CC.No.651/2017Page 1 of 17I A.C.J (JD)-Cum-
Dt. 04.05.2026IAJFCM, Nuzvid.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)
– CUM –I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, NUZVID.
Present : Smt.O.Anusha,
I Addl.Civil Judge(Junior Division)–Cum–
I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nuzvid.
Monday, the 4 th day of May, 2026
CALENDAR CASE NO.651/2017
(Crime No.183/20178 of Nuzvid Town P.S)
Between :
State : Sub-Inspector of Police, Nuzvid Town Police
....Complainant.
Station. AND
1) Nadakuduru Girish Kumar, S/o.Prasad, 27 Years, Viswa Brahmin, 9-169, Gandhi Nagar, Nuzvid.
2) Kotagiri Gopal, S/o.Achuta Rao, Aged: 42 Years,
Velama, Gandhinagar, Nuzvid.....Accused.
This case was placed before mefor final hearing on 30.04.2026 in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri K.V.K.Vikram Kumar, Advocate for accused and upon perusing the record and upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood over upon for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-
J U D G M E N T
The Sub-Inspector of Police, Nuzvid Town Police Station has filed charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 3 in connection with Crime No.183/2017 for the offence under Sections 353 and 384 r/w 34 of IPC.
02. The brief facts of the prosecution as per charge sheet are as follows:
The de-facto complainant, L.W.1–K.V.S.S. Narayana, is a resident of Nuzvid and working as Head Constable (H.C. 455) in Nuzvid Town Police Station. On the intervening night, upon receiving information from L.W.2–K.V.D.V.Prasad, Assistant
Sub-Inspector of Police, regarding a traffic jam near Ganganamma Temple, L.W.1 proceeded to the spot and, along with other police staff, regulated the traffic. While
CC.No.651/2017Page 2 of 17I A.C.J (JD)-Cum-
Dt. 04.05.2026IAJFCM, Nuzvid.
discharging his duties, L.W.1 noticed that the accused along with their friends were quarrelling with a bus driver and had forcibly collected an amount of Rs.8,000/- near Ganganamma Temple. When L.W.1 instructed them to spread out from the place, the accused questioned his authority. Despite being asked by their friends to leave, they refused to comply and instead threatened L.W.1 with dire consequences and abused him in obscene language.
[b]On receipt of the report, L.W.9 – Ch. Ranjit Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police, registered a case in Crime No.183/2017 under Section 353 IPC and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence, prepared a rough sketch, examined the witnesses, and recorded their statements.
[c]Upon investigation, it was revealed that the accused had not only obstructed and threatened the police officer while discharging his duties but had also forcibly collected Rs.8,000/- from the bus driver, thereby committing an offence of extortion. Accordingly, the involvement of one Gopal was established, and he was arrayed as Accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 384 IPC.
[d]Further, during investigation, L.W.9 arrested Accused No.2 on 26.09.2017, and L.W.8 – M. Chiranjeevi, Sub-Inspector of Police, arrested Accused
No.1 on 29.09.2017 and both were remanded to judicial custody. After completion of investigation, L.W.10 – Ch. Ranjit Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police, Nuzvid Town, filed the charge sheet before the Court.
03. This case was taken on file for the offence under sections 353 and 384 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, against the Accused Nos.1 and 2 and numbered as Calendar
Case No.651/2017.
04. On appearance of accused Nos.1 and 2, copies were furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.
CC.No.651/2017Page 3 of 17I A.C.J (JD)-Cum-
Dt. 04.05.2026IAJFCM, Nuzvid.
05.The accused were examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C and charges was framed against them, read over and explained to them in Telugu. The charges U/sections 353 and 384 r/w 34 IPC was denied by the accused and they preferred to be tried for the charge against them.
06.During the trial, L.W.1, L.W.2, L.W.4, L.W.3, L.W.6 and L.W.7 were examined as P.Ws.1 to 6 respectively and Exhibit P-1 to P-6.
07.During the examination of the Accused Nos.1 and 2 under Section 313 of
Cr.P.C., they have denied the incriminating material available against them in the evidence of the Prosecution Witnesses and the Documents. The Accused Nos.1 and 2 have submitted that they have no evidence on their behalf. Hence, the evidence on the side of the defence is closed.
08.On completion of evidence this Court heard arguments of learned Assistant
Public Prosecutor and defence counsel.
09.The learned APP submitted that evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6 coupled with Ex.P1 to P6 is sufficient to prove the case of prosecution and hence, convict the accused
Nos.1 and 2 as per law.
10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the accused contended that the prosecution case is false and that Section 353 IPC is not attracted, as there is no evidence of assault or use of criminal force against P.W.1 in discharge of his duties.
She submitted that P.W.1 himself admitted that he did not mention in Ex.P1 the manner of obstruction, and P.W.4 categorically stated that no one obstructed the police and that traffic was cleared smoothly. It is further contended that though the alleged incident occurred in a public place surrounded by houses and shops, no independent witnesses were examined, despite P.W.1 admitting that several persons gathered. P.Ws.2 and 3, the alleged eye-witnesses, and P.W.5, an
CC.No.651/2017Page 4 of 17I A.C.J (JD)-Cum-
Dt. 04.05.2026IAJFCM, Nuzvid.
independent witness, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. It is also argued that Ex.P1 suffers from material omissions regarding the nature of obstruction, names of witnesses, and vehicle details, and that the statements under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. are inconsistent with Ex.P1, thereby presenting contradictory versions. The delay in lodging Ex.P1, though the police station is nearby, remains unexplained and casts doubt on the prosecution case. Further, non-production of material records such as General Diary and duty roster creates an adverse inference. Hence, in view of lack of essential ingredients of the offence, absence of corroboration, and material contradictions, it is prayed that the accused be acquitted by extending benefit of doubt.
11.On perusal of the charge sheet, documents and evidence produced and on hearing the counsels of both sides the following points arise for determination by this Court:
Whether the Prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the
Accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences under Sections 384 and 353 r/w 34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?
12. POINT:The prosecution case, in brief, is that L.W.1, a Head Constable, while regulating traffic near Ganganamma Temple, found the accused quarrelling with a bus driver and forcibly collecting Rs.8,000/-. When he intervened in discharge of his duties and asked them to disperse, the accused obstructed him, abused him in obscene language, and threatened him with dire consequences.
After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offences under Sections 353 and 384 IPC.
13. To establish its case, the prosecution has examined the De-facto complainant,
K.V.S.S.Narayana [L.W.1] as P.W.1, K.V.D.V.Prasad [L.W.2] as P.W.2, Shaik Lal
Ahmed (L.W.4) as P.W.3, E.Srinivasa Rao (L.W.3) as P.W.4, L.W.6-Shaik Ismaial
CC.No.651/2017Page 5 of 17I A.C.J (JD)-Cum-
Dt. 04.05.2026IAJFCM, Nuzvid.
as P.W.5, M.Chiranjeevi, L.W.8 as P.W.4. Ex.P-1 is the Report of P.W.1. Ex.P-2 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2. Ex.P-3 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3.
Ex.P-4 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.5. Ex.P-5 is the First Information Report.
Ex.P-6 is the Rough sketch.
14.PW.1-K.V.S.S.Narayana, the then Head Constable Nuzvid Town Police station at relevant point of time deposed that on 24.09.2017 when he was on night rounds L.Ws.2 and 3 were engaged on a Traffic Diversion Duty and on 25.09.2017 at about 01.30 a.m., L.W.2 has made a phone call to him and informed himt hat there is a traffic jam at Gangamma Temple on the main road at Nuzvid and that immediately he proceeded to the spot and by the time of his arrival, L.W.3 and
L.W.4 were present on the spot and that at the spot he noticed one private travel bus and one car were parked on the road margin and the owners of the alleged car were present at the car and you A1 and A2 were present at the car and also the driver of the bus of the private travel also present at the spot and that the driver of the bus namely Ismail L.W.6 and another driver namely HussainL.W.7 were present and you accused are having serious conversation with the said Ismail and
Hussain and that on that himself L.Ws.2 to 4 instructed you accused and the said
Ismail and Hussain to have the conversation in amicable manner and that in the meanwhile the passengers int he private bus get down and asked the driver of the bus and they are coming from Amalapuram and they have to go to Hyderabad and settle the issue and that later you accused demanded the driver of the private bus to pay an amount of Rs.8,000/- towards compensation for the damage of their car and that due to the pressure of the passengers in the private bus and the driver of the bus has paid an amount of Rs.8,000/- to you accused and later the driver of the bus i.e., L.Ws.6 and 7 informed him that they will make a phone call to him and informed about the incident which has taken place prior to his arrival and that later he has noted the Registration number of the bus and also he has taken the cell
Number of L.W.6.P.W.1 further deposed that after clearing the Traffic, you accused
CC.No.651/2017Page 6 of 17I A.C.J (JD)-Cum-
Dt. 04.05.2026IAJFCM, Nuzvid.
and four others were sat on a cement bench near the Ganganamma Temple and later they informed you and found others to leave the premises as it is mid night and later you A1 has raied your voice on her and stated that you A2 is a politcial leader and how you can say that to go to home and have the conversation and you continued to abuse him in a filthy language and later they asked you and other four persons to come to police station and on that you A1 came upon him and asked him why you should come to police station and you A2 co-operated with you A1 and later remaining four persons have taken you A1 and A2 and later he made a phone call to l.W.9 and informed about the incident and L.W.9 instructed him to submit report with regard to the incident and as per the instructions of L.W.9, he has prepared and submitted his report to Nuzvid Town police station and that he identified his signature in the report.
15.During the course of cross-examination of P.W.1 he admitted that there is duty register in their station. He stated that he do not know whether the roster regsietr copy filed in the charge sheet. He stated that he did not mention in his report the reason for the traffic jam at Ganganamma temple. He do not have any acquitance with the accused. He volunteers that A-1 used to come to their police station and for the galata. He stated that he did not mention at Gangnamma temple at the scene of offence there is a resdiential houses and the shops situated. He stated that in generally if there is a galata many persons used to gather. He stated that he did not mention the persons who present at the time of galata at the the scene of offence. He stated that he does not know the names of the persons who took A-1 at the scene of offence. He stated that the persons who brought A-1 told him to pacify the matter, stating that it was a small galata and that they would take back P.W.1. He had worked at Nuzvid Police Station prior to this case. He denied the suggestion that generally head constable have no night duties. He denied the suggestion that, as per the roster, it was specifically mentioned that he was on duty at the time of the galata. He stated that, at the time of the alleged incident, there
CC.No.651/2017Page 7 of 17I A.C.J (JD)-Cum-
Dt. 04.05.2026IAJFCM, Nuzvid.
were about 25 passengers in the bus and the car. He stated that no passenger gave any report regarding the traffic jam. He further stated that six persons were sitting on the cement bench at Ganganamma Temple, and that he did not mention the reason for the diversion of traffic at Nuzvid.
P.W.1 further admitted that no galata took place at Peda Gandhi Bomma center. He did not mention in his complaint about the names of passengers sitting in the bus, persons present there in the traffic jam. He stated that there are residential houses around Ganganamma temple. He admitted that all the inmates of the said houses came out and watch the galata. He stated that he did not refer the names of any of those inmates. He stated that he did not mention either the bus number or the car number in Ex.P1 report as well as drivers and inmates of the bus and car. He admitted that there are no allegations regarding extortion of money from others. He stated tha no passengers of bus and car or owner of the car gave complaint. He admitted that one has to obtain permission to conduct procession in town. He stated that he has no idea there is Ganganamma Jatara on the alleged date of incident. He stated that by the time he reached the alleged place, there were already ASI of Police, Head constble and one Home guard were present. He stated that generally when a galata took place, the higher offical present among other officials, report the matter. He stated that in this case ASI did not lodge any report. He stated that it took less than 10 mintues to reach Town police station from the place of alleged incident. He stated that he gave Ex.P1 on the next day morning. He volunteers that he gave information to S.I of police over phone. He stated that he do not know whether any entry made in the general diary or not. He stated that he did not mention Ex.P1 about the manner of obstruction of his duties by the accused. He denied the suggestion that A-1 and A-2 never obstructed his duties in any manner, that is the reason for not detaining the accused and not brought tot he police station at the time of alleged incident. He denied the suggestion that they foisted this false case against A-1 and A-2 with the influence of the political people. He stated that he do not know whether A-2 is District
CC.No.651/2017Page 8 of 17I A.C.J (JD)-Cum-
Dt. 04.05.2026IAJFCM, Nuzvid.
Steering Committee Member of Y.S. Congress Party and A-1 is his associate. He denied the suggestion that A-1 and A-2 never assault and never obstructed his duties and never committed extortion and that he was deposing false to suit his case.
16.P.Ws.2 and 3, who are eye witnesses did not support the case of prosecution and they were permitted to cross examine by the learned APP. During their cross examination, nothing important was elicited except marking Exs.P-2 and Ex.P-3 their respective statements U/Sec.161 Cr.P.C.
17.P.W.4 E.Srinivasa Rao, Assistant Sub Inspector of Police deposed that on 24.09.2017 he was on traffic duty at Peda Gandhi Bhomma Center along with
P.W.3 at about 01.15 a.m., i.e., early hours of 25.09.2017, P.W.2 called them over phone and asked you to come to Ganganamma Ravi Chettu center as there was traffic jam and accordingly they went there but the time of their arrival and there was a car and bus opposite to each other and they all cleared the traffic and the owner of the car and driver of bus talked with each other and settled the matter and that time P.W.1 taken photogrpahs and admonished owner of the car and driver of the bus and there was an altercation took place and P.W.1 informed the incident to the SHO, Nuzvid Town and asked P.W.1 to give written complainant on that PW.1 gave complaint.
18.During the course of cross-examination P.W.4 admitted that there is roll call on every day in their station. He admitted that duties allotted in the roll call. He stated that the time of allege dincident, he was workign in Nuzvid Rural police station and he was allotted to Town Traffic duty on Bandobust. He stated that he did not hand over his Passport to the investigation officer. He stated that he was allotted duty from 12.00 a.m., to 3.00 p.m., shift. He stated that he do not know whether any political mettings or processions were conducted at the time of alleged
CC.No.651/2017Page 9 of 17I A.C.J (JD)-Cum-
Dt. 04.05.2026IAJFCM, Nuzvid.
incident. He admitted that there is no separate traffic police station, so also no separate traffic police appointed. He stated that on the date of alleged incidnet, he was allotted traffic dutybut not for night rounds. He admitted that, generally, after 10:00 p.m., there was less movement of vehicles in Nuzvid town. He admitted that the alleged place of incident is nto a traffic point allotted to him. He stated that
P.W.2 is allotted to Chinna Gandhi Bomma Traffic point. He admitted that if a traffic jam to Ravi Chettu Center, it is visible to Peda Gandhi Bomma center. He stated that there is two furlongs distance between Chinna Gandhi Bomma center and the alleged place of incident. He admitted that there is no galata taken place between owner of car and driver of bus in his presence and that they did not make any report in his presence. He stated that he took 20 minutes time to clear the traffic for them. He stated that P.W.2 reached the place of offence ten minutes after his arrival. He stated that no one obstructed their duty while clearing the traffic. He stated that after 20 minutes of his arrival none were stayed at the place of incident and the vehicles were freely moved. He stated that on the same day he was examined by police. He admitted that he did not state before police that P.W.1 taken photographs and admonished owner of the car and driver of the bus and there was an altercation took place. He stated that he know A-1 and A-2 as
Councilor and State leader of YSR Congres party respectively. He denied the suggestion that as he know A-1 and A-2 very well prior to the incident as they are political people as such he identified them today. He denied the suggestion that A-1 and A-2 is no way connected to this case and that he did not go to the place of incident from his duty place and that he was deposing false only to support the case of P.W.1 as he is their department person. He denied the suggestion that on the date of alleged incident, accused were in opposition party as such P.W.1 filed this false case at the polticial instigation.
19. P.W.5-Shaik Ismail workig as Bus driver deposed that he knows L.W.7-Shaik
Hussain who is his co-driver and he used to drive Meghana Bus routing
CC.No.651/2017Page 10 of 17I A.C.J (JD)-Cum-
Dt. 04.05.2026IAJFCM, Nuzvid.
Amalapuram – Hyderabad along with L.W7 and that in the month of September 2017 while he along with L.W.7 drove the bus bearing No.AP-29-TD-5274 started from Amalapuram to Hyderabad while the bus reached to Nuzvid at about 11.30 p.m near Mutyalamma Temple they found a car parked infront of Mutyalamma
Temple in a wrong route and while they are going in the said road their bus hit the stationed car and due to which the imates about 3 to 4 persons in the car make quarrel with them and they demanded Rs.18,000/- for the damage of the car and then they got settled and gave Rs.10,000/- to them and at that time as there is a
Traffic jam, two constables came there and questioned him as to what happened and also stated that as the damage is very small, why he gave Rs.10,000/- then he informed as the matter was settled and he gave the said amount and that the said constables noted his name and L.W.7 and asked them to go from that place and again after 30 minutes the said constables called him over phone and asked him whether the said persons has cause any incovenience to them and also informed him that the said persons also made quarrel with the said constables and later he came to know that they filed a report against the said persons. Later P.W.5 turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution.
20.P.W.6-D.Venkat Kumar the then S.I of police at relevant point of time deposed that on 25.09.2017 while he was present at police station P.W.1 came to station and presented a report and based on report he registered a case in
Cr.No.183/2017 u/s.353 IPC under Ex.P5 and he took up investigation and examined and recorded the statement of P.W.1 to 4 and from there he visited the scene of offence situated near Ganganamma Temple, main road, Nuzvid and he observed the scene and prepared rough sketch of the scene under Ex.P6 and he also examined and recorded the statement of L.W.5/J.Ganapathi and that on 26.09.2017 he arrested you A2 at his house and sent him to judicial remand and that on 09.10.2017 L.W.8/S.I of police arrested you A1 and produced him before this court for judicial remand on his leave and that on 10.10.2017 he examined and
CC.No.651/2017Page 11 of 17I A.C.J (JD)-Cum-
Dt. 04.05.2026IAJFCM, Nuzvid.
recorded the statements and later he handed over the investigation to L.W.10 and filed charge sheet.
21.During the cross-examination P.W.6 stated that he has not received any report immediately after the alleged incident. He stated that whenever any offences relating to section 353 of IPC and other offences relating to obstruction of duty is reported the same shall be informed to their superior officer. He denied the suggestion that as per Ex.P1 the alleged incident do not disclose obstruction of duty. He stated that four police constables and one ASI gethered at the scene. He admitted that ASI did not lodge any report and that the duty area of P.W.1 is not stated in charge sheet or in Ex.P1 and the same is not reflected in General Diary.
He staed that he has not filed copy of GD before this court. He admitted that the registration of bus and the detials of driver is not stated in Ex.P1. He stated that he has not examined any passenger in the bus. He admitted that the hand writing in
Ex.P1 not belongs to any police constable. He denied the suggestion that Ex.P1 was not given volunatrily by P.W.1 and same was given at his instance. He denied the suggestion that no alleged incident took place as stated in Ex.P-1. He admitted that there is a delay in lodging Ex.P-1.
22.On appreciation of evidence of prosecution witness during cross- examination, P.W.1 admitted that a duty register is maintained in the police station, but he is unaware whether the roster register copy was filed along with the charge sheet. He further admitted that he did not mention in Ex.P1 the reason for the alleged traffic jam at Ganganamma Temple. He stated that he had no prior acquaintance with the accused, though he volunteered that A-1 used to visit the police station in connection with prior galata incidents. He admitted that he did not mention in his report that there are residential houses and shops near the scene of offence, nor did he mention the names of any persons present at the time of the alleged incident, despite admitting that generally many people gather during such
CC.No.651/2017Page 12 of 17I A.C.J (JD)-Cum-
Dt. 04.05.2026IAJFCM, Nuzvid.
galatas. P.W.1 further admitted that he does not know the names of the persons who brought A-1 to the scene. He did not mention the names of passengers in the bus or car, nor the vehicle numbers, in Ex.P1. No passenger or vehicle owner lodged any complaint regarding the incident. He did not state the manner in which the accused allegedly obstructed his official duties. He gave Ex.P1 only on the next day morning, though the police station is at a distance of less than 10 minutes. He is unaware whether any General Diary entry was made regarding the incident. He also admitted that all nearby residents came out and witnessed the alleged galata, but none were cited as witnesses. There are no allegations of extortion in Ex.P1.
No galata took place at Peda Gandhi Bomma Centre. He has no knowledge of any
Ganganamma Jatara on that day. Though several police officials including an ASI were present, none of them lodged any report.
23.P.Ws.2 and 3, cited as eye-witnesses, did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile. Their cross-examination by the learned APP did not elicit any material supporting the prosecution, except marking of their prior statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as Exs.P2 and P3. P.W.4 admitted that duties are assigned through daily roll call. At the time of the incident, he was working in Nuzvid Rural Police Station and was assigned traffic duty, not night rounds. The alleged place of incident was not his allotted traffic point. Generally, there is very little vehicular movement in Nuzvid after 10:00 p.m. He further admitted that no quarrel took place between the bus driver and car owner in his presence. No one obstructed police while they were clearing traffic. Traffic was cleared within 20 minutes and thereafter vehicles moved freely. He did not state
before police about any altercation or photography by P.W.1. He also admitted
acquaintance with A-1 and A-2 as local political persons.
24.P.W.5 (Bus Driver) though P.W.5 initially spoke about a dispute between bus and car occupants and payment of Rs.10,000/- towards settlement, he did not
CC.No.651/2017Page 13 of 17I A.C.J (JD)-Cum-
Dt. 04.05.2026IAJFCM, Nuzvid.
support the prosecution case regarding the role of the accused and was declared hostile.
25.Now coming to the evidence of investigating officer/P.W.6, he admitted that no report was received immediately after the incident. In cases involving obstruction of duty, the matter is usually reported to superior officers. There is delay in lodging Ex.P1. The duty details of P.W.1 are not mentioned in the charge sheet or General Diary. Copy of the General Diary was not filed before the Court.
No passengers or independent witnesses were examined. Vehicle details and driver particulars are not mentioned in Ex.P1.
26.On careful consideration of the entire evidence on record, this Court finds that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The essential ingredients of Section 353 IPC, namely assault or use of criminal force to deter a public servant from discharge of his duty, are not made out in the present case. P.W.1, who is the de-facto complainant, admitted in his cross-examination that he did not state in Ex.P1 about the manner in which the accused obstructed his duties. Further, P.W.4, another police official present at the scene, categorically stated that no one obstructed the police while clearing the traffic and that the traffic was cleared smoothly, which goes to the root of the prosecution case.
27.It is also significant to note that though the alleged incident occurred in a public place surrounded by residential houses and shops, and though several persons gathered at the time of the alleged galata, the prosecution has not examined any independent witness. P.Ws.2 and 3, cited as eye-witnesses, did not support the prosecution and were declared hostile. Likewise, P.W.5, an independent witness, also turned hostile. Thus, there is no reliable ocular evidence to corroborate the version of P.W.1.
CC.No.651/2017Page 14 of 17I A.C.J (JD)-Cum-
Dt. 04.05.2026IAJFCM, Nuzvid.
28.Further, Ex.P1, which forms the basis of the case, suffers from material omissions, as it does not contain particulars regarding the nature of obstruction, names of persons present, vehicle details, or the role of the accused. The evidence of prosecution witnesses is also inconsistent with their statements recorded under
Section 161 Cr.P.C., thereby creating serious doubts about the veracity of the prosecution version. The unexplained delay in lodging Ex.P1, despite the police station being situated at a short distance, further weakens the prosecution case.
Moreover, the prosecution has failed to produce material records such as the
General Diary and duty roster, and even the Investigating Officer admitted that such documents were not filed before the Court. This non-production of best evidence gives rise to an adverse inference against the prosecution.
29.In view of the above infirmities, contradictions, and lack of reliable evidence, this Court holds that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the accused are entitled to the benefit of doubt and are liable to be acquitted.
30.In the result, the Accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 384, 353 r/w 34 IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C for the offences punishable under Sections 384, 353 r/w 34 IPC. The bail bonds of the Accused Nos.1 and 2 shall remain in force for a period of six (6) months as contemplated under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked non-valuables if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-II, corrected and
pronounced by me in open court, this the 4th day of May, 2026.
Sd/-O.Anusha,
I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE( JUNIOR DIVISION)–CUM –
I ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
NUZVID.
CC.No.651/2017Page 15 of 17I A.C.J (JD)-Cum-
Dt. 04.05.2026IAJFCM, Nuzvid.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION
P.W.1K.V.S.S.Narayana.Complainant to speak about report and contents of FIR.
P.W.2K.V.D.V.Prasad.Eye witness to speak about the offence.
P.W.3Shaik Lal Ahmed.Eye witness to speak about the offence.
P.W.4E.Srinivasa Rao.Eye witness to speak about the offence.
P.W.5Shaik Ismaial.To speak about offence of accused.
P.W.6D.Venkat Kumar.Investigating Officer who regsitered the FIR and filed charge sheet.
::WITNESS EXAMINED FOR DEFENCE::
-Nil-
::EXHIBIT MARKED FOR PROSECUTION::
Ex.P1Report of P.W.1.P.W.1
Ex.P2161 Cr.P.C statement.P.W.2
Ex.P3161 Cr.P.C statement.P.W.3
Ex.P4161 Cr.P.C statement.P.W.5
Ex.P5First Information Report.P.W.6
Ex.P6Rough sketch.P.W.7
:: DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENCE::
-Nil-
::MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED::
-Nil-
Sd/-O.Anusha,
I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE( JUNIOR DIVISION)–CUM –
I ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
NUZVID.
CC.No.651/2017Page 16 of 17I A.C.J (JD)-Cum-
Dt. 04.05.2026IAJFCM, Nuzvid.
CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT
IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION)-CUM-
I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, NUZVID.
CALENDAR CASE No.651/2017
1Date of Offence24.09.2017 2Date of Complaint25.09.2017 3Date of Apprehension of Judicial remand. Accused 4Date of Commencement of 30.01.2020 Trial 5Date of Closure of Trial02.04.2026 6Date of Judgment04.05.2026 7ComplainantSub-Inspector of Police, Nuzvid Town P.S.
8Name of the Accused1) Nadakuduru Girish Kumar, S/o.Prasad, 27 Years, Viswa Brahmin, 9-169, Gandhi Nagar, Nuzvid.
2) Kotagiri Gopal, S/o.Achuta Rao, Aged: 42 Years, Velama, Gandhinagar, Nuzvid. 9OffenceUnder Sections 353 and 384 r/w 34 IPC. 10Plea of AccusedPleaded Not guilty.
11FindingAccused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 353 & 384 r/w 34 of IPC. 12Result In the result, the Accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 384, 353 r/w 34 IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C for the offences punishable under Sections 384, 353 r/w 34 IPC. The bail bonds of the Accused Nos.1 and 2 shall remain in force for a period of six (6) months as contemplated under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked non-valuables if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.
13Explanation for delayOn 13.11.2017 cognizance taken against the accused for the offence under Sections 353 and 384 r/w 34 of IPC and numbered as
CC.No.651/2017Page 17 of 17I A.C.J (JD)-Cum-
Dt. 04.05.2026IAJFCM, Nuzvid.
C.C.No.651/2017. On 28.03.2018 copies of documents are furnished to accused as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C and examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C., for the offence under Sections 353 and 384 r/w 34 of IPC. The trial commenced on 30.01.2020 and closure of trial is on 02.04.2026. On 20.04.2026 The Accused Nos.1 and 2 are examined U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. On 30.04.2026 Heard arguments of both sides. On 04.05.2026 Judgment is
pronounced. Hence, the delay.
Sd/-O.Anusha,
I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION)-CUM-
I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
NUZVID.
Copy submitted to :
The Hon’ble I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam