Mohd. Munawar Hussaain

C.C.No.973 of 2022 1 of 16 Dated : 15.10.2025

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS - MOBILE COURT AT MAHABUBNAGAR.

On this Wednesday, the 15 th day of October, 2025.

PRESENT : SRI. MOHD. MUNAWAR HUSSAAIN,

SPL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

MOBILE COURT AT MAHABUBNAGAR

C.C.No. 973 OF 2022

(OLD CC. No. 927 of 2016)

BETWEEN: The State of Telangana, Rep., by Sub Inspector of Police, Mohammadabad Police Station, Mahabubnagar District. …Prosecution AND A1.Amuka Thirupathaiah S/o. Late. Kondaiah, age: 48 years, Occ: Agriculture, A2.Amuka Sattaiah S/o. Late. Kondaiah, age: 52 years, Occ: Agriculture, A3.Amuka Devaiah S/o. Thirupathaiah, age: 18 years, Occ: Student, A4.Amuka Vishnu S/o. Dasthaiah, age: 24 years, Occ: Agriculture, A5.Amuka Poshaiah S/o. Late. Kondaiah, age: 45 years, Occ: Agriculture, A6.Amuka Govindamma W/o. Sattaiah, age: 45 years, Occ: Agriculture, A7.Amuka Laxmamma W/o. Thirupathaiah, age: 39 years, Occ: Agriculture, All R/o. Komreddypally village, Gandeed Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. (A2 died, during pendency of the case. Hence case is abated against him.) …Accused no.1 to 7.

*****

This Case is coming on 24.09.2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State and of Sri. E. Ramulu, Counsel for the accused No.1to7, upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court delivered the following:

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

1.The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S.

Mohammadabad, filed charge sheet against the accused A1 to A7 in

Cr.No.123/2016 for the offences punishable u/Secs. 448, 324 r/w 34 of

Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereinafter to be referred as 'IPC'].

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 25.09.2016 at about 11:00 hours, the complainant, Sri Bogaram Ananthaiah S/o

Narsaiah, aged 24 years, resident of Komreddypally village of Gandeed

Mandal, came to the Police Station and lodged a Telugu written complaint. In the said complaint, he stated that on 24.09.2016 at about

C.C.No.973 of 2022 2 of 16 Dated : 15.10.2025 12:30 p.m., while he was at his agricultural field, some buffaloes belonging to the accused persons were grazing his mango plants. When he drove them away, the accused, who bore old grudges, took offence.

On the same day, at about 6:00 p.m., accused A1 to A7 — namely, Amuka

Thirupathaiah, Amuka Sattaiah, Amuka Devaiah, Amuka Vishnu, Amuka

Poshaiah, Amuka Govindamma, and Amuka Laxmamma — allegedly trespassed into his house and beat him with sticks, questioning why he beat their cattle. As a result, the complainant and his brother Mallesh sustained bleeding injuries. They were shifted to SVS Hospital,

Mahabubnagar in a 108 ambulance after receiving preliminary treatment at the Government Hospital. The delay in lodging the complaint was stated to be because of hospitalization. Hence, the complaint was registered as Cr.No.123/2016 under Sections 448 and 324 read with 34

IPC.

3.Upon consideration of the material placed before the court, the cognizancefor the offence punishable u/Sec. 448, 324 r/w 34 of IPC was taken against the accused No.1 to No.7. On appearance of the accused persons, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated u/Sec.207 Cr.P.C. The accused was examined u/Sec.239 Cr.P.C and charge as per Sec.240(2) Cr.P.C for the offence u/Sec. 448, 324 r/w 34 of

IPC wasframed against the accused No.1 to 7 and explained to them in

Telugu and having understood the charge framed against them, they denied the charge and on question of plea of guilt, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the trial against the accused persons, (A2 died).

C.C.No.973 of 2022 3 of 16 Dated : 15.10.2025

4.For bringing home the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 7 and got exhibited Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. LW.6/Bajarla

Venkataiah and Lw.7/ B.Kondaiah evidence was closed.

5.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C enabling them to explain personally the incriminating circumstances appeared against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which they denied the truthfulness of the evidence and reported no defense evidence on their side. Hence defense evidence was closed.

6.Heard, the learned APP and the learned counsel for the accused persons.

7.Now the point for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the

accused No.1, 3 to 7 by proving the charge for the offence

punishable u/Sec. 448, 324 r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable

doubt?

8.FACTS OF THE CASE:-

(i)During the course of trial, the prosecution examined seven witnesses (PW1 to PW7) and marked documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P5.

(ii)PW1, the complainant, stated in his examination-in-chief that he and PW2 are brothers. He stated that on 24.09.2016 at about 12:30 p.m., the accused A1 to A7 were grazing buffaloes in his agricultural field, and when he sent them away, the accused questioned him about it. Keeping the old grudges in mind, at about 6:00 p.m. the same day, all the accused attacked PW2 at his house and beat him. When he tried to intervene, they beat him as well. As a result, both of them sustained head injuries and were shifted to the Government Hospital, Mahabubnagar, and thereafter to SVS Hospital for better treatment. After recovery, he lodged a report

C.C.No.973 of 2022 4 of 16 Dated : 15.10.2025 at the police station, which was marked as Ex.P1. The police examined him and recorded his statement.

During cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused,

PW1 stated that there was a quarrel between PW2 and the sons of the accused. He denied the suggestion that he did not mention about old grudges before the police. He stated that about eight buffaloes were grazing in his mango farm and that there is a distance of about 200 meters between his house and the accused’s house. He admitted that he did not mention in Ex.P1 that he first went to the Government Hospital

before SVS Hospital. He reiterated that the accused beat him at his

house. He denied the defence suggestion that the accused did not beat him and that due to old enmity he filed a false complaint after one day of the incident.

(iii)PW2, Mallesh, brother of the complainant, stated that he knew all the accused and that on 24.09.2016 at about 12:30 p.m., A1 to A7 left their buffaloes on their mango farm. When PW1 drove the buffaloes out of the field, all the accused, at about 6:00 p.m., trespassed into their house, attacked him, and beat him with sticks and stones. When PW1 intervened, they also beat him. He sustained injuries on his head and hands and fell unconscious. Both were shifted to the Government Hospital,

Mahabubnagar, and later to SVS Hospital for better treatment. The police recorded his statement.

In cross-examination, PW2 stated that he was at Mahabubnagar when the accused left their buffaloes in their farm and that he was informed of it by PW1. He denied the suggestion that he did not state

before police that A1 to A7 beat him with stones. He stated that

neighbours shifted them by 108 ambulance. He stated there were six

C.C.No.973 of 2022 5 of 16 Dated : 15.10.2025 members in their house. He denied the defence suggestion that a false case was filed due to old grudges, that he colluded with police, and that he did not go to the Government Hospital first.

(iv)PW3 stated that he knew PW1, PW2, and all the accused. He deposed that he came to know of a quarrel between the complainant and the accused at the agricultural field earlier that day, but he had not witnessed it. However, on the evening of 24.09.2016, at about 6:00 to 6:30 p.m., he personally witnessed A1 to A7 coming to the house of PW1 and PW2 and beating them with sticks. Out of fear, he did not intervene but, after the assault, he shifted the injured to the hospital by bike, and later they were taken by 108 ambulance. The police recorded his statement.

In cross-examination, PW3 stated that he was both a farmer and a shop owner. He denied the suggestion that he was not in the village at the time of the incident. He admitted that PW1 and PW2 were his relatives. He stated that he called the 108 ambulance but, as it was delayed, he took the injured first on his bike. He denied that he was deposing falsely due to relationship or at the instance of PW1 and PW2.

(v)PW4 stated that he knew PW1 to PW3 and all the accused. He deposed that about six years ago, at around 5:00 p.m., there was a quarrel between the complainant and accused, in which PW2 sustained bleeding injuries and was shifted to the Government Hospital by ambulance. The police examined him and recorded his statement.

In cross-examination, PW4 stated that he did not witness the alleged incident but came to know of it upon enquiry. He stated that he did not know the cause of the quarrel. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely at the instance of PW1.

C.C.No.973 of 2022 6 of 16 Dated : 15.10.2025

(vi)PW5 deposed that he knew PW1 to PW4 and all the accused. He stated that the quarrel took place at the agricultural fields of PW1 because the buffaloes of the accused entered his field. Due to this, A1 to

A7 came to the house of PW1 and beat PW1 and PW2 with sticks. He further stated that he shifted them to the Government Hospital by ambulance and later to SVS Hospital as per doctor’s advice. The police recorded his statement.

In cross-examination, PW5 stated that he was a painter by occupation and a resident of Komreddypally. He admitted that he did not witness the buffaloes entering the field. He stated that he witnessed A1 to

A7 beating PW1 and PW2 with sticks at about 6:30 p.m. He denied that he was deposing falsely due to his friendship with PW1 and PW2. He denied the defence suggestion that he had enmity with the accused and that there was a criminal case pending against him.

(vii)PW6, the medical officer, stated that he was working as Casualty

Medical Officer at the Government Hospital, Mahabubnagar, from 2014 to 2017. On 24.09.2016 at 7:50 p.m., he received a police requisition for the examination of PW1 and PW2. On examination, he found a laceration over the frontal region measuring 5x2x1 cm on PW1 and a laceration on the temporo-parietal region measuring 10x3 cm bone-deep on PW2. He opined that both injuries were simple in nature and issued medical certificates Ex.P2 and Ex.P3.

In cross-examination, PW6 stated that PW1 and PW2 were treated as inpatients but he was unaware of the duration of their stay. He stated that such injuries could also be caused by a fall. He did not know the weapon used to cause the injuries.

C.C.No.973 of 2022 7 of 16 Dated : 15.10.2025

(viii) PW7, the Investigating Officer, deposed that he was working as SI of Police at PS Mohammadabad at the relevant time. On 25.09.2016 at 11:00 hours, he received Ex.P1 from PW1 and registered a case in

Cr.No.123/2016 under Sections 448 and 324 read with 34 IPC, and issued

FIR Ex.P4. He recorded the statements of PW1 and PW2 at the police station, visited the scene of offence, conducted scene of offence panchanama, prepared rough sketch Ex.P5, recorded statements of witnesses, collected medical certificates, issued notice under Section 41-

A Cr.P.C. to the accused, and after completion of investigation, filed the charge sheet.

In cross-examination, PW7 stated that the distance between

Komreddypally and the police station was about 7 km. He denied the defence suggestion that PW1 and PW2 did not sustain any injuries, that the complaint was falsely filed due to old enmity, and that he filed the charge sheet without proper investigation.

9. POINT:- i.The law under Section 448 IPC defines house trespass as entry into or remaining unlawfully in any building used as a human dwelling with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult, or annoy any person. Section 324 IPC deals with voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means. Sticks, when used to assault on vital parts like the head, can constitute dangerous weapons under Section 324 IPC. Section 34 IPC attributes common intention to persons jointly committing the act.

ii.The court finds the core question to be whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons entered the complainant’s dwelling with the requisite trespassory intent and, in furtherance of a common intention, voluntarily caused hurt to the injured

C.C.No.973 of 2022 8 of 16 Dated : 15.10.2025 witnesses by means likely to produce grievous hurt. The injured witnesses (PW1 and PW2) are the central witnesses: both are eye- witnesses to the assault on their persons inside their home. Their eye- witness testimony is detailed on material points — time (about 6:00–6:30 p.m.), place (inside the house), manner of assault (beating with sticks and stones), sequence (buffalo incident in the afternoon; assault in the evening) and consequence (bleeding head injuries, hospitalisation). Their evidence is corroborated by PW3 and PW5 who place the accused at the house and described having shifted the injured to hospital, and by the medical certificate (Ex.P2/Ex.P3) recording lacerations consistent with blunt force trauma to the head. Taken together, the contemporaneous medical record and the independent witnesses’ accounts create a chain of events.

iii.Minor discrepancies and omissions exist in the record but do not vitiate the prosecution case. The principal omissions are (a) the failure to mention in the written complaint Ex.P1 that the injured first attended the

Government Hospital before being taken to SVS Hospital and (b) some imprecision about whether PW2 personally witnessed the buffaloes in the field (PW2 says he was informed by PW1).None of the prosecution witnesses give radically variant accounts on the central question of who struck whom and where the assault occurred. Cross-examination elicited peripheral admissions (e.g., prior quarrel, failure to mention the

Government Hospital in Ex.P1) but failed to extract contradictions that undermine the core narrative. Where cross-examination elicits omissions that are non-material to the essential fact of assault in the complainant’s dwelling, those omissions only marginally affect credibility. The defence’s attempt to cast doubt by pointing to minor inconsistencies is therefore

C.C.No.973 of 2022 9 of 16 Dated : 15.10.2025 unavailing in the face of convergent, corroborated testimony and medical records. These are peripheral to the core allegation of a later nocturnal assault at the complainant’s house. The law recognises that omissions in the first information or minor inconsistencies in peripheral aspects do not automatically render testimony unreliable, particularly where the injured witnesses give consistent accounts of the assault itself and where medical evidence corroborates the occurrence and nature of injuries. The delay in lodging the complaint — one day after the assault — is satisfactorily explained by the hospitalisation and treatment of the injured; a delay consequent to medical treatment is a legitimate and common justification and does not, by itself, create a reasonable doubt. The prosecution’s explanation for the delay is therefore adequate.

iv.The consistent depositions of the injured witnesses supported by medical evidence and corroborating eyewitnesses firmly establish the prosecution case. The evidentiary convergence between oral testimony, medical certificates, and documentary exhibits lends an assurance of authenticity to the prosecution narrative. Courts have repeatedly held that when ocular testimony of injured witnesses is supported by medical and circumstantial evidence, such testimony assumes a presumption of truth unless dislodged by clear and cogent contrary material. In this case, no such contrary evidence is forthcoming from the defence. The plea of false implication due to old enmity is not probable, as enmity can be both a motive for crime and a motive for false implication, but when the evidence of injured witnesses is consistent, it deserves higher credence.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Naresh & Ors., (2011) 4 SCC 324, held that the testimony of an injured witness should ordinarily be relied upon unless compelling reasons exist for disbelieving

C.C.No.973 of 2022 10 of 16 Dated : 15.10.2025 it. Similarly, in Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Rajasthan, (2019) 5 SCC 639, it was reiterated that minor contradictions or omissions do not discredit otherwise trustworthy testimony.

v.As to ingredients of Section 448 — unlawful entry into a dwelling with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy — are satisfied by the evidence that the accused, in a group, entered the complainant’s house and assaulted the occupants. The testimony places the assault inside the house, not on the public street; that fact converts the act into house trespass rather than ordinary public assault. The presence of multiple accused acting together and the simultaneous beating of the two occupants supports the inference of a common plan to intimidate or assault inside the dwelling. Section 34 applies because the acts were done by several persons in furtherance of a common intention:

the simultaneous arrival of A1–A7, the coordinated use of sticks and stones and the collective assault on both victims demonstrates joint action in furtherance of the same criminal objective. The prosecution need not establish which individual struck which blow; under Section 34, participation in the joint act suffices to fix liability for the unlawful result.

Hence, this court is of view that culpability of the accused persons is proved by the prosecution under this section.

vi.As to section 324 IPC, In the present case, the prosecution has succeeded in establishing beyond reasonable doubt that the accused A1 to A7, sharing a common intention, voluntarily caused hurt to PW1 and

PW2 by means of sticks, which constitute “dangerous weapons” under the meaning of Section 324 IPC. The consistent testimonies of the injured witnesses PW1 and PW2 clearly describe how the accused, acting in concert, trespassed into their house and assaulted them with sticks,

C.C.No.973 of 2022 11 of 16 Dated : 15.10.2025 resulting in lacerated bleeding injuries on their heads. Their evidence finds strong corroboration in the depositions of PW3 and PW5, who witnessed the occurrence and immediately assisted in shifting the injured to hospital. The medical evidence of PW6 further corroborates the ocular testimony by confirming that PW1 sustained a laceration over the frontal region measuring 5x2x1 cm and PW2 sustained a laceration on the temporo-parietal region measuring 10x3 cm, bone deep. These injuries are consistent with blows from hard, blunt objects such as sticks and thus satisfy the ingredients of Section 324 IPC, which penalises causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.

Vii.The fact that the sticks were recovered but not formally marked as material objects does not, by itself, create any fatal infirmity in the prosecution’s case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, held that recovery of the weapon is not a sine qua non for conviction if the ocular and medical evidence are trustworthy and consistent. Similarly, it was held that credible testimony of injured witnesses, supported by medical evidence, is sufficient to sustain conviction under Section 324 IPC even in the absence of the seized weapon being exhibited. In the present case, the injured witnesses have withstood cross-examination without material contradiction, and their version is natural and coherent. The nature and location of injuries, the corroborative medical evidence, and the concerted act of the accused in attacking with sticks collectively satisfy the essential ingredients of Section 324 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.

Hence, the court holds that the prosecution has proved that the accused voluntarily caused hurt by dangerous weapons in furtherance of their common intention, warranting conviction under Section 324 read with

Section 34 IPC.

C.C.No.973 of 2022 12 of 16 Dated : 15.10.2025

Viii.The burden on the prosecution is to prove guilt, but when a plausible explanation of injury and occurrence is given by injured witnesses supported by medical corroboration, the burden shifts in practical terms for the defence to create a reasonable doubt. In this case, cross-examination elicited no contradictions that could shake the credibility of the core witnesses or suggest that the injuries were self- inflicted or accidental. Consequently, the court finds the defence plea speculative and insufficient to rebut the cogent, direct, and medically corroborated prosecution evidence.

ix.Here, the prosecution witnesses have withstood cross-examination.

The medical evidence supports their version. Hence, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that all the accused, sharing a common intention, trespassed into the house of the complainant and voluntarily caused simple hurt with sticks.

10.In the result, accused No.1, 3 to 7 are found guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec. 324 and 448 r/w 34 of IPC, and consequently they are convicted U/Sec. 248(2) Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by stenographer, after correction, pronounced by me in the open court on this the 15th day of October, 2025.

Sd/-

SPL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

MOBILE COURT, MAHABUBNAGAR.

11.Heard the Accused persons No.1, 3 to 7 on quantum of sentence to be awarded against them.

12.Accused persons pleads that, old age dependent family members and thus prayed this court to show mercy, while imposing sentence and prayed this court to take lenient view.

C.C.No.973 of 2022 13 of 16 Dated : 15.10.2025

13.In assessing the appropriate sentence, the court must consider both aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The aggravating circumstances in this case include the fact that the assault was committed by seven accused persons acting in concert, demonstrating premeditation and use of common intention under Section 34 IPC. The attack occurred inside the complainant’s dwelling, which makes the act more serious than an assault in a public place, as it violates the sanctity of a home and constitutes house trespass under Section 448 IPC. The victims sustained head injuries caused by sticks, which are capable of causing grievous harm, indicating a dangerous mode of assault. The presence of multiple assailants increased the risk of severe injury and created an intimidating environment for the victims, amplifying the moral culpability of the accused. Furthermore, the attack was motivated, by previous enmity, suggesting that the assault was not a spontaneous quarrel but involved a deliberate act of revenge, which aggravates the offence.

14.On the other hand, the mitigating circumstances include the fact that the injuries sustained were medically classified as simple, and there was no permanent disfigurement or lasting disability. The attack arose from a prior incident involving grazing of cattle, which could be considered a provocation or contributory circumstance, rather than a wholly unprovoked assault. The victims themselves did not report any fatal or grievous intent, and the offence appears to have been restricted to blunt-force injury rather than use of deadly weapons. There is also no evidence that the accused had committed similar offences previously, and they did not attempt to flee the scene after the incident.

C.C.No.973 of 2022 14 of 16 Dated : 15.10.2025

15. Considering the balance of these factors, while mitigating circumstances exist, the aggravating circumstances clearly outweigh the mitigating ones. The coordinated nature of the assault inside the dwelling, the involvement of multiple assailants, and the breach of the sanctity of the home elevate the moral and social culpability, justifying a custodial sentence along with a fine. The court, therefore, is justified in awarding a sentence that reflects the seriousness of the crime while remaining proportionate to the injuries actually caused.

16.Accordingly, the court would impose simple imprisonment of six months for the offence under Section 324 IPC read with 34 IPC along with fine of 1000/- each and simple imprisonment of three months for the offence under Section 448 IPC read with 34 IPC with fine of 500/- each.

This sentence adequately balances the need for deterrence, retribution, and proportionality, ensuring justice for the victims while taking into account the actual consequences of the assault.

17. Having considered the applicability of the provisions of Section 3 and 4 of Probation of offenders act and having considered the nature of the offence and the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court feels that it is not a fit case to invoke the provisions of Section 3 and 4 of P.O.

Act.

18.In the result, the accused No.1, 3 to 7 are found guilty for the offence 324 IPC r/w 34 and 448 IPC r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly, they are convicted for the said offence as per section 248(2) Cr.P.C. Further the accused persons are sentenced as to simple imprisonment of six months for the offence under Section 324 IPC read with 34 IPC along with fine of 1000/- each and simple imprisonment of three months for the offence under Section 448 IPC read with 34 IPC with fine of 500/- each.

C.C.No.973 of 2022 15 of 16 Dated : 15.10.2025

Both the sentence shall run concurrently.

The bail bonds of the accused persons shall remain in force for a period of 6 months from the date of judgment as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C for preferring appeal to the higher Court, from this judgment by prosecution or by the defacto-complainant. No order as to property since no property was deposited. Total fine 9,000/-. In default of payment of fine the accused persons shall undergone simple imprisonment of one month.

Further, out of the total fine amount of Rs.9,000/-, an amount of

Rs.6,000/- shall be paid as compensation to the victim under Section 357(1) CrPC, remaining amount Rs.3,000/- shall be paid to state. The period of detention, if any, already undergone by the accused persons during investigation or trial shall be set off under Section 428 CrPC. The unmarked property shall be disposed after appeal time.

19. Accused persons are informed of their right of free legal aid. The office is also directed to furnish free copy of Judgment to the accused persons forthwith.

Sd/-

SPL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

MOBILE COURT, MAHABUBNAGAR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR COMPLAINANT FOR ACCUSED

PW-1B. Ananthaiah:: NONE ::

PW-2B. Mallesh PW-3B. Srishailam PW-4B. Krishnaiah PW-5V. Srinu PW-6Y. Tharunkumar PW-7K. Rajendar Reddy

C.C.No.973 of 2022 16 of 16 Dated : 15.10.2025

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P1is the report given by PW1. Ex.P2is the medical certificate of Pw1. Ex.P3is the medical certificate of Pw2. Ex.P4is the First Information Report. Ex.P5is the Crime detail form.

FOR ACCUSED

:: NIL::

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

:: NIL::

Sd/-

SPL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

MOBILE COURT, MAHABUBNAGAR.

C.C.No.717 of 2022 1 of 13 Dated : 19.05.2026

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS - MOBILE COURT AT MAHABUBNAGAR.

On this Tuesday, the 19 th day of May, 2026.

PRESENT : SRI. MOHD. MUNAWAR HUSSAAIN,

SPL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

MOBILE COURT AT MAHABUBNAGAR

C.C.No. 717 OF 2022

(OLD C.C. No. 443 of 2019)

BETWEEN: The State of Telangana, Rep., by Sub Inspector of Police, Mohammadabad Police Station, Mahabubnagar District. …Prosecution AND Kottam Ram Reddy S/o. Late Sukka Reddy, age: 55 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Venkatreddypally village, Gandeed Mandal. …Accused

*****

This Case is coming on 13.05.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State and of Sri. G. Gopal, Counsel for the accused, upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court delivered the following:

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

1.The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S.

Mohammadabad, filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.

100/2019 for the offences punishable u/Secs. 324 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereinafter to be referred as 'IPC'].

2.Prosecution Case :

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 17.07.2019 at about 1100 hours, the complainant Smt. Kottam Yadamma lodged a Telugu written complaint before the police stating that on 15.07.2019 at about 1600 hours, while she was present at her agricultural land situated at

Venkatreddypally village of Gandeed Mandal, her brother-in-law Kottam

Ram Reddy switched on the bore motor in the disputed agricultural land.

When the complainant objected and requested him to switch off the bore motor till settlement of the land disputes, the accused initially switched off the motor, but thereafter became aggressive and intentionally bet the

C.C.No.717 of 2022 2 of 13 Dated : 19.05.2026 complainant with a stick on her hands and waist, causing pain and injuries. On hearing the commotion, the wife of the accused intervened and separated them and took the accused away from the spot. The prosecution further contends that there existed prior disputes relating to agricultural lands between the complainant and the accused.

3.Upon consideration of the material placed before the court, the cognizancefor the offence punishable u/Sec. 324 of IPC was taken against the accused. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated u/Sec.207 Cr.P.C. The accused was examined u/Sec.239 Cr.P.C and charge as per Sec.240(2) Cr.P.C for the offence u/Sec. 324 of IPC wasframed against the accused and explained to him in his vernacular language and having understood the charge framed against him, he denied the charge and on question of plea of guilt, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the trial against the accused.

4.For bringing home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 7 and got exhibited Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. The learned APP given up the evidence of LW.7/ P. Ashok babu/ SI of police/ issued 41

CrPC notice.

5.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C enabling him to explain personally the incriminating circumstances appeared against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied the truthfulness of the evidence andreported no defense evidence on his side. Hence defense evidence was closed.

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

C.C.No.717 of 2022 3 of 13 Dated : 19.05.2026

7.Point for Determination:

Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused, voluntarily caused hurt to PW1 by means of dangerous weapon, thereby committing offence punishable under Sections 324 of IPC?

8. POINT:- i.The accused is charged for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC. Before appreciating the evidence on record, it is necessary to examine the essential ingredients required to constitute the offence under Section 324 IPC.

ii.To establish an offence under Section 324 IPC, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt:

1. That the accused voluntarily caused hurt to the victim;

2. That such hurt was caused intentionally or knowingly;

3. That the hurt was caused by using a dangerous weapon or dangerous means.

Therefore, mere proof of simple injuries is not sufficient. The prosecution must further prove that those injuries were caused specifically by a dangerous weapon or instrument.

iii.In the present case, the entire prosecution case mainly rests upon the evidence of PW1 to PW3, who are closely related witnesses.

Therefore, their evidence requires careful scrutiny.

iv.PW1, who is the injured witness and de facto complainant, stated in her chief examination:

“My self, PW3 and Accused have agricultural land in Venkat Reddypally village and we have applied for Government survey of the said land. On 15.07.2019 at about 1600 hours I went to my agricultural field, accused switched on the bore well motor as such I asked accused to switch off the bore well motor as the survey is pending. When I went to switch off the

C.C.No.717 of 2022 4 of 13 Dated : 19.05.2026 bore well motor accused came and he him self switched off the motor, after that when I turned back and coming accused came from behind and bet me with stick on my back and hands.”

Thus, according to PW1, the incident occurred due to dispute regarding usage of bore motor pending survey of agricultural lands.

However, the cross-examination of PW1 completely changes the complexion of the prosecution case. PW1 made several important admissions which go to the root of the matter.

PW1 admitted:

“40 years ago they separated their lands and cultivating their own lands last 40 years.”

This admission clearly shows that the lands were already partitioned long back and parties were separately enjoying possession of their respective lands for decades. Therefore, the claim that survey was pending and accused should stop cultivation appears doubtful.

PW1 further admitted:

“15 years ago bore was dug in accused land with own funds.” “Since then accused is using the said bore.” “It is true that accused dug bore well on sy no.72 and cultivating the said land peacefully.” “It is true that we and narayanreddy do not have any right on Sy.No.72.”

These admissions are extremely material. They clearly establish that the bore well admittedly belongs to the accused and was dug by him in his own land with his own money. PW1 further admitted that neither she nor her husband had any right over Sy.No.72. Therefore, prima facie, the accused was exercising possession and enjoyment over his own land and bore well.

C.C.No.717 of 2022 5 of 13 Dated : 19.05.2026

PW1 further admitted:

“we do not have any orders to survey our lands and also to restrain accused from using his bore well.”

This admission further weakens the prosecution case because admittedly there was no order from Revenue Authorities or any Court restraining the accused from using the bore motor. Therefore, PW1 had no legal authority to interfere with the accused while he was using his own bore well in his own land.

This aspect becomes more important because the evidence on record shows that PW1 herself went near the bore motor and interfered with it. Even according to PW1’s own version, she objected to accused using the bore motor and went near it. Therefore, possibility of sudden quarrel arising due to interference by PW1 cannot be ruled out.

PW1 further admitted:

“PW2 and PW3 arrived after 15 min of my phone call.”

Thus, admittedly PW2 and PW3 were not present at the scene at the time when the alleged assault occurred. They came only later after receiving phone call from PW1. Therefore, their evidence regarding actual assault becomes doubtful.

Another important contradiction appears regarding the weapon allegedly used. In chief examination PW1 stated that accused bet her with “stick”. But later in cross-examination she improved her version and stated:

“Accused bet me with Axe stick.”

This improvement creates doubt regarding the exact weapon used.

If really an axe stick was used, naturally the same would have been

C.C.No.717 of 2022 6 of 13 Dated : 19.05.2026 mentioned in the complaint and chief examination itself. Such material improvement affects the credibility of PW1.

PW1 also stated:

“Same day police referred me to Government Hospital, Mahabubnagar.”

But Ex.P1/complaint was admittedly registered only on 16.07.2019 at 11:00 AM. At the same time PW6/doctor examined PW1 on 15.07.2019 evening itself as per Ex.P4. Thus there is complete inconsistency regarding the exact sequence of complaint, FIR registration, and medical referral.

v.The evidence of PW2 also does not improve the prosecution case.

PW2 stated in chief examination:

“PW1 called me over phone and informed me that accused bet her and asked me to come.”

Thus PW2 admittedly came to know about the incident only through phone call given by PW1. Therefore, her evidence is purely hearsay regarding the actual occurrence.

In cross-examination PW2 made highly important admissions:

“It is true that there are land disputes between PW1 and accused.” “It is true that PW1 went to land of accused to damaged the fuse of bore.” “It is true that accused is cultivating his own land by digging bore well.” “It is true that PW1 does not have any right to over accused land.”

These admissions strongly probabilise the defence version. PW2 clearly admitted that PW1 went to accused land and attempted to interfere with the bore fuse. This admission supports the case that the accused was peacefully cultivating his own land and PW1 interfered in the same.

PW2 further admitted:

“I went to PW1 after half n hour of her phone call.”

C.C.No.717 of 2022 7 of 13 Dated : 19.05.2026

Therefore, PW2 admittedly reached the place much later after the alleged incident. Hence she cannot be treated as eyewitness.

Most importantly PW2 stated:

“Police never examined me nor recorded my statement.”

This statement directly contradicts the evidence of PW7

Investigating Officer who deposed that he examined PW2 and recorded her statement during investigation. This contradiction is not minor in nature. It creates doubt regarding fairness and genuineness of investigation itself.

vi.Coming to PW3, she stated in chief examination:

“we all land owners kept for Government survey on 15.07.2019 accused was cultivating the land as such myself and PW1 told accused to not do any agricultural work as the Government Survey is pending.” “PW1 switched off the motor and while returning back accused bet her with stick on her hands and back.”

Thus PW3 attempted to support PW1 regarding the alleged incident.

However, the cross-examination of PW3 contains several admissions which materially damage the prosecution case.

PW3 admitted:

“It is true that ancestral lands was separated before 50 years ago.” “It is true that accused dug bore well in his land.”

These admissions once again establish separate possession of lands and ownership of bore well by accused.

Most importantly PW3 admitted:

“It is true that it is fault on the part of PW1 to enter land of accused and switch off the bore well.”

C.C.No.717 of 2022 8 of 13 Dated : 19.05.2026

This admission is very crucial. PW3 himself admitted that PW1 committed fault by entering accused land and switching off the bore motor. Therefore, the prosecution itself admits that PW1 interfered in accused possession and cultivation activities.

PW3 further admitted:

“It is true that on 16.07.2019 galata occurred between accused and PW1, PW2 and Katam narayan reddy, manikayamma, venkat reddy, raghvender reddy and myself and it is also true that we later compromised the matter.” “It is true that on 25.10.2018 galata occurred between accused and venkatreddy, narayanreddy and accused lodged complaint before police but it was compromised before elders.”

These admissions clearly establish previous enmity and recurring quarrels between parties. When there are admitted previous disputes, possibility of exaggeration or false implication always exists and therefore evidence requires strict scrutiny.

PW3 further admitted:

“It is true that we did not obtained any order either from Court or Revenue authorities directing accused stop cultivation in disputed lands.”

Thus even according to PW3, there was no legal restraint against accused.

Another extremely important admission made by PW3 is:

“At the time of offence I was half kilometer away from the scene of offence.”

This admission goes to the root of the matter. If PW3 was half kilometer away at the time of offence, it becomes impossible for him to witness the exact overt acts attributed to the accused. Therefore, his claim of seeing accused beat PW1 becomes doubtful and artificial.

C.C.No.717 of 2022 9 of 13 Dated : 19.05.2026

Further, PW3 admitted compromise of previous disputes and admitted continued hostility between parties. Thus he is clearly an interested witness.

Vii.When the evidence of PW1 to PW3 is collectively appreciated, the following circumstances emerge:

Firstly, there is admitted long-standing civil and land dispute between the parties. Secondly, the accused was admittedly cultivating his own land separately for decades. Thirdly, the bore well was admittedly dug by accused in his own land with his own funds. Fourthly,

PW1 and her family admittedly had no right over Sy.No.72 where the bore well existed. Fifthly, there was no court order or survey order restraining accused from using the bore well. Sixthly, PW3 herself admitted fault on the part of PW1 in entering accused land and switching off the bore motor. Seventhly, PW2 and PW3 admittedly came later and were not actual eyewitnesses to the assault. Eighthly, PW3 admitted he was half kilometer away from the scene at relevant time.

Thus, the oral evidence suffers from serious infirmities and does not inspire complete confidence.

Viii.PW4 and PW5/ Panch witness for scene of offence are turned hostile.

ix.Coming to medical evidence, PW6 doctor found six injuries and opined that all injuries are simple in nature. However, the medical evidence also does not fully support prosecution version.

PW6 admitted:

“I did not mentioned age of injuries in Ex.P4.”

C.C.No.717 of 2022 10 of 13 Dated : 19.05.2026

This omission becomes important because the prosecution itself is inconsistent regarding the timing of complaint and medical examination.

PW6 further admitted:

“Injury No.1 to 4 and 6 are possible by fall on hard surface.”

This admission substantially weakens the prosecution case. The defence specifically suggested that PW1 fell down and sustained injuries.

The doctor’s opinion makes such possibility reasonably probable.

PW6 further admitted:

“Injury No.5 is possible with other than stick.”

Thus even according to the doctor, the injuries are not specifically attributable to stick beating.

x.Further, though PW1 alleged assault with stick and later “axe stick”, the Investigating Officer admittedly failed to recover any weapon.

PW7 specifically admitted:

“I did not recover any stick from the scene of offe nce.”

Non-recovery of weapon assumes importance particularly in an offence under Section 324 IPC where use of dangerous weapon is an essential ingredient.

Further, the Investigating Officer admitted:

“I did not mentioned to whom the land shown in ExP6 as scene of offence belongs to accused or complainant/PW1.” “I did not mentioned in charge sheet that bore motor belongs to both accused and PW1.”

These omissions show that the investigation was not conducted properly regarding the very foundation of dispute.

Another important circumstance is the discrepancy regarding dates and sequence of events.

C.C.No.717 of 2022 11 of 13 Dated : 19.05.2026

PW1 stated that she went to police station on same day at 7 PM and police referred her to hospital. However, PW6/ doctor examined her as per ExP4 at about 06.00 PM on 15.07.2019 itself. On the other hand, PW7 stated that Ex.P1 complaint was received only on 16.07.2019 at 11:00 AM and FIR was then registered.

Thus the oral and documentary evidence regarding registration of

FIR, police referral, and medical examination do not fit together properly.

Such discrepancies create serious doubt regarding prosecution story and manner of investigation.

Further, independent witnesses PW4 and PW5 turned hostile and did not support prosecution case.

Thus, except interested testimony of closely related witnesses having admitted land disputes, there is no independent corroboration available on record.

The law is well settled that evidence of interested witnesses is not to be rejected merely because of relationship. However, when such evidence suffers from material contradictions, improvements, admissions, and improbabilities, the Court must seek strong corroboration before basing conviction.

In the present case, the prosecution failed to establish the exact weapon used, failed to recover the weapon, failed to produce independent eyewitnesses, failed to explain discrepancies regarding dates and medical examination, and failed to rule out possibility of injuries caused by fall.

Most importantly, the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily caused hurt by means of a dangerous weapon.

C.C.No.717 of 2022 12 of 13 Dated : 19.05.2026

Therefore, after careful appreciation of entire oral and documentary evidence, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt.

9.In the result, the accused/ Kottam Ram Reddy is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/Sec. 324 of IPC and consequently he is acquitted

U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused person shall remain in force for a period of 6 months from the date of judgment as per

Sec.437-A Cr.P.C for preferring appeal to the higher Court, from this judgment by prosecution or by the defacto-complainant. Material objects, if any, shall be disposed of after expiry of appeal period in accordance with law.

Typed to my dictation by stenographer, after correction, pronounced by me in the open court on this the 19th day of May , 2026. Digitally signed by MOHD

MOHDMUNAWARHUSSAAIN

MUNAWARHUSSAAINDate: 2026.05.19 15:50:44 +0530

SPL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

MOBILE COURT, MAHABUBNAGAR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR COMPLAINANT FOR

ACCUSED

Sl. No. Name Description :: NONE :: PW-1Yadamma: complainant/injured PW-2Manemma: eyewitness PW-3Dasarath Reddy: eyewitness PW-4Balawardhan Reddy: Panch for CDF PW-5M. Chandra Reddy: Panch for CDF PW-6Dr. Prathyusha: Medical officer PW-7C. Shivaiah: Investigating officer

C.C.No.717 of 2022 13 of 13 Dated : 19.05.2026

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION

Sl. No.Description Marked in Ex.P1 is the report given by Pw1.: PW1 Ex.P2 is the signature of Pw4 on scene of offence panchanama.: PW4 Ex.P3 is the signature of Pw5 on scene of offence panchanama. : PW5 Ex.P4 is the Medical certificate of PW1 issued by PW6.: PW6 Ex.P5 is the First Information Report.: PW7 Ex.P6 is the scene of offence panchanama.: PW7

FOR ACCUSED

:: NIL::

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

:: NIL ::

Digitally signed by MOHD MOHD

MUNAWARHUSSAAIN

MUNAWARHUSSAAIN

Date: 2026.05.19

15:50:50 +0530

SPL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

MOBILE COURT, MAHABUBNAGAR.

1 of 7 C.C.No.487 of 2021

Dated : 19.05.2026

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS - MOBILE COURT AT MAHABUBNAGAR.

On this Tuesday, the 19 th day of May, 2026.

PRESENT : SRI. MOHD. MUNAWAR HUSSAAIN,

SPL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

MOBILE COURT AT MAHABUBNAGAR

C.C.No. 487 OF 2021

BETWEEN: The State of Telangana, Rep., by Sub Inspector of Police, Addakal Police Station, Mahabubnagar District. …Prosecution AND A1.Anjamma @ Mothivelam Laxmi W/o. Budagajangam Srinu, age: 44 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o. Ponnakal Village. A2.Srinu @ Budagajangam Srinu S/o. B. Bheemanna, age: 37 years, Occ: Driver, R/o. Ponnakal Village. …ACCUSED No.1 & 2.

*****

This Case is coming on 13.05.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State and of Sri. K.S. Mallikarjun, Counsel for the accused No.1 and 2, upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court delivered the following:

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

1.The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Addakal, filed charge sheet against the accused A1 and A2 in Cr.No. 116/2021 for the offences punishable u/Secs. 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereinafter to be referred as 'IPC'].

2.The brief case of the prosecution is that PW3/victim/Mode Mamatha

W/o Mahesh Age: 26 Yrs Caste: Jangala Occ: Coolie r/o Kandur village lodged a complaint on 01.10.2021 stating that about 10 years back her marriage was performed with PW1/Mahesh and due to marital disputes they separated. Thereafter she allegedly married A2/Srinu, who is the husband of her sister A1/Anjamma. It is alleged that when PW3 expressed her willingness to go back with her first husband Mahesh, both accused became angry and on 29.09.2021 at about 9.00 PM took her to Rachala hill and beat her with stick and wire, thereby causing 2 of 7 C.C.No.487 of 2021

Dated : 19.05.2026

bleeding injuries. On the basis of the said complaint, police registered the case for the offence under Section 324 r/w 34 IPC, investigated the matter and filed charge sheet against the accused.

3.Upon consideration of the material placed before the court, the cognizancefor the offence punishable u/Sec. 324 r/w 34 of IPC was taken against the accused No.1 and No.2. On appearance of the accused persons, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated u/Sec.207 Cr.P.C. The accused was examined u/Sec.239 Cr.P.C and charge as per Sec.240(2) Cr.P.C for the offence u/Sec. 324 r/w 34 of IPC wasframed against the accused No.1 and 2 and explained to them in

Telugu and having understood the charge framed against them, they denied the charge and on question of plea of guilt, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the trial against the accused persons.

4.For bringing home the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 5 and got exhibited Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. Ex.D1 is marked by accused. The evidence of LW.6/Dr. Geethanjali/CMO, GGH,

Mahabubnagar evidence was closed. During pendency of the case Lw.5/

T. Pedda Anjaneyulu died hence his evidence treated as closed.

5.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused persons was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C enabling them to explain personally the incriminating circumstances appeared against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which they denied the truthfulness of the evidence and reported no defense evidence on their side. Hence defense evidence was closed.

6.Heard, the learned APP and the learned counsel for the accused persons.

3 of 7 C.C.No.487 of 2021

Dated : 19.05.2026

7.Now the point for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the

accused No.1 and 2 by proving the charge for the offence

punishable u/Sec. 324 r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

8. POINT:-

(i) In order to bring home the guilt of accused under Section 324 IPC, the prosecution has to establish that the accused voluntarily caused hurt to the victim by using dangerous weapons or means.

(ii)The entire case of the prosecution mainly rests upon the evidence of PW3/victim, as all other witnesses including PW1 turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case.

(iii)On careful appreciation of the evidence of PW3/victim, several material contradictions and inconsistencies are found in her testimony which create serious doubt regarding the prosecution case.

(iv)In the complaint Ex.P3, PW3 clearly stated that after separation from her first husband, she married A2/Srinu, who is the husband of her sister A1. The Investigating Officer also admitted in his cross examination that in Ex.P3, PW3 stated that A2 is her second husband. Further, the IO admitted that PW3 stated before him as in Ex.D1/that A2 married her.

Thus, the earliest version of PW3 consistently shows that she married A2.

(v)However, before this Court, PW3 gave an entirely different version.

She deposed that A1 initially gave her shelter and later A1 and A2 started harassing her to marry A2 and when she refused, they beat her. This version is materially different from her earlier statement in Ex.P3 and

Ex.D1 wherein she had already stated that she married A2. Such contradiction goes to the root of the prosecution case and materially affects the credibility of PW3.

4 of 7 C.C.No.487 of 2021

Dated : 19.05.2026

(vi)There is also contradiction regarding the weapon allegedly used in the commission of offence. In Ex.P3/ complaint, PW3 stated that accused bet her with stick and wire at Rachala hill. However, before the Court she stated that accused bet her with stick and gas cylinder pipe. Further,

Ex.P6/ medical certificate mentions cylinder wire as the probable weapon.

Thus, there are inconsistent versions regarding the alleged weapon.

(vii)Further, Ex.P6/ medical certificate shows only a bruise on back and right leg and the injuries are simple in nature. The doctor who issued

Ex.P6 was not examined by the prosecution. Therefore, the medical evidence remained unproved formally.

(viii) Even otherwise, assuming the prosecution case to be true, neither stick nor cylinder wire used in the present facts can safely be treated as dangerous weapons or dangerous means within the meaning of Section 324 IPC, particularly when the injuries are only simple bruises.

(ix)It is also important to note that there is no seizure of stick, wire or cylinder pipe in the present case. The alleged weapons were not recovered during investigation. This omission further weakens the prosecution case.

(x)All other witnesses including PW1 turned hostile and did not support the prosecution. PW1, who according to the IO accompanied PW3 to the police station, did not support the case before Court. No independent witness supported the alleged incident.

(xi)The evidence of the Investigating Officer also creates doubt regarding the investigation. Though Ex.P3 mentions the place of offence as Rachalagutta, Ex.P5/scene of offence panchanama and rough sketch show the scene of offence as on the road from Ponnakal to Nandipet road.

Thus, there is inconsistency regarding the place of occurrence.

5 of 7 C.C.No.487 of 2021

Dated : 19.05.2026

(xii)Further, the IO admitted that there is correction in the timing mentioned in Ex.P5. On perusal of Ex.P5, it appears that the time was corrected from 11.30 hours to 12.30 hours. It is surprising that after registration of FIR at 11.00 hours, police could travel about 12 kilometers, secure panch witnesses who are admittedly not the neighbouring land holders and conduct panchanama proceedings within such short time. This circumstance creates doubt regarding the genuineness and timing of investigation.

(xiii) The IO further admitted that the panch witnesses were not neighboring land owners and they were generally called by police.

Therefore, the evidentiary value of Ex.P5 panchanama also becomes doubtful.

(xiv) Hence, the evidence placed by the prosecution is not consistent, reliable and trustworthy so as to base conviction against the accused.

(xv)In criminal law, the burden is always upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The accused are entitled to benefit of every reasonable doubt arising from the evidence on record. Suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof.

(xvi) In the present case, the prosecution evidence suffers from material contradictions, absence of corroboration, hostile witnesses, non-seizure of weapon, doubtful investigation, inconsistency regarding place of occurrence and lack of proof regarding use of dangerous weapon. The sole testimony of PW3 is not wholly reliable and is not sufficiently corroborated by independent evidence.

(xvii)Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused No.1 and accused 6 of 7 C.C.No.487 of 2021

Dated : 19.05.2026

No.2 voluntarily caused hurt to PW3 by using dangerous weapons or means in furtherance of their common intention.

9.IN THE RESULT, the accused No.1 and 2 found not guilty for the offence punishable u/Sec. 324 of IPC read with Section 34 IPC and consequently they are acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused persons shall remain in force for a period of 6 months from the date of judgment as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C for preferring appeal to the higher Court, from this judgment by prosecution or by the defacto- complainant. No order as to property since no property was deposited.

Typed to my dictation by stenographer Gr.III, after correction pronounced by me in the open court on this the 19th day of May, 2026. Digitally signed by MOHD MOHD

MUNAWARHUSSAAIN

MUNAWARHUSSAAIN

Date: 2026.05.19

13:40:27 +0530

SPL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

MOBILE COURT, MAHABUBNAGAR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR COMPLAINANT FOR

ACCUSED

Sl. No.NameDescription :: NONE :: PW-1Mahesh: Circumstantial witness PW-2Kondanna: Circumstantial witness PW-3Mamatha: complainant/ injured PW-4Baganna: Panch for CDF PW-5Srisailam: investigating officer

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION

Sl. No. Description Marked in

Ex.P1is the 161 CrPC statement of PW.1.: PW1 Ex.P2is the 161 CrPC statement of PW.2.: PW2 Ex.P3is the report.: PW5 Ex.P4is the First Information Report. : PW5 Ex.P5is the scene of offence panchanama. : PW5 Ex.P6is the medical certificate of PW3.: PW5 7 of 7 C.C.No.487 of 2021

Dated : 19.05.2026

FOR ACCUSED

Ex.D1is the relevant portion of 161 CrPC statement of PW3.:PW3

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

:: NIL ::

Digitally signed by MOHD MOHD

MUNAWARHUSSAAIN

MUNAWARHUSSAAIN

Date: 2026.05.19

13:40:33 +0530

SPL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,

MOBILE COURT, MAHABUBNAGAR.

C.C.No.147 of 20231 of 7 Dated : 14.10.2025

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS - MOBILE COURT AT MAHABUBNAGAR.

On this Tuesday, the 14 th day of October, 2025.

PRESENT : SRI. MOHD. MUNAWAR HUSSAAIN,

SPL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

MOBILE COURT AT MAHABUBNAGAR

C.C.No. 147 OF 2023

BETWEEN: The State of Telangana, Rep., by Sub Inspector of Police, Nawabpet Police Station, Mahabubnagar District. …Prosecution AND Gudepu Srinivasulu S/o. Narsaiah, age: 37 years, Occ: Bore Motor Mehanic, R/o. H.No. 2-75, Agiryal Village, Kondurg Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. …Accused.

*****

This Case is coming on 13.10.2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State and of Sri. C. Mallareddy (Legal Aid), Counsel for the accused, upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court delivered the following:

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

1.The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S.

Nawabpet, filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.26/2023 for the offences punishable u/Secs. 354D of Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereinafter to be referred as 'IPC'].

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 27.01.2023 at about 09:00 hours, the complainant Smt. Varthyavath Kavitha, W/o Ravi, aged 33 years, belonging to ST-Lambada community, resident of

Seethamma Thanda, H/o Yenmangandla village of Nawabpet Mandal, lodged a written report at P.S. Nawabpet alleging that for the last three months, one unknown person had been sending obscene messages to her mobile number 9705486272 and making frequent phone calls from

C.C.No.147 of 20232 of 7 Dated : 14.10.2025 mobile number 8828195297, using filthy and obscene words and harassing her mentally. She further stated that when she blocked his number, he started calling her husband and even downloaded and sent her photographs from her Instagram account to her husband’s mobile phone. On inquiry, she came to know that the said person was one

Gudepu Srinivasulu, the accused herein. Hence, she requested the police to take necessary legal action.

3.Upon consideration of the material placed before the court, the cognizancefor the offence punishable u/Sec. 354D of IPC was taken against the accused. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated u/Sec.207 Cr.P.C. The accused was examined u/Sec.239 Cr.P.C and charge as per Sec.240(2) Cr.P.C for the offence u/Sec. 354D of IPC wasframed against the accused and explained to him in Telugu and having understood the charge framed against him, he denied the charge and on question of plea of guilt, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the trial against the accused person.

4.For bringing home the guilt of the accused person, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 5 and got exhibited Ex.P1 to Ex.P10, Mo1 was marked. The learned APP given up the evidence of Lw.3/ K. Swapna,

Lw.4/ Y. Sayilamma, Lw.6/K. Shekhar, Lw.7/ N. Buchaiah and LW.9/ Smt.

Chaitanya Angari, Addl. J.F.C.M., Jadcherla.

5.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C enabling him to explain personally the

C.C.No.147 of 20233 of 7 Dated : 14.10.2025 incriminating circumstances appeared against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied the truthfulness of the evidence and reported no defense evidence on their side. Hence defense evidence was closed.

6.Heard, the learned APP and the learned counsel for the accused person.

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.

354D of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

8. POINT:-

(i)The prosecution, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, examined in all five witnesses (PW1 to PW5) and marked Ex.P1 to

Ex.P10, besides producing MO1 – OPPO mobile phone. However, PWs 1 to 4, who are material witnesses, turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. The Investigating Officer was examined as PW5.

(ii)Basing on the said report, PW5 (Investigating Officer), who was then SI of Police, P.S. Nawabpet, registered a case in Cr. No. 26/2023 for the offence punishable under Section 354-D IPC and issued FIR (Ex.P7).

During the course of investigation, the I.O. examined PW1 (the complainant) and PW2 (her husband) and recorded their statements. He visited the scene of offence, conducted a scene of offence panchanama in the presence of panch witnesses PW3 and LW6, which was marked as

Ex.P8, and drew a rough sketch. The statement of the victim was also

C.C.No.147 of 20234 of 7 Dated : 14.10.2025 recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by the learned Magistrate, which is marked as Ex.P9. Subsequently, the accused was apprehended on 14.02.2023, and his confessional statement was recorded in the presence of PW4 and LW7. During the same proceedings, one OPPO mobile phone (MO1) was seized under cover of Ex.P10 – confession-cum-seizure panchanama. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offence under Section 354-D IPC.

During the cross-examination of PW5, the defense counsel elicited that the I.O. had not verified the ownership particulars of the seized mobile phone and the SIM numbers, nor collected any call data records (CDR) to link the accused’s mobile with the alleged acts of harassment.

PW5 also admitted that he did not verify the Instagram account of the complainant to confirm the alleged downloading or sharing of her photos by the accused.

(iii)The learned defense counsel argued that except for the bare seizure of one mobile phone and the confession statement, there is no independent corroboration to connect the accused with the alleged offence. The alleged confession recorded by the police, being hit by

Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, cannot be used against the accused. The learned counsel therefore prayed for acquittal of the accused.

On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. contended that the prosecution witnesses have given consistent statements during investigation and the recovery of MO1 mobile phone from the accused

C.C.No.147 of 20235 of 7 Dated : 14.10.2025 corroborates the complainant’s allegations. It was argued that the offense under Section 354-D IPC is made out as the act of the accused amounts to stalking and harassment of a woman through digital communication.

(iv)Upon careful perusal of the evidence on record, it is evident that the complainant (PW1) and her husband (PW2) turned hostile and did not support the prosecution version. The prosecution did not produce any electronic evidence such as call detail records (CDRs), WhatsApp chats, or screenshots of obscene messages allegedly sent by the accused. The mobile phone seized from the accused (MO1) was not subjected to forensic analysis to extract incriminating data linking it with the complainant’s number. Therefore, the chain of circumstances connecting the accused to the alleged offence remains incomplete.

(v)It is settled law that in criminal jurisprudence, the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof. (Ref: Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v.

State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622). Further, when material witnesses turn hostile and there is no corroborative evidence, conviction cannot be sustained merely on the testimony of the Investigating Officer (State of Rajasthan v. Bhawani, (2003) 7 SCC 291).

(vi)In the present case, though the I.O. (PW5) deposed regarding registration of FIR, seizure of mobile phone, and recording of confession, there is no independent corroboration to establish that the accused was the person who sent obscene messages or harassed the complainant. The prosecution also failed to produce the complainant’s mobile phone or

C.C.No.147 of 20236 of 7 Dated : 14.10.2025 digital data to prove the alleged messages. Thus, the evidence on record falls short of the standard required to hold the accused guilty under

Section 354-D IPC.

(vii)Accordingly, this Court holds that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

10.IN THE RESULT, the accused/Gudepu Srinivasulu s/o. Narsaiah is found not guilty for the offences punishable u/Sec. 354D of IPC and consequently he is acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused person shall remain in force for a period of 6 months from the date of judgment as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C for preferring appeal to the higher Court, from this judgment by prosecution or by the defacto- complainant. The seized material object MO1 (OPPO mobile phone) shall be disposed as per law after expiry of appeal period.

Typed to my dictation by stenographer Gr.III, after correction pronounced by me in the open court on this the 14th day of October, 2025.

Sd/-

SPL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

MOBILE COURT, MAHABUBNAGAR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR COMPLAINANT FOR ACCUSED

PW-1V. Kavitha:: NONE :: PW-2V. Ravi PW-3T. Raghavender PW-4V. Hanmanthu Naik PW-5G. Purushotham

C.C.No.147 of 20237 of 7 Dated : 14.10.2025

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P1is the signature of Pw1 on report. Ex.P2is the 161 CrPC statement of PW1. Ex.P3is the 161 CrPC statement of PW2. Ex.P4is the signature of Pw3 on scene of offence panchanama. Ex.P5is the signature of Pw4 on confession cum seizure panchanama of accused. Ex.P6is the report given by PW1. Ex.P7is the First Information Report. Ex.P8is the scene of offence panchanama. Ex.P9is the 164 CrPC statement of PW1. Ex.P10 is the confession cum seizure panchanama.

FOR ACCUSED

:: NIL::

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

Mo1is the Oppo Mobile Phone.

Sd/-

SPL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

MOBILE COURT, MAHABUBNAGAR.

C.C.No.684 of 2024 1 of 6 Dated : 14.10.2025

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS - MOBILE COURT AT MAHABUBNAGAR.

On this Tuesday, the 14 th day of October, 2025.

PRESENT : SRI. MOHD. MUNAWAR HUSSAAIN,

SPL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

MOBILE COURT AT MAHABUBNAGAR

C.C.No. 684 OF 2024

BETWEEN: The State of Telangana, Rep., by Sub Inspector of Police, Nawabpet Police Station, Mahabubnagar District. …Prosecution AND Shirpa Chandu S/o. Chennaiah, age: 21 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.No. 6-43, Nawabpet Village and Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. …Accused

*****

This Case is coming on 07.10.2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State and of Sri. N. Ravi Kumar, Counsel for the accused, upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court delivered the following:

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

1.The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S.

Nawabpet, filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.157/2024 for the offences punishable u/Secs. 326, 323, 504 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereinafter to be referred as 'IPC'].

2.The brief facts of the case are that on 26.06.2024 at about 21:00 hours, the complainant Putti Mahesh was present at Hanuman Temple in

Nawabpet village when the accused, Shirpa Chandu, approached and engaged in a verbal altercation with him. The dispute escalated, and the accused allegedly used filthy language, picked up a stone, and assaulted the complainant, resulting in head injuries. The complainant, after completing medical treatment, lodged a complaint on 29.06.2024 at PS

Nawabpet. The case was registered under Sections 324, 323, and 504

IPC.

C.C.No.684 of 2024 2 of 6 Dated : 14.10.2025

3.Upon consideration of the material placed before the court, the cognizancefor the offence punishable u/Sec. 326, 323, 504 of IPC was taken against the accused. On appearance of the accused person, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated u/Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

The accused was examined u/Sec.239 Cr.P.C and charge as per

Sec.240(2) Cr.P.C for the offence u/Sec.326, 323, 504 of IPC wasframed against the accused and explained to him in Telugu and having understood the charge framed against him, he denied the charge and on question of plea of guilt, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Hence, the trial against the accused person.

4.For bringing home the guilt of the accused person, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 7 and got exhibited Ex.P1 to Ex.P11. The learned APP given up the evidence of LW.7/ P. Anjaiah, Lw.8/ Dr. Rajeshwari/Medical officer and Lw.9/ V. Anand/ ASI of police.

5.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused person was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C enabling him to explain personally the incriminating circumstances appeared against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied the truthfulness of the evidence and reported no defense evidence on his side. Hence defense evidence was closed.

6.Heard, the learned APP and the learned counsel for the accused person.

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.

326, 323, 504 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

C.C.No.684 of 2024 3 of 6 Dated : 14.10.2025

8. POINT:-

(i)At trial, PW1 to PW6 turned hostile and did not fully support the prosecution story. Examination-in-chief and cross-examination of the investigating officer (IO) established that the investigation was conducted in accordance with the provisions of law. The IO recorded statements under Section 161 CrPC, visited the scene of offence, prepared the panchanama, and collected medical evidence. The defense contended that the accused had no connection with the incident and suggested that the investigation was improper.

(ii)The primary question for determination is whether the prosecution has proved the offences under Sections 326, 323, and 504 IPC beyond reasonable doubt.

(iii)Upon careful examination of the evidence on record, it is observed that the prosecution case suffers from significant inconsistencies and lack of reliable corroboration. The complainant PW1 alleged that the accused caused him injuries by beating him with a stone and hands at the

Hanuman Temple on 26.06.2024. However, during the course of trial,

PW1 to PW6 turned hostile and did not support the prosecution version of the incident. Their statements before the court materially differ from their earlier statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC, creating doubt as to the credibility of the prosecution story. The hostility of key witnesses, who were allegedly present at the scene, seriously weakens the case against the accused.

(iv)The medical evidence (Ex.P11) shows that the complainant sustained head injury. However, the nature and extent of the injury are not of a grievous nature sufficient to attract Section 326 IPC. There is no

C.C.No.684 of 2024 4 of 6 Dated : 14.10.2025 clear evidence that a dangerous weapon was used or that the injury endangered life or caused permanent disability. The mere presence of an injury does not conclusively prove that it was caused by the accused, especially in light of the hostile testimony of witnesses and absence of independent corroboration.

(v)Regarding Section 323 IPC, while the complainant alleges hurt, the hostile stance of witnesses and the absence of direct evidence linking the accused to the act of assault raise serious doubts about the prosecution’s case. The defence raised a plausible suggestion that the accused had no connection with the incident, which remains uncontroverted in the face of hostile evidence. In criminal jurisprudence, where there is reasonable doubt about the involvement of the accused, the benefit must accrue to the accused.

(vi)Similarly, for the offence under Section 504 IPC, the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused intentionally insulted the complainant with the intent to provoke a breach of peace.

The statements of witnesses regarding the alleged abuse are inconsistent, and the prosecution has not examined any independent witnesses to substantiate the claim of intentional insult. The material inconsistencies in the testimony of the complainant and other witnesses create reasonable doubt regarding the alleged motive and intention of the accused.

(vii)Considering the above, the prosecution has not been able to discharge its burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt for any of the offences charged. In the absence of credible, consistent, and

C.C.No.684 of 2024 5 of 6 Dated : 14.10.2025 corroborated evidence linking the accused to the alleged offences, the court is constrained to give the benefit of doubt to the accused.

9.IN THE RESULT, the accused found not guilty for the offence punishable u/Sec. 326, 323, and 504 IPC and consequently he is acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused person shall remain in force for a period of 6 months from the date of judgment as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C for preferring appeal to the higher Court, from this judgment by prosecution or by the defacto-complainant. No property was deposited, hence no order as to the property.

Typed to my dictation by stenographer Gr.III, after correction pronounced by me in the open court on this the 14th day of October, 2025.

Sd/-

SPL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

MOBILE COURT, MAHABUBNAGAR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR COMPLAINANT FOR ACCUSED

PW-1Mahesh:: NONE ::

PW-2Lalaiah

PW-3Yadamma

PW-4K. Raju

PW-5Shilam Raju

PW-6Rajesh

PW-7M. Vikram

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P1is the signature of PW1 on report. Ex.P2is the 161 CrPC statement of PW.1. Ex.P3is the 161 CrPC statement of PW.2. Ex.P4is the 161 CrPC statement of PW.3. Ex.P5is the 161 CrPC statement of PW.4. Ex.P6is the 161 CrPC statement of PW.5.

C.C.No.684 of 2024 6 of 6 Dated : 14.10.2025

Ex.P7is the signature of Pw.6 on scene of offence panchanama. Ex.P8is the report given by PW1. Ex.P9is the First Information Report. Ex.P10 is the scene of offence panchanama. Ex.P11 is the medical certificate of PW1.

FOR ACCUSED

:: NIL::

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

:: NIL::

Sd/-

SPL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,

MOBILE COURT, MAHABUBNAGAR.