M.Sai Kumar

1C.C.No.14867 of 2019 Page

IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE, HYDERABAD

Dated this the 1 st day of May, 2026

Present: Sri M. Sai Kumar,

VII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Hyderabad

C.C.NO. 14867 OF 2019

BETWEEN :-

The State rep., through Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Saidabad, Hyderabad.

...Complainant

//AND//

Dhandethkar Kiran Kumar, S/o. D.Narsoji, Age:39 years, Occ: Pvt., Employee, R/o.H.No.17-1-382, Balaji Nagar, Champapet, Hyderabad.

...Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the

presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor Sri

B.Naveen Kumar, for the State; and Sri G.Chandra Mohan,

Counsel for accused; upon perusing the material on record,

having heard, stood over for consideration, till this day,

the Court delivered the following:-

: J U D G M E N T :

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Saidabad has filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.05 of 2019 for the Offence punishable u/Secs.419, 420, 467, 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC").

2.The brief facts of the Prosecution case as follows:-

The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Santoshnagar has filed the charge sheet against the accused alleging that, on 07.01.2019 at 1400 hours, he received a complaint from L.w.1/Katam Chaitanya

Kumar/Complainant, in which he stated that, in the month of June, 2C.C.No.14867 of 2019 Page 2015, the complainant applied for Apollo Munich Health Insurance

Advisor Card through accused, who was working as ADM, Apollo

Munich Health Insurance, Dilsukhnagar Branch and obtained the

Apollo Health Insurance Advisor Agent Card by Post, for which the complainant had given relevant documents i.e., photocopies of

PAN Card, ID Proofs and SBH Cheque to accused and that on 13.12.2018 at about 1:00 p.m., complainant received a phone call from Citi Bank Credit Card Department, Begumpet Branch, that there was an Overdue of amount above Rs.1,00,000/- on his Credit

Card and was shocked that he has not applied any Credit Card and on enquiry, he came to know that accused has misused the documents which was submitted by him in the month of June, 2015 regarding Apollo Health Insurance Advisor Agent Card with a malafide intention and thereby cheated complainant. Hence, L.w.1 has lodged a complaint at PS Saidabad, by requesting to take necessary action against the accused.

3.Basing on the complaint of the Defacto-complainant / L.w.1,

L.w.6/C.Ramudu, Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Saidabad has registered this case in Cr.No.05 of 2019 for the Offence punishable u/Secs.417 and 420 of Indian Penal Code and took-up the

Investigation.

4.During the course of Investigation, L.w.6 examined and recorded the statement of L.w.1 at the police station, he visited the scene of offence, there he examined and recorded the 3C.C.No.14867 of 2019 Page statement of L.w.2. On 21.02.2019 at 1900 hours, upon credible information, he apprehended the accused at Champapet Cross- roads, enquired him and on interrogation, accused confessed his guilt and that he recorded the confessional statement of accused in the presence of mediators/L.ws.3 and 4 and seized City Bank

Credit Card vide Br.No.4386 2800 2812 9918 from the possession of accused. Further, L.w.6 examined and recorded the statement of

L.w.5/K.Kishore Kumar/Bank Officer, City Bank, Begumpet, and issued Sec.91/160 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C”) notice to him and collected KYC documents and report, which includes Apollo Munich Health Insurance, Aadhar Card of L.w.1,

Pan Card of L.w.1 and Mail ID of L.w.1 and also collected morphed documents of L.w.1. Later, L.w.6 effected the arrest of accused and produced before the court for judicial remand, after completion of entire investigation and after receiving all concerned documents,

L.w.6 laid charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable u/Secs.419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC by adding section through memo.

5.Basing on the material available on record and after verification, this Court has taken cognizance of the matter u/Secs.419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC against Accused.

6.On appearance of the Accused, copies of all the documents were furnished to him, as per Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Accused was examined u/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C. Accused denied the accusation. The 4C.C.No.14867 of 2019 Page charge u/Secs.419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC has been framed, read over and explained to accused. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined P.ws.1 to 5 and Exs.P1 to P11 are marked. The evidence of L.w.4 was closed on the report filed by concerned police stating that his whereabouts are not known.

8.On closure of prosecution evidence, the Accused has been examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. The accused denied the incriminating material appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Accused did not choose to examine any defence witnesses and no-documents were marked on behalf of

Accused.

Heard arguments on either side, perused the material on record.

The Point that arises for determination is:

"Whether the Prosecution has proved the guilt of the

Accused for the Offence Punishable u/Secs.419, 420, 467,

468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable

doubts"?.

P O I N T:-

The offences alleged are u/Ss.419, 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC as such this court feels that extracting the same for the purpose of better under standing and appreciation :-

Sec. 420 of IPC reads as : Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.- "Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or 5C.C.No.14867 of 2019 Page destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine".

Sec.467 of IPC : Forgery of valuable security, will etc.

"Whoever forges a document which purports to be a valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal, interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any money, movable property, or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquittance or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine".

Sec.468 of IPC : Forgery for purpose of cheating.

"Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document or electronic record forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine".

Sec.471 of IPC: Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record:

"Whoever fraudulently and dishonestly uses as genuine any document or electronic record which he knows or has reason to believe to be forged document or electronic record, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document or electronic record.”

The offence of forgery and making of false document as defined under Section 463 and Section 464 of the IPC are extracted herein below for ready reference:

6C.C.No.14867 of 2019 Page

Sec.463 of IPC: Forgery:- "Whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person,or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery".

Sec.464 of IPC: Making a false document. - A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record.

Sec.419 of IPC: Punishment for cheating by personation:

" Whoever cheats by personation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both".

Sec.415 of IPC: Cheating "Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to “cheat”.

Explanation: A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section.

Sec.416 of IPC: Cheating by personation. A person is said to “cheat by personation” if he cheats by pretending to be some other person, or by knowingly substituting one person for or another, or representing that he or any other person is a person other than he or such other person really is.

Explanation: The offence is committed whether the individual personated is a real or imaginary person.

7C.C.No.14867 of 2019 Page

COMING TO THE APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE:-

9. P.w.1has deposed that, in the year 2015, P.w.1 applied for

Apollo Munich Health Insurance Advisor Card through accused and that P.w.1 submitted all his documentary proofs, like Pan Card,

Aadhar Card and Driving License duly attested by P.w.1, later P.w.1 obtained said Insurance Card on his name through accused who is working as ADM at that time in Apollo Munich Health Insurance, but to substantiate the same the office address mentioned in Ex.P3 is sufficient to say that P.w.1 obtained the said insurance through accused. Further, a random suggestion was given to P.w.1 that there are many insurance agents are available in the city for Apollo Munich

Health Insurance but a random suggestion would not be sufficient to suggest and escape from the criminal liability as Ex.P3 and P4 interlinks the accused with P.w.1.

10.P.w.1 further deposed that, on 13.12.2018, P.w.1 received a call from City Bank, Begumpet Branch, saying that there is an Overdue amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and above by P.w.1 on Credit Card, there upon, Pw1 immediately rushed to the said bank, enquired about said

Credit Card and the Bank Officials disclosed regarding Overdue on said Credit Card, though P.w.1 did not mention the name of the person who called him, neither in Ex.P1 nor in his 161 Cr.P.C statement, but by itself cannot rule out the alleged offence against accused.

8C.C.No.14867 of 2019 Page

11. Soon after, the phone call from the credit card person, P.w.1 approached Manager by name, Naresh opened said Credit Card details before P.w.1, where P.w.1 saw photo of accused on said application form, mobile number of accused, address of accused, but his/P.w.1 name was mentioned on it and on enquiry, phone number

as 8686039990 displayed and said phone number belongs to

accused. Further, Pw1 also came to know that, his signatures were also forged and his Aadhar Card was also fabricated, as such, P.w.1 lodged complaint under Ex.P1 against accused, accordingly, accused fabricated documents and obtained Credit Card and misused his documents, P.w.1 identified accused in open court, he further submitted copies of Aadhar Card, Pan Card and Driving

License to Police. Further, the evidence of PW1 is supported by the evidence of PW4 who is the manager of the City Bank, he deposed that in the year 2019, he received notice from Court as well as Police Saidabad seeking documents with regard Credit Card

Application of one Katam Chaitanya Kumar/P.w.1, as sought, P.w.4 supplied following documents i.e., KYC Documents, consent form under Ex.P3, Copy of Aadhar Card under Ex.P2 and Application along with Copy of PAN Card under Ex.P4 (Pan Card not enclosed),

Photograph of Applicant, Applicant was applied for Credit Card in the month of July, 2016. The evidence of P.w.1 is squarely supported by the oral evidence of P.w.4 coupled with documentary evidence under

Exs.P.2 to P4. It is not out of place to mention Ex.P2 is that copy of

Aadhar Card which was entrusted to P.w.2 whose name was endorsed 9C.C.No.14867 of 2019 Page on it. P.w.2 categorically deposed in his evidence that he just collected the documents from the customer but not physically verified. Had P.w.2 had not collected Ex.P2 then his name would not had been mentioned on it. Further, the Aadhar number on Ex.P2 was striked out with pen or marker. Had accused did not applied for any credit card with Citi Bank then why his office address was mentioned at office column of Ex.P3. More particularly P.w.2 deposed that he visited the customer at Chaitanyapuri but not at Saidabad where the

P.w.1 actually resides. Had P.w.1 applied the Credit Card with Citi

Bank, the physical verification of third party ie., P.w.2 would have been done at Saidabad but not Chaitanyapuri where the office of accused is located.

12.Admittedly, accused name is not Katakam Chaitanya Kumar and his original name is D.Kiran Kumar as arrayed in the charge sheet. Admittedly, photograph on Ex.P3 belongs to accused as the same is not disputed, however during the cross-examination and arguments, it was vehemently argued that someone might have tampered with the Ex.P3 in the office. As seen from the evidence of

P.w.4, he categorically deposed that, they have received said application through online for issuance of Credit Card in the name of

Katam Chaitanya Kumar/P.w.1, he further deposed that third party vendor/P.w.2 went to the applicant and verified the documents and collected the same and submitted to their Bank, accordingly, as per documents submitted by third party vendor, they issued Credit Card in the name of Katam Chaitanya Kumar/P.w.1. P.w.4further deposed 10C.C.No.14867 of 2019 Page that, as per his memory, Credit Card number ends with "9918", for about (1½) year payment was made by the applicant ie., accused, later accused defaulted the amount, the remaining balance amount was Rs.1,39,000/- and odd, where the accused was due, P.w.4 further deposed that they provided through their bank required documents to court regarding this case, later they also informed with regard to the mode of serving of Credit Card, they replied that it was served through 'Blue Dart Courier' at Bhagya Nagar Colony, Saroornagar.

Further, as seen from Ex.P9 and P.w.4 deposed that on 9.12.2019, the credit card balance was due of Rs.1,39,862/- was cleared through

NEFT payment, but he failed to disclose from which account the said amount was transferred for clearing the dues of credit card under

Ex.P.6, for the reasons best known to him. It is not out of place to mention during the cross-examination of P.w.5 a suggestion was made that he did not collect the bank statements of accused and

P.w.5 pleaded ignorance that who cleared the credit card bill. It is to be specific that as per the evidence of P.w.4 and Ex.P9, the payment of credit bill was made on 9.12.2019 whereas P.w.5 laid charge sheet

before the court on 23.9.2019, when P.w.5 completed his

investigation and filed his charge sheet on 23.9.2019 then the question of investigation regarding who cleared the credit card bill which is much more subsequent to completion of his investigation, as such, such suggestions itself appears absurd on face of it.

13.Further, during the cross-examination, P.w.1 admitted that the delay of (23) days in lodging the complaint, P.w.1 further admitted that he has not given cheque number in his 11C.C.No.14867 of 2019 Page complaint/Ex.P.1. Though P.w.1 admitted that there was a delay of (23) days in lodging FIR but he categorically mentioned in Ex.P1 itself that, immediately on receiving of such phone call from the representative of Citi Bank Credit Cards, he approached Narender,

Manager of Citi Bank as discussed supra, that would be sufficient for the delay caused. Coming to non-mentioning of cheque number in Ex.P1 issued by P.w.1 to accused for securing Apollo

Munich Health Insurance, would not anyway help the accused in deciding the allegations levelled against him.

14.P.w.2 further deposed that, he identified his signature on attested copy of forged Aadhar Card and also declaration on KYC document collection and also identified Customer Consent Form along with Letter of Consent of Applicant. In this regard, P.w.2 was not cross-examined by the accused. As stated supra, that P.w.2 has identified his signature on Ex.P2 which is sufficient that he visited Chaitanyapuri where he met accused and received documentation. As seen from, Ex.P.2:Attested Copy of Aadhar

Card, Ex.P.3:Declaration on KYC document collection duly signed by P.w.2, Ex.P.4:Customer Consent Form along with Letter of

Consent, all the documents collected are reflecting the name of

Katam Chaitanya Kumar/K.Chaitanya Kumar i.e., P.w.1, P.w.2 further stated that he collected the said documents from the person whose photo is affixed to the application and reflected on copy of Aadhar Card, which is the entire case of the prosecution and P.w.1.

12C.C.No.14867 of 2019 Page

15.P.w.3 has deposed that, on 21.2.2019 at about 8:30 p.m., while

P.w.3 and L.w.4 were moving in-front of PS Saidabad on same bike, as they are going to their house, Saidabad from Dilsukhnagar, Police

Saidabad intercepted them and asked them to act as Panch witnesses for this case, where police shown accused and they informed them to enquire accused with regard to the incident, accordingly, he himself and L.w.4 questioned accused and that accused narrated P.w.3 and L.w.4 that accused committed this offence by morphing the photograph of P.w.1, forged document and further made forgery for cheating P.w.1 and also cheated Bank

Officials, using forged Documents as genuine one.P.w.3further also deposed that, accused also narrated that he had taken the copy of

Pancard and Aadhar Card of P.w.1 and changed the photo in Aadhar

Card and affixed his photo on it and morphed the same and accused used the said documents for obtaining Credit Card by using the said morphed documents in Citi Bank, accused also obtained the Credit

Card and used said Credit Card, the limit of the said Credit card is of

Rs.1,00,000/-, but Rs.1,39,000/- was due in the said Credit Card, accused reported that he used that amount for the payment of other

Credit Card due amount.Adding to it, P.w.3 also deposed that, accused confessed this offence in his presence and also in the presence of L.w.4, police recorded confession and seizure panchanama of accused in his presence and also in the presence of

L.w.4, police obtained his signature and Lw.4’s signature on it along with panch chits, police seized one City Bank Credit Card, 13C.C.No.14867 of 2019 Page

P.w.4 identified his signatures on the said Confession and Seizure

Panchanama, P.w.2 identified accused in the open Court.

Ex.P.5:Confession and Seizure Panchanama, Ex.P.6: Original City Bank

Credit Card in the name of P.w.1. It is not out of place to mention though P.w.3 deposed that accused confessed in his and L.w.4’s presence, but he also deposed that the said confession was made in the presence of police officials, as such the confession made in the presence of police officials is not admissible under law and hit by

Sec.25 of Indian Evidence Act. However, there is no dispute in the evidence of P.w3 that Ex.P6 was secured from the possession of accused ie., the credit card of Citi Bank. Had accused had not applied any credit card of Citi Bank, more particularly in the name of P.w.1 why such credit card under Ex.P6 was in the possession of accused, for which there was no answer from accused. From this, it is apparent from the record that accused approached Citi Bank through online and applied Credit Card in the name of accused by affixing his photo which clearly amounts to impersonation as contemplated u/Sec.416 and 419 of IPC.

16. The learned defence counsel for the accused relied on few decisions in support of his defence:

(i) Criminal Case No.16/2020, decided on 24.10.2013 at New Delhi;

(ii) State (Vs) Ajay Kumar @ Chaudhary and Others, decided on 15.07.2025;

(iii) State by Extension Police, Davanagere (Vs) DK.Manohara, decided on 27.07.2011;

(iv) State (Vs) Jai Parkash and Others, decided on 10.06.2025; 14C.C.No.14867 of 2019 Page

All the judgments relied by the accused counsel are of Districts of Delhi, as such, the said judgments does not have any binding force on this court.

17.Lastly, coming to the evidence of P.w.5, who is the Investigating

Officer in this case, who conducted investigation and laid charge sheet against accused, has deposed that, on 7.1.2019 at 1400 hours,

P.w.5 received a written Complaint from P.w.1, basing on the said complaint, he registered a case in Cr.No.5/2019 for the Offence punishable u/Ss.417, 420 of I.P.C, during the course of Investigation,

P.w.5 examined and recorded the statement of P.w.1 at Police Station, visited scene of offence, he secured the presence of P.w.2 and examined him and recorded his statement. P.w.5further deposed that, on 21.2.2019 at 1900 hours, upon receipt of information, he apprehended accused at Champapet Cross-roads, immediately, P.w.5 recorded the confessional statement of accused in the presence of mediators/P.w.3 and L.w.4, accused confessed about the commission of this offence, accordingly, P.w.5 seized City Bank Credit Card vide

Br.No.4386 2800 2812 9918 from the possession of accused, under the cover of confession and seizure panchanama before said mediators, later P.w.5 effected the arrest of accused and produced

before the court for Judicial remand.

18. During the cross-examination, P.w.5 admitted that he received a written Complaint from P.w.1, as per Ex.P1/Complaint, he got information on 13.12.2018, but lodged the complaint on 7.1.2019, 15C.C.No.14867 of 2019 Page also admitted that he has not examined the person who gave information to P.w.1 regarding due payment, P.w.5 further admitted that he had not sent the documents to Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis. Admittedly, P.w.5 has not conducted Test Identification

Parade against accused with P.w.1, since P.w.1 knew accused as they met for job purpose, non-sending the documents to FSL is not fatal to the case of prosecution. In this regard, the Hon’ble Apex Court in several judgments held more particularly in the case of

Vandana Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2025 INSC

1098 at para 10.

Para 10: While expert opinion is not mandatory, nevertheless when authorship is central to establish the guilt of the accused and by direct evidence it is not demonstrated to show that the alleged writing has been made in the presence of a witness, non- examination of an expert or any other cogent proof of authorship to corroborate the alleged forgery beyond reasonable doubt weighs heavily against the prosecution. Therefore, the courts below treated “apparent overwriting” as conclusive which approach is alien to the standard proof beyond reasonable doubt.

19. When the Hon’ble Apex Court itself held that the evidence of

Expert opinion not mandatory to establish the forgery, then forgery has to be established with direct evidence and so also circumstantial evidence which is available in the present case by way of oral evidences of P.ws.1, 2 and 4 coupled with documentary evidences under Exs.P.1 to P4, P6, P8 to P11, all are the circumstantial evidences which enables the court that the said evidence is directly and indirectly connecting the accused with all the offences alleged by the prosecution, that had accused was not having any intention of cheating and Forgery for purpose of cheating, using as genuine a 16C.C.No.14867 of 2019 Page forged document or electronic, making a false document and record, accused would not have applied online application to Citi Bank and it is specific defence of the accused that someone might have placed the photograph of accused on the application as stated supra, but

P.w.4 categorically deposed that the custodian of the record is at

Chennai but not at any place where it can be manipulated by anyone, more particularly either by P.w.1 or P.w.2. Thus the contention of accused in that regard will not stand before the scrutiny of law.

20. Further, it appears from the evidence on record, accused from the inception there was an clear intention of cheating by impersonation of P.w.1, applied Citi Bank Credit Card, used it for more than one year and made due more than the limit of credit card which was cleared by unknown person, as such the above said things clearly establishes all the ingredients of offence alleged against him, as such, this court feels that prosecution from the above evidence has categorically established its case and proved the accused is guilty of offences beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the point is answered.

21.In the result, accused is found guilty for the offence punishable u/Ss.419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC, hence, the accused is liable for conviction under Sec.248 (2) of Cr.P.C.

17C.C.No.14867 of 2019 Page

The case property ie., Credit Card /Ex.P.6 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Directly typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 1 st day of May, 2026.

VII ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD.

Quantum of Sentence:

When the accused questioned with regard to the quantum of sentence:

Accused submitted that he is having old aged parents and wife and children, as such prayed to take lenient view.

The said reason submitted by accused is not mitigating circumstance to take lenient view.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of offence, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case to apply provisions under Probation of offenders Act. Accused has no repentance for his act.

Hence, I am inclined to convict the accused.

As such, accused is sentenced to undergoRigorous Imprisonment for a period of Two Years for the offence punishable u/S. 419 of IPC and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only), in default of payment of fine amount, he shall suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of Three Months.

Further, accused found guilty for the offence punishable u/S.420 of

IPC. Accordingly, accused sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment 18C.C.No.14867 of 2019 Page for a period of Two Years and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of Three

Months.

Further, accused found guilty for the offence punishable u/S.467 of

IPC. Accordingly, accused sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Two Years and also to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of Three

Months.

Further, accused found guilty for the offence punishable u/S.468 of

IPC. Accordingly, accused sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Two Years and also to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of Three

Months.

Further, accused found guilty for the offence punishable u/S.471 of

IPC. Accordingly, accused sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of One Year, and also to pay fine of Rs.2000/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of Three

Months. The above sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently and that of fine shall run consecutively. Total fine of Rs.9000/-.

The remand period which was already undergone by accused shall be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.

Accused is informed about his right to appeal against the judgment of this court before the Hon’ble Sessions Court.

Dictated to Steno, transcribed by him and after its correction, pronounced by

me in open Court on this the 1 st day of may, 2026.

VII ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

19C.C.No.14867 of 2019 Page

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution :- For Defence:- Nil

P.w.1 : K.Chaitanya

P.w.2 : A.Bosu Babu

P.w.3 : H.Dinesh Kumar

P.w.4 : K.Kishore Kumar

P.w.5 : C. Ramudu

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution :- For Defence : Nil

Ex.P1 : Complaint

Ex.P2 : Attested copy of Aadhar Card

Ex.P3 : Declaration on KYC document collection duly signed by P.w.2

Ex.P4 : Customer Consent Form along with Letter of Consent

Ex.P5 : Confession and Seizure Panchanama

Ex.P.6 : Original City Bank Credit Card in the name of P.w.1

Ex.P.7 : Notice u/S.91/60 Cr.P.C from SHO of Saidabad, Dt.20.03.2019

Ex.P8 : Reply Notice, Dt.3.4.2019

Ex.P9 : Reply Notice, Dt.15.4.2019

Ex.P10 : Reply Notice, Dt.25.4.2019

Ex.P11 : First Information Report

MOs Marked : Nil

VII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

Page 1C.C.No.16419 of 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE, HYDERABAD

Dated this the 5 th day of May, 2026

Present: Sri M. Sai Kumar,

VII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Hyderabad

C.C.NO.16419 OF 2019

BETWEEN :-

The State rep., through Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Santoshnagar, Hyderabad.

...Complainant

//AND//

Vanga Bal Reddy, S/o. Vanga Chandra Reddy, Age:39 years, Occ: Pvt., Employee, R/o.Flat No.301, B.J. Pearls, Backside of Balaji Hospital, Old Alwal, Medchal District, Telangana State.

...Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the

presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor Sri B.Naveen

Kumar, for the State; and Sri M.A.Nayeem, Counsel for accused;

upon perusing the material on record, having heard, stood over

for consideration, till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

: J U D G M E N T :

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Santoshnagar has filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.206/2019 for the Offence punishable u/Sec.420 of Indian Penal Code (in short "IPC").

2.The brief facts of the Prosecution case as follows:-

The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Santoshnagar has filed the charge sheet against the accused alleging that, on 19.9.2019 at 1400 hours, he received a complaint from L.w.1/Guruvardhan Perla /Defacto-

Complainant, in which he stated that, one application for compensation of

Rs.2,00,000/- was filed before the Hon'ble II Addl., Chief Judge-cum-Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) at Hyderabad by one Mohd.Afzal/L.w.2 against the Crime Vehicle Owner/Vanga Bal Reddy and Reliance General

Page 2C.C.No.16419 of 2019 Insurance Company Limited (RGICL) for the injuries received by him in a road accident which had occurred on 25.04.2018 and registered FIR in

Cr.No.84 of 2018 u/Sec.337 of IPC of PS Santoshnagar. Later, the Hon'ble

MACT Court, Hyderabad has issued a notice to RGICL being the Insurer of the Crime Vehicle Br.No.AP-28-TD-4321, at the time of registration and verification with the records of RGICL, it was found that the document claimed to be a copy of the insurance policy issued by RGICL (Document

Policy No.1804262340006243) for the Vehicle No.AP28-TD-4321, Chevrolet

Tavera filed in the court by the petitioner (injured) was not issued by RGICL at any point of time and that it was manipulated by Vanga Bal Reddy,

Owner of the Vehicle with wrong intention to obtain wrongful gain and thereby causing wrongful loss to the Company and its reputation. Hence,

L.w.1 has lodged a Complaint at PS Santoshnagar, by requesting to take necessary action against the accused.

3.Basing on the complaint of the Defacto-complainant / L.w.1,

L.w.4/K.Ravi, Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Santoshnagar has registered this case in Cr.No.206 / 2019 for the Offence punishable u/Sec.420 of Indian

Penal Code and took-up the Investigation.

4.During the course of Investigation, Lw4 examined and recorded the statements of L.ws.1 to 3, later addressed a letter to the office of L.w.1 and requestedtoissuethecertificatewhetherthePolicy

No.1804262340006243 as issued by their Company for insured on the name of accused/Vanga Bal Reddy for his Vehicle Br.No.AP-28-TD-4321 or not, later on 25.9.2019, Lw4 obtained certificate from Santosh Shendge on behalf of said Reliance Insurance Company Limited, in which he certified that quotations on verification of the details/documents provided by the

MACT, Hyderabad, with the Company records, that the said documents not

Page 3C.C.No.16419 of 2019 issued by the Reliance General Insurance Company Bearing Policy

No.1804262340006243 against the cover-note No.W19051606472 for the period 05.06.2017 to 05.06.2018 with the name of the insured as

Vanga Bal Reddy for the vehicle Chevrolet Tavera Neo Br.No.AP-28-TD- 4321. Later, L.w.4 issued Sec.41-A Cr.P.C, notice to accused, after completion of entire Investigation and after receiving all concerned documents, L.w.4 laid charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable u/Sec.420 of Indian Penal Code.

5.Basing on the material available on record and after verification, this

Court has taken cognizance of the matter u/Sec.420 of Indian Penal Code against Accused.

6.On appearance of the Accused, copies of all the documents were furnished to him, as per Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Accused was examined u/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C. Accused denied the accusation. The charge u/Sec.420 of I.P.C have been framed, read over and explained to accused. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined P.ws.1 to 4 and Exs.P1 to P5 are marked. On closure of prosecution evidence, the Accused has been examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C.

The accused denied the incriminating material appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Accused did not choose to examine any defence witnesses and no-documents were marked on behalf of Accused.

Heard arguments on either side, perused the material on record.

8. The Point that arises for determination is:

"Whether the Prosecution has proved the guilt of the

Accused for the Offence Punishable u/Sec.420 of Indian Penal Code

beyond all reasonable doubts"?.

Page 4C.C.No.16419 of 2019

P O I N T:-

The offence alleged are u/S.420 of IPC, the ingredients are mentioned in the Section 415 of IPC, as such this court feels that extracting both the provision of law is just and necessary for the purpose of better under standing and appreciation :-

Sec. 420 of IPC reads as : Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property:- "Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine".

Sec.415 of IPC: Cheating "Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to “cheat”.

Explanation: A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section.

COMING TO THE APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE:-

9.P.w.1 deposed that P.w.2 filed application for compensation of Rs.2 lakhs before the Hon’ble II ACJ-Cum-MACT Court at Hyderabad against the

Crime Vehicle Owner/Vanga Bal Reddy i.e., accused for the injuries received in a road accident which was occurred on 25.04.2018 and registered an FIR in Cr.No.84/2018, u/Sec.337 IPC of PS Santoshnagar and a Crime vehicle Br.No.AP-28-TD-4321 i.e., Chevrolet Tavera, accordingly,

Page 5C.C.No.16419 of 2019 they got summons along with copies of said case papers, after receiving

Court papers, they verified the concerned documents and found that they have not issued Insurance Policy towards said crime vehicle and it appears that accused manipulated said Insurance Documents as the said vehicle belongs to him. Further,P.w.1deposed that, he remember only last (04) digits of said Insurance Policy No.6243, on which they lodged complaint against accused for manipulating the Policy Copy with wrongful gain and caused intentional loss to the Company and it’s reputation under Ex.P1 is

Complaint. Ex.P2 is Authorization letter regarding Policy, dt.25.09.2019.

The version of P.w.1 is supported by the version of P.w.2, who deposed that on 25.04.2018 at about 8:30 p.m., while he was crossing the road at DRDL

Main Road, one Car Br.No.4321 hit him and run away from the spot, in that accident, his right leg was fractured and he got treatment in Private

Hospital at Chaderghat and that he lodged the Complaint regarding this accident at PS Santoshnagar vide Cr.No.84 of 2018 and the same was compromised out of Court with the Driver of the Crime Vehicle/P.w.3 with the intervention of elders, as such the matter was settled. However, P.w.2 categorically deposed that the settlement amount was paid by the accused and the same was not disputed by the accused in the cross- examination of P.w.2. Further, the versions of P.ws.1 and 2 were supported by documentary evidence under Exs.P3 and P4. On perusal of Ex.P4 it reflects that P.w.2 laid Claim Petition for Rs.2 lakhs for the injuries sustained by him in road accident with crime vehicle Br.No.AP-28-TD-4321 in the crime related to Santoshnagar Police Station vide Cr.No.84 of 2018.

Apart from the above, P.w.1 in his cross-examination categorically deposed that all the documents which are filed before Civil Court in Ex.P4 Claim

Petition, the name of accused is reflecting as owner of the crime vehicle.

Furthermore, accused was also arrayed as defendant No.1 and the

Page 6C.C.No.16419 of 2019 Insurance Policy issued by Reliance Company, was fabricated to gain unlawfully by the accused. When P.w.1 came to know about no any such

Insurance Policy Br.No.1804262340006243 was attached to the Claim

Petition under Ex.P4 for the crime vehicle Br.No.AP-28-TD-4321. Thus from the oral evidences of P.ws.1 and 2 coupled with documentary evidence under Exs.P1 to P4, prosecution could able to establish its crime case that based on civil case i.e., MVOP No.1201 of 2018 on the file of II ACJ, City

Civil Court, Hyderabad, when P.w.1 received summons in the said case under Ex.P3 and on verification, he came to know that the Reliance

General Insurance Company Limited has not issued any such policy

Br.No.1804262340006243 for the crime vehicle Br.No.AP-28-TD-4321 and the same is not disputed by the accused in the entire cross-examination of prosecution witnesses.

10. The entire defence of the accused is no any criminal cause of action aroused to P.w.1 for filing the present case and accused has sold the said crime vehicle No.AP-28-TD-4321 to one Ganesh much prior to alleged incident. In this regard, the prosecution witness i.e., P.w.3 who was the driver of the crime vehicle on the date of incident in Cr.No.84 of 2018 of PS

Santhoshnagar, came to depose that his car owner was Ganesh, however he deposed that the said car was in the name of accused, which again goes against the contention of accused. It is not out of place to mention that in order to substantiate the specific defence of the accused that he sold the said crime vehicle to Ganesh, he has not filed any documentary proof and similarly no any transfer papers were filed in support of his version. In the absence of any such documentary proof, the oral evidence of P.w.3 which is partly supports him and partly goes against him, as such, his evidence cannot be relied to the extent that the owner of the vehicle is

Ganesh. In regard to the specific cause of action, that as per the version of

Page 7C.C.No.16419 of 2019 P.w.1, the cause of action arose when Reliance General Insurance Company

Limited received summons from the court and upon enquiry only,

Insurance Company came to know that they did not issued any policy to the crime vehicle for the relevant year 2018, since then only the cause of action arose to the present criminal case and as per Sec.468 Cr.P.C as the offence alleged is Sec.420 IPC and the imprisonment is to the extent of 7 years, as such, there is no time limit to initiate criminal proceedings. Thus, the specific defences of the accused does not hold any water. Further,

P.w.3 deposed that change of ownership was not made by the owner of the vehicle. Apart from that, P.w.3 went to depose to that extent for insurance claim, P.w.2 filed Insurance Case, then he came to know that a fraud was played by manipulating the insurance policy and also came to know on verification that the crime vehicle Br.No.AP-28-TD-4321 stands in the name of accused and the mistake is with Ganesh. Mere P.w.3 stating that the mistake is with Ganesh, the liability of accused cannot be absolved.

11.P.w.4, the Investigating Officer deposed about the investigation conducted by him and during his cross-examination a specific question was put to him that whether he verified the insurance policy of the crime vehicle for the years 2016 and 2017, for which he answered that as the incident was occurred in the year 2018, there is no necessity for him to verify regarding the insurance policy for the years 2016 and 2017. It appears from the said question that the insurance policy pertains to the year 2016 or 2017, but not for the year 2018, for which no any policy was admittedly not issued by Reliance General Insurance Company Limited.

Further, a lengthy cross-examination was conducted on P.w.4, but nothing much was elicited to discredit his evidence.

Page 8C.C.No.16419 of 2019

12. In this regard, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in the case of

National Insurance Company Limited (Vs) K.Saravanan and ORS, dt.2.04.2026 in SLP No.1003 of 2022 at para 6 and 10:

Para 6: For the reasons aforesaid, we direct that a fresh case shall be registered on the basis of the facts of the present case. The array of accused shall include the officers of the Insurance Company, who were aware of the fraud including those posted at the relevant period (s) in the concerned local branch from which the policy is purported to have been issued/renewed as well as other persons, including the owner of the vehicle and any other person (s) found responsible for the creation of the forged/fabricated policy.

Para 10: Be that as it may, we say no further at this stage, as the matter shall now be investigated in accordance with law.

As seen from the findings in the above paras in the above judgment, it is clear that whenever there is a forgery, fraud and fabrication of insurance policies came to notice of any authority, they must take legal recourse to crub the same. As such, the said judgment is relevant to the present case as Reliance General Insurance Company Limited has put the law into motion for the illegal acts on the Insurance policy

No.1804262340006243 for the crime vehicle No.AP-28-TD-4321 which was fabricated and not issued by said Insurance Company. Thus, the said

Insurance Company has rightly filed the complaint before concerned SHO and the culprits shall be punished as per law.

13.Thus from the evidence on record, it is apparent that from the inception, accused played deception, tried to misled the insurance company for his wrongful gain as contended by P.w.3, the driver of the crime vehicle. Had accused was not having any intention of wrongful gain, upon receiving summons/Ex.P3 by the Reliance General Insurance

Company Limited/Defendant No.2 shown in Ex.P4, and it appears that on knowing the fact that no any insurance policy is in force for the crime

Page 9C.C.No.16419 of 2019 vehicle Br.No.AP-28-TD-4321 for the incident occurred on 25.04.2018 and the information furnished when a case in Cr.No.84 of 2018 was registered by PS Santhoshnagar, accused would not have settled the MVOP filed by

P.w.2 on the file of II Addl.Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in the Lok Adalat i.e., before the Hon’ble Lok Adalath Bench i.e., XXVI

Addl.Chief Judge-cum-Chairman, MACT, City Civil Court, Hyderabad vide L.A.C.No.1129 of 2024, Dt.25.09.2024, (which is not in dispute) clearly amounts to cheating as accused which act will resulting in likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, as such, the above said things clearly establishes all the ingredients of offence alleged against him, as such, this court feels that prosecution from the above evidence has categorically established its case and proved the guilty of Accused for the offence alleged beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the point is answered.

14.In the result, accused is found guilty for the offence punishable u/S.420 of IPC, hence, the accused is liable for conviction under Sec.248 (2) of Cr.P.C.

Directly typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 5 th day of May, 2026.

VII ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

Quantum of Sentence:

When the accused questioned with regard to the quantum of sentence:

Accused submitted that he is having old aged parents and wife and children, as such prayed to take lenient view.

Page 10C.C.No.16419 of 2019

The said reason submitted by accused is not mitigating circumstance to take lenient view.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of offence, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case to apply provisions under Probation of offenders Act. Accused has no repentance for his act.

Hence, I am inclined to convict the accused.

As such, accused is sentenced to undergoRigorous Imprisonment for a period of Two Years for the offence punishable u/S.420 of IPC and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only), in default of payment of fine amount, he shall suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of Three Months.

The remand period which was already undergone by accused shall be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.

Accused is informed about his right to appeal against the judgment of this court before the Hon’ble Sessions Court.

Dictated to Steno, transcribed by him and after its correction, pronounced by

me in open Court on this the 5 th day of may, 2026.

VII ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD.

Page 11C.C.No.16419 of 2019

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution :- For Defence:- Nil

P.w.1 : Guruvardhan Perla

P.w.2 : Mohammed Afzal

P.w.3 : M.Rajender

P.w.4 : K.Ravi

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution :- For Defence : Nil

Ex.P1 : Complaint

Ex.P2 : Authorization letter, Dt.25.9.2019

Ex.P3 : True Copy of Summons in O.P.No.1201 of 2018 on the file of Hon'ble II Addl.Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad

Ex.P4 : Certified Copy of Claim Petition Copy vide

OP.No.1201 of 2018 on the file of Hon'ble

II Addl.Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyd

Ex.P5 : First Information Report

MOs Marked : Nil

VII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

// TRUE COPY //

VII Addl. Chief judicial Magistrate Hyderabad

Page1C.C.No.10602 of 2024

IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE, HYDERABAD

Dated this the 6 th day of May, 2026

Present: Sri M. Sai Kumar,

VII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Hyderabad

C.C.NO.10602 OF 2024

BETWEEN :-

The State rep., through Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Malakpet, Hyderabad.

...Complainant

//AND//

Kum.Lavudi Saritha alias S.Ravali, D/o.Naga Naik alias Saianna, Age:26 years, Occ: Unemployed, R/o.Rented Room in Road No.18, Tirumala Nagar, Almasguda, Ranga Reddy District. N/o.Lavudi Thanda Village, Thugapad, Miryalaguda, Nalgodda District.

...Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the

presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor Sri B.Naveen

Kumar, for the State; and Sri D.Anantha Raghu, Free Legal Aid

Counsel for accused; upon perusing the material on record, having

heard, stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court

delivered the following:-

: J U D G M E N T :

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Malakpet has laid charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.312 of 2024 for the Offence punishable

U/Sec.305 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNS").

2.The brief facts of the Prosecution case as follows:-

The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Malakpet has filed the charge sheet against the accused alleging that, the Defacto-Complainant/Kum.Amgothu

Mounika/L.w.1 has lodged a Complaint on 22.08.2024 at 12:00 noon, that on 5.7.2024 in between 0600 hours to 0700 hours at Sai Laxmi Girls

Hostel, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad, wherein accused came to Dilsukhnagar

Page2C.C.No.10602 of 2024

Area and on search, accused found the above said hostel and entered into a room and committed theft of one Mobile Phone ie., IQ00Z9-5G which belongs to L.w.1 and kept with her for later disposal. Hence, L.w.1 has lodged a Complaint at PS Malakpet, by requesting to take necessary action against the culprit.

3.Basing on the complaint of the Defacto-complainant/L.w.1,

L.w.11/Ch.Suresh, Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Malakpet has registered this case in Cr.No.312 of 2024 for the Offence punishable u/Sec.305 of BNS and took up the Investigation. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of L.ws.1 to 3 at the police station, visited the scene of offence situated at Sai Laxmi Girls Hostel, Dilsukhnagar, there he conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of mediators/L.w.4 and L.w.5 and also drafted rough sketch of the scene.

Hefurther deposed that, on 22.08.2024 at about 2030 hours,

Lw.9/S.Santhosh/PC and L.w.10/G.Laxma Reddy/ASI, apprehended accused with the assistance of Lw.8/Smt.P.Gowthami/WPC under suspicious circumstances and brought her to police station and produced before him, on which, he interrogated accused and that accused confessed her guilt, immediately he recorded confessional statement of accused in the presence of mediators/L.w.6 and L.w.7 and seized IQZ9 cell phone from the possession of accused.

4. Hefurther deposed that, accused also confessed that she was involved in similar crimes across various Districts of Telangana, after completion of interrogation and after completion of confession and seizure panchanama, he effected the arrest of accused and produced before the court for judicial remand, he deposited the case-property i.e., M.O.1 before this court, after completion of entire investigation and after receiving all concerned

Page3C.C.No.10602 of 2024 documents, he laid charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.305 of BNS.

5.Basing on the material available on record and after verification, this

Court has taken cognizance of the matter u/Sec.305 of BNS against

Accused.

6.On appearance of the Accused, copies of all the documents were furnished to him, as per Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Accused was examined u/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C. Accused denied the accusation. The charge u/Sec.305 of BNS has been framed, read over and explained to accused. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined P.ws.1 to 6 and Exs.P1 to P4 and M.O.1 are marked. The evidence of L.w.4, L.w.6 and L.ws.8 to 10 are given up by learned APPO in order to avoid repetition. On closure of prosecution evidence, the Accused has been examined U/Sec.351 of BNSS. The accused denied the incriminating material appearing against her in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Accused did not choose to examine any defence witnesses and no-documents were marked on behalf of Accused.

8.Heard arguments on either side, perused the material on record.

9. The Point that arises for determination is:

"Whether the Prosecution has proved the guilt of the

Accused for the Offence Punishable u/Sec.305 of Bharatiya Nyaya

Sanhita, beyond all reasonable doubts"?.

P O I N T:-

10.The sum and substance of the prosecution case is that, on 05.07.2024 in between 0600 hours to 0700 hours at Sai Laxmi Girls Hostel,

Page4C.C.No.10602 of 2024

Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad, wherein accused entered into the said hostel and committed theft of one Mobile Phone i.e., IQ00Z9-5G which belongs to

P.w.1. Hence, the Complaint.

11.The offence alleged are u/S.305 of BNS, the ingredients are mentioned in the Section 329 (2) of BNS, as such this court feels that extracting both the provision of law is just and necessary for the purpose of better under standing and appreciation :-

Section 305 of BNS – Theft in dwelling house, etc; " Whoever 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 liable to fine."

COMING TO THE APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE:-

12.P.w.1has deposed that in the year 2024, she used to stay in

Sri Sai Laxmi Hostel, Dilsukhnagar for study purpose, on 5.7.2024 while she was sleeping in room in said hostel, one lady i.e., accused came to hostel for some personal work and shared her room in the hostel and stayed for two days, their roommates also present in the said room on that day, while they were sleeping, her cell phone was stolen and that she searched for the same, but could not trace it. P.w.1 further deposed that, she tried to contact accused but could not trace the address of accused and her particulars, accordingly, on 22.8.2024, she lodged the complaint about the missing of her cell phone, she identified accused in the open court. P.ws.2 and 3 also deposed in the same lines of P.w.1. Further, though initially accused engaged counsel but he failed to cross-examine

P.ws.1 to 3, as such, from the unchallenged evidence of P.ws.1 to 3, it is brought on record that accused was permitted by P.w.1 to stay with them

Page5C.C.No.10602 of 2024 in the hostel for about two days. As per the evidence of P.ws.1 to 3, accused all of a sudden left the place, then the phone of P.w.1 was also found missing, as such the only person who was suspected was the accused and accordingly, when a complaint was lodged with the police and during investigation, accused herself confessed before the mediator i.e.,

P.w.5 who deposed that in the year 2024 at night hours of 9:00 p.m., he was called to act as mediator, when he acted, he enquired with one Lady ie., accused, she revealed her name as Saritha and about 15 days back, she went to hostel at Dilsukhnagar and committed theft of one mobile phone make of IQZ9 from the hostel and admitted her guilt of committing the offence, accordingly, the same was reduced into writing and appended his signature by P.w.5 on Ex.P3, which reveals the version of P.w.5. Though

P.w.5 was cross-examined by the learned Anantha Raghu, Legal Aid

Counsel from LACS, but nothing much was elicited anything to discredit his evidence. There remains the evidence of P.ws.4 and 6 which are procedural in nature, though there was a delay of 17days in lodging the FIR under

Ex.P4, but that by itself cannot be sole ground for rejecting the same.

Further, P.w.6 admitted that he did not collected any CCTV footage but to rebut the said contention the eyewitnesses and victim i.e., P.ws.1 to 3 evidence is sufficient to hold that the presence of accused at the crime scene hostel can be proved.

13.Thus from the sole evidence victim and eyewitnesses i.e., P.ws.1 to 3 and the same are supported by confession panch ie., P.w.5 to hold that accused committed and admitted the offence. Accordingly, the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

Page6C.C.No.10602 of 2024

14.In the result, accused is found guilty for the offence punishable u/S.305 of BNS, hence, the accused is liable for conviction under Sec.271 (2) of Cr.P.C.

The case property/M.O.1 i.e., Mobile Phone IQZ9 already given to its

Owner/P.w.1 towards interim custody vide Crl.M.P.No.2144 of 2024

Dt.24.10.2024 and holds good and the same shall be made absolute after expiry of Appeal time.

Directly typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 6 th day of May, 2026.

VII ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

Quantum of Sentence:

When the accused questioned with regard to the quantum of sentence:

Accused submitted that she is sole bread earner of the family, as such prayed to take lenient view.

The said reason submitted by accused is not mitigating circumstance to take lenient view.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of offence, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case to apply provisions under Probation of offenders Act. Accused has no repentance for her act.

Hence, I am inclined to convict the accused.

As such, accused is sentenced to undergoRigorous Imprisonment for a period of One Year for the offence punishable u/S.305 of BNS and also to pay a fine of Rs.100/- (Rupees One Hundred only), in default of

Page7C.C.No.10602 of 2024 payment of fine amount, she shall suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of 15 days.

The remand period by the accused i.e, from 23.08.2024 to 26.10.2024 and 13.6.2025 to 6.5.2026 which was already undergone by accused shall be set off under Section 468 of BNSS.

Accused is informed about her right to appeal against the judgment of this court before the Hon’ble Sessions Court.

Dictated to Steno, transcribed by him and after its correction, pronounced by

me in open Court on this the 6 th day of may, 2026.

VII ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution :- For Defence:- Nil

P.w.1 : Amgothu Mounika

P.w.2 : D.Manisha

P.w.3 : G.Anitha

P.w.4 : Vemula Sai Teja

P.w.5 : Mohd.Azizuddin

P.w.6 : Ch.Suresh

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution :- For Defence : Nil

Ex.P1 : Complaint

Ex.P2 : Crime Detail Form along with rough sketch

Ex.P3 : Confession and Seizure Panchanama, Dt.22.08.2024

Ex.P4 : First Information Report

Page8C.C.No.10602 of 2024

MOs Marked :

M.O.1 : One Mobile Phone i.e., IQ00Z9.

VII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

// TRUE COPY //

VII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD.