Ms. Nagula Shilpa

1 of 12 CC 623 of 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

PARGI: VIAKRABAD DISTRICT

PRESENT: SMT.N.SHILPA

JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

PARGI, VIKARABAD DISTRICT.

DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026

C.C. No. 623 OF 2025

Between:

The State of Telangana through S.H.O. of P.S. Parigi …Complainant

AND

Nattali @ Uradi Hanmanthu, @ Anji S/o Late Nrsaiah, Age: 39 years, Occ: Labour, R/o Ibrahimpur Village, Vikarabad District. … Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor for the State and upon perusing the material papers on record, on hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following.

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of police P.S.Parigi filed a charge sheet against the accused person in Cr. No.354 of 2025 for the offence punishable Under Sections 303(2), 307 r/w 13 of BNS against accused.

2.The brief facts of the case are that, the accused hails from Ibrahimpur Village of

Parigi Mandal, Vikarabad district N/o Yerupumalla Village of Bomraspet Mandal,

Vikarabad district who is an labour by profession and had addicted for alcohol and fallen neck-deep debts and started committing Auto & Motor Cycle thefts and house

2 of 12 CC 623 of 2025

breaking at varies places i.e. Parigi & Tandur PSs of Vikarabad District by using false keys and removing wire connection (Un-plugged), as and when they parked in-front of their residences and other public/vulnerable places one after the other. Earlier the accused committed couple cases and convicted in Cr No. 181/2022 U/sec 379 IPC of

Ps Parigi and the case was ended in convicted in 2 months 13 days vide CC No.

570/2022. Recently the accused was remanded him in property offences and sent him to judicial remand on 26.10.2025, later, released from Sub Jail, Parigi in said cases.

On 08.12.2025 at about 1000 hrs, LW-1 was parked his HF deluxe bike Br.No. TS 34 A 0824 in-front of Library, Market Road, Pargi village & Mandal. On the same day, the accused has committed theft of HF deluxe bike Br.No. TS 34 A 0824 from said place.

The accused confessed that stated that at the time of committing that theft, the accused was carrying an iron rod with him. He had decided that if anyone tried to stop him either during the theft or while taking away the stolen property, he would attack and beat them with it. I had hidden that iron rod in the motorcycle. Earlier he was involved in 181/2022 U/s 379 IPC of PS Parigi and the case was ended in convicted 2 months 13 days vide CC No. 570/2022. Thus the acts of the accused constitute the offence punishable U/Sec. 303(2), 307 r/w 13 of BNS.

3. This Court has taken the cognizance of the offence punishable under sections.

303(2), 307 r/w 13 of BNS against the accused and issued summons to accused.

4. On appearance of the accused before this Court, he was furnished with the copies of documents as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

3 of 12 CC 623 of 2025

5. Accused person was examined U/s 239 of Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under sections 303(2), 307 r/w 13 of BNS are read over and explained to him in vernacular language, he denied the allegations and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 7 and got marked Ex. P1 to P6. On behalf of the accused nobody was examined and no documents are marked. On the closure of prosecution evidence accused were examined U/s 313 of Cr.P.C. and the accused denied the incriminating evidence as false and reported no defense evidence.

7. Heard both sides and perused the record.

8. Now the point for consideration is: -

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

reasonable doubt for the offence punishable U/s. 303(2), 307 r/w 13 of BNS

against accused ?

9. POINT:

10. To prove the guilt of the Accused persons prosecution examined, PW-1: to

PW7 and got marked Ex.P1 to P6.]

12.Coming to the evidence, PW1 Chief Examination by the learned APP:

4 of 12 CC 623 of 2025

I know Lw2. On 08.12.2025, as usual I came to Pargi at 10:00am., Library for studying,

I have parked my bike HF deluxe bearing No. TS 34 A 0824 in front of the library and went inside the library for studying. At around 12:40pm I found my bike was missing, immediate I took my friend/Lw2 bike and searched all over Pargi for my bike but could not trace it. In the evening 06:00pm., I along with Lw2 went to police station and lodged a complaint. Ex.P1 is my complaint. On the same day Police examine me and recorded my statement.

Cross Examination by counsel for Accused:

The said bike stands in the name of my brother. I came alone from my village to Pargi.

Library is opened at 08:30 am and closes at 07:30pm, I found my bike on 21.12.2025. I came to know that the bike was found through my friends at Rajendra Nagar. I collected my bike on 22.12.2025 at Rajendra Nagar police station, we were accompanied by police from Police Pargi. I do not know the details of the person who has stolen the bike. It is not true to suggest that police did not examine me and did not record my statement at Pargi police station.

13. PW2 Chief Examination by the learned APP:I know Lw4. On 08.12.2025 I came to know about theft of bike of my friend/Pw1. Police conducted Accordingly I went to

Library of Pargi. panchanama in my presence at the library premises. Ex.P2 is the panchanama cum CDF.

5 of 12 CC 623 of 2025

Cross Examination by counsel for Accused:

Panchanama was conducted after 06:00pm., contents of the panchanama were read over to me. North: Library, South: Bus stand, East: Main road, west: Gandhi chowk. It is true that there are cloth shops near the library towards east. It is true that opposite to the library there are two kiranam shops. It is not true to suggest that police did not conduct panchanama in my presence and I am deposing false in favor of the complainant.

PW3: Chief Examination by the learned APP:

Pwl is my friend and I know Pw2. On 08.12.2025 I came to know about theft of bike of my friend/Pwl. Accordingly I went to Library of Pargi. Police conducted panchanama in presence of myself and Pw2 at the library premises. Ex.P3 is my signature on panchanama cum CDF.

Cross Examination by counsel for Accused:

Panchanama was conducted after 06:00pm., contents of the panchanama were read over to me. It is not true to suggest that police did not conduct panchanama in presence of myself and Pw2 and I am deposing false in favor of the complainant. It is not true to suggest that I do not know the contents of panchanama.

6 of 12 CC 623 of 2025

PW4:ha: Chief Examination by the learned APP:

On 22.12.2025 at about 04:00pm., police were conducting enquiry near Court chowrasta, I was present there, at that time a person/Hanmanthu/accused came on a bike and had a iron rod with him. Police enquired him in my presence and he confessed that he was not getting job at any place and hence he was roaming around to commit bike theft and if any persons obstruct him he would kill them with the iron rod he was possessing. He confessed that he has stole the HF deluxe bike bearing No. TS 34 A 0824 near the library on 08.12.2025 at around afternoon time. Lw6 was also present along with me during the above said confession. Witness identified the seized property with CPR.No. 285/2025 as the iron rod which was seized along with the bike bearing No. TS 34 A 0824 from the possession of accused/Hanmanthu. MO1 is the

Iron rod, MO2 is the bike bearing No. TS 34 A 0824. Witness identified the accused present in the Court hall. Ex.P4 is the confession cum seizure panchanama.

Cross Examination by Legal Aid Counsel:

I was standing near the Court Chowrasta at the time of enou Accused came on another bike, I cannot say the registration number of that bike. Around 06 to 07 police personnel were present during the enquiry, SI of police conducted the enquiry. I was present while the accused confessed the above to the SI of police. Accused confessed when police asked him about the rod. It is not true to suggest that I was never present during the above said seizure and confession panchanama and I am deposing false upon instigation of the police

7 of 12 CC 623 of 2025

PW5:Chief Examination by the learned APP:

Pwl is my friend. I along with my friend/Vijay/Pwl come to library regularly for studying.

On 08.12.2025., as usual myself and Vijay came to the library and at about 12:30pm., we went out for having tea. Before leaving for Tea, Vijay's splendor bike bearing No.

TS 34 A 0824 was parked infornt of the library, by the time we came back after having tea his bike was missing. Immediately myself and Pwl went around Pargi searching for

Pwl's bike. Immediately we called 100 and later we were contacted by the police of

Pargi and accordingly we went to police station Pargi. Pwl lodged the complaint regarding theft of his bike by unknown offender. On the next day Police examined me and recorded my statement.

Cross Examination by Legal Aid Counsel:

I do The stolen bike is in the name of Vijay's brother. I came to the library on that day around 09:30am., We searched the near Gunj road and other places. not know if I have mentioned to the police in my 161 CR.P.C statement about dial 100. Lw1 lodged the compliant on the same day. However I left to my house at that time. It is not true to suggest that I am deposing false in favor of Pwl since he is my friend.

PW6: Chief Examination by the learned APP:

I know Pw4. On 22.12.2025 I was present near Court Chowrasta, at that time police were enquiring a person regarding bike theft, to which he confessed that he has stolen two to three bikes of which one is the pulsar bike and another one is splendor bike.

8 of 12 CC 623 of 2025

Police seized one iron rod from the accused. witness deposed that did not seize the iron rod which is shown in the court vide CPR No. 285/2025. I have endorsed my signature on the panchanama papers and the same is identified as Ex.P5.

Cross Examination by Legal Aid Counsel:

Myself and Pw4 hail from the same village. police seized one iron rod and a bike but I cannot say registration number of bike which was seized in front of me. I did not see the accused from whom the above said iron rod and bike were seized. I have endorsed my signature as per the directions of police but I do not know the contents of panchanama.

PW7: Chief Examination by the learned APP:

Presently I am working as Sub Inspector of Police, Pargi Police station since 19.07.2025 to till date. On 08.12.2025 at evening 05:30 pm., I received report from Pwl as in Ex.P1 basing on the contents the offence registered a case in Cr.No. 354/2025 for the offence U/se 303(2), 307 r/w 13 of BNS and issued FIR. EX.P6 is the FIR.

Immediately I examined and recorded the statement of the Pwl at police station.

Immediately I visited the scene of offence at market road, pargi and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of Pw2 and 3. Later as part of investigation I have conducted vehicle checking at Court Chowrasta, while conducting vehicle checking I found the person Uradi Hanmanthu, on questioning he failed to produce valid vehicle documents and also he was carrying an iron rod/MO1, on further enquiry

9 of 12 CC 623 of 2025

he confessed that he has stolen the bike and was carrying the rod to attack any person if they obstructed him in committing theft. Immediately we seized the iron rod and bike in presence of Pw4 and 6 and conducted seizure cum confession panchanama and the same have been deposited in this Court vide CPR.No. 285/2025. After completion of investigation I have filed the charge sheet.

: Cross Examination by Accused counsel

I received the compliant through Pwl. I did not receive any information through 100 dial services. I went to the scene of offence at around 06:00pm., There were no CC camera for nearby the shops, hence we could not get any CC TV footage. The CC cameras present in the near the shops were not covering the scene of offence. It is not true to suggest that Accused person was at sub jail Pargi undergoing sentence in another crime. The stolen bike was seized from the possession of the accused. it is true that diameter of the seized iron rod has not been mentioned in the charge sheet.

The length of the rod is approximately 1 ½ feet. it is true that RC of the stolen bike has not been submitted. It is not true to suggest that I have conducted only table investigation and falsely implicated the accused since the accused is a habitual offender. It is not true to suggest that the present case has been falsely fostered only for statistical purposes

10 of 12 CC 623 of 2025

On careful scrutiny of the evidence, this Court finds several infirmities in the prosecution case that create reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused:

The charge sheet categorically states that the accused was arrested on 22.12.2025 at Telephone Exchange near Court Chawrastha, Pargi, and the motorcycle along with the iron rod was seized there in the presence of LWs-5 & 6. However, PW-1, the complainant himself, deposed in cross-examination that he learned of the recovery on 21.12.2025 through friends at Rajendra Nagar and collected the vehicle on 22.12.2025 from Rajendra Nagar Police Station. This glaring contradiction regarding the place and manner of recovery—Pargi vs. Rajendra

Nagar casts a strong cloud on the prosecution's narrative on seizure and linking the accused to the stolen property.

Going further, there are no eyewitnesses to the theft. PW-1 explicitly stated he does not know the thief and searched the area without tracing the bike initially. The accused is not identified by any witness as being present at the scene or committing the act. The prosecution's case hinges on circumstantial evidence, primarily the alleged recovery based on the accused's confessional statement.

However, under Section 27 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), a confession to police is inadmissible unless it leads to discovery of a fact, and even then, only the portion relating to the discovery is relevant. Here, the confessional statement is not proved to be voluntary, and the discrepant recovery details render it unreliable.

11 of 12 CC 623 of 2025

Further the prior criminal history of the accused, as listed in the charge sheet (including acquittals, convictions, and compromises in similar cases), cannot substitute for proof in the present case. Prior convictions may be relevant for enhanced punishment under Section 75 BNS but not for establishing guilt here.

The scene of offence panchanama (Ex. P-2) merely records observations at the library premises but yields no incriminating material linking the accused. The iron rod's possession is not corroborated by any evidence of intent or use, and the recovery itself is doubtful. Pw 6 explicitly deposed that the seized iron rod was not the one produced in the court.

It is settled law that in criminal trials, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and any doubt must benefit the accused. The chain of circumstances must be complete and point unerringly to the accused's guilt, excluding any hypothesis of innocence. Here, the prosecution has failed to discharge this burden due to the aforesaid lacunae.

In the result, the point for determination is answered in the negative. The accused is found not guilty of the offences under Sections 303(2), 307 r/w 13 of BNS and is acquitted under Section 248(1) BNSS. The accused be set at liberty forthwith unless required in any other case. The bail bonds, if any, stand cancelled after six months. No order as to costs.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24 th day of February, 2026.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

PARGI : VIKARABAD DISTRICT.

12 of 12 CC 623 of 2025

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED.

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

EXHIBITS MARKED.

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: Ex.P1: i

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

PARGI : VIKARABAD DISTRICT

1 of 13 CC 59 of 2016

6IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS

PARGI: VIAKRABAD DISTRICT

PRESENT: SMT.N.SHILPA

JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

PARGI, VIKARABAD DISTRICT.

DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026

C.C. No. 59 OF 2016

Between: The State of Telangana through W.P.S. Vikarabad … Complainant

AND

A-1 Syed Moin Pasha s/o Hameed Pasha, age: 24 yrs, Occ: Pvt Job, A-2 Raheema Begum w/o Hameed Pasha, agc: 46 yrs, Occ: Housewife, A-3 Syed Hameed Pasha s/o InyatatPasha, age: 52 yrs, Occ: Auto driver, A-4 Hydri Begum w/o Late Usman Ali, agc: 60 yrs, occ: Housewife, A-5 Md. Naveed S/o Late Usman Ali, Age: 32 yrs, occ: labour, All Caste: Muslim, R/o H.No. 84-548/50/61, Fatima Nagar, Erragadda, Hyderabad … Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri. K.

Yadaiah, Advocate for the Accused upon perusing the material papers on record, on hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following.

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of police P.S. Doma filed a charge sheet against the accused persons No.1 to 5 in Cr. No.5 of 2016 for the

2 of 13 CC 59 of 2016

offence punishable Under Sections 498(A), 506 IPC Sec 4 DP Act 1961 against accused Nos.1 to 5.

2.The brief facts of the case are that, on 19.01.2016 at 16.00 hrs received telugu written complaint from LW1/Smt. Afreen Khatoon in which she stated that her marriage was solemnized with A1 before

Village elders according to their tradition. At the time of marriage her parents gave 10 thulas gold, 25 thulas silver, RS 5,00,000/-, One

Motor Bike and household articles. After marriage they lived nuptial life happily only for 2 months. After that A1 started harassing her physically and mentally to get additional dowry Rs.5,00,000/-from her parents, her parents are not in position to give him additional dowry, A1 abused her and left LW1 to her parental house. Then Lwl brother Lw4 gave 38,000/- to LW1 and sent her to marital house. Then A1 was not satisfied with the amount given by her brother and demanded her, give 5 lakhs or to give divorce and he will do second marriage. A2 to A5 supported A-1 and abused Lw1 to give divorce to A1. When she refused to give divorce, they pour kerosene oil on Lw1 and threatened Lw1 with dire consequences. Then Lw-1 tried to ran away from their house, on the way the Filling station member Lw5 saw Lw1 and called Lw1 parents

3 of 13 CC 59 of 2016

and Lw-1 went to her parental house with them. In this regard they held a panchayath in the presence of Caste & Village elders in which the A1 was convinced and requested to look after the complainant well, but he did not changed his attitude. Thus the acts of the accused constitute an offence punishable U/Sec 498 (A), 506 IPC, Sec 4 of DP Act-1961.

3. This Court has taken the cognizance of the offence punishable under sections. U/Sec 498 (A), 506 IPC, Sec 4 of DP Act-1961 against the accused No.1 to 5 and issued summons to accused.

04. On appearance of the accused No.1 to 5 before this Court, they were furnished with the copies of documents as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C. A3 reported dead on 21.1.2019, Hence case abated against A3.

5. Accused persons No.1, 2, 4 & 5 were examined U/s 239 of Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under sections 498 (A), 506 IPC, Sec 4 of DP Act.

are read over and explained to them in vernacular language, they denied the allegations and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 6 and got marked Ex. P1 & P2. On behalf of the accused No.1 to 5 nobody was examined and no documents are marked.

4 of 13 CC 59 of 2016

7.On the closure of prosecution evidence accused were examined

U/s 313 of Cr.P.C. and the accused denied the incriminating evidence as false and reported no defense evidence.

8. Heard both sides and perused the record.

9. Now the point for consideration is: -

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused

No.1 , 2 ,4 & 5 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence

punishable U/s.498 (A), 506 IPC, Sec 4 of DP Act against accused

No.1 , 2, 4 & 5?

7. POINT:

Coming to the evidence of prosecution, PW-1: Afreen Khathoon is the complainant and victim, PW2: Naimath Bee, PW3: Md. Jaffar Khan.,

PW4: Md. Yasin Khan, PW5: Mahabub khan, PW6: Smt.M. Renuka

Reddy, is the Investigating officer.

To succeed, the prosecution must prove the ingredients of each offence beyond reasonable doubt. Under Section 498-A IPC, there must be evidence of wilful conduct by the husband or his relatives that amounts to cruelty—either (a) likely to drive the woman to suicide or cause grave

5 of 13 CC 59 of 2016

injury/danger to life, limb, or health (mental/physical), or (b) harassment to coerce her or her relatives into meeting an unlawful demand for property/valuable security on account of marriage (Explanation to Section 498-A). Section 506 IPC requires proof of criminal intimidation: a threat to cause injury to person, reputation, or property, intended to cause alarm or compel/omit an act. Section 4 DP

Act penalizes any direct/indirect demand for dowry as consideration for marriage, post-marriage demands falling within its ambit if linked to matrimonial cruelty.

In matrimonial cases, evidence often relies on the victim's testimony and her relatives, who are natural witnesses; their evidence is not discarded merely for being "interested" if it is consistent, reliable, and withstands cross-examination (State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384; reiterated in Rohtash Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2013) 14 SCC 434).

Minor discrepancies do not vitiate the case if the core is unshaken (State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony, (1985) 1 SCC 505). Absence of independent witnesses or medical evidence is not fatal in such private/family

6 of 13 CC 59 of 2016

matters, where ocular testimony suffices if credible (Bhagwan Dass v.

State (NCT of Delhi), (2011) 6 SCC 396).

Going further PW1 is the victim and the complainant, as a direct sufferer, her testimony is pivotal. She detailed the marriage, i.e. giving of dowry, initial harmony, and subsequent demands by A-1 for Rs.

5,00,000/- additional dowry. She described physical assaults (beating with rod/kicks causing bleeding), abandonment, return after Rs.

38,000/- payment via panchayat, resumed harassment, threats of divorce/second marriage, and the climactic incident where A-1 and A-2 poured kerosene and threatened her life. She fled to the petrol pump, was rescued, and lodged Ex. P-1 promptly. Her account aligns precisely with the complaint (Ex. P-1), showing no exaggeration or delay that might suggest fabrication. In cross-examination, the defence suggested motives like her alleged beauty Parlor business, desire to go abroad, or second marriage without divorce—but these were denied, and no evidence was led to prove them. She admitted no medical certificate but affirmed injuries; this omission is explainable in dowry cases where victims prioritize escape over formalities (ref: State of Maharashtra v.

7 of 13 CC 59 of 2016

Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain, (1990) 1 SCC 550, holding that non- production of medical evidence does not discredit consistent ocular testimony). Variations in dowry details (e.g., gold quantity) across witnesses are peripheral, not affecting the essence of demands/cruelty (C. Muniappan v. State of T.N., (2010) 9 SCC 567, minor inconsistencies ignored if testimony rings true). Her evidence establishes cruelty (physical/mental), dowry demands, and intimidation directly against A- 1 and A-2.

Analysing further, PW2 to PW5, PW-2 (mother of victim) corroborated giving of dowry at the time of marriage, further demands after six months, beatings by A-1, A2 and A4, bleeding nose injury, petrol pump rescue, and failed panchayats. In cross examination, she denied poverty or false motives, affirming A-1's oral divorce. PW-3 (uncle of victim) echoed the sequence: marriage dowry, harassment post-two months, Rs.

38,000/- payment, resumed cruelty leading to head injuries and rescue.

He denied financial incapacity or ulterior motives. PW-4 (brother) added specific details like, he paid Rs. 38,000/- at one such instance, further corroborated that A-2 beat PW-1; A-1 and A-2 attempted kerosene

8 of 13 CC 59 of 2016

murder, which was hampered at petrol pump where he received a call and rescued her. He confirmed oral talaq by A-1 and unreturned dowry items. PW-5 (another uncle) supported: dowry details (slight variation in gold, immaterial), settlement attempts, 19.01.2016 beating, his role in petrol pump rescue seeing injuries, A-1 fleeing. In cross, all denied suggestions of no dowry, false case for money, or improper remarriage; they affirmed post-iddat remarriage after talaq. These relatives are natural witnesses in matrimonial disputes; their consistency on core facts (demands, assaults, threats) lends credence, outweighing minor variances (e.g., exact dowry amounts, petrol vs. kerosene which is likely translation error, but does not stand fatal to the case as held by the

Hon’ble Apex court in State of Rajasthan v. Kalki, (1981) 2 SCC 752).

Nothing was elicited in contradiction to the material points.

PW-6, investigating officer confirmed receiving of Ex. P-1 at 16:00 hrs on 19.01.2016, registering Ex. P-2 under the sections (noting Sections 3/4

DP Act in testimony, but charge sheet specifies Section 4—minor, as evidence fits Section 4). She recorded statements promptly, visited the accused's residence, served notices, and filed charge sheet. In cross, she

9 of 13 CC 59 of 2016

affirmed the complaint mentioned pouring (petrol/kerosene variance explained as contextual); denied improper registration or statistical pressure. Her evidence rules out investigation lapses.

Upon perusal it is seen that the prosecution evidence is coherent, with a logical timeline from marriage to complaint. The kerosene incident fulfils "grave injury/danger" under Section 498-A (threat to life); demands connect to DP Act; threats satisfy Section 506. Defence produced no evidence to rebut, without explanation (adverse inference under

Illustration (g) to Section 114, Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Munish

Mubar v. State of Haryana, (2012) 10 SCC 464). Suggestions of motive like PW-1's remarriage appear afterthought. A-3's abates proceedings against him. Evidence is vague (mere encouragement, no direct acts like pouring/beating) and not proved beyond reasonable doubt against A4 and A5 and hence they are acquitted on benefit of doubt. However, A-1 (husband) and A-2 (mother-in-law) are directly implicated in demands, cruelty, and threats and their guilt has been established beyond reasonable doubt.

10 of 13 CC 59 of 2016

8. As a result, A1 and A2 are found guilty for the offences u/s 498-A

IPC, 506 IPC and 4 of DP Act. A4 & A5 are acquitted.

Heard on quantum of sentence.

In determining the quantum of sentence, this Court has taken into account the gravity of the acts committed, the fact that the accused are not previous convicts, the inherently domestic and matrimonial setting of the case, and the absence of any circumstances warranting enhancement. Mindful of the need to deter similar conduct while allowing room for reformation, the sentence imposed on Accused Nos. 1 and 2 is as under

Under Section 498-A IPC: A-1 & A-2 to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 years each + fine of Rs. 5,000/- each (in default, 6 months SI).

Under Section 506 IPC: fine of Rs. 1,000/- each (in default, 3  months SI).

Under Section 4 DP Act: Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year each +  fine of Rs. 5,000/- each (in default, 3 months SI).

11 of 13 CC 59 of 2016

Sentences shall run concurrently; total effective imprisonment of 1 year.

Fines (total Rs. 11,000/- each) payable as compensation to PW-1 under

Section 357 Cr.PC. Set-off for custody under Section 428 Cr.PC. A4 & A- 5 acquitted and their bail bonds stand cancelled.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30 th day of January, 2026.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS PARGI : VIKARABAD DISTRICT.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

12 of 13 CC 59 of 2016

WITNESSES EXAMINED.

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW-1: Afreen Kathoor -Nil-

PW2: Naimath Bee

PW3: Jaffer Khan

PW4: Mohd Yaseen Khan

PW5: Mahaboob Khan

PW6: M/.Renuka

EXHIBITS MARKED.

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P1: is the complaint

Ex.P2: is the FIR

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-Nil-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS

PARGI : VIKARABAD

DISTRICT

13 of 13 CC 59 of 2016

C.C.No. 07 of 2019 1 out of 8 Dated: 07.04.2026.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

PARGI: VIAKRABAD DISTRICT

PRESENT: SMT.N. SHILPA

JUDICIAL FIRST-CLASS MAGISTRATE,

PARGI, VIKARABADDISTRICT.

TUESDAY, THIS THE 07TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

C.C. No. 07 OF 2019

Between: The State of Telangana through S.H.O. of P.S.Pargi … Complainant

A N D

A-1 Bandi Venkataiah S/o Yellaiah age 55 yrs Occ: Driver R/o Manneguda village of Pudur Mandal.

A-2 Mohammad Shamsheer S/o Abdul Majeed Age: 35 yrs Occ: Business R/o Mirjapur village of Pudur Mandal, Vikarabad District.

… Accused No.1 & 2

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri. Gouse Pasha,

Advocate, counsel for the Accused upon perusing the material papers on record, on hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following.

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of police P.S. Pargi filed charge sheet against the accused person in Crime No.174 of 2018 for the offence punishable Under

Section 304-A, 337 of IPC & Sec 196 M. V. Act against Accused persons.

2. The brief facts of the case are that On 21.09.2018 the

LW-1/Kammari Ranga Chary having Puttuvole function of his son & daughter at Venkateshwara Temple, Parigi, due to which the deceased Vadla

Bhagyamma W/o Bichappa came to Parigi by RTC Bus and proceeding to

C.C.No. 07 of 2019 2 out of 8 Dated: 07.04.2026.

Venkateshwara Temple by walk, en-route when she reached near

Rukmoddin house at Baharpet at about 1300 hours the accused drove his lorry bearing No. AP16TY6425in rash and negligent manner and gave dashed to Bhagyamma from behind. Resulting of which Bhagyamma’s both legs was crushed in the lorry tires. Immediately she was shifted to Govt.

Hospital, Parigi by 108 Ambulance for treatment from where she referred to

OGH Hyderabad for better treatment. While shifting her to OGH Hyderabad, she died on the way at Manneguda village. Further LW-1 came to known that the driver of lorry name is Bandi Venkataiah S/o Yellaiah age 55 yrs

R/o Manneguda village of Pudur Mandal. The A-2 is the owner of the crime vehicle. Basing on the complaint given by complainant/Kammari Ranga

Chary the Assistant sub inspector of police Pargi registered a case in Cr.No.

174 of 2018 U/Sec 304-A of IPC.

3. During the course of investigation Lw11/MD Sharfuddin, SI of police was examined and recorded the statement of Lw1. Then he visited to scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of Lw6 and Lw7 later he visited Government hospital Pargi and examined and recorded the statements of the Lw-2 to 5. Observed the dead body of the deceased in the presence of Lw-6 and 7, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased, after PME the body of the deceased hand over his kith and kin to perform her last rites. After completion of investigation

Lw-19/SI of police filed charge sheet against the accused persons.

C.C.No. 07 of 2019 3 out of 8 Dated: 07.04.2026.

4. Cognizance was taken by my predecessor for the offence punishable Under Section 304-A, of IPC against the accused No.1 and Sec 196 MV act against the accused No.2.

5. On appearance of the accused persons, copies of documents were furnished to them as required u/s 207 of Cr.P.C. The Accused persons were examined U/s. 251 of Cr.P.C. The substance of the accusation for the offence Under Section 304-A of IPC against the accused No.1 and Sec 196

M.V Act against the accused No.2 was read over and explained to them in vernacular. The accused No.1 & 2 denied the allegations and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 9 and got marked Exs P1 to P5. The other witness Lw6 was given up by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.On behalf of the accused, none were examined, and no documents are marked.

7. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. putting forth the incriminating material that appears against them from the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused No.1 & 2 denied their guilt.

No evidence either oral or documentary was adduced on behalf of the defense.

8. Heard both sides and perused the record.

C.C.No. 07 of 2019 4 out of 8 Dated: 07.04.2026.

9. Now the point for consideration is: -

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable Under Section 304-A of IPC against the accused No.1 and Sec 196 M.V. Act against accused No.2 ?

10. POINT:

Coming to the evidence of prosecution, Lw1/ Pw1 Complainant ,

PW2/LW2 /Kammari Chandrakala, LW3/PW3/ Vadla Radhika,

LW5/PW4/vadla laxmi, LW4/PW5/Vadla Srinivas, LW7/PW6/ Vadla

Shamalamma, LW8/PW7/ Dr.J.Satyanarayana Murthy(Doctor), LW9/PW8/

S.Praveen Kumar Reddy (MVI), Lw10/PW9/ M.Venkataiah (IO). Learned APP has given up LW6 and LW11. Exhibits P1 to P6 are marked on behalf of the prosecution. No defence evidence was adduced.

Upon perusal it is seen that PW-1 (K. Rangachary) who is the

Complainant & son-in-law of the deceased claims that he was informed by PW-5, he reached the spot, and saw the lorry and A-1 at the scene of offence. He states the lorry number as AP 16 6425. In cross-examination, he admits he was in a “state of shock”, the road was busy with ongoing roadwork, and he could not remember exact details of the lorry.

PW-2 (K. Chandrakala) / Daughter of the deceased: She deposed that she did not eye-witness to the accident. She reached the hospital later. She deposed she saw a 12-tyre lorry at the scene but could not mention its colour or number in her Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement. She contradicts PW-1 by stating there was no road construction work at the spot. She admits learning the details of the driver and owner only at the police station.

C.C.No. 07 of 2019 5 out of 8 Dated: 07.04.2026.

PW-3 (V. Radhika)/Daughter of the deceased, deposed that she was travelling by bus and received information over phone. She has no personal knowledge of the accident or the identity of the vehicle/driver.

PW-4 (V. Laxmi)/ Sister of the deceased deposed that she reached the hospital after the incident. She has no direct knowledge of the occurrence.

PW-5 (Srinivas) / (nephew of deceased): He claims to have witnessed the lorry AP 16 TY 6425 hitting the deceased from behind while she was walking. He deposed the lorry was over-speeding. However, he could not describe the colour of the lorry.

PW-6 (Shamala)/ Panch witness & relative, she deposed that did not visit the scene of offence. She signed Ex. P2 (scene of offence panchanama) and Ex. P3 (inquest panchanama) at the instance of police because the deceased was her relative. Being illiterate, she did not know the contents.

PW-7 (Dr. Sathyanarayana Murthy): Ex.P4 is marked through PW4. He deposed that as per his opinion death was due to polytrauma with profuse bleeding.

PW-8 (S. Praveen Kumar Reddy – MVI), deposed that he inspected the vehicle and found no mechanical defect (Ex.P5). He admitted that the requisition sent to him mentioned the spot as “Syed Malkapur gate”.

PW-9 (M. Venkataiah – IO): Admitted in cross-examination that all the material witnesses are relatives of the deceased and no independent witnesses from the locality were examined. He further admitted that no statements were recorded from neighbours of Rukmoddin house.

C.C.No. 07 of 2019 6 out of 8 Dated: 07.04.2026.

Upon careful scrutiny it is observed by this court that PW1’s testimony regarding seeing the driver and vehicle at the spot immediately lacks corroboration.

Being a close relative, his evidence requires cautious appreciation. PW2 admits learning the details of the driver and owner only at the police station, further she contradicts PW-1 by stating there was no road construction work at the spot. Pw3 evidence has no probative value on the main issues since she has no personal knowledge of the accident or the identity of the vehicle/driver. PW4 deposed that

She has no direct knowledge of the occurrence and her evidence is limited only to post-incident events. Pw5 though claims to be an eye witness, being a close relative, his testimony is interested. No independent corroboration is available. His evidence is not supported by any contemporaneous document or independent public witness, which creates serious doubt. PW6 deposed that she has endorsed on the Exs.P2 & P3 on the instigation of police, which renders the panchanama and inquest highly suspect. Taking into consideration of evidence of PW 7, though cause of death is established, the medical evidence does not link the injuries to rash and negligent driving by A-1 specifically.

Going further, The MVI report shows the scene of offence as Syed Malkapur gate which contradicts the spot mentioned in the FIR and panchanama (Baharpet near Rukmoddin house). There is glaring discrepancy towards the scene of Offence location. Further, though the prosecution contended that A1 and A2 “admitted their guilt” on 22.09.2018, no such confession was proved through any admissible evidence.

Upon perusal, it is seen that, the entire case rests on relatives of the deceased and no independent witnesses were examined despite the public nature of the road. Material contradictions are evident towards construction work on the road and the location of scene of offence. Further it is observed that mere

C.C.No. 07 of 2019 7 out of 8 Dated: 07.04.2026.

involvement of a vehicle is not sufficient. Prosecution failed to prove that A-1 drove the vehicle rashly or negligently.

In view of the above discussion this court holds that the Accused persons are entitled for benefit of doubt, where the alleged accusations are not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

IN THE RESULT, the accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable Under Section 304-A IPC against the accused No.1 and

Sec 196 of M.V. Act. Against the accused No.2.Accordingly, they are acquitted under section 255(1) of CR.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused persons shall be in force for a period of six months from this day as provided under Section 437-A, Cr.P.C. The unmarked property, if any shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on

this the, 7 th day of April 2026.

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

PARGI, VIKARABAD DISTRICT.

APENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW1: K. RangacharyNone

PW2: K. Chandrakala

PW3: V. Radhika

PW4: V. Laxmi

PW5: Srinivas

C.C.No. 07 of 2019 8 out of 8 Dated: 07.04.2026.

PW6: Shamal

PW7: Dr. Sathyanarayana Murthy

PW8: S. Praveen Kumar Reddy.

PW9: M. Venkataiah.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P1 is the complaint.None

Ex.P2 is the scene of offence panchanama.

Ex.P3 is the inquest panchanama.

Ex.P4 is the PME report.

Ex.P5 is the MVI report.

Ex.P6 is the FIR.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL –

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

PARGI, VIKARABAD DISTRICT

1 C.C.No. 412 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

PARGI: VIAKRABAD DISTRICT

PRESENT:SMT.N.SHILPA

JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

PARGI, VIKARABAD District.

TUESDAY, ON THIS THE 17 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

C.C. No. 412 OF 2018

Between: The State of Telangana through S.H.O. of P.S.Pargi … Complainant

A N D

1.Kotla Ravender Reddy S/o. Late Bal Reddy, Age: 39 years, Occ: Argil.,

2. Kotla Gopal Reddy S/o. Late Bal Reddy, Age: 41years, Occur: Argil.,

R/o. Syedpally Village of Pargi Mandal, Vikarabad District.

… Accused

This case coming before me for hearing in the presence of Learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor for prosecution and of Sri. B.Lingam, Advocate counsel for accused No.1 to 4, and having stood over for consideration till today, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Pargi filed a charge sheet in Cr.No. 116 of 2018

U/Sec. 324, 323, 504, 509 r/w 34 of I.P.C., against the accused No.1 & 2.

02. The brief facts of the case are that on 23.06.2018 at 15:00 hours police received complaint from one Chakali Bharatamma/LW-1. That the Lw-1 and the accused persons are hails from Syedpally village of Pargi Mandal, Lw-1 is having agricultural land in Sy.No. 56 admeasuring 0-36 guntas and she having pathway in the agricultural land of accused persons. They are having land dispute between them on 21.06.2018 at about 16:00 hours when she was proceeding to her land in the above pathway, meantime you the accused no.1 and 2 with a common intention and picked up quarreled with her and abused her in filthy language and A-1 beat her with handle of hoe on her back and the accused no.2 beat her with hands and pushed on the ground and kicked with legs on her buttocks. Due to which she sustained bleeding injuries and became a unconscious. Basing on the above complaint, the Sub Inspector of police,

Pargi registered a case in Cr.No. 116 of 2018 for the offence U/sec. 324, 323,

2 C.C.No. 412 of 2017

504, 509 r/w 34 IPC. During the course of investigation, Lw-10 examined and recorded the statement of Lws1 and Lw-2 at police station. The Lw-1 already sent to Government Hospital Pargi, for treatment, later visited the scene of offence situated at Syedpally village of Pargi Mandal and conducted scene of offence panchanama and seized one handle of Hoe. Lw-10 examined theLWs 3 to 6 and recorded their detailed statements at Syedpally village and after completion of the investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the accused.

03. This Court took cognizance of the offence punishable under section 324 of

IPC against A1, under section 323 of IPC against A2 and under section 504 r/w 34 of IPC against A1 and A2. Issued summons to accused No.1 & 2.

04.On appearance of accused, copies of case documents was furnished to them as provided U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. Accused No.1 & 2 was examined

U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C. for the offence under section 324 of IPC against A1, under section 323 of IPC against A2 and under section 504 r/w 34 of IPC against A1 and A2. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 7 and got marked Ex.s P1 to P10. On behalf of the accused no.1 & 2 none were examined, and no documents are marked.

6. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. putting forth the incriminating material that appears against them from the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused no.1 & 2 denied their guilt. No evidence either oral or documentary was adduced on behalf of the defence.

Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

The point for determination is:

Now the point for determination is whether prosecution

established the guilt of the accused no.1 and 2 beyond reasonable doubt

for the offence U/s.324, 323, 504 r/w 34 of I.P.C?

7. POINT:

Pw1 has deposed that they have land in Sy.Nos. 56 and 57, totaling to

Ac.0.37 gts in the name of his mother. Accused persons have land adjacent to

3 C.C.No. 412 of 2017

their land, and there were land disputes between their family and accused persons family. He was not present during the incident in the village. His mother informed him that on 20.6.2018 there was a dispute between the accused persons and his mother, his mother has written is name in the complaint. Police never examined and never recorded his statement. During the cross-examination he deposed in his cross examination there is a ridge in between their land and land of the accused, the accused persons while plouging the ridge, encroached in to their field and the accused persons closed the path into their field and he denied the allegations raised by the accused counsel.

8. PW2 to PW4 has disposed that they do not know the facts of the case police never examined and never recorded their statements, during their cross- examination they deposed in their cross examination that they denied the allegations raised by the accused counsel.

09. PW5 and PW6 has deposed that at about 06 years ago, one day police obtained their signatures on white papers at Syedpally village but they do not know the contents of panchanama during their cross-examination they deposed in their cross examination that they denied the allegations raised by the accused counsel.

10. Pw 07 is Sub Inspector of police he stated in his chief examination that on 23.06.2018 at about 15.00 hours he received report from LW1 basing on that he registered a case in Crime No.116/2018 under section 324, 323, 504, 509 r/w 34 IPC and he issued FIR, on the same day he examined and recorded the statement of LW1 and PW1 at Police Station, immediately he sent Lw1 to CHC

Pargi for medical examination and he visited scene of offence, he secured presence of PW5 and PW6 in their presence drawn rough sketch and conducted scene of offence panchanama and also seized handle of spade MO1.

On the same day he examined and recorded the statements of PW2, PW3, PW4 and LW5. On 27.06.2018 he issued 41-A Cr.P.C to all the accused persons.

After receiving medical certificate from LW9 and after completion of

4 C.C.No. 412 of 2017

investigation he filed the charge sheet against the accused persons for the offence under section 324,323, 504, 509 r/w 34 of IPC, he deposed that in his cross examination that he have not obtained any documents to localize the lands of the accused and the complainant. PW1 accompanied the injured/LW1 to hospital. No one from police station accompanied PW1 to hospital. in the medical certificate does not show any colour, age and size of the injuries and also the identification marks of the victim are not stated and date and time of examination is also not mentioned in Medical certificate.

11. On perusal of the record, PW1 is the son of the complainant/injured and Lw1/Chakali Bharatamma died on 24.03.2023 and death certificate was filed on 06.05.2024. Both in one tone have stated that they do not know anything about this case and that they denied to have stated to the police. All the witnesses are turned hostile and in view of their evidence, there is no iota of evidence against the accused connecting him with the offence alleged against him by the prosecution. For the foregoing reasons, the prosecution had miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Thereby, the accused is entitled for an acquittal.

In the result, Accused No.1 & 2 is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 324 of IPC against A1, under section 323 of IPC against A2 and under section 504 r/w 34 of IPC against A1 and A2 and they are acquitted U/s. 248(1) Cr.P.C and their bail bonds shall stands cancelled.

The unmarked property, deposited in to this court vide C.P.R.No. 251 of 2018 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open

court on this the 17 th day of September, 2024.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

PARGI : VIKARABAD DISTRICT.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED.

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Pw1: Chakali Prabhakar

Pw2: C. Ramaiah

5 C.C.No. 412 of 2017

PW3: Thumpally Narsimulu

PW4: Chandraiah

PW5:M. Yadaiah -NIL-

PW6: Sudhakar

PW7: K. Krishna

EXHIBITS MARKED.

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P1: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw1

Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw2 -NIL-

Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw3

Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw

Ex.P5: is signature on scene of offence cum Seizure panchanama of PW5.

Ex.P6: is signature on scene of offence cum seizure panchanama of PW6.

Ex.P7: is FIR

Ex.P8: is Rough sketch

Ex.P9: is scene of offence panchanama

Ex.P10: Medical Certificate

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED.

MO1

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

PARGI : VIKARABAD DISTRICT

6 C.C.No. 412 of 2017

Date: 17.09.2024.

Accused No.1 and 2 are called present. Judgment Pronounced in

Open Court. (V.S.J).

In the result, Accused No.1 & 2 is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 324 of

IPC against A1, under section 323 of IPC against A2 and under section 504 r/w 34 of IPC against A1 and

A2 and they are acquitted U/s.

248(1) Cr.P.C and their bail bonds shall stands cancelled. The unmarked property, deposited in to this court vide C.P.R.No. 251 of 2018 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

JFCM

CC No.259 of 2018 1 out of 7 Dated: 12.05.2026

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

PARGI: VIAKRABAD DISTRICT.

PRESENT: SMT.N. SHILPA,

JUDICIAL FIRST-CLASS MAGISTRATE,

PARGI, VIKARABAD DISTRICT.

TUESDAY, THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MAY, 2026

CC No.259 OF 2018

Between: The State of Telangana through S.H.O. of P.S. Pargi … Complainant

A N D

Darkalan Ravi Kumar S/o. Gyan Singh, aged about 31 years, Occ: Driver of Cement Tanker bearing No. AP 15 TB 3251, R/o. Jalahar Village, Dhar Kalan (Post), Gurudaspur, Patankote District, Panjab State. Pin Code 145001 … Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri M. Vishnu Vardhan, counsel for the Accused upon perusing the material papers on record, on hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this

Court delivered the following.

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of police P.S. Pargi filed charge sheet against the accused person in Crime No.213 of 2017 for the offence punishable Under

Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A, 201 IPC & Sec 185 of M.V. Act against

Accused person.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 28.11.2017 at about 1200 hours, the deceased by name Thummalapally Jangaiah went to Pargi, for market purpose, after completion of his work he returned to Village in an

Auto bearing No. TS 34 T 1437 on the way near Rangapur Culvert the driver of Cement Tanker bearing No. AP 15 TB 3251 driven in rash and negligent

CC No.259 of 2018 2 out of 7 Dated: 12.05.2026

manner and dashed to the said Auto from opposite direction, as a result deceased sustained bleeding injuries on his head, right leg and others parts of the body and died on the spot. The other inmates of Auto i.e., two persons were also sustained bleeding injuries. Immediately, they shifted to

Government Hospital Pargi, for treatment, from there they referred to

Osmania Government Hospital, Hyderabad, for better treatment. Basing on the complaint given by complainant/T. Satyamma, the sub inspector of police Pargi registered a case in Cr.No.213 of 2017 U/Sec 279, 337, 304-A of

IPC.

3. During the course of investigation LW12/S. Krishna Obula Reddy,

SI of police was examined and recorded the statement of LW1 at police station Pargi. Later he visited to scene of offence situated at Rangapur village on Hyderabad – Bijapur B.T. Road, conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of LWs.8 and 9, returned to Government

Hospital, Pargi there he examined and recorded the statements of LWs.2 to 4, conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of

LWs.8 and 9, and subjected the dead body for PME. LW10/Dr. Bharath Tej, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. After completion of autopsy, he handed over dead body to relatives. Further, he examined and recorded the statements of LWs.5 to 7 at PS Pargi. Later, he collected the reports from LW10/Dr. G. Bharath Tej and LW11/S.Praveen Kumar Reddy,

MVI Pargi inspected the crime vehicle. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused person.

CC No.259 of 2018 3 out of 7 Dated: 12.05.2026

4. Cognizance was taken by my predecessor for the offence punishable Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A, 201 IPC & Sec 185 of M.V. Act against the accused.

5. On appearance of the accused person, copies of documents were furnished to him as required u/s 207 of Cr.P.C. The Accused person was examined U/s. 251 of Cr.P.C. The substance of the accusation for the offence Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A, 201 IPC & Sec 185 of M.V. Act against the accused was read over and explained to him in vernacular language. The accused person denied the allegations and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 3 and got marked Exs P1 to P3. The other witnesses were given up by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor since the material witnesses turned hostile to the version of the prosecution. On behalf of the accused person, none were examined, and no documents are marked.

7. Since there was no incriminating evidence against the accused person in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the examination of the accused U/s. 313 of Cr.P.C was dispensed with. The accused person denied his guilt. No evidence either oral or documentary was adduced on behalf of the defense.

8 . Heard both sides and perused material on record.

CC No.259 of 2018 4 out of 7 Dated: 12.05.2026

9. Now the point for consideration is:-

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused person beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable

Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A, 201 IPC & Sec 185 of M.V. Act against the accused?

10. POINT:

Coming to the evidence of prosecution, LW-1 examined as PW- 1/T. Satyamma is the complainant, LW2 examined as PW-2/T.

Ramchandraiah and LW6 examined as PW3/K. Chandraiah.

11. PW1 is the complainant and she deposed in her chief examination that deceased is her son, LW2/PW2 and LW3 are also her sons.

She does not know the facts of the case. Police did not examine her and did not record her statement. Further stated that she settled the matter with the accused and hence, she would not like to depose against accused. PW1 denied all the suggestions put forth by learned Assistant public prosecutor in her cross examination.

12. PW2 is deposed in his chief examination that deceased is his brother. He does not know the facts of the case. Police did not examine him and did not record his statement. Further stated that he settled the matter with the accused and hence, he would not like to depose against accused. PW2 denied all the suggestions put forth by learned Assistant public prosecutor in his cross examination.

CC No.259 of 2018 5 out of 7 Dated: 12.05.2026

13. PW3 is deposed in his chief examination that he knows the deceased. He does not know the facts of the case. Police did not examine him and did not record his statement. Further stated that he settled the matter with the accused and hence, he would not like to depose against accused. PW3 denied all the suggestions put forth by learned Assistant public prosecutor in his cross examination. Thus, PWs.1 to 3 are turned hostile.

14. The remaining witnesses’ i.e LWs.3, 4 and 7 to 12 were given up by Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor since there is no incriminating evidence and the material witnesses turned hostile. Further Police submitted that LW5 died, thus the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor given up the evidence of LW5.

15.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that due to the negligence of accused person the accident was occurred, as such, accused person is liable for punishment.

16.On the other hand, the learned defense counsel contended that the accused person is no way connected with this offence and the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts.

17.This court considered the rival submissions made by both counsels. Perused the material brought on record. PWs.1 to 3 have not supported the case of the prosecution.

CC No.259 of 2018 6 out of 7 Dated: 12.05.2026

18. Therefore, from the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 nothing was elicited on record to show that the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle on the date of accident. Hence, prosecution has not proved the identity of accused person as the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident.

Further, there is no material available on record to show the rash or negligence driving of accused person. There is no incriminating evidence put forth against accused. Therefore, this court opines that, prosecution has failed miserably to prove the guilt of accused person beyond all reasonable doubts.

IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable Under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A, 201 IPC & Sec 185 of

M.V. Act.Accordingly, he is acquitted under section 255(1) of CR.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months from this day as provided under Section 437-A, Cr.P.C. The unmarked property, if any shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the, 12 th of May, 2026.

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

PARGI, VIKARABAD DISTRICT

APENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW1: T. Satyamma.

PW2: T. Ramchandraiah- None–

PW3: K. Chandraiah

CC No.259 of 2018 7 out of 7 Dated: 12.05.2026

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P1 is 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW1

Ex.P2 is the 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW2 -None-

Ex.P2 is the 161, Cr.P.C. Statement of PW3.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL –

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

PARGI, VIKARABAD DISTRICT.