Mohammad Umar

CC. No. 106 of 2018 Page No.1 of 12

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT :: NARAYANPET.

Thursday the 13 th Day of February, 2025. PRESENT: - SRI. MOHAMMAD UMAR,

JFCM, Narayanpet.

Calendar Case No. 106 of 2018

Name of the The State of Telangana through Sub-Inspector Complainant of Police Narayanpet, in Crime No. 203 of 2017 of PS, Narayanpet. Names of the Accused Vadla Pandurangachari S/o Late Chakrapani, age:44 years, Occ: lorry Driver R/o H.No.1-23 Matoor Village of Doulthabad Mandal. Charges U/Sec. 304- A, 337 of IPC. Plea of Accused Not guilty Finding of the Court Found not guilty for the offences U/Sec304- A, 337 of IPC. Sentence or Order In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec. 304 -A, 337 of IPC and consequently he is acquitted U/Sec. 255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bond of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of the Judgment as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. for preferring appeal to the higher Court by the prosecution or by the defacto-complainant. Since no property is deposited, there is no order with regard to property.

JFCM

NARAYANPET

CC. No. 106 of 2018 Page No.2 of 12

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT :: NARAYANPET.

Thursday the 13 th Day of February, 2025.

PRESENT: - SRI. MOHAMMAD UMAR,

JFCM, Narayanpet.

Calendar Case No. 106 of 2018

Between: The State of Telangana through Sub-Inspector of Police, Dhanwada.

...Complainant

And

Vadla Pandurangachari S/o Late Chakrapani, Age:44 years, Occ:Lorry Driver, R/o H.No.1-23 Matoor Village of Doulthabad Mandal.

...Accused

This CC is coming on this day before me for Final hearing in the pres- ence of learned APP for the complainant, and Sri. Nandu Namaji, learned Advocate for accused and upon perusal of the material papers, on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Narayanpet have laid a charge sheet in crime No. 203 of 2017 for the offence punishable U/Sec. 304 -A, 337 of

IPC.

2. Brief facts of case are that:

2.1. On 22-11-2017 at about 1200 Lw13/N. Madhusudhan Goud, SI of

Police received Ex.P1 from Pw1. Pw1 deceased son by name Anand and

Pw5 both came to Narayanpet on motor cycle No. TS06 EA7019 for get repairing Pw5 cell phone repaired. After completion of their work they returned to Damargidda on the way at about 04:30 pm after cross

CC. No. 106 of 2018 Page No.3 of 12

Dayanand School one lorry bearing No.AP22 U6370 which is going to

Damargidda side. On seeing that lorry rider of bike Pw5 flown horned by hearing the horn lorry driver moved lorry left side and gave clearance to overtake lorry then Pw5 came forward and tried to overtake lorry and came to middle of the lorry then lorry driver moved his lorry right side due to that lorry boldes gave hit to bike handle and caused slip to the bike due to sudden fall of bike, bike rider fell on drainage and the pillion rider Deceased/Chapali Anand fell on road and lorry back side type went on from his head, head injure and Pw5 received leg injury. This is informed in phone then Pw1 reached the spot and saw that his deceased son died under the lorry tyres. Hence he requested to take legal action against the lorry driver of AP22U6370 who drove his lorry rash and negligence as per law.

2.2. Basing on the above complaint, the Lw13/N.Madhusudhan

Goud, SIP of PS Narayanpet registered a case in crime No.203/2017 for the offence punishable U/s.304-A, 337 of IPC and took up the investigation.

2.3. During the course of investigation Lw13/N.Madhusudhan

Goud examined and recorded the statement of Pw1 at PS Narayanapet,

U/s. 161(3) Cr.P.C. and proceeded to Government Area Hospital

Narayanpet and examined and recorded the statement of Pw2, Pw3 and

CC. No. 106 of 2018 Page No.4 of 12

Lw4/Chapali Naresh U/sec.161(3) Cr.P.C. and conducted inquest in the presence of two mediators and the Medical officer conducted autopsy over the dead body after PME the dead body handed over to Keith and

Kin. Further Lw13/N.Madhusudhan Goud visited the scene of offence and drafted rough sketch in the presence of two mediators. Requisition filed to MVI for inspecting the crime vehicle and examined and recorded the statement of Pw4 and Pw5.

2.4. On 24.11.2017 Lw13/N.Madhusudhan Goud served the notice U/sec.41(a) Cr.P.C. to the accused and accordingly he appeared

before him and Lw13/N.Madhusudhan by taking the necessary under

taking he let him off by directing him to present before this court when ever his presence is mandatory.

2.5. Lw11/K.Srinivas Reddy who issued MVI report he opined that the incident occurred there is no any mechanical defects.

2.6. Lw12/Dr. A.Srinivas, Medical officer issued PME report in which he opined that the cause of death to the best his knowledge and belief was due to “Head Injury” and issue medical certificate he opined that the Pw5 got simple injury. After completion of investigation

Lw13/N.Madhusudhan Goud, SI of Police, Narayanpet filed charge sheet

before this court.

3.Upon consideration of the material placed before the Court, the

CC. No. 106 of 2018 Page No.5 of 12

cognizance for the offence punishable U/Sec.304 -A, 337 of IPC was taken against the accused. On appearance of the accused the copies of documents pertaining to the case was furnished to him as emphasized

U/sec.207 Cr.P.C. After furnishing copies of documents the accused was examined U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C for the substance of the accusation for the offence punishable U/Sec.304-A of IPC for which he denied the accusation and on question of plea of guilt, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.For bringing home the guilt of the accused prosecution examined

Pw1 to Pw7 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4. Ex.P1 is report, Ex.P2 is 161

Cr.P.C. statement of Pw4, Ex.P3 is inquest panchanama and Ex.P4 is scene of offence.

5.The learned APP given up the evidence of Lw4, Lw7, Lw10, Lw11 and Lw13 as the material witnesses were turned hostile. The Police

Narayanpet filed a death certificate of Lw12 through learned APP on 27- 01-2025. Hence the evidence of Lw12 was closed.

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence the accused was ex- amined U/sec. 313 r/w 281 of Cr. P.C. enabling him to explain personally the incriminating circumstances appeared against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses for which the accused denied the truthfulness of the evidence testified by the prosecution witnesses and when the ac-

CC. No. 106 of 2018 Page No.6 of 12

cused was called upon for the defence evidence he reported no defence evidence on his side.

7.Heard, the learned APP and the learned counsel for the accused,

Perused the Material available on record.

8.Now the point for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the

accused by proving the charge for the offence punishable U/Sec. 304-

A, 337 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

9.For bringing home the guilt of the accused prosecution examined

Pw1 to Pw7 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4. The defacto complaint is examined as Pw1, Eye witnessed are examined as Pw2 and Pw3, Cir

Witness is examined as Pw4, Eye witness and injured is examined as

Pw5, Panch for inquest is examined as Pw6, Panch for scene of offence is examined as Pw7. The learned APP given up the evidence of Lw4, Lw7,

Lw10, Lw11 and Lw13.

POINT:-

10.Pw1 in his chief examination deposed that his deceased son and

Pw5 came to the Narayanpet about 8 years back to purchase the new cloths. He came to know through Pw5 that his son met with an accident at subash road at chowk, Narayanpet. Pw5 further informed him that the driver of the crime vehicle i.e. lorry gave side dash to the vehicle of his son and Pw5 due to which his deceased son died at spot and Pw5

CC. No. 106 of 2018 Page No.7 of 12

received bleeding injuries. Pw5 informed me about the accident at that time I was at my agriculture field. After knowing the same I rushed to the scene offence from their I rushed to the government hospital,

Narayanpet. Where I saw the dead body of my son. I went to the police station, Narayanpet on my instructions police persons scribed my report.Ex.P1 is report. I know the contents of Ex.P1. Police examined me and recorded my statement. Driver of the crime vehicle is reason for death of my son.

Pw1 during his cross examination admitted the suggestion given by the learned counsel for the accused that he is not an eye witness to the case of prosecution.

11.Pw2 in her chief examination deposed that her husband and Pw5 came to the Narayanpet about 8 years back to purchase the new cloths.

She came to know through Pw5 that her husband met with an accident at subash road at chowk, Narayanpet. Pw5 further informed her that the driver of the crime vehicle i.e. lorry gave side dash to the vehicle of her husband and Pw5, due to which her husband died at spot and Pw5 received bleeding injuries. Pw5 informed her about the accident at that time she was at her agriculture field. After knowing the same she rushed to the scene offence from their she rushed to the government hospital,

Narayanpet. Where she saw the dead body of her husband. Police

CC. No. 106 of 2018 Page No.8 of 12

examined her and recorded her statement. Driver of the crime vehicle is reason for death of her husband.

Pw2 during his cross examination admitted the suggestion given by the learned counsel for the accused that he is not the eye witness to the case of prosecution.

12. Pw3 in his chief examination deposed that at about 4 to 5 years back deceased who is his villager and Pw5 met with an accident at

Saraf Bazar, Chowk, Narayanpet. Due to which Anand received severe injuries and Pw5 received some injuries he and other persons shifted the deceased and Pw5 to Government Area Hospital, Narayanpet. The

Doctors at Narayanpet stated that the deceased was died.

Pw3 in his cross examination deposed that he is not an eye witness to the incident. Pw3 during his cross examination admitted the suggestion given by the learned counsel for the accused that he cannot identify the driver of crime vehicle.

13. Pw5 in his chief examination deposed that On 22-11-2017 at 05:30 p.m. he along with deceased going to Damargidda from

Narayanpet on Glamour bike once they reached to Dayananda Bharati

School, Narayanpet chowk they tried to overtake one lorry i.e., crime vehicle from right side. He was driving the bike. After crossing the half of lorry the lorry driver suddenly took right turn due to which his deceased

CC. No. 106 of 2018 Page No.9 of 12

friend received injury on his head and fell down towards his left side and died at spot. He received injury on his left side of leg and he fell into right side in a drainage. Local persons and his friends came to rescue me. “He cannot identify the driver of crime vehicle”. Police examined him and recorded his statement. The reason for death of his deceased friend and for reason for injuries caused to him is driver of crime vehicle.

14. Pw6 in his chief examination deposed that in the year 2017 while he was at his house he came to know about death of deceased.

Immediately he rushed to the Government Area Hospital, Narayanpet.

Where Police conducted panchanama in his presence over the cadaver.

Police read over the panchnama contents to him. Ex.P3 is inquest panchnama. He know the contents of Ex.P3.

Pw6 during his cross examination deposed that he cannot say the number of papers in Ex.P3. Pw6 during his cross examination admitted the suggestion given by the learned counsel for the accused that in order to help the deceased he deposing before this court.

15. Pw7 in his chief examination deposed that in the year 2007 while he was at his house he came to know about death of deceased.

Immediately he rushed to the scene of offence. Where Police conducted panchanama in his presence at scene of offence. Police read over the panchnama contents to him.

CC. No. 106 of 2018 Page No.10 of 12

Pw7 during his cross examination admitted the suggestion given by the learned counsel for the accused that he do not know the contents of

Ex.P4.

16. Pw4 who is circumstantial witness is turned hostile. even during the examination by the Learned APP in the nature of cross examination nothing could be elicited in favour of prosecution.

17.The learned APP given up the evidence of Lw4, Lw7, Lw10, Lw11 and Lw13.

18.In this case, the identity of the accused itself is not established by the prosecution by adducing cogent evidence. It is clear that the identity of the accused as the driver of the crime vehicle is not established. There is no evidence on record to show the nature of act of the accused result- ing into the accident. The essential ingredients of rashness or negligence constituting the offence of Sec.304-A, 337 of IPC was not brought on re- cord and no cogent material was adduced in establishing the criminal negligence or rashness on the part of the accused. It is well established principle of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution is supposed to establish the identity of the accused and that the accused was the perpe- trator of the imputed crime. In this case though the prosecution had as- serted that the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle on the alleged day of accident but no potent material was brought on recording, estab-

CC. No. 106 of 2018 Page No.11 of 12

lishing the identity of the accused as the driver of the crime vehicle. No persuasive evidence was led by the prosecution to prove the rashness or negligence. It is for the prosecution to establish from the materials on re- cord that there was rashness or negligence on the part of the accused which resulted in the commission of offence. When there is no material the court cannot presume rashness or negligence on the part of the ac- cused. As such the accused is entitled for acquittal.

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.304-A, 337 of IPC and consequently he is acquitted

U/Sec.255 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bond of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of the Judgment as per Sec.437-

A Cr.P.C. for preferring appeal to the higher Court by the prosecution or by the defacto-complainant. Since no property is deposited, there is no order with regard to property.

(Typed by typist on my direct dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 13 th Day of February, 2025).

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Narayanpet.

CC. No. 106 of 2018 Page No.12 of 12

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE: Pw1: PeddaRoshanappa - Nil - Pw2: Laxmi, Pw3: D. Bugappa, Pw4: M. Srisailam, Pw5 : U. Srinivas, Pw5: Chapali Srinu, Pw6: Chapali Balraj.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 is report. Ex.P2 is 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw4. Ex.P3 is inquest panchanama. Ex.P4 is scene of offence panchanama.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE:

-Nil- M.Os. Marked: Nil-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Narayanpet.

O.S.No.257 of 2022 Page.No.1 of 10

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT: KOSGI

Friday, this the 08 th day of November, 2024.

PRESENT: SRI MOHAMMAD UMAR,

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NARAYANPET,

FAC JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KOSGI.

O.S.No.257 of 2022

Between:

1. Boini Chinna Barappa S/o late Hanmaiah aged 70 years,

2. Boini Maibanna S/o late Pedda Barappa aged 53 years,

3. Boini Bandeppa S/o late Pedda Barappa aged 46 years,

All Occ: agriculture, all r/o Mannapur Village, Maddur Mandal,

Mahabubnagar District now Narayanpet District.

...Plaintiffs

A N D

1. Kavali Venkat Ramulu S/o Kavali Barappa, aged 45 years,

2. Golla Krishnaiah S/o Golla Barappa aged 48 years,

Both Occ: Agriculture, both R/o Mannapur Village, Maddur Mandal,

Mahabubnagar District now Narayanpet District.

... Defendants

This suit is coming on this day before me for Final hearing in the presence of Sri.A.V. Anand, learned Advocate for the Plaintiffs and Sri. P.

Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Advocate for the Defendants and upon perusal of the material papers, on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

O.S.No.257 of 2022 Page.No.2 of 10

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed for Perpetual Injunction restraining the defendants from interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over suit schedule property.

1. The Brief averments of plaint as follows:

1.1. The Plaintiff No.2 and 3 are real brothers and are sons of late

Pedda Barappa who is elder brother of plaintiff No.1. The suit schedule property is ancestral property of plaintiffs.

1.2. The Suit schedule property was mutated equally in the names of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiff No.2 and 3 in revenue records.

However, father of plaintiff No.2 and 3, and plaintiff No.1 were in joint possession and enjoyment of the entire extent of the said land. Similarly after demise of father of plaintiff No.2 and 3, the extent which was recorded in the name of their father was for record sake mutated in the name of plaintiff No.2 and 3 to the extent of Ac.2-19 guntas each.

1.3. Though the revenue officials allotted separate sub-division numbers in the names of plaintiff No.1 to 3, but the suit lands are situated in one compact and not divided between the plaintiffs by metes and bounds.

1.4. The defendants are adjacent cultivators of the suit lands and they are no way connected with the suit lands. The defendant No.1 is having

O.S.No.257 of 2022 Page.No.3 of 10

his land towards western side of the suit lands and defendant No.2 is having his land towards eastern side of the suit land. The plaintiffs have got surveyed the suit land by the AD, Survey and Lands Records,

Mahabubnagar and fixed the boundaries in file No. A8/317/2011. The defendants have also got their land surveyed through their own means and confirmed their title to their lands, inspite of that they are trying to interfere with the possession of plaintiffs over the suit lands.

1.5. That the plaintiffs herein filed suit in OS.No.28/2011 on the file of this Hon’ble Court against the defendants herein and 4 others in respect of the suit lands herein, on the interference made by the defendants therein for perpetual injunction restraining them from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of plaintiffs herein and the said suit was dismissed in default on 8-12-2017 for non-production of evidence of the plaintiffs. Further the father of defendant No.1 and others filed suit

OS.No.31/2011, defendant No.2 herein also filed suit OS.No.35/2011

against the plaintiffs herein in respect of their lands. The plaintiffs herein have filed their written statements in both the suits. The suit filed by the father of defendant No.1 was decreed exparte, and the suit filed by the defendant No.2 herein was dismissed in default.

1.6. That on 01-07-2019, at about 10.00 a.m. when the plaintiffs were attending agricultural operations in the suit land, the defendants came to

O.S.No.257 of 2022 Page.No.4 of 10

the suit land and interfered with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit land and also tried to occupy part suit lands towards eastern and western sides. But with great difficulty and efforts, the plaintiffs could succeed in their attempts to drive away the defendants from suit lands for the time being. However, while leaving the suit lands, defendants threatened to occupy the suit lands with help of more force. Hence the suit.

2.Summons were served to defendant No.1 and 2 and they engaged the counsel and filed the written statement.

3. The Brief averments of written statement as follows:

3.1. It is true and correct that the defendants are adjacent land owners of the suit lands and their lands are situated towards western side/and eastern side of the suit lands. That the plaintiffs themselves not identified their own lands and they have got surveyed the suit lands without the knowledge of the plaintiffs and trying to interfere over the lands belongs to the defendants.

3.2. It is true and correct that the plaintiffs herein filed a suit no.28/2011 on the file of this Hon'ble court against the father of the first defendant and others including defendant no.2. The suit was dismissed for default. That the plaintiffs not taken any steps for restoration of the suit and keep silent long term. There after filed the present suit with a

O.S.No.257 of 2022 Page.No.5 of 10

dishonest intention without any cause of action. It is true and correct father of the defendant no.1 and others filed OS.No.31/2011 on the file of this Hon’ble court. That the plaintiffs filed OS.No.28/2011 and tried to interfere over the lands of the defendants. Therefore the father of the defendant no.1 and others filed against the plaintiffs restraining them from interfering from their own lands. The suit is decreed. The plaintiffs not preferred any appeal against the Judgment and decree of this

Hon’ble court.

3.3. That the plaintiffs filed OS.No.28/2011 on the file of Hon’ble Court and tried to occupy the lands of the defendants the suit was dismissed and failed to occupy the portions of the lands belong s to the defendants.

This is a second time again filed the present suit and tried to occupy the portions of the lands belongs to the defendants. Therefore they prayed to dismiss the suit.

4. Originally this suit was instituted before Junior Civil Judge Court,

Kodangal vide OS.No.70 of 2019. Subsequently the case on hand transferred to this court on the point of jurisdiction.

5.In this case issues were framed by my learned predecessor on 29- 09-2023. Chief of Pw1 was filed on 05-01-2024 after giving the ample of opportunities chief of Pw1 was recorded on 19-04-2024 and cross of

Pw1 treated as nill. On 26-04-2024 chief of Pw2 filed and Pw2 examined

O.S.No.257 of 2022 Page.No.6 of 10

and cross of Pw2 recorded as Nill. The case is posted for defence evidence but none appeared as such the evidence of defendant was closed on 10-05-2024. Even after posting for arguments and Even after giving the ample opportunities to the defendants none appeared as such the case is posted for Judgment.

6.In order to substantiate the case of plaintiff, plaintiff No.1 examined himself as Pw1 through him Ex.A1 to Ex.A19 got marked and to support the case of plaintiff One Mallella Chenna Reddy is examined as

Pw2.

7. Heard and perused the record.

8. Basing on the rival contentions of parties to the suit the following issues were framed on 16-11-2023 for trial by my learned predecessor.

ISSUES:

I. Whether the plaintiff is in lawful possession over the suit schedule property on the date of filing of the suit?

II. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants or any one claiming through them from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property?

III. To what relief?

Issue No.I & II formulated by this court are inextricably intertwined, as such it would be appropriate to discuss and deal with the

Issue No.I & II simultaneously to avoid repetition of facts.

O.S.No.257 of 2022 Page.No.7 of 10

ISSUE No.I & II:.

9. The case of the plaintiffs in a nutshell is that plaintiffs are the owners and possessors of suit schedule property. The revenue authorities recorded the names of plaintiffs in respect of suit schedule properties as pattadars and the defendants are strangers to the suit schedule property and they are no way concern with the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs have got surveyed the suit lands through AD,

Survey and land records, Mahabubnagar and fixed the boundaries in file

No.A8/317/2011 and the defendants have also got their land surveyed through their own means and confirmed their title to their lands in spite of that the defendants are trying to interfere with the possession of plaintiffs over suit lands. The plaintiffs herein filed OS.No.28/11 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Court Kodangal in respect of suit lands on the interference made by the defendants and the said suit was dismissed for default on 08-12-2017 for non production of plaintiff evidence. The father of the defendant no.1 and others filed OS.No.35/2011 against the plaintiffs herein in respect of their lands. The plaintiffs herein filed their written statement in both suits. The suit filed by the father of defendant no.1 was decreed exparte and the suit filed by the defendant no.2 herein was dismissed for default. That on 01-07-2019 when the plaintiffs were attending agricultural operations in the suit lands, the defendants came

O.S.No.257 of 2022 Page.No.8 of 10

to the suit lands and interfered with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit lands and also tried to occupy part suit lands towards eastern and western sides. Hence the suit.

10. The defendants filed their written statement by denying the averments of plaint but defendants admitted the existence of their lands towards western side and eastern side of suit lands. Defendants further admitted about filing of suits vide OS.No.31/2011 and OS.No.28 of 2011 on the file of Junior Civil Judge Court, Kodangal. Defendants further contended that the present suit is filed without cause of action therefore they prayed to dismiss the suit.

11. In this case after framing of the issues defendants did not turned up and they did not choose to cross examine the Pw1 and Pw2 to disprove the case of plaintiffs. Therefore an adverse inference can be drawn that the defendants are failed to prove their contention. Moreover the defendants in their written statement admitted the existence of suit land but they denied the possession of plaintiffs over the suit schedule property.

12.On perusal of Ex.A1 the land in Sy.no.26 stands patta in the name of Hanmaiah Boini. Ex.A2 is Khasra pahani. On perusal of Ex.A3 to

Ex.A15 and Ex.A18 which are (i.e., revenue records) the names of plaintiffs are reflecting as pattadars in respect of suit schedule property.

O.S.No.257 of 2022 Page.No.9 of 10

on perusal of Ex.A16 and Ex.A19 encumbrance on survey no.26 to an extent of Ac.09-36 guntas reflecting as nil. Ex.A17 is panchanama conducted by the district surveyor in respect of Sy.No.36 i.e., suit survey number.

13. In this case the defendants after framing the issues neither came forward to rebut the case of plaintiffs.On a cumulative effect of all the facts discussed above, the plaintiffs, being the owners of the suit schedule property and also having possession of the suit schedule property, are entitled to seek a perpetual injunction against the defendants, restraining the defendants from ever interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. Accordingly, these issues are decided in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.

III. To what relief.

In the result, the suit is decreed without costs, there by granting a perpetual injunction in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants, restraining the defendants from ever interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property.

( Typed by typist on my dictation corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 08 th day of November, 2024).

Prl. Junior Civil Judge,

Narayanpet,

FAC, Junior Civil judge,

Kosgi.

O.S.No.257 of 2022 Page.No.10 of 10

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED.

PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS

Pw1: Boini Chinna Barappa, -Nil-

Pw2: Mallella Chenna Reddy,

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

Ex.A1 is CC of Sethwar.

Ex.A2 is CC of Khasra.

Ex.A3 is CC of 1-B namoona ROR(3 pages),

Ex.A4 is Original old Pattadar passbook of plaintiff no.1.

Ex.A5 is Original old Pattadar passbook of plaintiff no.2.

Ex.A6 is Original old Pattadar passbook of plaintiff no.3.

Ex.A7 is CC of the fasli for the year 1422 dated 10-03-2013.

Ex.A8 is CC of the fasli for the year 1423 dated 10-08-2013.

Ex.A9 is CC of the fasli for the year 2017 dated 24-06-2019.

Ex.A10 is CC of 1-B Namoona ROR dated 24-06-2019.

Ex.A11 is CC of the pahani for the year 2017 dated 24-06-2019.

Ex.A12 is CC of 1-B namoona ROR dated 24-06-2019.

Ex.A13 is CC of the pahani for the year 2017 dated 24-06-2019.

Ex.A14 is CC of 1-B namoona ROR dated 24-06-2019.

Ex.A15 is New pattadar passbook of plaintiff no.1

Ex.A16 is CC of EC dated 14-11-2011.

Ex.A17 is panchnama conducted by inspector survey and land record,

Mahabubnagar along with tonch map.

Ex.A18 is CC of the pahani for the fasli 1421.

Ex.A19 is CC of EC dated 25-06-2019.

FOR THE DEFENDANTS: - Nil –

Prl. Junior Civil Judge,

Narayanpet,

FAC, Junior Civil judge,

Kosgi.

CC.No.200 of 2022 Page No.1 of 8

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT:: KOSGI.

Friday, the 13 th Day of September, 2024.

PRESENT: SRI MOHAMMAD UMAR,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NARAYANPET,

FAC JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

KOSGI.

Calendar Case No. 200 of 2022

(Old CC.No.452 of 2018 on the file of JFCM, Kodangal)

Name of the The State of Telangana through Sub-Inspector of ComplainantPolice, in Crime No.73/2018 of PS, Kosgi. Names of the AccusedA1- Purra Narsimulu S/o Sayanna, age: 65 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Chandravancha village of Kosgi mandal. A2- Purra Ramanjaneyulu S/o Narsimulu, age: 30 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Chandravancha village of Kosgi mandal. A3- Purra Narender @ Naresh S/o Narsimulu, age: 22 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Chandravancha village of Kosgi mandal. A4- Purra Sugunamma W/o Narsimulu, age: 45 years, R/o. Chandravancha village of Kosgi mandal. ChargesU/Sec.447, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC Plea of AccusedNot guilty Finding of the CourtFound not guilty for the offences U/Sec.447, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC Sentence or OrderIn the result, accused are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.447, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and they are acquitted U/Sec. 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall remain in force for a period of 6 months from the date of Judgment as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C. for preferring appeal to the Higher Court from the Judgment by prosecution or by de-facto complainant. Since no property is deposited there is no order with regard to the property.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Narayanpet, FAC, Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kosgi.

CC.No.200 of 2022 Page No.2 of 8

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT:: KOSGI.

Friday, the 13 th Day of September, 2024.

PRESENT: SRI MOHAMMAD UMAR,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NARAYANPET,

FAC JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

KOSGI.

Calendar Case No. 200 of 2022

(Old CC.No.452 of 2018 on the file of JFCM, Kodangal)

Between: The State of Telangana through Sub-Inspector of Police, Kosgi.

...Complainant

And

A1-Purra Narsimulu S/o Sayanna, age: 65 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Chandravancha village of Kosgi mandal. A2-Purra Ramanjaneyulu S/o Narsimulu, age: 30 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Chandravancha village of Kosgi mandal. A3-Purra Narender @ Naresh S/o Narsimulu, age: 22 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Chandravancha village of Kosgi mandal. A4-Purra Sugunamma W/o Narsimulu, age: 45 years, R/o.Chandravancha village of Kosgi mandal.

....Accused

This CC is coming on this day before me for Final hearing in the presence of learned APP for the complainant, and Sri G. Om Prakash, learned Advocate for accused and upon perusal of the material papers, on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kosgi have laid a charge sheet in crime

No.73/2018 for the offences punishable U/Sec.447, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC.

2. Brief facts of case of the prosecution are that:

CC.No.200 of 2022 Page No.3 of 8

2.1. On 6.7.2018 at 1900 hours the Pw5 received a complaint from Pw1 and he stated that he had 2 acres land in Sy.No.70/EE situated in his village limits, since his forefather he has been cultivating the said land. On 12.6.2018 his co- percener A1 to A4 criminally trespassed into this damaged boundaries and cut the electricity connection pertains to bore well alleging that the said land belongs to them, further A1 to A4 abused and threatened them, when Pw1 and his wife Pw2 intervened into the matter. On 29.6.2018 they cultivated paddy in the said land and occupied. Finally Pw1 requested to take legal action against accused persons.

2.2.Basing on the contents of above complaint, Pw5 registered a case in

Cr.73/2018 for the offence punishable U/Sec.447, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC and took up the investigation.

2.3. During the course of investigation, the Pw5 examined and recorded the statement Pw1 at Police Station U/Sec.161(3) Cr.P.C and visited the scene of offence and secured the presence of mediators Lws 5 & 6 and conducted scene of offence panchanama by preparing crime details form and drawn its rough sketch, where the Pw5 examined and recorded the statements of neighbor farmers Lws 2 to 4 U/Sec.161(3) Cr.P.C.

2.4. On requisition the Tahasildar Kosgi mandal furnished certified copies of Pahani in respect of land in Sy.No.70/EE situated in Chandravancha village limits vide No.A/476/2018 dated 21.8.2018. As per the said documents

Pw1 is owner of land in Sy.No.70/EE situated in Chanadravancha village.

CC.No.200 of 2022 Page No.4 of 8

2.5. Subsequently in view of transfer the Lw-8/P. Vittal Reddy SIP of Police

Kosgi took up further investigation from Pw5 and verified his investigation and found on proper lines.

2.6.On 14.11.2018 the Lw-8 served notice U/Sec.41 (A) Cr.P.C to the accused A1 to A4 with instructions to appear before Lw-8 along with ID proofs.

2.7. On 15.11.2018 accused A1 to A4 came to PS and surrendered before the Lw-08 and admitted their guilt and furnished acknowledgements and under taking notices U/Sec.41-A(3) IPC and ID proofs. After completion of investigation Lw8 laid charge sheet before this court.

3 . Upon consideration of the material placed before the Court, the cognizance for the offence punishable U/Sec. 447, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC was taken against the accused. On appearance of the accused the copies of documents pertaining to the case were furnished to them as emphasized

U/sec.207 Cr.P.C. After furnishing copies of documents the accused was examined U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C for the substance of the accusation for the offence punishable U/Sec. 447, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC for which they denied the accusation and on question of plea of guilt, They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. For bringing home the guilt of the accused prosecution examined

Pw1 to Pw5 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. Ex.P1 is report, Ex.P2 is signature of Pw3 on CDF, Ex.P3 is signature of Pw4 on scene of offence panchnama, Ex.P4 is FIR, Ex.P5 is Crime detail form and Ex.P6 is CC of pahani for Sy.No.70/EE.

CC.No.200 of 2022 Page No.5 of 8

5.After closure of prosecution evidence the accused was examined U/Sec.

313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating circumstances appeared against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses for which they denied the truthfulness of the evidence and reported no defence evidence on his side.

6.Heard, the learned APP and the learned counsel for the accused, Perused the Material available on record.

7.Now the point for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the accused

by proving the charge for the offence punishable U/Sec.447, 504, 506 r/w

34 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

POINT:

8.Pw1 in his chief examination deposed that he know A1 to A4. He know

Lw2, Lw3, Lw4. His land is situated in Chandravancha village in Sy.No.70EE ext.Ac.2-00 gts. This land is an ancestral property Pw1 received from his fore fathers. A1 to A4 criminally tress passed into his land on 12-06-2018, removed the electricity poles, removed the pipe lines of bore well and cut the electricity connection. After 20 days of lodging of complaint A1 to A4 by using JCB removed the neem plants which Pw1 planted. A1 to A4 did not allow him to cultivate in his land. A1 to A4 cultivated paddy in his land over night occupied it.

Pw1 went to PS and lodged the complaint. The complaint given to Police Kosgi was written by him. A1 to A4 are his agnates. Police examined him and

CC.No.200 of 2022 Page No.6 of 8

recorded his 161 statement. At this stage report of Pw1 is marked as Ex.P1.

Pw1 can recognize and identify the accused, they are present in this court.

Pw1 in his cross examination admitted the suggestion given by the learned counsel for the accused that “he was not there when accused destroyed the boundaries”.

9.Pw2 in her chief examination deposed that she know A1 to A4. she know

Pw1, Lw3, Lw4. Pw2 land is situated in Chandravancha village in Sy.No.70 EE ext.Ac.2-00 gts. This land is an ancestral property her husband received from his fore fathers. A1 to A4 criminally tress passed into their land about 4 years ago, removed the electricity poles, removed the pipe lines of bore well and cut the electricity connection and started cultivating in their land. They informed them to not cultivate but A1 to A4 threatened them and used filthy language. Because

A1 to A4 believe that they will get some share in our survey number. Police examined her and recorded her statement. She can recognize and identify the accused, they are present in this court.

Pw2 in her cross examination admitted the suggestion given by the learned counsel for the accused that “mischief was created in the night and they did not go to there agriculture land in the night and she is not witnessed A1 to

A4 destroying the boundaries and creating the mischief”.

10.The panch for scene of offence witnesses were examined as Pw3 and Pw4 and they were turned hostile.

CC.No.200 of 2022 Page No.7 of 8

11.The investigation officer examined as Pw5 and he deposed the chronological events of his investigation in his chief examination which are similar to the allegations made in the charge sheet and the reproduction of the same would not served any purpose.

12. Pw5 during his cross examination deposed that he received Ex.P1 on 06-07-2018 about 1900 hours. Pw5 admitted the suggestion given by the learned counsel for the accused that there is delay mentioned in FIR but no reason is mentioned for such delay.

13. In this case on careful perusal of Ex.P1 there is no specific date of offence in mentioned by the Pw1 in Ex.P1. Pw2 who is the eye witness to the case of prosecution admitted the suggestion given by the learned counsel for the accused that she have not witnessed A1 to A4 destroying the boundaries and creating the mischief. Prosecution have not filed any cogent record before this court in order to establish the possession of Pw1 over disputed land in order to prove their case in respect of section 447 of IPC except Ex.P6 which is revenue record. It is settled law that If possession itself is not with the complainant there can be no offence of criminal trespass into the property not belonging to the complainant. It is settled law that if the possession of the property itself is in doubt, driving home the offences beyond all reasonable would become doubtful.

14. The essential ingredients of U/Sec. 447, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC were not brought on record and no cogent material was adduced in establishing the

CC.No.200 of 2022 Page No.8 of 8

guilt on the part of the accused. No persuasive evidence was led by the prosecution to prove incident.

In the result, accused are found not guilty for the offence punishable

U/Sec.447, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and they are acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of accused shall remain in force for a period of 6 months from the date of Judgment as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C. for preferring appeal to the

Higher Court from the Judgment by prosecution or by de-facto complainant.

Since no property is deposited there is no order with regard to the property.

(Type by typist on my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 13th day of September, 2024).

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Narayanpet, FAC, Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kosgi.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE: Pw1: Purra Ramaiah - Nil - Pw2: Purra Sathyamma Pw3: T. Srinivasulu Pw4: K. Ravinder Reddy. Pw5. J. Krishanaiah, SI of Police.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 is report. Ex.P2 is crime detail form. Ex.P3 is signature of Pw4 on scene of offence panchanama. Ex.P4 is FIR. Ex.P5 is Crime detail form. Ex.P6 is CC of pahani for land Sy.No.70/EE.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE:

-Nil-

M.Os. Marked:

- Nil -

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Narayanpet, FAC, Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kosgi.

CC 786 of 2022 Page.No.1 of 8

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT:: KOSGI.

Friday, the 13 th Day of September, 2024.

PRESENT: SRI MOHAMMAD UMAR,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NARAYANPET,

FAC JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

KOSGI.

Calendar Case No. 786 of 2022

(Old CC.No.36 of 2019 on the file of JFCM, Kodangal)

Name of the The State of Telangana through Sub-Inspector of Complainant Police, in Crime No.181/2018 of PS, Kosgi. Names of the Accused Bejju Krishna S/o Shyamalaiah, age: 40 years Occ: Business R/o Munnurveedhi of Kosgi town. Charges U/Sec.447, 506 IPC. Plea of Accused Not guilty Finding of the Court Found not guilty for the offences U/Sec.447, 506 IPC Sentence or Order In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.447, 506 of IPC and he is acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bond of accused shall remain in force for a period of 6 months from the date of Judgment as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C. for preferring appeal to the Higher Court from the Judgment by prosecution or by de- facto complainant. Since no property is deposited there is no order with regard to the property.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NARAYANPET,

FAC, JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

KOSGI.

CC 786 of 2022 Page.No.2 of 8

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT:: KOSGI.

Friday, the 13 th Day of September, 2024.

PRESENT : SRI MOHAMMAD UMAR,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NARAYANPET,

FAC JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

KOSGI.

Calendar Case No. 786 of 2022

(Old CC.No.36 of 2019 on the file of JFCM, Kodangal)

Between: The State of Telangana through Sub-Inspector of Police, Kosgi.

...Complainant

And

Bejju Krishna S/o Shyamalaiah, age: 40 years Occ: Business, R/o Munnurveedhi of Kosgi town.

....Accused

This CC is coming on this day before me for Final hearing in the presence of learned APP for the complainant, and Sri. A.V. Anand, learned Advocate for accused and upon perusal of the material papers, on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kosgi have laid a charge sheet in crime

No.181/2018 for the offences punishable U/Sec.447, 506 IPC.

1.2.Brief facts of case of the prosecution are that

On 24.11.2018 at 1300 hours Pw5 received Ex.P1 from Pw1, in which she stated that she had 8 guntas land in Sy.No.1853/A/A, 11 guntas land in

Sy.No.1853/B/AA, 35 guntas land in Sy.No.1855/A total 1 acre 14 guntas patta land situated in Kosgi village limits. Since one month accused threatening to kill

CC 786 of 2022 Page.No.3 of 8

her. On 23.11.2018 evening at 1700 hours while Pw1 was attending work in her land the accused criminally trespassed into her land threatened her with dire consequences. Meantime Pw4 intervened into the matter, for which accused threatened to kill her and her children before her daughter. Pw1 requested to provide security and take legal action against him.

1.3. Basing on ExP1 Pw5 registered a case in Cr.No.181/2018 U/Sec.447, 506

IPC and took up the investigation.

1.4. During the course of investigation, the Pw5 examined and recorded the statement of Pw1 and Pw4 at police station and visited the scene of offence in the presence of Lw4 and Pw3 and conducted the panchnama and drawn the rough sketch of scene of offence. Pw5 examined and recorded the statement of

PW2. Pw5 address the letter to the Tahsildar, Kosgi with request to furnish the documents regarding the Sy.No.1853/A/A, Sy.No.1853/B/AA, Sy.No.1855/A of kosgi village and mandal.

1.5. On 13-12-2018 Pw5 served 41-A Cr.P.C. to the accused and complied the same on 14-12-2018 and directed the accused to appear before this court, whenever his appearance is warranted by obtaining necessary proofs.

1.6. On 19-12-2018 The Tahsildar Kosgi vide letter bearing

No.A/476/2018 sent to the attested copy of documents to Pw5. After completion of the entire investigation PW5 filed charge sheet before this court.

2.Upon consideration of the material placed before the Court, the cognizance for the offence punishable U/Sec. 447, 506 IPC was taken against the accused. On

CC 786 of 2022 Page.No.4 of 8

appearance of the accused the copies of documents pertaining to the case were furnished to him as emphasized U/sec.207 Cr.P.C. After furnishing copies of documents the accused was examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C for the substance of the accusation for the offence punishable U/Sec. 447, 506 IPC for which he denied the accusation and on question of plea of guilt, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3.For bringing home the guilt of the accused prosecution examined Pw1 to

Pw5 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. Ex.P1 is report, Ex.P2 is 161 Cr.P.C.

statement of Pw2, Ex.P3 is signature on white paper, Ex.P4 is FIR, Ex.P5 is Crime detail form, Ex.P6 is Letter bearing No.A/476/2018 dt.19-12-2018.

4.After closure of prosecution evidence the accused was examined U/Sec.

313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating circumstances appeared against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses for which he denied the truthfulness of the evidence and reported no defence evidence on his side.

5.Heard, the learned APP and the learned counsel for the accused, Perused the Material available on record.

6.Now the point for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the accused by

proving the charge for the offence punishable U/Sec.447, 506 IPC beyond

reasonable doubt?

CC 786 of 2022 Page.No.5 of 8

POINT:

7. Pw1 in her chief examination deposed that she know the accused.

She know Lw.2, Lw.3. This incident took place in her agriculture field which is situated in Kosgi village. She do not remember the Sy. Numbers. The accused took his vehicle (bike) and came towards her when she was in her agricultural field. He start the bike in front of me and abused her and threatened her that he will kill her and her children in the same way he killed her husband. The accused threatened Pw1 by saying that he killed her husband and he will also kill her. Lw.2 recorded this incident in her phone, they have shown the same to the police therefore they registered Pw1 complaint. The complaint was written by the constable. The complaint was given on the day of incident. The complaint was not read over to her but she signed on the complaint. She can identify and recognise him and he is present in this court hall.

Pw1 in her cross examination deposed that deposed that on the same day of incident she filed the case against the accused.

8.Pw4 in her chief examination deposed that accused is her paternal uncle.

She know Pw.1, Pw.2 Pw.1 is her mother. On 23-11-2018 in the evening at about 5’0 clock when she went see her mother near their agriculture field at

Sy.No.1853 and 1855, situated at Kosgi village to the extent of Ac.1-14 Gts. The accused was threatening Pw1 that he will kill her in their agriculture field situated at Sy.No.1853 and 1855. The accused threatened Pw.1 not to come to

CC 786 of 2022 Page.No.6 of 8

the our agriculture field and that he will kill Pw.1 and her children the same way as he killed Pw.1’s husband. She have witnessed this incident.

Pw4 in her cross examination deposed that they did not produce any document pertaining to the ownership and possession of said survey numbers prior to the death of her father. Pw4 further deposed that she have handed over her cell phone in which she recorded the incident to the police. Pw4 admitted the suggestion given by the learned counsel for accused that “they did not filed complaint on the same day of incident though the police station is situated at

Kosgi itself”.

9. Pw5 who is the investigation officer and he deposed the chronological events of his investigation in his chief examination which are similar to the allegations made in the charge sheet and the reproduction of the same would not serve any purpose.

10. During the cross examination Pw5 deposed that he has not examined any neighbouring land owners and he do not know whether any civil disputes pending between Pw1 and accused. Pw5 further deposed that Pw4 not handed over any electronic evidence to him.

11. Pw5 admitted the suggestion given by the learned counsel for the accused that “ he has not received any complaint on 23-11-2018 and Pw4 is daughter of

Pw1.

12. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case and upon the careful scrutiny and evolution of the evidence on record it could be seen that,

CC 786 of 2022 Page.No.7 of 8

prosecution have not filed any record before this court to establish the possession of Pw1 over disputed property. Pw1 in her cross examination deposed that she lodged Ex.P1 on the same day of incident but Pw4 in her cross examination deposed that on 24-11-2018 at around 10:00 am they filed a complaint with PS Kosgi. Pw4 further deposed that they did not produce any documents pertaining to the ownership and possession of said survey numbers.

Pw4 during her cross examination further deposed that she handed over the cell phone to the Police in which she recorded the incident. But Pw5/investigation officer during his cross examination deposed that Pw4 not handed over any electronic evidence to him.

13. Prosecution have not filed any record before this court in order to establish the possession of Pw1 over disputed land in order to prove their case in respect of section 447 of IPC. It is settled law that If possession itself is not with the complainant there can be no offence of criminal trespass into the property not belonging to the complainant. It is settled law that if the possession of the property itself is in doubt, driving home the offences beyond all reasonable would become doubtful. Moreover in this case there is a unexplained delay of one day is there but prosecution have not mentioned any cogent reasons for delay.

14. The essential ingredients of the offence U/s. 447, 506 of IPC for not brought on record by the prosecution for securing the conviction of the accused.

Therefore, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

CC 786 of 2022 Page.No.8 of 8

In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable

U/Sec.447, 506 of IPC and he is acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bond of accused shall remain in force for a period of 6 months from the date of Judgment as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C. for preferring appeal to the Higher Court from the

Judgment by prosecution or by de-facto complainant. Since no property is deposited there is no order with regard to the property.

(Typed by typist on my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 13 th of September, 2024).

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Narayanpet, FAC: Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kosgi.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE: PW1: Bejje Laxmamma -Nil - PW2: Bejju Narsimulu PW3: Muska Eswappa PW4: B.Swarnalatha PW5: P.Vittal Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1. is report. Ex.P2 is 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.2. Ex.P3 is Signature of the Pw.3 on white paper. Ex.P4 is FIR. Ex.P5. Is CDF. Ex.P6 is Letter bearing No.A/476/2018 dt.19-12-2018.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE:

-Nil-

M.Os. Marked:

- Nil –

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Narayanpet, FAC: Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kosgi.

CC 610 of 2022 Page No.1 of 7

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT:: KOSGI.

Friday, the 13 th Day of September, 2024.

PRESENT: SRI MOHAMMAD UMAR,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NARAYANPET,

FAC, JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

KOSGI.

Calendar Case No. 610 of 2022

(Old CC.No.576 of 2015 on the file of JFCM, Kodangal)

Name of the The State of Telangana through Sub-Inspector of Complainant Police, Kosgi in Crime No.129/14 of PS, Kosgi. Names of the Accused Abdul Lays S/o Abubakar, age 40 years, Occ: RMP doctor, R/o Gundumal Village of Kosgi Mandal. Charges U/Sec.304-A IPC. Plea of Accused Not guilty Finding of the Court Found not guilty for the offence U/Sec.304-A IPC Sentence or Order In the result, accused is found not guilty for the of- fence punishable U/Sec.304-A IPC and consequent- ly he is acquitted U/Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bond of the accused shall remain in force for a pe- riod of six months from the date of the Judgment as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. for preferring appeal to the higher Court by the prosecution or by the defacto- complainant. Since no property is deposited, as such there is no order regard to property.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Narayanpet, FAC, Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kosgi.

CC 610 of 2022 Page No.2 of 7

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT:: KOSGI.

Friday, the 13 th Day of September, 2024.

PRESENT: SRI MOHAMMAD UMAR,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NARAYANPET,

FAC JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

KOSGI.

Calendar Case No. 610 of 2022

(Old CC.No.576 of 2015 on the file of JFCM, Kodangal)

Between: The State of Telangana through Sub-Inspector of Police, Kosgi.

...Complainant

And

Abdul Lays, S/o Abubakar, Age 40 years, Occ: RMP doctor, R/o Gundumal Village of Kosgi Mandal.

....Accused

This CC is coming on this day before me for Final hearing in the presence of learned APP for the complainant, and Sri A.V. Anand, learned Advocate for ac- cused and upon perusal of the material papers, on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

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

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kosgi have laid a charge sheet in crime

No.129/14 for the offence punishable U/Sec. 304-A IPC.

2. Brief facts of case of the prosecution are that

On 30-09-2014 at 1730 hours Lw10/ Y.Bhagaya Lakshmi Reddy SIP of PS

Kosgi, received a complaint from Pw1, in which he stated that since two days his deceased daughter namely Dandu Nandini was suffering with cold and fever. On 30.09.2014 afternoon at about 1300 hours Pw1 took his daughter to the accused (who is RMP doctor) to get treatment for her ill health. The accused injected an

CC 610 of 2022 Page No.3 of 7

injection. After some few minutes her deceased daughter was died at the hospital. The complainant further added that the above doctor treated his daughter in negligent manner, due to which his deceased daughter was died.

Therefore, Pw1 requested to take legal action against the accused for treating her in negligent manner and for the responsible for her death.

2.1.On receipt of the above complaint, the Lw-10/SIP, Kosgi P.S.

registered a case in Cr.No.129/2014 for the offence punishable U/s 304-A IPC and took up the investigation.

2.2. During the course of investigation, the Lw-10 examined the Pw1 and recorded the statement U/s.161 (3) Cr.P.C. and on 1-10-2014, the Lw-10 visited

Government Civil Hospital, Kodangal, examined the witnesses Lws-2 to 4 and recorded their statements and secured the presence of two mediators Lws-5 and 6 and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and subjected the dead body for PME. Further, the Lw-10 visited the scene of offence and secured the presence of mediators Lws-7 and 8 and conducted the scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch in crime details form. After PME the dead body was handed over to the kith and kin of the deceased for funeral rites.

2.3. The Lw-9/Dr.M.Viliya, CAS, Govt. Civil Hospital, Kodangal conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and preserved viscera pending for want of CE report from FSL, Hyderabad. He gave final opinion on the strength of the FSL report No.TOX/3718/2014, dated 04-05-2015 showing the cause of

CC 610 of 2022 Page No.4 of 7

death was due to “According to FSL report there is no poisoning substance is found, so cause of death is not ruled out abscond atrophy”.

2.4. On 04-10-2014 the Lw10 has issued notice U/s 41 (A) Cr.P.C. to the accused with instructions to appear before the LW-10. On 08-10-2014 at 1000 hours the accused came to PS Kosgi and admitted the guilty of office, and co- operated with the investigation of Lw-10. After completion of entire investigation Lw10 filed charge sheet before this court.

3. Upon consideration of the material placed before the Court, the cognizance for the offence punishable U/Sec.304-A of IPC was taken against the accused. On appearance of the accused the copies of documents pertaining to the case were furnished to him as emphasized U/sec.207 Cr.P.C. After furnishing copies of documents the accused was examined U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C for the punishable offence U/s 304-A of IPC. On question of plea of guilt, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the trial against the accused.

4.This case is transferred from JMFC, Kodangal to JMFC, Kosgi on 17-08- 2021 in view of the order of the Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana vide ROC.No.2859/E2021 dated 17-08-2021 and Hon’ble Principal and

Sessions Court, Mahabubnagar vide Dis.No.1781/1/2022 dated: 01-06-2022.

5.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined

PWs1 to 4 and got marked exhibit Ex.P1 to Ex.P4. The Lr.APP has given up the evidence of Lw5 to Lw10 on 14-06-2024 and posted for S.313 examination.

CC 610 of 2022 Page No.5 of 7

6.After closure of prosecution evidence the accused was examined

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating circumstances appeared against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses for which he denied the truthfulness of the evidence and reported no defence evidence on his side.

7. Heard, the learned APP and the learned counsel for the accused, Perused the Material available on record.

8. The point for determination:-

Whether the prosecution proved its case by brining substance of the

accident for the offence punishable U/Sec.304-A of IPC against the accused

beyond reasonable doubt? POINT:

9.Pw1 who is the father of deceased, Pw2 who is the sister of deceased and Pw3 who is the eye witness to the case of prosecution and Pw4 who is the circumstantial witness to the case of prosecution are turned hostile nothing could be elicited by the learned APP in chief examination in the nature of cross examination.

10. The learned APP given up the evidence of Lw5 to Lw10 as the material witnesses are turned hostile.

11. The essential ingredients of rashness or negligence constituting the of- fence of Sec.304-A of IPC was not brought on record and no cogent material was adduced in establishing the criminal negligence or rashness on the part of the accused. It is well established principle of criminal jurisprudence that the prose- cution is supposed to establish the identity of the accused and that the accused

CC 610 of 2022 Page No.6 of 7

was the perpetrator of the imputed crime. No persuasive evidence was led by the prosecution to prove the rashness or negligence. It is for the prosecution to es- tablish from the materials on record that there was rashness or negligence on the part of the accused which resulted in the commission of offence. When there is no material the court cannot presume rashness or negligence on the part of the accused. As such the accused is entitled for acquittal.

12.Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case and upon careful scrutiny and evaluation of evidence on record. Since there is no evidence on record to establish the identity of accused, the benefit of the doubt is drawn in favor of the accused. Hence the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt both points are answered in favor of accused and the accused is entitled for acquittal.

In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable

U/Sec.304-A IPC and consequently he is acquitted U/Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bond of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of the Judgment as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. for preferring appeal to the higher

Court by the prosecution or by the defacto-complainant. Since no property is deposited, as such there is no order regard to property.

(Typed by typist on my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 13 th day of September, 2024).

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Narayanpet.

FAC, Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kosgi.

CC 610 of 2022 Page No.7 of 7

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE: Pw1: D.Mallappa - Nil - Pw2: D. Navaneetha Pw3: G. Venkataiah Pw4: D. Chandraiah

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 is 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw-1. Ex.P2 is 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw-2. Ex.P3 is 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw-3. Ex.P4 is 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw-4. EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE: -Nil- M.Os. Marked: - Nil -

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Narayanpet. FAC, Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kosgi.