P. Maruthi Prasad

Page No.1 of 6 C.C.No. 857 of 2023

THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: HUZURNAGAR

This, the 02 nd day of December, 2025

Present: Sri. P.Maruthi Prasad, Prl.Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Huzurnagar.

C.C.No. 857 of 2023

(Cr.No.198/2023 of P.S Nereducherla) BETWEEN: The State of Telangana rep., by S.H.O, Nereducherla Police Station. …Complainant AND A-1:- Parvatham Paramesh S/o Anjaiah, Age: 30 Years, Occ: Reporter, R/o Lal Laxmipuram H/o Kallur village of Nereducherla mandal. A-2:- Parvatham Ramesh S/o Anjaiah, Age: 32 Years, Occ: Rexine work, R/o Lal Laxmipuram H/o Kallur village of Nereducherla mandal. Presently, at Dachepally village and mandal of AP.

A-3:- Parvatham Nagaiah S/o Ramalingaiah, Age: 42 Years, occ: Coolie, R/o Lal Laxmipuram H/o Kallur village of Nereducherla mandal. A-4:- Vattepu Ashok Kumar S/o Mariyadas, Age: 24 Years, Occ: Student, R/o Narayanapuram, Dachepally town of Palnadu district of Andhra Pradesh N/o Thakkellapadu village of Dachepally mandal.

.....Accused

This case coming up before me for final hearing on 01.12.2025 and upon hearing the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and Sri Natte Satyanarayana, counsel for Accused, and having stood over till this today for consideration, and upon perusing the material this court made the following:

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

01.The Sub Inspector of Police, P.S Nereducherla filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 4 in Crime No.198/2023 for the offence U/sec.

452, 326 r/w 34 of IPC.

02.The brief allegations in the charge sheet that on 30.08.2023 at about 13:00 Hrs, the Defacto-complainant/LW1/Parvatham Manemma W/o

Rathna, R/o Lallaxmipuram H/o Kallur village of Nereducherla mandal

Page No.2 of 6 C.C.No. 857 of 2023 went to P.S Nereducherla and lodged a report stating that on 29.08.2023 night at about 11:30 Hrs, her husband Rathnam slept at Sripati Venkanna house, in the meantime, Parvatham Paramesh (A1) S/o Anjaiah, Parvatham

Ramesh (A2), Parvatham Nagaiah (A3), and two others, who belong to

Dachepally village were criminally trespassed into said house by armed with iron rods and beat with rods on her husband legs, in which her husband was received injuries on both legs, on that her husband shouted loudly, on hearing the same, the neighbors came there and on seeing them, the said person escaped from there. Thus, she requested to take legal action.

3.Basing on the above report, LW14/P.Paramesh, Sub-Inspector of police registered a case in Cr.No.198/2023 U/sec.452, 324 r/w 34 of IPC, issued FIR and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of LW1/Parvatham Manemma and later, he visited the scene of offence situated at Lal laxmipuram H/o Kallur village of Nereducherla mandal and observed the scene of offence by securing the presence of LW9/Edurugatla Janaiah and LW10 Vanarasi

Sriram and conducted scene of offence panchanama and also drawn the rough sketch map of scene and later, he examined and recorded the statement of LW2/Sripati Hussenamma, LW3/Sripati Venkanna,

LW4/Parvatham Venkanna, LW5/Parvatham Alivelu, LW6/Ganjayi

Paramjyothi and LW7/Parvatham Narsimha @ Imaniyel. Later, he visited the Govt. Area Hospital, where the injured namely, Parvatham Rathanam is getting treatment at Hospital, he examined and recorded the statement of injured as LW8/Parvatham Rathnam. On 09.09.2023, LW14 collected the

Page No.3 of 6 C.C.No. 857 of 2023 medical certificate of the injured from LW13/Dr.Jagan Reddy, Civil Asst.

Surgeon, Area Hospital, Miryalaguda. As per the statement of the witnesses and medical certificate of LW8, LW14 altered the section of law from 452, 324 r/w 24 IPC to Sec.452, 326 r/w 34 IPC. On 11.09.2023, LW14 apprehended the A1 to A4 at Lal Laxmipuram village and on interrogation, they admitted their guilt and on that, LW14 secured the presence of

LW11/Banala Rambabu and LW12/Adurugatla Ravi Kumar and conducted confession cum seizure panchanama of the A1 and seized one stick and iron rod from the possession of the accused No.1 under the cover of seizure panchanama, which were used by A1 to A4 in the commission of the offence. Later, brought the A1 to A4 to PS and effected the arrest of the accused persons and after complying the due procedure, the accused No.1 to 4 were produced before the Court for Judicial remand. After completion of entire investigation, he filed charge sheet.

04.The case was taken on file for the offence under Section 452, 326 r/w 34 IPC. On appearance of the accused copies of the documents furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

05.The accused is examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C, by explaining the charge sheet allegations, he denied his involvement in the said offence. Hence, charges under section 452, 326 r/w 34 of IPC were framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried for the said offences.

Page No.4 of 6 C.C.No. 857 of 2023

06.During the course of trial, to substantiate of its case, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW5, got marked Ex.P1 to P6. The learned APP has given up the evidence of LW5 to LW7, LW9 to LW14.

07.After closure of trial, as there is no incriminating evidence found in the testimonials of the prosecution witnesses against the accused, examination of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has been dispensed with.

08. Heard learned A.P.P. for prosecution and learned counsel for the accused.

09.Now, the point for determination:

“Whether, the prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt, for the offence with which the accused charged.?”

10.POINT:

In order to prove the guilt of the accused the prosecution has examined PW1, who is the defacto-complainant in this case and she categorically deposed that she does not know anything about the facts of the case and she never lodged any report about any incident in the police station against the accused and at the request of learned APP, PW1 declared as hostile witness and in the cross examination by the prosecution, she denied the suggestion about commission of offence by the Accused.

11.Further, the prosecution has also examined the injured/victim as

PW5, he also deposed in the similar lines of PW1 and further categorically stated that the accused never beat me at any point of time. Further, the prosecution has also examined the PW2 to PW4, who are stated to be eye witness to the alleged incident, they also did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile.

Page No.5 of 6 C.C.No. 857 of 2023

12.As seen from the record PW1, who is the defacto-complainant did not support the case of the prosecution, it is evident that during pendency of the case before this Court, PW1 to PW5 and accused No.1 to 4 seems to have settled their disputes outside the Court and that may be the reason, the PW1 to PW5 have not supported the case of the prosecution and not given the true facts of the case before the Court. Therefore, the evidence of PW1 to

PW5 shows that absolutely there is no iota of evidence whatsoever on record to connect the accused N o.1 to 4 for the offences alleged against them. In the circumstances, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that, the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused

No.1 to 4 beyond all reasonable doubt, for the offences with which they are charged and as such, the accused No.1 to 4 are entitled for acquittal of the said offences.

12.In the result, the accused No.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offence under Section 452, 326 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted for the said offence under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., the bail bonds of the accused

No.1 to 4 shall stands discharged, after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked case properties i.e., 3 feet length of iron rod and 2 feet length of stick, which were deposited before the court under C.P No.198/2023, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

(Directly computerized to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 02nd day of December, 2025)

sd/-

Prl. Junior Civil Judge-Cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Huzurnagar

Page No.6 of 6 C.C.No. 857 of 2023

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW-1: Parvatham Manemma, Defacto-complainant. PW-2: Sripathi Hussenamma, Eye witness. PW-3: Sripati Venkanna, Eye witness. PW-4: Parvatham Venkanna,Eye witness. PW-5: Parvatham Rathnam, Victim/injured.

FOR DEFENCE: -- NIL --

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P-1: Signatuer of PW1 on report. Ex.P-2: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1. Ex.P-3: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2. Ex.P-4: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3. Ex.P-5: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4. Ex.P-6: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW5.

FOR DEFENCE: -- NIL --

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-- NIL --

sd/-

Prl. Junior Civil Judge-Cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Huzurnagar

Page No.1 of 6 C.C.No. 769 of 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: HUZURNAGAR

This, the 25 th day of March, 2026

Present: Sri. P.MARUTHI PRASAD, Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-, Prl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Huzurnagar.

C.C.No. 769 of 2023

(Cr.No.186/2023 of P.S Huzurnagar) BETWEEN: The State of Telangana rep., by S.H.O, Huzurnagar Police Station. …Complainant AND

A-1:- Thejavath Ravi Naik S/o Ramachandru, Age: 37 years, Occ: Business, R/o Ambedkar Colony in Huzurnagar town. A-2:- Thejavath Saidulu Naik S/o Ramachandru, Age: 36 years, Occ: Business, R/o Ambedkar Colony in Huzurnagar town.

.....Accused No.1 & 2.

This case coming before me on 23.03.2026 for final hearing, and upon hearing the learned A.P.P appearing for the State and Sri.K.Narsimha Rao, legal aid counsel forAccused No.1 & 2 and having stood over till this today for consideration, and upon perusing the material this court made the following:

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

01.The Sub Inspector of Police, Huzurnagar Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 & 2 in Crime No.186/2023 for the offence

U/sec.384, 323, 504, 506, 427 r/w 34 of IPC.

02.The brief allegations in the charge sheet that on 24.07.2023 at 10:00

Hrs, the Defacto-complainant/LW1/Seethala Roshapathi S/o Late Pullaiah,

R/o Seetharamanagar in Huzurnagar town went to P.S Huzurnagar and lodged a report stating that on 21.07.2023 at 15:00 Hrs, Thejavath Ravi Naik (accused No.1), Thejavath Saidulu Naik (accused No.2) were made a phone call to him and went to Sandhya Nutrition Shop for discuss about the plot issue. On that, he proceeded to said shop for discussing about the plot issue,

Page No.2 of 6 C.C.No. 769 of 2023 all of sudden some person sprayed chilli powder in their eyes and beat him with hands, kicked with legs and abused him in filthy language and torned his shirt and threatened him with dire consequences. Later, they forcibly took away his Red mi mobile phone and pulled his motor cycle key and damaged his eye glasses and in the meanwhile, his brother Seethala Srinu observed his motor cycle and on seeing his brother, the accused persons escaped from the scene. Then, he went to Govt. Area Hospital, Huzurnagar for treatment.

Thus, he requested to take legal action

03.Basing on the above report, LW10/P.Hari Krishna, Sub-Inspector of

Police registered a case in Cr.No.186/2021 for the offence U/sec.384, 323, 504, 506, 427 r/w 34 IPC, issued FIR and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statement of

LW1/Seethala Roshapati and sent him to Govt. Hospital for treatment .

Later, he visited the scene of offence situated at Sandhya Nutrition Shop in

Huzurnagar and observed the scene and secured the presence of

LW5/Pothanaboina Ram Murthy and LW6/Chinthakayala Parvathalu and conducted scene of offence panchanama in their presence and prepared the

CDF and examined the LW2/Seethala Srinu, LW3/Seethala Chandu @

Saidulu and LW4/Yarrapati Suman. LW9/Dr.P.Bharani, Civil Asst. Surgeon, issued medical certificate. While the investigation is in progress, on 29.08.2023 at 12:00 Hrs, on credible information, LW10 along with rushed to the house of A1 situated in Ambedkar Colony, Huzurnagar apprehended the A1 and A2 and on interrogation, the accused persons voluntarily confessed their guilt, on that he secured the presence of LW7/Nukala

Page No.3 of 6 C.C.No. 769 of 2023 Chandra Shekhar Reddy and LW8/Indirala Seetharamulu and recorded the confession panchanama of the accused persons, Later, LW10 brought the accused No.1 & 2 to police station and after completion of due procedure, he effected the arrest of the accused No.1 & 2 and produced them before the court for judicial remand. After completion of entire investigation, he filed charge sheet.

04.The case was taken on file for the offence under Section 384, 323, 504, 427 r/w 34 of IPC against accused No.1 & 2. On appearance of the accused, copies of the documents furnished to them as contemplated under

Section 230 BNSS.

05.The accused No.1 & 2 are examined U/Sec.262(2) of BNSS Charge under Sec. 384, 323, 504, 427 r/w 34 of IPC has been framed, read over and explained to the them in Telugu, to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried for the said offence.

06.During the course of trial, to substantiate of its case, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW3, got marked Exs.P1 to P4. The learned APP gas givenup the evidence of LW3 to LW10.

07.After closure of trial, as there is no incriminating evidence found in the testimonials of the prosecution witnesses against the accused, examination of accused under Section 351 BNSS. has been dispensed with.

08. Heard learned A.P.P. for prosecution and learned counsel for the accused.

09.Now, the point for determination:

“Whether, the prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt, for the offence with which accused No.1 & 2 are charged?”

Page No.4 of 6 C.C.No. 769 of 2023

10.POINT:

In order to prove the guilt of the accused No.1 & 2, the prosecution has examined defacto complainant as PW1 and he deposed in his examination in chief that he does not know anything about the facts of the case and accused never committed any offence against him and he never lodged any report about incident in the police station against the accused, but the police obtained his signature on white paper and he did not know contents of report and police never examined him and further, with regard to seizure of the property, the PW1 deposed that about two years back, he had lost his Motorla mobile phone and later, he came to know that the police recovered the same and deposited before the court and till now, he has not taken interim custody and accordingly, the said Motorola mobile phone is marked as M.O-1 and on confrontation the witness identified the same and as the witness not supported the case of the prosecution, he was declared hostile by learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and in the cross examination by the prosecution, he denied the suggestion about commission of offence by the

Accused.

11.Further, the prosecution has examined the PW2 and PW3, who are stated to be eye witness to the alleged incident, but they also did not supported the case of the prosecution and turned hostile.

12.Since the PW1 to PW3 turned hostile, the learned APP has given up the evidences of LW3, LW5 to LW11.

13.Thus, from the evidence available on record, it is evident that during pendency of the case before this Court, PW1 and accused seems to have

Page No.5 of 6 C.C.No. 769 of 2023 settled their disputes outside the Court and that may be the reason, the PW1 to PW3 have not supported the case of the prosecution and not given the true facts of the case before the Court. Therefore, the evidence of prosecution shows that absolutely there is no iota of evidence whatsoever on record to connect the accused No.1 & 2 for the offence alleged against them. In these circumstances, the only conclusion that can be drawn that, the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, for the offence Section 384, 323, 504, 427 r/w 34 of IPC against accused No.1 & 2 , as such the accused are entitled for acquittal for the said offences.

14.In the result, the accused No.1 & 2 are found not guilty for the offence under Section 384, 323, 504, 427 r/w 34 of IPC and they are acquitted for the said offences under Section 271(1) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, the bail bonds of the accused No.1 & 2, shall stands discharged after expiry of appeal time. The M.O-1 i.e., ash color Motorola mobile, shall be returned to its owner on proper identification and acknowledgment.

(Directly computerized to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 25th day of March, 2026)

sd/-

Prl. Junior Civil Judge-Cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Huzurnagar

Page No.6 of 6 C.C.No. 769 of 2023

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED.

FOR PROSECUTION: PW-1: Seethala Roshapathi, Defacto-complainant/Victim. PW-2: Seethala Srinu, Eye witness. PW-3: Seethala Saidulu, Eye witness.

FOR DEFENCE: -- NIL –

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P-1: Signature of PW1 on report. Ex.P-2: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1. Ex.P-3: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2. Ex.P-4: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3.

FOR DEFENCE: -- NIL --

MATERIAL OBJECTS

M.O-1:- Ash color Motorola mobile

sd/-

Prl. Junior Civil Judge-Cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Huzurnagar

Page No.1 of 5 C.C.No. 727 OF 2024

THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: HUZURNAGAR

(This, the 31 st Day of October, 2025)

Present: Sri P.MARUTHI PRASAD, Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Huzurnagar

C.C.No. 727 OF 2024

BETWEEN: The State of Telangana State through Prohibition & Excise station, Huzurnagar …Complainant A N D Lavudiya Saida S/o Ragya, Age: 40 Years, Occ: Labour, R/o Bettethanda (V), Palakeedu (M), Suryapet District. …Accused

This case coming up before me for final hearing on 28.10.2025 and upon hearing the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and of Sri.K.Narsimha Rao, legal aid counsel for the Accused and having stood over till this today for consideration, and upon perusing the material this court made the following:

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

01.The Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Huzurnagar, has filed charge sheet in PCOR No.30/2023 against the accused for the offence U/sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of Telangana Prohibition Act.

02.The brief allegations in the charge sheet that on 24.01.2023 at about 11:50 A.M, LW3/S.Ramesh, Proh. & Excise Sub-Inspector, DTF, Suryapet received a credible information about illegal possession of the I.D liquor by the accused in his house and on that LW3 along with staff proceeded to house of the accused and secured the presence of LW1/Banothu Ravi and

LW2/Rupavath Chanti and proceeded to house of accused situated at Bette thanda village and on calling no one came out from the house, on enquiry,they came to know that the said house belong to Lavudi Saida (accused) S/o Ragya, R/o Bette thanda village of Palakeedu mandal, on that

Page No.2 of 5 C.C.No. 727 OF 2024 LW3 affixed the search memo to the door of the house of the accused _of

Mellacheruvu mandal and when they reached to the house of the accused, they noticed one person standing infront of the house, on that they enquired about the particulars of the said person, on they she revealed her particulars as Dasari Laxmi (accused) W/o Sitharamaiah, R/o Hemla thanda village,

Mellacheruvu mandal, on that LW3 issued search memo and affixed the same to the door of the house of the accused. During the search, in the house of the accused, they found 5 liters of I.D liquor in a plastic cane and 3 drums of FJ wach each drum containing 100 liters, totally 300 liters of FJ wash and on that LW3, immediately, drawn the two samples from the each contraband for chemical analysis report in the presence of LW1 and LW2 and seized the

I.D liquor and destroyed the FJ wash on the spot in the presence of the mediators and brought the contraband along with the samples to the excise station and handed over to LW4/K.Sathish Kumar, Proh. & Excise Sub-

Inspector. Basing on the panchanama, LW4 registered a case in PCOR

No.30/2023 for the offence punishable U/sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of Telangana

Prohibition Act and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, LW4 served notice U/sec.41-A Cr.P.C to the accused and further deposited the case property along with vehicle before Dy.

Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Nalgonda for custody and confiscation and forwarded the drawn samples for chemical examination to

F.S.L. After receipt of F.S.L report and on completion of investigation,

LW5/G.Nagarjuna Reddy, Proh. & Excise Inspector filed charge sheet.

Page No.3 of 5 C.C.No. 727 OF 2024

03.The case was taken on file for the offence under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of Telangana Prohibition Act. On appearance of the accused, copies of the documents furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

On enquiry, the accused expressed his inability to engage the counsel.

Hence, the legal aid counsel was appointed on behalf of the accused.

04.The accused is examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C, by explaining the charge sheet allegations, he denied his involvement in the said offence. Hence, charge under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of Telangana Prohibition Act was framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried for the said offence.

05.During the course of trial, to substantiate of its case, the prosecution has examined PW1 & PW2 and got marked Ex.P1 to P6. The Excise officials filed a report stating the whereabouts of LW1/Banothu Ravi is not known. Considering the same, the evidence of LW1 is closed. Despite grant of ample opportunity, Excise officials failed to serve the summons of

LW3/S.Ramesh, Proh. & Excise Sub-Inspector of Police, DTF, Suryapet.

Hence, the evidence of LW3 is closed. The learned APP has given up the evidence of LW5/G.Nagarajuna Reddy, Proh. & Excise Inspector of Police.

06.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused is examined under

Sec.313 Cr.P.C by read over incriminating material leveled against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

07. Heard learned A.P.P. for prosecution and counsel for the accused.

08.Now the point for determination:

Page No.4 of 5 C.C.No. 727 OF 2024 “Whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence with which he was charged? POINT:

09.In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined PW1 &

PW2 and exhibited Ex.P-1 to P-6. PW1 is the panch witnesses and PW2 is the I.O. Ex.P1 is the signature of PW1 on panchanama. Ex.P2 is the search memo. Ex.P3 is the panchanama. Ex.P4 is the panchanama, dated:

15.04.2023. Ex.P5 is the PCOR, dated: 15.04.2023. Ex.P6 is the attested copy of FSL report.

10.On careful perusal of prosecution evidence, PW2 who is Excise official has reiterated the contents of charge sheet, but the panch witnesses i.e., PW1 in whose presence the Excise officials seized the contraband did not support the prosecution case and further testified that his signature obtained at excise station. As the prosecution case is not supported by independent witnesses no reliance can be placed on the testimony of excise official and his evidence is formal one without its independent

Corroboration.

11.Having regard to above facts and circumstances, it is held that the prosecution failed to connect the accused with the contraband seized from the possession accused and thereby prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused for the charge U/sec. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of Telangana Prohibition Act.

12.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under Sec.

7(A) r/w 8(e) of Telangana Prohibition Act and he is acquitted under

Page No.5 of 5 C.C.No. 727 OF 2024 Sec.248 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code. Bail bonds of the accused if any, shall stand cancelled, after expiry of appeal time.

(Directly computerized to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the31st day of October, 2025).

sd/-

Prl. Junior Civil Judge-Cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Huzurnagar

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED.

FOR PROSECUTION: PW-1: Rupavath Chanti, panch witness. PW-2: K.Sathish Kumar Reddy, I.O.

FOR DEFENCE: -- NIL --

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P-1: Signature of PW-1 on panchanama. Ex.P-2: Search Memo. Ex.P-3: Panchanama, dated: 24.01.2023. Ex.P-4: panchanama, dated: 15.04.2023. Ex.P-5: PCOR. Ex.P-6: Attested copy of FSL report.

FOR DEFENCE: -- NIL --

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-- NIL --

sd/-

Prl. Junior Civil Judge-Cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Huzurnagar

Page 1 of 5

CC No.1076 of 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: HUZURNAGAR

This, the 29 th day of November, 2024

Present: Sri. P.MARUTHI PRASAD,

Junior Civil Judge-cum-,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Huzurnagar.

C.C.No. 1076 of 2016

(Cr.No.235/2015 of P.S Mattampally)

BETWEEN: The State of Telangana rep., by S.H.O, Mattampally Police Station. …Complainant AND

Maalothu Hatiram S/o Bitchya, Age: 30 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o Ramachandrapuram Thanda village of Mattampally mandal, Suryapet District.

.....Accused

This case coming before me on 18.11.2024 for final hearing and upon hearing the learned A.P.P appearing for the State and Sri.J.Veeraiah, counsel for the Accused and having stood over till this today for consideration, and upon perusing the material this court made the following:

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

1.The Sub. Inspector of Police, Mattampally Police Station filed charge sheet against the sole accused in Crime No.235/2015 for the offence under

Sec. 8 (b) of Telangana Prohibition Act.

2.Brief facts of the prosecution case that on 21.09.2016 during morning hours, LW6/A.Ramesh, Sub-Inspector of Police, Mattampally P.S, received a credible information about illegal sale of I.D liquor at Ramachandrapuram thanda. On that, immediately, the LW6 along LW1/B.Anand Naik and

LW2/M.Ravinder proceeded to the house of one Maalothu Hatiram (accused) S/o Bitchya, R/o Ramachandrapuram thanda village of

Mattampally mandal at about 08:00 Hrs and notice the accused, while he

Page 2 of 5

CC No.1076 of 2016

was in possession of 10 liters of I.D liquor containing in a plastic cane and on seeing the Police accused fled away from the scene by leaving the I.D liquor can and immediately, LW6 secured the presence of two mediators i.e., LW4/Malothu Raju and amd LW5/Malothu Sreenu and conducted scene of offence panchanama and seized the I.D liquor cane after drawn the two samples for chemical analysis and report and caused enquiry about the accused in the presence of mediators and on enquiry came to know that the accused namely, Maalothu Hatiram, used to purchase the liquor form unknown persons and selling the same at his house to the needy persons for wrongful gain. Thereafter, the seized I.D liquor plastic cane and samples were brought to the Police station.

3.Basing on the above, LW6 registered a case in Crime No.235/2015 for the offence U/s.8 (b) of Telangana Prohibition Act and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, LW6 examined and recorded the statements of LW1/B.Anand Naik, HC1585, LW2/M.Ravinder,

PC3240 and LW3/Malothu Tulsya. On 22.09.2015, LW6 served Sec.41-A (1) Cr.P.C notice on accused directing him to appear before him to ascertain the facts of the case and on such notice, accused appeared before him on 24.09.2015 and on such appearance, LW6 served notice under Sec. 41-A (3)

Cr.P.C directing him to appear before the Court on receipt of summons.

LW6 forwarded the drawn samples to the F.S.L for analysis and report and the case property i.e. 10 liters of I.D liquor was deposited before the Deputy

Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Nalgonda. Thereafter,

LW7/M.Jaganmohan assumed charge as Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S

Page 3 of 5

CC No.1076 of 2016

Mattampally and took up the C.D file for further investigation and after receipt of Chemical Analysis’ report and on completion of investigation, filed charge sheet against the accused.

4.The Court took cognizance for the offence U/sec. 8(b) of Telangana

Prohibition Act. On appearance of the accused copies of documents were furnished to her as contemplated under Sec. 207 Cr.P.C.

5.Accused was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. Charge under sec.

8(b) of Telangana Prohibition Act has been framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried for the said offence.

6.In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution in all examined PW1 to PW3 and got marked Exs.P1 & P2. Despite grant of sufficient time, the police failed to serve the summons of LW1, LW4, LW6 and LW7. Hence the evidence of LW1, LW4, LW6 and LW7 is closed.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused is examined under

Sec.313 Cr.P.C by read over incriminating material leveled against his in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied and pleaded not guilty and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

8.Heard the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor and the accused.

9.The point for consideration is:

“Whether, the prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable

doubt, for the offence under Sec.8(b) of Telangana Prohibition

Act ?”

Page 4 of 5

CC No.1076 of 2016

10.POINT:

The case of prosecution in brief is that on 21.09.2015, on credible information received by the LW6 about the illegal selling of the I.D liquor and on that LW6 along with PW1 and LW1/B.Anand Naik, HC proceeded to the house of the accused and found the accused in possession of 10 liters of I.D liquor plastic cane and on seeing the Police, the accused ran away from her house and LW6 seized the contraband in the presence of mediators, under the cover of panchanama. Thus, the accused liable for punishment for the offence under section 8(b) of Telangana Prohibition Act.

11.On careful perusal of prosecution evidence, PW1 who is police personal supported the case of prosecution but his version is not corroborated with the eye witness-PW3, in whose presence the police found the accused in possession of contraband. Further prosecution evidence reveals seizure of contraband before PW3, but the said witnesses deposed against the version of prosecution and further testified that his signature was obtained at police station. Since the prosecution case is not supported by any independent witnesses no reliance can be placed on the testimony of Police officials and their evidence is formal one without its independent

Corroboration.

12.Having regard to above facts and circumstances, it is held that the prosecution failed to connect the accused with the contraband seized from her house and thereby failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused for the charge u/sec.8(b) of Telangana Prohibition Act t.

Page 5 of 5

CC No.1076 of 2016

13.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under Sec.

8(b) of Telangana Prohibition Act and he is acquitted under Sec. 248 (1) of

Criminal Procedure Code. Bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled, after expiry of appeal time.

(Typed on my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 29th day of November, 2024)

sd/-

Junior Civil Judge-Cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Huzurnagar

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: PW-1: M.Ravinder, Panch witness. PW-2: Malothu Tulchya, Eye witness. PW-3: Malothu Srinu, Panch witness.

FOR DEFENCE : -Nil-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2. Ex.P2: Signature of PW3 on scene of offence cum seizure panchanama.

FOR DEFENCE: -Nil- M.Os. Marked. - NIL –

sd/-

Junior Civil Judge-Cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Huzurnagar

Page No.1 of 5 C.C.No. 698 OF 2024

THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: HUZURNAGAR

(This, the 18 th Day of October, 2024)

Present: Sri P.MARUTHI PRASAD, Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Huzurnagar

C.C.No. 698 OF 2024

BETWEEN: The State of Telangana State through Prohibition & Excise station, Huzurnagar …Complainant A N D

Gugulothu Mangamma W/o Lachiram, Age: 38 years, Occ: Labour, R/o Avirenikunta thanda (V), Mattampally mandal, Suryapet District. …Accused

This case coming up before me for final hearing on 30.09.2024 and upon hearing the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and of Sri.K.Narsimha Rao, legal aid counsel for the Accused and having stood over till this today for consideration, and upon perusing the material this court made the following:

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

01.The Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Huzurnagar, has filed charge sheet in PCOR No.178/2023 against the accused for the offence U/sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of Telangana Prohibition Act.

02.The brief allegations in the charge sheet that on 28.04.2024 at about 07:30 A.M, LW3/P.Shiva Krishna, Proh. & Excise Sub-Inspector, LW3 received a credible information about illegal possession and sale of I.D liquor by the accused in her house and on that LW3 along with staff proceeded to the house of the accused and secured the presence of

LW1/Banothu Thejya and LW2/Banothu Raju and on calling one female person came out from the said house and on that LW3 enquired about her

Page No.2 of 5 C.C.No. 698 OF 2024 particulars and on that LW3 revealed her particulars as Gugulothu

Mangamma (accused) W/o Lachiram, R/o Avirenikunta thanda village of

Mattampally mandal and on that LW3 issued search memo to the accused and obtained acknowledgment. During the search in the house of the accused, LW3 found one plastic cane containing 6 liters of I.D liquor. On that LW3 immediately drawn the two samples from the contraband for chemical analysis and report seized the remaining contraband in the presence of the mediators and brought the same along with the samples to the excise station and handed over to LW4/P.Divya, Proh. & Excise Sub-

Inspector. Basing on the panchanama, LW4 registered a case in PCOR

No.178/2023 for the offence punishable U/sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of Telangana

Prohibition Act and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, LW4 served notice U/sec.41-A Cr.P.C to the accused and further deposited the case property before Dy. Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Nalgonda for custody and confiscation and forwarded the drawn samples for chemical examination to F.S.L. After receipt of F.S.L report and on completion of investigation, LW4 filed charge sheet.

03.The case was taken on file for the offence under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of Telangana Prohibition Act. On appearance of the accused, copies of the documents furnished to her as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

The accused expressed her inability to engage the counsel. Hence, the legal aid counsel was appointed on behalf of the accused.

04.The accused is examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C, by explaining the charge sheet allegations, she denied her involvement in the said offence. Hence,

Page No.3 of 5 C.C.No. 698 OF 2024 charge under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of Telangana Prohibition Act was framed, read over and explained to her in Telugu, for which, she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried for the said offence.

05.During the course of trial, to substantiate of its case, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW3 and got marked Ex.P1 to P6. Despite grant of ample opportunity, the excise officials failed to serve the summons on

LW3/P.Shiva Krishna. Hence, the evidence of LW3 is closed.

06.After, closure of prosecution evidence, accused is examined under

Sec.313 Cr.P.C by read over incriminating material leveled against her in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which she denied and reported no defence evidence on her behalf.

07. Heard learned A.P.P. for prosecution and counsel for the accused.

08.Now the point for determination:

“Whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence with which she charged?

POINT:

09.In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined PW1 to

PW3 and exhibited Ex.P-1 to P-6. PW1 & PW2 are the panch witnesses and

PW3 is the I.O. Ex.P1 & P2 are the signatures of PW1 and PW2 on panchanama, respectively. Ex.P3 is the is the search memo. Ex.P4 is the panchanama. Ex.P5 is the PCOR. Ex.P6 is the attested copy of FSL report.

10.On careful perusal of prosecution evidence, PW3 who is Excise official has reiterated the contents of charge sheet, but the panch witnesses i.e., PW1 and PW2 in whose presence the Excise officials seized the

Page No.4 of 5 C.C.No. 698 OF 2024 contraband did not support the prosecution case and further testified that their signature obtained at excise station. As the prosecution case is not supported by independent witnesses no reliance can be placed on the testimony of excise official and his evidence is formal one without its independent Corroboration.

11.Having regard to above facts and circumstances, it is held that the prosecution failed to connect the accused with the contraband seized from the possession accused and thereby prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused for the charge U/sec. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of Telangana Prohibition Act.

12.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under Sec.

7(A) r/w 8(e) of Telangana Prohibition Act and she is acquitted under

Sec.248 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code. Bail bonds of the accused if any, shall stand canceled, after expiry of appeal time.

(Directly computerized to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 18th day of October, 2024)

sd/-

Junior Civil Judge-Cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Huzurnagar

Page No.5 of 5 C.C.No. 698 OF 2024

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED.

FOR PROSECUTION: PW-1: Banothu Theja, panch witness. PW-2: Banothu Raja, panch witness. PW-3: P.Divya, I.O.

FOR DEFENCE: -- NIL --

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P-1: Signature of PW-1 on panchanama. Ex.P-2: Signature of PW-2 on panchanama. Ex.P-3: Search Memo. Ex.P-4: Panchanama. Ex.P-5: PCOR. Ex.P-6: Attested copy of FSL report.

FOR DEFENCE: -- NIL --

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-- NIL --

sd/-

Junior Civil Judge-Cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Huzurnagar