Ms. Mohammed Fariha Ahmed

1 of 9 C.C.No. 2342 OF 2022

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

IV ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

HANUMAKONDA

Friday, the 19th day of December, 2025

Present: Smt Mohammed Fariha Ahmed,

IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- IV Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Hanumakonda.

C ALENDAR C ASE No. 2342 OF 20 22

(Old C.C.No.516 OF 2015)

BETWEEN

The State represented through The Sub Inspector of Police, Elkathurthy Police Station.…Complainant AND

Gorre Thomas, S/o.Ilaiah(Late), Age.45 years, Occ.Private Employee, R/o.Damera Village, Elkathurthy Mandal.

...Accused

This case is coming up before me for final hearing on 08.12.2025 in the presence of learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, for the Complainant; and of Sri K.Rukma Reddy, Advocate for the accused, and after perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The present case pertaining to Crime No.168 of 2015 of P.S

Elkathurthy is filed against the accused alleging that he has committed the offences punishable under Sections 325, 504 of Indian Penal Code (herein after referred to as IPC).

2. The brief averments of the prosecution’s case are that on 08.09.2015, on suspicion that PW1’s pigs damaged his crop, accused abused the informant/Alakunta Rajaiah in filthy language and beat him with hands on 2 of 9 C.C.No. 2342 OF 2022 his stomach and left ear and pushed him and his son/LW2. Hence, written information was lodged.

3.On receipt of the above written information, LW6/Uday Kumar, sub

Inspector of police, P.S Elkathurthy registered a case in Crime No.168/2015 for the offences under Sections 325, 504 of IPC. After completion of investigation, a police report was filed.

4. Cognizance was taken for the offences punishable under Sections 325, 504 of IPC, against the accused.

5. On appearance of the accused, copies were furnished to him under

Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code. The accused was examined under

Section 239 of Criminal Procedure Code and charges for the offences under

Sections 325, 504 of IPC were framed, read over and explained to him in

Telugu. To which, he denied the allegations levelled against him, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.On behalf of the prosecution, PW1 to PW4 were examined and Ex.P1 to

Ex.P3 were marked.

7.After the prosecution evidence is closed, accused was examined under

Section 313 Cr.P.C, explaining the incriminating substance available on record, for which the accused denied and submitted that there is no evidence on his behalf.

3 of 9 C.C.No. 2342 OF 2022

8.Heard the learned A.P.P. and learned counsel for the Accused. Perused the entire material on record.

9.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the accused for the offences under Sections 325, 504 of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubts?

POINT:

10. The prosecution’s case is that accused has grievously hurt the informant, since he thought his cotton crop was damaged due to informant’s pigs. PW1 who is the informant and also an injured witness in this case, stated that accused came to his home and asked for his son. Then he informed that his son is at agricultural well, and then accused took his mobile and asked him to meet. Thereafter he and his son went near the agricultural fields of accused, where accused beat him and his son and abused in filthy language. Hence, PW1 sustained injuries on his chest, stomach and also blood oozed from his ear. He further stated that except his son, no one was present when the incident happened and that he was in

MGM hospital for 5 to 6 days and there after went to a private hospital for better treatment.

The defence counsel during cross examination, gave suggestion that

PW1 does not know the contents of Ex.P1/written information. However,

PW1 denied to the same. The defence theory is that PW1 himself fell down in 4 of 9 C.C.No. 2342 OF 2022 the agricultural field, since the passage was narrow. However, PW1 denied to such a suggestion and he did not resile from his statement during cross examination.

11. PW2, son of injured witness stated that he along with PW1 went to agricultural field of accused. Accused beat PW1 accusing that PW1’s pigs destroyed his agricultural field and as such PW1 sustained injury on his ear and stomach and bleeding from ear. When he tried to stop him, accused pushed him. He further stated that he took PW1 home after the incident and then to Police station and MGM hospital. And that accused also came there.

His testimony corroborates with that of PW1 and the chain of events form a complete chain. During arguments counsel mentioned that the testimony differs with that of his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C with respect to the fact that accused took PW’1 mobile phone. In 161 Cr.P.C statement, it was mentioned that “మా నాన్న� సెల్ ఫోన్ పోయి మరలా దొరికిన్నది". The same was admitted by PW2. However, this court opines that it is a minor discrepancy which does not decrease the credibility of witnesses. Further, it does not change the prosecution’s case that the accused did not commit offence.

12. Generally, the testimony of an injured witness is considered as vital. His evidence cannot be disregarded lightly unless there are major contradictions.

5 of 9 C.C.No. 2342 OF 2022

In the present case, the injured testimony is found cogent and hence this court opines that his evidence is wholly reliable. Moreover eye witness in this case, PW2 also corroborated with the statements of PW1. Further, he also stated that accused also came to MGM Hospital. This part of his deposition makes this court opine that he is a credible witness, since he did not hesitate in telling the fact which may be positive about the accused.

13. Though CDF panch/PW3 resiled from his statement and deposed that, no panchanama was conducted in his presence, this court opines that it alone cannot be sufficient to discard the entire case of prosecution. Even then, it would not complete nullify the prosecution’s theory because a panch witness may be vulnerable due to various reasons. Though, he has initially support the investigation he might turn hostile later because getting into witness box is a different thing from supporting investigation outside the court. Hence, this court opines that PW1 was hurted/injured by the accused.

14. To strengthen the case, PW4/doctor was examined and he stated that ear is a sensitive part and that there is no chance of fracture injury since ear has no bone. He further stated that such kind of injury can also occur if one falls on ground and if a bone gets fractured, injury is considered as grievous.

In Ex.P3 it is mentioned that the injury caused is bleeding from left ear, which is grievous in nature. However during cross examination the doctor 6 of 9 C.C.No. 2342 OF 2022 admitted that there is no fracture on ear and only if bone gets fractured injury is considered as grievous.

Section 325 of IPC postulates that:

325. Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt:—

Whoever, except in the case provided for by Section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Grievous hurt (defined in Section 320) refers to severe injuries beyond simple pain, including emasculation, loss of sight/hearing, loss of a body part/joint, permanent disfigurement, fracture of bone/tooth, or any injury endangering life or causing severe pain/incapacity for 20 days, distinguishing it from simpler forms of hurt.

In the present case, though the offence charged on accused is of under

Section 325 IPC, which is grievous hurt, this court opines; based on PW4’s oral testimony and also Ex.P3; that the offence occurred appears to be a simple hurt but not grievous. Though the investigating officer in this case did not get examined, this court opines that it is not fatal to the case of prosecution when the other evidence sufficiently proves the case. In the present case, the injured, eye witness and the doctor’s evidence proves the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt, that accused committed offence under section 323 IPC, but not under Section 325 IPC. Hence, this court opines that prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the offence under

Section 323 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.

7 of 9 C.C.No. 2342 OF 2022

15.Further, the entire oral evidence and documentary evidence was silent on how the accused actually insulted PW1 with intend to provoke breach of peace. The entire evidence was on the fact that accused beat PW1, but not for intentional insult to provoke breach of peace. Because, mere abuse is not enough, to constitute an offence under Section 504 IPC. It must be serious enough to incite a reaction. Hence, this court opines that offence under

Section 504 IPC was not proved in this case by the prosecution. Therefore in view of above discussion, accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC and found not guilty for the offence punishable under

Section 504 IPC.

16. In the result, theaccused is found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC, and accordingly he is convicted for the same under Section 255(2) Cr.P.C. Further accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 504 IPC and accordingly he is acquitted for the same under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after appeal period.

(Typed to my dictation by stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 19 th day of December, 2025.)

Sd/-

IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM-

IV ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

HANUMAKONDA.

uantum of Sentence: Q

17. The accused was questioned on quantum of sentence. Accused pleaded mercy that he is the sole bread winner of his family and that he has (03) 8 of 9 C.C.No. 2342 OF 2022 children. He submitted that he works as a private employee and earns a meager amount. He submitted his families hardships and pleaded mercy.

The nature of offence and the mode in which it was committed do not warrant the application of beneficial provision of Probation of Offenders Act.

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the situation of accused, and the time taken for trial this court opines that imprisonment is not necessary and hence, is inclined to take a lenient view. Hence, the court is inclined to impose fine, without imposing sentence of imprisonment in the interest of justice.

18. Therefore, accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- [Rupees Five

Hundred only] forthe offence under Section 323 IPC. In default of payment of fine, accused shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for ONE MONTH. The period of remand if any undergone by the accused shall be set off under

Section 428 Cr.P.C. The accused is informed of his right to prefer an appeal against the judgment of this court. Office is directed to provide a copy of judgment to accused forthwith.

(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 19 th day of December, 2025.)

Sd/-

IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM-

IV ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

HANUMAKONDA.

9 of 9 C.C.No. 2342 OF 2022

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE: PW1: A.Rajaiah -None- PW2: A.Laxman PW3: A. Prasanth PW4: Dr. Shravan Kumar

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1: Written Information. Ex.P2: Signature of PW3 on CDF panchanama Ex.P3: Medical certificate, dated 14.09.2015.

FOR DEFENCE: -Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-Nil-

Sd/-

IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM-

IV ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

HANUMAKONDA.

1 of 8 C.C.No. 751 OF 2025

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

IV ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

HANUMAKONDA

Monday, the 22nd day of December, 2025

Present: Smt Mohammed Fariha Ahmed,

IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- IV Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Hanumakonda.

C ALENDAR C ASE No. 751 OF 20 25

BETWEEN

The State represented through The Sub Inspector of Police, Elkathurthy Police Station.…Complainant AND

Asad Ali, S/o. Ibrahim, Age.37 years, Occ.Agriculture, R/o. Bafulamari Balagaon, Barpeta, Assam State, PIN Code:781319.

...Accused

This case is coming up before me for final hearing on 15.12.2025 in the presence of learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, for the Complainant; and of Sri T.Subash, Legal-Aid-Counsel for the accused, and after perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The present case pertaining to Crime No.28 of 2024 of P.S Elkathurthy is filed against the accused alleging that he has committed the offences punishable under Sections 420 of Indian Penal Code (herein after referred to as IPC) and Section 66D of Information Technology Act (I.T Act).

2.The brief averments of the prosecution’s case are that the informant received a call from accused’s mobile number 7674846504 to his mobile 2 of 8 C.C.No. 751 OF 2025 number 9963797310 and he asked his details for KYC updation. Accordingly, the accused sent him a link. Believing his words the informant opened the link and submitted his KYC details. Later, he came to know that his mobile phone got hacked and that the accused fraudulently got credit loan of total

Rs.2,90,133/- from his credit card. As such the informant lodged written information.

3.On receipt of the above written information, LW7/G.Raj Kumar, Sub

Inspector of police, P.S Elkathurthy registered a case in Crime No.28 of 2024 for the offences under Sections 420 of IPC, Section 66D of I.T Act. After completion of investigation, a police report was filed.

4. Cognizance was taken for the offences punishable under Sections 420 of

IPC, Section 66D of I.T Act, against the accused.

5. On appearance of the accused, copies were furnished to him under

Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code. The accused was examined under

Section 239 of Criminal Procedure Code and charges for the offences under

Sections 420 of IPC, Section 66D of I.T Act were framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu. For which, he denied the allegations levelled against him, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.On behalf of the prosecution, PW1 to PW6 were examined and Ex.P1 to

Ex.P5 were marked.

3 of 8 C.C.No. 751 OF 2025

7.After the prosecution evidence is closed, accused was examined under

Section 313 Cr.P.C, explaining the incriminating substance available on record, for which the accused denied and submitted that there is no evidence on his behalf.

8.Heard the learned A.P.P. and learned counsel for the Accused. Perused the entire material on record.

9.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the accused for the offences under Sections 420 of IPC, Section 66-D I.T Act, beyond all reasonable doubts?

POINT:

10. The case of the prosecution is that the accused has cheated the informant and committed a cyber crime in which an amount of Rs. 86,593/- was debited from the credit card of informant and also loan amount of

Rs.2,90,133/- was encashed through informant’s credit card. To support his case, the informant got examined himself as PW1 and he deposed that on 07.02.2024 he received phone call from mobile number 7674846504 from unknown person and the person asked for details of his SBI credit card for

KYC updation. Since the caller has disclosed the details of his date of birth, father’s name and his mobile number, PW1 believed and opened the link which was received to his mobile and furnished the credit card number and

CVV number. The caller asked the informant to enter OTP and accordingly,

PW1 entered the same. Later the informant noticed that an amount of 4 of 8 C.C.No. 751 OF 2025

Rs.86,593/- were debited from his credit card and also that an amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- and application fee of Rs.3,540/- were deducted from his credit card. Upon which he lodged written information/Ex.P1.

11. The case of the prosecution is that it was the accused committed cyber finance fraud. Section 420 of IPC postulates that:

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

Section 66D of Information Technology Act postulates that:-

66D - Punishment for cheating by personation by using

computer resource. Whoever, by means of any communication device or computer resource cheats by personation, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to one lakh rupees.

To prove an offence under both Sections 420 IPC and Section 66-D of I.T

Act, the prosecution has to first establish the identity of the accused before anything else. Through the oral testimony of PW1, this court can only draw conclusion that he received call from mobile No.7674846504. Identity of the person could not be disclosed by PW1 because he received a call from unknown person. PW2 and PW3 who are the circumstantial witnesses in 5 of 8 C.C.No. 751 OF 2025 this case, deposed similar to what PW1 stated in his evidence and no evidence has been adduced by them to prove the identity of accused. They merely stated that informant approached them and narrated about the incident.

12. PW4 is the Sub Inspector of police, who issued FIR in this case, based on the information given by PW1. PW5 is the investigating officer who stated that after the case was referred as undetectable, he came to know that accused was apprehended by Delhi Police, where the accused was linked with this offence. He further stated that he filed requisition for P.T Warrant and accordingly accused was produced before this court. He further admitted that the bank manager was not cited as witness in this case. He also stated that he has only mentioned the necessary facts in the charge sheet.

13. Moreover, PW6 who is the CI of police I.T cell, Warangal stated that he recorded the statement of PW1 and also conducted CDF panchanama. Later, he handed over the CD file to PW5.

14. Upon perusal of oral testimonies of PW4 to PW6, it appears to this court the police have not filed any document or any other evidence to link the accused to the alleged mobile number mentioned in Ex.P1. Though the police have mentioned in their charge sheet that on linking the said 6 of 8 C.C.No. 751 OF 2025 recovered SIM No.732706743 of the accused in CYCAPS application which was matched with the SIM bearing No.7674846504 which was previously used by the accused to call PW1. They came to know about accused, no proof or no procedure was narrated by the police as to how the CYCAPS application was used. No proof that the IMEI number of the SIM recovered from accused is connected with SIM number mentioned in Ex.P1 has been filed by police. Moreover, no document has been filed that loan was obtained from the LW1’s credit card and that amount was debited from is credit card.

Hence, it appears to this court that the police have miserably failed in conducting the investigation in this case. They have merely conducted the

CDF panchanama and recorded the statements of witnesses which they are routinely do in cases, other than cyber crime offence.

15. It is true that generally establishing the identity of accused in cyber crime cases is a little difficult than any other offences, but however, since the prosecution claims that Delhi police have conducted investigation in other cases and found that the accused whom they apprehended is linked with this case, the investigating officers in this case should have been more cautious and should have conducted a thorough investigation before filing the charge sheet in this case. Moreover, not even a single piece of evidence has been filed before this court to link the accused with the given SIM number in Ex.P1, not even the recovery of mobile phone from accused with its IMEI number has been proved before this court to link him in this case.

7 of 8 C.C.No. 751 OF 2025

Therefore, in view of above discussion, due to lack of evidence, this court opines that prosecution did not prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts.

16. In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 420 of IPC, Section 66D of I.T Act, and accordingly he is acquitted for the same under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after appeal period.

Jail authorities are directed to release the accused if he is not required in any other case or crime.

(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 22 nd day of December, 2025.)

Sd/-

IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM-

IV ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

HANUMAKONDA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE: PW1: B.Raju -None- PW2: G.Sammaiah PW3: B.Rajeshwar Rao PW4: G.Rajkumar PW5: P.Ramesh (I.O) PW6: A.Praveen Kumar (I.O)

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1: Written information Ex.P2: CDF panchanama Ex.P3: First Information Report Ex.P4: Memorandum from DCP Warangal to reopen the case 8 of 8 C.C.No. 751 OF 2025

Ex.P5: Memorandum by DCP Warangal to refer the case as undetectable.

FOR DEFENCE: -Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-Nil-

IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM-

IV ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

HANUMAKONDA.

1 of 8 C.C.No. 1129 OF 2020

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

IV ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

HANUMAKONDA

Monday, the 22nd day of December, 2025

Present: Smt Mohammed Fariha Ahmed, IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- IV Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Hanumakonda.

C ALENDAR C ASE No. 1129 OF 2020

BETWEEN

The State represented through The Sub Inspector of Police, Velair Police Station. … Complainant

AND

Purumari Raju, S/o.Venkataiah, Age.42 years, Occ.Agriculture, R/o. H.No.7-9/6B, Peechara Village, Velair Mandal, Warangal Urban.

... Accused

This case is coming up before me for final hearing on 15.12.2025 in the presence of learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, for the Complainant; and of Sri M.Naresh, Advocate for the accused, and after perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The present case pertaining to Crime No. 21 of 2020 of P.S. Velair is filed against the accused alleging that he has committed the offences punishable under Sections 354, 509 of Indian Penal Code (herein after referred to as IPC).

2.The case of prosecution in a nutshell is that the informant performed her daughter’s marriage with accused’s elder sister’s son by name Gali 2 of 8 C.C.No. 1129 OF 2020

Venkatesh. Further that, the accused was responsible for the disputes between her daughter and her son-in-law. Due to which her daughter was get divorced with her husband. Further that on 25.12.2019 the accused called to informant’s mobile phone when she was at agricultural well in

Shodashapally village and harassed her mentally by saying obscene words and with an intention to marry her asked her to come to Chilpur temple.

Thereafter again on 07.02.2020 while the informant was proceeding to attend Sammakka Jathara, accused misbehaved with informant and tried to outrage her modesty. As such she lodged written information.

3.On receipt of above information, LW12/T.Shravani, Sub Inspector of police, P.S Velair registered a case in Cr.No.21 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 509 IPC, and conducted investigation. After completion of investigation, a police report was filed.

4.Based on which, cognizance was taken for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 509 IPC against accused.

5.On appearance of the accused, copies were furnished to him under

Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code. The accused was examined under

Section 239 of Cr.P.C and charges for the offences under Sections 354, 509

IPC against accused were framed. To which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3 of 8 C.C.No. 1129 OF 2020

6.On behalf of the prosecution, PW1 to PW9 were examined and Ex.P1 to

Ex.P7 were marked.

7. After the prosecution evidence is closed, accused was examined under

Section 313 Cr.P.C, explaining the incriminating material available on record, for which the accused denied and submitted that there is no evidence on his behalf.

8.Heard the learned A.P.P. and learned counsel for the accused. Perused the entire material on record.

9.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the accused for the offences under Sections 354, 509 of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

10.The case of the prosecution is that accused sexually harassed the victim by putting his hand on her shoulder and tried to outrage her modesty.

PW1/victim got examined and deposed that the disputes arose between

PW6/victim’s daughter and her husband and that accused was responsible for the said disputes. Due to which PW6 got divorced from her husband.

She further stated that on 25.12.2019 accused called her to Chilpurgutta to marry him. The same was heard by LW2 and PW2, as the mobile was on speaker mode. After two months when she was proceeding to attend

Sammakka Jathara at Peechara Village, accused stopped her at the entrance 4 of 8 C.C.No. 1129 OF 2020 of Sammakka Gaddelu by putting his hands on her shoulder, he asked whether she purchased darshan ticket, thereby outraging her modesty.

Again after some days, at her agricultural fields, accused insisted her to come to Chilpurgutta to marry him and he further misbehaved with her by stating that her husband is suffering with ill-health since 10 years and is unfit for marital life.

During cross examination, she denied to all the allegations which were against the prosecution’s case. According to her 4 months delay in lodging information, because she was thinking about the future of her children.

11.PW4, husband of victim deposed that accused came near the agricultural field/well in Shodashapally village and asked his wife to marry him since he was unable to work and walk properly.

12.The accusation levelled is under Section 354 IPC. To prove an offence under Section 354 IPC, prosecution must establish that accused assaulted/used criminal force to outrage the modesty of woman. In the present case, though the victim stated about the accused calling him and talking indecently and coming to the agricultural well to ask her to marry him, this court opines that it does not constitute offence under Section 354

IPC because no assault/criminal force was used. The incident which allegedly occurred near Jathara that accused has put his hand on victim to outrage her modesty has to be proved by the prosecution in this case.

5 of 8 C.C.No. 1129 OF 2020

13.PW2, is a direct witness, who as per prosecution overheard the conversation of accused. She stated that PW1 received a phone call from accused and that she overheard accused demanding PW1 to come to

Chilpurgutta to marry him, as the husband of PW1 was suffering from ill- health. She did not resile from her statement during cross examination, but admitted that she came to court along with PW1.

However, she was silent on the incident occurred near Jathara. She merely stated that accused called PW1 and demanded to marry him. PW6 daughter of victim deposed that during Jathara in Peechara village accused approached her mother and spoke to her in indecent manner by putting his hand. However, PW4, husband of victim stated that accused came near agricultural well in Shodashapally village and asked his wife to marry him.

He too was silent on the alleged incident occurred near Jathara. Moreover,

PW5 a circumstantial witness stated that PW1 informed him about the alleged incident. Hence, it appears that PW5’s evidence is a hearsay one.

Further PW3, PW7 and PW8 are circumstantial witnesses and panch witnesses resiled from their statements and did not support the case of prosecution.

14.Hence, based on the oral testimonies, it appears to this court that except for the victim and her daughter, no other witness other than

Investigating Officer/PW9 has adduced a cogent evidence on the incident occurred near Jathara. Only PW1/victim and PW6 deposed about the 6 of 8 C.C.No. 1129 OF 2020 sexual harassment met by her. The circumstantial witnesses/ did not utter a single word about the incident occurred near Jathara. Though, the victim and her daughter stated that accused has put his hand on PW1 near

Jathara, this court opines that solely based on their oral evidences conviction cannot be awarded. It is because, this court opines that PW6 can be interested witness, since according to her mother/victim, she got divorced due to accused. Hence, in such circumstances, this court opines that corroboration is required. However, in the present case, no such corroboration is found based on the oral testimonies of PW2 to PW5, PW7,

PW8.

15.Generally, in offences related to woman, victim’s testimony alone is sufficient to prove the guilt if the victim is credible and reliable. However, in the present case, the counsel for accused argued that, this case was filed on false grounds against the accused, since the victim’s family thought it was due to accused, PW1’s daughter got divorced. The witness though did not admit that this case was lodged on false grounds, they admitted that accused was responsible for the divorce of PW’1 daughter. Hence, it appears that the case of prosecution is weakened by this admission.

16.Moreover there is a delay of four months in lodging the information.

The same was admitted by investigating officer/PW9 and PW1. The explanation given by PW1 for it was that she was thinking about the future 7 of 8 C.C.No. 1129 OF 2020 of her children. However, that alone is not satisfactory and a clear explanation. More particularly, when there is an inordinate delay of four months and also, when the PW1’s family and accused have previous altercations. Hence, this court opines that accused can be given a benefit of doubt. Therefore, in view of above discussion, this court opines that the prosecution could not prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the point is answered against the prosecution.

17. In the result, theaccused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 509 of IPC and accordingly he is acquitted for the same under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after appeal period.

(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 22 nd day of December, 2025.)

Sd/-

IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM-

IV ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

HANUMAKONDA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE:

PW1: N.Rajitha -None- PW2: G.Sathavva PW3: M.Ravinder PW4: N.Raja Komuraiah PW5: J.Persaiah PW6: G.Ramya PW7: M. Nagaraju PW8: K.Rajaiah 8 of 8 C.C.No. 1129 OF 2020

PW9: T.Shravani (I.O)

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1: Complaint Ex.P2: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3 Ex.P3: Signature of PW7 on CDF panchanama, dated 20.03.2020 Ex.P4: Signature of PW8 on CDF panchanama near peechara village Ex.P5: First Information Report Ex.P6: CDF Panchanama, dated 20.03.2020 Ex.P7: CDF panchanama at the outskirts of Peechara village.

FOR DEFENCE: -Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS

- NIL -

Sd/-

IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM-

IV ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

HANUMAKONDA.

1 of 7 C.C.No. 3143 OF 2018

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

IV ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

HANUMAKONDA

Saturday, the 20th day of December, 2025

Present: Smt Mohammed Fariha Ahmed,

IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- IV Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Hanumakonda.

C ALENDAR C ASE No. 3143 OF 2018

BETWEEN

The State represented through The Sub Inspector of Police, Velair Police Station. … Complainant AND

A1- Sripathi Ramesh, S/o.Sailu, Age.34 years, Occ.Agriculture, A2- Sripathi Bixapathi, S/o.Venkataiah, Age.32 years, Occ.Agriculture A3- Battula Ajay, S/o.Rajaiah, Age.28 years, Occ.Agriculture All are R/o.Gollakrishtampally Village of Velair Mandal.

... Accused

This case is coming up before me for final hearing on 03.12.2025 in the presence of learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, for the Complainant; and of Sri A.Sambaiah, Advocate for the accused, and after perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The present case pertaining to Crime No.114 of 2018 of P.S Velair is filed against the accused alleging that they have committed the offences punishable under Sections 341, 294(b) r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (referred to as IPC hereinafter).

2.The case of prosecution in a nutshell is that on 05.11.2018 in view of elections, when Ex-MLA Sri T.Rajaiah was proceeding to his village in his 2 of 7 C.C.No. 3143 OF 2018 vehicle in order to canvass, accused wrongfully restrained his vehicle on CC road at the outskirts of village and did not allow him to go into the village for canvassing. As such LW1/Informant lodged written information.

3.Based on the above information, LW8/E.Veerabhadra Rao, Sub

Inspector of police, registered a case in Cr.No.114 of 2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 294(b) r/w 34 IPC, and conducted investigation. After completion of investigation, a police report was filed.

4.Based on which cognizance was taken for the offences punishable under Section 341, 294(b) r/w 34 of IPC against the accused. On appearance of the accused, copies were furnished to him under Section 207 of Criminal

Procedure Code. The accused were examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C in which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined PW1 to PW5, got Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 marked.

5.After the prosecution evidence is closed, accused were examined under

Section 313 Cr.P.C, explaining the incriminating material available on record.

To which the accused denied and submitted that there is no evidence on their behalf.

6.Heard the learned A.P.P. and learned counsel for the accused. Perused the entire material on record.

3 of 7 C.C.No. 3143 OF 2018

7.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 294(b) r/w 34 of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt?

8.POINT: The case of the prosecution is that on 05.11.2018 A1 to A3 wrongfully restrained and obstructed the vehicle of T.Rajaiah at the outskirts of Gollakrishtampally village and did not allow him to canvass. To support the case of prosecution, PW1 to PW3 got examined who were cited as the eye witnesses to the scene of offence. PW1 deposed that A1 to A3 wrongfully restrained and obstructed the vehicle of said MLA T.Rajaiah and at that time

PW2, PW3, LW2/Chetkuri Peddapuram and LW4/Battula Raju were present.

Further that A1 to A3 also abused him.

During his cross examination, he admitted that the accused belong to

Congress-I party and that there were approximately 50 members at the alleged place of incident. He further admitted that he did not mention the exact abusive words in Ex.P1 which is the written information.

9.PW2 another eye witness also deposed similar to PW1 and he also admitted that approximately there were 50 members present at the time of alleged incident. However, another eye witness as cited by the police i.e.,

PW3 stated before this court that even though alleged incident did not occur,

T.Rajaiah got filed this case against A1 to A3 that they have wrongfully restrained him. He further stated that the police have written his name but 4 of 7 C.C.No. 3143 OF 2018 did not record his statement. He also admitted that PW1 belong to TRS party and A1 to A3 belong to Congress-I party.

10.To prove the offence under Section 341 IPC, the prosecution must establish that the person was deprived of his liberty due to the obstruction caused by the accused. Moreover, the prosecution should also prove that the person obstructed has a right of way over the said land. In the present case, it is evident that the alleged offence took place on a CC Road, since it is supported by the panch/PW4 for CDF who deposed that police Velair conducted scene observation panchanama in his presence. Therefore, the prosecution through Ex.P2 and also oral testimonies of witnesses has proved that the victim i.e., MLA Rajaiah has a right of way over the said land because it is public road. However, the prosecution should also prove that the accused intentionally obstructed his path. The word obstruction can be interpreted that the other persons made the victim’s way impossible or dangerous to proceed.

11.In the present case, as per the version of PW1 and PW2 the accused

A1 to A3 have obstructed the vehicle of T.Rajaiah. Furthermore, since they admitted that it was a campaign and that there were 50 other members were present, it does not seem possible to this court that A1 to A3 without any vehicle or other means can obstruct a rally of so many supporters. However, as rightly pointed out by the defence counsel it is not very easy for a person 5 of 7 C.C.No. 3143 OF 2018 to obstruct any rally of a political leader since there would be several police personnel. Moreover, in this case PW3 who is another eye witness resiled from his statement and deposed that even though no incident was occurred, an allegation was raised against A1 to A3.

12.Furthermore, according to PW1 to PW3, the accused belong to

Congress-I party and the victim belongs to BRS party. Hence it also appears to this court that there might be a chance to falsely implicate the accused since they belong to the opposition party. Moreover, the police did not file any photographs or did not adduce any other cogent evidence to substantiate their case. Though, PW1 and PW2 deposed that there were other persons present at the scene of offence and that photographs were captured at scene of offence, nothing was filed before this court which in turn raises a doubt.

Though the investigating officer got examined as PW5, he deposed evidence in similar lines of charge sheet and he too did not adduce any cogent evidence to narrate as to how the accused wrongfully restrained the said

MLA’s Rally. Therefore, since the prosecution could not narrate the particulars of obstruction such as from when and through what mode the accused have obstructed and wrongfully restrained the victim, a conclusion that the victims way was impossible or difficult to proceed cannot be drawn.

13.Moreover, as admitted by the witnesses they did not mention as to what obscene words or acts were used by the accused at the time of offence, 6 of 7 C.C.No. 3143 OF 2018 this court cannot come to a conclusion that their mere oral assertions have been substantiated by any evidence. Further during the examination under

Section 313 Cr.P.C one of the accused submitted to this court that they merely requested the victim for roads and that they restrained his way. With this submission by the accused it appears to this court that his intention to voluntarily obstruct the way of MLA also is in doubt. Hence, it is safe to conclude that the prosecution could not prove the guilt of the accused, beyond all reasonable doubt, for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 294(b) r/w 34 IPC.

14. In the result, A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 294(b) r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, and accordingly they are acquitted for the same under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after appeal period.

(Dictated to stenographer, after her transcription, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 20 th day of December, 2025.)

Sd/-

IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM-

IV ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

HANUMAKONDA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE: PW1: B.SrinivasNone PW2: J.Raju PW3: B.Thirupathi PW4: J.Shiva Kumar PW5: E. Veerabhadra Rao (I.O) 7 of 7 C.C.No. 3143 OF 2018

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1: Report Ex.P2: Scene Observation panchanama Ex.P3: First Information Report.

FOR DEFENCE: -Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS: - NIL -

Sd/-

IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM-

IV ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

HANUMAKONDA.

1 OF 6O.S.No. 1911 OF 2022

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

IV ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

HANUMAKONDA.

Thursday, the 12th day of September, 2024

Present: Smt. Mohd. Fariha Ahmed,

IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Hanumakonda.

O.S. No. 1911 OF 2022

BETWEEN:

Kummari Praveen Kumar, S/o.Jaganadham, Age.38 years, Occ.Pvt. Teacher, R/o.H.No.25-1-102, Somidi Kazipet, Warangal District.

... Plaintiff.

A N D

Kummari Mahesh Babu, S/o.Late Rajaiah, Age.35 years, Occ.Govt. Employee, R/o.H.No.25-1-222, Somidi, Kazipet, Warangal Urban District. … Defendant.

This suit is coming up before me for final hearing on 05.09.2024 in the presence of Sri Ch.Swamynathan, Advocate for Plaintiff, and the Defendant remained exparte and upon hearing, and on perusing the material on record and having the matter stood over for consideration, this Court has delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant seeking grant of decree, directing the defendant to execute registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff in respect of suit schedule property as per the agreement of sale dated 05.10.2018 and in case, the defendant failed to execute the sale deed, the Hon’ble court may be executed on behalf of defendant in respect of suit schedule property; and if the performance is beyond the control of parties, pass a decree for 2 OF 6O.S.No. 1911 OF 2022

Rs.22,500/- against the person and property of the defendants towards refund of the amount received from the plaintiff for part sale consideration and Rs.5,00,000/- towards the damages for breach of contract.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that :

The plaintiff and defendant are the close relatives as the father of plaintiff and defendant are natural brothers. In view of close relationship the plaintiff has agreed to purchase the property. The defendant expressed his intention to sell the suit schedule property and accordingly both the plaintiff and defendant has negotiated the terms and conditions and total consideration was fixed at Rs.7,500/- per gunta and total land consideration of Rs.22,500/- and the same was reduced into writing on 05.10.2018 on a Rs.20/- Non Judicial stamp paper in presence of witnesses, and that the plaintiff paid total sale consideration of Rs.222,500/- to the defendant.

Therefore the plaintiff several times approached the defendant to executed registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff. Even after sufficient opportunities, the defendant did not come forward to fulfill his part of contract and violated the terms and conditions of agreement of sale dated 05.10.2018. Further the plaintiff verified the pahanies and found that only Ac.0-02 gts are available in Sy.No.106.

Thus the defendant cheated the plaintiff and executed notarized 3 OF 6O.S.No. 1911 OF 2022 agreement of sale in favour of plaintiff. Further, the plaintiff demanded the defendant for several times to register the suit schedule property and expressed his willingness to get the property registered in his name, but the defendant always dodged the matter on pretext or the other. Thereafter the plaintiff got issued legal notice on 14.11.2019, the defendant received the same and got issued reply notice with all false allegations. Thus the plaintiff has no option except to seek the help of the Hon’ble Court. Hence, the suit.

3.Summons was served on the defendant. But he did into choose to appear before the court. Hence he was set exparte.

4.Now the point for consideration is:

(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of specific performance of contract dated 05.10.2018 as prayed for (Or) in alternative to pass a decree fro Rs.22,500/- towards refund of the amount received from the plaintiff towards part of sale consideration and Rs.5,00,000/- towards the damages for breach of contract?

(ii)To what relief?

5.Heard the learned counsel for plaintiff and perused the entire material on record.

6.During the course of trial, plaintiff got himself examined as

PW1 and got Exs.A1 to A5 marked through himself.

4 OF 6O.S.No. 1911 OF 2022

Point No.1

7.This court having regard to the pleadings in it’s entirety and the evidences brought on record, considers that the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of contract.

8.The document Ex.A1 is the Notarized agreement of sale, dated 05.10.2018 and the Ex.A4 is True copy of Pahanis for the years 2009- 10, 2006-07, 1995-96. Upon careful examination, this court found that the father’s name of defendant is shown as the owner of the suit schedule property in Ex.A4 and Ex.A5. The plaintiff, though, stated that the suit schedule property belongs to the defendant, no evidence has been brought before this court to prove the said mutation or conveyance of suit schedule property to the defendant.

Hence, this court opines to safely conclude that the defendant is not absolute owner and has tittle over the suit schedule property, and that the principle expressed in old maxim, nemo dat quod non habet, will apply. Furthermore, the burden is on the plaintiff to show that the defendant is in a position to sell the property in favour of the plaintiff.

Since, he has not discharged it, this Court opines that, specific performance of the contract cannot be granted. Though the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of contract, since the agreement of sale is held unenforceable, point No.1 is answered partially against plaintiff.

5 OF 6O.S.No. 1911 OF 2022

9.The learned counsel for plaintiff prayed this court that a decree be passed for refund of the amount received from the plaintiff towards sale consideration and also Rs.5,00,000/- towards the damages for breach of contract. Ex.A1 clearly shows that the plaintiff has paid Rs.22,500/- to the defendant towards total sale consideration, and as the defendant remained exparte, the said evidence remained unrebutted and unchallenged. Since the agreement of sale itself does not create any interest or charge in the property, this court decides to grant refund of earnest money without creating any charge over the suit schedule property.

Point No.2:

10.Though in Ex.A1 there is no mention about the interest on earnest money, considering the fact that the relief under specific performance is an equitable relief and that the agreement of sale cannot be enforced, this court opines that awarding of interest of

Rs.9 % per annum to the plaintiff would meet the ends of justice.

11.In the result, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of specific performance but he is entitled to the relief of return of sale consideration of Rs.22,500/- and the suit is decreed partly with costs and the defendant is directed to pay to the plaintiff, the sale consideration of Rs.22,500/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of execution of sale agreement to till filing of suit, and 6 OF 6O.S.No. 1911 OF 2022 the future interest is awarded @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit, till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization, on sale consideration of Rs.22,500/-.

(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 12th day of September, 2024)

Sd/-

IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM-

IV ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

HANUMAKONDA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff:- For Defendant:

PW1: K. Praveen Kumar-None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff: Ex.A1 : Notarized Sale agreement dated 05.10.2018 Ex.A2 : Office copy of legal notice dated 14.11.2019 Ex.A3 : Office copy of reply notice dated 20.11.2019 Ex.A4 : True copy of pahani for the years 2009-10, 2006-07, 1995-96 Ex.A5 : Copy of 1-B Namuna.

For Defendant:- -Nil-

Sd/-

IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM-

IV ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

HANUMAKONDA