Smt. Mohideen Zamruth Begum Kamaludeen

Prl.Junior Civil Judge

Prl. District and Sessions Court, Srikakulam · Srikakulam · Andhra Pradesh

Smt. Mohideen Zamruth Begum Kamaludeen, Prl.Junior Civil Judge, is posted at Prl. District and Sessions Court, Srikakulam, Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh, India. 1,455 court orders on record since 2024. 6 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles STC, CC, OS cases.

1,455

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

CC/811/2025 Acquitted

SHO, SRIKAKULAM II TOWN PS. vs KALAGA RAMU

11 May 2026

C.C.No.811/2025 //1//APSR020016882025 Dt.11.05.2026

IN THE COURT OF I-ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS ::

SRIKAKULAM.

Present:- Smt. Mohideen Zamruth Begum Kamaludeen,

I-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Srikakulam.

Monday, this the 11th day of May, 2026

Calendar Case No.811 of 2025

Between:

State represented by the Inspector of Police, Srikakulam II Town Police Station. Complainant.

And :

Kalaga Ramu, S/o late Thavitayya, 36 years, Yadava by caste, Peddapadu village, Srikakulam Rural Mandal.

ACCUSED.

This case has come before me on 07.05.2026, for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant/State and Sri P.Anjani Kumar, Legal Assistant Counsel for the accused and this matter having been stood-over for determination till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

01). The Sub-Inspector of Police, Srikakulam II Town Police Station,

Srikakulam District, has filed Charge-Sheet against the accused, in Crime

No.4/2025, for the offence punishable under Sections 305(a) and 317 of

B.N.S.

02). The case of Prosecution in brief is that: The accused, namely

Kalaga Ramu, S/o late Thavitayya, aged about 36 years, resident of

Peddapadu Village, Srikakulam Rural Mandal, is stated to be habituated to committing property offences and that a history sheet is allegedly being maintained against him at Srikakulam Rural Police Station for surveillance purposes.

C.C.No.811/2025 //2//APSR020016882025 Dt.11.05.2026 02(a). It is alleged that on the night intervening 06.01.2025, some unknown culprits gained entry into the Bar Association Room situated in the

District Court premises, Srikakulam through the exit fan opening and also gained entry into tea time shop and committed theft of one 32-inch colour television worth about Rs.3,000/- and cash of Rs.3,500/-. On 07.01.2025 at about 1:00 p.m., LW.1/Yagalla Prasanna Kumar, who is the de facto complainant, presented a report before Srikakulam II Town Police Station narrating the above facts. Based on the said report, L.W.11/P.Eswararao, the

Investigating Officer, registered a case in Crime No.04/2025 for the offence punishable under Section 305(a) BNS and took up investigation.

02(b). During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer visited and inspected the scene of offence in the presence of mediators LWs.7 and 8 (LW.7/Bora Divya and LW.8/Patan Mariya Khatoon), prepared the scene observation report and rough sketch, and examined L.Ws.1 to 6 (LW.1/Y.Prasanna Kumar, LW.2/R.Gopalarao, LW.3/G.Tejeswararao,

LW.4/P.Kalyani, LW.5/P.Suryarao and LW.6/K.Eswararao) and recorded their statements under law. The prosecution further alleges that while the investigation was in progress, on 22.07.2025 the accused was apprehended by LW.11/P.Eswararao, C.I., of Police, Srikakulam II Town P.S., in the presence of mediators LWs.9 and 10 (LW.9/S.Maheswararao and

LW.10/B.Laxmi). It is stated that the accused made a confessional statement and, pursuant thereto, the Investigating Officer recovered the stolen 32-inch colour television under a mediators’ report. The prosecution further alleges that the accused confessed that he had already spent the stolen cash amount of Rs.3,500/-. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer issued notice to the accused under Section 35(3) BNS, obtained his explanation, and directed him to appear before the Court as and when required. Upon completion of investigation, LW.11/P.Eswararao, C.I., of Police, Srikakulam II Town P.S., filed charge sheet against the accused alleging that the investigation disclosed

C.C.No.811/2025 //3//APSR020016882025 Dt.11.05.2026 that the accused had trespassed into the Bar Association Room through the exit fan opening and committed theft of the television and also cash in tea time shop and thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 305(a) and 317 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. After completion of the investigation,

LW.11/P.Eswararao, C.I., of Police, Srikakulam II Town P.S., filed charge sheet against the accused.

03). The Court took cognizance of the offences punishable under

Sections 305(a) and 317 of B.N.S., against the accused. On appearance of accused before the Court, copies of documents were furnished to him, as required under Section 230 of B.N.S.S. (Old Section 207 of Cr.P.C.) 04). The accused was examined under Section 262 of B.N.S.S. (Old

Section 239 of Cr.P.C.,) by explaining the substance of accusation leveled against him and charges was framed against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 305(a) and 317 of B.N.S., for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

05). To prove the guilt of the accused, the Prosecution has examined

PW’s.1 to PW.6 and Ex’s.P.1 to Ex.P.6 and M.O.1, were marked through him.

The evidences of LW.4/Ponnada Kalyani, LW.5/Ponnada Suryarao,

LW.6/Kolari Eswararao, LW.8/Patan Mariya Khatoon and LW.9/Suvvari

Maheswararao, the then Inspector of Police were given up by the prosecution.

06). After closure of the Prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 351 of B.N.S.S. (Old Section 313 of Cr.P.C.,) by explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against him. He denied it totally and reported no Defence evidence.

07). Heard Arguments on both sides and perused the record.

C.C.No.811/2025 //4//APSR020016882025 Dt.11.05.2026 08). Now the point for determination is:

Whether the accused has committed the offence punishable under Sections 305(a) and 317 of B.N.S., & Whether the Prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts?

Point :-

09. PW.1/Yagalla Prasanna Kumar deposed that he has been practicing as an advocate since 2007 and served as General Secretary of the

Srikakulam Bar Association during 2024-2025. He stated that he knew LW- 2/Randi Gopalarao, owner of Tea Time shop, LW-3/G.Tejeswararao, office boy at Srikakulam Bar Association, and LW-6/Kilari Eswararao, who was President of the Srikakulam Bar Association at the relevant time. He further stated that on 07.01.2025 at about 09:30 AM, LW-6 telephoned him and informed that

LW-3 had informed him that while opening the Bar Association room for cleaning, he found the TV missing and the articles scattered on the floor and that in the adjacent Tea Time shop, the exhaust fan had been removed and footprints were noticed on the wall. PW-1 stated that immediately he and LW-6 went to the Bar Association along with other advocates and confirmed the missing of the TV. LW-2 informed them that cash of Rs.3,500/- was missing from his cash counter. Thereafter, all advocates informed the Hon’ble Principal

District Judge, Srikakulam and PW-1 lodged Ex.P1-report with police on the

same day. Police examined him and recorded his statement. After about six months, police informed him that the TV was recovered. He identified MO-1-

TV. During the cross examination, PW-1 admitted that he did not mention the company name of the TV in the report. He further stated that he did not know who committed the theft of the TV from the Bar Association.

10. PW-2/Randhi Gopalarao deposed that he has been running a tea shop in the name and style “Tea Time” situated in the premises of District

Court, Srikakulam. He stated that he knew PW-1 and LW-3/G.Tejeswararao.

LW-4/Ponnada Kalyani is his younger sister and LW-5/P.Suryarao is his

C.C.No.811/2025 //5//APSR020016882025 Dt.11.05.2026 brother-in-law. He stated that on 06.01.2025 he closed his shop at about 07:00 PM and on the next day, i.e., 07.01.2025 at about 08:00 AM, he opened the shutter and found the articles in the shop lying scattered and the exhaust fan fixed to the window lying on the ground. He noticed that Rs.3,500/- was missing from the cash box in the shop. He informed PW-1 over phone and they advised him not to touch anything. PW-1 also found that the 32-inch TV from the Bar Room was missing and lodged a complaint with Srikakulam II

Town Police Station regarding missing of the TV and cash in the shop. Police did not recover his cash. Police examined him and recorded his statement.

During the cross examination, PW-2 admitted that neither he nor LW-4 and

LW-5 lodged any report before police regarding the missing cash.

11. PW-3/Gangada Tejeswararao deposed that he has been working as office boy in the Bar Association, Srikakulam District Court Complex, for the last one and half years. He stated that PW-1 was the Secretary and LW- 6/K.Eswararao was the President of the Srikakulam Bar Association at the relevant time. He further stated that on 07.01.2025 at about 09:00 AM, he attended his duties as usual and opened the doors of the Bar Association room and found the LED TV missing. He immediately informed PW-1 and LW- 6 over phone about the missing TV. PW-1 and LW-6 came there and verified the same. In the meantime, PW-2 informed him about missing of Rs.3,500/- from the Tea Time shop situated in front of the Bar Room. Thereafter, PW-1 lodged a report before police regarding the missing TV and cash. Police examined him and recorded his statement.

11(a). During the cross examination, PW-3 stated that he is literate. He admitted that he did not lodge any report before police regarding the missing

TV from the Bar Room. He further admitted that he had closed the Bar Room on the previous day of the incident and on the next day after opening the room he noticed the TV missing.

C.C.No.811/2025 //6//APSR020016882025 Dt.11.05.2026

12. PW-4/Bora Divya deposed that she has been working as VRO,

Santinagar Sachivalayam, Srikakulam from 05.10.2023 till date and that she knew LW-8/P.Mariya Khatoon, who was working as Woman Protection

Secretary at the relevant time. She stated that on 07.01.2025 she received a phone call from the MRO Office, Srikakulam directing her to accompany II

Town Police to the scene of offence. Accordingly, she along with LW-8 visited the Bar Association Building and Tea Time shop situated in the District Court

Complex, Srikakulam. In their presence, police inspected the scene of offence and prepared scene observation report and obtained their signatures. She identified Ex.P2-scene observation report dated 07.01.2025.

12(a). During the cross examination, PW-4 admitted that no physical evidence was available at the scene of offence.

13. PW-5/Budumuru Venkata Lakshmi deposed that she has been working as VRO, Kesavaraopeta Sachivalayam and previously worked as

VRO, P.N.Colony, Srikakulam from October 2024 to March 2026. She stated that she knew LW-9/S.Maheswararao, VRO. According to her, on 22.07.2025, the Tahsildar, Srikakulam directed her and LW-9 to go to Srikakulam II Town

Police Station as per the request of the SI of Police to act as mediators. At about 12:00 noon, they went to the police station and thereafter accompanied the CI of Police and staff to Choudary Satyanarayana Colony Junction,

Thotapalem. While police were conducting vehicle checking, they noticed one person carrying a gunny bag on his shoulder. On seeing police, he attempted to escape but was apprehended by the Inspector with the help of police staff.

On enquiry, he disclosed his identity as Kalaga Ramu and confessed before them that he committed theft of 08 electrical wire bundles from an under- construction building at Aditya Nagar Colony, theft of 05 electrical wire bundles from Samskar School, Peddapadu, theft of one Lenovo laptop from

Agricultural Research Centre, Ragolu and theft of a TV and Rs.3,500/- from a shop in the District Court premises. He further stated that he spent Rs.3,500/-

C.C.No.811/2025 //7//APSR020016882025 Dt.11.05.2026 for his personal needs and also confessed to theft of 06 electrical wire bundles from AVM Towers, P.N.Colony and attempt to commit theft in an electrical shop at Krishna Park in the year 2022, during which he removed CCTV cameras, DVR and iron rod and threw them into Nagavali River. She stated that police seized 12 bundles of electrical wire from the possession of accused. Police prepared Ex.P3-confessional statement in a laptop and took printout and obtained signatures of herself and LW-9. Thereafter, the accused led them to the ground floor of an old unused two-storeyed building situated behind Arts College, Srikakulam and opened a cupboard from which one black

Lenovo laptop, one MI 32-inch LED TV and 06 bundles of electrical wire were recovered. The accused further stated that he sold the remaining stolen property and spent the amount for his personal needs. Police seized the said properties and prepared Ex.P4-seizure panchanama and obtained signatures of herself and LW-9. She identified the accused present in Court.

13(a). During the cross examination, PW-5 admitted that the company name of MO-1-TV was not mentioned in Ex.P4. She admitted that Ex.P3 and

Ex.P4 are typed copies and that she could not say the name of the laptop in which Exs.P3 and P4 were prepared. She stated that printouts were taken from a Mee Seva/Internet Centre belonging to Srinivasarao at Thotapalem

Junction and that police did not examine Srinivasarao. She further admitted that police seized the gunny bag from the accused and that neither she, PW-4 nor police signed on any paper slip affixed to the gunny bag. She stated that she could not say the description of the wire bundles seized from the accused.

She denied the suggestion that she never went to Arts College or Thotapalem

Junction and that accused never confessed before her or that Exs.P3 and P4 were not prepared in her presence. She admitted that police did not videograph preparation of Exs.P3 and P4 and that no separate seizure list was prepared. She denied the suggestion that Exs.P3 and P4 were prepared at the police station and that she signed them there at the request of police.

C.C.No.811/2025 //8//APSR020016882025 Dt.11.05.2026

She also denied the suggestion that police had shown the accused to her

before entering the witness box.

14. PW-6/P.Eswararao deposed that he has been working as

Inspector of Police, Srikakulam II Town Police Station from 03.11.2024 till date. He stated that on 07.01.2025 at about 01:00 PM, PW-1 presented a written report at the police station and based on the same, he registered

Crime No.04/2025 under Section 305(a) of BNS Act and submitted the original

FIR before Court. He identified Ex.P5-FIR. On the same day, he visited the scene of offence situated at District Bar Association, Srikakulam District Court

Complex and examined and recorded statements of PWs.1 to 3 and LW- 4/P.Kalyani, LW-5/P.Suryarao and LW-6/K.Eswararao. He observed the scene and prepared scene observation report and rough sketch in the presence of mediators PW-4 and LW-8/P.M.Khatoon. He identified Ex.P6-rough sketch.

14(a). PW.6 further deposed that on 22.07.2025 at about 12:30 PM, on receiving credible information regarding movements of accused in Crime

No.218/2024 under Sections 331(4) and 305(a) BNS, he secured mediators

PW-4 and LW-7/Suvvari Maheswararao and along with police staff conducted vehicle checking at Choudary Satyanarayana Colony, Thotapalem Road

Junction. During checking, they noticed one person carrying a gunny bag. On seeing police, he attempted to escape but was apprehended. On enquiry, he disclosed his identity as Kalaga Ramu, S/o late Thavitayya, resident of

Peddapadu village. The accused confessed regarding thefts committed in several cases. PW-6 stated that the accused confessed about theft of wire bundles from Sura’s Build Mart, attempt to commit theft in an electrical shop at

Krishna Park in the year 2022 and removal of CCTV DVR and iron rod, theft of one laptop from Agricultural Research Centre, Ragolu, theft of Rs.3,500/- and a 32-inch TV from Tea Time shop and Bar Association room situated in District

Court Complex and thefts of wire bundles from Adityanagar Colony, Samskar

School and AVM Towers Apartment. He stated that PC-1208 prepared Ex.P3-

C.C.No.811/2025 //9//APSR020016882025 Dt.11.05.2026 confessional statement on his dictation and signatures of accused and mediators were obtained. Thereafter, accused led them to an abandoned building in Arts College Ground, Srikakulam and produced one laptop, one 32- inch MI Company LED TV, wire bundles relating to different crimes, which were seized under Ex.P4-seizure panchanama. Thereafter, he arrested the accused, brought him and seized property to police station and informed the concerned SHO regarding seizure of property. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused.

14(b). During the cross examination of PW-6, he admitted that he did not send any written requisition to the Tahsildar for deputing VROs as mediators and only made oral requisition. He admitted that Ex.P3 does not mention that oral requisition was made to the Tahsildar. He denied the suggestion that Thotapalem Junction is not a busy locality. He admitted that

Ex.P3 does not contain description or company names of the stolen properties confessed by accused. He further stated that he identified the properties by enquiring with the concerned police stations and not based on information furnished by accused. He admitted that Ex.P3 was prepared after listening to the confession of accused and after enquiring the concerned police stations regarding crime numbers and that it took one hour to prepare Ex.P3. He admitted that Ex.P3 is a printout copy and that printout was taken using office printer connected to a nearby shop, though he could not state the name of the shop owner and did not examine him. He admitted that Arts College Ground is busy in mornings and evenings and that no independent persons there were examined. He further admitted that Ex.P4 is also a printout copy and that printout was taken using office printer connected in the hostel at Arts College.

He admitted that he did not examine hostel warden or hostel staff and that no audio or videography of confession or seizure was conducted. He denied the suggestion that accused never confessed before him or that no property was seized from the possession of accused and that MO-1 was planted for the

C.C.No.811/2025 //10//APSR020016882025 Dt.11.05.2026 purpose of the case. He denied the suggestion that Exs.P3 and P4 were prepared at the police station and signatures of mediators obtained there. He further denied that investigation procedure was not followed. He admitted that no test identification parade of property was conducted with PW-1 and that no physical evidence was available at the scene of offence.

Discussion, Decision and Reasons Thereof:

15. Upon considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, this Court observes that , the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 6 and relied upon Exs.P1 to P6 and M.O.1-TV. The evidence of PWs.1 to 3 consistently establishes that during the intervening night of 06/07.01.2025, unknown persons trespassed into the Bar Association Room and Tea Time shop and committed theft of one 32-inch television and cash of Rs.3,500/-.

16. PW.1/Yagalla Prasanna Kumar, who was serving as General

Secretary of the Srikakulam Bar Association at the relevant time, deposed that on 07.01.2025 he received information from PW.3 and LW.6 regarding missing of the TV from the Bar Association Room and disturbance of articles inside the room. He further stated that when he visited the premises, he found the TV missing and came to know from PW.2 that cash of Rs.3,500/- was also missing from the Tea Time shop. Thereafter, he lodged Ex.P1-report before police. Though he identified M.O.1-TV after recovery, he categorically admitted in cross examination that he did not know who committed the theft.

17. PW.2/Randhi Gopalarao, owner of Tea Time shop, deposed that after opening his shop on the morning of 07.01.2025, he found the articles scattered, the exhaust fan removed and cash of Rs.3,500/- missing from the cash box. His evidence clearly corroborates the occurrence of theft. However, he also did not implicate the accused in the commission of theft and admitted

C.C.No.811/2025 //11//APSR020016882025 Dt.11.05.2026 that neither he nor his family members lodged any separate complaint regarding the missing cash.

18. PW.3/Gangada Tejeswararao, office boy of the Bar Association, stated that when he opened the Bar Room on 07.01.2025, he noticed that the

LED TV was missing and immediately informed PW.1 and LW.6. His evidence further corroborates the prosecution version regarding the occurrence of theft.

However, he also admitted in cross examination that he had not seen who committed the theft.

19. Thus, from the consistent testimony of PWs.1 to 3, this Court is satisfied that theft of the television and cash had in fact taken place. However, the mere proof of theft is not sufficient to convict the accused under Section 305(a) BNS unless there is reliable evidence connecting him with the actual commission of the offence.

20. Admittedly, there is no direct eyewitness evidence against the accused. No witness has spoken about seeing the accused entering the Bar

Association Room or Tea Time shop. No CCTV footage, fingerprints, scientific evidence, or forensic material linking the accused with the scene of offence was produced before the Court. PW.4/Bora Divya, who acted as mediator for scene observation proceedings, specifically admitted in her cross examination that no physical evidence was available at the scene of offence.

21. The prosecution mainly relied upon the alleged confessional statement of the accused and consequential recovery of M.O.1-TV under

Ex.P4-seizure panchanama. However, the evidence relating to confession and recovery is not wholly free from doubt.

22. PW.5/Budumuru Venkata Lakshmi, mediator for confession and seizure proceedings, admitted that Exs.P3 and P4 are typed printout copies.

She further admitted that she could not say in which laptop the proceedings

C.C.No.811/2025 //12//APSR020016882025 Dt.11.05.2026 were prepared and that printouts were taken from a Mee Seva/Internet

Centre, but the concerned person was not examined by police. She also admitted that no signatures were affixed on the gunny bag allegedly seized from the accused and that no videography of confession or seizure proceedings was conducted.

23. Likewise, PW.6/Investigating Officer admitted several material omissions and lapses in investigation. He admitted that no written requisition was given to the Tahsildar for deputing mediators; no independent witnesses from the locality were examined though the place of apprehension and seizure were busy localities; no audio or video recording of confession and seizure proceedings was conducted; and no test identification parade of the recovered property was held. He further admitted that Ex.P3-confessional statement does not contain description or company names of the alleged stolen properties and that he identified the properties only after enquiring with concerned police stations.

24. Significantly, the alleged recovery was effected nearly six months after the date of occurrence. Except the alleged confession and recovery, there is absolutely no independent material connecting the accused with the actual commission of theft. It is well settled that recovery of property alone, particularly when surrounded by suspicious circumstances, is insufficient to conclusively establish the offence of theft under Section 305(a) BNS in the absence of cogent evidence proving participation of the accused in the occurrence itself.

25. In the present case, the chain of circumstances is incomplete.

The prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed lurking house trespass and theft from the Bar Association Room and Tea Time shop. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the

C.C.No.811/2025 //13//APSR020016882025 Dt.11.05.2026 accused is entitled to benefit of doubt insofar as the offence punishable under

Section 305(a) BNS is concerned.

26. However, insofar as the offence under Section 317 BNS is concerned, the evidence on record stands on a different footing. Both PW.5 and PW.6 consistently deposed that pursuant to the disclosure made by the accused, M.O.1-TV was recovered from the abandoned building behind Arts

College Ground. PW.1 identified the recovered TV as belonging to the Bar

Association. Though there are certain procedural irregularities in the preparation of Exs.P3 and P4, the fact remains that the accused was found in possession of stolen property and failed to offer any plausible explanation regarding such possession during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

27. The offence under Section 317 BNS relates to dishonest receiving or retention of stolen property knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen. In the instant case, recovery of M.O.1-TV from the possession of the accused soon after disclosure by him, coupled with absence of any explanation from the accused regarding lawful possession, sufficiently establishes that he dishonestly retained stolen property knowing it to be stolen.

28. Therefore, this Court holds that though the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offence punishable under Section 305(a) BNS, it successfully proved that the accused committed the offence punishable under Section 317 BNS by retaining stolen property.

29. Accordingly, the point is answered partly in favour of the prosecution holding that the accused is not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 305(a) BNS, but is guilty for the offence punishable under

Section 317 BNS.

C.C.No.811/2025 //14//APSR020016882025 Dt.11.05.2026

30) In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 305(a) of B.N.S., and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 271(1) of B.N.S.S., (Old Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C.,) for the offence under Section 305(a) of B.N.S. Accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 317 of B.N.S., and accordingly he is convicted under Section 271(2) of B.N.S.S. (Old Section 248(2) of Cr.P.C.).

M.O.1 shall be returned to PW-1 after due identification and obtaining proper acknowledgment, after expiry of the appeal period. If no claim is made, the same shall be confiscated to the State.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 11 th day of May, 2026.

1 st Addl. Judicial Magistrate of 1 st Class Srikakulam

31) When the Accused is questioned regarding the quantum of sentence and anything he wish to say, for which the accused submitted that he is having wife and children and they are depending upon him and prayed the Court to excuse them and take a lenient view in imposing sentence. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to invoke the Provisions of

Probation of Offenders Act as record speaks that accused is habitual offender.

Keeping in view the nature of the offence and the circumstances stated by the accused.

32) On considering the nature of the offence and having regard to the above submissions of the accused, he is sentenced to under simple imprisonment for a period of 6 (six) months for the offence punishable under Section 317(2) of B.N.S.

33) In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 305(a) of B.N.S., and accordingly he is acquitted

C.C.No.811/2025 //15//APSR020016882025 Dt.11.05.2026 under Section 271(1) of B.N.S.S., (Old Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C.,) for the offence under Section 305(a) of B.N.S. Accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 317 of B.N.S., and accordingly he is convicted under Section 271(2) of B.N.S.S. (Old Section 248(2) of Cr.P.C.) and he is sentenced to under simple imprisonment for a period of 6 (six) months for the offence punishable under Section 317(2) of B.N.S. M.O.1 shall be returned to PW-1 after due identification and obtaining proper acknowledgment, after expiry of the appeal period. If no claim is made, the same shall be confiscated to the State.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 11 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- Smt. Mohideen Zamruth

Begum Kamaludeen, I-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Srikakulam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Defence:-

PW-1 Yagalla Prasanna KumarNil

PW-2Randhi Gopalarao

PW-3Gangada Tejeswararao

PW-4Bora Divya

PW-5Budumuru Venkata Lakshmi

PW-6P.Eswararao, C.I., of Police

Exhibits marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P.1Report of PW.1, dated 07.01.2025.

Ex.P.2Scene observation report, dated 07.01.2025.

Ex.P.3Confessional statement of accused.

C.C.No.811/2025 //16//APSR020016882025 Dt.11.05.2026

Ex.P.4Seizure Nama, dated 22.07.2025.

Ex.P.5First Information Report.

Ex.P.6Rough sketch.

For Defence: Nil

Material objects

M.O.1 – T.V.

Sd/- Smt. Mohideen Zamruth

Begum Kamaludeen, I-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Srikakulam.

C.C.No.811/2025 //17//APSR020016882025 Dt.11.05.2026

Calendar and Judgment

Calendar Cases tried by the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Srikakulam.

CALENDAR CASE No.811/2025

Date of offence06.01.2025 to 07.01.2025

Date of Complaint or Report07.01.2025

Apprehension of the accused22.07.2025 (Sec.41-A Cr.P.C.Notice)

Remand of the accused-

Release on bail of accusedServed 41-A Cr.P.C. notice

Taken on file04.12.2025

Commencement of trial31.03.2026

Close of trial07.05.2026

Sentence of Order11.05.2026

Explanation for the delay:Due to non-production of witnesses by the prosecution.

Name of the complainant:State represented by the Inspector of Police, Srikakulam II Town Police Station.

Name of the Accused:Kalaga Ramu, S/o late Thavitayya, 36 years, Yadava by caste, Peddapadu village, Srikakulam Rural Mandal.

Crime No. :4/2025

Offence :Sections 305(a) and 317 of B.N.S.

Sentence or order:- In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable

C.C.No.811/2025 //18//APSR020016882025 Dt.11.05.2026 under Section 305(a) of B.N.S., and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 271(1) of B.N.S.S., (Old Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C.,) for the offence under Section 305(a) of B.N.S. Accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under

Section 317 of B.N.S., and accordingly he is convicted under Section 271(2) of

B.N.S.S. (Old Section 248(2) of Cr.P.C.) and he is sentenced to under simple imprisonment for a period of 6 (six) months for the offence punishable under

Section 317(2) of B.N.S. M.O.1 shall be returned to PW-1 after due identification and obtaining proper acknowledgment, after expiry of the appeal period. If no claim is made, the same shall be confiscated to the State.

Sd/- Smt. Mohideen Zamruth

Begum Kamaludeen, I-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Srikakulam. Copy submitted to the Hon’ble I Addl. District Judge, Srikakulam.

CC/867/2025 Acquitted

SHO, SRIKAKULAM II TOWN PS vs Dakkatha Hadia / Hariharareddy

12 May 2026

C.C.No.867/2025 //1//APSR020020082025 Dt.12.05.2026

IN THE COURT OF I-ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS ::

SRIKAKULAM.

Present:- Smt. Mohideen Zamruth Begum Kamaludeen,

I-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Srikakulam.

Tuesday, this the 12th day of May, 2026

Calendar Case No.867 of 2025

Between:

State represented by the Inspector of Police, Srikakulam II Town Police Station. Complainant.

And :

1. Dakkatha Hadia @ Hariharareddy, S/o Dakati Sureya, 43 years, Sitarampuram, Chamakandi PO, Chamakhandi District, Ganjam, Odisha State.

2. Simachal Sahu, S/o Rajendra Sahu, 35 years, Odisha State.

3. Buridi Ashok Patra, S/o Purushottam Patra, Odisha State.

ACCUSED.

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

01). The Sub-Inspector of Police, Srikakulam II Town Police Station,

Srikakulam District, has filed Charge-Sheet against the accused No.1 to 3, in

Crime No.103/2025, for the offence punishable under Sections 303(2), 318(4) read with 3(5) of B.N.S.

02). The case of Prosecution in brief is that: on 24.06.2025 at about 1:00 p.m., LW-2/Dhoni Rohit visited the SBI ATM near Ramalaxman Theatre

Junction, Srikakulam, to withdraw cash on behalf of his father/LW-1/Dhoni

C.C.No.867/2025 //2//APSR020020082025 Dt.12.05.2026

Laxmanarao. As the transaction did not proceed, an unknown person standing behind LW-2 offered assistance, took the ATM card from him, diverted his attention by conversation, and allegedly exchanged the ATM card with another card belonging to one Mylapalli Bhagyasree. Thereafter, the accused allegedly withdrew Rs.40,000/- from another ATM and transferred Rs.12,000/- through UPI, thereby causing wrongful loss of Rs.52,000/- to the complainant.

Based on the report of LW-1, a case was registered on 30.06.2025 in Crime

No.103/2025 of Srikakulam II Town Police Station and investigation was taken up. During investigation, the Investigating Officer examined the witnesses, inspected the scene of offence, prepared an observation report and rough sketch, and recorded statements of the material witnesses.

02(a). The charge sheet further states that on 03.09.2025, LW- 9/V.Lovaraju, the then S.I., of Police Sompeta arrested the accused at RTC

Complex, Sompeta, and recorded their confessional statements in the presence of mediators. During the arrest, cash, several ATM cards, three mobile phones, and a motorcycle bearing No. OD-07-AD-6857 were allegedly seized from the accused. Out of the seized amount, Rs.20,264/- was stated to pertain to the present crime. The accused are alleged to have admitted their involvement in the offence during interrogation.

02(b). According to the prosecution, the investigation disclosed that the accused, acting in furtherance of their common intention, cheated LW-2/Dhoni

Rohi by exchanging the ATM card and thereafter committed theft of money through ATM withdrawal and UPI transactions. Upon completion of investigation, the police filed the charge sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences. After completion of the investigation, LW.12/Smt

K.Lakshmi, Women S.I., of Police, Srikakulam II Town P.S., filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 3.

03). The Court took cognizance of the offences punishable under

C.C.No.867/2025 //3//APSR020020082025 Dt.12.05.2026

Sections 303(2), 318(4) read with 3(5) of B.N.S., against the accused No.1 to

3. On appearance of accused No.1 to 3 before the Court, copies of documents were furnished to them, as required Section 230 of B.N.S.S. (Old

Section 207 of Cr.P.C.) 04). The accused No.1 to 3 were examined under Section 262 of

B.N.S.S. (Old Section 239 of Cr.P.C.,) by explaining the substance of accusation leveled against them and charges were framed against the accused No.1 to 3 for the offence punishable under Sections 303(2), 318(4) read with 3(5) of B.N.S., for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

05). To prove the guilt of the accused No.1 to 3, the Prosecution has examined PW’s.1 to PW.7 and Ex’s.P.1 to Ex.P.7, were marked through them.

The evidences of LW.6/Mohammad Jareena Begum, LW.11/R.Santhosh, S.I., of Police, Srikakulam II Town P.S., and LW.12/Smt K.Lakshmi, Women S.I., of

Police, Srikakulam II Town P.S., were given up by the prosecution. The evidence of LW.2/Dhini Rohit and LW.3/Mugi Adinarayana were closed in view of V.R. Report filed by the prosecution.

06). After closure of the Prosecution evidence, the accused No.1 to 3 were examined under Section 351 of B.N.S.S. (Old Section 313 of Cr.P.C.,) by explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against them. They denied it totally and reported no Defence evidence.

07). Heard Arguments on both sides and perused the record.

08). Now the point for determination is: “Whether the accused No.1

to 3 have committed the offence punishable under Sections 303(2),

318(4) read with 3(5) of B.N.S., & Whether the Prosecution has proved

the guilt of the accused No.1 to 3 beyond all reasonable doubts?”

Oral and Documentary evidence before the court:

C.C.No.867/2025 //4//APSR020020082025 Dt.12.05.2026

09. PW-1/K.Simhachalam deposed in his chief examination that he and LWs 1 to 3 are fishermen and relatives. He stated that on 24.06.2025 at about 12:30 PM, LW-2 informed him over phone that while attempting to withdraw Rs.10,000/- from SBI ATM at Ramalaxmana Junction, Srikakulam, an unknown person took his ATM card on the pretext of helping him and later exchanged the ATM card. He further stated that thereafter messages were received regarding withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- four times and purchase of

Rs.12,000/- through the ATM card. He further deposed that he along with LWs 1 to 3 went to Srikakulam II Town Police Station and LW-1 lodged Ex.P1 report. He further stated that police later showed CCTV footage at SBI ATM wherein LW-2 and A2 were seen.

09(a). In the cross-examination, PW-1 stated that LW-2 showed him the changed ATM card. He stated that he did not know whether police seized the

ATM card or obtained account statement. He further stated that LW-2 informed him that he could identify the person who changed the ATM card. He admitted that he personally saw A2 for the first time in Court. He denied the suggestions that no phone call was made by LW-2, that he did not go to police station or ATM centre and that police did not show CCTV footage.

10. PW-2/Parveena Begum deposed in her chief examination that she was working as Ward Women Protection Secretary and that on 30.06.2025 the SI of Police requested her and LW-6 to come to SBI ATM,

Ramalaxmana Junction. She stated that police examined the scene of offence, requested SBI Branch Manager to provide CCTV footage and prepared scene observation report under Ex.P2 in her presence.

In the cross-examination, PW-2 stated that she had not obtained written permission from her superiors to act as mediator. She denied the suggestions that she never went to the scene of offence and that Ex.P2 was prepared at police station.

C.C.No.867/2025 //5//APSR020020082025 Dt.12.05.2026

11. PW-3/Varanasi Meenakethanaraodeposed in his chief examination that on 03.09.2025 the SI of Police, Sompeta Police Station, called him and LW-8 to police station and obtained their signatures on Telugu typed papers, the contents of which were not known to him. He identified

Ex.P3 as containing his signatures. He further stated that accused never confessed in his presence and police never seized any amount or articles in his presence.

11(a). In the cross-examination by APP after treating him hostile, PW-3 denied that accused confessed before him or that police seized amounts from accused in his presence. In the cross-examination by defence, PW-3 stated that he and LW-8 signed on typed papers at police station without knowing contents.

12. PW-4/Sangaru Govindarao deposed in his chief examination that on 03.09.2025 he along with PW-3 went to Sompeta Police Station on being called by police and signed on Telugu typed papers, contents of which were not known to him. He identified Ex.P4 as containing his signatures. He further stated that accused never confessed before him and police never seized any amount or properties in his presence. In the cross-examination by

APP after treating him hostile, PW-4 denied that accused confessed before him or that police seized amounts in his presence.

In the cross-examination by defence, PW-4 stated that he and PW-3 signed on typed papers at police station without knowing contents.

13. PW-5/V.Lovaraju, deposed in his chief examination that he was presently working as Sub Inspector of Police at V.R., Srikakulam and previously worked as SI of Police, Sompeta Police Station from November, 2024 to January, 2026. He stated that on 05.08.2025 he received credible information regarding movement of accused involved in ATM card theft cases relating to Crime Nos.9/2025 and 29/2025 of Sompeta Police Station. He

C.C.No.867/2025 //6//APSR020020082025 Dt.12.05.2026 further deposed that he orally requested the Tahsildar, Sompeta to depute mediators and accordingly mediators Pitta Mohanarao and

N.Purnachandararao came to police station. Thereafter, he along with police staff and mediators went to RTC Complex, Sompeta and while conducting vehicle checking at about 10:30 AM, they noticed three persons coming on a

Hero HF Deluxe motorcycle bearing No.OD 07 AD 6857 from Kanchili side.

On seeing police, the said persons attempted to divert their way and were apprehended.

13(a). PW-5 further deposed that on enquiry in the presence of mediators and with the assistance of Oriya translator Telukula Himesh, the said persons disclosed their identity as A1 to A3. He stated that on separate enquiry, A1 confessed that from the year 2016 onwards he along with A2 and

A3 had been committing thefts by exchanging ATM cards of innocent persons on the pretext of helping them in withdrawing money from ATM centres. He further stated that A2 and A3 also separately confessed to the same effect.

13(b). PW-5 further deposed that accused confessed that during the last week of June, 2025, near cinema hall at Srikakulam, they induced one innocent person stating that they would help him in withdrawing money and while doing so exchanged his ATM card with a fake ATM card. He further stated that accused confessed that thereafter they used the said ATM card and withdrew Rs.52,000/-. PW-5 stated that he contacted the SHO of

Srikakulam II Town Police Station and confirmed that the said offence related to Crime No.103/2025. He further stated that accused also confessed about commission of similar offences in Sompeta, Kanchili, Pathapatnam, Palasa,

Tekkali, Mandasa, Kotabommali, Amadalavalasa, Srikakulam I Town and II

Town areas, Rajam, Cheepurupalli and Kasimkota.

13(c). PW-5 further deposed that on search of A1, he seized

Rs.1,10,000/-, one keypad mobile phone, Hero HF Deluxe motorcycle bearing

C.C.No.867/2025 //7//APSR020020082025 Dt.12.05.2026

No.OD 07 AD 6857 and two ATM cards. He stated that A1 confessed that the said amount was theft amount withdrawn through exchanged ATM cards. He further stated that on search of A2, he seized Rs.2,30,000/-, one smart phone and three ATM cards and on search of A3, he seized Rs.2,20,000/-, one smart phone and one ATM card. According to PW-5, A2 and A3 also confessed that the said amounts represented stolen money withdrawn through exchanged

ATM cards.

13(d). PW-5 further deposed that confessional statements of A1 to A3 were typed in a laptop, printouts were taken and signatures of mediators and accused were obtained. He further stated that accused were arrested and remanded to judicial custody after due process of law. He also deposed that on 03.09.2025 he obtained police custody of A1 to A3 for eleven hours and interrogated them in the presence of PW-3 and PW-4. According to him, accused confessed that in the present crime they shared the stolen amount among themselves and retained Rs.10,200/- with A1, Rs.5,500/- with A2 and

Rs.4,500/- with A3, totaling Rs.20,200/- relating to the present crime. He further stated that he recorded their confessional statements and obtained signatures of mediators and accused. He identified Ex.P5 as true copy of confessional statements dated 03.09.2025 and stated that he handed over

Rs.20,200/- to SHO, Srikakulam II Town Police Station through proper acknowledgment.

13(e). In the cross-examination, PW-5 stated that after confirming the crime number and property details with the concerned SHO, he mentioned those details in Ex.P5. He further stated that he enquired with both I Town and

II Town Police Stations of Srikakulam regarding the present crime but admitted that the same was not mentioned in Ex.P5. He admitted that he did not send any written requisition to Tahsildar, Sompeta for deputing mediators. He further admitted that there was no mention in Ex.P5 that contents of the confessional statements were read over and explained in Oriya language to

C.C.No.867/2025 //8//APSR020020082025 Dt.12.05.2026

A2 and A3. He also admitted that he did not videograph the confession proceedings of accused. PW-5 denied the suggestions that mandatory provisions under BNSS were not complied with, that accused never made confessions as stated in Ex.P5, that Ex.P5 was created for the purpose of the case, that no properties were seized from accused and that he was deposing falsely.

14. PW-6/Doni Laxmanarao deposed in his chief examination that

LW-2/D.Rohit is his son. He stated that on 24.06.2025 he gave his ATM card to LW-2 for withdrawing an amount of Rs.10,000/-. He further deposed that while LW-2 was attempting to withdraw the amount from ATM and was confused in operating the ATM machine, one person on the pretext of helping him exchanged the ATM card. PW-6 further stated that on the same day he received phone messages stating that amounts of Rs.40,000/- and

Rs.12,000/- were withdrawn from his bank account. Thereafter, he went to SBI

Main Branch, Srikakulam and enquired about the transaction details and confirmed that amounts of Rs.40,000/- and Rs.12,000/- were withdrawn through his ATM card. He further stated that bank staff advised him to lodge a report before police. Accordingly, on 25.06.2025 he went to Srikakulam II

Town Police Station and gave report to police. He further deposed that police examined him and recorded his statement. He also stated that about two months prior to his deposition, police informed him that they had recovered an amount of Rs.20,264/-. He identified MO-1 as the cash amount of Rs.20,264/-.

(denomination of the said amount consists of Rs.100 x 202 notes, Rs.50 x 2 notes, Rs.10 x 1 note and Rs.4 x 1 coins).

14(a). In the cross-examination, PW-6 admitted that he did not immediately lodge report before police. He further admitted that his mobile number was linked with his bank account. He also admitted that whenever an amount exceeding Rs.10,000/- is withdrawn through ATM card, OTP would be required. However, he clarified that the amount of Rs.40,000/- was withdrawn

C.C.No.867/2025 //9//APSR020020082025 Dt.12.05.2026 in four separate transactions of Rs.10,000/- each and therefore no OTP message was received. He denied the suggestion that his son himself withdrew the amount for personal use and therefore complaint was not immediately lodged. He also denied the suggestion that police obtained a false report from him for statistical purposes and denied the suggestion that

MO-1 was taken from him by police and falsely shown as recovered property.

15. PW-7/P.Eswararao deposed in his chief examination that he was working as Inspector of Police, Srikakulam II Town Police Station from

November, 2024 onwards. He stated that on 30.06.2025 at about 10:15 AM, while he was present in the police station, PW-6 came to the police station and submitted a written report. Based on the said report, he registered a case in Crime No.103/2025 under Sections 303(2) and 318(4) of BNS Act of

Srikakulam II Town Police Station. He further deposed that he submitted the original FIR before the Hon’ble Court and dispatched copies to concerned officers. He identified Ex.P6 as the FIR. He further stated that he endorsed the

FIR to LW-11/R.Santhosh, Sub Inspector of Police, for investigation.

According to PW-7, the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of PWs 1 and 6 and LWs 2 and 3.

15(a). PW-7 further deposed that on 30.06.2025 LW-11 visited the scene of offence in the presence of PW-2 and LW-6 and prepared scene observation report and rough sketch. He identified Ex.P7 as the rough sketch.

He further stated that thereafter LW-12/K.Lakshmi, Woman Sub Inspector of

Police, took up further investigation and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against the accused.

15(b). In the cross-examination, PW-7 denied the suggestion that a false case was foisted against the accused on the basis of a false report submitted by PW-6. He admitted that in Ex.P1 report it was not mentioned that

C.C.No.867/2025 //10//APSR020020082025 Dt.12.05.2026

LW-2/Rohit disclosed the ATM PIN number to the accused. Except the said omission, nothing further material was elicited in his cross-examination.

Discussion, Decision and Reasons Thereof:

16. Upon considering the oral and documentary evidence available

before the Court, this Court observes that though PW1 and PW6 deposed

regarding the alleged offence, the prosecution failed to produce the most crucial and material evidence relating to the alleged transaction, namely, the seizure particulars of the ATM card belonging to PW6 and the bank account statement of PW6. The evidence lead by the prosecution is completely silent about the ATM card of PW6 and whether the same was seized and subjected to any verification during investigation. In the absence of such material particulars, the oral testimony of PW1 and PW6 remains unsupported by reliable documentary evidence.

17. Further, the prosecution did not file or mark the bank statement of

PW6, which is the primary and best evidence to establish the alleged unauthorized withdrawal or transaction. Without production of the bank statement, the Court is unable to ascertain whether any such transaction in fact took place, the amount allegedly withdrawn, the date and time of transaction, or the mode through which the same was effected. Non- production of such vital documentary evidence creates a serious dent in the prosecution case and adversely affects its credibility.

18. PW2, who acted as mediator, stated in his evidence that the police examined the scene of offence and requested CCTV footage from the bank authorities. However, surprisingly, the Investigating Officer did not speak anything in his evidence regarding any request made to the bank authorities for CCTV footage, nor was any such footage collected or produced before the

Court. It is a matter of common and notorious fact that ATM centres are

C.C.No.867/2025 //11//APSR020020082025 Dt.12.05.2026 invariably equipped with CCTV surveillance systems for recording transactions and movements of persons visiting the ATM. Therefore, failure on the part of the Investigating Officer to secure and produce such best available electronic evidence gives rise to a serious suspicion regarding the fairness and genuineness of the investigation.

19. Moreover, PW3 and PW4 (mediators) in whose presence the accused are alleged to have confessed the commission of offence turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. Though prosecution cross examined them nothing was elicidited in favour of the prosecution. Their evidence does not corroborate the alleged confession or recovery proceedings. Thus, the alleged confession statements Ex.P.5 loses its evidentiary value and cannot be safely relied upon.

20. The testimony of the Investigating Officer (PW.5 and PW.7) is merely formal in nature. In the absence of cogent, convincing and corroborative evidence, the same does not advance the case of the prosecution. The prosecution has failed to establish an unbroken chain of circumstances connecting the accused with the alleged offence. The lapses in investigation, withholding of material evidence, and non-production of the best available evidence create substantial doubt in the prosecution story.

21. In the light of above discussion, this Court holds that the prosecution failed to prove the offences under section 303(2), 318(4) read with 3(5) of B.N.S. against the accused No.1 to 3 beyond reasonable doubt and the accused are entitled to the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the accused No.1 to 3 and against the prosecution.

22. In the result, the accused No. 1 to 3 found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 303(2), 318(4) read with 3(5) of B.N.S..

Hence, the accused is ACQUITTED under Section 271(1) of B.N.S.S. (Old

C.C.No.867/2025 //12//APSR020020082025 Dt.12.05.2026

Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C,) for the said offence. The Bail Bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled, after expiry of a period of Six Months, as per the

Section 481 of B.N.S.S. (Old Section 437-A of Cr.P.C). M.O.1 which is given for interim custody PW.1 for interim custody as per the Orders in

Crl.M.P.No.238/2026 in C.C.No.867/2025, dated 16.04.2026 is holds good.

The Superintendent, District Prison, Srikakulam is hereby directed to release the accused No.1 to 3 forthwith, if they are not involved in any other crimes.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 12 th day of March, 2026.

Sd/- Smt. Mohideen Zamruth

Begum Kamaludeen, I-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Srikakulam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Defence:-

PW-1 K.SimhachalamNil

PW-2Parveena Begum

PW-3Varanasi Meenakethanarao

PW-4Sangaru Govindarao

PW-5V.Lovaraju, S.I., of Police

PW-6Doni Laxmanarao

PW-7P.Eswararao, Inspector of Police

Exhibits marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P.1Report of PW.1.

Ex.P.2Scene observation report, dated 30.06.2025.

Ex.P.3True copy (21 signatures on the 21 pages) on the confessional statement,

C.C.No.867/2025 //13//APSR020020082025 Dt.12.05.2026

dated 03.09.2025.

Ex.P.4True copy of (21 signatures on the 21 pages) confessional statement,

dated 03.09.2025.

Ex.P.5True copy of confessional statements of A.1 to A.3, dated 03.09.2025.

Ex.P.6First Information Report.

Ex.P.7Rough sketch.

For Defence: Nil

Material objectss

M.O.1: Cash of Rs.20,264/-

Sd/- Smt. Mohideen Zamruth

Begum Kamaludeen, I-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Srikakulam.

C.C.No.867/2025 //14//APSR020020082025 Dt.12.05.2026

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar Cases tried by the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Srikakulam.

CALENDAR CASE No.867/2025

Date of offence24.06.2025

Date of Complaint or Report30.06.2025

Apprehension of the accused27.10.2025 (On execution of P.T. warrant)

Remand of the accused27.10.2025

Release on bail of accusedA.1 to A.3 are in judicial custody and they are Under Trial Prisoners

Taken on file31.12.2025

Commencement of trial25.02.2026

Close of trial07.05.2026

Sentence of Order12.05.2026

Explanation for the delay:Due to non-production of witnesses by the prosecution.

Name of the complainant:State represented by the Inspector of Police, Srikakulam II Town Police Station.

Name of the Accused:1. Dakkatha Hadia @ Hariharareddy, S/o Dakati Sureya, 43 years, Sitarampuram, Chamakandi PO, Chamakhandi District, Ganjam, Odisha State.

2. Simachal Sahu, S/o Rajendra Sahu, 35 years, Odisha State.

3. Buridi Ashok Patra, S/o Purushottam Patra, Odisha State.

C.C.No.867/2025 //15//APSR020020082025 Dt.12.05.2026

Crime No. :103/2025

Offence :Sections 303(2), 318(4) read with 3(5) of B.N.S.,

Sentence or order:-

In the result, the accused No. 1 to 3 found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 303(2), 318(4) read with 3(5) of B.N.S. Hence, the accused is ACQUITTED under Section 271(1) of B.N.S.S. (Old Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C,) for the said offence. The Bail Bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled, after expiry of a period of Six Months, as per the Section 481 of

B.N.S.S. (Old Section 437-A of Cr.P.C). M.O.1 which is given for interim custody

PW.1 for interim custody as per the Orders in Crl.M.P.No.238/2026 in

C.C.No.867/2025, dated 16.04.2026 is holds good. The Superintendent, District

Prison, Srikakulam is hereby directed to release the accused No.1 to 3 forthwith, if they are not involved in any other crimes.

Sd/- Smt. Mohideen Zamruth

Begum Kamaludeen, I-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Srikakulam. Copy submitted to the Hon’ble I Addl. District Judge, Srikakulam.

CC/860/2025 Acquitted

SHO Sklm II Town P.S. vs Kalaga Ramu

11 May 2026

C.C.No.860/2025 //1//APSR020019992025 Dt.11.05.2026

IN THE COURT OF I-ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS ::

SRIKAKULAM.

Present:- Smt. Mohideen Zamruth Begum Kamaludeen,

I-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Srikakulam.

Monday, this the 11th day of May, 2026

Calendar Case No.860 of 2025

Between:

State represented by the Inspector of Police, Srikakulam II Town Police Station. Complainant.

And :

Kalaga Ramu, S/o late Thavitayya, 36 years, Yadava by caste, Peddapadu village, Srikakulam Rural Mandal.

ACCUSED.

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

01). The Sub-Inspector of Police, Srikakulam II Town Police Station,

Srikakulam District, has filed Charge-Sheet against the accused, in Crime

No.113/2025, for the offence punishable under Sections 305(a) and 317 of

B.N.S.

02). The case of Prosecution in brief is that: The accused, Kalaga

Ramu, resident of Peddapadu Village, Srikakulam Rural Mandal, is allegedly habituated to committing property offences and that a history sheet is being maintained against him at Srikakulam Rural Police Station for surveillance purposes. According to the prosecution, on 21.07.2025 at about 09:00 a.m.,

LW.1/Kallepalli Koteswararao, the de facto complainant, presented a report

C.C.No.860/2025 //2//APSR020019992025 Dt.11.05.2026

before Srikakulam II Town Police Station stating that on 09.07.2025 at about

04:30 a.m., some unknown culprits committed theft of six bundles of 6.0 square mm Phinolex copper wire, worth about Rs.72,000/-, from an apartment under construction in the name of AVM Towers and decamped with the booty.

Based on the said report, L.W.10 registered a case in Crime No.113/2025 under Section 305(a) BNS of Srikakulam II Town Police Station and entrusted investigation to LW.9/T.Ramarao, the then Sub-Inspector of Police,

Srikakulam II Town Police Station.

02(a). During the course of investigation, LW.9/T.Ramarao, the then

Sub-Inspector of Police, Srikakulam II Town Police Station inspected the scene of offence in the presence of mediators LWs.5 and 6 (LW.5/Gedela

Raju and LW.6/Kunnala Vasanth Kumar), prepared the scene observation report and rough sketch, and examined LWs.1 to 4 (LW.1/Kallepalli

Koteswararao, LW.2/Gorle Malleswararao, LW.3/Pothala Ramarao and

LW.4/Injarapu Mohanarao) and recorded their statements. The prosecution further alleges that while investigation was in progress, on 22.07.2025,

LW.10/P.Eswararao, the then Inspector of Police, Srikakulam II Town P.S., apprehended the accused in the presence of mediators LWs.7 and 8 (LW.7/Suvvari Maheswararao and LW.8/Budumuru Laxmi) and recorded his confessional statement. Pursuant to the said confession, six bundles of 6.0 square mm Phinolex copper wire, alleged to be the stolen property involved in the case, were recovered from the possession of the accused under the cover of a mediators’ report. Thereafter, the accused was forwarded to the Hon’ble

Court for judicial custody.

02(b). It is further stated that LW.10/P.Eswararao, the then Inspector of

Police, Srikakulam II Town P.S., subsequently served notice upon the accused under Section 35(3) BNSS, obtained his explanation, and directed him to appear before the Court as and when required. Upon completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer filed charge sheet alleging that the

C.C.No.860/2025 //3//APSR020019992025 Dt.11.05.2026 accused committed theft of the said copper wire bundles and was found in possession of stolen property and thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 305(a) and 317 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

03). The Court took cognizance of the offences punishable under

04). The accused was examined under Section 262 of B.N.S.S. (Old

05). To prove the guilt of the accused, the Prosecution has examined

PW’s.1 to PW.5 and Ex’s.P.1 to Ex.P.6 and M.O.1, were marked through him.

The evidences of LW.3/Pothala Ramarao, LW.4/Injarapu Mohanarao,

LW.5/Gedela Raju, LW.8/Budumuru Laxmi were given up by the prosecution and the evidence of LW.9/T.Ramarao was closed closed.

07). Heard Arguments on both sides and perused the record.

08). Now the point for determination is: “Whether the accused has

committed the offence punishable under Sections 305(a) and 317 of

B.N.S., & Whether the Prosecution has proved the guilt of the

accused beyond all reasonable doubts ?”

C.C.No.860/2025 //4//APSR020019992025 Dt.11.05.2026

Oral and Documentary Evidence before the court:

09. PW-1/Kallepalli Koteswararao deposed that he has been working as Site Engineer-cum-Supervisor in AVM Towers, P.N.Colony, Srikakulam since one year. He stated that LW-2/Gorle Malleswararao is the builder, LW- 3/P.Ramarao is the watchman and LW-4/I.Mohanarao is the supervisor. He further stated that AVM Towers apartment has been under construction since 2023 and was nearing finishing stage and consists of five floors (G+4) and 65 flats. According to him, on 09.07.2025 at about 06:00 PM, all the workers completed the work and left the site. On 10.07.2025 at about 04:30 AM, LW-3 telephoned him and informed that wire bundles were stolen from the under- construction building. PW-1 went to the scene of offence at about 06:30 AM, inspected the premises and found six wire bundles missing. He verified the

CC camera footage and searched for the wires in the surrounding area, but could not trace them. He informed LW-2, but since LW-2 was ill, PW-1 went to

II Town Police Station and lodged Ex.P1-report on 21.07.2025. He explained that delay in lodging the complaint was due to search for the wires and obtaining permission from the owner. PW-1 further stated that police informed him that they recovered six wire bundles and he identified MO-1 as six Finolex wire bundles.

09(a). During the cross examination, PW-1 admitted that there was a delay of 12 days in lodging the complaint before police. He further admitted that he had no written instructions from LW-2 and G.Ramanamurty to lodge the report. He admitted that in Ex.P.1-report he mentioned that 6 square M.M.

copper wire bundles were stolen, whereas MO-1 consists of 4 square M.M.

copper wire bundles. He denied the suggestion that no theft occurred at AVM

Towers and that he lodged a false report at the instance of police for statistical purposes.

C.C.No.860/2025 //5//APSR020019992025 Dt.11.05.2026

10. PW-2/Gorla Malleswararao deposed that PW-1 was working under him as Supervisor in AVM Towers, P.N.Colony, Srikakulam and that LW- 3/P.Ramarao was working as watchman. He stated that on 10.07.2025 at about 05:00 AM, LW-3 telephoned him and PW-1 and informed that wires connected to all the five floors were cut and taken away by unknown persons.

Immediately, he went to AVM Towers, enquired the watchman and surrounding persons and inspected the building to ascertain which items were stolen. He found that wire bundles worth Rs.72,000/- were stolen. He further stated that on 21.07.2025 PW-1 lodged report before police. Police examined him and recorded his statement. Police informed him after about 15 days to one month that the stolen property was recovered.

10(a). During the cross examination, PW-2 admitted that there was a delay of 10 days in lodging the report before police. He stated that he was hale and healthy. He further admitted that he did not hand over any purchase receipts relating to the stolen property to police and that he did not furnish particulars regarding company name of the stolen wire bundles.

11. PW-3/Suvvari Maheswararao deposed that he has been working as VRO, Gujarathipeta-II Sachivalayam, Srikakulam since 2022 and that he knew LW-8/Budumuru Laxmi, VRO, P.N.Colony. He stated that on 22.07.2025, the Tahsildar instructed him and LW-8 to go to Srikakulam II Town Police

Station and accordingly they went there at about 11:30 AM. From there, they accompanied the CI of Police and staff to Choudary Satyanarayana Colony

Junction near Thotapalem Road Junction, Srikakulam Town. Police apprehended one person carrying a gunny bag who tried to flee on seeing police. On enquiry, he disclosed his name as Kalaga Ramu and confessed that he committed theft of wire bundles from AVM Towers, P.N.Colony and also committed thefts at different places and kept the stolen property in Arts

College Ground. He further stated that accused expressed willingness to show the stolen property kept at Arts College. Police prepared Ex.P2-confessional

C.C.No.860/2025 //6//APSR020019992025 Dt.11.05.2026 statement-cum-mediators report and seized the wire bundles in this case in his presence and obtained his signature and signature of LW-8.

11(a). PW-3 further stated that at about 02:00 PM, he, LW-8, CI of

Police and staff along with accused went to a dilapidated building at Arts

College where the accused produced one laptop from a cupboard. Police identified it as stolen property and prepared Ex.P3-mediators report-cum- seizure panchanama and obtained signatures of himself and LW-8. Police thereafter arrested the accused and brought him along with seized property to the police station. PW-3 identified the accused present in Court.

11(b). During the cross examination, PW-3 denied the suggestion that he and LW-8 never went to Choudary Satyanarayana Colony at Thotapalem

Junction and that police never apprehended accused in their presence or that accused never confessed before them. He admitted that Exs.P2 and P3 were typed by a police constable and that printouts were taken from a Xerox shop, though he did not know the name of the Xerox shop. He denied the suggestion that he never went to Arts College or Thotapalem Junction and that accused never confessed before him and that Exs.P2 and P3 were prepared at the police station and his signatures were obtained there. He further denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely at the instance of police as a stock witness.

12. PW-4/K.Vasantha Kumar deposed that he is a private electrician and that he knew LW-5/G.Raju. He stated that on 21.07.2025 at about 09:30

AM, he went to AVM Towers, P.N.Colony, Srikakulam to attend electrical works. At that time, police came there and enquired about the stolen fixed wiring. In his presence and in the presence of LW-5, police inspected the scene of offence and prepared Ex.P4-scene observation report and obtained their signatures.

C.C.No.860/2025 //7//APSR020019992025 Dt.11.05.2026 12(a). During the cross examination, PW-4 denied the suggestion that he never went to the scene of offence or that police did not inspect the scene in his presence and in the presence of LW-5. He denied the suggestion that

Ex.P4 was prepared at the police station and that police obtained his signatures thereon at the police station. He further denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely at the instance of police.

13. PW-5/P.Eswararao deposed that he has been working as

Inspector of Police, Srikakulam II Town Police Station from 03.11.2024 till date. He stated that on 21.07.2025 at about 09:00 AM, PW-1 presented a written report in the police station and basing on the same he registered Crime

No.113/2025 under Section 305(a) of BNS Act and submitted original FIR

before Court. He identified Ex.P5-FIR. He endorsed investigation to LW-

9/T.Ramarao, SI of Police, who secured the presence of PWs.1 and 2, LW- 3/P.Ramarao and LW-4/I.Mohanarao and recorded their statements. On the same day, LW-9 visited the scene of offence situated at AVM Towers,

P.N.Colony, Srikakulam by securing mediators PW-4 and LW-5/G.Raju and prepared scene observation report and rough sketch. He identified Ex.P6- rough sketch.

13(a). PW-5 further deposed that he later took up investigation from

LW.9, verified the investigation and found it on correct lines. He stated that on 22.07.2025 at about 12:30 PM, on receiving credible information regarding movement of accused in Crime No.218/2024 under Sections 331(4) and 305(a) of BNS Act, he secured mediators PW-4 and LW-7/Suvvari

Maheswararao and along with police staff proceeded to Choudary

Satyanarayana Colony, Thotapalem Road Junction, Srikakulam and conducted vehicle checking. During checking, they noticed one person carrying a gunny bag who attempted to flee on seeing police. He was apprehended and disclosed his identity as Kalaga Ramu, S/o late Thavitayya, resident of Peddapadu village.

C.C.No.860/2025 //8//APSR020019992025 Dt.11.05.2026 13(b). PW-5 stated that accused confessed regarding commission of several thefts. He confessed about theft of wire bundles from Sura’s Build

Mart, attempt to commit theft in an electrical shop at Krishna Park in March 2022 and throwing away CCTV DVR and iron rod into Nagavali River, theft of one laptop from Agricultural Research Centre, Ragolu, theft of Rs.3,500/- and a 32-inch TV from Tea Time shop and Bar Association room situated in District

Court Complex, theft of eight wire bundles from an under-construction apartment at Adityanagar Colony, theft of five wire bundles from Samskar

School, Sastrulapeta village and theft of six Finolex wire bundles from AVM

Towers Apartment, P.N.Colony, Srikakulam. He stated that accused confessed that he kept the stolen property in an abandoned building at Arts College

Ground.

13(c). PW-5 further deposed that PC-1208 prepared Ex.P3-confessional statement on his dictation in the presence of mediators on laptop and printed the same and obtained signatures of accused, mediators and himself.

Accused thereafter led them to the abandoned building at Arts College Ground at about 02:00 PM and produced stolen property including one laptop, one 32- inch MI Company LED TV, Gold Medal wire bundles, Polycab wire bundles,

Finolex wire bundles and six Finolex wire bundles relating to Crime

No.113/2025 of II Town Police Station. He seized the said properties and prepared seizure panchanama and obtained signatures of accused and mediators. Thereafter, he arrested the accused, brought him and seized property to the police station, informed the SHO, Rural Police Station regarding seizure of property and produced accused before Court for judicial remand in Crime No.218/2024. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against accused.

13(d). During the cross examination, PW-5 admitted that LW-9 did not examine the owner of the Xerox shop where Exs.P5 and P6 printouts were taken. He further admitted that he did not examine any witnesses in this case.

C.C.No.860/2025 //9//APSR020019992025 Dt.11.05.2026

He denied the suggestion that he did not properly verify the investigation done by LW-9 and mechanically filed charge sheet against accused. He admitted that he did not videograph recording of confessional statement of accused.

Discussion, Decision and Reasons Thereof:

14. Upon considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, this Court observes that, In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 5 and relied upon Exs.P1 to P6 and M.O.1. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 clearly establishes that theft had in fact taken place in the under-construction apartment building.

15. PW.1/Kallepalli Koteswararao, who was working as Site

Engineer-cum-Supervisor in AVM Towers, deposed that on 10.07.2025 at about 04:30 AM, the watchman informed him that wire bundles were stolen from the building under construction. He immediately visited the premises and found six wire bundles missing. He further stated that after verifying CC camera footage and making searches in surrounding areas, he lodged Ex.P1- report before police on 21.07.2025. PW.2/Gorla Malleswararao, the builder, also corroborated the evidence of PW.1 by stating that the wires connected to all the five floors were cut and removed by unknown persons and that wire bundles worth Rs.72,000/- were found missing.

16. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 remained substantially unshaken in cross examination insofar as the occurrence of theft is concerned. Therefore, this Court is satisfied that theft of wire bundles had indeed taken place in the

AVM Towers building. PW.3 evidence is helpful to the extent scene of offence is examined by the Police after the alleged offence.

17. However, the prosecution is further required to establish that the accused committed the said theft by unlawfully entering the premises and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 305(a) BNS. On

C.C.No.860/2025 //10//APSR020019992025 Dt.11.05.2026 careful appreciation of evidence, this Court finds that there is absolutely no direct or circumstantial evidence connecting the accused with the actual commission of theft.

18. Admittedly, no witness has seen the accused entering the premises or committing theft of the wire bundles. No evidence has been produced showing how the accused gained entry into the building or removed the alleged stolen property. Though PW.1 stated that CC camera footage was verified, no such footage was produced before the Court. No scientific evidence such as fingerprints, footprints, tool marks, or other forensic material was collected from the scene of offence connecting the accused with the occurrence.

19. The prosecution mainly relied upon the alleged confessional statement of the accused and recovery of wire bundles under mediators’ reports. However, the alleged recovery by itself is insufficient to conclusively establish the offence under Section 305(a) BNS in the absence of reliable evidence showing participation of the accused in the commission of theft.

20. Further, the evidence relating to recovery creates serious doubt regarding the identity of the alleged stolen property. PW.1 specifically admitted in his cross examination that in Ex.P1-report he mentioned theft of 6 square M.M. copper wire bundles, whereas M.O.1 produced before the Court consists of 4 square M.M. copper wire bundles. This discrepancy goes to the root of the prosecution case and creates serious doubt whether M.O.1 is in fact the same property allegedly stolen from AVM Towers.

21. PW.2 also admitted in cross examination that he did not hand over any purchase receipts relating to the alleged stolen property and did not furnish particulars such as company name of the wire bundles to police. Thus, there is no documentary evidence establishing identity of the recovered property with certainty.

C.C.No.860/2025 //11//APSR020019992025 Dt.11.05.2026

22. Though PW.1 identified M.O.1 before the Court and interim custody of the property was granted to him, such identification alone is not sufficient to conclusively establish that the recovered property is the very same stolen property involved in the present crime, particularly in view of the material discrepancy regarding the wire specifications. Even a minor inconsistency, if it creates a missing link in the chain of circumstances, must necessarily enure to the benefit of the accused in a criminal trial where the burden lies entirely upon the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

23. The evidence of PW.3 and PW.5 regarding confession and seizure also does not fully inspire confidence. PW.3 admitted that Exs.P2 and

P3 were typed by a police constable and printouts were taken from a Xerox shop, but the owner of the Xerox shop was not examined. PW.5 admitted that no videography of the confession proceedings was conducted. The alleged recovery proceedings are therefore not free from suspicion.

24. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances connecting the accused with the offences alleged. The evidence available on record only creates suspicion against the accused, but falls short of the standard of proof required for conviction.

25. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused committed lurking house trespass and theft punishable under Section 305(a)

BNS. Further, in view of the material discrepancy regarding the identity of

M.O.1, the prosecution also failed to conclusively establish the offence punishable under Section 317 BNS. The accused is entitled to benefit of doubt for both the offences punishable under Sections 305(a) and 317 BNS.

C.C.No.860/2025 //12//APSR020019992025 Dt.11.05.2026

Accordingly the point is answered in favour of the Accused and against the prosecution.

26. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 305(a) and 317 BNS. Hence, the accused is

ACQUITTED under Section 271(1) of B.N.S.S. (Old Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C,) for the said offence. The Bail Bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled, after expiry of a period of Six Months, as per the Section 481 of B.N.S.S. (Old

Section 437-A of Cr.P.C). M.O.1 shall be returned to PW-1 after due identification and obtaining proper acknowledgment, after expiry of the appeal period. If no claim is made, the same shall be confiscated to the State.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 11 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- K.M.Zamruth Begum,

I-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Srikakulam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Defence:-

PW-1 Kallepalli KoteswararaoNil

PW-2Gorla Malleswararao

PW-3Suvvari Maheswararao

PW-4K.Vasantha Kumar

PW-5P.Eswararao, C.I., of Police

Exhibits marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P.1Report of PW.1, dated 21.07.2025.

Ex.P.2True copy of confessional statement cum mediators report, dated 22.07.2025.

C.C.No.860/2025 //13//APSR020019992025 Dt.11.05.2026

Ex.P.3Mediators report cum seizurenama, dated 22.07.2025.

Ex.P.4Scene observation report, dated 21.07.2025.

Ex.P.5First Information Report.

Ex.P.6Rough sketch.

For Defence: Nil

Material objects

MO.1 : 06 Finolex wire bundles.

Sd/- K.M.Zamruth Begum,

I-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Srikakulam.

C.C.No.860/2025 //14//APSR020019992025 Dt.11.05.2026

Calendar and Judgment

Calendar Cases tried by the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Srikakulam.

CALENDAR CASE No.860 /2025

Date of offence09/10 07.07.2025

Date of Complaint or Report21.07.2025

Apprehension of the accused22.07.2025 (Sec.41-A Cr.P.C.Notice)

Remand of the accused-

Release on bail of accusedServed 41-A Cr.P.C. notice

Taken on file30.12.2025

Commencement of trial20.01.2026

Close of trial07.05.2026

Sentence of Order11.05.2026

Explanation for the delay:Due to non-production of witnesses by the prosecution.

Name of the complainant:State represented by the Inspector of Police, Srikakulam II Town Police Station.

Name of the Accused:Kalaga Ramu, S/o late Thavitayya, 36 years, Yadava by caste, Peddapadu village, Srikakulam Rural Mandal.

Crime No. :113/2025

Offence :Sections 305(a) and 317 of B.N.S.

Sentence or order:-

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

C.C.No.860/2025 //15//APSR020019992025 Dt.11.05.2026 under Sections 305(a) and 317 BNS. Hence, the accused is ACQUITTED under

Section 271(1) of B.N.S.S. (Old Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C,) for the said offence.

The Bail Bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled, after expiry of a period of

Six Months, as per the Section 481 of B.N.S.S. (Old Section 437-A of Cr.P.C).

M.O.1 shall be returned to PW-1 after due identification and obtaining proper acknowledgment, after expiry of the appeal period. If no claim is made, the same shall be confiscated to the State.

Sd/- K.M.Zamruth Begum,

I-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Srikakulam. Copy submitted to the Hon’ble I Addl. District Judge, Srikakulam.

JCC/16/2022

SHO, Tekkali P.S vs Bodi Santhosh @ Santhosh kumar

08 May 2026

JCC-16/2022, Date:08-05-2026; //1// APSR020003492022 Prl.Magistrate/JJB/SKLM

IN THE JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD :: SRIKAKULAM.

Present :- Smt. Mohideen Zamruth Begum Kamaludeen,

Principal Magistrate,

Juvenile Justice Board, Srikakulam.

Member: 1) Smt. K.Sridevi

Friday, this the 8th day of May, 2026

J.C.C.No.16 of 2022

Between:

State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Tekkali Police Station. Complainant

And :

XXX

CICL.

This case has come before me on this day for final hearing and disposal in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant / State; and of Sri K.Dhanunjaya Srinivasa Rao and Sri P.Raja Rao, Learned Counsel for Child in Conflict with Law; and upon hearing on both sides and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Board delivered the following:

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

1). The Sub Inspector of Police, Tekkali Police Station has filed the

Information Report against the Child in Conflict with Law (here-in-after will be referred as CICL, for the sake of brevity) in Crime No.164/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 326, 324, 323 read with 34 of I.P.C.

2) The prosecution case, as per the information report, is that there existed prior property and personal disputes between the family of

LW.1/Korrayi Santhamma and the accused for the last several years. On 18.07.2019 at about 5.30 PM, when LW.2/Korrayi Bhaskararao parked a tractor on the road in front of the house of LW.1/Korrayi Santhamma at

JCC-16/2022, Date:08-05-2026; //2// APSR020003492022 Prl.Magistrate/JJB/SKLM Ravivalasa Village, Tekkali Mandal, A1 objected to the same and abused

LWs.1 and 2. During the ensuing altercation, A2 also came to the spot and quarrelled with them. Thereafter, A3 and her son/JICL Bodi Santhosh @

Santhosh Kumar allegedly joined the quarrel, and A3 caught hold of LW.1 by her neck and beat her with hands, while A2 beat LW.1 on her waist. It is further alleged that JICL Bodi Santhosh @ Santhosh Kumar attacked LW.1 with a knife on her left hand elbow causing grievous injury. When LW.2 intervened to prevent the incident, A4 and JICL Bodi Santhosh @ Santhosh

Kumar allegedly beat him with sticks on his head causing simple injuries.

Thereafter, injured LWs.1 and 2 were shifted to Government Hospital, Tekkali for treatment.

2(a). Basing on the report of LW.1/Korrayi Santhamma, Tekkali Police registered a case in Cr.No.164/2019 for the offences punishable under

Sections 324, 323 r/w 34 IPC and took up investigation. During investigation, the Investigating Officer examined the witnesses, visited the scene of offence, prepared scene observation report and rough sketch, and seized one knife and two sticks in the presence of mediators. The Investigating Officer also collected wound certificates showing that the injuries sustained by LW.1 were grievous in nature and those sustained by LW.2 were simple in nature. During investigation, it was found that one of the accused, namely JICL Bodi

Santhosh @ Santhosh Kumar, was a juvenile aged about 16 years at the time of occurrence and a separate case was filed before the Juvenile Justice

Board. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against A1 to A4 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 34 IPC before the learned JMFC, Tekkali.

3) The Board took cognizance of the offence punishable under

Sections 326, 324, 323 read with 34 of IPC against the CICL.

JCC-16/2022, Date:08-05-2026; //3// APSR020003492022 Prl.Magistrate/JJB/SKLM

4) On appearance of the CICL before the Board, copies of documents were furnished to him as required under Section 207 of CrPC. The

CICL was examined under Section 251 of CrPC and the accusation has been read-over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be Trial.

5) To prove the guilt of the CICL, the Prosecution has examined

PWs 1 to 6 and Ex.P1 to P.9 and M.O.1 were marked through them. APP has given up the evidence of LW-5/Bevara Appalaswamy, LW.7/Irri

Laxminarayana, LW.9/Dasari Apparao, LW.10/Dr.Maharaj, LW.11/B.Madhuri and LW.13/N.Kameswara Rao, the then S.I., of Police, Tekkali.

6) After closure of the Prosecution evidence, the CICL was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating material evidence appearing against him, for which, he denied it totally and reported no Defence evidence.

7) Heard Arguments on both sides.

8) Now the point for determination is: “Whether the Prosecution

has proved the guilt of the CICL for the offence punishable under

Sections 326, 324, 323 read with 34 of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt?”

Oral and Documentary Evidence Before the Board:

9) PW.1/Korrayi Santhamma, who is the de facto complainant, deposed in her chief-examination that LW.2/Korrayi Bhaskararao was working as tractor driver under her and that she knew LW.3 to LW.7 and also the CICL.

She stated that about three and half years prior to her evidence, on one day at about 05:30 PM, LW.2 returned after work with the tractor and parked it on the road in front of her house. At that time, her mother-in-law by name Korrayi

Neelamma scolded them for parking the tractor and when she questioned her

JCC-16/2022, Date:08-05-2026; //4// APSR020003492022 Prl.Magistrate/JJB/SKLM mother-in-law, her father-in-law Korrayi Chandramma came there and abused

LW.2. She further deposed that one Bodi Chinnarao came there, lifted her by holding her waist and beat her on her backside. She further stated that in the meanwhile the CICL came there and beat her with a knife on the backside of her left arm. She further deposed that when LW.2 tried to rescue her, the CICL beat LW.2 with a stick on his head causing injury. She also stated that Bodi

Krishnaveni, mother of the CICL, came there, caught hold of her hair, dragged and beat her. According to her, thereafter ambulance shifted them to

Government Hospital, Tekkali and police came to the hospital and recorded her statement. She stated that she affixed her thumb impression on the statement after the contents were read over to her and Ex.P1 is the said statement. She further stated that she could identify the knife and stick used by the CICL and that police examined her and recorded her statement.

9(a). During cross-examination, PW.1 stated that the CICL did not beat her with knife, did not cause any injury to her and also did not beat LW.2 with stick on his head nor caused injuries to LW.2. She admitted that there were family disputes between their family and the family of the CICL. She further stated that police did not examine her nor record her statement.

10. PW.2/Korrayi Bhaskararao deposed in his chief-examination that he knew PW.1, who was his tractor owner, and that he had been working as driver of tractor bearing No.AP 32 7881 since five years. He stated that about three years prior to his evidence, at about 05:30 PM, after returning from work, he parked the tractor on the road in front of the house. At that time, the mother-in-law of PW.1 came there and quarreled with PW.1 regarding parking of the tractor on the road though there was pathway available. He further deposed that PW.1 questioned her mother-in-law Neelamma and in the meanwhile Bodi Chinnarao and the CICL came there. According to him, the

CICL, while holding a knife, beat PW.1 on her left hand arm. He further stated that when he tried to rescue PW.1, Bodi Chinnarao beat him with a stick on his

JCC-16/2022, Date:08-05-2026; //5// APSR020003492022 Prl.Magistrate/JJB/SKLM head. He also stated that they were shifted to Government Hospital, Tekkali and that LW.3 to LW.7 witnessed the incident. He further deposed that police examined him and recorded his statement.

10(a). During cross-examination, PW.2 stated that the CICL did not beat

PW.1 with knife, did not cause any injury to her and also did not beat him with a stick on his head nor caused injuries to him. He admitted that there were family disputes between their family and the family of the CICL. He further stated that police did not examine him nor record his statement.

11. PW.3/Korrayi Anasuya deposed in her chief-examination that

LW.4 was her daughter and that she knew PW.1. She further stated that PW.2 was the driver of PW.1. She deposed that about three and half years prior to her evidence, at about 05:30 PM, there was galata in front of the house of

PW.1 and after hearing the same, she went there and found PW.1 and PW.2 with injuries. She further stated that she found A1 to A5 including the CICL at the scene of offence and that PW.1 and PW.2 informed her that the accused and the CICL beat them. She further stated that thereafter PW.1 and PW.2 were shifted to Government Hospital and police examined her and recorded her statement.

11(a). During cross-examination, PW.3 stated that the CICL was not present at the scene of offence on the date of alleged incident and that PW.1 and PW.2 did not inform her that the CICL along with other accused beat them. She further stated that police did not examine her nor recorded her statement.

12. PW.4/Donka Likitha deposed in her chief-examination that PW.1 was her senior maternal aunt, that she knew PW.2 and that PW.3 was her mother. She further stated that she knew LW.5 to LW.7. She deposed that in the year 2019, while she was returning from college, she noticed PW.1 and

PW.2 lying with injuries on the road in front of the house of PW.1 and that they

JCC-16/2022, Date:08-05-2026; //6// APSR020003492022 Prl.Magistrate/JJB/SKLM asked for water and she supplied water to PW.1. However, she stated that she did not know who beat them and how they sustained injuries. She further stated that police examined her.

12(a). As PW.4 did not support the case of prosecution, the learned APP sought permission of the Board to treat the witness as hostile and to cross- examine her and the same was permitted. During cross-examination by the learned APP, PW.4 denied the suggestion that she stated before police that in the year 2019 at about 05:30 PM, the accused and the CICL beat PW.1 and

PW.2. She further denied the suggestion that the CICL beat PW.1 with a knife and caused injuries to her. She also denied the suggestion that she gave statement before police as recorded in Ex.P2, certified copy of her 161 Cr.P.C.

statement, and denied the suggestion that she was deposing falsely to help the CICL.

13. PW.5/Korni Rama Rao, who was examined as mediator to the scene observation report, also turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. During cross-examination by the learned APP, nothing material was elicited in favour of the prosecution except marking of his signature on the scene observation report as in Ex.P.3.

14. PW.6/B. Ganesh, who was the Investigating Officer, deposed in his chief-examination that presently he was working as Sub Inspector of

Police, Narasannapeta and previously worked as Sub Inspector of Police,

Tekkali Police Station from 23.06.2019 to 24.09.2020. He stated that on 18.07.2019 he received medical intimation from Tekkali Area Hospital and went to the hospital and recorded the statement of PW.1. Thereafter, he returned to the police station and basing on the statement of PW.1, registered a case in Crime No.164/2019 under Sections 324 and 323 read with 34 IPC of

Tekkali Police Station and submitted the FIR to the concerned Court and

JCC-16/2022, Date:08-05-2026; //7// APSR020003492022 Prl.Magistrate/JJB/SKLM copies to the concerned officers. He stated that Ex.P4 is the certified copy of

FIR.

14(a). He further deposed that on the same day he again went to Tekkali

Area Hospital, examined PW.1 and PW.2 and recorded their statements. On the next day, he visited the scene of offence situated at Ravivalasa village and examined PW.3, PW.4 and LW.5 to LW.7 and recorded their statements. He further stated that he secured the presence of mediators PW.5 and LW.9/D.

Apparao, observed the scene of offence, prepared scene observation report and rough sketch and seized one knife in the present crime and one cycle and two sticks in another Crime No.165/2019. He stated that Ex.P5 is the certified copy of scene observation report, Ex.P6 is the certified copy of rough sketch and MO.1 is the knife seized in this case.

14(b). PW.6 further deposed that on 20.07.2019 he issued Form-II notice to the parents of the CICL. On 30.07.2019, he received wound certificates of PW.1 and PW.2 from LW.10/Civil Assistant Surgeon and Ex.P7 and Ex.P8 are the certified copies of the wound certificates of PW.1 and PW.2 respectively. He further stated that LW.13/Sub Inspector of Police, Tekkali sent requisition to LW.11/Headmistress, ZPH School, Ravivalasa for study certificate of CICL and received the study certificate and Ex.P9 is the certified copy of the certificate showing the date of birth of the CICL as 10.06.2003. He further stated that after completion of investigation, he filed information report against the CICL.

14(c). During cross-examination, PW.6 denied the suggestion that he never examined PW.1 to PW.4 and LW.5 to LW.7, nor visited the scene of offence, nor secured mediators, nor seized MO.1 from the scene of offence and nor prepared scene observation report. He further denied the suggestion that his investigation was only a table investigation and that he was deposing falsely.

JCC-16/2022, Date:08-05-2026; //8// APSR020003492022 Prl.Magistrate/JJB/SKLM

15. Discussion, Decision and reasons thereof:

Upon considering the oral and documentary evidence before the Court, it is evident that though PWs.1 to 3, in their chief-examination, initially supported the prosecution version regarding the alleged incident, their evidence in cross-examination completely demolished the prosecution case.

PW.1, who is the de facto complainant and injured witness, categorically admitted in her cross-examination that the CICL did not beat her with a knife, did not cause any injuries to her and also did not beat PW.2 with a stick. She further admitted that there were longstanding family disputes between their family and the family of the accused and also stated that police did not examine her nor record her statement.

Likewise, PW.2, another injured witness, also resiled from his earlier version and specifically stated in cross-examination that the CICL did not attack PW.1 with a knife, did not cause injuries to her and did not beat him with a stick. He too admitted the existence of family disputes between both families and further stated that police did not examine him nor record his statement. Similarly, PW.3 also turned contrary to her chief-examination and categorically stated in cross-examination that the CICL was not present at the scene of offence and that PW.1 and PW.2 never informed her that the CICL assaulted them. She further stated that police did not examine her nor record her statement.

Further, PW.4 and PW.5 turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case in any manner. Nothing substantial could be elicited from their evidence in favour of the prosecution. Thus, the material witnesses examined by the prosecution failed to support the prosecution story and their evidence does not inspire confidence to hold that the CICL committed the alleged offences.

JCC-16/2022, Date:08-05-2026; //9// APSR020003492022 Prl.Magistrate/JJB/SKLM Though PW.6, the Investigating Officer, deposed regarding the investigation conducted by him, registration of the case, examination of witnesses, seizure of material objects and filing of the charge sheet, his evidence by itself cannot form a firm basis to establish the guilt of the CICL in the absence of reliable and corroborative evidence from the material witnesses. It is a settled principle of law that the evidence of the Investigating

Officer alone, without substantive and trustworthy evidence from eyewitnesses or injured witnesses, is insufficient to fasten criminal liability upon the accused.

The prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the CICL beyond all reasonable doubt. The evidence on record suffers from material contradictions and improvements, and the testimony of the prosecution witnesses is not consistent or trustworthy. Therefore, this Board is of the considered opinion that the CICL is entitled to the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the CICL and against the prosecution.

16. In the result, the CICL is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 326, 324, 323 read with 34 of IPC. Hence, the

CICL is set at liberty under section 255 (1) of CrPC for the said offences. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

The Parental bonds of the CICL, shall stands cancelled, after expiry of period of SIX months, as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me, in open Board, on this the 8 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- Smt. Mohideen Zamruth Begum

MEMBERKamaludeen,

PRINCIPAL MAGISTRATE,

JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD,

SRIKAKULAM.

JCC-16/2022, Date:08-05-2026; //10// APSR020003492022 Prl.Magistrate/JJB/SKLM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecutiosn: For Defence:-

PW-1Korayi SanthammaNil

PW-2Korrayi Bhaskararao

PW-3Korrayi Anasuya

PW-4Donka Likitha

PW-5Korrayi Ramarao

PW-6B.Ganesh, S.I., of Police

Exhibits marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P.1Statement of PW.1 recorded by the Police.

Ex.P.2Certified copy of Section 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.4.

Ex.P.3Signature of PW.5.

Ex.P.4 Certified copy of First Information Report.

Ex.P.5Certified copy of scene observation report.

Ex.P.6Certified copy of rough sketch.

Ex.P.7 Certified copy of wound certificate of PW.1 and PW.2.

and

Ex.P.8

Ex.P.9Certified copy of the certificate by mentioning the date of birth of

CICL on 10.06.2003.

For Defence: Nil

JCC-16/2022, Date:08-05-2026; //11// APSR020003492022 Prl.Magistrate/JJB/SKLM

Material objects

M.O. 1 : Knife

Sd/- Sd/- Smt. Mohideen Zamruth

MEMBERBegum Kamaludeen,

PRINCIPAL MAGISTRATE,

JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD,

SRIKAKULAM.

JCC-16/2022, Date:08-05-2026; //12// APSR020003492022 Prl.Magistrate/JJB/SKLM

Calendar and Judgment

Before the Juvenile Justice Board: Srikakulam

JUVENILE CASE No.16 of 2022

Date of offence18.07.2019

Date of Complaint or Report18.07.2019

Apprehension of the CICL22.07.2019 (Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. Notice to the CICL parents) Remand of the CICL-

Release on bail of CICL Served 41-A Cr.P.C. notice

Taken on file16.03.2022

Commencement of trial12.01.2024

Close of trial08.05.2026

Sentence of Order08.05.2026

Explanation for the delay :Due to non-production of witnesses by the prosecution.

Name of the complainant: State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Tekkali Police Station.

Name of the CICL:XXX

Crime No. :164/2019

Offence :Sections 326, 324, 323 read with 34 of IPC

Sentence or order:-

In the result, the CICL is found not guilty for the offence punishable under

Sections 326, 324, 323 read with 34 of IPC. Hence, the CICL is set at liberty under section 255 (1) of CrPC for the said offences. M.O.1 shall be

JCC-16/2022, Date:08-05-2026; //13// APSR020003492022 Prl.Magistrate/JJB/SKLM destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The Parental bonds of the CICL, shall stands cancelled, after expiry of period of SIX months, as per

Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Sd/- Sd/- Smt. Mohideen Zamruth

MEMBERBegum Kamaludeen,

PRINCIPAL MAGISTRATE,

JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD,

SRIKAKULAM.

Copy submitted to the Hon'ble I Addl. District Judge, Srikakulam.

CC/230/2019 Acquitted

S.I of Police, Rural P.S. vs Vanjala Ramudu and 5 others

13 May 2026

C.C.No.230/2019 //1// APSR020004602019 Dt.13.05.2026

IN THE COURT OF I-ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS ::

SRIKAKULAM.

Present:- Smt. Mohideen Zamruth Begum Kamaludeen,

I-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Srikakulam.

Wednesday, this the 13th day of May, 2026

Calendar Case No.230 of 2019

Between:

State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Srikakulam Rural Police Station. Complainant.

And :

1) Vanjala Ramudu, S/o late Surya Narayana, 63 years,

2) Vanjala Appa Rao, S/o Eswara Rao, 50 years,

3) Vanjala Venkatesh @ Venkata Ramana, S/o Ramudu, 33 years,

4) Vanajala Suresh, S/o Ramudu, 30 years, Srisaina,

5) Vanjala Laxmi, W/o Appa Rao, 43 years, Srisaina,

6) Vanjala Sarojini, W/o Ramulu, 53 years,

All are residents of Chinnavada village, Gara Mandal.

ACCUSED.

This case has come before me on 07.05.2026, for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant/State and Sri Ch.Srikanth, Learned Counsel for Accused No.1 to 6 and this matter having been stood-over for determination till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

01). The Sub-Inspector of Police, Srikakulam Rural Police Station,

Srikakulam District, has filed Charge-Sheet against the accused No.1 to 6, in

Crime No.19/2019, for the offence punishable under Sections 324, 323 read with 34 of I.P.C.

C.C.No.230/2019 //2// APSR020004602019 Dt.13.05.2026 02). The case of Prosecution in brief is that: LWs.1 and 2 (LW.1/Vanjala Adinarayana and LW.2/Vanjala Ramana) are father and son and are agriculturists owning land adjacent to Baliwada Village, Srikakulam

Rural Mandal. On 06.02.2019 at about 8:30 AM, while LWs.1 and 2 (LW.1/Vanjala Adinarayana and LW.2/Vanjala Ramana) were fixing water pipes across the fields to draw water to their lands, the accused objected to the same and an altercation ensued between both parties. During the course of the incident, A-1 allegedly beat L.W.1 with a stick on his head and palms, while A-2 to A-6 allegedly beat L.Ws.1 and 2 with hands and sticks, causing injuries to them. Thereafter, based on the medical intimation received from

RIMS Hospital, Srikakulam, the oral report of L.W.1 was reduced into writing and a case in Crime No.19/2019 was registered by Srikakulam Rural Police

Station for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 323 read with

Section 34 IPC.

02(a). During investigation, the Investigating Officer examined the witnesses, visited the scene of offence, prepared scene observation report and rough sketch in the presence of mediators, and issued notice under

Section 41-A Cr.P.C. to the accused. LW.10/G.Vinodh Kumar, the Medical

Officer, treated the injured and issued wound certificate opining that the injuries sustained by LW.1 were simple in nature. After completion of investigation, the police laid charge sheet against all the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC alleging that the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, voluntarily caused injuries to LWs.1 and 2 during the dispute relating to laying of water pipes across the fields.

03). The Court took cognizance of the offences punishable under

Sections 324, 323 read with 34 of I.P.C., against the accused No.1 to 6. On appearance of accused before the Court, copies of documents were furnished to him, as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

C.C.No.230/2019 //3// APSR020004602019 Dt.13.05.2026 04). The accused No.1 to 6 were examined under Section 239 of

Cr.P.C., by explaining the substance of accusation leveled against them and charges were framed against the accused No.1 to 6 for the offence punishable under Sections 324, 323 read with 34 of I.P.C., for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

05). To prove the guilt of the accused No.1 to 6, the Prosecution has examined PW’s.1 to PW.8 and Ex’s.P.1 to Ex.P.8 and M.O.1, were marked through him. The evidences of LW.3/Vanjala Latha, LW.4/Vanjala Jayamma,

LW.8/Thatta Gannayya and LW.12/M.Chinnam Naidu, the then S.I., of Police were given up by the prosecution.

06). After closure of the Prosecution evidence, the accused No.1 to 6 were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against them. They denied it totally and reported no

Defence evidence.

07). Heard Arguments on both sides and perused the record.

08). Now the point for determination is: “ W hether the accused No.1

to 6 have committed the offence punishable under Sections 324, 323

read with 34 of I.P.C., & Whether the Prosecution has proved the guilt

of the accused No.1 to 6 beyond all reasonable doubts ?”

Oral and Documentary evidences before the court:

09. PW-1/Vanjala Adinarayanareddy is the injured witness and de facto complainant. He deposed that PW-2 is his son, LW-3 is the wife of PW-2 and LW-4 is his wife. He further stated that accused Nos.1 to 6 are his relatives and that PW-2 was working in BSF. According to him, about six years prior to his evidence, at about 8.00 AM, himself and PW-2 went to their agricultural field for laying plastic pipes from the borewell for supply of water to their crop. At that time, A1 to A6 came there, questioned them as to why they

C.C.No.230/2019 //4// APSR020004602019 Dt.13.05.2026 were laying pipes through their land and picked up a quarrel. He stated that all the accused beat PW-2 by throwing him to the ground and when he intervened to rescue PW-2, A1 beat him on his head, knuckles and legs with a coconut leaf stick (కొబ్బరిమట్ట ). He further deposed that PWs/LWs 5 to 7 witnessed the incident. Thereafter, himself and PW-2 went to RIMS Hospital,

Srikakulam for treatment and police recorded his statement in the hospital. He identified Ex.P1 as his report and M.O.1 as the coconut leaf stick used in the offence.

09(a). During cross-examination, PW-1 admitted that A1 is his younger brother by courtesy and A2 to A4 are children of A1. He further admitted that his land and the land of A1 are adjacent to each other and that there existed a partition bund between the two lands. He stated that he laid the plastic pipe along the partition bund. He denied the suggestion that no incident took place and that due to land disputes and grudge, a false case was foisted against the accused. He also denied the suggestion that there were no coconut trees near the scene and therefore no possibility of using coconut leaf sticks in the incident.

10). PW-2/Vanjala Ramana is the son of PW-1 and another injured witness. He deposed that he was working as Head Constable in BSF, Punjab.

He corroborated the evidence of PW-1 regarding the relationship between the parties. According to him, on 06.02.2019 at about 8.30 AM, himself and PW-1 were laying pipes in their field for irrigation purposes. At that time, A1 to A6 came there, objected to laying of pipes on the bund between the lands and abused them. He stated that all the accused beat both himself and PW-1 with hands and legs and that A1 beat PW-1 with a coconut leaf stem. He further stated that PW-1 sustained injuries on both hands and waist while he himself sustained injuries all over the body. According to him, PWs/LWs 5 to 7

C.C.No.230/2019 //5// APSR020004602019 Dt.13.05.2026 witnessed the incident and rescued them. Thereafter, they went to RIMS

Hospital for treatment and police recorded their statements.

10(a). In the cross-examination, PW-2 stated that only himself and PW- 1 were present while laying the pipes and no labourers were engaged. He stated that the altercation continued for about thirty minutes and thereafter he shifted PW-1 to the hospital at about 9.30 or 10.00 AM. He denied the suggestion that no incident had taken place and that due to family rivalry they filed a false case against the accused. He also denied the suggestion that the wound certificate was created with his influence.

11. PW-3/Thatta Gannayya was cited as an eyewitness and mediator for scene observation. However he turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. He merely stated that he heard cries from the fields of PW-1 but did not go there and did not know anything about the incident. He further denied that police examined him or conducted scene observation in his presence. As PW-3 resiled from his earlier statement, the learned APP cross- examined him after obtaining permission of the Court. During such cross- examination, PW-3 denied having witnessed the incident or giving any statement to police as contained in Ex.P2. He further denied the suggestion that he was intentionally suppressing the truth to help the accused.

12.PW-4/Gedela Gannemma was also cited as an eyewitness to the occurrence. However, she did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile. She deposed that she did not know anything about the facts of the case and that police never examined her. During cross-examination by the learned APP, she denied witnessing the offence or giving any statement

before police as contained in Ex.P3. She also denied the suggestion that she

was deposing falsely in favour of the accused. No cross-examination was conducted on behalf of the accused.

C.C.No.230/2019 //6// APSR020004602019 Dt.13.05.2026

13. PW-5/Thatta Arudra was another eyewitness cited by the prosecution. She too turned hostile and stated that she did not know anything about the incident and that police never examined her. During cross- examination by the learned APP, she denied witnessing the occurrence or giving any statement before police as contained in Ex.P4. She also denied the suggestion that she was intentionally suppressing the truth to favour the accused. No cross-examination was conducted on behalf of the accused.

14. PW-6/Penta Rajarao was examined as mediator for scene observation and seizure. However, he also turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. He deposed that police never called him to act as mediator nor conducted scene observation or seizure of M.O.1 in his presence. During cross-examination by the learned APP, he denied the suggestion that on 07.02.2019 police conducted scene observation in his presence and seized M.O.1 under the cover of mediators report. He further denied that he was suppressing the truth to help the accused.

15. PW-7/Dr.Gumpa Vinod Kumar is the doctor who examined PW-1.

He deposed that on 06.02.2019 at about 12.30 PM, he examined PW-1 and found the following injuries:

1. Swelling of right-hand fingers measuring 1 x 1 cm;

2. Swelling of left-hand fingers measuring 1 x 1 cm;

3. Swelling of right forearm measuring 2 x 2 cm; and

4. Pain and tenderness over abdomen.

He stated that X-ray examination revealed no fractures and opined that all the injuries were simple in nature and could have been caused by a wooden stick as alleged. He issued Ex.P5 wound certificate.

C.C.No.230/2019 //7// APSR020004602019 Dt.13.05.2026 15(a). In cross-examination, PW-7 admitted that he did not mention the colour of the injuries in the wound certificate. He also admitted that such injuries were possible due to self-fall on a rough surface.

16. PW-8/M.Srinivasarao is the Investigating Officer. He deposed that on 06.02.2019, while working as Head Constable at Srikakulam Rural Police

Station, he received medical intimation from GGH, Srikakulam and proceeded to the hospital. He recorded the statement of PW-1 and thereafter registered

Crime No.19 of 2019 under Sections 324 and 323 read with 34 IPC. He identified Ex.P6 as the FIR. He further deposed that he examined PWs.1 and 2 in the hospital and on the next day visited the scene of offence in the presence of PWs.3 and 6, prepared Ex.P7 scene observation report, Ex.P8 rough sketch and seized M.O.1 coconut stem from the scene. He further stated that he examined LW-3, LW-4 and PWs.3 to 5 and recorded their statements. He also issued notices under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. to A1 to A6 and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed.

16(a). During cross-examination, PW-8 stated that after receiving medical intimation he immediately went to the hospital and recorded the statements of PWs.1 and 2 in the casualty ward. He denied the suggestion that he never visited the hospital or that a false case was foisted against the accused at the instance of PW-2. He further denied the suggestion that the investigation was only a table investigation.

Discussion, Decision and Reasons Thereof:

17. Upon careful appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, this Court oberves that though PW-1 and PW-2 have spoken about the alleged incident in similar lines, there are material inconsistencies with regard to the manner in which the injuries were sustained and the overt acts attributed to the accused. PW-1 deposed that all the

C.C.No.230/2019 //8// APSR020004602019 Dt.13.05.2026 accused beat PW-2 after throwing him to the ground and when he intervened to rescue PW-2, A-1 beat him on his head, knuckles and legs with a coconut leaf stick (కొబ్బరిమట్ట ). On the other hand, PW-2 stated that all the accused beat both himself and PW-1 with hands and legs and that A-1 beat PW-1 with a coconut leaf stem, due to which PW-1 sustained injuries on both hands and waist, while PW-2 sustained injuries all over his body.

18. However, the medical evidence does not fully corroborate the ocular testimony of PW-1 and PW-2. The Doctor/PW-7, who examined only

PW-1, did not note any injury on the head of PW-1 though PW-1 specifically alleged that A-1 beat him on the head with a coconut leaf stick (కొబ్బరిమట్ట ).

Further, though both PW-1 and PW-2 consistently stated that all the accused beat both of them, admittedly PW-2 was not medically examined and no wound certificate was produced in respect of the alleged injuries sustained by him. This omission creates a serious doubt regarding the prosecution version.

19. Further, all the alleged eyewitnesses and mediators, namely PW- 3 to PW-6, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case in any manner. Their evidence does not corroborate the version spoken to by PW-1 and PW-2. The evidence of the Investigating Officer/PW8 is only formal in nature and in the absence of corroboration from independent evidence, the same cannot by itself form the basis for conviction.

20. It is also pertinent to note that PW-1 and PW-2 categorically admitted in their cross-examination that there existed civil disputes and land disputes between the parties. In view of the admitted enmity, coupled with the inconsistencies in the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 and the lack of corroboration from medical and independent evidence, the defence plea that a false case was foisted against the accused No.1 to 6 cannot be ruled out.

C.C.No.230/2019 //9// APSR020004602019 Dt.13.05.2026

21. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused No.1 to 6 beyond all reasonable doubt. In the light of the above discussion, the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused No.1 to 6 for the offences under Sections 324, 323 read with 34 of I.P.C., with cogent, consistent and trustworthy evidence. The benefit of doubt therefore necessarily goes in favour of the accused. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the accused No.1 to 6 and against the prosecution.

22. In the result, the accused No.1 to 6 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 323 read with 34 of I.P.C.. Hence, the accused No.1 to 6 are ACQUITTED under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C, for the said offence. The Bail Bonds of the accused No.1 to 6 shall stands cancelled, after expiry of a period of Six Months, as per the Section 437-A of

Cr.P.C. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 13 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- Smt. Mohideen Zamruth

Begum Kamaludeen, I-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Srikakulam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Defence:-

PW-1 Vanjala AdinarayanareddyNil

PW-2Vanjala Ramana

PW-3Thatta Gannayya

PW-4Gedela Gannemma

PW-5Thatta Arudra

PW-6Penta Rajarao

C.C.No.230/2019 //10// APSR020004602019 Dt.13.05.2026

PW-7Dr.Gumpa Vinod Kumar

PW-8M.Srinivasarao

Exhibits marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P.1Statement of PW.1.

Ex.P.2Section 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.3.

Ex.P.3Section 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.4.

Ex.P.4Section 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.5.

Ex.P.5Wound certificate of PW.1.

Ex.P.6First Information Report.

Ex.P.7Scene observation report.

Ex.P.8Rough sketch.

For Defence: Nil

Material objects

M.O.1 : Coconut leaf stick

Sd/- Smt. Mohideen Zamruth

Begum Kamaludeen, I-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Srikakulam.

C.C.No.230/2019 //11// APSR020004602019 Dt.13.05.2026

Calendar and Judgment

Calendar Cases tried by the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Srikakulam.

CALENDAR CASE No.230/2019

Date of offence06.02.2019

Date of Complaint or Report06.02.2019

Apprehension of the accused08.02.2019 (Sec.41-A Cr.P.C.Notice)

Remand of the accused-

Release on bail of accusedServed 41-A Cr.P.C. notice

Taken on file18.04.2019

Commencement of trial28.05.2025

Close of trial07.05.2026

Sentence of Order13.05.2026

Explanation for the delay:Due to non-production of witnesses by the prosecution.

Name of the complainant:State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Srikakulam Rural Police Station.

Name of the Accused:1) Vanjala Ramudu, S/o late Surya Narayana, 63 years,

2) Vanjala Appa Rao, S/o Eswara Rao, 50 years,

3) Vanjala Venkatesh @ Venkata Ramana, S/o Ramudu, 33 years,

4) Vanajala Suresh, S/o Ramudu, 30 years, Srisaina,

5) Vanjala Laxmi, W/o Appa Rao, 43 years,

C.C.No.230/2019 //12// APSR020004602019 Dt.13.05.2026

Srisaina,

6) Vanjala Sarojini, W/o Ramulu, 53 years,

All are residents of Chinnavada village, Gara Mandal.

Crime No. :19/2019

Offence :Sections 324, 323 read with 34 of I.P.C.

Sentence or order:-

In the result, the accused No.1 to 6 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 323 read with 34 of I.P.C. Hence, the accused No.1 to 6 are ACQUITTED under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C, for the said offence. The Bail Bonds of the accused No.1 to 6 shall stands cancelled, after expiry of a period of Six Months, as per the Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- Smt. Mohideen Zamruth

Begum Kamaludeen, I-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Srikakulam. Copy submitted to the Hon’ble I Addl. District Judge, Srikakulam.

Order Record 1,436 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
CC/230/2019	S.I of Police, Rural P.S. vs Vanjala Ramudu and 5 others	13 May 2026	Calendar and Judgment	Acquitted
CC/867/2025	SHO, SRIKAKULAM II TOWN PS vs Dakkatha Hadia / Hariharareddy	12 May 2026	Calendar and Judgment	Acquitted
CC/811/2025	SHO, SRIKAKULAM II TOWN PS. vs KALAGA RAMU	11 May 2026	Calendar and Judgment	Acquitted
CC/860/2025	SHO Sklm II Town P.S. vs Kalaga Ramu	11 May 2026	Calendar and Judgment	Acquitted
JCC/16/2022	SHO, Tekkali P.S vs Bodi Santhosh @ Santhosh kumar	08 May 2026	Calendar and Judgment	—
JCC/24/2023	The SHO, Polaki P.S. vs Gangital Leela Balaji Rao	08 May 2026	Calendar and Judgment	—
CC/932/2024	SHO, SRIKAKULAM RURAL PS. vs Kuppili Viswamanoj kumar	06 May 2026	Calendar and Judgment	—
JCC/28/2020	State represented by the Circle Inspector of Police, Kothuru Circle. vs Nimmaka Thirupathi Rao	01 May 2026	Calendar and Judgment	—
JCC/36/2025	SHO SARUBUJJILI PS vs XXXXX	01 May 2026	Calendar and Judgment	—
EP/5/2025	Chinnam Sundara Rama Reddy vs Pandhiti Suneel Kumar	30 Apr 2026	Decree	—
EP/5/2025	Chinnam Sundara Rama Reddy vs Pandhiti Suneel Kumar	30 Apr 2026	Order	—
MC/4/2023	Gedela (Yalla) Keerthi vs Gedela David Raju	30 Apr 2026	Order	—
MC/29/2022	Kola Devi vs Kola Rama rao	30 Apr 2026	Order	—
MC/5/2026	Kuncham Divya vs Kuncham Lakshmanarao	29 Apr 2026	Order	—
OS/485/2024	Y.Satyanarayana vs Pujari Srinivasarao	28 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
MC/30/2022	salvarao Srivatsa vs Salavarao Parameswara Rao	28 Apr 2026	Order	—
MC/41/2022	Boya Santhamma vs Boya Gonda	28 Apr 2026	Order	—
CC/118/2020	SHO Rural P.s., vs Challa SriramuluReddy	27 Apr 2026	Calendar and Judgment	—
JCC/3/2023	SHO,R.A Valasa vs Bevara Polinaidu	24 Apr 2026	Calendar and Judgment	—
JCC/52/2022	SHO Srikakulam Rural P.S, vs Mallipuram Prasada Rao	24 Apr 2026	Calendar and Judgment	—
CC/17/2023	Silla Surya Chandra vs Banna Sandhya	23 Apr 2026	Calendar and Judgment	—
CC/92/2021	Meesala Gavarraju vs Gorle Rama Chandra Rao	23 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
CC/432/2018	SI of Police, Rural P.S. vs G. Apparao and another	23 Apr 2026	Calendar and Judgment	—
EP/45/2025	Thangi Paparao vs Mamidi Murali	22 Apr 2026	Order	—
EP/45/2025	Thangi Paparao vs Mamidi Murali	22 Apr 2026	Decree	—
OS/119/2017	Smt.Budda Mangeswari vs Smt.Budumuru Lakshmi	22 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
OS/119/2017	Smt.Budda Mangeswari vs Smt.Budumuru Lakshmi	22 Apr 2026	Decree	—
OS/50/2026	A.P.G.V.B Bank, Dharmavaram branch,Srikakulam vs Majji Srinivasarao	21 Apr 2026	Decree	—
OS/50/2026	A.P.G.V.B Bank, Dharmavaram branch,Srikakulam vs Majji Srinivasarao	21 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
OS/500/2023	Bucha Appanna vs G. Bhaskararao	21 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
OS/500/2023	Bucha Appanna vs G. Bhaskararao	21 Apr 2026	Decree	—
CC/23/2019	Tangudu ShyamaSundar vs Baratam Lavanya	21 Apr 2026	Calendar and Judgment	—
JCC/17/2023	SHO, R.A Valasa P.S vs Pathivada Varun Kumar@ Varun	17 Apr 2026	Calendar and Judgment	—
MC/9/2023	Bankupalli Jyothi Laxmi vs Bankupalli Bhaskara Rao	16 Apr 2026	Order	—
OS/275/2024	K.Pentayya vs Dumpa Sattemma,	13 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
OS/110/2022	Sunkara Ramakrishna vs Sunkara Dhanunjaya Rao	09 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
OS/30/2016	Gollangi Apparao and another vs Gollangi Krishnarao and others	07 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
OS/61/2017	Modalavalasa Gangarao and another vs Sura Narayanamma and 2 others	02 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
OS/165/2015	Panchireddy Lakshmi vs Katta Sarojini	01 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
OS/313/2025	Union Bank , Balaga Branch vs M/s.Cell Fix Mobiles, Rep by its Proprietor, Arasavalli Hasis	01 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
CC/303/2025	Andhra pradesh State Financisl Corporation Authorized Officer Sri Garikimukkula Ravi Kumar vs Birisingi Simhachalam	31 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/404/2024	MUGU PUNYAVATHI vs BIDDIKA SATISH KUMAR	31 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/89/2018	SHO II-Town P.s. vs Balivada Gnana BhaskaraSivaKumar	30 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/102/2019	SHO Rural P.S. vs Burada SudarshanaRao	30 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
OS/678/2022	Potnuru Krishnamurthy vs Kurai Simhachalam	26 Mar 2026	Decree	—
OS/678/2022	Potnuru Krishnamurthy vs Kurai Simhachalam	26 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/737/2018	SHO Rural P.S. vs V.Joseph Newton	26 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/71/2020	Bellala VenkataRamana vs Mirtipati PrasadaRao	25 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/578/2019	SHO Srikakulam Rural P.S., vs Bagu Ramulu and 2 others	25 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
OS/210/2019	BannaAnkamma @Venkatamma vs Banna Polayya	24 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
OS/210/2019	BannaAnkamma @Venkatamma vs Banna Polayya	24 Mar 2026	Decree	—
OS/514/2021	Gorli Chinnammadu vs Gondu Appalaswamy	24 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
OS/514/2021	Gorli Chinnammadu vs Gondu Appalaswamy	24 Mar 2026	Decree	—
CC/25/2020	SHO Rural P.S., vs Loddu AppalaNarasayya and others	24 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/42/2020	SHO Srikakulam Rural P.S., vs Ruppa RajagopalaRao	24 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
OS/42/2026	Jammula Pentamma vs Ramu Laxmana Rao	23 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
OS/42/2026	Jammula Pentamma vs Ramu Laxmana Rao	23 Mar 2026	Decree	—
OS/64/2016	Ampili Apparao vs Vadada Krishnamurty and others	23 Mar 2026	Decree	—
OS/64/2016	Ampili Apparao vs Vadada Krishnamurty and others	23 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
MC/8/2021	Panchireddi Rajeswari@ Nandini vs Panchireddi Madhavarao	23 Mar 2026	Order	—
OS/270/2022	Tripurana Visalakshi and 2 others vs Tripurana Manjuvaramma and 2 others	16 Mar 2026	Decree	—
OS/270/2022	Tripurana Visalakshi and 2 others vs Tripurana Manjuvaramma and 2 others	16 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
OS/445/2025	Thonangi Venkatarao vs Nallapilli Akhil	16 Mar 2026	Decree	—
OS/445/2025	Thonangi Venkatarao vs Nallapilli Akhil	16 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/297/2025	Dannala Jagadeesh vs Gedela Rambabu	16 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/570/2024	SHO, SRIKAKULAM 2 TOWN PS. vs Gondu Sankar	16 Mar 2026	Order	—
STC/1/2026	S.H.O. J.R. Puram Police Station vs Bishoi	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
STC/2/2026	S.H.O. Rural Police Station vs Korlakota Janu	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
STC/3/2026	S.H.O. Rural Police Station vs Ch.Raju	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
STC/4/2026	S.H.O. Rural Police Station vs K.Ramana	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
STC/5/2026	S.H.O. Rural Police Station vs Etcherla Krishna	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
STC/6/2026	S.H.O. Rural Police Station vs Sadhu Vykuntarao	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
STC/7/2026	S.H.O. Gara Police Station vs Minnarao kalyan	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
STC/8/2026	S.H.O. Traffic Police Station vs V.Rajesh	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
STC/9/2026	S.H.O. Traffic Police Station vs Ch.Laxmanarao	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
STC/10/2026	S.H.O. Gara Police Station vs Bora Ramana	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
STC/11/2026	S.H.O. Rural Police Station vs N.Laxmana	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
STC/12/2026	S.H.O. Rural Police Station vs K.Venkata Ramana	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
STC/13/2026	S.H.O. Rural Police Station vs D.BhaskaraRao	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
STC/14/2026	S.H.O. Etcherla Police Station vs Suvvari Eswararao	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
STC/15/2026	S.H.O. Etcherla Police Station vs Buraka Ramu	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
STC/16/2026	S.H.O. Etcherla Police Station vs Pydi Rajasekhar	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
STC/17/2026	S.H.O. Etcherla Police Station vs Kancharapu Ramprasad	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
STC/18/2026	S.H.O. Etcherla Police Station vs Laveti Sarath Babu	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
STC/19/2026	S.H.O. Etcherla Police Station vs Seepana Venkataramana	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
STC/20/2026	S.H.O. Etcherla Police Station vs Kinthali Venkata Ramana	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
STC/21/2026	S.H.O. Etcherla Police Station vs Kola Simhachalam	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
STC/22/2026	S.H.O. Etcherla Police Station vs K.Dhanunjaya	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
STC/23/2026	S.H.O. J.R. Puram Police Station vs Ch.Suribabu	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
STC/24/2026	S.H.O. J.R. Puram Police Station vs K.Mahesh	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
STC/25/2026	S.H.O. J.R. Puram Police Station vs K.M.Rao	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
STC/26/2026	S.H.O. J.R. Puram Police Station vs R.Krishna	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
STC/27/2026	S.H.O. J.R. Puram Police Station vs P.Suryanarayana	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
STC/28/2026	S.H.O. J.R. Puram Police Station vs P.Appalanaidu	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
STC/29/2026	S.H.O. J.R. Puram Police Station vs P.Paparao	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
STC/30/2026	S.H.O. J.R. Puram Police Station vs D.Balaji	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
STC/31/2026	S.H.O. J.R. Puram Police Station vs Y.Naveen	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
STC/32/2026	S.H.O. Rural Police Station vs N.Yuvaraju reddy	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
STC/33/2026	S.H.O. Rural Police Station vs B.Govinda	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
STC/34/2026	S.H.O. Rural Police Station vs Golivi Raghubabu	14 Mar 2026	Order	—

Showing 100 of 1,436 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

May 2026		9
Apr 2026		31
Mar 2026		694
Feb 2026		42
Jan 2026		34
Dec 2025		38
Nov 2025		8
Oct 2025		27
Sep 2025		22
Aug 2025		16
Jul 2025		37
Jun 2025		15

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Smt. Mohideen Zamruth Begum Kamaludeen handled?

Smt. Mohideen Zamruth Begum Kamaludeen has handled 1455 court orders since 2024 at Prl. District and Sessions Court, Srikakulam. The average disposal rate is 92 orders per month.

What types of cases does Smt. Mohideen Zamruth Begum Kamaludeen hear?

Based on available records, Smt. Mohideen Zamruth Begum Kamaludeen primarily handles Criminal matters (Summary Trial Cases, Criminal Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) at Prl. District and Sessions Court, Srikakulam.

Where is Smt. Mohideen Zamruth Begum Kamaludeen currently posted?

Smt. Mohideen Zamruth Begum Kamaludeen is posted as Prl.Junior Civil Judge at Prl. District and Sessions Court, Srikakulam, Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Smt. Mohideen Zamruth Begum Kamaludeen available online?

Yes. 6 judgments by Smt. Mohideen Zamruth Begum Kamaludeen are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Smt. Mohideen Zamruth Begum Kamaludeen dispose cases?

Smt. Mohideen Zamruth Begum Kamaludeen disposes approximately 92 cases per month, based on 1455 orders handled over their tenure at Prl. District and Sessions Court, Srikakulam.

Since when is Smt. Mohideen Zamruth Begum Kamaludeen serving?

Smt. Mohideen Zamruth Begum Kamaludeen has been serving at Prl. District and Sessions Court, Srikakulam since 2024.

Case Types

STC 46%

CC 21%

OS 20%

JCC 6%

MC 4%

EP 1%

PRC 1%

Posting History

Dec 2024 — Aug 2025

Prl.Junior Civil Judge · 1 orders
May 2024 — Present

Addl Jr.Civil Judge · 1,454 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 4

Other Judges at this Court

Sri Junaid Ahmed Moulana

Prl.District Judge

1,566 orders

Yamala Bennayya Naidu

I Addl.District Judge

0 orders

Sri B Sadhu Babu

II Addl.District Judge skl

0 orders

Sri Ch.Vivek Anand Srinivas

Family Court

451 orders

Sri S.M.Phani Kumar

V Addl. District Judge Lakshmipeta

0 orders

Ravi Shanthi Sree

Prl.Sr.civil Judge

0 orders

Shaik Ibrahim Sharief

Addl Sr.Civil Judge

0 orders

K.anurag

Prl.Junior Civil Judge

281 orders

Vasupalli Sahithi

Judl.Magistrate of 1st class Spl.Mobile Court

0 orders

Nakka Suneetha

Addl. District Judge POCSO Court Srikakulam

0 orders

Smt. K.m.zamruth Begum

Prl.Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board Srikakulam

3 orders

← View all judges at Prl. District and Sessions Court, Srikakulam