence of learned APPO for the State and of Sri N. Srinivas Raju advocate for the accused persons, and having been heard and stood over for consideration, till this day the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The accused persons are arraigned before this Court for the charge of an offence punishable under section 3241 and 3422 r/w 343 of the Indian Penal Code.

2.The Sub Inspector of police, police station, town-III, 1Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. 2Whoever wrongfully confines any person shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. 3When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.

2 CC. No. 22 of 2012

Nizamabad, has filed report under section 173 of the Criminal

Procedure Code with the following averments:

On 28.12.2010 at 02.30 p.m the defacto complainant(PW1)/Gangone Ranadheer has lodged a petition stating that on 28.12.2010 at about 12.30 p.m when Pw1 went to the Vaisnavi Biryani Point situated at Gurubabadi Road, Nizamabad, of the accused persons for demanding repayment of the hand loan amount of Rs.20,000/- advanced by him to the accused no.1 on that the accused persons have wrongfully confined him into a room and beat him with their hands and with a bottle of Thumsup on his head.

3. Basing on the report, LW8/A. Rajeshwer Goud, HC 783, police station, town-III, Nizamabad has registered a case against the accused persons and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation he has examined and recorded the statement of PW1 to PW3 in part-II case diary and referred PW1 to the government head quarter hospital, Nizamabad, for medical examination. Later he visited the scene of offence where he conducted scene of offence pachanama and drew rough sketch of the scene in the presence of LW5/Kothwal Gangadhar and

LW6/Mohd. Sayeed and he also examined PW4 and recorded his statement in part-II case diary. Then he handed over the case diary to LW9/P.Srishylam, Sub Inspector of Police, police station, town-III, Nizamabad. LW9/P.Srishylam, Sub Inspector of Police, police station, town-III, Nizamabad, resumed case diary from

Lw8/A.Rajeshwer Goud, HC 783, police station, town-III,

Nizamabad, and verified the investigation done by his subordinate 3 CC. No. 22 of 2012 and found it on correct lines. As per the statements of PW2 to

PW4 the offence against accused no.4 is not proved hence the case against accused no.4 is deleted. Then he issued and served notices under section 41(A)(1) of the Cr.P.C on the accused persons but the accused persons have failed to submit their explanation. LW7/Dr.

Jayakoyure, Civil Assistant Surgeon, government head quarter hospital, Nizamabad, has opined that PW1 sustained injuries that are simple in nature. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet praying this Court to punish the accused person for the offences punishable under section 324 and 342 r/w 34 of the

Indian Penal Code.

4. The I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Nizamabad, has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under section 324 and 342 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons.

5. Thereafter, this case was transferred to this Court from I

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Nizamabad, for

trial, as per the proceedings vide dis. no. 6021, dated 25.10.2012, and on receipt of this case, the case was re numbered in this Court and accordingly proceeded with.

6. After appearance of the accused persons before this Court, copies of documents relied upon by the prosecution, have been furnished to the accused persons as contemplated under section 207 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

7. The accused persons are examined under section 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Charges for the offences punishable under section 324 and 342 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code have 4 CC. No. 22 of 2012 been framed against the accused persons, which are read over and explained to them in the vernacular language, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8. The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused persons have examined PW1 to PW4 and got marked Ex.P1 to P5 through them.

9. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the examination of the accused persons under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure

Code has been dispensed with as there is no incriminating circumstances are found to be appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses against the accused persons.

10.Heard arguments on both sides.

11.Point for determination:

I. “Whether the prosecution did prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt for the offences punishable under section 324 and 342 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code”? II. “To what finding”?

12. Point number 1: The specific case of the prosecution is that on 28.12.2011 at Vaishnavi Biryani Point situated at

Sanjeevaiah colony, Nizamabad, the accused persons infurtherance of their common intention have wrongfully confined PW1 in to a room and voluntarily caused hurt to PW1 by beating him with bottle of Thumsup.

PW1 is said to the victim at the hands of the accused persons and his evidence in chief before this Court is that he know the accused persons who are his relatives and he had petty disputes with the accused persons on which he went to the police station for counseling where police had obtained his signature on white papers.

5 CC. No. 22 of 2012

PW2 PW4 are said to be an eye witnesses to the incident and they have testified in one voice before this Court that that they know PW1 but they do not know anything in this case and that police did not examine them and did not record their statements.

There is no evidence of PW1 to PW4 before this Court that on 28.12.2012 at Vaishnavi Biryani Point situated at Sanjeevaiah colony, Nizamabad, infurtherance of their common intention have wrongfully confined Pw1 in a room and voluntarily caused hurt to

Pw1 by beating him a bottle of Thumpsup. PW1 to PW4 have turned hostile and they do not support the case of the prosecution.

PW1 to PW4 are examined by the learned APPO under section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act but nothing is elicited to bring home the guilt of the accused persons for the commission of the charged offences. The evidence adduced by the prosecution is contrary to the case of the prosecution and on the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution this Court do not believe that the accused persons are guilty of commission of the charged offences.

Therefore, it is held that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused person beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt. This point is answered accordingly against the prosecution and in favour of the accused persons.

13.Point no.2: In view of the finding in point no.1, it is held that the accused persons are entitled to be extended benefit of reasonable doubt. This point is answered accordingly against the prosecution and in favour of the accused persons.

14.IN THE RESULT, the accused persons are found not guilty for the offences punishable under section 324 and 342 r/w 34 6 CC. No. 22 of 2012 of the Indian Penal Code, as such, they are acquitted under section 248(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the accused persons shall remain in force for the period of six months from this date. No case property is deposited in this case as such no order regarding disposal of property is passed.

Typed to my dictation by the Copyist, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 19th day of March,

2014.

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, (Spl. Mobile), Nizamabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witness examined for

Prosecution:-Defence:-

PW1(LW1): Gangone Ranadheer None

PW2(LW2): Dasari Anil

PW3(LW3): Mayawar Kiran

PW4(LW4): Pamulapati Sathyanarayana.

EXHIBITS MARKED

Prosecution:- Defence:-

-NIL-

Ex.P1:Signature of Gangone Ranadheer on police report, dt.28.12.2010

Ex.P2:Section 161 of the Cr.P.C statement of Gangone Ranadheer, dt.28.12.2010.

Ex.P3:Section 161 of the Cr.P.C statement of Dasari Anil, dt..28.12.2010.

Ex.P4:Section 161 of the Cr.P.C statement of Mayawar Kiran, dt.28.12.2010.

Ex.P5:Section 161 of the Cr.P.C statementofPamulapati Sathyanarayana, dt.28.12.2010.

M.Os. MARKED

-NIL-

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, (Spl. Mobile), Nizamabad.

7 CC. No. 22 of 2012

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS (SPL.

MOBILE), NIZAMABAD

CC.No.22 of 2012

1. Date of offence : 28.12.2010

2. Date of complaint or report: 28.12.2010

3. Date of apprehension of accused: served notices u/s 41(A) (1) of the Cr.P.c

4. Date of release on bail : the accused persons failed to comply the notices

5. Date of commencement of trial: 12.07.2013

6. Date of closure of trial: 05.03.2014

7. Date of Judgment : 19.03.2014

8. Explanation of delay or remark : --

Complainant : The State through Sub Inspector of police, police station, town-III, Nizamabad.

Description of the accused:

1. GangoneSurjeeths/o Gangone Mohan, age: 30 yrs, Caste: Vanjari, Occ: business, Occ: Vaisnavi Biryani point, r/o Sanjeevaiahcolony, Nizamabad.

2. Gangone Suman s/o Gangone Mohan, age: 23 yrs, Caste: Vanjari, Occ: Student, r/o H.No.6-15-391, Sanjeevaiah colony, Nizamabad.

3. Gangone Mohan s/o Narayana, age: 49 yrs, Occ: Business, r/o H.No.6-15-391, Sanjeevaiah colony, Nizamabad.

Offences under section: 324 and 342 r/w 34 of the IPC Finding : Not guilty Sentence: Acquittal

Judl. Magistrate of First Class (Spl. Mobile), Nizamabad

To: The Hon’ble 1st Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

8 CC. No. 22 of 2012

1 CC. No. 520 of 2006

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

(SPL. MOBILE), NIZAMABAD.

Present: Kumar Vivek,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

(Spl. Mobile), Nizamabad.

Dated this the 20th day of March, 2014

CC. No. 520 OF 2006

(Crime no. 144/2003 of police station, Nizamabad, Rural)

BETWEEN: The State through Asst. Sub Inspector of police, police station, Nizamabad, Rural.

AND Gundegalla Pedda Gangadhar s/o Gangaram, age: 23 yrs, Caste: SC, Night security guard, r/o Amdapur village of Bodhan mandal now at present Nagaram village.

Accused person

This case is coming on 14th day of March, 2014, before me for hearing and disposal in the presence of learned APPO for the State and of Sri A. Muralidhar advocate for the accused person, and having been heard and stood over for consideration, till this day the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The accused person is arraigned before this Court for the charge of an offence punishable under section 3241 of the Indian Penal

Code.

2.The Asst Sub Inspector of police, police station, Nizamabad,

Rural has filed report under section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code with the following averments:

On05.07.2003at12.30a.mthedefacto complainant(LW1)/Dubbani Rama Krishna, night security guard at

Maruthi Nagar r/o Vinayak Nagar, Nizamabad, has lodged a petition stating that on 04.07.2003 in the night hours when he was performing 1 Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

2 CC. No. 520 of 2006 night patrolling duty at Maruthi Nagar Colony, Nizamabad, in the mean time at about 11.45 p.m the accused person, who was performing the night patrolling duty at Laxmi Kalyana Mandapam area was found in his colony. When he questioned him about collection of money in his locality on that the accused person abused him in the filthy language and took the stick from the hands of LW2/Dumma Hanmanthu and beat him with the stick on his head.

3. Basing on report, LW4/S. Chandrakanth, Sub Inspector of

Police, police station, Nizamabad, Rural has registered a case in crime no. 144 of 2003 under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused person and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation he has examined and recorded the statement of

LW1/Dubbani Rama Krishna and Lw2/Dumma Hanmanthu at the police station, Nizamabad rural in part-II case diary, and referred LW1/Dubbani

Rama Krishna to the government head quarter hospital, Nizamabad, for medical examination. Later he had visited the scene of crime but when he did not find incriminating material, he did not conduct any panchanama. On 05.07.2005 at 11.30 a.m the accused person voluntarily surrendered before LW4/S.Chandrakanth, Sub Inspector of

Police, police station, Rural, at the police station, Nizamabad, Rural, and voluntariy confessed to have committed this offence on which said

LW4/S.Chandrakanth effected the arrest of the accused person and produced him before this hon'ble Court for judicial remand. Then he handed over the case dairy to PW1. PW1 resumed case dairy from

Lw.4/S. Chandrakanth, police station, Rural, Nizamabad, and verified the investigation done by him and found it on correct lines and investigated into. LW3/Dr. Srishylam, Civil Assistant Surgeon, government head quarter hospital, Nizamabad,who treated 3 CC. No. 520 of 2006

Lw1/Dubbani Rama Krishna issued medical certificate of LW1/Dubbani

Rama Krishna opining that LW1/Dubbani Rama Krishna sustained injuries that are simple in nature. After completion of investigation PW1 Asst

Sub Inspector of police, police station, Nizamabad, Rural has filed charge sheet praying this Court to punish the accused person for the offence punishable under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad, has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under section 324 of the IPC against the accused person.

5. Thereafter, this case was transferred to this Court from I

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad, for trial, as per

the proceedings vide dis. no. 4261, dated 03.07.2006, and on receipt of this case, the case was re numbered in this Court and accordingly proceeded with.

6. After appearance of the accused person before this Court, copies of documents relied upon by the prosecution, have been furnished to the accused person as contemplated under section 207 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

7. The accused person is examined under section 239 of the

Criminal Procedure Code. A charge for the offence punishable under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code has been framed against the accused person, which is read over and explained to him in the vernacular language, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8. The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused person has examined PW1 and got marked Ex.P1 and P2 through him.

9. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused person is examined under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, by 4 CC. No. 520 of 2006 explaining the incriminating circumstances found to be appearing in the evidence of the prosecution against the accused person, for which he denied and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

10. Hence arguments of parties are treated as 'heard'.

11. Points for determination:

I. “Whether the prosecution did prove the guilt of the accused person beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code”?

II. “To what finding”?

12.Point number 1: The specific case of the prosecution is that on 4.07.2003 at about 11.45 p.m the accused person has voluntarily caused hurt to LW1/Dubbani Rama Krishna by beating him with a stick on his head and the said incident was witnessed byLw2/Dumma

Hanmanthu.

The statement on oath of Pw1 before this Court is that

Lw4/S. Chandrakanth, Sub Inspector of police, police station,

Nizamabad, Rural has received written report from LW1/Dubbani Rama

Krishna on 05.07.2008 at about 12.30 a.m and on its basis he registered a crime under Ex.P1. It is also testified by Pw1 before this

Court that Lw4/S. Chandra Kanth, Sub Inspector of Police, police station, Nizamabad, Rural has examined and recorded the statements of

LW1/Dubbani Rama Krishna and LW2/Dumma Hanmanthu in part-II case diary and send the injured person to the hospital for medical examination. On 05.07.2005 at about 11.30 a.m the accused person has surrendered before his predecessor and voluntarily confessed the commission of this offence. Finally Pw1 has testified in his evidence

before this Court that after verifying the investigation done by LW4/S.

Chandrakanth to be on correct lines, and on completion of investigation 5 CC. No. 520 of 2006 he filed charge sheet against the accused person.

The evidence of PW1 clearly reveals that his evidence against the accused person is circumstantial in nature. LW1/Dubbani Rama

Krishna is said to be the victim at the hands of the accused person. The prosecution did not secure the attendance of Lw1/Dubbani Rama

Krishna and eventually the evidence of Lw1/Dubbani Rama Krishna was given up by the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor. Similarly Lw2/Dumma

Hanmanthu said to be an eye witness to the incident of beating

Lw1/Dubbani Rama Krishna with stick on his head by the accused person. There is also no evidence of LW2/Dumma Hanmanthu before this Court to support the said claim of the prosecution. The author of

Ex.P2 is not examined by the prosecution and for none examination of

Lw1/Dubbani Rama Krishna the injuries described under Ex.P2 cannot be attributed to him.

Accordingly, this Court in view of forgoing discussion find that the evidence of the prosecution sans corroboration of the testimony of PW1 with ocular evidence as well as medical evidence no reliance can be placed on the sole evidence of Pw1 to believe that the accused person had beaten Pw1 on his head with a stick. Therefore, it is held that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused person beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt. This point is answered accordingly against the prosecution and in favour of the accused person.

13.Point no.2: In view of the finding in point no.1, it is held that the accused person is entitled to be extended benefit of reasonable doubt. This point is answered accordingly against the prosecution and in favour of the accused person.

14.IN THE RESULT, the accused person is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, as 6 CC. No. 520 of 2006 such, he is acquitted under section 248(1) of the Criminal Procedure

Code. The bail bonds of the accused person shall remain in force for a period of six months from this date. No case property is deposited in this case as such no order regarding disposal of property is passed.

Dictated to Copyist(P.A.,), transcribed by her and corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 20th day of March, 2014.

Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

(Spl. Mobile), Nizamabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witness examined for

Prosecution:-Defence:- PW1(LW5): J. VeeraiahNone

EXHIBITS MARKED

Prosecution:- Defence:- Ex.P1: First information report, dt. -NIL- 05.07.2003 Ex.P2: Wound certificate of Dubbani Rama Krishna, dt.05.07.2003.

M.Os. MARKED

-NIL-

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, (Spl. Mobile), Nizamabad.

7 CC. No. 520 of 2006

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS (SPL. MOBILE),

NIZAMABAD

CC.No. 520 of 2006

1. Date of offence : 04.07.2003

2. Date of complaint or report: 05.07.2003

3. Date of apprehension of accused: 05.07.2003

4. Date of release on bail : 07.07.2013

5. Date of commencement of trial: 29.12.2006

6. Date of closure of trial: 06.03.2014

7. Date of Judgment : 20.03.2014

8. Explanation of delay or remark : --

Complainant : The State through Sub Inspector of police, police station, Nizamabad, Rural. Description of the accused: Gundegalla Pedda Gangadhar s/o Gangaram, age: 23 yrs, Caste: SC, Night Security guard, r/o Amdapur village of Bodhan mandal now at present Nagaram village.

Accused person

Offences under section: 324 of the Indian Penal Code

Finding : Not guilty

Sentence: Acquittal

Judl. Magistrate of First Class (Spl. Mobile), Nizamabad.

To: The Hon’ble 1st Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.