Manem Roshini AP01234

1 //DRAFT//

Present: Ms . M. Roshinl I

Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class

I Pathapatnam (FAC/ Judicial magistrate of 1st class I Kotabommali)

Tuesdav. this 29 " Dav or Julv. 202s

1

Calendar Case 10212024

Between:

The State represented by - Sub- Inspector of Police, Naupada Police Station. --- Complainant.

And

Rakalla Yaranna, S/O Late Rajulu, 76 years, R/O Peeda veedhi, Naupada village, Santhabommali, SrikakuJam. ---Accused

This is the case came before me for final hearing on 23.07.2025 in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for complainant and Sri. Ch. Venkata Rao, Legal Aid counsel for Accused, and on having heard both sides, this court made the following:

JUDGEMENT

The Sub Inspector of Police, Naupada police station filed 1. chargesheet in Crime No. 25/2024 alleging that the Accused committed an offence punishable under section 324, 323 and section 506. of Indian Penal

Code, 1860 (herein after referred as IPC).

Qlt1

Date: 29.07.2025

2 //DRAFT//

2.

The case of prosecution In brief Is that:

a) LW1 is a resident of Nadimintivari street, Naupada village, Santhabommali mandal and he is a retired district central cooperative band assistant general manager. The accused is a resident of Pedda veedh1, Naupada village, and about 8 month ago the in-laws of LW1 procured some extent of landed properties from the villagers and during which the accused put the signature on the agreement deed by acting as one of the mediators and on that LW1 gave a remuneration of

Rs.5,000/- to accused including other mediators, but the accused did not satisfied with that and used to dispute with LW1 and alleging that he did not paid proper remuneration for his mediating while entered the agreement and since then the accused grew wild against LW1 intending to cause menance to him.

b) While so, on 29.01.2024 morning at about 11 hours when LW1 and LW2 were chatting at Yerramnaidu statue located rear side of bus stand at yerramnaidu statue, K. Naupada village, and meanwhile the accused came there and disputed with LW1, slapped LW1 on his left cheek and picked up a stone and beat LW1 over his head and due. to which he sustained with bleeding injury and the accused also threatened LW1 with dire consequences that he will kill him. LW2 to LWS witnessed the same, intervened in the dispute and rescued LW1 from the accused and then sent them away from the place. Later, LW1 lodged a report at police station against the accused. ·

c) Basing on the report of LW1 , LW9 registered case in crime No.25/2024 under section 324; 323 and section 506 of IPC of Naupada RS on

29.01 .2024 at 12.30 hours and investigated into it.

d) During the course of investigation, LVV9 examined Lw1 to 5 and recorded their statements and inspected the scene of offence and

Date: 29.07.2025 3

//DRAFT// seized one stone from the scene of offence in the presence of LW6 and LW1 under the cover of scene observation report and prepared rough sketch of scene of offence

e) LW10 took up investigation on 30.01 .2024 verified the investigation and found that the investigation made by LVV9 is on correct lines and served section 41 A notice to the accused with a direction to appear before court whenever required.

f) LW8 examined the injuries of LW1 and issued wound certificate with an opinion that the injuries on the person of LW1 are simple in nature.

g) After completion of investigation, LW10 filed charge sheet against the accused.

3. On the basis of report of L~1 , an FIR was registered case in

Crime No. 25/2024 under section 323, 324 and section 506 of IPC.

4. Cognizance was taken for the offen·ces punishable under section 323, 324 and 506 of IPC against the accused.

5. On appearance of Accused case copies were furnished on him under section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. H~ was examined under Sectio 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and framed charges under section 324, 323 and section 506 of IPC. Rea~ over the substance of accusation in Telugu language and explained to him in Telugu Language, and on understanding the same he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried,

6. In trial, to establish the prosecution's case and to bring home the guilt of the accused, PW1 to PWB were examined and Exhibits Ex. P1 to PS got marked. The following are the documents marked as exhibits by the prosecution.

EX. P1 : Police complaint a (t7

Date: 29 07 2025 //DRAFT//

4

EX P2 Scene observation report EX P3 Wound certificate EX P4· FIR EX PS. Roughsk~ch MO 01 : Stone

7. After closure of evidence Accused was examined under Section I 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and incriminating material appeared in evidence of prosecution is placed before him, for which he denied the same and reported no Defense Evidence.

8. Heard Arguments of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for complainant and the Learned counsel for Accused.

a. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the prosecution has proved the guilt of Accused beyond all reasonable doubt and prayed to convict the Accused with maximum punishment.

b. Learned legal aid Counsel for accused argued that the pror.ecution .failed to prove the guilt of Accus~d beyo~d all reasonable doubt and therefore, prayed this court to acquit the accused.

9. On Perusal of entire material on record, the points that arise for determination are:

i. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of

the accused for the offence punishable

under Section 323 of /PC, beyond reasonable doubt?

ii . Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of

the accused for the offence punishable

under Section 324 of /PC, beyond reasonable doubt?

iii. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of

the accused for the offence punishable

under Section 506 of /PC, beyond reasonable doubt?

Date: 29.07.2025 5

//DRAFT// 10 With regard to point for determination, it is pertinent to refer the section 323, 324 and section 506 of IPC.

SECTION 324. Voluntarily causing hurt

by dangerous weapons or means.-

Whoever, except in the case provided for by

section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by

means of any instrument for shooting,

stabbing or cutti ng, or any instrument which,

used as weapon of offence, is likely to cause

death, or by means of fire or any heated

substance, or by means of any poison or any

corrosive substance, or by means of any

explosive substance or by means of any.

substance which it is deleterious to the

human body to inhale: to swallow, or to

receive into the. blood, or by means of any

animal, shall be punished with imprisonment

of either description for a term which may

extend to three years, or with fine, or with

both.

SECTION 323. Punishment · for

voluntarily causing hurt.-

Whoever, except in the case provided for by

section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be

punished with imprisonment of either

description for a term which may extend to

one year, or with fine which may extend to

one thousand rupees, or·with both .

. .

SECTION 506. Punishment for criminal

intimidation.-

Date: 29 07.2025

//DRAFT// 6

Whoever con1n1its, the offence of crin1inal

inti,nidation shall be punished w it h.

tn1prisonment of either description f or a tenn

which ,nay extend to two years, or w it h fin e,

or with both,· If threat be to ca u se d ea th or

grievous hurt, etc.- A nd if the t hr ea t be to

cause death or grievous hurt, or to ca u se the

destruction of any prope rty by fir e, or to

cause an offen ce pun is hable with death or

in1prisonment for li fe , or with imprisonment

for a term which nwy extend to seven years,

or to impute, unchastity to a woman, shall- be

punished with imprisonment of either

de scri pt i on for a term which may extend to

s ev en years, or with fine, or with both.

SECTION 503. Criminal

intimidation.-

Whoever threatens another with

any injury to his person,

reputation or property, or to the

person or reputation of any one

in whom that person is

interested, with intent to cause

alarm to that person, or to cause·

that person to do any act which

he is not legally bound to do, or

to omit to do any act which that

person is legally entitled to do,

as the means of a voiding the

execution of such threat,

commits criminal .intimidation.

Explanati(?n. -A threat to injure

the. reputation of any deceased

person in whom the person

t hr eatened is interested, is

within this section.

Date: 29 07.2025 7

//DRAFT// 11 . With regard to point for determination (i) to (ui), The initial burden hes on the prosecution to prove that the offence was committed by the accused without leaving any room for reasonable doubt

12. With regard to point for determination (i), whether the

prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence

punishable under section 324 of /PC. beyond reasonable doubt?

In relation to this point, the prosecution, in order to establish the g_uilt of the accused, examined LW1 as PW1 . In his chief examination, PW1 deposea that the accused used to work at his residence. About a week prior to the incident, the accused had asked him for an amount of ~5,000/-, to which he replied that he did not have the money. On 29.01 .2024, between 10:00 AM and 11 :00 AM, while he was conversing with LW3, the accused approached and slapped him on his left cheek, causing him to fall to the ground. The accused· then picked up a stone (marked as MO1) and struck him on the head, resulting in a bleeding injury. Thereafter, the accused took a knife and attempted to kil,I him.

At that point, LW2 and LW3 intervened and rescued him from the accused.

Subsequently, LW2 accompanied him to the police station, where he lodged a report (marked as Ex.P1 ), and he was later taken to the hospital for treatment.

To corroborate his testimony, the prosecution ex_amined LW2, LW3, .LW4, and

LWS as PW3, PW2, PW4·, and PWS respectively. Upon careful ·examinatfon of the testimonies of PW2 to PWS, it is observed by this Court that, except for

PWS, the remaining witnesses are either related to or acquainted with PW1 .

Therefore, their testimonies require cautious scrutiny, as they, may be inclined to support the version of PW1 due to their relationship or familiarity with him. ·

13. LW3 was examined as PW2, and he deposed that he runs a milk shop. On the day of the incident, PW1 came to his shop and was having a casual conversation with him regarding a land matter. At that time, PW3 also arrived there, and while they were talking, the accused suddenly came to the spot and demanded money from PW1 . When PW1 responded, the accused

µ- ~lA -

0

Date: 29.07.2025

//DRAFT// 8 slapped him on the left cheek, picked up a stone, and struck PW1 on the head, causing c bleeding injury. PW2 immediately took PW1 to the police station, and from there, they proceeded to the hospital for treatment. Upon careful scrutiny of the testimonies of PW1 and PW2, this Court observes that their statements are consistent and corroborate each other, except for the detail regarding the accused taking out a knife and threatening to kill PW1 , which was missed by PW2. Interestingly, PW3 to PW5 also deposed in the same manner as PW1 . Furthermore PW3 to PW5 stated before the Court 1 that after the accused hit PW1 with the stone he took out a knife and tried to I kill PW1 with it. It is noteworthy that PW1 to PW5 have provided detailed and consistent accounts of the incident, without omitting even minor particulars regarding the commission of the offence. .

14 . During the cross-examination of PW1 , it was elicited by the learned defence· counsel ·that PW1 did not mention to the police which ·hand the accused used to slap him. It was also brought out that none of the witnesses i.e, PW1 to PW5 had stated to the police what kind of stone was used nor they provided any specific details regarding the knife allegedly used by the accused during the commission of offence.On this point, the Court is of the opinion that in such sudden and stressful situations, it is unreasonable to expect witnesses to observe and recall minute details such as which hand was used to slap, the exact type of stone, or the specific characteristics of the knife. Furthermore, the learned counsel for the accused pointed out inconsistencies regarding the time of the incident. However, all witnesses consistently stated that the offence occurred between 1 0:00 AM and 11 :00

AM. It is natural that, during such unexpected incidents, indivi~uals are unlikely to note the exact· time. Hence, minor discrepancies in the time frame do not, in the view of this Court, constitute material inconsistencies sufficient to cast doubt on the prosecution's case. Except for these minor points, the defence failed to elicit any substantial or beneficial materi.al during cross- examination to establish the innocence of the accused. Significantly, PW5, an

Date. 29.07 2025 9 //DRAFT// independent witness with no relation to PW1 , fully corroborated the version of events given by PW1 , as well as the testimonies of PW2 to PW4. Upon careful examination of the testimonies of PW1 to PW5 this Court finds no I material inconsistencies that would undermine the credibility ~f their evidence.

15 Besides PW1 to PW5, the prosecution, in order to establish the guilt of the accused, examined PW?, who is the doctor that medically examined PW1 upon police referral. In his chief examination, PW? deposed that he examined PW1 on 29.01 .2024 at around 2:30 PM. He stated that. PW1 was coherent and conscious at the time of examination. He further .deposed that, upon examination, he found the follo,wing injuries on PW1 , a laceration on the scalp in a triangular shape measuring 3x2x1 cm, red in colour, and an abrasion over tre right ~yebrow. He opined that the injuries were •simple in nature and were likely to have been caused 2 to 3 hours prior to the examination. During cross-examination, it was elicited that the second injury (abrasion) could possibly have been sustained if PW1 had fallen on a metal road However, the first injury (laceration on the scalp) could not have been caused by a fall on such a surface. From PW?'s testimony, it is cl~ar that PW1 sustained a head injury, which corroborates the testimonies of PW1 to PW5, all of them consistently stated that the accused struck PW1 with MO1 , resulting in the head injury. Therefore, the prosecution has successfully established that the accused caused a simple injury to PW1 using MO1 . The short question now requiring consideration is whether MO1 qualifies as a "dangerous weapon." Upon examining MO1 , this court notes that it is large and heavy enough to cause death if used in a forceful manner. It has sharp edges capable of easily tearing the skin. Hence, this court is of the opinion that MO1 is indeed a dangerous weapon, capable of causing death when used violently. Furthermore, the testimony of PW6 makes it clear that MO1 was recovered from the alleged scene of offence in his pre·sence. His chief examination reveals that he was not randomly brought from the police station but was genuinely present at the scene when the recovery took place. The 0 //DRAFT//

Date: 29.07 2025 10

recovery of MO1 was affected In his presence. Even Ex.P2, the scene observation report, confirms the sarne Moreover, nothing significant was elicited during cross-examination to discredit PW6's testimony.

16. As regards point for determin.ation (i): On careful examination of the testimonies of PW1 to PW5, PW6, and PW?, it is established that the accused approached PW1 and assaulted him with a stone (MO1 ). As a result,

PW1 sustained a simple injury, as opined by PW?. This Court is of the opinion that MO1 constitutes a dangerous weapon. Therefore, the prosecution has successfully established the chain of events connecting the. accused, PW1 , the stone, and the resulting injury. No material evidence was elicited during the cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused to disprove or weaken the prosecution's case. Hence, this Court concludes that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code beyond reasonabl~ doubt.

Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the prosecution 17 As regards point for determination (ii): In the present case, the prosecution has already established the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. Since it has been proved that the accused caused simple hurt by means of a dangerous weapon, the question of convicting the accused under Section 323 IPC does not arise, as it was framed only as an alternative charge. Accordingly, this point is answered

18. With regard to point for determination (iii), this Court has carefully examined the testimonies of PW1 to PWS. Nowhere in their evidence

PW1 or PW2 to PWS depose that the accused threatened PW1 with the intention to commit any offence. Their depositions are limited to stating that the accused attempted to kill PW1 with a knife. However, the Investigating

Officer, PVV8, remained silent regarding the re~overy of the said ~nife, and . . there is no indication from either PW1 or PW2 to PWS suggesting that the accused cause threat to PW1 . Therefore, this Court is of the considered

Date: 29.07.2025 11 //DRAFT// opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC beyond reasonable doubt.

Accordingly, this point is answered against the prosecution.

19. Considering all the facts and circumstances and the testimony available on record, this court believes the version of prosecution as tb the comm1ss1on of offence punishable under section 324 of IPC without any room of doubt Therefore, this court is of opinion that the accused is liable for the comm1ss1on of offence punishable under section 324 of IPC.

In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence

punishable under sect ion 324 of IPC and subsequently the accused is

not found guilty for the offence punishable under section 323 and

section 506 of IPC. Accordingly, the accused is acquitted for the oftence

punishable un der section 323 and section 506 of IPC and he is cc;>nvicted

for the off ence punishable under secti<;m 324 of IPC. The MO1 shall be

destroyed after the expi ry of appeal period.

Typed by me in my personal laptop, signed and pronounced by me in open court and given under my hand and seal of this court.

. N: ~~

Date: ~ ( ~ / v..--

Judicial Magistrate of 1 st Class,

Pathapatnam. (FAC/ Judicial Magistrate of _1 st class, Kotabommali.)

Date: 29.07.2025

Heard the accused on quantum of sentence.

He submitted th.at he is an age-old person of 7 4 years and have ho o_ne to look after him and he prayed this court to take lenient view.

//DRAFT//

Date: 29.07 2025 12

Considering the nature of offence, and the mitigating factors submitted by the accused, this court 1s not inclined to invoke beneficial provisions of probation of offenders Act. However, by considering the mitigating factors sut;,mitted by the accused, this court is of considerable view that it is just and proper to sentence the accused to undergc simple imprisonment for a period of 2 months for the offence punishable under section 324 of Indian Penal Code.

And the remand period from 09.06.2025 to 29.07.2025 shall.be set off under section 428 of Code of Civil Procedure. The accused has a right to prefer an appeal against the conviction and sentence and informed the same to him and along with he has a right to avail services of free legal aid counsel from the

District Legal Services Authority or Mandal Legal Services Authority as the case may be.

Typed by me in my personal laptop, sign~d and pronounced by me on this 29th Day of July, 2025.

/.)-~

Date: 2C/ { 1/ ~ · . ffi /.~/Ui-

Judicial Magistrate of 1 s Class,

Pathapatnam. {F AC/ Judicial Magistrate of .1 st class, Kotabommali.)

Appendix Qf Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution r- For Defence:

P \\ 1 · 03.05.2024 :Chennuri Venkata Raju.

NIL

P \\ 2· 03.05.2024 :Chennuri l>rasad

.

P.\\3. 22.0-.2025 :Chennuri Durga Rao Babji.

,,

P\\14 22.07.2025 :Maturi Rajesh

P.\\rS: 22.o-.202s•: Sahukafi Chittibabu.

i \-r6: 22.07.2025: Mahanti Rajendra Kumar.·

P \\'. 7: 22.07.2025: S.Phani Kumar, CIS., .

P.\-r.8: :-22.07.2025: K.Srirama Murty, ASL,

Exhibits marked for:

.

Prosecution .

. Defence: . Ex.P.l is the Complaint. · Ex.P.2 is the Scene Observation R_eport . . , Ex.P.3 is the WouFtd Certificate. • f Ex.P.4 is the First Information Report. Ex.P.5 is the Routh Sketch.' • - Material Objects I, For, Prosecutior,:: For Defence:- ~ 0.1 is the Stone. NIL

I

/J·~tf -

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Pathapatnam, . FAC: Kotabommali .

.

. . , .

FORM NO 72 ,

• Calendar & Judgment . (for USI! 111 cases where there are more accused persons than one)

DISTRICT OF SRIKAKULAM

,

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRAT[ or 1 CLA'ss. KOTABOMMALI

, .

C.C.No, 102 / 2024

I ~~~ o~ OFFENCE

• off-· ""f20~01.2024

EPORT OR

9 01 2024

OMPLAINT

~PPREHENSION

ELEASE

~CCUSED,: ON BAI /Sec.41-A ccusrn Cr. PC., Notice. I offig 06.2025 EMANO 'TUSEP · 9.07 . .t:025 (ReniamJ errod on NBW Warrant) ~LOMMENCEM 1 ~T 0 3--:-os 2024 LOSE OF TRIAL: RIAL; - Nl ENCE OF ORDER· 9 07 2025 ~PLANATION : OFNo Mlay __,.

ELAY AND REMARKS

UDGMENT IN CC. 102 / 2024 Cr.No. 25/ 2024

OMPLAINANT

he Sta t.! Represented by Sub Inspector of Police, ~ aupada police station, Srikakulam District. okalla Ya~ranna , 5/o Late Rajulu, Age: 76 years, R/o Pedda Veedhi, . aupada village, Santhabommali mandal, Srikakulam District. FFENCE· . /sec 324, 323, 506 of Indian Penal Code. ~ NOi G: Found uilt . In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence unishable under sec.324 of Indian Penal Code., and subsequently

•

he accused is not found guilty for the offence punishable under ection 323 and ·sec. 506 IPC., Accordingly, thy accused is cquitted for ·th~ offence punishable under section 323 and ec.506 of IPC., and he is convicted U/Sec. 248(2) Cr.P.C., for the ffence punishable under section 324 of IPC., The M.0.1 shall be

I , 6estroyed after the expiry of appeal period. .

.

I Heard the accused on quantum of sentence, He submi~ted that ,he is ar. age-old person of 74 years and have no one to look a~er '

•

him and h: prayed this 1court to take lenient view.

Considering the nature of offence. and the mitigating factors ,

ubm,tted by the accused, this court is not inclined to invok:e eneficial provisions of probation of oft't:!nders Act. However, by ' ons1dering the mitigating factors submitted by the accused, this

f

• ourt is of considerable view triat it is just and proper to sentenced o undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 months for the

t

ffence punishable under section 324 of I.P.C., an~ the remand -----:---:-----lC-=.e:...:.rio::..:c:._...:.f.:...:. t· rom, 09.06.2025 to 29.07.2025 shall be set off under

•

'

.. ' ,,

r, 7

ection428 of Codeoftrimlna!Procedure The accused has a

•

ght to prefer an appeal against the conv1ct1on and sentence and formed the same to him and along with he has a I nght to avail ervices of fre1: l~gal aid counsel from the District Legal Services uthonty, or Manda! Legal Services Authority as the case may be. ~

ATE OF RECEIPTt29 07. 2:-:0:-::2-=5---- ·----- rROM THE 1

. rGISTRATE,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

, PATHAPATNAM

FAC/JUDICIAL MAGISDTRATE OF 1ST CLA$S, I-

KOTABOMMALI

' C op y to the Hon' ble I Additional · District & Sessions Judge, Srikakulam . •

'

•

.

,, •

'

•

note 24.07.2025

//I /\IH//

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISl RAT[ OF 1 s, CLASS,

KOTABOMMALI

Proscnt Ms . M. RoshmI, ,lud,c1.1/ f\f.1g1st1 .itt' of f CldSS, Patlwp.itn,lll I (f •~C Judici.1/ Mag1st1.1tc of ,~, class. J..otnbo111111ali)

TIHII sda1, tl11s the 24 dill' of JtJiY.,_2025

CALENDAR CA SE No . 79 /2022

BETWEEN :

·The State Represented by the Sub-Inspector of police,

Kotabommalr Police Station.

.. .. Complainant

AND _,

N1t1a Chayakuman, W/O Sankarrao, 42 years,

RO Devungula Street, Fazulbegpeta, Srikakulam.

. ... Accused

This 1s the case coming before this court for final hearir.g on this day in the presence of L ea rned Assistant P ubl ic Prosecutor for the complainant .and of Sri.L. Srinivasarao, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration on this day and this court delivered the following: -

JU _ OG E M E NT

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Kotabommall police station filed chargesheet in Crime No. 190/2021 alleging that the Accused committed an offence punishable under section 448, 427. 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (herein after referred as IPC) · 2

Date: 24.07 2025 //FAIR//

2. The brief case of grosecution is that:

a) On 27.11.2021 at 22 00 lwurs, LW1 gave report to LW8 by staling that her husband worked in Railway depmtment and due to ill health, he died 20 years ago. Since then she worked in Railway department as waterman and about 9 years ago she retired from her services and she has 6 daughter and two of them were died and she performed marriages of rema1111ng daughters after retirement . b) That. she purchased a house at Prakash Nagar colony and constructed the house Due to disputes with LW2 and her husband, LW2 used to live with her after she got se~arated from his husband.

c) The accused used to cause troubles to PW1 and LW2 by frequently v1s1ting her home from 6 years and picked up disputes with her wight regard to house by claiming right over the house.

d) On 27.11 .2021 morning at about 10.00 hours accused criminally trespassed into her house and damaged household articles, caused loss and threatened her, LW2 with dire consequences to see the end of lives, LW3 to LW5 and some others tried to oppose her acts, but she put deaf ear, necked LW1 and LW2 from the house, locked the house from inside and staying in the house and also threatening that, if anybody would try to open the doors, she will die by committing suicide.

e) Basing on the report of LW1 , LW8 registered a case in crime No.

190/2021 under section 448, 427, and section 506 of IPC of

Kotabommali PS on 27 11.2021 at 22.00 hours and during mvest1gat1on, examined LW1 to LW5 and recorded their statements

under section 161 (3) of Cr pc and visited the scene of offence and

prepared rough sketch and taken photographs under the cover of scene obseNat1on report 1n the presence of LW6 and LW7.

f) LW9 verified the investigation of LWS and found correct lines and issued section 41 A Cr PC Notice to the accused with a direction to appear

before court whenever required.

.

Date: 24.07.2025

3 //FAIR//

g) After completion of inv • . est1gat1on, LW9 filed chargesheet.

On the basis of report f L N 3 0 W1, an FIR was registered case in Cnme o · 190/2021 under section 448, 42?, 506 of IPC.

4. Cognizance was taken for the offences punishable under section 448, .427, 506 of IPC.

5. On appearance of Accused case copies were furnished on her under section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. She was examined under

Sectio 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and framed charges under section 448, 427, 506 of IPC. Read over the substance of accusation in

Telugu language and explained to her in Telugu Language, and on understanding the same. she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6 In trial, to establish the prosecution's case and to bring home the guilt of the accused, PW1 to PW7 were examined and Exhibits Ex. P1 to P7 got marked. The following are the documents marked as exhibits by the prosecution.

EX. P1 : Police complaint EX. P2: Section 161 (3) statement of LW3/PW3; EX. P3: Section 161 (3) statement of LW4/PW4; EX. P4: Section 161 (3) statement of LW5tPW5; EX. PS: Scene observation report EX. P6: FIR Ex. P7: Rough sketch . .

7. After closure of evidence, Accused was examined under Section 313 of

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and incriminating material appeared in evidence of prosecution ,s placed before her, for which she denied the same and reported no Defense Evidence.

8 Heard f · L arned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Arguments o e complainant and the Learned counsel for Accused.

• tant public Prosecutor argued that the prosecution a. L earne d A ss1s guilt of Accused beyond all reasonable doubt and h as prove d th e •ct the Accused with maximum punishment. praye to conv1 d 4

Date: 24.07.2025 //FAIR//

b. Learned Counsel for c1ccused argued that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of Accused beyond all reasonable doubt and Hrgued that the search and seizure is not done in accordance

with Cr pc therefore, prayed this court lo acquit the accused.

9 On Perusal of entire material on record, the points that arise for determination are:

i. Whether the Prosecution has proved the

guilt of th~ Accused for the offence

punishable under 448 of /PC beyond all

reasonable doubt?

ii. Whether the Prosecution has proved the

guilt of the Accused for the offence

punishable under 427 of /PC beyond all

reasonable doubt?

iii. Whether the Prosecution has proved the

guilt of the Accused for the offence

punishable under section 506 of /PC beyond

all reasonable doubt?

10. With regard to point for determination, it is pertinent to refer the section 448, 427 and section 506 of IPC.

SECTION 448. Punishment for house-trespass.

Whoever commits house-trespass shall be punished

with imprisonment of either description for a term

which may extend to one year , or with fine which

may extend to one thousa nd rupees, or with both.

SECTION 441'. Criminal trespass. -

Whoever enters into or upon property

in the possession of another with intent

~o commit an offence or to intimidat~,

msult · or annoy any person . tn

possession of such property,or havmg

lawfully entered into or upon su~h

property, unlawfully remains there with

Date: 24.07.2025 5 //FAIR//

intent thereby to 117 ttmidatc, insult 01

annoy any such person, 01 with intent

to comrnit an offence, is said to com mit

cnminal trespass".

Section 427. M ischief causi ng damage to th e

amoun t of fjfty rupees.-

Whoever commits · mischief and thereby causes loss

or damage to the arnount of fifty rupees or upwards,

shall be punished with imprisonment of either

description for a term which may extend to two

years, or with fine, or with both.

SECTION 506. Punishment for criminal

i ntimidation. -

Whoever commits, the offence of criminal

intimi dation shall be punished with imprison-ment of

either description for a term which may extend to

two years, or with fine, or with both;lf threat be to

cause death or grievous hurt, etc.- And if the th reat

be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to ca use the

destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an

offence punishable with death or imprisonment for

li fe, or with imprisonment for a term which may

extend to seven years, or to impute, unchastity to a

woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of

either descripti on for a term which may extend to

seven years, or with fine, or with both.

SECTION 503 . Crimi nal intimidation.

Whoever threatens another with any

injury to his person, reputation or

property, or to the person or reputation

of any one in whom that person is

interested, with intent to cause alarm to

that person, or to ca_use that person to

do any act which he is not legallr_ bound

to do, or to omit to do _ any act which that

person is legally entitled to ?O, as the

means of a voiding . th_e ex_ec~t,_on ~f such

threat, commits cnmtnal mt1m1datron.

0 6 Date. 24.07.2025 //FAIR//

E.>..p/anal!on.- A threat to tnjure the

reputation of any deceased person in

whom the peison llu eatened is inte,ested, is within thi s section.

11 . With regard to point for detern11nat1on (i) to (iii), The 1rnllal burden lies on the prosecution to prove that the offence was committed by the accused without leaving any room for reasonable doubt. To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined the complainant LW1 as PW1 . PW1 in her examination in chief deposed that about 3 to 4 years ago the accused came to her house, damaged TV and fridge with a stick and when she questioned the same the accused beat her with a stick and dragged her by holding turf from her house and demanded me to vacate house by claiming right over it. The accused throw all the household articles like gas stove, clothes and other articles out of the house and by damaging those the accused caused loss to ·her and further deposed that she stayed out of her house along with her house hold articles for three days and when the outsiders saw the incident and tried to admonish her for which the accused locked the door from inside and threatened them that if any one tries to open the door she will commit suicide and dropped a piece of paper from the window with the same contents and also the accused threatened her and PW2 to see end of their lives. She went to police station and gave report. Ex.P1, Police report was marked with her To corroborate the evidence of PW1 LW2 was examined as PW2 and she ' ' in her examination in chief deposed that the accused and she are daughters of PW1 and on 27.11 2021 at about 10.00AM the accused came to house of

PW1 and picked up a quarrel and asked them to vacate house and damaged

LED TV, Sofa and other house hold items worth of Rs.10,000/- and on questioning the same, the accused necked out PW1 and her from the house and locked the doors from inside and when LW3 to LW5 questioned her on her deeds she threatened them that she will commit suicide. They waited up to 10 00PM and on that they went to police station and PW1 gave report.

'

24,07,2025 //rAIR// 7

On perusal of testimony of PW1 and PW2, one thing is clear thcJt both 12. are related to each other as mother and daughter. 111erefore, careful scrutiny rnto evidence is essential. Carefully dwell mto the cross exam1nat1on of PW1 and PW2. With regard 'to possession of PW1 rn the house claimed by her, nothing useful was elicited by the learned counsel for Accused, and while so rn the cross examination of PW2 it rs elicited by the learned counsel for accused that no documentary proof was submitted by the PW1 and PW2 to show that th~ house in which the alleged offence took place belongs to PW1 . On this ·point one thing rs clear from section 441 is that the accused trespassed rnto the house which is rn possession of PW1. To prove the fact that the alleged scene of offence is in the possession of PW1 , except testimony of PW2, nothing was adduced by the prosecution to show that PW1 is in possession of house. Moreover, though the prosecution examined LW3, who is the eastern boundary holder of alleged house of PW1, as per testimony of PW1 did not turn up to support the case of prosecution and turned hostile. Even the western boundary holde·r of all~ged house of PW1 did not support the case of prosecution. The prosecution examined another independent witness to support version of PW1 but unfortunately they turned hostile. Now, as far as .. witness on hand is concerned all the independent witness turned hostile. Even the LW6, who is one of the mediators before whom the alleged scene of offence is observed, in his cross examination deposed that he was assumed that the alleged house is the house of PW1 as she was present when they v1s1ted the scene of offence and also he did not verify any records to show that the alleged house belongs to PW1. From the entire testimony of PW1 , PW2 and PW6, it is clear that the fact as to the possession of alleged scene of offence i.e, the house of PW1 is not proved by PW1 , PW2 and PW6. Though

Investigating officer was examined as PW? nothing useful was marked by him to prove this fact and further 9uring cross examination of PW7, it is elicited that PW7 do not know who is the owner of alleged scene of offence i.e, the house and PW1 told him that she is residing in that house. From the testimony of PW7 it i_s clear that his investigation did not prove the possession of PW1 in the alleged scene of offence. Therefore, the essential ingredient of section 448 8

Date: 24 .07.2025

//FAIR// is kept unanswered Therefore, the prosecution frnled to establish the essential ingredients of section 448 of IPC with which the accused Is charged

Therefore, the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence purnshable under section 448 of IPC Accordingly, point (i) Is ·answered against the p1osecutIon, 13 . With regard to point for consideration (ii), whether the prosecution

h~roved the guilt of th e accus ed for the offence punishable under

sectton 427 of /P C, wi thout anv rea sonable doubt? the prosecution has to prove that the accused caused mischief and thereby caused damage to the

PW1 . As per the case of prosecution, the prosecution has to prove that the accused with an intention to cause loss to PW1 , the accused damaged property i.e, Sofa, LED, Fridg~, Gas stove and other house hold articles. To substantiate this, PW1 deposed that the accused came to house and damaged Sofa, LED, Fridge, (3,as stove and other house hold articles and the accused throw them from the house and the articles and PW1 and PW2 were on road for a week. Further, as per the testimony of PW1 and PW2, it is clear that they approached the police on the same and the police visited the scene of offence on the next. During cross examination of PW1 and PW2 it is elicited that no bills or receipts are produced. However, it is not possible for everyone to store bills in their houses. However, one thing which drew the attention of this court that before this court PW2 deposed that the damaged articles were kept on road for one week, whereas PW6 and PW? visited the scene of offence and prepared _scene observation report and rough sketch at the alleged scene of offence and neither in Ex.PS and Ex.P7 there is not specific statement with regard to this point and apart from that PW6 in his testimony deposed that he observed the damaged articles in the hall of alleged house, which 1s different from what exactly PW1 says. On careful perusal of testimony of PW1 and PW2 1t 1s apparent that the testimony of PW1 Is a bit exaggerate.

And apart from that, as far as the damaged articles concerned, they were not seized by the police though they were movable In nature. However, as per testimony of PW2 it 1s revealed that the police captured the condition of those

_ @,,...-

natt?: 24 07.2025 9 //FAIR// 11cIcs in pliotos. 13ut PW7 . 81 • w 10 was an i11vestigc1t1011 officer 11d1111llecl that he 1 " 8qtur ed pl1otos of such d 1 , . c, t c llldgcd products and produced before !111s court. ~OWL"\ L~r on perusal 01 chn, g" 1 t. "es ieet and dorumcnts t1long w1l11 rt, llwre are no ' such photos fried by tho l)olrce nt the l11nc of f11i11g of chmgcsheet As per the 10 11,e, u~ptured photos but ti 1L'Y W1:1 e not 111<1rked by lilt' prosecution Except

PW1, P\N2 and PW I there 1s no proof to show thc1l the damaged articles belongs to PW 1 1 hough PWG, mcd1ator deposed the condition of articles the question 1s still answered Whethe1 the .,ccused damaged such articles. The cond1t1on of articles are damaged which 1s apparent to this court through the testimony of PW6, but the srn1ple question whrch the prosecution needs to be answered 1s that. whether the accused damaged articles with an intention to cause loss to the PW1 ?, which is still unanswered by the prosecution.

Therefore, from the testimony of PW1 , PW2, PW6 and PW7 we cannot come to conclusion that the accused l1as damaged the articles with an intention to cause loss to PW1 Therefore, the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 427 of IPC. Accordingly, point (ii) is answered against the prosecution.

14 With regard to point for consideration (iii), whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 506 of IPC without any room of doubt? Concerning this point and facts of the case concerned, the prosecution has to prove that the accused has threatened

PW1 and PW2. As per testimony of PW1 the accused damaged all her articles and necked out them from their house and locked herself from inside and the accused threatened them that she will, commit suicide when anyone trying to open the doors and she wrote the same on a paper and throw that paper from 'that window. As per this story, PW1 did not handover the same to the police.

Moreover from the testimony of PW2 1t is clear that when LW3 to LW5 asked her to open the doors the accused threatened them that she will commit suicide Unfortunately, LW3 to LW5 who were examined as PW3 to PW5 did not support the case of prosecution And from the testimony of PW1 and PW2, this court ,s of opinion that the prosecution drd not prove the essential 10 //FAIR//

Date: 24.07 2025

. f ct·ion 506 of IPC. Therefore, the prosecution fatled to ingredients o se •it f tl,e accused for the offence punishable under section 506 establish the gu1 o of !PC Therefore, accordingly the point (iii) 1s answered against the prosecution.

15. On appreciation of entire evidence on record, this court is of firm opinion that the prosecution could not produce cogent material and could not establish the fact that the alleged offence 1s committed by the accused. In conclusion, the evidence of prosecution is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused Cons1denng the same, this court is not inclined to rely on the evidence put forth by the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused.

·Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

16 In vi ew of the evidence lead by the prosecution, this court is of considerable opinion that the prosecution could not prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt with cogent evidence against the accused and the accused is entitled for acquittal.

In the result, the Accused is not found guilty for the offence

punishable under Section 448, 427 and section 506 of IPC. Accordingly,

the Accused is acquitted tor. the above offence under Section 248(1) of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the Accused shall execute a

personal bond of Rs.10,000I- which shall be in force for a period of six

months. No order as to property.

Typed by me in my personal laptop a nd si gn ed, p ron ou nce d by me in open court and given under my hand an d sea l of th is court on this 24 th D ay of Ju l y, 2025.

)J-~

Date: 24.07.2025

Judicial Magistrate of 1 st class,

Pathapatnam (FAC/ Judicial magistrate of 1 st class, Kotabommali)

0-_,.@ /

'o

//FAIR// 11

APPENDIX OF EVIDE NCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR ACCUSED

PW1 Rokkam Damayantr - None - PW2 Muddana SuJatha PW3 S mma Suresh PW4 Devadhr Babulu PW5 Devadhr Ramu PW6. B Sn Rangaswamy PW7: B Nagabhushanarao, Sub-Inspector of police.

EXHIBITS MARKED:

EX P1 Peirce complaint EX P2 Section 161 (3) statement of LW3/PW3; EX P3 Section 161(3) statement of LW4/PW4; EX P4 Section 161 (3) statement of LW5/PW5; EX P5. Scene observation report EX P6 FtR Ex P7 Rough sketch.

MATERIAL OBJECTS:

-No objects marked -

µ-~

Date: 24.07.2025 Judicial Magistrate of 1st class,

Pathapatnam

(FAC/ Judicial magistrate of 1st class,

Kotabommali)

Date: 06.08.2025

IIFAIRI/

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1ST CLASS,

KOTABOMMALI.

Present: Ms. M. Roshini,

Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class,

Pathapatnam FACIJudicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Kotabommali

Wednesday, this 6h day of August, 2025

CALENDAR CASE No. 319/2021

BETWEEN:

The State Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Santhabommali Police Station.

.... Complainant

AND: Nalla Latchumamma W/O Appanna, 50 years, R/O Depallivanipeta village, Santhabommali village, Srikakulam.

.... Accused

This is the case coming before this court for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and Sri.PVR, Advocate

for the Accused and having stood over for consideration on this day and this court

delivered the following: -

JUDGEMENT

1. The State Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Santhabommali Police station fled this case in Crime No.99/2021 alleging that the Accused has committed the offence punishable under section 34(a)(1) of AP Excise Amendment Act 2020.

The case of prosecution in brief is that: 2. On 13.08.2021 at about 14.30 hours L.W.8 along with his staff LW1 to LW4 by securing the presence of LW5 and LW6, in order to conducted raids, on

Date: 06.08.2025 2 I/FAIRI/

receipt of prior information they rushed to Borubadra junction, Santhabommali.

Where L.W8 observed one female person carrying bag with her and on seeing the police in uniform she tried to escape. Then the police detained her and enquired about her name and other details, she disclosed her name and residence details. On verification of bag, they noticed 20 bottles of 9 sea

Horses whisky each of 180ml. She confessed before mediators that she is selling the same to get higher profits. Then LW8 seized the entire contraband under the cover of mediator's report by taking sample from the contraband. Latter registered crime in Crime No.99/2021 under section 34(a)(1) of AP

Excise Amendment Act 2020 and the accused was arrested and forwarded the accused for judicial remand and send the sample for chemical analysis and on receipt of chemical analysis report, LVW8 filed chargesheet.

This court took cognizance for the offence punishable under section 34(a) (1) 3. of AP ExCise Amendment Act 2020 against the Accused.

4. On appearance of Accused, case copies were furnished on her under section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. She was examined under Section 239 of

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and framed charges under section 34(a)(1) of AP Excise Amendment Act 2020. Read over the charges and explained to her in Telugu

Language, and on understanding the same she pleaded not guilty and claim to be

tried.

5 In trial, to establish the prosecution case, PW1 to PW3 were examined and

marked Ex. P1 to P5 and MO.1 was marked through this court by them. Learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of LW1 to LW4 and LW7.

6 After the closure of prosecution evidence, Accused was examined under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and incriminating material appeared in evidence of prosecution is placed before her, for which she denied the same and reported no Defense Evidence.

Date: 06.08.2025

3 IFAIRII

7. Heard arguments of both sides.

a) The learned Assistant public prosecutor argued that the prosecution has

proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and therefore prayed

to convict the accused with maximum punishment.

b) Per contra, the learned counsel for defense argued that prosecution did not

examine any independent witnesses, the Investigation Officer did not secure

any mediators at the scene of offence though the scene of offence is a busy

locality. He further argued that the Investigation Officer failed to follow the

procedure under Section 100(4) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 i.e, the search and seizure. Thus, the prosecution is failed to prove the guilt of the

Accused beyond reasonable doubt and prayed this court to acquit the

Accused.

8. On Perusal of material on record and after hearing the submissions of both sides, the point arise for determination is:

Whether the Prosecution has proved the guilt of the

Accused for the offence punishable under section 34(a)(1) of AP Excise Amendment Act 2020 beyond all reasonable doubt?

9. In order to prove the case of prosecution, LW5 and LWN6 were examined as PW1 and PW2 respectively and this court marked the following exhibits through them. Ex. P1: Mediators report

Ex. P2: Signature on mediators report.

LW8 was examined as PW3 and through him the following documents were marked as exhibits: Ex. P3: FIR

Ex. P4: Letter of advise Ex. P5: Chemical analysis report

Mo.1 : sample bottle of Liquor

Date: 06.08.2025 I/FAIRI/

4

10. For better appreciation of evidence, it is better to look into the provision of law for sake of convenience of this court.

SECTION 34. Penalties for illegal import, etc., - Whoever, in contravention of this Act or of any rule, notification or order made, issued or passed thereunder or of any licence or permit granted or issued under this Act,

(a) imports, exports, transports, manufactures, collects or possesses or sells any intoxicant; or

11. From the above lines, it is clear that the prosecution has to prove the ingredients of the offences with which the accused charged. To substantiate the case of prosecution, the prosecution examined LW1 as PW1 and PW1 in his examination in-chief deposed that On 13.08.2021 at about 14.30 hours L.W.8 along with his staff LW1 to LW4 by securing the his presence and LW6, in order to conducted raids , on receipt of prior information they rushed to Borubadra junction, Santhabommali. Where LW8 observed one female person carrying bag with her and on seeing the police in uniform she tried to escape. Then the police detained her and enquired about her name and other details, she disclosed her name and residence details. On verification of bag, they noticed 20 bottles of 9 sea Horses whisky each of 180ml.

She confessed before mediators that she is selling the same to get higher profits. Then LWN8 seized the entire contraband under the cover of mediator's report by taking sample from the contraband in their presence. The PN2, who is another mediator deposed that he went to police station and as per the instructions of police he signed on a report. However though PW2 did not support the case of prosecution, the prosecution marked signature of PW2 as Ex.P2. but, went the presence of PW2 is not there at the time of search and seizure, there is no use to mark his signature. Therefore, the evidence of PW2 is not useful to bring home the guilt of the accused.

12. PW3, who is the Investigating officer in the herein case deposed the contents of chargesheet and for brevity this court refrain from repeating the same. And further in the cross examination of PW1 and PW3 it is elicited by the learned counsel for

Date: 06.08.2025 I/FAIRI/

5 accused that the mediators who witnessed the seizure from the accused is accompanied with the police from the police station. it is admitted by PW1 that he received a phone call from the police station and asked her to accompanied with them in an investigation. From the testimony of PW1 and PW3, it is clear that PW1 is picked up from the police station.

On this point this court placed its reliance on Para 18 of Sbabu Saheb Babu v The State of AP rendered by Hon ble AP High Court 'of COUrse it cannot be said that the evidence of a witness, who accompanied the police, cannot be always believed nor it can be discarded only on the ground thathe accompanied the excise or police officials. But, where, in a case the excise officials, having an opportunity to take respectable mediators did not make any effort to take such mediators certainly it casts a doubt about the prosecution version..

Furthermore, and picking up mediators to witness the seizure just from the 12. police station though the police has a scope to secure any person from the alleged scene of offence, casts doubts over the case of prosecution.

Furthermore, it was argued by the accused counsel that police did not follow 13. the procedure envisaged in section 100(4) of the Cr.P.C and thereby the seizure is illegal. At this juncture, it is pertinent to refer Section 100(4) of Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973.

Section 100(4):

Before making a search under this chapter, the officer or other person

about to make it shall call upon twa or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situate or of any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do.

14. From the above lines and from the testimony of PW1 and PW3 it was admitted by them that the said scene of offence is a busy locality but the prosecution did not

examine any independent witnesses nor even explain the circumstances which

Date: 06.08.2025 6 IIFAIRI/

prevented them to examine offcial or respectable people in the locality of scene of offence in the mediators report/ Ex.P1 and no special report was prepared to that effect, Which casts a severe doubt over the search and seizure process.

On the point, this court placed its reliance on the cases rendered by Honble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in SBabu Saheb Babu v The Sate ofAPreported in 209 (3) LS 360 in Para 2, relied on Gajamker Narayan's case 2005 (3) ALT (CRL) 1(AP), where it was held that - 'thus from the evidence on record, it is clear that excise official picked up panch witnesses at the police station and took along with them to the scene of offence..neither the testimony of PWi nor that of PW3 disclases that they tried to secCure independent respectable inhabitants of the locality where the offence was allegedly commited, to act as mediators. Ex. Pl Panchanama, also does not disclase that any effort was made by exC0se officials to secure independent respectable inhabitants of the locality Therefore, in the absence of specitic evidence in that regard, l am bound to come to the conclusion that the provisions of section 1004) CrPC are not followed by the Excise officials while seizing the plastic can containing D Liquor. Therefore, the seizure made in this case is illegal.

15. From the testimony of PW1 and PW3 and cases referred by this court, this court is of opinion that the seizure conducted by the police is not legal and they could not establish the fact that the accused is in possession or selling of contraband. In such a case it is not desirable to convict the Accused on the evidence of PW1 and PW3 and the confession made by the accused in the presence of mediators is not proved and is also hit by Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, as per the evidence of prosecution, this court is of firm opinion that the evidence lead by prosecution is not sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused. According point is answered.

16. Hence, in view of the foregoing discussion, this court finds that the Prosecution could not establish the guilt of Accused beyond all reasonable doubt, though it examined PW1 to PW3 to support Prosecution. Hence, this court finds that the

Date: 06.08.2025

IIFAIRI/ 7 charges framed against the Accused is not proved beyond all the reasonable doubt and Accused is entitled for acquittal.

In the result, the Accused is not found guilty for the offence under section 34(a)(1) of AP Excise Amendment Act 2020. Accordingly, the Accused is

acquitted for the above offence under Section 248(1) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 and the accused shall execute a bond of Rs.10,000/- and shall

be in force for a period of six months, The property i.e, Mos 1 is hereby ordered

to be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time.

Typed by me in my personal laptop and pronounced in open court on this the 6th Day of August, 2025 and given under my hand and seal of this court.

Date: 06.08.2025 Judicial Magistrate of 4at Class,

Pathapatnam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witness Examined For Prosecution: For Accused:

1. PW1: Piriya Venkataramana, VRO

2. PW2: B. Seetharam - None -

3. PW3: M. Govind, Sub-Inspector

Exhibits Marked Ex. P1: Mediators report Ex. P2: signature on mediators report Ex. P3: FIR Ex. P4: Letter of advise Ex. P5: Chemical analysis report.

Material Objects Marked:

MO:1 is sample bottle of Liquor

Judicial Magistrate of/ tstClass,

Date: 09.07.2025

Pathapatnam.

Note: To be consigned to record room, after duly indexed.

Date: 06.08.2025

1 IIFAIRII

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1$T CLASS,

KOTABOMMALI.

Present: Ms, M. Roshini,

Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class,

Pathapatnam

Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class,

Kotabommali

Wednesday this 6h day of Auqust, 2025

CALENDAR CASE No. 385/2024

BETWEEN:

The State Represented by the Inspector of Enforcement, Special Enforcement Bureau, Kotabommali

.... Complainant

AND: Laveti Sarojanamma, WIO Late Yerraiah, 50 years, R/O D.No. 3-1. Tenkuru village, Santhabommali Mandal, Srikakulam.

.... Accused

This is the case coming before this court for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and Sri.B. Jeevan, Advocate for the Accused and having stood over for consideration on this day and this court delivered the following: -

JUDGEMENT

1. The State Represented by Inspector of Enforcement bureau, SEB, Kotabommali fled this case in Crime NO.108/2023 alleging that the Accused has committed the offence punishable under section 7 RW Section 8(b)(1) of AP

Prohibition Act, 2020.

The case of prosecution in brief is that:

2. On 10.11.2023 at about 16.30 hours LW4 secured the presence of LW1, on receipt of prior information LWW1 along with his staff LW2 and LW3 rushed to Near bus stop

at Tenkuru vilage of Santhabommali. Where, L.W.4 observed one female person

2

Date: 06.08.2025 IIFAIRI/

coming towards raid party carrying bag. On seeing the raid party in police uniform she tried to escape. The police detained ner and enguired about her name and other details. The Accused disclosed her name, address and other details. Later, verified the bag and found 12 IML bottles of HD Hearts Desire Ultra Whisky each 18Oml. And on enquiry she confessed that she purchased the same to sell them at a higher price. The L.W.4 seized the property and drawn sample under the cover of mediator's report and sent the sample for chemical analysis. Later LW4 registered the case in Crime

No.108/2023 under section 7 RIW Section 8(b)(1) of AP Prohibition Act, 2020. Later issued section 41A Cr.P.C notice to the accused. On receipt of chemical analysis report, LW5 filed charge sheet.

3. This court took cognizance for the offence punishable under section 7 RW Section 8(b)(1) of AP Prohibition Act, 2020 against the Accused.

4 On appearance of Accused, case copies were furnished on her under section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. She was examined under Section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and framed charges under section 7 RAW Section 8(b) (1) of AP Prohibition Act, 2020. Read over the charges and explained to her in Telugu Language, and on understanding the same she pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried. 5 in trial, to establish the prosecution case, PW1 and PW2 were examined and marked Ex. P1 to P4 and MO.1 was marked through this court by them. Learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of LW2, LW3 and LW5.

6 After the closure of prosecution evidence, Accused was examined under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and incriminating material appeared in evidence of prosecution is placed before her, for which she denied the same and reported no Defense Evidence.

7. Heard arguments of both sides.

a) The learned Assistant public prosecutor argued that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and therefore prayed to convict the accused with maximum punishment.

Date: 06.08 .2025 IIFAIRI/

3

b) Per contra, the learned counsel for defense argued that prosecution did not

examine any independent witrnesses, the Investigation Officer did not secure

any mediators at the scene of offence though the scene of offence is a busy

locality. He further argued that the Investigation Officer failed to follow the

procedure under Section 100(4) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 i.e, the

search and seizure. Thus, the prosecution is failed to prove the guilt of the

Accused beyond reasonable doubt and prayed this court to aCquit the

Accused.

On Perusal of material on record and after hearing the submissions of

8. both sides, the point arise for determination is:

Whether the Prosecution has proved the guiit

of the Accused for the offence punishable under section 7 RW Section 8(b)(1) of AP Prohibition Act, 2020 beyond all reasonable doubt?

In order to prove the case of prosecution, LW1 was examined as PW1 and this court marked the Ex. P1 through him. Ex. P1:signature on mediators report

LVWA was examined as PW2 and the foilowing documents were marked as exhibits

through them.

Ex. P2: FIR Ex. P3: Rough sketch

Ex. P4: Chemical Analysis Report

Mo.1: sample bottle of Liquor

For better appreciation of evidence, it is better to look into the provision of law 10. for sake of convenience of this court.

I/FAIRI/ 4

Date: 06.08.2025

Section 7-B. Prohibition of Boot Legging Activities: The manufacturing,transporting, seting, buying, importing, exporting or storing of any alcoholicliquor and supplying or transporting of any raw materials for the manufactureof alcoholic liquor illegally or clandestinely, otherwise than in accordance withthe provisions of the AP. Excise Act, 19%68 is hereby prohitbited.])

11. From the above lines, it is clear that the prosecution has to prove that the accused is storing of contraband in contravention to the provisions of the Act. To

substantiate the case of prosecution, the prosecution examined Lw1 as PW1 and

PWI in his examination-in-chief deposed that he received a call from police station and they asked him to come to police station. From this testimony it is clear that PW1 is not accompanied with the police and he did not witness the search and seizure of contraband from the accused. Hence, considering the same reason this court discarded the testimony of PW1.

12. Further, the prosecution examined PW2, who is the Investigating officer in the herein case deposed the contents of chargesheet and for brevity this court refrained from repeating the same. And further in the cross examination of PW2 it is elicited by the learned counsel for accused that no independent witness was examined though the scene of offence is a busy locality and there are sarpanch and ward members in that village. From the testimony of PW2 it is clear that no independent witness was examined and the same was admitted by PW2 and it was argued by the accused counsel that police did not follow the procedure envisaged in section 100(4) of the Cr.P.C and thereby the seizure is illegal. At this juncture, it is pertinent to refer Section 100(4) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Section 100(4):

Before making a search under this chapter, the officer or other

person about to make it shall call upon twO or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situate or of any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a

Date: 06. 08.2025

IIFAIRI/ witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do.

From the above lines and from the testimony of PW2 it was admitted by

13. them that the said scene of offence is a busy locality and there are sarpanch and

ward members but did not examine the independent witnesses nor even explain the

circumstances which prevented them to examine official or respectable people in the locality of scene of offence in the mediators report and no special report was prepared

to that effect, Which casts a severe doubt over the search and seizure process.

On this point this court placed its reliance on Para 18 of Sbabu Saheb Babu k The State of AP rendered by Honble AP igh Court 'of cOUIse it cannot be said that the evidence of a witness, who acCompanied the police, cannot be always believed nor it can be discarded only on the ground that he accompanied the excise or police officials. But, where, in a case the excise officials having an opportunity to take respectable mediators did not make any effort to take such mediators certainly it casts a doubt about the prosecution version..

On the point, this court placed its reliance on the cases rendered by Honble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in SBabu Saheb Babu v. The State ofAPreported in 2009 (3) LS 340 in Para 22, relied on Gajamker Narayan's case 2005 (3) ALT (CRL) 1(AP), where it was held that -'thus from the evidence on record, it is clear that excise official picked up panch witnesses at the police station and took along with them to the scene of affence..neither the testimony of PWI nor that of PW3 discloses that they tried to secure independent respectable inhabitants of the locality where the offence was allegedly committed, to act as mediators. Ex. PL Panchanama, also does not disclose that any effort was made by excise officials to secure independent respectable inhabitants of the locality Therefore, in the absence of specific evidence in that regard, l am bound to come to the conclusion that the provisions of section l004) CrPCare not followed by the Excise officials while seizing the plastic can containing ID Liguor Therefore the seizure made in this case is illegal.

From the testimony of PW1 and PVW2 and cases referred by this court, 14. this court is of opinion that the seizure conducted by the police is not legal and they 6 IIFAIRI/

Date: 06.08.2025

could not establish the fact that the accused is in pOsS6ssion or transporting of ib liquor. In such a case it is not desirable to convict the Accused on the evidence of

PW1 and PW2 and the confession made by the acoUsed in th6 presence of

mediators, as per prosecution case is not proved and is hit by Section 26 of Indian

Evidence A Therefore, as per the ovidence of pros9Culon, this court is of firm

opinion that the evidence lead by pros9cution is not sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused

Hence, in view of the foregoing discUSsion, this court firnds that the

15.

Prosecution could not establsh the guit of Accused beyond all reasonable doubl,

though it earmined PW1 and PWz to support Pros6cution, Hernce, this court finds

that the chargss frarned against the ACcUSed is not proved beyond all the reasoriabile

doubt and Accused is entitled fof acquittal,

In the rosult, the Accused is not found guilty for the offence under seoton 34(4)

of AP Excise Amendment Act, 2020. Aocordingy, the Acoused s acquited for

the above offence and the bail bondsif any shall be in force fora porod of sik

months. The property ie, Mos 1 is hereby orderod to be destroyod after the

6xpiry of appeal time,

Typed by me in my personal lapfop, s/grned and pronouoed n open eourt on

this t Day of August, 2025 and given under my hand and seal of this count

Date: 06,08,2026 Judiolat Magistrato

Pathapatnam.

(FAG/Kotabommat)

Date: 06.08.2025

I/FAIRI/ 7

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witness Examined

For Prosecution:

For Accused:

1. PW1: Garipati Dhanaraj, 2 PW2: - None D. Prabhakar Rao, Retired Sub-Inspector of Police

Exhibits Marked

Ex. P1: Signature on mediatos report Ex. P2: FIR Ex. P3: Rough sketch Ex. P4: Chemical analysis Report.

Material Objects Marked:

MO:1 is sample bottle of Liquor

Judicial Magistrate of 1se Class,

Date: 06.08.2025

Pathapatnam. (FACIKotabom mali)

Note: Record consigned to record room, after duly indexed.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE

QUNIOR DIVISION)

KOTABOMMALI.

PRESENT:: MANEM ROSHINI,

Civil Judge, (Junior Division ) Pathapatnam

FAC/ �ivil Judge Uunior Division) Kotabommali.

Tuesday this the 29th dày of April, 2025.

Original suit No. 27/ 2024.

Between:

Chintada Anuruindrudu, S/o Late Bheemaraju, aged about 64 years, Director, Vamsadhara College, Kotabommali, presently residing at Kotabommali village, post and mandal, Srikakulam District.

Plaintiff.

And:

01. The Distrjct Pånchyat Officer, Panchyat Raj, Srikakulam, . Srikakulam District.

02. The Mandal Development Officer, MDO. Kotabommali, Srikakulam District.

03. The Executive Officer, Panchayat Office, " Kotabommali, Srikakulam District.

Defendants.

This Case is came hefore me for filing process in the presence of Sri. L.Srinivasulu, Advocate for Plaintiff and none of the Counsel appeared on behalf of Defendants and matter having stood over for consideration till today, this Court delivered the following:

2

JUDGEMENT

This is a Suit filed by the Paintiff adainst the Defendants for 01. grant o. permanent injunction restraining the defendants their men,

from ever entering into or interfering with the peaceful possession

and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property ahd for costs of the suit.. i

The brief averments of the Plaint are: . 02.

The Plaintiff purchased the dry lands ie., 1) an extent of Ac 0.95 cents in Old S.No.92-2, Patta No.121, new Sy.No.265/3, Patta No.

700 under Regd. Sale deed Doc.No.424/1988, dt. 23.03.1988, 2) an extent of Ac 1.26 cents in new Sy.No. 263/2 and an extent of Ac 1.44 cents in S.No.264/7, total Ac 2.70 cents, Patta No. 383 under regd.Sa'e deed Doc. No.646/1994, dt.29.03,1994 and 3) an extent of

Ac 0.78 cents in Old Sy.No.92-2, patta No. 121, new Sy.No. 265/3, patta No. 700 under regd.sale deed Doc.No. 49/1996, dt.31.1.1996, situated in Kotabomnali Revenue Village, Kotabommali mandal for valid consideration respectively and since then he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. The plaintiff's name was mutuated in the panchyat records and he has bÃen paying the

House Tax for-the above said property.

03. It is further averred that. subsequently, he applied to the

Gram Panchyat authorities, Kotabommali for approval of plan for construction of the building covered under the said Regd. Sale deeds

actongimgly. te Parctyat autttores Kaatoai.

apliee DCEmed auttores fur umig Te olegs n e

Registrar. Srikacuiam has SSE efcate ate IE113Z

t the piaitf started e Colees and Tunig TE Same MICTTLE

iteuption from

y ody Tre pacf as

S Te -CompDumd walarouc e buiimg covee uie Te tinumeTE E.

Regd Saie Deed Doc Na 42419EE

eERI9EE or an eet

Ac 095 cents Fegd Saie deed tinume N 49799 t15

etent of Ac 125 cets staes in KaoTai eeLE wilaE

Kotaboramandal as metioeine sut sutenue e TS

04.itis further avered at eey de to chamgE TGemet

the defendamts influence by

E Loa pita aes a

e e trying tD demoish the sut schaue compom Mal aong wi e

buidings. The ioral ruiing pary ee rgig hezVy Dsure m

the defendants to demoish ie Same wot y ratier E

The defendants are prociaiming since as week af ume 24

tthey will demolish the sutt stheie compou wall ag w e

buiding and ocoupy the same ence here s o he E

4

Plaintiff except approach the Honourable Court to protect his rights

over the suit schedule property under law and filed this suit for the relief sought for.

05. In this matter, Process not paid. As per previous docket order, it is found that process not file, though opportunity given. Destitute giv�n nTt come forward. In view of the same, dismiss the suit for default.

Typed to my, dictation by Senior Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me injopen court, on this 29th day of the April, 2025.

Civil Judge (Junior Division),

PATHAPATNAM

FAC/Civil Judge Junior Division)

KOTABOMMALI.

Appendix of evidence Witness examined & Documents Marked:

FOR PLAINTIFF:

FOR DEFEDENTS

None of the witnesses are examined and no documents are marked on either side.

Civil Judge (Junior Division),

PATHAPATNAM

FAC/ Civil Judge (Junior Division)

KOTABOMMALI.