Mohd Abdul Javeed Pasha

1 CC No.351/2015

IN THE COURT OF THE II-ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT NIZAMABAD

Present: Sri Mohd.Abdul Javeed Pasha, II-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad

Dated this the 23rd day of April, 2018

C.C. No. 351 of 2015

Between: The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, P. S.Navipet …Complainant // AND //

Mohammed Moizuddin S/o Aktharuddin, Age:28yrs, Occ: Business and Press Reporter R/o Subhash Nagar of Navipet

...Accused

This case is coming before me on this the 18th day of April, 2018 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri.Mohd Khasim, Counsel for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The accused has arraigned before this Court for the offences punishable u/s 290,323 and 506 of Indian Penal Code.

2.The brief averments of the charge sheet are as follows:

(a) The Sub Inspector of Police, Navipet Police Station has filed the charge sheet against the accused alleging therein that the defacto complainant/Syed

Khader eking livelihood by driving an auto in Navipet area, as usual on 4.7.2015 in the morning hours he left from the house on his auto in the meantime Shiak

Kareem requested him to drop at Navipet ZPHS for vote of 10th ward member bye elections, as he was suffering from ill-health and unable to walk. On his request, the defacto complainant allowed him to sit in his auto and went to

Navipet bus stand then the said Shaik Kareem went for voting, then the defacto complainant waiting for him to drop at his house. In the meantime, accused who was the reporter in Andhra Prabha news bulletin picked up quarrel with him by saying “what you are doing here and why you came here” and abused him in filthy language, beat with hands and threatened him with dire consequences to kill him if he did not vacate that place.

(b) Basing on the report of the defacto complainant, Sri T.Venu Gopal, the then

Sub-Inspector of Police, Navipet Police Station registered this case vide Crime

No. 83 of 2015 and took-up the investigation.

2 CC No.351/2015

(c)During the course of investigation, the Sub-Inspector of Police examined and recorded the statements of witnesses, visited the scene of offence and conducted the scene of offence panchanama in the presence of mediators. On 28.7.2015 he issued notice to the accused u/s 41-A Cr.P.C After completion of investigation, filed the charge sheet against the accused.

3.This case was taken cognizance against the accused for the offences punishable u/s 290,323 and 506 of Indian Penal Code.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of the case records were furnished to him as required u/s 207 Cr.P.C.

5.Accused was examined u/s 251 Cr.P.C for the offences punishable u/s 290, 323 and 506 of IPC, the substance of the accusation was read over to the accused in telugu language for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, prosecution examined Pws.1 to 7 and got marked

Ex.P1 to P5 on behalf of the prosecution & Ex.D1 on behalf of the accused.. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard arguments.

8.Now the point that arises for consideration herein is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all

reasonable doubt for the above said offences?

POINT:

9.Unfolding the case of the prosecution, Pw1 testified that on 4.7.2015 when he was going to bus stand, Navipet by taking his auto from his house on the way, Kareem stopped the auto and asked him to drop near to bus stand as he was going for casting vote for Gram Panchayat elections. Upon seeing the condition of Kareem as he was suffering from ill-health hence he showed mercy and allowed him to sit in his auto and accepted to drop him near to the bus stand. Pw1 further deposed that when he dropped him near to the bus stand, the said Kareem asked him to wait for five to ten minutes as he will return back, meanwhile accused came to that place beat him with his hands on his stomach by threatening him as he will kill him by using very filthy language. When the Pw1 asking the reason why he was beating him, the accused did not give reply but just threatened him. Later Pw1 complained the matter to the police under Ex.P1.

3 CC No.351/2015

10.Pws2,3 and 5 are the said to be the witnesses to the case of the prosecution;

Pws4 and 6 are said to be the panch witnesses for the scene of offence panchanama stated to have not acted as such; Pw7 is the Investigating Officer who investigated this crime.

11.Coming to the appreciation of evidence of material on record, the case of the prosecution is that on 4.7.2015 accused assaulted the Pw1 with hands, abused him in filthy language and also threatened him with dire consequences. In this case, Pw1 who is the defacto complainant stated that accused came and beat him without any reason.

During his evidence, he categorically stated that when he asked the reason for beating to him but accused not gave any reply to him rather threatened him. It is not the case of the Pw1 is that he has any previous enmity with the accused. No motive is assigned for commission of this offence.

12.Pw2 deposed that on 4.7.2015 when Pw1 was going in his auto then he asked the Pw1 to drop him at the school for casting the vote. As per his request, Pw1 dropped him near to the school after that Pw1 and accused both quarreling and fighting each other and beating each other with hands. But he does not know for what purpose they were quarreling and fighting to each other. This evidence of Pw2 makes it clear that on the date of this incident accused and Pw1 both quarreled each other and beat each other. This evidence of Pw2 that Pw1 and accused beat each other is falsifying the evidence of Pw1 as Pw1 did not state anything about the quarreling and beating between him and accused but his version is that when he was waiting for the Pw2 accused came and beat him without any reason, even not revealed the reason upon his asking.

13.Pw5, who is said to be the eye witness deposed that he separated the accused and Pw1 but Pw1 not spoken that on the date of this incident while accused was beating him Pw5 rescued him. It is also pertinent to note that Pw1 during his cross examination stated that at the time of this incident Pw2,3 and 5 witnessed the same but did not mention the said fact either in his chief examination or in the Ex.P1 report, which is the earliest form of information about the commission of this offence. But, first time during his cross examination he stated about the presence of the Pws2,3 and 5. Admittedly, there are hotels and pan shops near to the scene of offence but the Investigating Officer not examined any of such owners, workers in the hotels and pan shops. All these circumstances are raising the cloud of suspicion over the case of the prosecution hence under these circumstances benefit of doubt goes in favour of the accused.

4 CC No.351/2015

14.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, material placed before this court and in view of my above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to extend benefit of doubt to the accused. Point is accordingly answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

15.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable u/s 290,323 and 506 of Indian Penal Code and he is acquitted under Section 255(1) of

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months from today as per Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 23rd day of April, 2018.

Sd/-

II-ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NIZAMABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

PROSECUTION ACCUSED

PW1: Syed Khader -Nil-

PW2: Shaik Kareem

PW3: Syed Farooq Hussain

PW4: Syed Khaja

PW5: Syed Afsar

PW6: Md.Majaz

PW7: T.Venugopal

EXHIBITS MARKED

PROSECUTION ACCUSED

Ex.P1:Report presented to the policeEx.D1: Some portion of 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw2 Ex.P2:S.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW3

Ex.P3:Signature of PW6 on Crime Details Form

Ex.P4:First Information Report

Ex.P5:Crime Details Form

MATERIAL OBJECTS

PROSECUTION ACCUSED

-NIL- -NIL-

Sd/-

II-ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NIZAMABAD

1CC No.290/2015

IN THE COURT OF THE II-ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT NIZAMABAD

Present: Sri Mohd.Abdul Javeed Pasha, II-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad

Dated this the 24th day of April, 2018

C.C. No. 290 of 2015

Between: The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, P. S. Dichpally …Complainant // AND //

Sudha Chandra Shekar S/o Eshwaraiah, Age:38yrs, Occ: Driver; R/o Papampeta of Anantapur district.

...Accused

This case is coming before me on this the 23rd day of April, 2018 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri.P.Kiran Kumar Goud,Counsel for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The accused has arraigned before this Court for the offence punishable u/s 304-A of Indian Penal Code.

2.The brief averments of the charge sheet are as follows:

(a) The Sub Inspector of Police, Dichpally Police Station has filed the charge sheet against the accused alleging therein that on 27.3.2015 in the morning hours Sudha Prasad(deceased) went to Kamareddy in his Tata Ace Zip bearing no. AP 25 x 8396 with Laddus and after supplying the Laddus in Kamareddy,

Sudha Prasad on his way to Nizamabad in his vehicle when he reached

Chandrayanpally village shivaru on NH 44 road suddenly he dashed to the lorry bearing No.KA 40 3547 which was parked by the accused negligently on the road without any precautionary measures. As a result, Sudha Prasad received injuries to his both legs and other parts of the body and later shifted to

Government Hospital, Nizamabad in an ambulance and upon the advise of the

Doctors he was shifted to Yashodha Hospital, Secunderabad and on 2.4.2015 he succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment.

2CC No.290/2015

(b) Basing on the report of the defacto complainant, Sri Sk.Mujeeb-Ur-Rahman, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Dichpally Police Station registered this case vide Crime No. 78 of 2015 u/s 338 of Indian Penal Code and took-up the investigation.

(c)During the course of investigation, the Sub-Inspector of Police examined and recorded the statements of witnesses, visited the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama before the mediators. Later upon the death information of the injured he altered the section of law to 304-A IPC, rushed to the Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad conducted inquest over the body of the deceased and subjected the same for Post Mortem Examination. On 10.4.2015 he issued notice to the accused u/s 41-A Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation, filed the charge sheet against the accused.

3.This case was taken cognizance against the accused for the offence punishable u/s 304-A of Indian Penal Code.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of the case records were furnished to him as required u/s 207 Cr.P.C.

5.Accused was examined u/s 251 Cr.P.C for the offence punishable u/s 304-A IPC, the substance of the accusation was read over to the accused in Telugu language for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, prosecution examined Pws.1 to 3 and got marked

Ex.P1 to P6 on behalf of the prosecution. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard arguments.

8.Now the point that arises for consideration herein is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all

reasonable doubt for the above said offence?

POINT:

9.Unfolding the case of the prosecution, Pw1 deposed that the deceased/Sudha

Prasad is his neighbour, on 27.3.2015 he received a phone call from the police with the mobile number of the deceased/Sudha Prasad as he met with an accident by hitting to a stationed lorry at Chandrayanpally village shivaru. On the date of this incident,

Sudha Prasad was proceeding in TATA Ace jeep and for the purpose of his business went to Kamareddy and while returning to Achanpally at Chandrayanpally village 3CC No.290/2015 shivaru he met with this accident. Immediately after receipt of such phone call, he informed to his family members then himself and his family members went to the

Government Hospital, Nizamabad and by the time they went there Sudha Prasad was full of injuries to his legs, face and other parts of the body. Later he was shifted to the

Yashoda Hospital, Secunderabad for better medical treatment and after shifting him to the hospital he complained the matter to the police under Ex.P1. He further deposed that after two days he came to know that the injured/Sudha Prasad succumbed to the injuries later he came to know the reason for this accident was the lorry bearing no.

3547 of Karanataka Registration which was stationed on the road without any precautionary measures but he does not know who parked the lorry at the said place.

10.Pw2 is the brother of the injured seeks to corroborate the testimony of the Pw1 with regard to this accident; Pw3 is the Investigating Officer who investigated this crime.

11.Coming to the appreciation of evidence of material on record, the case of the prosecution is that on 27.3.2015 accused being the driver of the crime vehicle negligently parked the same on NH 44 road of Chandrayanpally village shivaru without taking any precautionary measures and without any parking signals, due to which

Sudha Prasad who was proceeding towards that road in his Tata Ace jeep bearing no.

AP 25 X 8396 dashed against the lorry, sustained the injuries and while undergoing treatment succumbed to the injuries. In this case, Pw1 who is the defacto complainant and who is the neighbour to the house of the deceased narrated the version of the prosecution in the vivid manner with regard to this unfortunate event and death of

Sudha Prasad in the said accident. As per the version of Pw1, he went to the scene of offence upon the information of police and later came to the reason for this accident as crime vehicle was stationed on the road without any precautionary measures. During his evidence, Pw1 categorically stated that he does not know who parked the lorry i.e., crime vehicle in the said place. Pw2 who is the brother of the deceased also deposed that upon the information over phone call about the death of his brother they rushed to the Government Hospital, Nizamabad and while undergoing treatment his brother succumbed to the injuries. Pw2 also stated that the reason for the accident was one lorry bearing no. 3547 of Karnataka state which was parked without any precautions but he also categorically stated he does not know who was the driver of the said lorry.

During his cross examination also he specifically stated he has not personally witnessed the accident. On perusal of the evidence of Pws1 and 2, it is evident that they are not the eye witnesses to the case of the prosecution but they came to know about the accident upon the information over phone. Pw3, the Investigating Officer deposed about the manner of conducting of investigation after registering of this crime.

4CC No.290/2015

12.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, material placed before this court and in view of my above discussion, it can be said that the evidence on record is not sufficient to sustain the conviction against the accused, hence the accused is entitled for acquittal. Point is accordingly answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

13.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/s 304-A of Indian Penal Code and he is acquitted under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months from today as per Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 24th day of April, 2018.

Sd/-

II-ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NIZAMABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

PROSECUTION ACCUSED

PW1: L.Sai Kiran-Nil-

PW2: S.Naresh

PW3: Sk.Mujeeb-Ur-Rahman

EXHIBITS MARKED

PROSECUTION ACCUSED

Ex.P1:Report presented to the police Ex.P2:First Information Report

Ex.P3:Crime Details Form Ex.P4: Inquest panchanama Ex.P5: Post Mortem Examination Report Ex.P6:Motor Vehicle Inspector’s Report

MATERIAL OBJECTS

PROSECUTION ACCUSED

-NIL- -NIL-

Sd/-

II-ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NIZAMABAD

1CC No.8/2016

IN THE COURT OF THE II-ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT NIZAMABAD

Present: Sri Mohd.Abdul Javeed Pasha, II-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad

Dated this the 24th day of April, 2018

C.C. No. 8 of 2016

Between: The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, P. S. Navipet …Complainant // AND //

Meer Saab @ Wahed Baig S/o Moinuddin @ Yakub Saab, Age: 40yrs, Occ: RTC Driver R/o 4-102, Mahagoan, Bhainsa Mandal, Adilabad Dist.

...Accused

This case is coming before me on this the 23rd day of April, 2018 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri.D.Narender Reddy, Counsel for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The accused has arraigned before this Court for the offence punishable u/s 304-A of Indian Penal Code.

2.The brief averments of the charge sheet are as follows:

(a) The Sub Inspector of Police, Navipet Police Station has filed the charge sheet against the accused alleging therein that on 15.10.2015 at 1900 hours

Shakhavar Laxman left from the house to go to Nizamabad and at 1930 hours while he was entering into the Navipet bus stand in the mean time the accused being the driver of RTC Bus bearing no. AP 01 V 7854 of Bhainsa Depot drove the bus in negligent manner and dashed to Shakhavar Laxman. Due to which he fell on the ground and the wheels of the bus run over from the head of the deceased, resulting severe head injury to him and died on the spot.

(b) Basing on the report of the defacto complainant, Sri T.Venu Gopal, the then

Sub-Inspector of Police, Navipet Police Station registered this case vide Crime

No. 133 of 2015 u/s 304-A of Indian Penal Code and took-up the investigation.

2CC No.8/2016

(c)During the course of investigation, the Sub-Inspector of Police examined and recorded the statements of witnesses, conducted scene of offence panchanama, held inquest over the body of the deceased and subjected the same for Post Mortem Examination. On 17.10.2015 at 1800 hours accused surrendered before the Sub Inspector by voluntarily confessing to have committed this offence and later upon furnishing sureties he was released on bail. After completion of investigation, filed the charge sheet against the accused.

3.This case was taken cognizance against the accused for the offence punishable u/s 304-A of Indian Penal Code.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of the case records were furnished to him as required u/s 207 Cr.P.C.

5.Accused was examined u/s 251 Cr.P.C for the offence punishable u/s 304-A IPC, the substance of the accusation was read over to him in Telugu language for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, prosecution examined Pws.1 to 5 and got marked

Ex.P1 and P2 on behalf of the prosecution. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard arguments.

8.Now the point that arises for consideration herein is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all

reasonable doubt for the above said offence?

POINT:

9.Unfolding the case of the prosecution, Pw1 testified that thedeceased/Laxman is his father, on 15.10.2015 after seeing them at Navipet his father was returning to

Nizamabad for that he came to Bus stand, Navipet. While he was entering into the bus stand, one RTC Bus of Bhainsa Depot which was coming into the bus stand in a speed and negligent manner dashed against his father, as the bus tyres were went on the head of his father hence brain came out and he died on the spot. Upon the information of his friend/Srinivas Goud he rushed to the scene of offence and found the dead body of his father. Pw1 further deposed that after dashing his father, the driver of the bus without stopping the bus proceeded from that place but later upon enquiry by the department officials the number of the bus was traced as AP 01 V 7854. The reason 3CC No.8/2016 for this accident was the negligent driving of the driver of the bus but he does not know who was the driver of the bus at the time of this accident. Later he complained the matter to the police under Ex.P1.

10.Pws 2 to 4 are projected eye witnesses to the case of the prosecution; Pw5 is the Medical Officer who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased.

11.Coming to the appreciation of evidence of material on record, the case of the prosecution is that on 15.10.2015 when Shakhavar Laxman was coming to the bus stand, Navipet to go to Nizamabad meanwhile accused being the driver of the crime vehicle i.e., RTC bus drove the same in a negligent manner due to which the bus was ran over from his head resulting spot death. In this case, Pw1 who is the defacto complainant and who is son of the deceased narrated the version of the prosecution in the vivid manner with regard to the accident to his father and death of his father in the said accident but as per the version of Pw1 he went to the scene of offence upon the information of his friend/Srinivas Goud i.e., Pw3. Pw1 categorically stated that the reason for the accident was the negligent driving of the driver of the bus AP 01 V 7854 but he does not know who was the driver of the bus at the time of this accident. Pws2 to 4 who are said to be the eye witnesses to the case of the prosecution though stated that the reason for the accident was the bus which was proceeded in the speed and negligent manner but in a consistent manner deposed that they do not know who was the driver of the bus at the time of this accident as the bus was proceeded without stopping. On careful perusal of the evidence of Pws2 to 4 though they whispered about the rash and negligent act but did not state anything with regard to identity of the driver of the crime vehicle Pws 2 to 4 not deposed any incriminating against the accused as he was driver of the crime vehicle on the date of this accident. Pw5, the Medical Officer deposed about the conducting of Post Mortem Examination after the death of the deceased. When prosecution failed to establish very identity of the driver of the crime vehicle, the discussion with respect to rash or negligent act is no way useful to the case of the prosecution.

12.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, material placed before this court and in view of my above discussion, it can be said that the evidence on record is not sufficient to sustain the conviction against the accused, hence the accused is entitled for acquittal. Point is accordingly answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

4CC No.8/2016

13.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/s 304-A of Indian Penal Code and he is acquitted under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months from today as per Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 24th day of April 2018.

Sd/-

II-ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NIZAMABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

PROSECUTION ACCUSED

PW1: S.Suresh-Nil-

PW2: E.Yogeshwar Reddy

PW3: P.Srinivas Goud

PW4: J.Vittal Rao

PW5: Dr.R.Sreedhara Chary

EXHIBITS MARKED

PROSECUTION ACCUSED

Ex.P1:Report presented to the policeEx.D1Some portion of 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw4 Ex.P2:Post Mortem Examination Report

MATERIAL OBJECTS

PROSECUTION ACCUSED

-NIL- -NIL-

Sd/-

II-ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NIZAMABAD

1CC No.610 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE II-ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT NIZAMABAD

Present: Sri Mohd.Abdul Javeed Pasha, II-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad

Dated this the 24th day of April, 2018

C.C. No. 610 of 2017

Between: The State through Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, P. S. Rural, Nizamabad …Complainant // AND //

Ankala Narsimlu S/o Narayana, Age:28yrs, Occ: Marble Mason, R/o Gundaram village, Nizamabad mandal.

...Accused

This case is coming before me on this the 23rd day of April, 2018 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri M.Krushi Krishna, Counsel for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The accused has arraigned before this Court for the offence punishable u/s 324 of

Indian Penal Code.

2.The brief averments of the charge sheet are as follows:

(a) The Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Rural Police Station, Nizamabad has filed the charge sheet against the accused alleging therein that on 15.11.2017 evening at about 0700 hours, one Smt.Goondla Savithri engaged the auto of the defacto complainant/Shaik Ashraf to go to Abangapatnam village, on that the defacto complainant visited the house of Smt.Goondla Savithri alongwith his auto and he turned his auto, suddenly his auto went upon water tap plastic pipe of the accused, resulting which the plastic pipe was damaged. On that accused called the defacto complainant, quarreled with him and beat with hands and plastic pipe, on seeing the same the mother of the defacto complainant/ Anisa Begum came and intervened, on that accused also beat her with hands and plastic pipe, caught hold her throat and pushed her on the ground, when the defacto complainant intervened again the accused beat him with the plastic pipe.

(b) Basing on the report of the defacto complainant, Sri T.Narsimlu, the Assistant

Sub-Inspector of Police, Rural Police Station, Nizamabad registered this case vide Crime No. 300 of 2017 u/s 324 of Indian Penal Code and took-up the investigation.

2CC No.610 of 2017

(c)During the course of investigation, the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police examined and recorded the statements of witnesses and conducted scene of offence panchanama before the mediators. On 16.11.2017 at about 0930 hours on credible information, the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police alongwith his staff rushed to the house of the accused situated at Gundaram village and apprehended the accused, upon interrogation he voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence then recovered the plastic pipe which was used in the commission of offence under the cover of panchanama before the mediators.

Later the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police issued notice to the accused u/s 41-A

Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused.

3.This case was taken cognizance against the accused for the offence punishable u/s 324 of Indian Penal Code.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of the case records were furnished to him as required u/s 207 Cr.P.C.

5.The accused was examined u/s 239 of Criminal Procedure Code for the offences punishable u/s 324 and 323 of IPC, charges have been framed against accused for the said offences, read over the contents of the same in Telugu language, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, prosecution examined Pws.1 to 3 and got marked

Ex.P1 to P4 on behalf of the prosecution. As there is no incriminating material against the accused in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, hence the examination of the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with.

7.Heard arguments.

8.Now the point that arises for consideration herein is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all

reasonable doubt for the above said offences?

POINT:

9.Pw1 deposed that he knew the accused, he is his neighbour, his mother fell down and sustained injuries on her head and shoulder, but nobody beat her and accused not beat her. Pw1 further deposed that he has not presented any report to the police but on the instructions of somebody he signed on some paper but does not know the contents of the same.

3CC No.610 of 2017

10.Pw2 deposed that she herself fell down and sustained the injuries on her head and shoulder but nobody beat her and accused not beat her. She does not know for what purpose Pw1 filed the case against the accused. Pw3 deposed that he does not know the facts of this case and not witnessed any dispute between the accused and

Pws1 and 2.

11.Coming to the appreciation of evidence of material on record, the case of the prosecution is that on 15.11.2017 evening at about 7:00pm accused beat the defacto complainant with the plastic pipe upon intervention of the Pw2 he also beat her with the hands and plastic pipe resulting injuries to her. In this case, Pw1 who is the defacto complainant narrated the version of the prosecution as her mother fell down and sustained the injuries but accused not beat her. Pw1 even not supported the version of the prosecution with respect to presentation of any report to the police as he simply stated that upon the instructions of somebody he signed on some paper and does not know the contents of the same. Pw2, being the injured deposed that she herself fell down and sustained the injuries but accused not beat her and she does not know for what purpose Pw1 filed the case against the accused. Pw3 who is said to be the eye witness to the case of the prosecution deposed that he was not witnessed any dispute between the accused and Pws1 & 2. As Pws1 to 3 not supported the case of the prosecution, they were declared as hostile witnesses. Since the material witnesses i.e.,

Pws1 to 3 not supported the case of the prosecution the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor given up the rest of the witnesses and reported evidence closed.

12.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, material placed before this court and in view of my above discussion, it can be said that there is no material on record to sustain the conviction against the accused. Hence, accused is entitled for acquittal. Point is accordingly answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

13.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable u/s 324 and 323 of Indian Penal Code and he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months from today as per Section 437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property i.e.,one plastic water pipe which was deposited vide CPR No. 204/ 2017 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 24th day of April, 2018.

Sd/-

II-ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NIZAMABAD

4CC No.610 of 2017

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

PROSECUTION ACCUSED

PW1: Shaik Ashraf-Nil-

PW2: Shaik Aneesa Begum

PW3: Md.Mehboob

EXHIBITS MARKED

PROSECUTION ACCUSED

Ex.P1:Signature of Pw1 on the report presented to the police -NIL- Ex.P2:S.161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw1

Ex.P3:S.161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw2 Ex.P4: S.161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw3

MATERIAL OBJECTS

PROSECUTION ACCUSED

-NIL--NIL-

Sd/-

II-ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NIZAMABAD

1CC No.614 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE II-ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT NIZAMABAD

Present: Sri Mohd.Abdul Javeed Pasha, II-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad

Dated this the 24th day of April, 2018

C.C. No. 614 of 2017

Between: The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, P. S. Rural, Nizamabad …Complainant // AND //

Shaik Ashraf S/o Shiak Yousuf, Age:20yrs, Occ: Auto driver; R/o H.No.3-53, Gundaram village, Nizamabad.

...Accused

This case is coming before me on this the 23rd day of April, 2018 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri A.Manasa, Counsel

for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered

the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The accused has arraigned before this Court for the offence punishable u/s 324 of

Indian Penal Code.

2.The brief averments of the charge sheet are as follows:

(a) The Sub Inspector of Police, Rural Police Station, Nizamabad has filed the charge sheet against the accused alleging therein that on 15.11.2017 evening at about 7:30pm accused visited the house of one Smt.Goondla Savithri alongwith his auto and when he turned his auto, suddenly his auto went upon the defacto complainant/Ankala Narsimlu’s water tap plastic pipe, resulting which the plastic pipe was damaged. On that the defacto complainant called the accused and enquired with him, then immediately the accused went into his house took one knife and stabbed the defacto complainant left hand arm, resulting bleeding injury to him.

(b) Basing on the report of the defacto complainant, Sri P.Sridhar Goud, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Rural Police Station, Nizamabad registered this case vide Crime No. 299 of 2017 u/s 324 of Indian Penal Code and took-up the investigation.

(c)During the course of investigation, the Sub-Inspector of Police examined and recorded the statements of witnesses and conducted scene of offence panchanama before the mediators. On 16.11.2017 at about 8:30 hours on 2CC No.614 of 2017 credible information the Sub Inspector alongwith his staff rushed to the house of the accused at Gundaram village apprehended him, upon interrogation he voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence then recorded his confession statement and recovered one knife which was used in the commission of offence under the cover of panchanama before the mediators.

Later the notice u/s 41-A Cr.P.C was issued to the accused. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused.

3.This case was taken cognizance against the accused for the offence punishable u/s 324 of Indian Penal Code.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of the case records were furnished to him as required u/s 207 Cr.P.C.

5.The accused was examined u/s 239 of Criminal Procedure Code for the offence punishable u/s 324 of IPC, Charge has been framed against accused for the said offence, read over the contents of the same in Telugu language, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, prosecution examined Pws.1 and 2 and got marked

Ex.P1 to P3 on behalf of the prosecution. As there is no incriminating material against the accused in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses hence the examination of the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with.

7.Heard arguments.

8.Now the point that arises for consideration herein is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all

reasonable doubt for the above said offence?

POINT:

9.Pw1 deposed that he know the accused, he is his neighbour, he himself fell down in front of his house and sustained the injuries on his hand, but nobody beat him and accused not beat him. Pw1 further deposed that he has not presented any report to the police but on the instructions of somebody he signed on some paper but does not know the contents of the same. Pw2 deposed that he has not witnessed any dispute between the accused and Pw1 and does not know the facts of this case.

10.Coming to the appreciation of evidence of material on record, the case of the prosecution is that on 15.11.2017 at about 7:30pm at Gundaram village accused assaulted the Pw1 with knife resulting the injuries to his left hand arm. In this case, Pw1 who is the defacto complainant deposed before this court that he himself fell down in front of his house and sustained the injuries on his hand but accused not beat him. Pw1 even not supported the version of the prosecution with respect to presentation of any 3CC No.614 of 2017 report to the police. Pw2 who is said to be the eye witness to the case of the prosecution deposed that he has not witnessed any dispute between the accused and

Pw1. As Pws1 and 2 not supported the case of the prosecution they were declared as hostile witnesses. Since the material witnesses i.e., Pws1 & 2 not supported the case of the prosecution, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor given up the rest of the witnesses and reported evidence closed.

11.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, material placed before this court and in view of my above discussion, it can be said that there is no iota of material to connect the accused with the alleged crime. Hence, accused is entitled for acquittal.

Point is accordingly answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

12.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/s 324 of

Indian Penal Code and he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months from today as per Section 437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property i.e., knife which was deposited vide CPR No.205/2017 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 24th day of April, 2018.

Sd/-

II-ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NIZAMABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

PROSECUTION ACCUSED

PW1: A.Narsimlu-Nil-

PW2: Ch.Suresh

EXHIBITS MARKED

PROSECUTION ACCUSED

Ex.P1:Signature of Pw1 on the report presented to the police -NIL- Ex.P2:S.161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw1

Ex.P3:S.161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw1

MATERIAL OBJECTS

PROSECUTION ACCUSED

-NIL-NIL-

Sd/-

II-ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NIZAMABAD