Ms. Nerella Venkata Hyma Pujitha

1 OF 11 C.C.No.993 of 2014 Dt.11.09.2023

IN THE COURT OF THE I- ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

WARANGAL.

Monday, on this the 11th day of September, 2023

Present: Smt. N.V. Hyma Pujitha, I-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal.

C.C. No.993 of 2014

BETWEEN

Sirumalla Aruna Alias Manga, D/o. Suryanarayana, Age: 35 years, Occu: Resource person (MEPMA, Warangal Municipal Corporation), Suryodaya Slum Federation, Laxminagar, Kareemabad, Warangal (t.S) R/o. H.No.18-9-25, Behind Bommala Gudi, Near Gandhi Statue, Pochamma Street, Kareemabad, Warangal. ….Complainant

AND

1. Nela Mallamma, W/o. Late Venkataiah, Age: 60 years, Occu: Cook (Earlier), President, Suryodaya Slum Federation, laxmi Nagar, Kareemabad, Warangal- 506 002, (T.S) (Now) Caste: Munnurukapu, (Hindu) R/o. H.No.18-8-215, Laxminagar, Kareemabad, Warangal 506-002 (T,.S).

2. Nela Raju, S/o. Late Venkataiah, Age: 42 years, Occu: Cook, Caste: Munnurukapu, (Hindu) R/o.H.No.18-8-215, Laxminagar, Kareemabad, Warangal.

3. Nela Radika, W/o. Nela Raju, Age: 35 years, Occu: Labourer (Grain Market, Wrangal, Caste: Munnurukapu, (Hindu) R/o.H.No.18-8-215, Laxminagar, Kareemabad, Warangal.

4. Kavati Rajamma, W/o. Keshavulu, Age: 35 years, Occu: Household, Caste: Yadava, (Hindu) R/o.H.No.18-8-169, Laxminagar, Kareemabad, Warangal.

5. Vanga Rajitha, W/o. Vanga Kumar, Age: 35 years, Occu: Household, Caste: Yadava, (Hindu) R/o.H.No.18-8-169, Laxminagar, Kareemabad, Warangal.

6. Bandari Shantha, W/o. Somanna, Age: 37 years, Occu: Beedi Worker, Caste: Munnurukapu, (Hindu) R/o.Beerannakunta, Kareemabad, Warangal.

7. Bandari Raja, D/o. Somanna, Age: 35 years, Occu: Beedi worker, Caste: Munnurukapu, (Hindu) R/o.Beerannakunta, Kareemabad, Warangal.

8. Tekumatla Manjula, D/o. Kumaraswamy, Age: 32 years, Occu: Beedi Worker, Caste: Yadava, (Hindu) R/o.H.No.18-8-169, Laxminagar, Kareemabad, Warangal.

9. Bandari Manemma, W/o. Sadanandam, Age: 46 years, Occu: Cook, Caste: Munnurukapu, (Hindu) R/o.H.No.18-8-213, Laxminagar, Kareemabad, Warangal.

10. Neelam Hymavathi, W/o. Sampath, Age: 36 years, Occu: Petty Business, R/o.H.No.18- 8-176/10, Laxminagar, Kareemabad, Warangal.

11. Shaturi Sandhya, W/o. Dhasharatham, Age: 45 years, Occu: Beedi-Worker, R/o.H.No.18-8-176/10, Laxminagar, Kareemabad, Warangal.

12. G. Srilatha, Age; 45 years, Occu: C.O(MEPMA),Caste; Munnuru Kapu, R/o. Kapuwada, Near Old Alankar Theatre, Hanamkonda, Warangal, District, O/o. MEPMA, Warangal Municipal Corporation, Warangal.

13. Venkat Reddy, S/o. Not Lnown, Age: 40 years, Occu. MEPMA, Caste: Reddy, O/o. MEPMA, Warangal Municipal Corporation Warangal.

2 OF 11 C.C.No.993 of 2014 Dt.11.09.2023

14. Kiran, s/O. Not KNOWN, Age; 34 YEARS, Occu: Accountant, o/O. Mepma, Warangal Municipal Corporation, Warangal.

…..Accused Nos. 1 to 14

This case is coming up before me on 30.08.2023 for hearing in the presence of learned Sri Mohd. Sardar and Sri G. Sambaiah, Counsel for the accused; upon perusing the evidence and material on record and having heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

1.The complainant/LW1 filed a private complaint against A1 to A14 under

Section 200 Cr.P.C.

2. Brief averments of the Complaint:

The complainant/LW1 who is the younger sister of LW6. LW2 is the relative of LW1 who was the first group leader Suryodaya Slum Federation, Kareemabad, Warangal and LW3 is the resource person of Kakatiya Slum Federation, Kareemabad, Warangal, LW4 and

LW5 are the family friends of LW1 through her youngest brother of Sirumalla

Veerender who is the social worker. LW7 is the elders sister of LW1. LW7 is the neighbour of the LW1. The Accused No.1 is the President of the Suryodaya Slum

Federation, laxminagar, Kareemabad, Warangal, Accused No.2 and 3 are the son and daughter-in-law of Accused No.1. Accused No.11 is the daughter of Accused No.1,

Accused No.4 is the vice president of Suryodaya Slum federation, Laxminagar,

Kareemabad, Warangal. Accused No.5 and 8 are the daughters of Accused No.4.

Accused No.9 is the member of Suryodaya Slum Federation, Laxminagar, Kareemabad.

The accused No. 6 and 7 are the sister-in-law pf Accused No.9 Accused No.10 is the member of Suryodaya Slum Federation, Laxminagar, Kareemabad, Warangal,

Accused.No.12, 13 and 14 are the C.O., PRP and accountant of the MEPMA, Warangal

Municipal, Warangal.

3 OF 11 C.C.No.993 of 2014 Dt.11.09.2023

3.The complainant submits that she was chosen as resource person resolution passed by 260 members belonging 26 groups of Suryodaya Slum Federation headed by A1 and the predecessor resource person has not handed over any material to LW1, during her appointment and LW1 has been successfully discharging her duties maintaining all the records since 10-10-2012. In the meantime A1, who is the president,

A2 who is secretary of the said federation has directed Rs.60,000/- from accounts of

Suryodaya Slum federation with a mischief personal use without consent of 260 members from whom the loan was obtained and advanced by the bank. Lw1 has detected the said aspect and asked the treasurer A.Ramadevi to repay the amount of

Rs.30,000/- in the three installments. Accordingly the said treasurer has repaid said amount to the federation but, A1 developed a grudge with LW1 and did not repay the amount. For which, LW1 and LW6 had demanded A1 to pay back the debt amount to the federation then A1 has provoked A2 to A11 and instigated them for the removal of

LW1 from the post of Resource person then meeting was conducted on 12.08.2014, then A1 to A11 had obstructed LW1 and LW6 and manhandled them, pelted stones on them, scolded them in an unparliamentarily language and tried snatch away the account books from the hands of LW1 as such LW1, LW2, LW7 caused bodily pains, defamation and public nuisance at Laxminagar. Then, LW1 and LW6 went to the Mills Colony police station and lodged the report but police had not registered the same, hence the present complaint filed in this court. The complainant further submits that she was called federation to the Tharakamma function hall by A12, A13 and A14 for submission of Account books and audit reports pertaining to the federation and then LW1 tried to submit the attested copies of accounts and audit reports retaining the original records at home, which were rejected by those accused and insisted the LW1 submitting original at that time LW1 has stated that she has not received any originals at the time 4 OF 11 C.C.No.993 of 2014 Dt.11.09.2023 of her joining. Then A12, A13, A14 warned LW1 that she would be retrench from the federation and permitted to enter into the same after 10-11-2014. Hence, the private complaint filed against the present A1 to A14 under Sec. Sec.112, 114, 149, 195-A, 199, 201, 268, 290, 319, 330, 334, 336, 351, 415, 418, 425, 440, 499, 503 and 506 r/w 149 of

I.P.C

4.The court, after filing of the private complaint, has taken cognizance for the offences under Sec. 319, 334, 499 and 506 r/w 149 of I.P.C. against the accused and issued summons to the accused.

5.On appearance of the accused, the accused were served with copies under Sec.207 Cr.P.C. The accused were examined under Sec.251 Cr.P.C wherein the accusations leveled against the accused were explained in Telugu for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, on behalf of complainant, PW1 to PW3 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 were got marked. After completion of complainant evidence, court has examined accused under Sec.313 Cr.P.C wherein the incriminating material levelled against them is explained in Telugu for which the accused pleaded not guilty and clamed and reported no defence.

7.Heard the arguments of the complainant and learned counsel for the accused. The complainant has filed the written arguments.

8. Now the point for determination is "Whether the prosecution has proved the allegations against the accused for the offences under Sec.319, 334, 499, 506 r/w 149 of I.P.C., beyond all reasonable doubt or not?" 5 OF 11 C.C.No.993 of 2014 Dt.11.09.2023

9. POINT: During the trial, LW1 was examined as PW1 and deposed before this Court that in the year 2012 she was one of the member in one sangem run at

Laxminagar and as per the norms of the said sangam, each member has to pay Rs.100/- per month and on 07-10-2017, PW1 went to the said sangam at that time, the accused established another sangem Suryodaya federation at the house of A1. At the request of the members, PW1 was appointed as resource person of the said sangem and the same was reduced into writing and had 2200 members in the said sangem. Pw1 used to look after the accounts of the said sangam and in the year 2013 as part of her duties, and while verifying the accounts, she found Rs.60,000/- are not tallying with the account on the record and at that time, the treasurer of the said sangem and A1 had quarreled with each other with the records to the said amounts and the treasurer agreed to repay Rs.30,000/- and she repaid the same but A1 did not repay the same. On 12-08-2014, PW1 asked A1 to repay the said amount, but A1 abused her in filthy language, A1 to A14 beat her indiscriminately as such PW1 sustained injuries from the left hand thumb. Then PW1 called to her younger sister Premleela and called LW2 as such they came to scene of offence then LW2 and her sister also sustained injuries at the shoulder. Thereby PW1 went to Police station and lodged a report but the police did not take any action against them and on 10-12-2014 at 1100 AM A12, A13 telephoned PW1 and asked her to come along with account books to Tarakamma function hall, accordingly PW1 along with LW2 and younger sister took the Xerox copies of the account books went to the Tarakamma function hall at that time, A2 abused her in filthy language and all the accused caught hold of her tuft and beat her indiscriminately. Hence, PW1 has filed the present private complaint. Ex.P1 is complaint. At later point of time, PW1 has filed a document petition and the same was allowed and Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 were got marked i.e., Ex.P1 Private complaint given by PW1,

Ex.P2 original receipt dt. 13.08.2014, Ex.P3 Original receipt dt. 10.10.2014, Ex.P4 6 OF 11 C.C.No.993 of 2014 Dt.11.09.2023

Proceedings of Municipal Commissioner, Ex.P5 Bank pass book belongs to Suryodaya

Slum Federation.

During the cross examination, PW1 stated that her duty is to tally the bank accounts of the members and in her absence, treasurer will be look after the transactions. PW1 duty is to check the book of accounts every month and she did not file any resolution before this court. PW1 also admitted that there will be an opportunity to tell about the arrears pending to the higher authorities and the original resolution book will be shown to higher authorities. PW1 also admitted that she did not file any documents pertaining to the paid installments by the treasurer. PW1 also admitted that there is no reference that she had sustained injuries on head and as well as LW6 also sustained injuries on shoulder in her Ex.P1 and denied all the material suggestions.

10.PW2 by name B.Anuradha, deposed and reiterated the version of PW1.

During the cross examination, PW2 stated that she is working as resource person and

PW2 used to work from home and on the alleged date of incident i.e. on 12-08-2014 she was at her home and by the time she reached Tarakamma function hall there are about 20 members. PW2 also stated that the account books in the possession of the resource person and denied all the material suggestions.

11.PW3 by name S.Premleela who is the sister of PW1 deposed and reiterated the version of Pw1.

During the cross examination, PW3 admitted that there is no manager or watchmen in the function hall on 12-8-2014 and she reached the function hall at around 2:00 Pm to 3:00 PM.

7 OF 11 C.C.No.993 of 2014 Dt.11.09.2023

12.Sec. 319 of IPC Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt.

Sec. 334 of IPC - Whoever voluntarily causes hurt on grave and sudden provocation, if he neither intends nor knows himself to be likely to cause hurt to any person other than the person who gave the provocation, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.

Sec. 499 of IPC - Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person.

Sec. 506 of IPC - Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both;

13.Section 499 deals with the offence of defamation wherein the learned prosecution has to establish that due to the words or any signs or visible representation made by the accused, the defacto complainant has to suffer harm either to her (or) to her known persons in the public which shall intend damage the reputation of the defacto complainant, to prove said ingredients, PW1 did not mention any mere averment which shall cause damage to her reputation in general public either in Ex.P1 or in her deposition. Nowhere in entire contents of the private complaint stated that or reveals that accused had defamed her reputation in the general public and no documents were also filed in this regard to establish the case of defamation.

Furthermore, in the entire lengthy chief examination of PW1, PW1 did not depose 8 OF 11 C.C.No.993 of 2014 Dt.11.09.2023

before this court regarding the act of the defamation, alleged to be committed by

accused therefore in the absence of averments either in a deposition or in the Ex.P1 and also the silence of the documentary evidence, which needs that the accused was alleged to commit the act of defamation in the absence of the same, the complainant failed to established the case against the accused under Section 499 of IPC.

14.Coming to the offence under Section 334 IPC, the complainant has to establish that the accused has caused hurt on grave and sudden provocation and for the offence Section 319 of IPC, the complainant has to establish that the accused must have committed the act of simple hurt, for the above said two offences, on perusal of the entire record and exhibits marked on behalf of complainant, the complainant contends that she was the resource person of sangam suryodaya federation unit and her duty is to verify the accounts, on her duty, she found that there was missing of

Rs.60,000/- by the A1 and one treasurer named Ramadevi. PW1 on process of her duty questioned both of them for which, Ramadevi admitted her guilt and repaid the amount but A1 did not repay the same and abused her in the filthy language and Later,

A1 has instigated A2 to A14 and all of them had beat PW1 to 3 on 12.08.2014. It is the case of the complainant and the cause of action arose due to the verification of the account books. To prove the said aspect, the complainant has filed photograph i.e.,

Ex.P6 to show that she was the member of said sangam. Furthermore, PW1 also filed

Ex.P2 to P5 which reveals that Ex.P2 and P3 are the original receipts filed by her in the police station dt. 13.08.2014 and 10.10.2014 respectively regarding the cause of action and Ex.P2 and P3 are only reveals the name of the present defacto complainant against

A1, Ramadevi only regarding that those A1, Ramdevi had abused her in filthy language and also beat her with hands. Ex.P3 reveals that the names of accused as A1 to A3.

Apparently, on perusal of Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 only the names of A1 to A3 were reflected that did not stated the names of other accused which were present in the present 9 OF 11 C.C.No.993 of 2014 Dt.11.09.2023 private complaint. Apparently those 2 Exhibits i.e., P2 and P3 are filed before the PS

Mills Colony, immediately after the two alleged incidents that took place among the parties. At the earlier instance, which was filed by present PW1 against the accused vide Ex.P2 and P3 are only against A1 to A3 but not the other accused who were implicated in the said case. Again as admitted by PW1, where she had implicated the name one Ramadevi in Ex.P2 who was the alleged to be stated that she was the treasurer of the said sangam had repaid the entire due amount according to the contention of PW1, but to the utter surprise, PW1 has again arrayed the name of the said Ramadevi in Ex.P2, however, that Ex.P2 does not come into light. Hence, there is no proper reasons/explanations filed in Ex.P1 to state why PW1 had implicated A4 to A14 and their overt acts was not properly explained.

15.To prove that PW1 was the resource person of the said sangam, no documentary proof was filed as against he stated that she was made a resource person in the form of writing the specific document was not filed to prove the aspect of that

PW1 was the resource person of the sangam. No rules, no regulations, no operational protocol of the said sangam was filed by PW1 to show that these are the certain rules and regulations which are abided by the sangam and what are the duties of the resource person which were termed into writing by the said association and the said documents were also not filed by the PW1. The reference of the above discussions

Ex.P2 and P3 though connected to the present case to show that she had filed the original report against A1 to A3 but not other accused and coming to the Ex.P5 which was filed by PW1 is the Central Bank of India pass book on the name Suryodaya Slum

Federation which stands in the name of A1, Radha and Ramadevi, however, the said

Radha, Ramadevi was not implicated in the present case. None of the averments in the private complaint reflected that there was a pass book which was maintained by A1,

Radha, Ramadevi and the defacto complainant/Pw1 is authorized to verify those 10 OF 11 C.C.No.993 of 2014 Dt.11.09.2023 accounts. Either the pass book number or bank book details either single proof of a document was not filed by PW1 to show that she was authorized to verify the bank accounts of said sangam which includes Ex.P5, therefore, there was no evidentiary value to look after the documents filed by PW1 vide Ex.P4 to P6. Ex.P6 is the only photograph which consisting some of the members of the association as per the contents of the photographs and does not reveal any allegations against the accused.

Hence, it is successfully concludes that Ex.P4 to P6 are no way connected to the present case and not having relied any evidentiary value.

16.Coming to the aspect of that the accused had beat PW1 to PW3, when the major offence of aspect was not established and admittedly, PW3 who is the sister of PW1, and PW2 is the eye witness to this case, stated that the accused had beat PW1 and her sister indiscriminately. Admittedly, the said aspect was not witnessed by PW2 as well. By the time PW2 reached the Tarakamma function hall she stated that there are about 20 people surrounded, but she did not state that she has witnessed the incident.

PW2 and PW3 are the interested witnesses of the PW1. No direct evidence was filed and established on behalf of PW1 to prove the alleged act that the accused had beat

PW1 and PW3. PW1 herself admitted that there was no reference to her injuries and police did not refer her to the government hospital. Admittedly, it is the case of simple hurt but to prove the same no other independent witnesses were esablisheld the PW1 and one of the witness also admitted that there are no watchmen or manager of the said function hall who was the third party of the case to establish the ingredients of the complainant against the accused. Hence, the complainant failed to establish the ingredients of the above sections as well as sec.506 of IPC. Nowhere in the averments mentioned by PW1 that the accused had threatened in dire consequences.

11 OF 11 C.C.No.993 of 2014 Dt.11.09.2023

17. From the above discussion, it can be safely concluded that the prosecution had not proved or failed to prove the offence under Sec.319, 334, 499, 506 r/w 149 of I.P.C.

against the Accused Nos.1 to 14 beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the Point is answered accordingly.

18. In the result,the Complainant failed to establish the ingredients of under Sections 319, 334, 499, 506 r/w 149 of I.P.C beyond all reasonable doub, AS such

A1 to A14 are acquitted under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C and the bail bonds if any are stands cancelled after lapse of appeal time.

(Typed my dictation by Stenographer G-III, after transcription, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 11 th day of September,2023.)

Sd/-

I-Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Warangal

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For Prosecution Defense:- PW1 : S. Aruna @ Manga None PW2: B. Anutadha PW3: S. Premaleela

Sd/-

I-Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Warangal

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:- Ex.P1 Private complaint given by PW1. Ex.P2 Priginal receipt dt. 13.08.2014. Ex.P3 Original receipt dt. 10.10.2014. Ex.P4 Proceedings of Municipal Commissioner. Ex.P5 Bank pass book belongs to Suryodaya Slum Federation.

For Defense: -Nil-

Material objects marked: -Nil- Sd/- I-Addl.Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Warangal

1 C.C.No. 13 of 2015, Dt.12.09.2023

IN THE COURT OF THE I- ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

WARANGAL.

Tuesday, on this the 12th day of September, 2023.

Present: Smt. N.V. Hyma Pujitha, I-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal.

C.C. No. 13 of 2015

BETWEEN:

The Telangana State represented by S.I.of Police, Inthezargunj, P.S., ….Complainant

AND

1. Muthineni Laxman Rao, S/o.Sugunakar Rao, Age: 42 years, Caste: Peruka, Occu: Auto Driver, R/o.H.No.9-1-155, Girmajipet, Warangal.

2. Muthineni Aruna, W/o.Laxman Rao, Age: 40 years, Caste: SC-Madiga Occu:House wife, R/o.H.No.9-1-155, Girmajipet, Warangal.

3. Chiluka Suguna, W/o. Devaiah, Age: 60 years, Caste: SC-Madiga, Occu: House wife, R/o. Dharmasagar.

4. Botla Vijaya, W/o. Ramesh, Age: 34 years, Caste: SC Madiga, Occu: Coolie, R/o. Hanamkonda.

…..Accused Nos. 1 to 4

This case is coming up before me on 30-08-2023 for hearing in the presence of learned A.P.P. for the complainant and Sri P. Srinivasa Rao, Counsel for the accused Nos. 1 to 4; upon perusing the evidence and material on record and having heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

1. The S.I.of Police, Inthezargunj P.S., laid charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 448, 447 of I.P.C.

2. The brief averments of the Charge Sheet are that:

On 15.11.2014 at around 5.45 PM the complainant by name G, Sandya Rani, lodged a complaint before Inthezargunj P.S., stating that previously in the year 2006 they had agreed to purchase a house bearing No.9-1-151 from her brother in law i.e., husband 2 C.C.No. 13 of 2015, Dt.12.09.2023 of her that is A1 before the elders for Rs. 10,00,000/- and later she obtained loan from

ICICI bank of Rs. 8,25,000/- and gave the said loan amount to A1. Due to the hike of land rates, A1 has changed his promise with the malafied intention to grab the property and on 30.10.2014, A1 along with his wife came to the house and cut the gate and sustained loss to the complainant. Again on 12.11.014 at around 11. PM A1 to A4 break open the lock of the complainant has sustained loss of articles. The complainant was informed about the alleged incident through her aunt by name Shakunthala who is residing in the upper stairs of the said building and on that information the complainant along with her husband went to the scene of offense and questioned A1 to A4 for which, A1 to A4 abused them in the filthy language. Hence, the report.

3. On the receipt the report LW10 has registered the case in crime

No.462/2014 under Sections 448, 427 r/w 34 IPC and issued FIR, and during the investigation, LW10 has examined and recorded the statement of witnesses and visited the scene of offence drawn rough sketch in presence of mediators and further collected the photographs of the land i.e., scene of offense and on 07.01.2015 he has served 41-A

Cr.P.C notice to the accused and after completion the entire investigation, he has filed

Charge sheet.

4. The court has taken cognizance for the offences U/s.448, 447 r/w 34 of

IPC, against accused and issued summons to the accused.

5.On appearance of the accused, the accused were served with copies under

Sec.207 Cr.P.C. The accused were examined under Sec.251 Cr.P.C against the accused wherein the substance of accusations of the accused were explained in Telugu for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3 C.C.No. 13 of 2015, Dt.12.09.2023

6. During the course of trial, on behalf of prosecution, PW1 to PW7 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 were marked. After completion of prosecution evidence, court has examined accused under Sec.313 Cr.P.C wherein the incriminating material levelled against them, are explained in Telugu for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed tobe tried and reported no defence.

7. Heard arguments of learned APP and learned counsel for the accused.

8. Now the point for determination is "Whether the prosecution has to establish the offences U/s. 448, 447 r/w 34 of I.P.C., beyond all reasonable doubt or not?

9. POINT: During the course of trial, on behalf of prosecution, PW1 who is the defacto complainant of this case deposed before this court that, stating that on 10.05.2006 she had purchased a house bearing No.9-1-151 situated at Girmajipet,

Warangal ad-measuring 140 Sq. yards for sale consideration of Rs. 10,00,000/- from A1 and executed a registered sale deed in favour of her and she was in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property. PW1 also stated that she used to reside in a rented house beside the said property and on 30.10.2014 at around 5.00 PM when she came out of the house and found that the gate of the said property was cut and A1 and A2 standing near by there and when she has questioned the same A1 and A2 had claimed that the property belongs to them and immediately the matter was placed before LW6 and LW7 who are the elders then they pacified the issue and send A1 and A2 from that place. Again on 12.11.2014 at around 11.00 PM she was informed by her mother in law that A1 to A4 broke open the lock of the said property thrown the damaged articles and occupied the said house and immediately, LW2 went to the scene of offense and questioned the act of

A1 for which, A1 has threatened him in dire consequences. Immediately, PW1 went to the 4 C.C.No. 13 of 2015, Dt.12.09.2023 police station on 12.11.2014 and reported the matter before the police. Ex.P1 is the report dt.15.11.2014, Ex.P2 is Sale Deed vide document No.4431/2006.

During the cross examination, PW1 stated that A1 is her brother-in-law and A2 is her co-sister, A3 is mother of A2, A4 is the younger sister of A2. PW1 admitted that there are disputes in between herself and her husband and the divorce O.P was also filed in the year 2008 and they both are living separately and both the parties had obtained a loan from

ICICI bank Hanamkonda branch in the year 2006 for the purpose of this house and also admitted that she had not handed over any of documentary proof to show that LW2 had obtained the joint house loan from ICICI Bank. PW1 also admitted that in Ex,P1 she did not state that she paid an amount of Rs.1,75,000/- to accused No.1 prior to the registered document and also not state the same in Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement. PW1 was also admitted that she had filed a civil suit bearing No. O.S.No.07/2015 on the file of Hon’ble

II-Addl.District Judge’s Court against the accused with the respect of the said property.

PW1 also admitted that the name of A1 is on record before the Municipality with respect to the said property in the year 2013. PW1 also admitted that A1 is having the water connection to the said property till date. PW1 also admitted that prior to the registration of the Ex.P2, the property was distributed among A1 and one Ramarao. PW1 also admitted that she did not apply any permission for the construction in the municipality department.

PW1 also admitted that she did not mention the specific number of chairs and utensils damaged the accused and also admitted she was not the eye witness of the case and also admitted that on the alleged date of incident she was at her mother’s place and denied all the material suggestions.

10. PW2 by name M.Srinivasulu who is the husband of PW1 deposed and reiterated the version of PW1 and stated that accused No.1 has disconnected the electricity 5 C.C.No. 13 of 2015, Dt.12.09.2023 connection and in the year 2014 the accused had broke the gate, but the police did not register the case. During the cross examination, PW2 stated that since his mother is residing with A1, her mother share was transferred to A1. PW2 also admitted that she did not witness any incident and also adds that when he went to the scene of offence the accused were present. PW1 also admits that accused No.1 is residing in the house number 9-1-151 which was received by him towards his partition and also states that PW2 has purchased the said house from A1. PW2 also admitted that he did not admit any tax receipts, photographs pertaining to the house and also photographs containing to the damaged gate and also the construction of bathrooms and denied all the material suggestions.

11. PW3 by name Shakunthala who is the mother in law of PW1 and mother of PW2 deposed and reiterated the version of PW1. During the cross examination, PW3 admitted that she cannot state whether the said property is her husband’s ancestral property or not. PW3 also admitted that A1 is residing in his share only and on 16-11- 2014 PW2 is working at Mogilicherla. PW3 also admitted that PW1 is not residing with

PW2 and obtained divorce. PW3 also admitted that the scene of offence is a busy locality.

PW3 also admitted that she was residing in the said share of A1 and also admitted that a

SC/ST case was filed against him and PW2 and denied all the material suggestions.

12. PW4 who was the elder of this case deposed and reiterated the version of

PW1. During the cross examination, PW4 admitted that he was not an eye witness of this case and he do not know about the joint nature of the properties of PW2 and A1 and he did not act any witness to the documents of the property sold by A1 to PW2 and denied all the material suggestions.

6 C.C.No. 13 of 2015, Dt.12.09.2023

13. PW5 by name Mohd.Feroz, deposed and reiterated the version of PW1.

During the cross examination, PW5 stated that he is the shop will be open at around 10:00 AM and closed at 7:00 PM and he used to stay in the shop regularly and also not witnessed the alleged incident. PW5 only states that some of the items were thrown out of the said house and the scene of offence is a busy locality and also admitted that he cannot state that the number of chairs, tables and items were damaged. PW5 also admitted till date A1 is residing in his own house.

14. PW6 by name A.Srinivasa Rao, who is the mediator for CDF deposed and turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. Ex.P3 is his signature on

CDF marked in his evidence.

15. PW7 by name B.Hathi Ram, who is Investigating Officer of this case, has deposed that he has received a Telugu written report from PW1 on 15-11-2014 at 17:45 hours and basing on the report, he registered a case in Crime No.462/2014 for the offences under Sec.448, 427 r/w 34 of IPC and issued FIR and Ex.P4 is the FIR and during the course of investigation, he has recorded the statement of PW1 in the police station and visited the scene of offence on the next day and drawn rough sketch in the presence of

PW6 and LW8 and examined PW2 to PW5, LW6 and LW7 and on 07-01-2015 at 14:00 hours, he has apprehended A1 to A4 and released them on bail and after completion of investigation, he has handed over the entire case file to LW11 who filed charge sheet and the learned APP confronted photographs of scene of offence with CD and the same was admitted by this witness and Ex.P5 are Photographs (5 Nos.) along with CD.

During the cross examination, IO has admitted that PW1 has not mentioned about the specific details of the damaged articles and the scene of offence is busy locality and denied all the material suggestions.

7 C.C.No. 13 of 2015, Dt.12.09.2023

16. The ingredients of Sec. 448, 447 IPC are as follows:-

Sec.448 of IPC: Punishment of House trespass:— Whoever commits house-trespass shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

Sec.447 of IPC: Punishment of criminal trespass: Whoever commits criminal trespass shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.

17. It is the case of the learned prosecution that A1 has sold the house bearing No. 9-1-151 at Girmajipet, Warangal to PW1 under the foot of sale consideration of Rs.10,00,000/- vide Ex.P2 and delivered the possession to PW1. PW1 was the constructive possession of the said property since the date of execution of Ex.P2 i.e., Crime 2006. On 30-10-2014, while PW1 is at her mother’s place, the accused No.1 and 2 trespassed into the house of PW1 and cut the gate and when PW1 has questioned the same, the accused Nos.1 and 2 abused her in filthy language and later the matter was placed before the elders and the same was pacified by PW4 and LW6. The second incident was took place around on 12-11-2014 at about 11:00 AM where PW1 has received a phone call from her mother in law and stated that A1 to A4 trespassed into the house and thrown the household articles outside of the house and damaged the house. Hence, the cause of action arose on the said date and PW1 has lodged the police report on 15-11-2014 which was marked as Ex.P1. To support the case of PW1, PW2 who is her husband, PW3 who is her mother in law, PW4 who is the elder of this case, PW5 who is the neighbor at the scene of offence had successfully corroborated the version of prosecution. Hence, the prosecution prays this Court to convict the accused for the offences under Sec.447, 448 of IPC.

18. Per contra, it is the case of the accused that the accused is in the possession of the house number 9-1-151 and admittedly there was a civil dispute in between PW1 and the accused No.1 before the Hon’ble District Court and the same was pending. The counsel further contends that PW1 was not in the possession of the said house as such, 8 C.C.No. 13 of 2015, Dt.12.09.2023

Secc.448, 447 of IPC does not attract. Furthermore, there was no proof filed by the prosecution regarding the damages and the said house falls into the share of A1 only. Hence, prays the court to acquit the accused as the prosecution failed to establish the case beyond all reasonable doubt.

19. Upon perusing the entire evidences on record, exhibits marked on behalf of both parties, the learned prosecution has to establish that the defacto complainant must have the actual possession over the house number 9-1-151, but the constructive possession.

20. The learned prosecution has to establish the ingredients for the offence of criminal trespass as defined under Sec.441 of IPC are as follows 1) That the property trespassed upon should be in possession of some particular person; and 2) that the trespasser should enter upon the property with an intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy the person in possession. The vital aspect has to be established is that Sec.441 of IPC defines only possession but not against the ownership of the property and the accused must have the criminal intent to cause the insult or intimidate or annoy to the defacto complainant. In a land mark decision pronounced by the Hon’ble Apex court, the possession contemplated by the Section 441 IPC must be the actual possession which includes the right to eject and excludes the another person. If the person has only a right to some property and is not in actual possession of it either by himself or to his tenant or the agent he cannot be said to be the person in possession within the meaning of Sec.441 IPC. Furthermore, it is again the settled principle of law that possession includes the constructive possession, but it was also held that the entry should be constitute an offence of criminal trespass, the property should be in actual possession of someone who it is intended to insult or annoy. To prove the possession of the PW1, the prosecution has filed the Ex.P2 which is a sale deed executed in favour of PW1 by the accused No.1. Wherein one of the recital of the sale deed states that the accused No.1 has placed PW1 in the possession of the suit schedule property or schedule property cited in the sale deed. Apparently and prima facie on perusal of Ex.P2, PW1 should have been in the possession of the H.No.9-1-151, but on perusal of evidences on record, all the witnesses including PW1 admitted a fact that A1 is in the possession of the house bearing 9 C.C.No. 13 of 2015, Dt.12.09.2023

No. 9-1-151, but not PW1 who was the actual owner of the said property as per ExP2. Admittedly, in the cross examination of PW1, she admits that she was not the eye witness of this case and she was not at the house at the time of alleged incident took place and she came to know about the incident through her mother in law i.e., PW3. Furthermore, entire witnesses on behalf of the prosecution examined, PW2 to PW5 were also admitted that A1 was residing in the said house. PW6 who is the neighbor of PW1 also stated that till date A1 is residing with his family in the said house. It is a settled principle of law that where the civil dispute was pending with regard to the possession and thus, the complainant could not be said to be in an unquestioned possession of the property to the exclusion of others in such instance section 441 of IPC was not applicable. Apparently, there were civil disputes between the parties and where the mandatory aspect of the sale under Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act reveals that a sale should be accompanied with the delivery of possession. In this case, the possession was not delivered to PW1 vide EX.P2 as such, it cannot be state that the sale is the absolute sale to PW1. Furthermore, in the eve of above principles laid section 54 of Transfer of Property Act, and various citations, it can be successfully stated that PW1 was not in the actual possession of the property which was the major ingredient has to be established by the prosecution under Section 441 of IPC.

21. Second ingredient has to be establish that the accused must have the criminal intent to cause the insult or intimidate or annoying. To prove the said aspect, apart from the mere allegations that the accused has criminally trespassed into the house, but no such instances or no such averments were placed by PW1 in her evidence regarding that she was insulted or annoyed by the accused. Admittedly, the complainant was not present at the time of occurrence as such it cannot be stated that the accused has criminal intent to cause the insult or annoy to PW1. Apparently and admittedly, when the accused was in the possession of the said house, the question which shall raise is that why does the accused will damage his own gate or the articles. The Investigating Officer himself admitted that PW1 did not mention any details about the damaged articles specifically. Further, when there was a doubt was created in the mind of the court whether the PW1 was in actual possession of the property or not, then the Section 441 of IPC could not be attracted. Hence, the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the 10 C.C.No. 13 of 2015, Dt.12.09.2023 offences under Sec.448, 427 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the Point is answered accordingly.

22. In the result, the accused Nos.1 to 4 are not found guilty for the offences under Sec.448, 447 of IPC. Hence, the accused Nos. 1 to 4 are entitled for acquittal under Sec. 255(1) Cr.P.C and the bail bonds if any are stands cancelled.

(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade – III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 12 th day of September, 2023.)

I.Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Warangal

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

Prosecution For Defence:- PW1: G. Sandhya Rani None PW2: M. Srinivas Rao PW3: Shakunthala PW4: Asunuddin PW5: Md. Feroz PW6: A. Srinivas PW7: B. Hathiram

I.Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Warangal

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

For Prosecution:- Ex.P1: Report Ex.P2: Certifide copy of Regisetered Sale Deed Vide Doc.No.4431/2006 Ex.P3: Signature of CDF. ExP4: FIR Ex.P5 (5) Photographs (1) CD.

11 C.C.No. 13 of 2015, Dt.12.09.2023

For Defence: -Nil-

I.Addl.Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Warangal.

1 C.C.No.2840 of 2017, Dt.13.09.2023

IN THE COURT OF THE I- ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

WARANGAL.

Tuesday, on this the 13th day of September, 2023.

Present: Smt. N.V. Hyma Pujitha, I-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal.

C.C. No. 2840 OF 2017

BETWEEN:

The Telangana State represented by S.I.of Police, Mills Colony, P.S., ….Complainant

AND Putta Madhu, S/o.Late Venkatram, Age: 41 years, Caste:Munnurukapu, Occu: AR.PC-625, R/o.H.No.20-7-158, Hanuman Street at West Fort, Warangal.

…..Accused

This case is coming up before me on 11.09.2023 for hearing in the presence of learned A.P.P. for the complainant and Sri K. Sridhar, Counsel for the accused; upon perusing the evidence and material on record and having heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

1. The S.I.of Police, Mills Colony P.S., laid charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 290, 353 of I.P.C.

2. The brief averments of the Charge sheet:

On 04.09.2017 at 1340 hopours, the complainant S.Ravi, Sub Inspector of Police,

P.S Mills Colony, lodged a complaint stating that on 03.09.2017 night as per the instructions of superior officers the complainant along with his staff LW2, LW3 went to patrolling in jeep in Mills Colony area in view Ganesh immersion. When complainant reached West Fort at about 22.30 hours he found one Ganesh idol which belongs to accused by name Puttas Madhu, ARPC-625 was in middle pf the road and making inconvenience to the traffic then the complainant said to accused “move forward”.

2 C.C.No.2840 of 2017, Dt.13.09.2023

Suddenly the accused abused the complainant in filthy language then the complainant was trying to taking video in his cell phone mean time the accused forcefully taken the cell phone from hands of the complainant and pushed the complainant. Hence, the report.

3. On receipt of the above report, the LW8 has registered the case in

Cr.No.311/2017, for the offence under Sec. 290, 353 of I.P.C. and issued FIR to all the concerned and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, LW8 examined and recorded the statement of LW1, visited the scene of offence and drafted the Crime

Details Form in the presence of mediators LW6 and LW7 and thereafter, examined and recorded the statements of LW2 to LW4 and later he issued notice under Sec.41(1)(A)

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

4. The court has taken cognizance for the offences U/s.290, 353 of IPC, against accused and issued summons to the accused.

5. On appearance of the accused, the accused was served with copies U/s.207

Cr.P.C. The accused was examined under Sec.251 Cr.P.C wherein the accusations leveled against the accused was explained in Telugu for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During the course of trial, on behalf of prosecution PW1 to PW4 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 were marked. After completion of prosecution evidence, court has examined accused under Sec.313 Cr.P.C wherein the incriminating material levelled against him, are explained in Telugu for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed and reported no defence.

7. Heard arguments of learned APP and learned counsel for the accused.

3 C.C.No.2840 of 2017, Dt.13.09.2023

8. Now the point for determination is "Whether the prosecution has to establish the offences U/s. 290, 353 of I.P.C., beyond all reasonable doubt or not?

9. POINT: During the course of trial, on behalf of prosecution PW1 by name

S. Ravi, Inspector of police, has deposed that on 03.09.2017 at around 6.00 PM, night hours, he has conducting patroling duties on the eve of Vinayaka nimajjanam and along with his LW2 and LW3 were present and at west fort Warangal, the accused stopped his tractor in a middle of the road and in a drunken state created nuisance and as such there ws stoppage of traffic at that area and while he asked him to remove his tractor, the accused had obstructed his duties and did not remove the tractor and also tried to take his mobuile phone, on which he has taking the video graph of theincident. LW2 and LW3 also tried tostop theaccused, but the accused does not adhere the words of them and does not remove the tractor from the place and also pushed him with hands, as such the accused had obstructed their duties. On the next day morning the report before P.S Mills Colony after my completion of his duties and Ex.P1 is the report and Police examined and recorded his statement.

During the cross examination, PW1 admitted that LW4 and LW5 were present for patrolling. PW1 stated that he has not mentioned the tractor number. PW1 stated that he does not know there was news item on the next day in the news papers that the police had misbehaving ladies and the said ladies had made a protest against the police and he denied all the material suggestions.

10. PW2 by name K. Krishna Mohan, has deposed that on 03.09.2017 at 10.30

PM, as part of bandobasth duty on the eve of immersion of Vinayaka and he went along with PW1, LW3 to West Fort, Warangal.. PW1 was dropped near the house of accused and himself along with LW3 proceeded to our duties, as such he does not know what was 4 C.C.No.2840 of 2017, Dt.13.09.2023 happened near the house of accused. Police does not examine him and not recorded his statement. He does not know facts of the case Ex.P2 got marked in his respective evidence and he turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution.

11. PW3, B. Raja Sambaiah, who is the eye witness of the incident has deposed that on 03.09.2017 there was Ganes immersion and himself along with LW5 wennt to patrolling duty at Fort Warangal at around 10.30 PM, at West Fort Warangal, PW1 along with PW2, LW3 whos was driver to PW1 were present at the house of accused, galata took place and accused obstructed the official duties of PW1 and abused him in filthy language that he would not remove the tractor which causes obstruction of traffic.

Accused had pushed PW1, Police examined and recorded his statement and he turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution.

12. PW4 by name B.Ravinder, who was the Investigating Officer of this case, deposed that he received Telugu written report from PW1 on 04.09.2017 at 1.40 PM, basing on the the report, he registered a case in Cr.No. 311/2017 for the offence under section 290, 353 IPC and issued FIR. Ex.P3 is the original FIR. During the investigation, he has recorded the statement of PW1 on the PS and visited the scene of offense, drawn rough sketch in presence of mediators. Ex.P4 is the CDF. At the scene of offense he has recorded the statements of PW2, PW3, LW3 and LW5. After completion of 161 Cr.P.C statement he has handed over the CD file to LW9. He can identify the signature of LW9 as he has worked at the same tenure. Witness identified the signature of LW9 on charge sheet. LW9 had issued 41-A Cr.P.C notice to accused on 29.09.2017 and after completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet.

During the cross examination, he admitted that PW1 is sub inspector of Police. He stated that he has not mentioned the tractor number and the driver details in the charge 5 C.C.No.2840 of 2017, Dt.13.09.2023 sheet as it was not reflected in Ex.P1 and as well 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1 and also stated that the distance between scene of offense and Police station within two kilometers.

Pw1 has reported to SHO over phone and the same was not mentioned in Ex.P1 as the issue was pacified, the SHO not visited the scene of offense. PW4 also stated that he doen not know whether, some ladies given the complaint against PW1 and denied the material suggestion.

13. The prosecution has to establish the case Under Section 353 of I.P.C. The ingredients of Sec. 353 of IPC are as follows:-

Sec.353 of IPC: Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty:— Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such pubic servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

14. To prove the offence under Sec.353 of IPC, the learned APP has to establish that the accused must use criminal force on the public servant while he was discharging his official duty. Further more, there must be a direct or eye witnesses or the circumstantial evidence to connect the case to prove that there should be nexus between the accused and the commission of crime. Furthermore, during the cross examination of

PW1 and PW6, they have not mentioned the tractor number. PW4 further stated in his cross examination that he has not examined any local witness at the scene of offence and no one come forward to give evidence, but the same was not mentioned in the charge sheet.

6 C.C.No.2840 of 2017, Dt.13.09.2023

15. Upon perusing the evidences on the record and exhibits marked on behalf of the prosecution and apart from the complainant (PW1) and Investigating Officer (PW4) who are police officials, none other witnesses were supported the case of the prosecution.

16. Furthermore, in order to establish the ingredients of Sec.353 of IPC, the direct witnesses or eye witnesses of the case, has to prove the allegations against the accused, but none of the eye witnesses to the incident were not corroborated the version of

PW1. In this case, except the defacto complainant and Investigating Officer no other eye witnesses were supported to establish the case against the accused. However, PW2 who assisted PW1 and PW3 who is an eye witness were not supported the case of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused and they are turned hostile. In the absence of the any direct or independent or eye witnesses in this case and in the lack of corroboration among the evidences, the prosecution failed to establish the case beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences under sections 290, 353 of IPC. The point is answered accordingly.

17. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences U/s.290, 353 of IPC and hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal U/s.255(1) of Cr.P.C and the bail bonds if any are stands cancelled.

(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade – III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 13 th day of September, 2023.)

I.Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Warangal

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

Prosecution For Defence:- PW1: S. Ravi None PW2: K. Krishna Mohan PW3: B. raja Sambaiah 7 C.C.No.2840 of 2017, Dt.13.09.2023

PW4: B. ravinder

I.Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Warangal

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

For Prosecution:- Ex.P1: Report. Ex.P2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW2 Ex.P3: First Information Report Ex.P4: Crime Details Form

For Defence: -Nil-

I.Addl.Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Warangal.

1 OF 7 C.C.No. 612 of 2015

IN THE COURT OF THE I- ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

WARANGAL.

Tuesday, on this the 13th day of September, 2023.

Present: Smt. N.V. Hyma Pujitha, I-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal.

C.C. No. 612 of 2015

BETWEEN:

The Telangana State represented by S.I.of Police, Inthezargunj, P.S., ….Complainant

AND Koyyada Prabhakar, S/o.Mallaiah, Age: 45 years, Caste:Gouda, R/o.H.No.16-4- 1274, Under Bridge, Warangal.

…..Accused

This case is coming up before me on 11.09.2023 for hearing in the presence of learned A.P.P. for the complainant and Sri K. Sridhar, Counsel for the accused; upon perusing the evidence and material on record and having heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Inthezargunj P.S. filed the charge sheet against the Accused in Crime No.330 of 2015 for the offences punishable under Sec.3 of PDPP Act.

2. Brief averments of Charge sheet:

On 10.10.2015 at 1330 hours, the complainant by name Bhukya Somla, lodged a complaint stating that since six months he is working as driver in Thorrur Depot. As part of his legitimate duty on 09-09-2015 evening at about 1700 hours he left from Thorrur Depot

Bus bearing No. AP-36-Z-0178 and sent to Nizamabad where they halted in the night hours and on 10.10.2015 morning at about 0500 hours they left from Nizamabad and on reaching to

Warangal station road near Surya hotel, they found some mob conducts State Bandh regarding 2 OF 7 C.C.No. 612 of 2015 the farmers suicides in the state and from which one person stopped their bus at about 11.45 hours and broken the front mirror of their Bus by beating with his hand. Hence, the Report.

3. On receipt of the above report, the LW7 has registered the case in Cr.No.330/2015, for the offence under Sec. 3 of PDPP Act and issued FIR to all the concerned and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, LW8 examined and recorded the statement of LW1, visited the scene of offence and drafted the Crime Details Form in the presence of mediators and thereafter, examined and recorded the statements of LW2 to LW4 and later he issued notice under Sec.41(1)(A) Cr.P.C., to the accused and after completion of the investigation, filed charge sheet.

4. The court has taken cognizance for the offences U/s.3 of PDPP Act, against accused and issued summons to the accused.

5. On appearance of the accused, the accused was served with copies U/s.207 Cr.P.C. The accused was examined under Sec.251 Cr.P.C wherein the accusations leveled against the accused was explained in Telugu for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During the course of trial, on behalf of prosecution PW1 to PW5 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 were marked. After completion of prosecution evidence, court has examined accused under Sec.313 Cr.P.C wherein the incriminating material levelled against him, are explained in Telugu for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed and reported no defence.

3 OF 7 C.C.No. 612 of 2015

7. Heard arguments of learned APP and learned counsel for the accused.

8. Now the point for determination is "Whether the prosecution has to establish the offences

U/s. Of PDPP Act, beyond all reasonable doubt or not?

9. POINT: During the course of trial, on behalf of prosecution PW1 by name, Bhukya

Somla deposed before this Court stating that on 09-10-2015, he went to Nizamabad from

Thorrur depot and returned at about 5:30 AM from Nizamabad to Thorrur on the following day and the bus bearing No. AP 36 Z 0178 he reached Warangal chowrasta at 11:45 AM at

Some hotel, farmers protesting for a raitu bandu, at that time, he stopped his bus and some unknown persons of 15 members, one person had beat the bus with hand and damaged the bus window mirror, as such, loss sustained Rs.2,500/- and later he went to the police station and lodged a report and police scribed report and he signed on it and Ex.P1 is the report and the accused is not present in the court hall and the witness identified the photographs confrontation by APP and Ex.P2 are two photographs with CD and police examined and recorded his statement. This witness did not speak anything against the accused. This witness was turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case and Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 are got marked in his evidence.

10. PW2 by name A.Naveen, who is the eye witness of the incident,has deposed and reiterated the evidence of PW1. He also did not speak anything against the accused and turned hostile to the case of the prosecution.

11. PW3, by name B. Anil Kumar, who is the mediator for CDF deposed that on 10-10-2015 police conducted rough sketch in his presence at Govindarajgutta as a mirror of 4 OF 7 C.C.No. 612 of 2015 bus broken at about 2:00 PM and Police read over the contents of CDF to him and he has signed on it and Ex.P3 is CDF. He denied the suggestions. [[

12. PW4 by name E. Bhaskar, who is the another eye witness to the incident deposed that on 10-10-2015 while he was coming from Hanumakonda to Warangal by bus at

Surya Hotel, there was some dharna, the accused had broke the front mirror of bus at about 2:30 PM bus No.AP 36 Z 1078 of Warangal or Hanumakonda depot and the learned APP had confronted Ex.P2 to witness for which witness identified the same and police examined and recorded his statement.

During the cross examination, he stated that he has not handed over the ticket to the police as they have not asked him and he does not know what was the purpose of dharna and he does not know how many members gatered there and he denied the material suggestions.

13. PW5, Assistant Sub inspector of Police P.S Inthezargunj, who is the

Investigating Officer of this case, has deposed that on 10-10-2015 at 1:30 PM, he has received telugu written report and basing on the report, he registered a case in Crime No.330/2015 for the offence under Sec.3 of PDPP Act and issued FIR and Ex.P4 is the FIR and he has examined PW1 in the police station and he has visited the scene of offence, drawn rough sketch in the presence of PW3 and LW5 and he has also examined and recorded the statements of PW2, PW4, Lw4 at the scene of offence and he has served notice under Sec.41

Cr.P.C. to the accused and thereafter, handed over the CD file to LW8 who verified the entire investigation and after completion of the investigation, filed charge sheet.

During the cross examination, he admitted that there was a procession at the time of alleged incident and mob of 100 people were gathered there and no police were in the bandobast duty on that date and the scene of offence is near to the police station. He further 5 OF 7 C.C.No. 612 of 2015 deposed that he has not collected the bus tickets of passengers. He admitted that PW1 and others were stayed inside the bus on the alleged incident and the same was not stated in 161

Cr.P.C. Statement. He admitted that the accused is the leader of congress party and procession made by congress party and denied all the suggestions.

14. Sec.3 of PDPP Act: Section 3(1) in The Prevention of Damage to Public

Property Act, 1984 (1) Whoever commits mischief by doing any act in respect of any public property, other than public property of the nature referred to in sub-section (2), shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and with fine.

15. To prove the case against the accused, the prosecution has to establish that the accused had committed mischief by causing loss to the public property.

16. On perusal of the record, the defacto complainant/LW1 it self did not stating anything against the accused and turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. One of the eye witness

PW2 also turned hostile. However, another eye witness

PW4stated that the accused had broken the front mirror of bus, during the cross examination, he stated he does not know the purpose of dharna and how many members were gathered there. The evidence of PW3 shows that police conducted CDF in his presence. PW5,IO during the cross examination admitted that he has not stated in Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement regarding the presence of PW1 and others inside the bus. Basing on the evidence of PW3, PW4 and

PW5, this court cannot connect the alleged offence with the accused without there being any corroboration of the defacto complainant.

6 OF 7 C.C.No. 612 of 2015

17. From the above discussion, it can be safely concluded that the prosecution had not proved or failed to prove the offence under Sec. 3 of PDPP Act, against the Accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the Point is answered accordingly.

18. In the result, theAccused found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.3 of PDPP Act, and hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C and the bail bonds if any are stands cancelled.

(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 13 th day of September, 2022.)

I.Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Warangal

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: PW1: Bhukya Somla -None- PW2: A. Naveen PW3: B. Anil Kumar PW4: E. Bhaskar PW5: B. Gopichand

I.Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Warangal

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

7 OF 7 C.C.No. 612 of 2015

Ex.P1: Report, dated:23.06.2023 Ex.P2: (2) Photographs and CD. Ex.P3: Crime Details Form Ex.P4: FIR

FOR DEFENCE: -Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECT

- NIL -

I.Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Waranga

1 C.C.No. 75 OF 2017, Dt.20.09.2023

IN THE COURT OF THE I- ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

WARANGAL

Wednesday, on this the 20th day of September, 2023.

Present: Smt. N.V. Hyma Pujitha, I.Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal.

C.C. No.75 of 2017

Between: Telangana State represented through Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Mills Colony ….Complainant

And

Radharapu Vinay, S/o. Kumaraswamy, Age: 21 years, Caste: Madiga, R/o. H.No.16-9- 1029, AC Reddy Nagar, Warangal.

…..Accused

This case is coming up before me on 12.09.2023 for hearing in the presence of learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State; upon perusing the evidence and material on record and having heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Mills Colony Police Station laid charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 363 of I.P.C.

2. Brief averments of the charge sheet: On 18.07.2016 at 1000 hours, the complainant Udutha Sambaiah lodged a complaint stating that he had two daughters, on 12.07.2016 night at about 0700 hours his younger daughter going to Kiranashop near by house and she came out side, at the time all of sudden one Radarapu Vinay came to the Kiranashop andforcufully pulling her daughter, at the time his neighbour Anuradha seen him and raised hues and cries , as he forcibly took her by abusing them. Hence, the report.

3. Basing on the above report, E. Narsimha Rao (LW10) who is the Investigating Officer of this case, had registered a case in Crime No. 244/2016 for the offence under Sec.363 I.P.C., issued FIRs to all the concerned and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statement of the complainant, visited the scene of offence, secured the presence of mediators LW7 and LW8, drawn 2 C.C.No. 75 OF 2017, Dt.20.09.2023 rough sketch, prepared Crime Details Form in the presence of two mediators, examined LW2 to LW5 and recorded their statements, LW9 also collected date of birth certificate of missing girl, in view of the same, the Police served notice to the accused and after completion of the investigation, filed charge sheet.

4. The court has taken cognizance for the offence under Sec.363 of I.P.C, against the accused and issued summons to the accused.

5. On appearance of accused before this Court, the accused was served with copies U/s.207 Cr.P.C. The accused was examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C against the accused and wherein the substance of accusations of the accused, were explained in Telugu for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During the course of trial, on behalf of prosecution, PW1 and PW2 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 were got marked. As there is no incriminating material available on record, the examination under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with.

7. Heard the arguments of learned APP and learned counsel for the accused.

8. Now the point for determination is "Whether the prosecution has proved the allegations against the accused for the offence under Sec.363 of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt or not?"

9. POINT: During the course of trial, on behalf of prosecution PW1 by name, U. Sambaiah, deposed that in the year 2016, LW6 was studying inter first year and she went to Kirana Shop and did not return back. On suspicion he was filed a missing case. Thereafter, his daughter return back to home. Police obtained his signature on report. Ex.P1 is his signature on report and he does not know the contents of report and Police not examined him. The learned APP has made PW1 as hostile and during the cross- examination Ex.P2 is sec.161 Cr.P.C., statement got marked.

Further, on behalf of prosecution, PW2 by name, U. Chandana, deposed that she went to her grandmother’s house without intimating to her parents, on suspicion PW1 has filed missing case. Thereafter, she return back to her home and police not examined her.

3 C.C.No. 75 OF 2017, Dt.20.09.2023

The learned APP has made PW2 as hostile and during the cross-examination Ex.P3 is sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement got marked.

10. In order to establish the offence under Section 363 of IPC, the prosecution has to prove that the accused has kidnapped PW2 from the lawful guardianship of the complainant. Upon perusing the entire evidence on record, the defacto – complainant did not depose anything against the accused and he also deposed that he does not know the contents of the report and PW2 who is victim stated that she does not have any acquaintance with the accused and she does not know the facts of the case and hence, the prosecution utterly failed to prove the ingredient U/s.363 of IPC against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

11. In the result, the accused is not found guilty for the offence U/s.363 of IPC. Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C and the bail bonds if any are stands cancelled after lapse of appeal time.

(Typed my dictation by Stenographer G-III, after transcription, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the20th day of September, 2023.)

I.Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Warangal.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For Prosecution Defense:-

PW1 : U. Sambaiah None PW2 : U. Chandana

I.Addl.Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Warangal 4 C.C.No. 75 OF 2017, Dt.20.09.2023

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:- Ex.P1: Signature of PW1 on the report. Ex.P2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1. Ex.P3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2.

For Defense: -Nil-

Material objects marked: -Nil-

I.Addl.Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Warangal...