Sri. N Santosh Kumar

1 C.C. No.338 of 2020

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

PRESENT: N.Santhosh Kumar, VI Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad.

Thursday, this the 20 th day of March, 2025

C.C.No. 338 of 2020

(Crime No.101/2019)

BETWEEN:

The State through Inspector of Police, PS Tappachabutra, Hyderabad. …Complainant

And

A1) Ayub Khan, S/o.Late Fazal Khan, Age: 59 years, Occ: Household, R/o.H.No.13-5-565/66, Mahaboob Colony, Karwan, Hyderabad.

A2) Sandeep Kumar Bhulekar, S/o.Balaji Rao, Age: 42 years, Occ: Electrical Contractor, R/o.H.No.14-1-210, Seetharampet, Near Hanuman Temple, Mangalhat, Hyderabad. …. Accused No.1 & 2

This case is coming before me today for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri M/s. Talasila Suresh, counsel for the accused No.1 & 2 and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:-

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Tappachabutra, Hyderabad has filed charge sheet against the accused NO.1 & 2 in Crime No.101 of 2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 427 R/w.109 & 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act 1984 (for short ‘PDPP Act’).

2 C.C. No.338 of 2020

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that:-

i)On 11.05.2019 at about 02.30 pm, LW.1/ S.Nandan, Asst. Engineer in

Electricity Department has lodged a complaint before the police by stating that one Ayub Khan/A1 with the help of one Sandeep/A2, stopped power supply on 11.05.2019 at 09.00 am and at 12.00 pm from Electrical Transformer (315 KVA) situated at near Rohi Hotel, Mahaboob Colony and completed L.T. line shifting work in connection of summer season and Ramzan festival prohibiting power from morning to evening hour, similarly around Rs.2,00,000/-(Two Lakhs ) of revenue loosed to Department, and unauthorizedly disturbed other users of electricity without any work order, also interrupted power supply for completion of line work. Hence, he requested to take necessary action against the accused

No.1 & 2.

ii)Basing on the contents of the above complaint, LW6/Sri N. Kondalu, S.I. of

Police PS Tappachabutra, registered case in Cr.No.101 of 2019 for the offence

U/sec.427 R/w.109 of IPC and Section 3 of PDPP Act. During the course of investigation, LW6/ N. Kondalu has examined and recorded the statement of

LW1/ S.Nandan and his staff i.e., LW2/D.Rajesh and LW3/P.Narsing Rao, thereafter visited scene of offence and conducted scene of offence observation panchanama and drafted rough sketch in presence of mediators LW4/Mohd

Abdul Kareem and LW5/ Shaik Amer. Thereafter, on 11.05.2019 at about 08.00 pm, accused No.1 and 2 surrendered before LW6/N.Kondalu and had voluntarily confessed to have committed the offence, and LW6/N.Kondalu served noticed

U/sec.41-A of Cr.P.C, to accused No.1 and 2 and instructed them to appear

before the Hon’ble Court as and when summoned. During course of investigation

3 C.C. No.338 of 2020 it is revealed the act done by the accused was with a common intention, hence added section of law i.e., R/w.34 of IPC to the existing sections vide section addition memo and after completion of entire investigation filed charge sheet against accused for the offence U/sec.427 r/w 109 and 34 of IPC and Section 3 of PDPP Act.

3.The case was taken on file for the offences punishable under Sections 427

R/w.109 & 34 of IPC and Section 3 of PDPP Act against the accused No.1 & 2.

On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to them under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

4.Accused No.1 & 2 are examined U/s.239 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, and charge U/sec.427 R/w.109 & 34 of IPC and Section 3 of PDPP Act is framed, read over and explained to them in their vernacular language for which they denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, prosecution has examined PW.1 to PW.4 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3 on their behalf. Evidence of Lws.4 & 5 is closed as prosecution failed to produce them inspite of giving ample time and opportunities.

Prosecution side evidence is closed.

6.After closure of the prosecution side evidence, Accused No.1 & 2 are examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C, the incriminating material found against them in the prosecution evidence was put to them, to which they denied the 4 C.C. No.338 of 2020 same and reported no defence evidence on their behalf. Hence, the defence evidence is closed.

7.Heard the arguments of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel.

8. Now the point for consideration is

Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt

of the accused for the charged offences under

Sections 427 R/w.109 & 34 of IPC and Section 3 of

PDPP Act, beyond reasonable doubt?

9. Point:-

Prosecution to prove its case should prove that accused no.1 & 2 have interrupted power supply and completed power line work unauthorizedly without any work order, stopped power supply on 11.05.2019 between 09.00 am to 12.00 pm from electrical transformer (315 KVA) situated at near Rohi Hotel, Mahaboob

Colony, Karwan and completed LT line Shifting Work in connection of summer season and Ramzan festival and due to which revenue loss of around

Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs only) was incurred to the Electricity

Department and also disturbed other users of electricity, and thereby accused no.1 & 2 have committed an offence punishable U/sec.427 r/w 109 and 34 of IPC and Section 3 of PDPP Act.

10. Prosecution to prove its case, have examined Pw.1 to Pw.4. Pw.1 is the defacto complainant/ Assistant Engineer in Electricity Department at

Dattatreyanagar, who received information about power cut and noticed the 5 C.C. No.338 of 2020 reason for power interruption, lodged report before SHO PS Tappachabutra,

Pw.2 & 3 are the staff of the Electricity Department, who assisted Pw.1, and

Pw.4 is the investigation officer in the present case.

11.Before going into the merits of the case, this court feels pertinent to examine the alleged relevant provisions of law as under for better appreciation.

Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with "mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees," and prescribes punishment of imprisonment for up to two years, or with fine, or with both, for whoever commits mischief and thereby causes loss or damage to the amount of fifty rupees or upwards

Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (PDPP

Act) addresses mischief causing damage to public property, with varying punishments depending on the nature of the property damaged, including imprisonment and fines

12.Pw.1 deposed in his evidence that he had worked as Assistant Engineer,

Electricity Department at Dattatreaya nagar during the relevant period and in the month of May, 2019 he was instructed by their Chairman and Managing Director that not to stop power supply during peak summer and One Ayub Khan (A1) in collusion with Sandeep Kumar (A2)-contractor had shifted the line at the house of

A1/Ayub Khan for which they stopped power supply without any intimation to their office, on that he along with his staff went to the house of A1/Ayub Khan 6 C.C. No.338 of 2020 and questioned A1 & A2 about the stoppage of power supply unauthorizedly, and later he lodged report before S.H.O. P.S. Tapachabutra, Hyderabad.

13.Pw.2 is casual labour in Electricity Department, deposed in his evidence that in the month of May 2019 on one day without the knowledge of Pw.1,

Accused no.2 had shifted the electricity line and that Police enquired him and recorded his statement.

14.Pw.3 deposed in his evidence that, he is working as helper in electricity

Department at Sitarambagh Division, and five years back on one day Pw.1 received complaint that there is no power supply and some work is going on, on that he along with Pw.1 & Pw.2 went to scene of offence, found electricity work was going on, from there they went to police station and lodged report, and that

Police enquired him and recorded his statement.

15.Pw.4 is the investigating officer in this case, deposed in his evidence that on receipt of report from Pw1 in Ex.P1, he had registered case in Cr.No.101 of 2019 and issued FIR in Ex.P.2 for the offence U/sec.427 R/w.109 & 34 of IPC and Section 3 of PDPP Act, during the course of investigation he had examined and recorded the statements of Pws.1 to 3, visited scene of offence, conducted scene of offence panchanama and drafted rough sketch of scene in Ex.P.3 in presence of Lws.4 & 5, and on the same day accused no.1 & 2 have surrendered

before him, accordingly he issued notice U/sec.41-A of Cr.P.C. to them, and after

completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused no.1 & 2.

7 C.C. No.338 of 2020

16.On careful perusal of the evidence of PW1 to Pw.3 who are working in

Electricity Department, their evidence is in corroboration only to the extent that there was an interruption in power supply and rest of their evidence is not corroborative. Pw.1 deposed that after noticing at transformer that power supply was stopped for the purpose of shifting line, from there they went to the house of

A1/Ayub Khan and later went to the police station for lodging report, whereas

Pw.3 deposed in his evidence that after noticing electricity work going at Ruhi

Hotel, Mahboob Colony, they directly went to police station and lodged report, which shows that their evidence is inconsistent to show that whether they have went to the house of accused No.1 and noticed that the power supply was interrupted for the purpose of shifting electricity line to the house of Accused no.1 by accused no.2. Pw.1 further deposed in his cross-examination that he received telephonic calls about the disconnection of power from the users/customers, but he has not furnished the name, phone numbers and details of the customers who have called to him and complained about interruption of power supply in the locality, and further he cannot say the Transformer number, where the power was disconnected and they have not witnessed that Accused no.2 had disconnected the power supply. Pw.1 further deposed in his cross-examination that A1 had applied for line shifting with their office, but the same was rejected and also stated that the transformer was not damaged.

17.The evidence of Pw.2 reveals only to the extent that accused no.2 shifted electricity line but do not disclose that where and on whose house the said shifting of line was done, and Pw.2 did not state that he witnessed the incident that accused no.2 had disconnecting the power supply, hence the evidence of 8 C.C. No.338 of 2020

Pw.2 is not supportive to the case of the prosecution and to prove the guilt of accused. So also the evidence of Pw.3 do dot disclose anything about the accused persons and he deposed that they found electricity work was going on at the scene of offence and he did not state that who are doing the said electricity work, do not attribute any allegations against accused No.1 & 2, hence his evidence is not sufficient enough to convict the accused.

18.Pw.4 is the investigation officer who deposed affirmatively and during cross-examination he admitted that deposed that Pw.1 did not hand-over any documents along with complaint to show that the Electricity Department suffered any loss or damage and also admitted he had not collected any documents to show the damage of property and not took any photographs of scene and the same were not recorded in Ex.P.3.

19.The specific case of the prosecution is that accused no.1 & 2 with a common intention have disconnected the power supply for changing LT line to the house of Accused no.1 due to which the Electricity Department suffered loss of Rs.2.00 lakhs. A careful perusal of the evidence of Pws.1 to 4 disclose that, no witness has seen the accused persons disconnected power supply and the prosecution did not chose to examine any of the eye witness to the incident nor examined any victim who suffered due to disconnection of power supply during the particular time and it is evident that the prosecution did not collect any documentary material to prove that the electricity department had suffered a loss of Rs.2.00 lakhs due to power interruption during the said time period on 11.05.2019 and also not placed any material atleast to prove that there was disconnection of power supply during the relevant time, which is a fatal to the 9 C.C. No.338 of 2020 case of the prosecution and in the absence of the same, it is difficult for the prosecution to prove that mischief was committed by the accused to cause damage of property, hence it is not safe to the court to rely only on the evidence of Pw.1 alone and convict the accused no.1 & 2. The prosecution failed to examine panch witness for scene of offence panchanama and Rough sketch, inspite of giving ample time and opportunities, which is also fatal to the case of the prosecution. Further, when there is no evidence or material on record to prove the mischief and thereby causing loss or damage to an amount of fifty rupees or upwards, the question of damaging of public property doesn’t not arise.

20.On considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record, this court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused No.1 & 2 beyond reasonable doubt and the evidence of Pw.1 & 2 doesn’t create any confidence in the mind of this court and thereby prosecution failed miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused that accused no.1 & 2 with a common intention have disconnected the power supply for changing LT line to the house of Accused no.1 due to which the

Electricity Department suffered loss of Rs.2.00 lakhs. Hence, accused are entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, point on hand is answered against prosecution and in favour of accused.

21. R E S U L T:

In the result, A1 & A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section offence under sections 427 R/w.109 & 34 of IPC and Section 3 of 10 C.C. No.338 of 2020

PDPP Act, and accordingly they are acquitted under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of A1 & A2 shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

(Typed to my dictation directly by Copyist, and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 20 th day of March, 2025).

VI Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad.

:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::

Witnesses Examined

For the Prosecution: - For the Defence:- PW1:- S. Nandan- NIL- PW2:- P. Narsingh rao PW3:- D. Rajesh PW4:- N. Kondalu

Exhibits Marked

For the Prosecution: - For the Defence:-

Ex.P1: Complaint - NIL- Ex.P2: FIR No.101 of 2019 Ex.P3: Scene of offence panchanama along with rough sketch.

M.O.s Marked

NIL

VI Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad.

1 C.C. No.6403 of 2020

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

PRESENT: N.Santhosh Kumar, VI Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad.

Saturday, this the 25 th day of January, 2025

C.C.No. 6403 of 2020

(Crime No.352/2019)

BETWEEN:

The State through Inspector of Police, PS Humayun Nagar, Hyderabad. …Complainant

And

Md. Shujath Hussain Sajjad, S/o. Md. Ifthakar Hussain, Age: 47 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.1-2-680, Elchaguda, Lower tank Bund, Himayath Nagar, Hyderabad. …. Accused

This case is coming before me today for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri M. Prabhakar, counsels for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:-

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Humayun Nagar, Hyderabad has filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.352 of 2019 for the offences 2 C.C. No.6403 of 2020 punishable under Sections 341, 506 & 509 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that:-

i)On 29-12-2019, LW.1/ Smt. Durdana Hussain Begum has lodged a complaint before the police by stating that she along with her husband and daughter is residing in H.No.10-3-67/A, Humayun Nagar,

Hyderabad, herself and her husband are senior citizens, and there is a threat to them from her neighbor Mohammed Sajjad Hussain, R/o.H.No.10- 3-67/A/1, who is harassing them from the date of his purchase of above house, as she stopped his illegal activities done at his residence, creating nuisance, had stored large quantity of Air Conditioners at his residence illegally which can cause health issues and carrying illegal transactions with them, that he blocked access to their common passage by locking it, causing much inconvenience to them from 26.12.2019, and is mentally harassing them also verbally abused them. Hence, she requested to take necessary action against the accused.

ii)Basing on the contents of the above complaint, Lw.6/Sri.K.Janaiah, SI of Police PS Humayaun Nagar, registered case in Cr.No.352 of 2019 for the offence U/sec.341, 506 & 509 of IPC. During the course of investigation, 3 C.C. No.6403 of 2020

LW6 examined and recorded the statement of LW1, thereafter visited scene of offence and conducted scene of offence observation panchanama & drafter rough sketch in presence of mediators Lws.4 & 5, later examined and recorded the statements of Lws.2 & 3. Thereafter on credible information about the presence of accused at Mehdipatnam Rythu bazar, apprehended accused and brought him to police station. On enquiry, accused had voluntarily confessed to have commission of offence, and Lw.6 served noticed U/sec.41-A of Cr.P.C, to accused and instructed accused to appear

before the Hon’ble Court as and when summoned, and after completion of

entire investigation filed charge sheet against accused for the offence

U/sec.341, 506 & 509 of IPC.

3.The case was taken on file for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 506 and 509 of IPC against the accused. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him under Section 207

Cr.P.C.

4.Accused is examined U/s.251 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the substance of accusation for the offences U/secs.341, 506 and 509 of IPC, read over and explained to him in his vernacular language for which he denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4 C.C. No.6403 of 2020

5.During the course of trial, prosecution has examined PW.1 to PW.4 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7 on their behalf. Evidence of Lws.3 & 4 is closed as per the report filed by the police stating that Lw.3 is died and whereabouts of Lw.5 are not known. Prosecution side evidence is closed.

6.After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C with the incriminating material found against him in the prosecution evidence to which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence. Hence, the defence evidence closed.

7.Heard the arguments of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel.

8. Now the point for consideration is

Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the accused for the charged offences under Sections 341, 506 and 509 of IPC, beyond reasonable doubt?

9. Point:-

Prosecution to prove its case should prove that the accused had harassed Lw.1 to 3 from the time of his purchase of the house property

H.No.10-3-67/A/1 and performing illegal activities at his residence, created 5 C.C. No.6403 of 2020 nuisance, and blocked access of common passage pertaining to Pw.1 and accused, insulting the modesty of Pw.1 by abusing in filthy language and thereby the accused has committed the offences punishable u/secs. 341, 506 and 509 of IPC.

10.Prosecution to prove its case has examined PW.1 to PW.4 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. PW1 is the de-facto complainant, PW2 is daughter of Pw.1, Pw.3 is panch witness for scene observation panchanama and rough sketch, and Pw.4 is the Investigation Officer. Ex.P.1 is the report,

Ex.P.2 is 65-B Certificate along with pen-drive, Ex.P.3 to Ex.P.5 are signatures of Pw.4 on scene of offence panchanama and rough sketch,

Ex.p.6 if FIR and Ex.P.7 is scene of offence panchanama and rough sketch.

11.PW.1 who is the de-facto complainant has deposed that she is retired government servant and owner of the house bearing H.No.10-3-67/A,

Humayun Nagar, Hyderabad from 1980 and staying in the first floor of the said house by letting out three rooms in the ground floor on rent, accused is her neighbor and he developed grudge in the year 2019 against them and started locking gate of the common passage, threatened them to execute document in respect of the common passage on his name, when she refused 6 C.C. No.6403 of 2020 for doing so, he started threatening her husband(Pw.3) and further deposed that accused is carrying illegal activities by storing air conditioners at his house, threatened her husband (Pw.3) to take back the cases or else he will kill us, claiming that accused is the owner of the entire house, and abused them in filthy language, accused used to watch their movements through

C.C. Cameras installed at the house of accused. Hence filed report before

SHO PS Humayun Nagar for taking necessary action in Ex.P.1.

12.PW2 is the daughter of Pw.1 has deposed on the same lines as that of

Pw.1 by stating that accused is their neighbor, from the date of purchasing house by accused, he is doing illegal activities at his house i.e., from 2016, had locked common passage which is in between houses Pw.1 and accused, not allowed them to use common passage, accused had threatened them to to execute document in respect of the common passage on his name, when they objected for that, he had abused them in December, 2019, further deposed that accused brought two trucks of Air Conditioners and stored in his house, even every day accused abuses them in filthy language, disturbing their privacy by watching their movements through CC Cameras installed at his house, and her father expired in June 2023, and accused 7 C.C. No.6403 of 2020 used to stalk at her and used his sons to abuse them, by stating that she filed 65-B Certificate along with pen-drive, the same is marked as Ex.P.2.

13.Pw.3 is panch witness for scene observation panchanama and rough sketch, had turned hostile by saying that while he was coming back to his house, he saw public gathered nearby Azizya Masjid, as he saw SI of Police went to greet him, at that time when SI of police asked him to sign on some papers, he signed on them, he identified his signatures on scene observation panchanama and rough sketch, the same are marked as Ex.P.3 to Ex.p.5.

14.Pw.4 is the Investigating Officer in this case had deposed affirmatively that he received complaint from Pw.1 in Ex.P.1 and registered case in

Cr.No.356 of 2019, issued FIR in Ex.P.6, during the course of investigation he recorded the statement of Pw.1, visited scene of offence and conducted scene observation panchanama and drafter rough sketch of scene in presence of Pw.3 and lw.5, the same is marked as Ex.P.7, thereafter examined and recorded the statements of Pw.2 and Lw.3, later apprehended accused and issued notice U/sec.41-A of Cr.P.C., and after completion of 8 C.C. No.6403 of 2020 entire investigation, he filed charge sheet against accused for the offence

U/sec.341.506 & 509 of IPC.

15.On careful perusal of the evidence of PW1 and PW2 who are complainant and daughter of the complainant respectively, their evidence is corroborative, but the same is consisting of many improvements in their statements to that of their statement recorded under U/sec.161 of Cr.P.C.

by Pw.4. Pw.3 is the panch witness to scene observation panchanama and rough sketch who turned hostile, and nothing could be elicited from him during his cross-examination conducted by the learned APP and the evidence of Pw.4 is affirmative to the extent of investigation conducted by him.

16.During the cross-examination of Pw.1 she admitted that she was an earlier owner of the house, which was purchased by accused i.e., house bearing H.No.10-3-67/A/1 and there is 5 feet common passage between her house and house of accused, the same can be utilized by both Pw.1 and accused, also admitted that there are disputes among them in connection with the common passage and in that connections several cases between them before Municipal authorities, civil court and before Hon’ble High Court 9 C.C. No.6403 of 2020 for the State of Telangana. She further admits that accused had filed counter claim for demolition of structures. During the cross-examination of

Pw.2, she admitted the cases pending between accused and her family, and further admits that they filed another complaint earlier to this one in the year 2016 with similar allegations as that of present complaint, and also admits that she had not provided any proof to the police with regard to dumping of air conditioners by accused at his house at the time of investigation or at the time of her statement recorded U/sec.161 of Cr.P.C.

and also not disclosed anything about the CC cameras.

17.On considering the evidence of PW1 & PW2 they have deposed in the same lines and corroborative, but the same is not supported by any independent witness and their evidence consists of improvements and omissions, and they did not place any piece of evidence to show that the passage pertains to both Pw.1 and accused as common passage, also did not place anything on record to show that accused had locked the said passage. Admittedly it is pertinent to state here that both Pw.1 and Pw.2 did not disclose in their evidence that on which date accused had wrongfully confined them, on which date accused had threatened by saying that he will kill them, if they do not take back the cases lodged by them, and also not 10 C.C. No.6403 of 2020 stated when accused abused them in filthy language and what words are uttered by accused against them to molest them, in the absence of the above aspects, it is difficult to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence alleged against him and this court cannot solely rely on the evidence adduced by

Pws.1 & 2 to convict the accused. The other witnesses examined by prosecution is Pw.3 who turned hostile, and the evidence of the Pw.4 proves to the extent of investigation done by him, and is not enough to prove the guilt of the accused and to convict him. The prosecution failed to examine the any independent witness like any other neighbor or at least the tenants of Pw.1. The non-examination of the above said witnesses is fatal to the case of the prosecution.

18.On considering the entire evidence available on record, this court is of the considered view that the sole Accused cannot be convicted only basing on the evidence of PW’s.1, 2 & 4, without there being any independent witness to speak about the facts of the case, and thereby the Accused is entitled for acquittal. Point is answered accordingly.

19. R E S U L T:In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 506 & 509 of IPC and accordingly 11 C.C. No.6403 of 2020 he is acquitted under Section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bails bonds of the

Accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

(Typed to my dictation directly to Copyist, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 25 th day of January, 2025).

Sd/-

VI Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad.

:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::

Witnesses Examined

For the Prosecution: -

PW1:-Durdana Husain PW2:-Shabhana Hussain PW3:-K.Narsingh PW4:-K. Janaiah

For the Defence:- - NIL-

Exhibits Marked

For the Prosecution: -

Ex.P.1: Complaint Ex.P.2: 65-B Certificate along with Pen-drive. Ex.P.3 to EX.P.5: Signatures of Pw.3 on Scene observation panchanama and rough sketch. Ex.P.6: FIR.

12 C.C. No.6403 of 2020

Ex.P.7: Scene observation panchanama and rough sketch.

For the Defence:- - Nil –

M.O.s Marked

Nil

Sd/-

VI Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad.

13 C.C. No.6403 of 2020

1 C.C. No.6403 of 2020

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

PRESENT: N.Santhosh Kumar, VI Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad.

Saturday, this the 25 th day of January, 2025

C.C.No. 6403 of 2020

(Crime No.352/2019)

BETWEEN:

The State through Inspector of Police, PS Humayun Nagar, Hyderabad. …Complainant

And

Md. Shujath Hussain Sajjad, S/o. Md. Ifthakar Hussain, Age: 47 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.1-2-680, Elchaguda, Lower tank Bund, Himayath Nagar, Hyderabad. …. Accused

This case is coming before me today for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri M. Prabhakar, counsels for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:-

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Humayun Nagar, Hyderabad has filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.352 of 2019 for the offences 2 C.C. No.6403 of 2020 punishable under Sections 341, 506 & 509 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that:-

i)On 29-12-2019, LW.1/ Smt. Durdana Hussain Begum has lodged a complaint before the police by stating that she along with her husband and daughter is residing in H.No.10-3-67/A, Humayun Nagar,

Hyderabad, herself and her husband are senior citizens, and there is a threat to them from her neighbor Mohammed Sajjad Hussain, R/o.H.No.10- 3-67/A/1, who is harassing them from the date of his purchase of above house, as she stopped his illegal activities done at his residence, creating nuisance, had stored large quantity of Air Conditioners at his residence illegally which can cause health issues and carrying illegal transactions with them, that he blocked access to their common passage by locking it, causing much inconvenience to them from 26.12.2019, and is mentally harassing them also verbally abused them. Hence, she requested to take necessary action against the accused.

ii)Basing on the contents of the above complaint, Lw.6/Sri.K.Janaiah, SI of Police PS Humayaun Nagar, registered case in Cr.No.352 of 2019 for the offence U/sec.341, 506 & 509 of IPC. During the course of investigation, 3 C.C. No.6403 of 2020

LW6 examined and recorded the statement of LW1, thereafter visited scene of offence and conducted scene of offence observation panchanama & drafter rough sketch in presence of mediators Lws.4 & 5, later examined and recorded the statements of Lws.2 & 3. Thereafter on credible information about the presence of accused at Mehdipatnam Rythu bazar, apprehended accused and brought him to police station. On enquiry, accused had voluntarily confessed to have commission of offence, and Lw.6 served noticed U/sec.41-A of Cr.P.C, to accused and instructed accused to appear

before the Hon’ble Court as and when summoned, and after completion of

entire investigation filed charge sheet against accused for the offence

U/sec.341, 506 & 509 of IPC.

3.The case was taken on file for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 506 and 509 of IPC against the accused. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him under Section 207

Cr.P.C.

4.Accused is examined U/s.251 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the substance of accusation for the offences U/secs.341, 506 and 509 of IPC, read over and explained to him in his vernacular language for which he denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4 C.C. No.6403 of 2020

5.During the course of trial, prosecution has examined PW.1 to PW.4 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7 on their behalf. Evidence of Lws.3 & 4 is closed as per the report filed by the police stating that Lw.3 is died and whereabouts of Lw.5 are not known. Prosecution side evidence is closed.

6.After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C with the incriminating material found against him in the prosecution evidence to which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence. Hence, the defence evidence closed.

7.Heard the arguments of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel.

8. Now the point for consideration is

Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the accused for the charged offences under Sections 341, 506 and 509 of IPC, beyond reasonable doubt?

9. Point:-

Prosecution to prove its case should prove that the accused had harassed Lw.1 to 3 from the time of his purchase of the house property

H.No.10-3-67/A/1 and performing illegal activities at his residence, created 5 C.C. No.6403 of 2020 nuisance, and blocked access of common passage pertaining to Pw.1 and accused, insulting the modesty of Pw.1 by abusing in filthy language and thereby the accused has committed the offences punishable u/secs. 341, 506 and 509 of IPC.

10.Prosecution to prove its case has examined PW.1 to PW.4 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. PW1 is the de-facto complainant, PW2 is daughter of Pw.1, Pw.3 is panch witness for scene observation panchanama and rough sketch, and Pw.4 is the Investigation Officer. Ex.P.1 is the report,

Ex.P.2 is 65-B Certificate along with pen-drive, Ex.P.3 to Ex.P.5 are signatures of Pw.4 on scene of offence panchanama and rough sketch,

Ex.p.6 if FIR and Ex.P.7 is scene of offence panchanama and rough sketch.

11.PW.1 who is the de-facto complainant has deposed that she is retired government servant and owner of the house bearing H.No.10-3-67/A,

Humayun Nagar, Hyderabad from 1980 and staying in the first floor of the said house by letting out three rooms in the ground floor on rent, accused is her neighbor and he developed grudge in the year 2019 against them and started locking gate of the common passage, threatened them to execute document in respect of the common passage on his name, when she refused 6 C.C. No.6403 of 2020 for doing so, he started threatening her husband(Pw.3) and further deposed that accused is carrying illegal activities by storing air conditioners at his house, threatened her husband (Pw.3) to take back the cases or else he will kill us, claiming that accused is the owner of the entire house, and abused them in filthy language, accused used to watch their movements through

C.C. Cameras installed at the house of accused. Hence filed report before

SHO PS Humayun Nagar for taking necessary action in Ex.P.1.

12.PW2 is the daughter of Pw.1 has deposed on the same lines as that of

Pw.1 by stating that accused is their neighbor, from the date of purchasing house by accused, he is doing illegal activities at his house i.e., from 2016, had locked common passage which is in between houses Pw.1 and accused, not allowed them to use common passage, accused had threatened them to to execute document in respect of the common passage on his name, when they objected for that, he had abused them in December, 2019, further deposed that accused brought two trucks of Air Conditioners and stored in his house, even every day accused abuses them in filthy language, disturbing their privacy by watching their movements through CC Cameras installed at his house, and her father expired in June 2023, and accused 7 C.C. No.6403 of 2020 used to stalk at her and used his sons to abuse them, by stating that she filed 65-B Certificate along with pen-drive, the same is marked as Ex.P.2.

13.Pw.3 is panch witness for scene observation panchanama and rough sketch, had turned hostile by saying that while he was coming back to his house, he saw public gathered nearby Azizya Masjid, as he saw SI of Police went to greet him, at that time when SI of police asked him to sign on some papers, he signed on them, he identified his signatures on scene observation panchanama and rough sketch, the same are marked as Ex.P.3 to Ex.p.5.

14.Pw.4 is the Investigating Officer in this case had deposed affirmatively that he received complaint from Pw.1 in Ex.P.1 and registered case in

Cr.No.356 of 2019, issued FIR in Ex.P.6, during the course of investigation he recorded the statement of Pw.1, visited scene of offence and conducted scene observation panchanama and drafter rough sketch of scene in presence of Pw.3 and lw.5, the same is marked as Ex.P.7, thereafter examined and recorded the statements of Pw.2 and Lw.3, later apprehended accused and issued notice U/sec.41-A of Cr.P.C., and after completion of 8 C.C. No.6403 of 2020 entire investigation, he filed charge sheet against accused for the offence

U/sec.341.506 & 509 of IPC.

15.On careful perusal of the evidence of PW1 and PW2 who are complainant and daughter of the complainant respectively, their evidence is corroborative, but the same is consisting of many improvements in their statements to that of their statement recorded under U/sec.161 of Cr.P.C.

by Pw.4. Pw.3 is the panch witness to scene observation panchanama and rough sketch who turned hostile, and nothing could be elicited from him during his cross-examination conducted by the learned APP and the evidence of Pw.4 is affirmative to the extent of investigation conducted by him.

16.During the cross-examination of Pw.1 she admitted that she was an earlier owner of the house, which was purchased by accused i.e., house bearing H.No.10-3-67/A/1 and there is 5 feet common passage between her house and house of accused, the same can be utilized by both Pw.1 and accused, also admitted that there are disputes among them in connection with the common passage and in that connections several cases between them before Municipal authorities, civil court and before Hon’ble High Court 9 C.C. No.6403 of 2020 for the State of Telangana. She further admits that accused had filed counter claim for demolition of structures. During the cross-examination of

Pw.2, she admitted the cases pending between accused and her family, and further admits that they filed another complaint earlier to this one in the year 2016 with similar allegations as that of present complaint, and also admits that she had not provided any proof to the police with regard to dumping of air conditioners by accused at his house at the time of investigation or at the time of her statement recorded U/sec.161 of Cr.P.C.

and also not disclosed anything about the CC cameras.

17.On considering the evidence of PW1 & PW2 they have deposed in the same lines and corroborative, but the same is not supported by any independent witness and their evidence consists of improvements and omissions, and they did not place any piece of evidence to show that the passage pertains to both Pw.1 and accused as common passage, also did not place anything on record to show that accused had locked the said passage. Admittedly it is pertinent to state here that both Pw.1 and Pw.2 did not disclose in their evidence that on which date accused had wrongfully confined them, on which date accused had threatened by saying that he will kill them, if they do not take back the cases lodged by them, and also not 10 C.C. No.6403 of 2020 stated when accused abused them in filthy language and what words are uttered by accused against them to molest them, in the absence of the above aspects, it is difficult to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence alleged against him and this court cannot solely rely on the evidence adduced by

Pws.1 & 2 to convict the accused. The other witnesses examined by prosecution is Pw.3 who turned hostile, and the evidence of the Pw.4 proves to the extent of investigation done by him, and is not enough to prove the guilt of the accused and to convict him. The prosecution failed to examine the any independent witness like any other neighbor or at least the tenants of Pw.1. The non-examination of the above said witnesses is fatal to the case of the prosecution.

18.On considering the entire evidence available on record, this court is of the considered view that the sole Accused cannot be convicted only basing on the evidence of PW’s.1, 2 & 4, without there being any independent witness to speak about the facts of the case, and thereby the Accused is entitled for acquittal. Point is answered accordingly.

19. R E S U L T:In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 506 & 509 of IPC and accordingly 11 C.C. No.6403 of 2020 he is acquitted under Section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bails bonds of the

Accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

(Typed to my dictation directly to Copyist, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 25 th day of January, 2025).

Sd/-

VI Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad.

:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::

Witnesses Examined

For the Prosecution: -

PW1:-Durdana Husain PW2:-Shabhana Hussain PW3:-K.Narsingh PW4:-K. Janaiah

For the Defence:- - NIL-

Exhibits Marked

For the Prosecution: -

Ex.P.1: Complaint Ex.P.2: 65-B Certificate along with Pen-drive. Ex.P.3 to EX.P.5: Signatures of Pw.3 on Scene observation panchanama and rough sketch. Ex.P.6: FIR.

12 C.C. No.6403 of 2020

Ex.P.7: Scene observation panchanama and rough sketch.

For the Defence:- - Nil –

M.O.s Marked

Nil

Sd/-

VI Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad.

13 C.C. No.6403 of 2020

1 C.C. No. 469 of 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

PRESENT: N.Santhosh Kumar

VI Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Hyderabad.

Friday, this the 24 th day of January, 2025

C.C.No.469 of 2016

BETWEEN:

The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Humayun Nagar, Hyderabad …Complainant

And

Talmuk Shravan Kumar, S/o. T. Ramchandra, Age: 48 years, Occ: Jahnvi Academy, R/o.H.No.19-5-479/A/17/1, SP.Nagar, NM guda, Kishan Bagh, Hyderabad. …Accused no.1

This case is coming before me today for final hearing in the presence of Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri K. Dharam Singh, Counsel for the accused no.1 and having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following: -

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

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station Humayun nagar has filed charge sheet against the accused no.1 in Cr.No.164 of 2015 for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that, on 14.06.2015 at 06.00 pm, Police Humayun Nagar received a complaint from LW1/Sri P. Chandra

Shekar Reddy stating that on 14.06.2015 at 02.30 pm, he along with his team were performing patrolling duty in the limits of Humayun Nagar, received a credible information that accused/T.Shravan Kumar is running Siri Jahnvi 2 C.C. No. 469 of 2016

Academy situated at No.103, Osman Plaza Beside Crescent Hospital, Humayun

Nagar, Hyderabad and is in possession of fake educational certificates of

Graduation/Engineering/MBA/Diploma etc of other State Universities in order to deliver the said certificates to the needy customers. He immediately secured presence of mediators i.e., Lw.8/Rahul Pawar and Lw.9/Prakash Jadav, prepared search proceedings U/sec.165 of Cr.P.C, proceeded to the Jahnvi Academy along with his staff. He reached spot at 03.00 pm and knocked the door of flat

No.103, upon which one person opened door and introduced himself and as

Talmuk Shravan Kumar, S/o.T. Ramchandra, running Jahnvi Academy, Lw.1 introduced himself and explained the cause of his search by duly serving copy of search proceedings on accused, and searched the premises, wherein accused had voluntarily confessed to have commission of offence along with accused no.2 who is his business partner, by procuring, sales & circulating of fake & fabricated educational certificates of various universities of other States for his illegal gain, accordingly Lw.1 recorded confession-cum-seizure panchanama of Accused no.1 and seized 33 fake and fabricated educational certificates of Monad Universities

Delhi-Hapur (U.P.), Sunrise (Mysore), Madurai Kamaraj University (Tamilnadu),

Veer Kuwarsingh University (VKSU) Bihar State, Board of High School and

Intermediate educational U.P. State, National Institute of Open Schooling, Delhi on the name of various candidates, one computer system and one HP Inkjet printer under the cover of panchanama. Thereafter, Lw.1 lodged report and handed over accused no.1 along with seized material to Lw.15.

3.As per the contents of the above complaint, LW15/Sri P. Yadagiri rao, S.I.

of Police, Humayun nagar PS, registered a case in Cr.No.164 of 2015 u/sec.420 of IPC, and took up the investigation, recorded statements of Lws.2 to 4 who 3 C.C. No. 469 of 2016 accompanied Lw.1. During the course of investigation, Lw.15 visited scene of offence, examined lws.5 & 6 and conducted scene observation panchanama & drafted rough sketch of scene in presence of Lws.10 & 11, later he affected arrest of accused and complied conditions as per section U/sec.41-A of Cr.P.C., and as per the advice of the doctor, accused was admitted in hospital for treatment as in-patient, after discharge of accused from hospital, accused was sent to judicial custody. After that Lw.15 sent copies of the certificates seized from the possession of accused to concerned, and came to know that they are fake certificates. Thereafter Lw.15 sent the seized material Samsung CPU with hard disk to AP FSL for analysis and report. After collecting FLS reports and after completion of entire investigation, even after their sincere efforts to apprehend

Accused no.2, his whereabouts are not traced and he absconding, hence prays to file separate charge sheet against accused no.2 whenever he is arrested.

Hence LW15 filed charge sheet against accused no.1 for the offence U/sec.420 of IPC,

4.The case was taken on file for the offence punishable under Section 420 of

IPC against the accused no.1. On appearance of the accused no.1, copies of documents were furnished to them under Section 207 Code of Criminal

Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C’).

5.A1 is examined U/s.239 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 a charge is framed for the offence u/sec. 420 of IPC, read over and explained to him in his vernacular language for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4 C.C. No. 469 of 2016

6.During the course of trial, prosecution has failed to examine the witnesses on their behalf. Hence, their evidence was closed. Prosecution side evidence was closed.

7.After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the examination of the accused no.1 under section 313 Cr.P.C was dispensed with since there was no incriminating material found against them in the prosecution evidence. Accused no.1 reported no defence evidence. Hence, the defence evidence closed.

8.Heard the arguments of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel.

9. Now the point for consideration is

Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt

of the accused no.1 for the charged offence under

Section 420 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

10. Point:-

Prosecution to prove its case should prove that on 14.06.2015 at 02.30 pm,

Lw.1/P. Chandra Shekar Reddy, SI of Police, Commissioner of Task Force along with his team, on credible information had raided Siri Jahnvi Academy situated at

No.103, Osman Plaza Beside Crescent Hospital, Humayun Nagar, which is maintained by Accused No.1/T.Shravan Kumar and is in possession of fake educational certificates of Graduation/Engineering/MBA/Diploma etc of other

State Universities in order to deliver the said certificates to the needy customers and also seizure of 33 fake and fabricated educational certificates of Monad

Universities Delhi-Hapur (U.P.), Sunrise (Mysore), Madurai Kamaraj University (Tamilnadu), Veer Kuwarsingh University (VKSU) Bihar State, Board of High 5 C.C. No. 469 of 2016

School and Intermediate educational U.P. State, National Institute of Open

Schooling, Delhi on the name of various candidates, one computer system and one HP Inkjet printer, in presence of mediators i.e., Lw.8/Rahul Pawar and

Lw.9/Prakash Jadav, and that thereby accused no.1 had committed an offence punishable under sections 420 of IPC.

11.Prosecution in the present case has failed to examine the witnesses and there is no evidence on behalf of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused no.1. Since, there is no evidence on behalf of the prosecution, Prosecution miserably failed to prove its case. Hence, accused no.1 are entitled for acquittal.

The point is answered accordingly.

12. R E S U L T:Inthe result, the accused no.1 is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused no.1, if any shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked case property i.e.,

Item No.1 to 5 are ordered to be confiscated to state after expiry of appeal time.

(Typed to my dictation by Copyist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 24 th day of January, 2025).

Sd/-

VI Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad 6 C.C. No. 469 of 2016 :: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::

Witnesses Examined

For the Prosecution: -For the Defence:- - Nil –- Nil –

Exhibits Marked For the Prosecution: -For the Defence:- - Nil –- Nil –

M.O.s Marked - Nil –

Sd/-

VI Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad

1 C.C. No. 306 of 2020

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

PRESENT: N.Santhosh Kumar

VI Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Hyderabad.

Friday, this the 24 th day of January, 2025

C.C.No.306 of 2020

BETWEEN:

The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Humayun nagar, Hyderabad …Complainant

And

Mirza Ali Ashtarian, S/o. Alamdar Ashtarian, Age: 27 years, Occ: Student, R/o.Flat No.202, Paramount Towers, Opp: Shah Function Hall, Red Hills, Nampally, Hyderabad. …Accused

This case is coming before me today for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri D. Raji Reddy, Counsel

for the accused and having been heard and having stood over for consideration

till this day, this court made the following: -

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

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station Humayun nagar has filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.228 of 2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 353 & 506 of IPC.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that, on 09.08.2019 at 09.00 pm, Police Humayun Nagar received a complaint from LW1/Sri R. Shekar, SI of

Police, PS Asif Nagar stating that on 09.08.2019 at about 07.30 pm, while he was performing vehicle checking duty, he noticed one Honda Activa Vehicle without number plate came in wrong direction from Golconda Hotel towards Masab tank junction and stopped the vehicle and enquired about the vehicle 2 C.C. No. 306 of 2020 documents, on that the person who sat on back seat of vehicle informed that they do not have documents, after that Lw.1 asked his staff Lw2/Sri Nara Hari, HG- 938 to take vehicle side, on that the said person who sat on back seat obstructed

Lw.2, and started shouting by saying that he will remove uniform of LW.2, immediately Lw.1 informed Law & Order police personnel about the booking of

Traffic Violation case through VHF set, later both persons were brought to the police station, where the said person tried to take complaint forcibly from the hand of Lw.1. Hence requested to take necessary action.

3.As per the contents of the above complaint, LW3/Sri G. Srinivas, SI of

Police, Humayun nagar PS, registered a case in Cr.No.228/2019 u/sec.353 & 506 of IPC and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, LW3/Sri

G. Srinivas examined and recorded the statements of LW1/R. Shekar and

LW2/Nara Hari and collected Video recording from Lw.2, the same is extracted into a CD. After that served copy of notice U/sec.41(A)(1) of Cr.P.C. on accused, and after collecting material evidence and after completion of entire investigation,

Lw.3 filed charge sheet against accused for the offence U/sec.353 & 506 of IPC.

4.The case was taken on file for the offences punishable under Section 353 & 506 of IPC against the accused. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to them under Section 207 Code of Criminal

Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C’).

5.Accused is examined U/s.239 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 a charge is framed for the offence u/sec. 353 & 506 of IPC, read over and explained to him in his vernacular language for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. .

3 C.C. No. 306 of 2020

6.During the course of trial, prosecution has failed to examine the witnesses on their behalf. Hence, their evidence was closed. Prosecution side evidence was closed.

7.After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the examination of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C was dispensed with since there was no incriminating material found against them in the prosecution evidence. Accused reported no defence evidence. Hence, the defence evidence closed.

8.Heard the arguments of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel.

9. Now the point for consideration is

Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt

of the accused for the charged offences under Section

353 & 506 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

10. Point:-

Prosecution to prove its case should prove that on 09.08.2019 at about 07.30 pm, Lw.1 was performing vehicle checking duty, he noticed one Honda

Activa Vehicle without number plate came in wrong direction from Golconda Hotel towards Masab tank junction and stopped the vehicle and enquired about the vehicle documents, on that the person who sat on back seat of vehicle informed that they do not have documents, after that Lw.1 asked his staff Lw2/Sri Nara

Hari, HG-938 to take vehicle side, on that the said person who sat on back seat obstructed Lw.2, and started shouting by saying that he will remove uniform of

LW.2, and that thereby accused had committed the offences punishable under sections 353 & 506 of IPC.

4 C.C. No. 306 of 2020

11.Prosecution in the present case has failed to examine the witnesses and there is no evidence on behalf of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. Since, there is no evidence on behalf of the prosecution, Prosecution miserably failed to prove its case. Hence, accused is entitled for acquittal. The point is answered accordingly.

12. R E S U L T:Inthe result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Section 353 & 506 of IPC and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused, if any shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

(Typed to my dictation by Copyist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 24 th day of January, 2025).

Sd/-

VI Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad :: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::

Witnesses Examined

For the Prosecution: -For the Defence:- - Nil –- Nil –

Exhibits Marked For the Prosecution: -For the Defence:- - Nil –- Nil –

M.O.s Marked - Nil –

Sd/-

VI Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad