Sri M. Satish Kumar

1 C.C.No.446 of 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

(SPL.MOBILE), AT KARIMNAGAR.

PRESENT: Sri M. Satish Kumar Judl. Magistrate of F.C., (Spl.Mobile),Karimnagar.

Wednesday, the 21st day of June, 2017

C.C. No. 446 of 2016 (Old C.C.No787 of 2014 on the file of I-Addl.J.M.F.C, Karimnagar)

Between :

The State through, S.I of Police, P.S Jammikunta. (Cr.No.93 of 2009)

...Complainant

AND

A.1Giravena Srinivas, S/o Ailaiah, Age:32 years, Caste Yadava, R/o Korapalli now at Kothapalli. A.2Velichala Rajender Rao, S/o jagapathirao, Caste: Velma, R/o Karimnagar.

...Accused

This case is coming before me on 31-05-2017 for final hearing in the presence of learned APP for the State and Sri K. Sudhakhar Rao, counsel for accused and after perusing the case records, upon hearing the arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court has delivered the following: :: J U D G M E N T ::

1.The Sub-Inspector of police, Jammikunta has filed the Charge Sheet against A.1 and A.2 for the offence punishable U/s. 127-A RP Act. 1951.

2.The brief allegations in the Charge Sheet are as follows:

A.2 is the contesting candidate for Karimnagar Parliamentary constituency from Praja Rajyam Party, he supposed to show the accounts of amount spent by him in the elections, but avoiding the same he got printed his party wall posters with the photo of party founder Sri. Chiranjeevi with the caption of “ TELANGANA' KU PRAJA RAJYAM PURTHI MADDUTHU

PRAJASEVAKE PRAJARAJYAM to entice and attract the public in favour of

Praja Rajyam Party without publisher, printer name, number of copies printed etc., and handed over the same to A1 in turn he distributed some of the wall posters of Praja Rajyam Party knowingly that they violated the 2 C.C.No.446 of 2016 Sec.127-A Representation of People Act, on 26-03-2009 at about 16.00 hours, while A1 was found distributing poster to the public in Jammikunta without publishers, printers name number of copies printed etc., and were seized by the incharge of Model code of conduct officer Sd.

Nizammuddin(LW2) on 26-03-2009 at 1600 hors, at Gandhi Statue area when they noticed their during patrolling in Jammikunta town. Later the

Incharge of Moder code of conduct officer produced posters and seizer proceedings to retuning officer 31 Huzurabad Assembly constituency and brought them to notice of retuning officer. He obtained instructions from

District Collectors vide Lr. A1/212/Elec., dated 31.03.2007 and lodged a report for booking a case at Police Station Jammikunta.

3.On receipt of said report from LW1, LW13(Hameed, A.S.I., of Police) has made G.D.entry, and since the offence is non-cognizable, he has filed requisition before the Court to accord permission to register the case against A.1 and A.2. Later as per the order of the Court, he has registered the case in Cr.No. 93 of 2009, under section 127-A of Representation of

People Act, and issued FIR. After completion of entire investigation, LW.13 has filed Charge Sheet in this case against A.1 and A.2 for the offence under section 127-A of Representation of People Act.

4. The case was taken on file against A.1 and A.2 for the offence under section 127-A RP Act. 1951 by the learned Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First

Class, Huzurabad in C.C.No. 787/2014. Later, as per the orders of the

Hon'ble Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, the case was

transferred to this Court and on such transfer, the case was re-numbered as

C.C.446 of 2016.

3 C.C.No.446 of 2016

5. On appearance of A.1 and A.2, copies of documents were furnished to them as required under section 207 Cr.P.C.

6.A.1 and A.2 were examined U/s. 251 of Cr.P.C, and accusations of the offence under section 127-A of Representation of People Act, were read over and explained to them in Telugu, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.During trial, in support of its case, the prosecution has examined

Pws.1 to 12 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12.

8.After closure of prosecution side evidence, A.1 and A.2 were examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C., with reference to the incriminating evidence found against A.1 and A.2 in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses.

They denied the same as false and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

9.Heard the learned APP for prosecution and the learned counsel for A.1 and A.2 and perused the material available on record.

10.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of A.1 and A.2 for the offence under section 127-A Representation of People Act, 1951 beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

11.Sec.127-A Representation of People Act, restrictions on the printing of pamphlets, posters, etc., (1)No person shall print or publish, or cause to be printed or published, any election pamphlet or poster which does not bear on its face the names and addresses of the printer and the publisher thereof.

(2) No person shall print or cause to be printed any election pamphlet or poster- 4 C.C.No.446 of 2016

(a) unless a declaration as to the indentity of the publisher thereof, signed by him and attested by two persons to whom he is personally known, is delivered by him to the printer in duplicate; and

(b) unless, within a reasonable time after the printing of the documents, one copy of the declaration is sent by the printer, together with one copy of the document, (I) where it is printed in the capital of the State to the Chief Electoral

Officers, and

(ii) in any other case, to the district magistrate of the district in which it is printed.

(3)For the purposes of this section

(a) any process for multiplying copies of a document, other than copying it by hand, shall be deemed to be printed and the expression “ printer” shall be constructed accordingly' and

(b)” election pamphlet or poster” means any printed pamphlet, handbill or other document distributed for the purpose of promoting or prejudicing the election of a candidate or group prom of candidates or any placard or poster having reference to an election, but does not include any hand-bill, placard or poster merely announcing the date, time, place and other particulars of an election meeting or routine instructions to election agents or workers.

(4) Any person who contravenes any of the provisions of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both.

12. The case of the prosecution is that A.2 is the contesting candidate for

Karimnagar parliamentary constituency from Praja Rajyam party and according to Model Code of conduct and representatives of people's Act. He 5 C.C.No.446 of 2016 has supposed to show the accounts of amount spent by him in the elections, but avoiding the same he got printed his party wall posters with the photo of party founder Sri. Chiranjeevi with the caption of of “ TELANGANA'KU PRAJA

RAJYAM PRUTHI MADDUTHU PRAJASEVAKE PRAJARAJYAM ANKITHAM “ (45

Cms X 57 Cms size) to attract the public in favour of Praja Rayjam Party without publisher, printer name, number of copies printed etc., and handed over the same to A1 in turn he distributed of some the posters of Raja

Rajyam Party knowingly that they violating the Sec.127-A Representation of

People Act. On 26-03-2009 at about 4.00 P.M., while A1 was found distributing posters to the public in Jammikunta without publishers, printers name number of copies printed on that then PW2 who is incharge of the Model

Code of conduct officer on noticing the same in Gandhi Statue area seized the said posters. Later produced same before returning officer 31 Huzurabad

Assembly constituency and brought them to notice of returning officer and he was obtained instruction from District Collector and lodged report to the police. Thereby the accused committed offence punishable under section 127-

A of Representation of People Act.

13.In order to prove case, prosecution examined as PW.1 to 12.

14.PW.1 (V. Nagaraja Rao) is the defacto/complainant. He deposed that he was appointed as returning officer for Huzurabad Assembly constituency

No.31 General Elections, 2009. The poling was schedule in the March/April, 2009. He further deposed that during election time he has formed Model

Code of Conduct teams for observations of Elections. On 26.03.2009 he received a report along with panchanama from PW2 that, he sized some posters were transporting in a Rickshaw which was belongs to Praja Rajyam

Party and said posters did not contain the publishers and printer's name.

Then he sent the report through PW4 to the police on the instruction of the

District Election Officer.

6 C.C.No.446 of 2016

15.In the cross examination he deposed that the incident occurred on 26-03-2009 and police report lodged on 05-04-2009. Delay was not explained. He further deposed that personally did not siezed the material from the possession of the accused.

16.PW.2 (Syed Nizamuddin) who said to be seized said posters. He deposed that on 26-03-2009, while they were observing the Model Election

Code of conduct, while going in a Jeep in Jammikunta, at 4.00 P.M., one

Rickshaw was run by A1 at Gandhi Chowk, then they stopped the Rickshaw and searched and found 500 posters belong to Prajarajyam Party containing

Chiranjeevi photo and said posters did not contain the publisher's and printer's name. As such it is violation of Model Code of Conduct. Then they seized said posters under cover of panchanama in the presence of PW8, 9 and 10. In the cross examination he denied suggestion he did not seized any posters and filed false report.

17.PW3(Md. Moinuddin) who was present at that time of seizer of the wall posters along with PW2 and also supported the version of the PW2.

18.PW4(Kalakonda Sridhar Rao) deposed that as per the instructions of

PW1, he took the report from PW1 and lodged before the police station at

Jammikunta.

19.PW5(Md. Sharif) is Rickshaw puller who was transporting the alleged wall posters. But he has not supported the prosecution case. PW5 declared hostile and the permission by the Court APP Cross examined by the PW5.

But, nothing is elicited in favour of the prosecution.

20.PW6(B. Prasad) deposed that he has not supported the prosecution case. PW6 declared hostile with the permission of the Court APP cross examined. But, nothing is elicited in favour of the prosecution.

21.PW7( V. Janardhan) is panch witness for CDF. He also not supported the prosecution case. PW7 declared hostile and with permission of the 7 C.C.No.446 of 2016 Court APP cross examined. But, nothing is elicited in favour of the prosecution.

22.PW8, 9 and 10 are the mediators of the seizer of the alleged wall posters and they also not supported the case. They deposed that their signatures obtained by some officer on white papers without disclosed any reason. PW8, 9 and 10 declared hostile at the request of the APP and cross examined by APP. But, nothing is elicited in favour of the prosecution.

23.PW11(V. Ashok) is panch witness for CDF. He also not supported prosecution case. He deposed that he do not know anything about the facts of this case. In the year 2009 when he went to Jammikunta Police station on his personal work, then the police obtained his signature on some white papers without disclosing any thing.

24.PW12(T. Krupakar) Investigation Officer. He deposed about receiving of Ex.P1 report through PW4. Which was sent by PW4 and he deposed that about the registration of the case and issuance of FIR and examination of the witnesses and conducting of CDF and filing of Charge Sheet. He denied suggestion that Praja Rajay Party wall papers not printed by the accused and with collusion of the rival party persons of the accused. They filed false case against the accused. Except the evidence of PW2 and 3 there is no independence evidence before the Court to show that the A1 transporting the wall posters in the Rickshaw and there is no evidence before the Court to show that the said wall posters got printed by A2. Prosecution also not explained how A1 is related to the alleged seized wall posters. Moreover, the mediators in whose presence the alleged wall posters were seized not supported the prosecution case. They deposed in their present revenue officials not seized the wall posters and revenue officials obtained their signatures on some papers. Therefore, alleged seizer was not proved.

Moreover, in the seizer panchanama Ex.P2, there is mention the name of the 8 C.C.No.446 of 2016 A1 to show that PW2 and 3 seized the same. While A1 transporting wall posters in a rickshaw. Therefore,prosecution is miserably fail to prove the guilt of the accused, that A2 got published wall posters without printers name and number of copies and without information to the District Election

Officer. Accordingly A1 and A2 are acquitted.

25.In the result, A.1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence under section 127-A RP 1951 and they are acquitted of the said offence

U/s.255(1) Cr.P.C., and their bail bonds shall stand cancelled. Unmarked case property, i.e., Wall poster shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, directly on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 21st day of June, 2017. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, (Spl.Mobile), Karimnagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: PW.1 V. Nagaraja Rao PW.2 Syed Nizamuddin PW.3 Md. Moinuddin PW.4 Kalakonda Sridhar Rao PW.5 Md. Sharif PW.6 B. Prasad PW.7 V. Janardhan

FOR DEFENCE: - None -

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1 is the Police report Ex.P2 is the seizer panchanama of Pw.2 Ex.P3 is report sent to PW1 Ex.P4 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.4 Ex.P5 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.5 Ex.P6 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.6 Ex.P7 is the First Information Report Ex.P8 is the report dated on 26.3.2009 given by PW.3 to PW.1 Ex.P9 is the seizer panchanama dated on 26.3.2009 conducted by PW.3 and LW3.

FOR DEFENCE: - Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS:- -Nil-

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

1 C.C.No.244 of 2014

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

(SPL.MOBILE), AT KARIMNAGAR.

PRESENT: Sri. M. Satish, Kumar Judl.Magistrate of F.C., (Spl.Mobile), Karimnagar.

Friday, the 23rd day of June, 2017

C.C. No. 247 of 2014 (Old C.C.No.1677 of 2013 on the file of I-Addl.J.M.F.C, Karimnagar)

Between :

The State through, S.I of Police, P.S Karimnagar Rural (Cr.No.468 of 2013)

...Complainant

AND

Sandaveni Santhosh Kumar, S/o Mallaiah, Age:28 years, Caste: Yadav, Occ: Bus driver No. AP-15-Y-8555 hired to APSRTC GDK Depot R/o, Raginedu village of Peddapalli Mandal..

...Accused

This case is coming before me on 21-06-2017 for final hearing in the presence of learned APP for the State and Sri A. Rajeshwar Rao, Counsel for accused and after perusing the case records, upon hearing the arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court has delivered the following:

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of police, Karimnagar Rural P.S. has laid Charge

Sheet against the sole accused for the offence punishable under section 304-A IPC.

2.The brief allegations in the charge sheet are as follows:

The LW1(K. Ramchandar) is defacto-complainant and father of the deceased. LW2 (K. Priyanka) is the wife of the deceased and resident of

Durshed village. The Lws 3 to 5 are the eye witnesses to the incident.

Whereas the accused has drove the bus in a rash and negligence manner in high speed coming from Godavarikhani to Karimnagar and hit the Motor cycle of the deceased in opposite direction near Chalmeda Ananda Rao

Dt: 04.10.2016 J.M.F.C (SPL.MOBILE), KNR

2 C.C.No.244 of 2014 Hospital, Bommakal village on 6-11-2013 at about 1130 hours, due to which the rider of the Motor cycle fell down on the ground and sustained fatal injuries over his forehead and died while shifting him to the Hospital.

3.On receipt of report from the defacto-complainant, the S.I of Police has registered it as a case in Cr.No.468 of 2013, under section 304-A IPC and took up investigation. The doctor, who conducted PME over the dead body of deceased gave PME Report opining that the deceased died due to “Head injury due to RTA Subdural homorrhage”. The Assistant Motor

Vehicle Inspector, who examined the crime vehicle and issued report opining that “ the accident occurred was not due to any mechanical defects of the crime vehicle”. Hence, the charge.

4. The case was taken on file against the sole accused for the offence under section 304-A IPC by the learned Addl. JMFC, Karimnagar in

C.C.No.1677 of 2013. Later, as per the orders of the Hon'ble Prl. District and

Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, the case was transferred to this court, for

disposal according to law and on transfer, it was re-numbered as C.C.No.247 of 2013.

5. On appearance of accused, copies of documents are furnished to him as required under section 207 Cr.P.C.

6.The accused was examined under section 251 of Cr.P.C, by stating the substance of accusation for the offence under section 304-A IPC. He pleaded not guilty of the said offence and claimed for trial.

Dt: 04.10.2016 J.M.F.C (SPL.MOBILE), KNR

3 C.C.No.244 of 2014

7.During trial, in support of its case, the prosecution has examined

Pws.1 to 9 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6.

8.After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C., with reference to the incriminating evidence found against him in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. He denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

9.Heard the learned APP for prosecution and the learned counsel for accused and perused the material available on record.

10.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, for the offence under section 304-A IPC?

POINT:

11.The case of the prosecution is that on 06-11-2013 at about 11.30

P.M., the accused drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner in high speed proceeding from Godavarikhani to Karimnagar and hit the Motor cycle of the deceased in opposite direction near Chalmeda Ananda Rao

Hospital, Bommakal village. Due to that the deceased fell down on the ground and sustained injuries over his forehead and died while shifting to the Hospital. Thereby the accused committed for the offence punishable under section 304-A IPC.

12.As stated above, to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as nine witnesses and exhibited seven documents.

13.PW1(Konda Ramchander) is the defacto/complaint father of deceased.

Admittedly PW2 not eye witness to the incident. He deposed that when he

Dt: 04.10.2016 J.M.F.C (SPL.MOBILE), KNR

4 C.C.No.244 of 2014 was going to Hyderabad in a bus on that day his brother-in-law by name

Anjaiah telephoned to him and informed that the deceased who is son of the deceased(Mahendar) met with an accident. Then immediately he rushed to the hospital. Later he found that his son was already died. He came to know that PW2 eye witness to the said incident. He lodged police report.

14.PW2(G. Ravinder) said to be eye witness to the incident. He deposed that on 06-11-2013 at about 9.00 or 9.30 P.M., while he was proceeding from Karimnagar town to Bommakal on his motor cycle and the deceased

Mahender also proceeding on his motor cycle on the same road by over taking him, when deceased cross Chalmeda Anandarao hospital then one

TSTRC bus coming in opposite direction and dashed to the motor cycle of the deceased due to that, deceased fell down on the ground and received head injuries. Then he stopped motor cycle and went to the deceased he and other two or three persons shifted injured to Chalmadaananda Rao

Hospital, after ten minutes the deceased was died. He further deposed that he witnessed the said incident with distance of 100 meters and he further deposed that he saw the driver on that day and he also identified the accused before the Court that the accused drove the bus on that day and caused accident to the deceased.

15.In the cross examination he deposed that he was working as private teacher, school timings are 9.00 A.M., to 5.30 P.M., He admitted that in 161

Cr.P.C., statement he has not stated that he can identify the driver of the bus. Who caused the accident it shown to him. He further deposed that the deceased belongs to his neighbouring village and he got acquaintance with the father of the deceased since long time.

16.PW3(J. Nagaraju) is panch witness of the inquest panchanama. He deposed inquest and scene of offence panchanama. He deposed that police

Dt: 04.10.2016 J.M.F.C (SPL.MOBILE), KNR

5 C.C.No.244 of 2014 conducted inquest panchanama at the Government Hospital Karimnagar over the dead body of the deceased.

17.PW4(P. Jeevan)is Photographer. He deposed about took photographs of the crime vehicle at the scene of offence in front of the Government

Hospital, Karimnagar.

18.PW5(V. Satish) he also panchanam for inquest at scene of offence. He further deposed that police conducted scene of offence at Chalmeda

Anandarao Hospital.

19.PW6(A. Shivajiraj) is the eye witness to the incident. He deposed that on that day he was boarded a crime vehicle RTC bus to got to Hyderabad.

He further deposed that about 1.30 P.m., their bus dashed one motor cyclist from back side of the said vehicle and due to that he fell down on the ground and he received injuries. He further deposed that he cannot identify the driver of the bus who drove crime vehicle bus on that day.

20.PW7(Dr. B. Rathnamala) is Motor Vehicle Inspector. She deposed that who conducted Post Mortem Report over the dead body of the deceased. He further deposed about the conducting of PME dead body of the deceased ( Mahendar) at Government Hospital, Karimnagar and and cause of death hemorrhage shock due to subdural hemorrhage and head injury.

21.PW8(A. Chandrashekar) is Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector. He deposed that he inspected the crime vehicle of the bus at Rural police station on 07-11-2013. He further deposed that he found no break failure and accident not occurred any mechanical defects of the crime vehicle.

22.PW9(K. Srujan Reddy) is Investigation Officer. He deposed about the receiving of Ex.P1 report and examination of the witnesses and and conducting of Crime Detail Form and also conducting of inquest panchanama and further deposed that he got photographs at scene of offence and gave requisition to conduct autospy and also Motor Vehicle

Dt: 04.10.2016 J.M.F.C (SPL.MOBILE), KNR

6 C.C.No.244 of 2014 Inspector to inspect the crime vehicle and further deposed that on 07-11- 2013, the accused surrendered before the him and after completion of

Investigation he filed Charge Sheet.

23.In this case PW9 deposed that accident occurred about 12.00 Mid night and he received Ex.P1 report at 7.00 A.M., morning. The distance between their police station and scene of offence is 10 Kilo metres . He denied suggestion that the deceased was came in wrong side in drunken condition on the road and he hit to the divider.

24.In order to prove section 304-A IPC, prosecution has to prove that the accused drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and caused accident.

In this case eye witness and PW2 and 6 and LW4(R. Raju) but prosecution fail to examined LW4 stating that his where abouts not known. Now the prosecution relied to prove the guilt of the accused on the evidence of

PW2 and 6. But, PW6 who was traveling in the crime vehicle bus on that day deposed that on the day he boarded crime vehicle bus to go to

Hyderabad at Godavarikhani. When bus reached near Chelmada

Ananadarao Hospital Karimnagar at 11.30 P.M., their bus dashed to the

Motor cycle on back side of the said Motor cycle. Due to that the deceased fell down on the ground and received injuries. PW6 deposed that he cannot identify the bus driver who drove the bus on that day. Therefore, PW6 evidence is no way helpful to the prosecution case to prove the guilt of the accused. Now evidence available before the Court is alone PW2. As per the evidence of PW2. on 6-11-2013 at 9.30 P.M., when he proceeding from

Karimnagar town to Bommakal on his motor cycle at that time deceased also proceeding on motor cycle and the same road by over taking him when the deceased crossed Chelmeda Ananda Rao Hospital. Then the crime vehicle bus came in opposite direction and dashed to the Motor cycle of the deceased due to that deceased (Mahender) fell down on the ground and

Dt: 04.10.2016 J.M.F.C (SPL.MOBILE), KNR

7 C.C.No.244 of 2014 received head injuries. Then he and other two or three persons shifted to the deceased to the Chelmada Anandarao Hospital and after 10 minutes the deceased was died. He further deposed that he witness the said incident with distance of 100 meters and PW2 also identify the accused before the

Court stating that the accused drove the crime vehicle bus on that day and dashed to the deceased. But PW2 not stated that the accused drove bus in a rash and negligent manner at that time of accident and caused accident.

Moreover, alleged accident occurred on 06-11-2013 and PW2 examined

before the Court and identify the accused before the Court on 13-12-2016.

Therefore, there is gap of three years between alleged incident and identify the accused before the Court by PW2. Moreover, there is no evidence

before the Court to show that whether PW2 is having prior acquaintance

with the accused. Moreover, alleged accident occurred according to PW2 at about 9.30 P.M., whereas according to the Investigation officer PW9 its occurred over 12.00 Mid night and in Ex.P7 First Information Report at column serial number four occurrence of the accident time mentioned at 12.00 Mid night . If at all accident occurred 12.00 Mid night. the question of PW2 witness the accident at 9.00 or 9.30 P.M., does not arise.

Therefore, PW2 evidence itself doubtful. Moreover, PW2 admitted that he did not stated before the Police in 161 Cr.P.C statement that he can identify the accused it shown to him. Therefore, identification of accused by

PW2 before the Court itself doubtful. Hence, moreover there is no evidence

before the Court to show that the accused drove the bus in a rash and

negligent manner at that time of alleged accident. Hence, this Court giving benefit of doubt to the accused. According accused is acquitted.

19.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 304-A IPC and he is acquitted of the said offence under section 255(1) Cr.P.C. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled.

Dt: 04.10.2016 J.M.F.C (SPL.MOBILE), KNR

8 C.C.No.244 of 2014

Typed to my dictation, directly on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 23rd day of June, 2017. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, (Spl.Mobile), Karimnagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW.1 Konda Ramchandar PW.2 G. Ravinder PW.3 J. Nagaraju PW.4 P. Jeevan PW.5 V. Satish PW.6 A. Shivajiraj PW.7 Dr. B. Rathnamala PW8A. Chandrashekar PW9K. Srujan Reddy

FOR DEFENCE: - None -

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1 is the Complaint, marked through PW.1 Ex.P2 is the Inquest Panchanama Ex.P3 is the Three photographs of the dead body of the deceased and one photograph of the scene of offence which is in front of said hospital and along with C.D. Ex.P4 is the Crime Detail Form Ex.P5 is Post Mortem Examination Ex.P6 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector

FOR DEFENCE: - Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS:- -Nil-

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

Dt: 04.10.2016 J.M.F.C (SPL.MOBILE), KNR

1 C.C.No.43 of 2015

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

(SPECIAL MOBILE), AT KARIMNAGAR.

PRESENT:- Sri M.Satish Kumar, Judl.Magistrate of F.C., (Special Mobile), Karimnagar.

Wednesday, the21st day of June, 2017

C.C. No.43 of 2015 (Old C.C.No.1811 of 2014 on the file of I-Addl.J.M.F.C, Karimnagar)

Between:

The State through, S.I of Police, P.S Choppadandi. (Cr.No. 208 of 2013)

...Complainant

AND

A.1Thammidi Shantha, W/o Ashalu, Age:60 years. A.2Thammidi Ravinder, S/o Ashalu, Age:34. A.3Thammidi Srinivas, S/o Ashalu, Age:30 years. A.4Thammidi Mallikarjun, S/o Ashalu, Age:32 years. A.5Thammidi Aruna, D/o Ashalu, Age:28 years. A.6Jannarapu Ramaswamy, S/o Narsaiah, Age:35 years.

All are Caste:Mala, R/o Arunakonda village.

...Accused

This case is coming before me on 08-06-2017 for final hearing in the presence of learned APP for the State and Sri Ch. Pradeep Kumar, counsel

for the accused and after perusing the case records, upon hearing the

arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court has delivered the following:

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

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Choppadandi P.S., has filed the Charge

Sheet against A.1 to A.6 in Crime No.208 of 2013, for the offences under

Sections 448, 427, 290 read with 34 IPC.

2.The brief allegations in the charge sheet are as follows:

2 C.C.No.43 of 2015 Lws .1 to 6(K. Ramulu, T. Rajesham, G. Gattaiah, J. Sathaiah,

K. Chandraiah and K. Mondaiah) and accused A1 to A6 are the same community and resident of Arnakonda village. The accused A1 to A5 are the same family members and they have land in Sy.No. 10-G away from the disputed (assigned) land. Long ago the accused temporarily keep their sheep and bullocks in the assigned land in Sy.No.11, 12, and 52 (Which is beside of

Sy.No. (10). On 02.10.2007 the then Grama Sabha of Arnakonda passed resolution in Grama Panchayath meeting and allotted assigned land (Madira) in Sy.No. 11, 12, and 52 which was possession by the A1 to A5 for construction of Adharsha Youth Welfare Sangam (R. No. 5 of 2004) and permitted to construction of community Hall. On receipt of permission the

Lw.1 ( K. Ramulu) and his caste members were constructed temporary tin shed on 05-10-2007 in the said land and running the activities of Sangam needs. The accused A1 to A6 were illegally trespassed in to their community shed and abused the Lws 1 to 6 (K. Ramulu, T. Rajesham, G. Gattaiah, J.

Sathaiah, K. Chandraiah and K. Mondaiah) in most filthy language and removed the tin shed, damaged the Sangam board and took away the tin and pipes by alleging that said land is belongs to them. Both parties were approached to revenue authorities and they are also visited the scene and surveyed the land and issued report against the A1 to A6.

5.On receipt of report the S.I of Police has registered it as a case in

Cr.No.208 of 2013, under section 448,427, 290 and read with 34 IPC and took up investigation. After completion of investigation, filed Charge Sheet against A1 to A6.

6. The case was taken on file against A.1 to A.6 for the offences under section 448, 427, 290 read with 34 IPC in C.C.No.1811 of 2014 on the file 3 C.C.No.43 of 2015 of learned Addl. JMFC, Karimnagar. Later, as per the orders of the Hon'ble

Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, the case was transferred to this

Court, for disposal according to law and on transfer, it was re-numbered as

C.C. 43 of 2015 on the file of this Court.

6. On appearance of A1 to A.6 copies of documents are furnished to them as required under section 207 Cr.P.C.

7.A.1 to A.6 were examined U/s.251 of Cr.P.C., by explaining the accusations for the offences under section 448,427, 290 read with 34 IPC.

They pleaded not guilty of the said offence and claimed for trial.

8.To prove its case, the prosecution has examined Pws.1 to 6 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7

9.After closure of prosecution side evidence, A.1 to A.6 were examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C., with reference to the incriminating evidence found against them in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. They denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

10.Heard the learned APP for prosecution and the learned counsel for A. 1 to A.6 and perused the material available on record.

11.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of A.1 to A.3 for the offences U/s.448, 427, 290 read with 34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt,?

POINT:

The case of the prosecution is that Grama Sabha of Arnakonda passed resolution in Grama panchayath and alloted assigned land in Sy.Nos. 11, 12 4 C.C.No.43 of 2015 and 52 for construction of Adharsha Youth Welfare Sangam and permitted to construction of community hall. The said land was in possession of A1 to

A5. Then the caste members PW1 and others were constructed temporary tin shed on 05-10-2007. A1 to A6 were illegally trespassed in to the said community shed and abused PW1 LW2 (T. Rajesham) PW2, LW4(J.

Sathaiah), LW5(K. Chandraiah) and LW6(K. Mondaiah) in most filthy language and removed tin shed and damaged the board stating that said land belongs to them and the both parties also approached Revenue

Authorities and Revenue Authorities also visited to scene of offence and surveyed came and issued report against the accused. Thereby the accused committed offence punishable under section 448, 427, 290 read with 34 IPC.

14.To prove the prosecution case prosecution examined PWs.1 to 6.

15. PW1(Katam Ramulu) is the defacto complainant. He deposed that in their village he and along with others caste people formed a society of their community. Then they made an application to the Sapranch of their village and for allotting the land for construction of their society building. Then the village Sarpanch allotted 4 guntas of land after conducting the gramasabha meeting to their society. Then while they cleaning the said land for the construction of building A1 came made objection stating that the said land belongs to her patta land. Then he made an application to Mandal

Revenue Officer, Choppadandi informing objection raised by A1. Then

Manadal Revenue Officer and other officers came to the said land and got surveyor the land and found that it is not patta land of A1 and it is Grama

Panchayath land . Then they constructed tin shet, then A1 to A6 came to their land and demolished to their tin shed and took away iron pipe and iron sheets. Then he lodged the police report.

5 C.C.No.43 of 2015

16.In the cross examination PW1 admitted that accused No.1 filed civil case before the Prl. Junior Civil Judge Court Karimnagar vide O.S No. 199 of 2011 against their society regarding the disputed land for perpetual injunction order it is pending for trial. He denied suggestion that in the said disputed land A1 cattle shed and their toilet is situated. He denied suggestion that they have not raised the in shed in their land.

17.G. Gattaiah said to be eye witness to the incident examined as PW2.

He also supported the version of the PW1 that the accused demolished their tin shed and took away iron pipe and iron sheets. He also admitted that A1 filed civil case regarding disputed land before the Hon'ble Junir Civil Judge

Court Karimnagar.

18.PW3 (K. Rajesham) and PW4(K. Mallesham) are the panch witness for

CDF. They are not supported the prosecution case they stated that police obtained their signatures on some papers without disclose any reason in their presence the police did not conducted CDF. PW3 and 4 declared hostile and with the permission by the Court APP cross examined PW4. But, nothing is elicited in favour of the prosecution.

19.PW5(Mohd. Rafiq) is Investigation Officer. He deposed that receiving of

Ex.P1 report from PW1 and registered a case on 17-12-2013 and examination of the witnesses and conducted CDF and collected photographs.

20.PW6(Shaik Riyaz Pasha) is another Investigation Officer. Who filed

Charge Sheet he deposed that he collected a letter addressed to District

Collector by the Tahasildar Choppadandi and after completion of investigation and he filed Charge Sheet. He denied suggestion that PW1 trespassed in the land of A1 and started construction .

21.According to the prosecution Grama panchayath allotted the land to the Adarsha Youth Welfare Sangam. After conducting Grama Sabha for construction of the community hall. After taking permission of the Grama 6 C.C.No.43 of 2015 Panchayath PW1 who is president of said sangam and others construction a tin shed in the said land. A1 to A6 were illegally trespassed into the said land and damaged their tin shed. Even according to the prosecution A1 to A6 were in the possession of the said land. Moreover, Pw1 and 2 also admitted that the accused filed civil case against them before the Hon'ble Prl., Junior

Civil Judge Karimnagar and it is pending for trial. Though, Investigation

Officer collected Ex.P7 said to be report submitted by Tahasildar

Choppadandi to District Collector. But, the Investigation Officer not examined the said Tahasildar to prove the contents of the Ex.P7. Therefore, the contents of the Ex.P7 not proved before the Court. Except the evidence of the PW1 and 2 who were interested witnesses there is no other independent evidence before the Court. Moreover, the alleged incident occurred on 12-12-2013 as per the Ex.P1. But, the Ex.P1 lodged on 17-12- 2013,there is delay of five days in lodging report. Prosecution also not explained for the reasons of the delay in lodging report. Moreover, prosecution also not filed any documentary evidence to show that the disputed land allotted to the Adarsha Yuvajana sangam and Grama

Panchayath gave permission to construction of the shed in disputed land.

Hence, this Court giving benefit of doubt to the accused. Accordingly A1 to

A6 are acquitted.

22.In the result, A.1 to A.6 are found not guilty for the offences under

Sections 448, 427, 290 read with 34 IPC and they are acquitted of the said offences under section 255 (1) Cr.P.C., and their bail bonds shall stand cancelled.

Dictated to the Shorthand Writer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me

in the open Court on this the 21st day of June, 2017.

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, (Special Mobile),Karimnagar.

7 C.C.No.43 of 2015

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE: PW1Katam Ramulu PW2G. Gattaiah PW3K. Rajesham PW4K. Mallesham PW5Mohd. Rafiq PW6Shaik Rayaz Pasha

FOR DEFENCE: None: −

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1 is police report Ex.P2 is the three photographs of their demolished tin shed with CD. Ex.P3 is the signature of PW.3 on CDF Ex.P4 is the signature of PW4 on CDF Ex.P5 is the First Information Report. Ex.P6 is the Crime Details Form Ex.P7 is the letter dated 29-09-2014 address a letter District Collector to the Tahasildar Choppadnadi.

FOR DEFENCE -NIL-

MATERIAL OBJECTS

- NIL-

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

1 C.C.No.307 of 2014

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

(SPECIAL MOBILE), AT KARIMNAGAR.

PRESENT:- Sri M.Satish Kumar, Judl.Magistrate of F.C., (Special Mobile), Karimnagar.

Wednesday, the21st day of June, 2017

C.C. No.307 of 2014 (Old C.C.No.1694 of 2013 on the file of I-Addl.J.M.F.C, Karimnagar)

Between:

The State through, S.I of Police, P.S Karimnagar. (Cr.No. 357 of 2013)

...Complainant

AND

Badugu Shashi Kiran, S/o Venkatesham, Age: 24 years, Caste: Padmashali, R/o Qtr. No.998, Block 72, Pothana colony, Penchikalpet village of Kamanpur mandal Occ; Owner of Sri Sai Kiran Camer Services center kashmirgadda, Karimnagar.

...Accused

This case is coming before me on 19-06-2017 for final hearing in the presence of learned APP for the State and Sri V.V Ramana Rao, counsel for the accused and after perusing the case records, upon hearing the arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court has delivered the following:

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

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Karimnagar P.S., has filed the Charge

Sheet against the accused in Crime No.357 of 2013, for the offences under

Sections 323, 342, 427, 506 IPC.

2.The brief allegations in the Charge Sheet are as follows:

LW1(V. Shekar) is the Reporter in I-News channel Karimnagar Town, where as the accused is the camera mechanic running a camera mechanic shop on the name and title Sri Said Kiran Camera Services center at kashmirgadda Karimnagar. On 01-09-6-2013, the LW1 went to the shop of accused and given his Panasonic 102 B. Video camera which got some 2 C.C.No.307 of 2014 problem of Irish button repair. After receiving camera of LW1, the accused asked theLW1 to pay Rs.5,000/- towards repair and parts charges, accordingly the LW1 paid the amount. After receiving amount the accused filed to repair the camera of LW1 and used to postpone to hand over the camera of LW1 on one or other protext. Finally on 21-11-2013 at 10-00 hours, the LW1 went to the shop of accused and demanded to return his camera, but the accused replied that the camera was not repaired. On that the LW1 took his camera from the accused and noticed that the accused who could not repair the camera, caused mischief by damaging the camera and incurred loss of a tune of Rs.4,000/-. As such the LW1 questioned the accused about damaging of his camera, on that the accused picked up quarrel, wrongfully confined the LW1 in the shop by closing the shutter, beat him with hands and threatened him with dire consequences to kill if he again approach him. The Lw1 managed to open the shutter and came out of he shop and escaped, at that time the LW2(S. Ramesh) who present at the spot witnessed the incident. Hence, LW1 lodged police report.

5.On receipt of report, the S.I of Police has registered it as a case in

Cr.No.357 of 2013, under section 323, 342, 427, 506 IPC and took up investigation. After completion of investigation, filed Charge Sheet against the accused.

6. The case was taken on file against the accused for the offences under section 323, 342, 427, 506 IPC in C.C.No.1694 of 2013 on the file of learned Addl. JMFC, Karimnagar. Later, as per the orders of the Hon'ble Prl.

District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, the case was transferred to this

Court, for disposal according to law and on transfer, it was re-numbered as

C.C. 307 of 2014 on the file of this Court.

3 C.C.No.307 of 2014

6. On appearance of the accused copies of documents are furnished to them as required under section 207 Cr.P.C.

7.The accused was examined U/s.251 of Cr.P.C., by explaining the accusations for the offences under section 323, 342, 427, 506 IPC. He pleaded not guilty of the said offence and claimed for trial.

8.To prove its case, the prosecution has examined Pws.1 to 6 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7

9.After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C., with reference to the incriminating evidence found against him in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. He denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

10.Heard the learned APP for prosecution and the learned counsel for the accused and perused the material available on record.

11.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offences under section 323, 342, 427, 506 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt,?

POINT:

The case of the prosecution is that PW1 is Reporter in I-News channel

Karimnagar Town. Accused is running camera mechanic shop under name and style of Sri Sai Kiran Camera Service center at Kashmirgadda

Karimnagar. On 01-09-2013 PW1 went to the shop of accused and gave his photo camera Panasonic to PW1 to get repair and accused asked to PW1 to pay Rs.5,000/- towards repair and parts charges, accordingly PW1 paid the amount. After receiving amount the accused failed to repair the said camera and postponed to the same. On 21-11-2013 at about 10.00 A.M., PW1 went to the shop of the accused and demanded to return his camera, but the 4 C.C.No.307 of 2014 accused replied that it was not repaired. On that PW1 took his camera from the accused and noticed that the accused did not repair the said camera, caused mischief by the accused and damaged of his camera, on that accused picked up quarrel, wrongfully confined the PW1 in the shop by closing the shutter, beat him with hands and threatened him with dire consequences to kill if he again approach him. Thereby the accused committed offence punishable under section 323, 342, 427, 506 IPC.

12.To prove the prosecution case prosecution examined PWs.1 to 6.

13.PW1(V. Shekar) is the defacto-complainant and victim. He deposed that he is video grapher prior to two months of Ex.P1 report his camera was under repair. Then the accused who is running camera repairing shop at

Kashmirgadda Karimnagar. Then he gave his video camera to get repair and after verifying his video camera accused stated that it is minor problem it will cost of Rs.3,000/- to 4,000/-. Accordingly he gave camera to the accused and also Rs.2,000/- to the accused as advance. Later even after one month the accused not attended repair his camera. Then he requested the accused get repair of his camera. Then the accused informed that the repair cost will be Rs.40,000/-. Then he questioned the accused initially he stated

Rs.3,000/- to 4,000/- again why saying Rs.40,000/- and he asked to repair his camera . Then accused bet him with his hands and also pushed him.

14.In the cross examination he deposed that with the accused gave receipt to him while taking video camera from him and he gave said receipt to the police at that time of lodging report and also gave to him after payment of the amount. He further deposed that in the presence of said

Praveen, he asked the accused to get repair of the camera. He deposed that at that time of quarrel between he and accused said Ramesh was present.

He denied suggestion that he did not gave no video camera to get repair 5 C.C.No.307 of 2014 to the accused and accused never beat him at any time and he deposing false.

15.PW2(Shujauddin) and PW3(Ch. Mahesh) are the mediators for the

CDF. They are not supported the prosecution case and they stated that police obtained their signatures on some papers without disclosing any reason and in their presence the police did not conducted CDF. PW2 and 3 declared hostile at request of APP and cross examined by APP. But, nothing is elicited in favour of the prosecution.

16.PW4(S. Ramesh) is said to be eye witness to the incident. He deposed that he do not know anything about the facts of this case and he has not witnessed any incident regarding this case. He further deposed that he was not examined by the police in connection with this case. PW4 declared hostile at request of the APP and cross examined by the APP. But, nothing is elicited in favour of the prosecution.

16.PW5(Mohd. Sayeeduddin) is Investigation Officer. He deposed about the receiving of Ex.P1 report and registration of the case and examination of the witnesses and further deposed that he collected photographs of the video camera and conducted the CDF. After completion of investigation he filed Charge Sheet. In the cross examination PW5 deposed that PW1 is

Electronic Media reporter and he denied suggestion that, as PW1 is a reporter as such he foisted a false case against accused.

17.PW6(Mohd. Rafeeq Khan) is another Investigation Officer who filed

Charge Sheet, deposed about the filing of Charge Sheet.

18.Except the evidence of PW1, there is no evidence before the Court.

That the accused bet PW1 and pushed. Though, according to PW1 at that time of bet him by the accused PW4 present. But, PW4 not supported the prosecution case. Moreover, prosecution also not examined by the neighbours shop persons who were present at that time of the alleged 6 C.C.No.307 of 2014 incident. Except the evidence of PW1, there is no evidence to support the prosecution case. Hence, obsence of the independent evidence, this Court opines that it is not sate to convict the accused sole basing on the evidence of the PW1 who is interested witnesses. Hence, this Court giving benefit of doubt to the accused. Accordingly accused is acquitted.

19.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences under

Sections 323, 342, 427, 506 IPC and he is acquitted of the said offences under section 255 (1) Cr.P.C., and his bail bonds shall stand cancelled.

Un-marked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Shorthand Writer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me

in the open Court on this the 21st day of June, 2017.

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, (Special Mobile),Karimnagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE: PW1V. Shekar PW2Shujauddin PW3Ch. Mahesh PW4S. Ramesh PW5Mohd. Sayeeduddin PW6Mohd Rafeeq Khan

FOR DEFENCE: None: −

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1 is police report Ex.P2 is the signature of Pw2 on CDF. Ex.P3 is the signature of PW.3 on CDF Ex.P4 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4 Ex.P5 is the First Information Report. Ex.P6 is the Crime Details Form Ex.P7 is the two photos along with Case Diary

FOR DEFENCE -NIL-

MATERIAL OBJECTS

- NIL-

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

7 C.C.No.307 of 2014

1 C.C.No.433 of 2010

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

(SPECIAL MOBILE), AT KARIMNAGAR.

PRESENT: Sri M.Satish Kumar, Judl.Magistrate of F.C., (Special Mobile), Karimnagar.

Tuesday, the 27th day of June, 2017

C.C. No.433 of 2010 (Old C.C.No 255 of 2010 on the file of I-Addl.J.M.F.C, Karimnagar)

Between : The State through, Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S Karimagar-Town (Cr.No.267 of 2009)

...Complainant

AND Dandugula Mahesh, S/o Chandraiah, Age:19 years, Caste:Waddera, Occ: Inter 1st year, R/o H.No.2-141, Prasanthnagar, Siddipet of Medak District.

...Accused

This case is coming before me 22-06-2017 for final hearing in the presence of learned APP for the State and Sri Ch.P. K Raju, Counsel for accused and after perusing the case records, upon hearing the arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court has delivered the following:

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of police, P.S. Karimnagar-I has laid Charge Sheet against the accused for the offence punishable U/s. 380 of IPC.

2.The brief allegations in the Charge Sheet are as follows:

The LW1(G. Anil) is the resident of Kisannagar, Karimnagar. He is working in Arya Fashions cloth store, tower circle, Karimnagar. The accused is the friend of LW1 who studied with him. On 26-10-2009 while the LW1 was working in the shop, the accused went to him and informed to him that he came to Karimnagar for certificates and his work is not completed. On that the LW1 took the accused to his house and both of them slept on that night. On that night the accused stolen away two Nokia Mobile phones i.e., 2 C.C.No.433 of 2010 one black colour Noka cell model No.1208 worth of Rs. 1200/-, and one

Nokia mobile, while and black colour model No. 1200 worth of Rs.1,000/- from the house of LW1 and escaped from the house of LW1. Hence, this report.

3.Basing on said report, the police registered a case in Cr.No. 267 of 2009 under section 380 of IPC. During the course of investigation, the police examined the witnesses and arrested the accused and produced him before the Court for judicial remand. After completion of investigation filed Charge

Sheet against the accused for offence under section 380 of IPC.

4. The case was originally taken on file against the accused for the offence under section 380 of IPC and the case was numbered as C.C.255 of 2010 on the file of Addl. JMFC, Karimnagar. Later, as per the orders of the Hon'ble

Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, the case was transferred to this

Court for disposal and as such the case was re-numbered as C.C. 433 of 2010.

5. On appearance of accused, copies of documents are furnished to him as required under section 207 Cr.P.C.

6.Accused was examined U/s.239 of Cr.P.C, and the Charges for the under section 380 of IPC was framed, contents were read over and explained to him in Telugu, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

7.During trial, in support of its case, the prosecution has examined Pw1 to PW3 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6.

8.After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C., with reference to the incriminating evidence appearing against him in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, which he denied as false and reported no defence evidence.

9.Heard the learned APP for prosecution and the learned counsel for the accused and perused the material available on record.

3 C.C.No.433 of 2010

10.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 380 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt ?

POINT:

11.The case of the prosecution is that LW1(G. Anil) is working in Arya

Fashions cloth store, tower, circle, Karimnagar. The accused is the friend of

LW1. On 26-10-2009 while LW1 was working, the accused went to his shop and met LW1, and LW1 took the accused to his house and on that night and accused stolen away two Nokia Mobile phone i.e., one black colour Nokia cell model No. 1208 worth of Rs.1200 and one Nokia mobile, while and black colour model No.1200/- worth of Rs.1000/- from the house of LW1 and escaped from their house. Thereby the accused committed offence punishable under section 380 IPC.

12.In order to prove the case, prosecution examined as PW1 to 3.

13.Prosecution fail to examined defacto-complainant LW1 (G. Anil) stating that his where abouts not known. Police also filed report that

LW5(Md. Ezaz Ali) where abouts not known and also filed report that LW2(V.

Shankaraiah) unable to come the Court. Hence, LW2(V. Shankaraiah) evidence also closed. The evidence available before the Court is PWs1 to 3.

14.PW1(G. Mohan) is the panch for Crime Detail Form and PW2(Md.

Ahmmed) panch for confession and recovery and PW3 Investigation Officer.

15.PW1 not supported prosecution case. He deposed that police obtained his signature on some blank papers with out disclosing any reason at police station. Hence, PW1 evidence no way helpful to the prosecution case.

16.PW2 is panch witness for confession cum recovery stolen of stolen property. He deposed that in the 2009, when he went to Karimnagar I-town 4 C.C.No.433 of 2010 Police station on some work at that time the police obtained his signature on blank papers with out disclosing any reasons. PW2 further deposed that his presence accused did not confessed anything and police did not seized anything from the possession of the accused . Therefore, PW2 evidence also no way helpful to the prosecution case.

17.PW3 is Investigation officer. He deposed that on 27-10-2009 at about 8.00 hours he received Ex.P1 report from PW1 and also registered a case and issuance First Information Report and examination of the witnesses and he further deposed that 27-10-2009 while general checking at

Karimnagar bus stand and caught hold the accused and secured mediators

PW2 and LW5(Md. Ezaz Ali) in their presence during the interrogation of the accused confessed commission of the offence and furtherance of the commission he did seized mobile phones from the possession of the accused under confession cum recovery panchanama and after completion of investigation he filed Charge Sheet.

18.In this case except the evidence of PW3, there is no evidence before the Court. As defacto-complainant LW1(G. Anil) not examined by the prosecution. Moreover, PW2 one of the mediator for the alleged confession recovery panchanama not supported the prosecution. Therefore, this Court opines that it is not safe to convict the accused solely basing on the evidence of PW.3. Hence, this Court opines that prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly accused is acquitted for the offence punishable under section 380 of IPC.

19.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 380 of IPC and he is acquitted for the offence 248 (1) Cr.P.C., and his bail bonds shall stand cancelled. Unmarked case property i.e., Nokia

Mobile Phone is return to LW1(G. Anil) after expire of appeal time.

Dictated to the Shorthand writer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me

in the open Court on this the 27th day of June, 2017.

5 C.C.No.433 of 2010 Judl. Magistrate of First Class, (Special Mobile), Karimnagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: PW1G. Mohan PW2Md. Ahammed PW3A. Ramulu

FOR DEFENCE: - None -

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 is the signature of PW1 Ex.P2 is the signature of PW2. Ex.P3 is Police report. Ex.P4 is the First Information Report Ex.P5 is the confession cum seizer panchanama of accused. Ex.P6 is the Crime Detail Form

FOR DEFENCE: MATERIAL OBJECTS:- -Nil- Judl. Magistrate of First Class, (Special Mobile), Karimnagar.

6 C.C.No.433 of 2010