Smt P.devi Manasa

1 of 14 CC No.91 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF I-ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS, WARANGAL.

Dated, this the 13 th day of April, 2022.

PRESENT: Smt. P. Devi Manasa, I-Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal.

CALENDER CASE No.91 of 2017

BETWEEN:

The State of Telangana through Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Inthezargunj … Complainant

AND

Bairi Suresh S/o. Rajamogili, Age: 48 years, Caste: Gouda, Occ: Cotton Seeds Broker, R/o. H.no.10-8-145/B, Girmajipet, Warangal.

… Accused

This case is coming up for hearing on this day before me in the presence of Smt B. Vanaja, Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri N.Kamalakar, Advocate for the accused,and upon perusing the material papers available on record and upon hearing the Counsel on both sides, and the matter having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-

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

1. The accused is indicted for the offences U/Sec. 452, 354, 354-B, 354-D, 323 of IPC in Crime No.351/2016 of P.S. Inthezargunj. The case of the prosecutino in nutshell:

On 17.12.2016 at 1030 hours the defactocomplainant/victim came to Police Station Inthezargunj and lodged a report stating that accused who is friend of her husband/Lw2, tresspassed into her house, outraged her modesty and beat them. On 08.12.2016 at about 9.30 hours while

Lw1/victim was alone in her house, the accsued came, caught hold her hands with criminal force asking to fulfil his sexual desire. The

Lw1/victim admonished him and accused fled away from the place.

Again on 16.12.2016 at about 21.00 hours, accsued visited her house , 2 of 14 CC No.91 of 2017 used criminal force with an intent to outrage of her modesty and beat her children who interfered during the incident. On hearing hues and cries LW5/Chitikesh Sathish and LW6/Bajjuri Ranganath came to incident place and on seeing them accused fled away. Based on the report,

LW12/Police official registered a case in Cr.No. 351/2016 for the offences U/Sec.452, 354, 354-B, 354-D, 323 of IPC and took up investigation. After completion of investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed by the police.

2. This court took cognizance for offences punishable

U/Sec.452, 354, 354-B, 354-D, 323 IPC and issued summons to the accused. On appearance of accused, copies was furnished to him

U/Sec.207Cr.P.C. He was examined U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C. charges for the offence U/Sec.452, 354, 354-B, 354-D, 323 IPC were framed and read over and explained to the accused. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3. To prove its case, prosecution examined Pws1 to Pw7 and got marked Exs.P1 to Ex.P4. The Pw1 is the victim/defacto complainant. PW2 is husband of PW1. PW3 is elder son of PW1. PW4 is the eye witness. PW5 is the W.ASI who recorded the statement of Lw1.

PW6 is the panch for CDF. PW7 is the investigating officer. The learned

APPO has given up the evidence of Lws.4 and LW10.

4.After prosecution reported its evidence as closed, the accused was examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C in respect of incriminating material and he reported no defence evidence.

5. Heard the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for accused.

6. Now point for determiantion is “ Whether the Prosecution is able

to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences U/Sec.452,

354, 354-B, 354-D, 323 of IPC on the standard of “beyond

reasonable doubt” principle ?” 3 of 14 CC No.91 of 2017

POINT:

7. unfolding evidence of prosecution victim cited as Lw1 is examined as Pw1. She deposed that LW2/Samala Shashider is her husband and accused is friend of her husband. She testified that on 8.12.2016 in the morning hours accused came to her house, at that time no one was present, accused caught hold her hand and demanded to fulfill his sexual desire. She raised hues as such the accused fled away from the place. Further, she deposed that after one week on December 16th accused again came to her house at 10.00 pm wherein LW3/Samala Sharwan and LW4/Samala Shivan are present in the house, again the accused caught hold her hand and demanded to fulfill the sexual desire, when her children interfered in the issue the accused beat her and her children, for which she made hues and cries.

LW5 and LW6 came to her house and the accused fled away from the house on seeing them. She deposed that she informed the incident to her husband, on the next day morning she lodged a report with the police. The prosecution got marked Ex.P1 which is the report.

8.In the cross examination she stated that she got acquaintance with accused since her husband and accused used to perform poojas for about 5 to 6 years. She stated that at the instance of her husband the accused used to wear Ayyappa mala. The distance between her house and the accused is of 10 houses and there are no money transactions between her husband and accused. She stated that her husband is working as accountant and he is running his office from the house. She admitted that on 8.12.2016 she did not go to police station. She did not inform about the incident that occurred on 8.12.2016 to her husband. She denied the suggestion that LW2, LW3 and LW4 are present at home on 08.12.2016. She stated that her husband was not present at home on 16.12.2016 in the night hours.

4 of 14 CC No.91 of 2017

She further stated that generally no one will watch the people coming into houses. She stated that on 17.12.2016 she along with her husband went to police station to lodge Ex.P1. She denied the suggestions that

Lw2 remains in the house all the time. She denied suggestion that due to previous grudges she filed a false complaint against the accused since there are disputes between her husband and accused. She further denied the suggestion that due to money transactions they filed a false case.

9.The husband of PW1 is examined as PW2. He deposed in the similar lines of PW1 in his chief examination. In the cross examination he stated that he and accused are friends and on 8.12.2016 PW1 did not inform him about the incident. He deposed that on 16.12.2016 ,PW1 told him that she has raised hues and cries, due to which LW5 and LW6 came to house. He deposed that generally he does his job from home.

He denied the suggestion that he was present on 16.12.2016. He states that he went out of house at 10.00 pm. He denied the suggestion that there are lakhs of rupees transactions between him and accused. He denied the suggestion that accused gave amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to him. He denied the suggestion that he was present at the time of alleged incident. He further denied the suggestion that due to previous grudges they filed a false complaint. He further denied all the formal suggestion put to him by the learned defence counsel.

10.The son of PW1 is examined as PW3. He deposed in the similar lines of PW1 and PW2. In the cross examination he admitted that he was not present on 08.12.2016 and that he did not know about the incident that occurred on 08.12.2016. He admitted that PW1 informed about incident to PW2. He admitted that accused came to his home and he was present and accused beat him. He admitted that Pw1 5 of 14 CC No.91 of 2017 raised hues and cries, due to which LW5 and LW6 came to his house and immediately the accused fled away from the place.

11.The statement of circumstantial witness cited Lw7 is recorded in which he stated that on 16.12.2016 after finishing his work he went to house of PW2 to meet him. He further deposed that since

PW2 is not present at his house and there was a crowd, he enquired with the crowd and he came to know that accused tried to outrage the modesty of PW1.

In the cross examination, he stated that he had gold work shop at

Vishwakarmaveedhi and he closed his shop at 10.00 pm. PW1 told him about the incident that accused outraged her modesty and he came to know that accused and PW2 had acquaintance for about 4 to 5 years.

He denied the suggestion that there is no crowd, at the scene of offence. He is not an eye witness to the incident. He admitted that by the time he reached place, the incident completed. He stated that he reached the place between 10.30 and 11.00 pm. He denied the suggestion that there are no persons present at the scene of offence and he do not know about the incident and denied all the formal suggestions put to him by the learned defence counsel.

12.The eye witness is examined as PW4. He testified that he know Pw1 and PW2 as they are neighbours and he knew accused. That on 16.12.2016 since there was a galata going on he came out side and witnessed the accused coming out from the house of PW1 between 10.00 and 10.30 pm. He further deposed that PW1 raised hues and cries and later Pw1 informed him about the sexual harassment made by the accused. He further deposed that PW1 informed him that her sons interfered in the issue wherein the accused beat them.

In the cross examination he stated that on 16.12.2016 he was present at his house a 10.00 pm. Pw1 informed him about the galata 6 of 14 CC No.91 of 2017 but he did not witness the galata took place in the house of PW1 and he came to know about the galata through PW1. He denied the suggestion that accused was not present at the scene of offence. He further stated that he had witnessed the accused leaving the house of PW1. He stated that he had acquaintance with accused and Pw1 informed him about the galata and he did not witness the galata that took place between accused and Pw1. He admitted that he enquired PW1 for which she stated about the galata and he do not know about prior galats between accused and PW1. He stated that he know Pw2 and accused are having acquaintance with each other for about 10 years and there are some transactions between PW2 and accused. He admitted that due to acquaintance the children of PW1 used to call the accused as father. He stated that PW2 and accused used to perform poojas and he used to attend the same. He further stated that accused used to visit PW1 house frequently. He further denied all the formal suggestions put to him by the learned defence counsel.

13.The Women Assistant Sub Inspector of Police who recorded the statement is examined as PW5. She deposed that on 17.12.2016

PW1 came to police station and LW12 directed her to record statement.

As per the directions she recorded the statement of complainant.

In the cross examination she deposed that as per the instructions of the Sub Inspector of police she recorded the statement of Pw1. That on 08.12.2016 no report was lodged in the police station. She further stated that she recorded the incident as told by the Pw1. She admitted that as per the statement of Pw1 on 08.12.2016 in the morning hours at 9.30 am accused came to Pw1’s house and caught hold her hands to fulfill his sexual desire. She further deposed that as per the statement of Pw1, the accused left from the place when the complainant raised 7 of 14 CC No.91 of 2017 hues and cries. She denied the suggestion that accused did not visit the house of complainant on 16.12.2016 as per the statement of Pw1.

14.The panch for Crime details form is examined as PW6. He testified that police called him, told about the incident and conducted scene of offense panchanama in his presence. He along with LW10 attested signatures on the panchanama. Ex.P2 is the crime details form.

In the cross examination, he admitted that while he was proceeding at scene of offence, police called him and condcuted crime details form. He denied the suggestion that he did not know about the case facts and he was not there on the date of incident.

15.The investigating officer is examined as PW7. He testified about the investigation process in his chief examination. In the cross examination he admitted that no report was received on 8.12.2016.

Ex.P1 is lodged on 17.12.2016 by PW1. He denied the suggestion that

PW4 and LW6 did not witness the accused and accused did not visit scene of offence since accused is working as a document writer in

Registrar Office and present till 10.00 pm. He admitted that as per the statement of PW2 he did not disclose that accused is his friend for 10 to 15 years. He did not know whether accused and Pw2 perform poojas together and he did not know the relationship of PW1 and accused and the monetary transactions between PW1 family and accused. He denied the suggestion that false charge sheet is filed against the accused and there are monetary disputes between PW1 and accused as such false report was filed against the accused. He denied all the formal suggestion put to him by the learned defence counsel.

16.With the evidence as referred to above, the primarily fact required to be proved is that accused trespassed into the house of Pw1 with an intention to commit crime. It is the categoric evidence of Pw1 that accused visited her house on 16-12-2016 at about 21.00 hours, 8 of 14 CC No.91 of 2017 caught hold her hands and asked to fulfill his sexual lust. Pw1 resisted accused by raising hue and cry wherein her sons Pw3 and Lw4 present in the house, came and question accused. That accused beat Pw1, Pw3 and Lw4. Later, Pw4 and Lw6 came to the scene of offence hearing the loud noise and on seeing Pw4 and Lw6, accused fled away from the scene. The evidence of Pw1 is in conformity with her report under

Ex.P1 and her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. There appears no material contradiction or omission in the evidence of Pw1 in so far as testifying the details of the incident and accused committing the crime.

17.The testimony of Pw1 is materially corroborated with the evidence of Pw3. The evidence of Pw4 establish the presence of accused at the scene of offence at the time of incident. There is cohesion among these witnesses in so far as deposing the case of prosecution. The circumstantial evidence of Pw2 who is husband of Pw1, support the testimonies of Pw1, Pw3 and Pw4. There appears consistency in the evidence of Pw1 to Pw4.

18.There is no material contradiction among the evidence of

Pw1 to Pw4 in so far as supporting the case of prosecution and deposing about the incident whereunder accused trespassed into the house of Pw1 with an intention to outrage the modesty of Pw1 and commit such act by caught holding the hand of Pw1 asking her to fulfill his sexual lust. The intention of Pw1 in caught holding the hand of Pw1 was to disrobe her and see her naked to fulfill his illegal sexual desire.

Accused stalked Pw1 by urging to fulfill his desire with attempt made earlier on 8-12-2016. When Pw1 and her two sons Pw3 and Lw4 resisted the accused, he beat them. The essential elements of Section 452, 354, 354-B 354-D and 323 IPC are clearly deposed in the evidence of Pw1 and Pw3. The evidence of Pw1 and Pw3 is corroborated with the 9 of 14 CC No.91 of 2017 evidence of Pw4 stated to be eyewitness to the incident, and Pw2 who is husband of Pw1.

19.The accused took the defence of alibi and such defence is seen in the cross examination of investigating officer Pw7. The suggestion that accused being a document writer by profession was at his office till 21.00 hours on the date of incident and as such accused could not be present at the scene of offence, was denied by Pw7. The defence of alibi is projected for the first time to Pw7 and such defence is not suggested to Pw1 to Pw4. There appears no defence evidence to show that accused was present elsewhere but not at scene of offence on the date and time of offence. There is only bald and vague suggestion that stand to the defence of accused to state the plea of alibi. Thus, the defence of ailibi as taken by the accused for the first time in the cross examination of Pw7, does not have any basis much less supported with formidable evidence.

20.The other substantial defence of accused stand on the basis that accused and Pw2 had monetary transactions, as such accused has been falsely implicated in the present case. This defence appear in the form of suggestion to Pw1, Pw2, Pw3 and Pw4 and same is denied by these witnesses. There appears no specific assertion as to the monetary transaction between accused and Pw2, it was suggested that there are monetary transaction and as such accused has been falsely implicated.

The defence is vague in nature for absence of giving details of monetary transactions and Pw2 being in debt of certain specific amount to accused through execution of any monetary instrument. Therefore, the defence of accused that he was falsely implicated for the monetary transaction between accused and Pw2, could not be made out by the accused. Even if it is assumed that there was some monetary transaction between accused and Pw2, it appears not logical or 10 of 14 CC No.91 of 2017 reasonable for Pw1 to have put her respect and dignity at stake by alleging the her modesty was outraged by the accused. Thus, the defence of accused that he was falsely implicated in the present case could not be made out by the accused.

21.Finally, the learned counsel for the accused contended that there is delay of more than 12 hours in lodging the report as in Ex.P1 with the police. He contended that with such delay, there is scope for manipulation of facts and false implication of accused. The argument of accused could have been appreciated had such defence been put to the prosecution witnesses. In such case, there would have been explanation coming from the mouth of Pw1 and Pw7. However, such is not the case.

Even, there appears no delay in lodging the report under Ex.P1 considering the fact that offence relate to respect and dignity of women. It is natural that family members will give thought before approaching police and lodging report. Therefore, it is but natural to occurs certain delay in lodging report in cases relating to sexual offences.

22.With the appreciation of evidence as taken up above, it need to be held that prosecution is able to prove the incidence that occurred on 16-12-2016 at about 21.00 hrs in the house of Pw1. The prosecution is able to prove that accused was present at scene of offence at the time of commission of offence and it was accused who committed such offences.

23.As noted earlier, the essential element of Section 452 IPC is house trespass with preparation to cause hurt or assault to any person.

In present case, accused entered the house of Pw1 with preparation to cause hurt to Pw1 holding guilty intention of outraging her modesty and as per evidence of Pw1 and Pw3 accused beat both of them along with

Lw4 when they resisted the acts of accused.

11 of 14 CC No.91 of 2017

24.The essential element of Section 354 IPC are assault or use of criminal force to any women with an intention to outrage her modesty. In the present case, the evidence of Pw1 in categoric voice assert that accused caught hold her hand and asked to fulfill his sexual lust. This piece of Pw1’s evidence could be not rebutted by the accused in cross examination or bring forth any logical and cogent circumstance to suggest that evidence of Pw1 is false on any probable reason.

25.The essential element of Section 354-B IPC are accused holding intention of disrobing or compelling women to be naked. In present case, the testimony of Pw1 show that accused caught hold her hand and asked to fulfill his sexual desire. The intention of accused in caught holding the hand of Pw1 was only to disrobe her or compel her to be naked to fulfill her sexual desire. Thus, Section 354-B IPC would be attracted to the facts and evidence in the present case.

26.The essential element of Section 354-D IPC are accused following and contacting a women to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such women. In the present case, as per prosecution allegations accused made attempt to outrage modesty of Pw1 on 8-12-2016 and despite disinterest shown by Pw1, accused again followed and contacted Pw1 on 16-12-2016 with an intention to fulfill his sexual desire. The acts of accused on 8-12- 2016 and 16-12-2016 show that accused intended to foster personal interaction with Pw1 repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by Pw1.

27.Finally, the essential element of Section 323 IPC are found in

Section 317 IPC which state that whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt and if such hurt is caused, punishment is prescribed under Section 323 IPC. In the present accused, it is evidence of Pw1 and Pw3 that they were beat by the accused for 12 of 14 CC No.91 of 2017 resisting his acts. This piece of evidence of Pw1 and Pw3 could not be rebutted by the accused by eliciting any circumstance bringing any reasonable doubt to disbelieve their evidence.

28.In sum and substance, it need to be held that prosecution with its oral and documentary evidence is able to establish the guilt of the accused on the standard of “beyond reasonable doubt” principle for the offence under Section 452, 354, 354-B, 354-D and 323IPC.

29.In the result, Accused is found guilty for the offence U/s 452, 354, 354-B, 354-D, 323 of IPC and accordingly he is convicted for the same U/s 248(2) Cr.P.C.

(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me, in the open Court on this the 13th day of April, 2022)

I-ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRSTCLASS,

WARANGAL.

30. Heard the accused on the quantum of sentence to be awarded against the accused. He submitted that he did not commit any offence. Therefore, there are no mitigating circumstances submitted by the accused to take lenient view.

31. The learned counsel for the accused is present and there are no special circumstances made out for invoking PO Act. However, considering the nature of the offence committed against the women, this

Court is not inclined to take moderate view in sentencing the accused.

32.In the result, accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous

Imprisonment(RI) for a period of three (03) years and also directed to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- for the offence under Section 452 IPC, in default of payment of fine amount he shall undergo simple imprisonment for period of thee (03) month.

33.Further accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous

Imprisonment(RI) for a period of three (03) years and also directed to 13 of 14 CC No.91 of 2017 pay a fine of Rs.2000/- for the offence under Section 354 IPC, in default of payment of fine amount he shall undergo simple imprisonment for period of thee (03) month. .

34.Further accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous

Imprisonment(RI) for a period of three (03) years and also directed to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- for the offence under Section 354-B IPC, in default of payment of fine amount he shall undergo simple imprisonment for period of thee (03) month. .

35.Further accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous

Imprisonment(RI) for a period of three (03) years and also directed to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- for the offence under Section 354-D IPC, in default of payment of fine amount he shall undergo simple imprisonment for period of thee (03) month. .

36.Further accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous

Imprisonment(RI) for a period of one (01) years and also directed to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence under Section 323 IPC, in default of payment of fine amount he shall undergo simple imprisonment for period of two (02) month. Total fine amount is Rs.9000/-.

37.Accused is in judicial custody from 21.12.2016 to 23.12.2016 and the said period is given set of under Section 428 Cr.P.C.

38.Accused has been informed about the right of appeal and he submitted that he has got sufficient means to engage counsel to prefer an appeal.

39.The accused is furnished with copy of judgment.

40. All the sentences shall run concurrently.

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

Sd/-(P.Devi Manasa)

I-ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

WARANGAL.

14 of 14 CC No.91 of 2017

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION : FOR DEFENCE: PW1 : Samala Sharvani - NONE – PW2 : Samala Shashider PW3 : Samala Sharwan Statement of Lw7/Ragi Nagaraju recorded U/sec.309(2) CrPC. PW4 : Chitikeshi Sathish PW5 : Ch. Padma PW6 : Mateti Sudharshan PW7 : T.Ramesh Kumar

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1 : is the Report Ex.P2 : is the Crime Details Form(CDF) Ex.P3 : is the First Information Report (FIR) Ex.P4 : is the S.164 Cr.P.C staetment of victim

FOR DEFENCE: NIl

MATERIAL OBJECTS

nil

Sd/-(P.Devi Manasa)

I-ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

WARANGAL.

- 1 -CC.No.591 of 2021

IN THE COURT OF I-ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS, WARANGAL.

Dated, this the 17 th day of August, 2022.

PRESENT: Smt. P. Devi Manasa, I-Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal.

CALENDER CASE No.591 of 2021

BETWEEN:

The State of Telangana through Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Inthezargunj. … Complainant

AND

A2 – Katakam Pranay, s/o.Late Srinu, 22 yrs, caste: Padmashali, occ:Coolie, R/o.H.No.11-16-800/B, near Indira Gandhi statue, Kashibugga, Warangal. … Accused

This case is coming up for hearing on this day before me in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri.Nunavath Ramesh, Legal-aid Advocate for the Accused,and upon perusing the material papers available on record and upon hearing the Counsel on both sides, and the matter having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-

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

1] The accused is indicted for offence under Section 379 of

Indian Penal Code,1860 (for short hereinafter referred as IPC) by Sub

Inspector of Police P.S. Inthejargunj in crime No.14/2021 with the following allegations:

2] On 13.01.2021 at 1300 hours the complainant namely

M.Venkanna lodged report to police stating that on 10.01.2021 he parked his vehicle/Glamour bike bearing No.TS03EE9659 infront of

Laxmi bar & restaurent. Some unknown offenders has committed theft of vehicle/Glamour bike bearing No.TS03EE9659.

3] Basing on the said report, LW.9/Sri R.Swamy , Sub Inspector of police, P.S. Inthejargunj registered a case in Cr.No.14/2021, Under

Section 379 of IPC. The police examined the complainant and visited - 2 -CC.No.591 of 2021 scene of offence and prepared CDF panchanama. During the course of investigation on 24.02.2021, the Sub Inspector of police, Hanumakonda apprehended the accused in Crime No.07/2021 and upon interrogation accused conducted in the presence of two mediators LW.6 and LW.7.

The accused confessed about commission of several offences in the limits of various police stations as well as the present offence in the limits of P.S.Inthejargunj The Police P. S. Hanumakonda recorded the confession statements of accused and recovered stolen properties from his possession in the presence of above mediators and recorded confession-cum-seizure panchanama. On the intimation from Police

Hanumkonda the police Inthejargunj obtained the Prisoner Transfer warrant from this court and produced the accused before this court.

Later the police brought case property from Hanumakonda and deposited case property and filed charge sheet on completion of investigation.

4] Based on the report of the police, this Court took cognizance of the offence under Section 379 IPC and issued summons to the accused. On accused being produced from District Jail Khammam, copies furnished to him as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C and since accused reported no means to defend his case, a legal aid counsel was appointed to defend on his behalf. Later accused was examined under

Section 239 Cr.P.C by explaining the charges levelled against him and upon hearing on both sides, charges were framed under section 379 IPC which was read over and explained to the accused for which accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

5]In order to prove the prosecution allegations, prosecution examined PWs.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.4 - 3 -CC.No.591 of 2021 6]After prosecution reported its evidence as closed, accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating circumstances that appeared against him in the prosecution evidence.

The accused denied prosecution evidence as being false and reported no defence evidence.

7]Heard the learned Sr. A.P.P and the Learned counsel for accused. Perused the record.

8] Now, the points that arises for determination are:-

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 379 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

9]Point : To make out its case for the offence under Section 379 IPC prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.4. PW.1 is the complainant.

PW.2 is mediator for confession-cum-seizure panchanama in

Cr.No.7/2021 of P.S.Hanumakonda. PW.3 and 4 are the Investigating officers.

10] PW.1 stated that he parked his vehicle/Glamour bike bearing No.TS03EE9659, infront of Laxmi bar & restaurent. Some unknown offenders has committed theft of vehicle/Glamour bike bearing

No.TS03EE9659. Through this witness the prosecution got marked

Ex.P.1 and recovered property was given to interim custody to PW.1 vide Crl.MP.No.72/2021, dt:11.2.2021.

11]PW.2 is the mediator for recording the confession-cum- seizure panchanama by police Hanumakonda. He stated that on about year back he along with LW.7 were asked by police to enquire the said person as to the commission of offence. On enquiry the said person revealed his name as accused and confessed that he committed theft of case property and also committed theft of case properties in various limits. Further the accused confessed to have committed the offences - 4 -CC.No.591 of 2021 in other police jurisdictions also. He stated that the case property pertaining to other crime was recovered from the possession of the accused at the spot. Further accused also stated that he has hidden the case property at Padmakshamma temple as such he along with LW.7 accompanied the police to the padmakshamma temple. The police seized case properties from the possesion accused under the cover of panchanama i.e., Ex.P.2 is the seizure panchanama. The cross examination of Pw2 is treated as NIL.

13] PW.4 is the Investigating officer. He stated that on 13.01.2021 on receipt of report from PW.1, he has registered a case in

Cr.No.14/2021 under Section 379 IPC and issued FIR. He testified about conducting of scene of offence panchanama in the presence of mediators i.e., LW.4 and LW.5. He further deposed that he received intimation from LW.8, who arrested accused in Cr.No.7/2021 of P.S.

hanmakonda and further deposed about recovery of stolen property pertaining to this crime which was given for interim custody to PW.1. He testified that he had obtained PT warrant from the court and produced the accused before the court and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet. In the cross examination, he denied the all formal suggestions that accused was falsely implicated in the present case and the investigation is conducted at the police station.

14]PW.3 is the investigating officer who arrested the accused in

Cr.No.7/2021 and accused confessed the commission of offence along with other offences and recovered the case property pertaining to this case and other cases under the cover of panchanama in the presence of mediators. In the cross examination, all the formal suggestions that accused was falsely implicated in the present case and the investigation is conducted at the police station.

- 5 -CC.No.591 of 2021 15]On perusal of the above evidence, it is clear that PW.1 stated about theft of vehicle/Glamour bike bearing No.TS03EE9659 by some unknown persons from his house and he did not identify the accused as the culprit. He is not direct or eye witness to the incident.

There is no material in his evidence against the accused connecting him with the theft of stolen property.

16]The evidence of PW.3 who are the panch for confession-cum- seizure panchanama clearly establishes the case of prosecution. Though

PW.1 to PW.4 are cross examined by the defence counsel, there is no material to discredit their version. However it is clear from the evidence of PW.1 that he is not the direct or eye witness to the theft 17]To prove the charge under 379 IPC, here it is case of prosecution that accused was apprehended by Pw3 while he was in possession of stolen property. PW.2, mediator clearly stated about the recovery of stolen property from the possession of the accused. PW2 clearly stated that police arrested the accused and recorded his confession and seized the stolen property from him under panchanama.

The evidence of PW.2 corroborate the evidence of PW3 i.e., investigating officer who stated he arrested the accused and seized the stolen property from his possession. The evidence of PW.2 and seizure part of panchanama fully supports the version of PW.3 and though the PW.3 is cross examined no material could be elicited to discredit their version.

Thus, the evidence of PW.2 and PW.3 inspires confidence in prosecution case as to the seizure of stolen property from the possession of the accused and moreover PW.2 to PW.4 has supported the case of prosecution.

- 6 -CC.No.591 of 2021 19]As the PW.2, PW.3 clearly stated about the recovery of stolen property from the possession of the accused, this court holds prosecution could establish the seizure of stolen property from the possession of accused. The evidence of PW.2, PW.3 and PW.4 and also contents of seizure part of panchanama under Ex.P2 is clearly proving that police arrested the accused while in possession of the stolen property. The property from whom the possession of accused were recovered, failed to furnish the account for having possession of the same as the accused could not furnish the account for the property found in his possession, this court holds that presumption is to be drawn under Section 114(a) of Indian Evidence Act that the property recovered from the accused is the stolen property. Therefore, this court found that there is cogent evidence on record to prove that the stolen property was seized by the police from the possession of the accused for which he could not furnish the account. Thus, the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 379 IPC. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances and considering the evidence of PW.1 to

PW.4 and the content of Ex.P2, this court holds that prosecution successfully established the guilt of the accused for the offence under

Section 379 IPC and he is liable to be convicted accordingly.

20] In the result, accused is found guilty for the offence under

Section 379 IPC and accordingly he is convicted under Section 248(2) of

Cr.P.C.

Typed by me, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 17th day of August, 2022.

I-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I class, Warangal.

- 7 -CC.No.591 of 2021

Plea of accused on quantum of sentence:

21]Accused is questioned as to the quantum of sentence being imposed on him and pleaded that he is coolie and having burden to maintain his family. He submitted that he is languished in jail for more than eights months and thus sought to take lenient view in imposing sentence upon him.

22] Heard the Legal-aid-counsel for accused and learned Senior

Assistant Public prosecutor. In support of quantum of sentence to be imposed on the accused in the above discussion it is found that accused was found in possession of stolen property. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances and gravity of offence, this court is not inclined to extend the benefit under section 3 and 4 of Probation of Offenders Act to the accused. Further considering the worth of property involved and age of the accused and his plea as to the family background, this court holds that accused is liable to be punished which shall equate and commensurate with the gravity of the offence.

23] In the result, accused is found guilty for the offence under

Section 411 IPC and he is convicted under Section 248(2) Cr.P.C. and sentencing him to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of ____________ Since the accused already in jail from the date of remand i.e.,____________, therefore the remand period shall be set off for offence under Section 428 Cr.P.C. The case property ______________ already given to owner vide Crl.MP. No.72/2021, dt:11.2.2021 and the same shall made absolute after expiry of appeal time. The accused is appraised of his right to prefer appeal against the judgment and sentence passed by this court. Office is directed to provide free copy of judgment to the accused forthwith.

- 8 -CC.No.591 of 2021

As Accused is in judicial custody, jail authorities are hereby directed to release the accused forthwith if his presence is not required in any other case or crime.

(Typed by me, corrected and pronounced by me, in the open Court on this the 17th day of August, 2022) -sd/-

I-ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

WARANGAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION : FOR DEFENCE: PW1 : M. Venkanna, - NONE – PW2 : B. Satish Reddy, PW3 : V. Naveen, PW4 : R. Swamy.

Exhibits marked FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE: Ex.P1 : Police report by PW1.- Nil - Ex.P2 : Admissible portion of CC of seizure panchanama. Ex.P3 : First Information report. Ex.P4 : Crime Details Form.

Mos. Marked: - Nil- -sd/-

I-ADD. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

WARANGAL.

- 1 - O.S.No.884 of 2013

IN THE COURT OF THE I-ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, WARANGAL.

Dated, this the 10 th day of August, 2022.

Present: Smt.P. Devi Manasa, I-Addl.Junior civil Judge, Warangal.

O.S. No.884/2013

Between:

1. K. Sadanandam, S/o.Kanakaiah, age:55 ys, Occ:Business, r/o.H.No.1-8-92, Balasamudram, Hanamkonda, Warangal city,

2. Janga Mahesh, S/o.Iylaiah, age:41 yrs, Occ:Business, R/o.H.No.3- 9-26/1, Kumarpally, Hanamkonda, Warangal city.

3. Eada Devender, s/o.Saraiah, age: about 47 yrs, Occ:Business, R/o.H.No.3-9-45, Reddy colony, Hanamkonda, Warangal city.

……..Plaintiffs.

AND

Godisala Satyanarayana @ Sathi Babu, S/o.Komuraiah, age:41 yrs, Occ:Real Estate Business, R/o.H.No.1-1-294, near Subash Chandra statute, Kareemabad, Warangal city.

……...Defendant.

This Suit is coming up before me for final hearing, in the presence of Sri.K. Krishna Prasad, Learned counsel for Plaintiffs and of Sri.R. Ram Mohan Rao, Learned counsel for Defendant, upon perusing the material papers available on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following−

: J U D G M E N T :

1.The present suit is instituted by the plaintiffs no.1 to 3 seeking the relief of restraining the defendant, their agents, workmen and persons acting on their behalf from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs no.1 to 3 over - 2 - O.S.No.884 of 2013 the suit schedule properties.

2.It is submitted that the plaintiff no.1 purchased the plot no.144 forming the part of sy.no.248/A of Ursu village, Warangal district admeasuring 231 sq.yards under registered sale deed from its erstwhile owner Sri.Shivasai Real estates 30.4.2005. It is further submitted that plaintiff no.2 purchased adjacent plot no. 143 forming the part of sy.no.248/A of Ursu village, Warangal district admeasuring 252 sq.yards under registered sale deed from its erstwhile owner Sri.Shivasai Real estates 30.4.2005. it is further submitted that plaintiff no.3 purchased the plot no.142 forming the part of sy.no.248/A of Ursu village, Warangal district admeasuring 240 sq.yards under registered sale deed from its erstwhile owner

Sri.Shivasai Real estates 30.4.2005. Hence, plaintiff nos.1 to 3 purchased the respective plots from the common vendor for sale considerations since the date of purchase they are in peaceful and uninterrupted possession from 30.4.2005. It is further submitted that the plaintiffs enquired with the KUDA authorities and MRO,

Warangal with regard to the title of their vendor, layout of the plots, ownership and after the enquiry they have purchased the respective plots with an intention to construct houses. It is further submitted that defendant being stranger of the suit using muscle power interfered in plaintiffs suit schedule properties. In this regard the - 3 - O.S.No.884 of 2013 plaintiffs have got issued a paper notification on 23.6.2012 and also lodged a complaint with the police. It is submitted that the defendant do not have title or rights over the suit schedule properties belonging to the plaintiff. It is submitted that on 18.8.2013 the defendant disturbed the possession of plaintiffs suit schedule property and made an attempt to level the land. It is further submitted that since the date of purchase the plaintiffs no.1 to 3 are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Hence, the present suit is filed.

3.In the written statement the defendant denied the plaint averments and submitted that the alleged plots no.142, 143, 144 forming part of 248/A of Ursu village, Warangal admeasuring 240, 252, 231 sq.yards are not available and the boundaries shown for the said plots are false. It is further submitted that the vendor of the plaintiffs do not have any land in sy.no.248/A and therefore he cannot register any document in favour of the plaintiffs as a consequence the plaintiffs cannot claim any rights in the suit schedule properties. It is submitted that originally the mother of the defendant was the owner and possessor of Ac.0.27 guntas of agriculture land in sy.no.248/A of Ursu village, Warangal district.

Subsequently the mother of the defendant and her two brothers jointly executed a gift settlement deed in favour of defendant vide - 4 - O.S.No.884 of 2013 registered Doc.no.5898/2008, dt:5.12.2008 and since then the defendant is enjoying the gift settlement property of Ac.0.27 gts. It is further submitted that to the mother of the defendant pattedar and title pass books were issued by revenue department and the name of the mother has been reflected in the revenue records in pattedar column in the year 2009 and 2010. subsequently, the defendant name is reflected in the revenue records as pattedar from the year 2011, 2012 onwards. It is further submitted that the defendant applied to the revenue department for the mutation of his name and accordingly the proceeding vide Dis.No.B/1318/2009,

dt:2.9.2009, is issued. It is further submitted that the KUDA

authority never sanctioned any layout permission for the land in sy.no.248/A. It is further submitted that the vendors of the plaintiffs are having no lands in sy.no.248/B and they do not possess any piece of land in sy.no.248/A. It is further submitted that the plaintiffs invented and created a story with the help of false documents and approached the Court with unclean hands.

Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the suit.

4.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues were settled for trial on 9.4.2014:

i)Whether, the plaintiffs are in lawful possession of the suit schedule property as on date of filing suit?

- 5 - O.S.No.884 of 2013 ii) Whether, the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction against defendant from interfering with the suit schedule properties?

iii) To what relief?

5.At trial on behalf of the plaintiffs PW1 to PW3 are examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A14 are marked. After giving amply opportunities to the defendant, the cross examination of PW1 to

PW3 are treated as nil.

6.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiffs no.1 to 3 and treated as heard on behalf of the defendant.

ISSUE NOs.1 & 2:

7.In order to substantiate their pleadings the plaintiff no.3 is examined himself as PW1 and got markedExs.A1 to A6, Plaintiff no.1 is examined as PW2 and through this witness Exs.A7 to A14 are marked. Plaintiff no.2 is examined PW3. The defendant failed to cross-examine the witnesses despite providing ample opportunity.

Now the issues are answered as under:

8.It is the contention and claim of the plaintiffs no.1 to 3 that they have purchased suit schedule properties to the total extent of 231, 252, 240 sq.yards from common vendor, under registered sale - 6 - O.S.No.884 of 2013 deeds bearing Nos.5911/2005, 5910/2005, 5902/2005. Therefore, the plaintiffs have acquired the right and title over the respective plots. In order to prove the same PW1 got marked - Ex.A1 is CC of sale deed, doc.no.5911/2005, dt:30.4.2005, Ex.A2 is CC of sale deed, doc.no.5910/2005, dt:30.4.2005, Ex.A3 is CC of sale deed, doc.no.5902/2005, dt:30.4.2005. It is further submitted that the photographs of the plots marked as Ex.A4. It is further submitted that KUDA, Warangal has sanctioned layout in Sy.no.248/A and same was marked under Ex.A7. Hence the plaintiffs no.1 to 3 with the documentary evidence as in Exs.A1 to A14 show the title and possession of the plaintiffs no.1 to 3 over the suit schedule property.

The documentary evidence is corroborated with oral testimony of plaintiff No.1 to 3 as PW1 to PW3 asserting the ownership and possession of plaintiffs over the suit properties.

9.As per the oral evidence of Pws.1 to 3 defendant without any manner of right were trying to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property and such piece of evidence remained un-rebutted remained unchallenged. Therefore, the evidence of

Pws1 to 3 coupled with Exs.A1 to A14 amply prove the ownership and possession of the plaintiff over the suit properties and illegal interference of defendant over suit property.

- 7 - O.S.No.884 of 2013

10.It is observed here that the title of the plaintiffs over the suit properties acquired is vide Ex.A1 to A3 T0herefore, plaintiffs proved that entire extent of suit schedule property is in their possession for the documents that are produced by them. Adding to it, the other documents Ex.A4, A7, A11 to A13 amply prove the claim of the plaintiffs that they are in possession of the suit properties.

11.In the present case the defendant failed to cross examine witnesses despite ample opportunity is being provided to him, as reflected in the Court record. The defendant failed to cross examine and disprove the claim of the plaintiffs no.1 to 3, as such the pleadings that appear in the written statement are not substantiated with any evidence coming-forth for the defendant. As noted earlier, the plaintiffs no.1 to 3 with their evidence amply prove their case of ownership and possession over the suit schedule properties and its illegal interference by the defendant, whereas the defendant failed to prove that he is in possession of any part of suit properties as claimed by him with any evidence as such the claim of the plaintiffs no.1 to 3 for grant of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant need to be considered by this Court. Therefore, this

Court hold that plaintiffs no.1 to 3 are entitled for grant of perpetual injunction against the defendant. Accordingly, issues are answered in favour of the plaintiffs no.1 to 3.

- 8 - O.S.No.884 of 2013

ISSUE NO. 3:

12.In the result, the suit is decreed as prayed for, for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his agents, workmen and all those persons acting on his behalf from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule properties.

(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 10th day of August, 2022.) -sd/-

I-ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

WARANGAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFS: FOR DEFENDANT: PW1: E. Devender,-None- PW2: K. Sadanandam, PW3: Janga Mahesh.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFFS: Ex.A1 – CC of sale deed, doc.no.5911/2005, dt:30.4.2005, Ex.A2 – CC of sale deed, doc.no.5910/2005, dt:30.4.2005, Ex.A3 – CC of sale deed, doc.no.5902/2005, dt:30.4.2005, Ex.A4 – Photographs along with CD, Ex.A5 - CC of pahani in the year 2002-2003, dt:24.4.2013, Ex.A6 - CC of pahani in the year 2005-2006, dt:24.4.2013, Ex.A7 – Bunch of documents obtained under RTI Act dt.20.3.2013, from KUDA, Ex.A8 – CC of pahani for the year 2011-12, dt:26.5.2012, Ex.A9 – CC of pahani for the year 2009-10, dt:30.5.2012, Ex.A10 – CC of pahani for the year 2008-09, Ex.A11 – CC of sale deed doc.no.942/2003, dt:11.12.2002, Ex.A12 – CC of sale deed, doc.no.940/2003, dt:11.12.2002, Ex.A13 – CC of sale deed, doc.no.941/2003, dt:11.12.2002, Ex.A14 – Mee seva Pahani Fasli 1423, dt:13.8.2013.

- 9 - O.S.No.884 of 2013

FOR DEFENDANT: - Nil - -sd/-

I-ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

WARANGAL.

1 of 3 C.C No.3677 of 2019

IN THE COURT OF I-ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS, WARANGAL

Dated, this the 12 th Day of April, 2022

PRESENT: Smt. P. Devi Manasa, I-Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal.

CALENDER CASE No.3677 of 2019

BETWEEN:

The State of Telangana through Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Inthezargunj. … Complainant AND

A1. Putta Rakesh S/o. Mohan, Age: 24 years, Caste: Muinnurukapu, Occ: Pvt.Job, R/o. H.No.20-3-13,Chaman Stree, Warangal. A2. Neelarapu Ranjith, S/o. Rajaiah, Age; 38 years, Caste: Muinnurukapu, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.9-3-18, Girmajipet, Warangal. A3. Neelarapu Gopi, S/o. Rajaiah, Age; 40 years, Caste: Muinnurukapu Occ: Gumasta, R/o. H.No.9-3-18, Girmajipet, Warangal. A4. Neelarapu Gomuramma, W/o. Rajaiah, Age: 55 years, Caste: Muinnurukapu, R/o. H.No.9-3-18, Girmajipet, Warangal A5. Neelarapu Anitha W/o. Gopi, Age: 35 years, Caste: Muinnurukapu Occ: Beedi Worker, R/o. H.No.9-3-18, Girmajipet, Warangal. … Accused

This case is coming up for hearing on this day before me in the presence of Smt.B.Vanaja, Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri K. Sridhar, Advocate for the accused,and upon perusing the material papers available on record and upon hearing the Counsel on both sides, and the matter having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-

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

1. The accused No.1 to 5 are indicted for the offences U/Sec. 323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC against A1, A3 to A5 and Sec. 326 IPC against accused

No.2 by Sub Inspector of police, P.S. Mills Colony in Crime No.303/2019 and brief averments of the charge-sheet are as follows:-

That on 11.09.2019 at 22.30 hours at JPN road, Warangal the accused No.2 attacked and beat the Lws2 and Lw3 with iron rod and plastic pipe due to which they sustained injuries, whereas the accused

No.1, 3 to 5 have beat with hands and abused and also threatened with dire consequence,as such report was lodged,after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed by police.

2 of 3 C.C No.3677 of 2019

2. The offences punishable U/Sec. 323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC against

A1, A3 to A5 and Sec. 326 IPC against accused No.2 are taken cognizance against the accused. On appearance of accused, copies was furnished to him U/Sec.207Cr.P.C and they are examined U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C. charges for the offence U/Sec. 323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC against A1, A3 to A5 and Sec.

326 IPC against accused No.2 were framed and read over and explained to the accused and he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3.During the course of trial, prosecution examined PWs.1 to PW3 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4.

4.The examination of the accused under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with as there is no incriminating material available against them.

5.Now the point for determination is : “Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the accused No.1 to 5 for the offence U/sec. 323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC against A1, A3 to A5 and Sec. 326 IPC against accused No.2, beyond all reasonable doubt ?”

6.P O I N T : PW1 is the complainant. PW2 and PW3 are injured. All of them in one voice stated that they do not want to constest the case and turned hostile. Nothing could be elicted in favour of prosecution in cross examination by Learned APPO except marking S.161

Cr.P.C statements. From the evidence of Pws-1 to Pw3, it seems that the matter was compromised between the parties subsequent to filing of the charge sheet. In view of the evidence of Pws.1 to Pw3, and no incrimating evidence appearing in their evidence, this court is of opinion that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence

U/sec. 323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC against A1, A3 to A5 and Sec. 326 IPC against accused No.2, beyond all reasonable doubt and the accused No.1 to 5 are entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, this point is answered.

7.IN THE RESULT, accused No.1 to 5 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 506 r/w 34 IPC against A1, A3 to 5 and for the offense u/Sec. 326 IPC against A2 and accordingly they are 3 of 3 C.C No.3677 of 2019 acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled..

(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me, in the open Court on this the 12th day of April, 2022)

Sd/-

I-ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

WARANGAL

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION : FORDEFENCE: PW1 : Jasmithkour Kanooja - NONE - PW2 : Mandirsingh Kanooja PW3 : Jaspreth Singh Kanooja

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: Ex.P1 is the signature of PW1 on report -NIL- Ex.P2 is the 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW1 Ex.P3 is the 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW2 Ex.P4 is the 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW3

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-NIL-

Sd/-

I-ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

WARANGAL

- 1 - CC.No.213 of 2015

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

CLASS, WARANGAL.

Present : Smt. P. Devi Manasa,

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

Dated this the 23rd day of August, 2022.

C.C. No.213 of 2015 (Cr.No.44/2015 of PS Mills colony) Between:

The State - Rep., through the Inspector of police,

PS Mills colony. .... Complainant.

And

A1 – Md.Yakub, S/o.Late Abbas Ali age:58 yrs, Occ:Lorry driver, A2 – Md. Tajmeer pasha, S/o.Yakub, age:22 yrs, Occ:Coolie, Both R/o.H.No.16-4-1351, Bhupeshnagar, Shivanagar, Warangal, A3 – Md. Masthan, s/o.Late Abbas Ali, age:40 yrs, Occ:Lorry cleaner, R/o.Bhupeshnagar, Shivanagar, Warangal, A4 – Md. Akbar, s/o.Razak, age:35 yrs, Occ:Auto driver, R/o.Katrapally village of Wardhannapet mandal, A5 – Md. Yakub bee, W/o.Yakub, age:53 yrs, Occ:Beedi roller, A6 – Md. Asman, D/o.Yakub, age:23 yrs, Occ:Student, Both R/o.H.No.16-4-1351, Bhupeshnagar, Shivanagar, Warangal.

.....Accused.

This case coming on this the day before me for hearing and disposal in the presence of Learned A.P.P for the state and in the presence of Sri.K. Narasimha Ramulu, Learned counsel for the accused and after having stood over for consideration, the court delivered the following:-

:: JUDGMENT ::

1.The sub-Inspector of Police, PS Mills colony filed a charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.44/2015 of PS Mills colonyfor the offence punishable u/s.324 r/w 34 IPC.

2.The case of the prosecution in nut shell:

On 15.2.2015, LW1 came to Police Station and lodged a report stating that there are financial disputes pending between LW2 and - 2 - CC.No.213 of 2015 accused. In this connection on 15.2.2015, while LW1 was drinking tea at Shivanagar, Under bridge, along with LW2, meanwhile accused nos.1 to 6 quarrelled with LW2 and abused LW1 in filthy language. When LW1 questioned them accused no.2 picked up iron rod and beat on his head, due to which he sustained bleeding injury.

Immediately LW1 was shifted to MGM hospital, Warangal. Hence, the report and police has registered as FIR in Cr.No.44/2015,

U/sec.324 r/w 34 IPC and investigated into. After completion of investigation charge sheet was filed.

3.This case was taken on record for the alleged offences u/s.324 r/w 34 IPC. On appearance of the accused they were served with the copies of case documents as contemplated u/s.207 CrPC.

4.Accused Nos.1 to A6 were examined u/s.239 CrPC and charge for the offence u/s.324 r/w 34 IPC was framed against them, read over, explained to them, wherein the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

5.During the course of trial of this case the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3. The learned

APPO given up the evidence of Lws.5 to 9. The evidence of LW1 is closed on filing of Death certificate. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the examination of accused u/s.313 CrPC is dispensed with as there is no incriminating material appeared in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.

- 3 - CC.No.213 of 2015

6.Heard both sides. Perused the record.

7.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the accused No.1 to 6 for the offence u/s.324 r/w 34IPC?

8.P O I N T : Unfolding the case of prosecution, PW1 to Pw3 are the eye witness and turned hostile stating that they do not know anything about the case. From the hostile evidence of PWs.1 and 3, it seems that the matter was compromised between the parties subsequent to filing of the charge sheet. Even in the cross- examination by learned APPO nothing could be elicited except marking S.161 CrPC statements. In view of the hostile evidence of

PWs.1 to 3, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence under Sections 324 r/w 34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt and the accused Nos.1 to 6 are entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, point is answered against prosecution.

9.In the result, accused Nos.1 to 6 are found not guilty for the offence u/s.324 r/w 34 IPC, and accordingly they are acquitted under

Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled.

(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 23rd day of August, 2022.) -sd/-

I-ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

WARANGAL.

- 4 - CC.No.213 of 2015

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION : FOR DEFENCE:

PW1 : Gummadi Dasu, - NONE –

PW2 : Suram janardhan,

PW3 : Md. Yakub Pasha.

Exhibits marked

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 : S.161 CrPC statement of PW1.

Ex.P2 : S.161 CrPC statement of PW2.

Ex.P3 : S.161 CrPC statement of PW3.

FOR DEFENCE: - Nil -

Mos. Marked: - Nil- -sd/-

I-ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

WARANGAL.