P. Mounika

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT: BOATH

Present:- Mounika Ponnapalli Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Utnoor

FAC: Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Boath

(Dated this the 13th day of AUGUST, 2025)

C.C.No.53 of 2021

(Cr. No.24 of 2020 of Gudihathnoor P.S)

Between:

The State of Telangana, through, Sub-Inspector of Police, Gudihathnoor P.S. ...Prosecution. A n d A1: Devtaki Dhattha @ Dattu, S/o. Dvakathe Gnanoba, Age:32 years, Occ: Driver. A2: Devkate Sheshikala, W/o. Gnanoba, Age: 65 years, Occ: Homemaker. A3: Devkate Gnanoba, S/o. Govindrao, Age: 70 years, Occ: Agriculture. (Abated). A4: Devkate Maruthi, S/o. Gnanoba, Age: 45 years, Occ: Agriculture. A5: Devkate Govind, S/o. Gnanoba, Age: 40 years, Occ: Agriculture. A6: Rubnoor Surekha, W/o. Thirupathi, Age: 42 years, Occ: Homemaker, R/o. Dhanora village of Indervelly Mandal. A7: Devkate Narayan, S/o. Gnanoba, Age: 30 years, Occ: Driver.

Accused A1, A2, A4 to A7 are R/o. Mannur village of Gudihathnoor Mandal.

...Accused A1 to A7.

2CC.No.53 of 2021

Dated:13-08-2025

This case is coming before me for final disposal on 13-08-2025 in the presence of the learned APPO, for the State and Sri T.Rupender Singh, the learned counsel for the Accused persons and the Court delivered the following:

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

01. The Sub Inspector of Police, Gudihathnoor Police Station had filed the charge sheet against the persons who were shown as accused in

Crime No.24 of 2020 for the offences punishable U/Secs.326, 294 (b), 498-A r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code (herein after referred as “IPC” for the sake of brevity).

02. The case of the prosecution in brief as per charge sheet is as follows :

The Defacto complainant/Lw.1 had lodged report against the Accused persons by alleging that at about 10 years back her marriage was performed with Accused A1. Thereafter, they led happy marital life and blessed with three children. Thereafter, the Accused no.1 was addicted to alcohol and started harassing Lw.1 physically and mentally at the instigation of Accused A2 to A7 and suspected her fidelity. On 28.02.2020 at about 20:00 hours, while Lw.1 was talking to Lw.4 on phone, the Accused no.1 had questioned Lw.1, as to with whom she was talking to and abused her in filthy language and beat her with a stick on both hands, chest and other parts of her body. As a result, Lw.1 received bleeding injuries on both hands and internal injuries on her chest and thigh. The Accused A2 to A7 also abused her in filthy language and instigated

Accused no.1 to beat Lw.1. Upon which, when the Lw.1 had informed about the said incident to Lw.2 through phone, Lw.2 immediately went to the house of 3CC.No.53 of 2021

Dated:13-08-2025

accused at Mannur village and took Lw.1 to RIMS Hospital, Adilabad, for medical treatment. Hence the Report.

Based on the report given by the Complainant, Sub-Inspector of Police,

Gudihathnoor had registered a case in Crime No.24 of 2020 for the offences punishable U/Secs.326, 294 (b), 498-A r/w.34 of IPC against the Accused A1 and Secs.294(b), 498-A r/w. 34 of IPC against Accused A2 to A7 and after completion of entire investigation, he filed charge sheet against the Accused persons.

03. This court took the cognizance for the offences punishable U/Secs.326, 294 (b), 498-A of IPC against Accused A1 and U/Secs.326 r/w. 109, 498-A and 294 (b) of IPC against Accused A2 to A7. On appearance of the Accused, copies of case documents are furnished to them as contemplated U/Sec.207 Code of

Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C for the sake of brevity).

04. The Accused A1, A2, A4 to A7 are examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., for which they denied the charge sheet allegations, thereafter, the contents of charges which were framed against the accused for the offences punishable

U/Secs.326, 294 (b), 498-A of IPC against Accused A1 and U/Secs.326 r/w.

109, 498-A and 294 (b) of IPC against Accused A2, A4 to A7 were read over and explained to the Accused in their vernacular language for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

05. In support of its case, the prosecution had examined Pws.1 to 8 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 and Mo.1.

4CC.No.53 of 2021

Dated:13-08-2025

06 .After closing the evidence on prosecution side, the Accused A1, A2,

A4 to A7 are examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in their vernacular language, by explaining the incriminating evidence made against them in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses for which, the accused had denied the same and reported no defence evidence. In support of their case, neither the accused nor any witnesses are examined and no documents were marked on their behalf.

07. Heard the learned APP for the prosecution and the learned counsel for the

Accused persons and also perused the documents available on record.

08. Now the point arises for consideration is :-

“Whether the prosecution has been able to establish the guilt of the

Accused persons for the offences punishable U/Secs.326, 294 (b),

498-A of IPC against Accused A1 and U/Secs.326 r/w. 109, 498-A

and 294 (b) of IPC against Accused A2, A4 to A7 beyond all

reasonable doubt?

09.In order to establish the guilt of the Accused, the prosecution had relied upon the evidence of Pw.1 who is the Complainant, Pws.2, 3 and 5 who are the

Circumstantial Witnesses, Pws.4 and 6 who are the Panch Witnesses for Scene of Offence panchanama, Pw.7 who is the Medical Officer, Pw.8 who is the

Investigation Officer. The Exhibits marked through prosecution during the course of trial are thatEx.P1 is the Report, Exs.P2 and P3 are the signatures of

Pws.4 and 6 on Scene of Offence panchanama, Ex.P4 is the Medical Certificate of Pw.3, Ex.P5 is the FIR, Ex.P6 is the Scene of Offence panchanama and

MO.1 is the Stick.

5CC.No.53 of 2021

Dated:13-08-2025

POINT:

i. The Pws.4 and 6 who are the panch witnesses for Scene of offence panchanama had deposed in one voice before the court that police neither conducted Scene of offence panchanama nor drawn rough sketch in their presence and at the instance of police they had signed on some written papers.

Though the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor had cross examined

Pw.4 and Pw.6 under Section 154 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and also under

Sec.162 Proviso of Cr.P.C, but, nothing worthy is elicited to disprove their evidence.

ii. In the entire evidence of Pws.1 to 3, they had deposed before the court in one voice that, due to the alleged beating of Pw.1 by the accused no.1, the Pw.1 had got admitted and treated in the hospital for a span of 8 days. However on going through the evidence of Pw.7 who is the Doctor issued medical certificate of Pw.1, had testified before the court that, the Pw.1 is treated as an out-patient by him. Further on going through the contents of Ex.P4, this court observed there is over writing in the date of discharge of Pw.1. Further as it could seen to the naked eye from Ex.P4, that the date of discharge of Pw.1, before the same got over written by Pw.7, it was mentioned as 29-02-2020 which goes to show that the date of discharge is on the same day of her admission into the hospital.

Further, once after the date i.e., 29.02.2020 is over written by the Pw.3 in

Ex.P4, the date of discharge of Pw.1, is shown as on 04-03-2020 but beneath the signature of Pw.7, the date of discharge of Pw.1 was reflected as on 09-03- 2020. There is no explanation forthcoming from the side of Pw.7 as to mentioning of such there different dates by him in Ex.P4. On one side, there is over writing on Ex.P4 at the date of discharge of Pw.1, which was un-explained 6CC.No.53 of 2021

Dated:13-08-2025

by the prosecution and on the other side, the Pw.7 had mentioned there different dates of discharge of Pw.1 in Ex.P4 as discussed supra. Hence, the evidence of

Pw.7 with regard to issuance of medical certificate to Pw.1 do not inspire the confidence of this court as a genuine one. Hence, the evidence of Pws.1 to 3 coupled with Pw.7 and Ex.P4 is barely enough, to prove sustenance of alleged injuries by Pw.1 or any physical assault received by Pw.1 on the alleged date of incident, in the hands of accused persons.

iii. Further in the evidence of Pw.1, she deposed that at the time of lodging

Ex.P1, she had put her signature, but on going through the Ex.P1, it reflects the a thumb impression but not the signature of Pw.1. Further the evidence of Pw.1 could reveal that the Pw.1 can put her signature in English language and she used to put her signature in Telugu language, which goes to show that she is well-versed in putting her signature in either Telugu or English language. It is not the case of prosecution that on the alleged date, the Pw.1 had put her thumb impression on Ex.P1 and when such is the case, this court do not understand as to whose thumb impression was attested on Ex.P1. Added to that, the Pw.1 herself admits during the course of her cross examination that she do not know how to read and write Telugu and English languages. It is incumbent on the part of the complainant, at least to know whether she had put her signature or attested her thumb impression on the report which she has given to the police as against the accused persons and it is minimum expected that the Pw.1 who is the complainant in this case, ought to have explain the reason for her contradictory evidence relating to the issue of putting her signature and also attesting of her thumb impression on Ex.P1. Furthermore, the Pw.2 who is the mother of Pw.1, she testifies in her cross examination that she herself lodged

Ex.P1 against the accused persons. When all the aforesaid issues were read 7CC.No.53 of 2021

Dated:13-08-2025

together, it creates suspicion to the mind of this court, whether, the Pw.1 had given any report against the accused on the alleged date and whether she knows the contents of the report which was alleged to be given by her as per the version of prosecution.

iv. Further, in the entire evidence of Pws.1 to 3 and 5, they had failed to mention the specific overt acts of each of the accused persons in their respective sec.161 Cr.P.C., statements and also neither they testified such overt acts of each of the accused in their evidence. Added to that, the Pws.1 to 3 and 5 had further failed to either depose in their evidence or stated in their respective statements with regard to the specific usage of abusive language spoken by the accused persons towards Pw.1 on the alleged date.

v. The Pws.1 and 3, further admits that at present the accused no.1 is residing with Pw.1 at her parents house. When the Accused no.1, himself is residing at the parents house of Pw.1 along with Pw.1 and his children, then this court do not understand as to which kind of harassment did the Pw.1 had received in the hands of Accused A1 with the instigation of Accused A2, A4 to A7. If at all, this court for a while assumes that the accused no.1 had caused physical assault towards Pw.1, then how the parents of Pw.1 had led the accused no.1 to stay the accused no.1 in their house on seeing such harassment caused by him to their daughter. Further, no prudent man like accused no.1, would intend to stay in his in-laws house, unless there is utmost love and affection towards his wife i.e.,

Pw.1.

vi. In addition to the above, in the evidence of Pws.2 and 3, they themselves deposed before the court that they got to know about the alleged incident of 8CC.No.53 of 2021

Dated:13-08-2025

beating Pw.1 by the accused no.1 with the instigation of accused A2 to A7, through the Pw.1, which could show that their evidence is nothing but hearsay and they do not have specific knowledge with regard to alleged commission of charged offences by the accused as against Pw.1 on the alleged date of incident.

Hence no much credence would be given to their hearsay evidence.

vii. From the evidence of Pws.1 and 3 who are the own sisters, it could be seen that they both deposed in one voice that “ on the date of alleged incident, the accused used a fan blade and tried to pierce the neck of Pw.1, but on perusal of contents of Ex.P1 and also sec.161 Cr.P.C., statements of Pws.1 and 3, there is no whisper as to the same on the alleged date of incident. This part of evidence of the Pws.1 and 3 goes to show that, they had improvised their versions before this court in their respective evidence, by exaggerating the alleged incident.

Hence the evidence of Pws.1 and 3 is un-reliable.

viii. The Pw.8 who is the investigation officer had deposed about various stages of her investigation in a chronological way. The evidence of Pw.8 is just routine and in casual manner which render no help to the case of prosecution.On going through the evidence of Pw.7 who treated Pw.1, it could be seen that the Pw.7 had received requisition from police concerned to conduct medical examination of Pw.1 on 29-02-2020 and on careful scrutiny of Ex.P4, it reflects the date of admission of Pw.1 in the said hospital is on 29-02-2020 only, however, quite contrary to the evidence of Pw.7, in the evidence of Pw.8 who is the investigation officer, had deposed before this court that she had issued injury form to conduct medical examination of Pw.1 on 05-03-2020, which could show that the Pw.8 had simply made table investigation in this case without touching to the actual facts of the case. Though, a stick is marked as Mo.1, the 9CC.No.53 of 2021

Dated:13-08-2025

Pw.8 had failed to explain the length and width of the stick at the time of its alleged seizure and no seizure panchanama was drafted by Pw.8 at the time of alleged seizure of Mo.1 from the scene and Pw.8 had further failed to putforth the nexus between the Mo.1 with that of alleged commission charged offences by the accused as against Pw.1 on the alleged date. At this juncture, this court relied, upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court AIR 2014 Supreme Court

3388 in Ramaiah @ Rama Vs State of Karnataka in para No. 30 it is observed

by Hon'ble Supreme Court that, which is other wise available to an accused under the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a court of law. It is also trite that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case and one favorable to the accused has been taken by the trial court it should not be disturbed. The golden Rule of criminal Law is that when there are two versions possible, the court shall consider the version which goes in favour of the accused. In other words the benefit of doubt shall always in favour of accused. Thus, based on the in-consistent and un-supportive evidence of prosecution witnesses, no conviction can be recorded as against the accused persons under the charged offences which were framed against them.

In view of the above discussion, this court is of the considered opinion that prosecution had utterly failed to prove the guilt of the Accused persons for the offences U/Secs.326, 294 (b), 498-A of IPC against Accused A1 and

U/Secs.326 r/w. 109, 498-A and 294 (b) of IPC against Accused A2, A4 to A7 beyond all reasonable doubt, by placing cogent and convincing evidence before this court, as such, the benefit of doubt is given in favour of the accused persons and the accused persons are acquitted and they are set at liberty.

10CC.No.53 of 2021

Dated:13-08-2025

Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of Accused persons and as against the prosecution.

IN THE RESULT : The Accused A1 isfound not guilty for the offences punishable U/Secs.326, 294 (b), 498-A of IPC and Accused A2, A4 to A7 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Secs.326 r/w. 109, 498-A and 294 (b) of IPC, accordingly, they are acquitted U/Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused persons, if any shall be cancelled after lapse of appeal time as per section 437-A Cr.P.C. The case property which is marked as Mo.1 i.e., a Stick which was given to the police concern for safe custody shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

(Typed to my dictation on computer by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 13 th day of August 2025.)

Sd/-

FAC:Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Boath.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

-None- Pw.1: Devkate Uma,Complainant Pw.2: K.Anjamma Bai, Circumstantial Witness Pw.3: K.Balaji, Circumstantial Witness Pw.4: Shaik Noor, Panch witness for CDF Pw.5: Arjune Maya, Circumstantial Witness Pw.6: K.Vaman, Panch witness for CDF Pw.7: Dr.J.Nikhil Raj, Medical Officer Pw.8: K.Roshini, Investigation Officer 11CC.No.53 of 2021

Dated:13-08-2025

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

Ex.P1 is the Report-Nil- Ex.P2 is the signature of Pw.4 on CDF Ex.P3 is the signature of Pw.6 on CDF Ex.P4 is the Medical Certificate of Pw.1 Ex.P5 is the FIR Ex.P6 is the CDF

MATERIAL OBJECTS

MO.1 is the Stick.

Sd/-

FAC: Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Boath.

// True copy //

FAC: Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Boath.

12CC.No.53 of 2021

Dated:13-08-2025

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: BOATH

C.C.NO.53 OF 2021

1. Name of the Police Station Gudihathnoor

2. Description of the accusedA1: Devtaki Dhattha @ Dattu, S/o. Dvakathe Gnanoba, Age:32 years, Occ: Driver. A2: Devkate Sheshikala, W/o. Gnanoba, Age: 65 years, Occ: Homemaker. A3: Devkate Gnanoba, S/o. Govindrao, Age: 70 years, Occ: Agriculture. (Abated). A4: Devkate Maruthi, S/o. Gnanoba, Age: 45 years, Occ: Agriculture. A5: Devkate Govind, S/o. Gnanoba, Age: 40 years, Occ: Agriculture. A6: Rubnoor Surekha, W/o. Thirupathi, Age: 42 years, Occ: Homemaker, R/o. Dhanora village of Indervelly Mandal. A7: Devkate Narayan, S/o. Gnanoba, Age: 30 years, Occ: Driver.

Accused A1, A2, A4, A5, A7 are R/o. Mannur village of Gudihathnoor Mandal.

3. a) Date of Occurrence 18-02-2020

b) Date of Complaint 05-03-2020

c) Date of Apprehension 10-03-2020 - A1 14-10-2020 - A2 to A7

d) Date of Release on bail 13-03-2020 -A1 14-10-2020 - A2 to A7

e) Date of Commencement 02-07-2025 of trial

f) Date of Close of trial 23-07-2025

g) Date of Judgment 13-08-2025

4. Offence U/Secs.326, 294 (b), 498-A of IPC against A1 13CC.No.53 of 2021

Dated:13-08-2025

and U/Secs.326 r/w. 109, 498-A and 294 (b) of IPC, against A2, A4 to A7.

5. Plea of AccusedNot guilty

6. Finding Not guilty

7. Sentence or order : The Accused A1 isfound not guilty for the offences punishable U/Secs.326, 294 (b), 498-A of IPC and Accused A2, A4 to A7 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Secs.326 r/w. 109, 498-A and 294 (b) of IPC, accordingly, they are acquitted U/Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused persons, if any shall be cancelled after lapse of appeal time as per section 437-A Cr.P.C. The case property which is marked as Mo.1 i.e., a Stick which was given to the police concern for safe custody shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

8. Explanation for delay No delay

FAC:Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Boath.

14CC.No.53 of 2021

Dated:13-08-2025

P.S. Gudihathnoor

C.C.No.53 of 20 21

Devkati Dhattha @ Dattu and Others.

...Accused.

U/Secs.326, 294 (b), 498-A of IPC against A1 and U/Secs.326 r/w. 109, 498-A and 294 (b) of IPC, against A2, A4 to A7.

Dt.13-08-2025

Accused A1, A2, A4 to A7 are called present.

Judgment pronounced in the open court (vide separate one) IN THE RESULT :

The Accused A1 isfound not guilty for the offences punishable U/Secs.326, 294 (b), 498-A of IPC and Accused A2, A4 to A7 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Secs.326 r/w. 109, 498-A and 294 (b) of IPC, accordingly, they are acquitted U/Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused persons, if any shall be cancelled after lapse of appeal time as per section 437-A Cr.P.C. The case property which is marked as Mo.1 i.e., a Stick which was given to the police concern for safe custody shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

FAC: JFCM, Boath.

15CC.No.53 of 2021

Dated:13-08-2025

16CC.No.53 of 2021

Dated:13-08-2025

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT: UTNOOR

Present:- Mounika Ponnapalli Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Utnoor.

(Dated this the 17th day of April, 2026)

C.C. 377 of 2021

(Cr. No. 207 of 2020 of Utnoor P.S)

Between:

The State of Telangana, through, Sub-Inspector of Police, Utnoor P.S, Adilabad. ...Prosecution A N D

A1. Athram Chandu, S/o. Pollu, Age: 55 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Somuguda, H/o. Salewada (k) of Utnoor Mandal.

A2. Athram Yadhav @ Yadorao, S/o. Pollu, Age:38 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Somuguda, H/o. Salewada (k) of Utnoor Mandal.

A3. Athram Chathru, S/o. Pollu, Age: 30 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Somuguda, H/o. Salewada (k) of Utnoor Mandal.

A4. Pendur Mothiram, S/o. Somu, Age: 58 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Somuguda, H/o. Salewada (k) of Utnoor Mandal.

A5. Pendur Bheemrao, S/o. Somu, Age: 63 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Somuguda, H/o. Salewada (k) of Utnoor Mandal.

A6. Korenga Ramji @ Ramu, S/o. Kashiram, Age: 44 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Somuguda, H/o. Salewada (k) of Utnoor Mandal. (The Accused no.6 reported died and Death certificate filed, as such, the case against Accused no.6 is Abated)

A7. Madavi Gangaram @ Seetharam, S/o. Sheku, Age: 37 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Somuguda, H/o. Salewada (k) of Utnoor Mandal. A8. Durva Gangu, S/o. Bhooma, Age: 60 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Somuguda,

CC.No. 377 of 2021

2 Dated: 17-04-2026

H/o. Kopargad village of Utnoor Mandal.

A9. Durva Yadorao, S/o. Bhooma, Age: 42 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Somuguda, H/o. Kopargad village of Utnoor Mandal.

A10. Durva Jaggu @ Jugadi Rao, S/o. Bhuma, Age: 37 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Somuguda, H/o. Kopargad village of Utnoor Mandal.

A11. Durva Asherao @ Asharao, S/o.Gangaram, Age: 70 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Somuguda, H/o. Kopargad village of Utnoor Mandal.

A12. Korenga Reddy @ Ashok, S/o. Ramji, Age: 53 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Somuguda, H/o. Kopargad village of Utnoor Mandal.

A13. Madavi Hanmanthu, S/o. Laxman, Age: 40 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Somuguda, H/o. Kopargad village of Utnoor Mandal.

A14. Pendur Maru, S/o. Bheema Rao, Age: 58 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Maruguda, H/o. Kopargad village of Utnoor Mandal.

A15. Vedma Jangu @ Sedmaki Jangu, S/o. Baburao, Age: 45 years, Occ: Agriculture, H/o. Kopargad village of Utnoor Mandal. (The Accused no.15 reported died and Death certificate filed, as such, the case against Accused no.15 is Abated)

A16. Athram Sungi @ Suguna, W/o. Yadav Rao, Age: 29 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Somuguda, H/o. Kopargad village of Utnoor Mandal.

A17. Thodasam Bheemrao, S/o. Gangu, Age: 40 years, Occ: Adivasi Girijana Sangam State Secretary, R/o. Vidhyanagar Adilabad, N/o. Dosthnagar village of Kadam Mandal of Nirmal District.

A18. Meshram@Mesram Manohar, S/o.Nagorao, Age: 25 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Pipri (v) of Indravelly mandal, now at Adilabad. (The Accused no.18 reported died and Death certificate filed, as such, the case against Accused no.18 is Abated)

A19. Jugnaka @ Jugnak Gangaram, S/o. Pandu, Age: 43 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Somuguda, H/o. Kopargad village of Utnoor Mandal.

. . . Accused A1, A5, A7 to A14, A16, A19, A19

CC.No. 377 of 2021

3 Dated: 17-04-2026

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

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri B.Jagan, Learned counsel

for the Accused and having stood over consideration till this day, the Court delivered

the following:

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

01. The Sub Inspector of Police, Utnoor Police Station had filed the charge sheet against the persons who were shown as accused in Crime No.207 of 2020 for the offences punishable U/Secs. 379, 447, 427, 506 r/w. 149 of Indian Penal Code (herein after referred as IPC., for the sake of brevity) against Accused persons.

02. The case of the prosecution in brief as per charge sheet is as follows :

It is the case of prosecution that on 04-11-2020 at about 11:30 AM at

Kopparghad village, the accused persons, forming themselves into an unlawful assembly, criminally trespassed into the agricultural land of the complainant/Lw.1 situated in Sy.No.33 of Utnoor and caused damage to cotton crop and vegetable crops such as ladies finger and bitter gourd, and further committed theft of 55 kilograms of cotton. It is also alleged that when Lws.1 to 3 tried to resist, the accused threatened them with deadly weapons such as sickle, axe and crowbar, due to which they fled from the spot and further alleged that the accused persons damaged the cotton crop worth of Rs.50,000/-, Bitter guard crop worth of Rs.80,000/- and Lady’s Fingers crop worth of Rs.80,000/-. Hence the Report. Based on the report given by the

Complainant, Sub-Inspector of Police, Utnoor had registered a case in Crime No. 207 of 2020, for the offences punishable U/Secs. 379, 447, 427, 506 r/w. 149 IPC against

Accused persons and after completion of entire investigation, he filed charge sheet against the Accused.

03. This court took the cognizance for the offences punishable U/Secs. 147, 447, 427, 379, 506 r/w. 149 of IPC against Accused persons and issued summons to them.

On appearance of the Accused persons, copies of case documents were furnished to them as contemplated U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

CC.No. 377 of 2021

4 Dated: 17-04-2026

04. The Accused are examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C., for which they denied the charge sheet allegations, thereafter charges are framed against the accused persons for the offences punishable 147, 447, 427, 379, 506 r/w. 149 of IPC against Accused persons and the same were read over and explained to the Accused in their vernacular language for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

05. In support of its case, the prosecution had examined Pws.1 to 9 and got marked

Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 during the course of trial.

06. After closing the evidence on prosecution side, the Accused are examined in their vernacular language under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. They denied the incriminating evidence made against them in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and reported no defence evidence. Neither Accused persons nor any witness are examined and no documents were marked on their behalf.

07. Heard the learned APP for the prosecution and the learned counsel for the

Accused persons and also perused the documents available on record.

08. Now the point arises for consideration is :-

“Whether the prosecution has been able to establish the guilt of the

Accused for the offences punishable U/Secs.147, 447, 427, 379, 506 r/w.

149 IPC., beyond all reasonable doubt?

09. In order to establish the guilt of the Accused persons, the prosecution had relied upon the evidence of Pw.1 who is the Complainant, Pws.2, 3, 5 and 8 who are the

Eye witnesses, Pw.4 who is the Panch witness for Confession-cum-Seizure panchanama, Pw.6 who is the Photographer, Pw.7 who is the Panch witness for Scene of Offence panchanama, Pw.9 who is the Investigation Officer. The Exhibits marked through prosecution during the course of trial are that Ex.P1 is the Report,

Ex.P2 is the Confession-cum-Seizure panchanama, Ex.P3 is the Section 161 Cr.P.C., statement of Pw.5, Ex.P4 is the Photographs (04) along with one Compact Disk,

CC.No. 377 of 2021

5 Dated: 17-04-2026

Ex.P5 is the Scene of Offence Panchanama, Ex.P6 is the Section 161 Cr.P.C., statement of Pw.8 and Ex.P7 is the First Information Report.

10. The prosecution had relied upon the evidence of Pws.1 to 9 in support of their contentions, which has to scrutinized with careful circumspect.

i. The case of the prosecution mainly rests upon the testimonies of Pw.1 who is complainant and Pws.2 and 3, who are projected as eye witnesses. The Pw.1, being the complainant, deposed before the court that the accused trespassed into his agricultural land and damaged the crops and also threatened him. The Pw.2 and Pw.3 also broadly supported the version of Pw.1 in their evidence. However, on careful scrutiny of the evidence of Pws.1 to 3, it is seen that their testimonies suffer from material omissions and in-consistencies. The Pw.1 admitted in his cross-examination that he did not produce any documentary proof such as patta passbook to establish his possession over the land in Sy.No.33 and further admitted that he did not state before the police the extent of land under each crop or extent of crops cultivated. He was unable to attribute specific overt acts to each accused or specific weapons used by the accused except in a general manner, thereby making his version vague in respect of individual overt acts of each of the accused. The Pw.2 also admits that he cannot state which accused carried which weapon or the manner in which the crops were damaged, and thus his evidence is general in nature. The Pw.3, who is the brother of

Pw.1, admitted the existence of prior enmity and also failed to specify overt acts or identify each accused with clarity, thereby reducing the evidentiary value of his testimony. Further, the defence has been able to probabilize the existence of a prior land dispute between the parties, as elicited from the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses/Pws.1 to 3, with reference to a panchanama dated 22-07-1995.

In the present case, the prosecution has failed to establish such possession of Pw.1 over the disputed land, through cogent documentary or reliable oral evidence. Mere interested testimonies of related witnesses without independent corroboration is not sufficient to sustain conviction. Insofar as the offence under section 447 IPC is

CC.No. 377 of 2021

6 Dated: 17-04-2026

concerned, the prosecution must establish that Pw.1 was in lawful possession of the property and that the accused unlawfully entered into such property with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to produce any documentary evidence such as patta passbook, revenue records or any independent evidence to prove the possession of Pw.1 over the land in survey no.33. The evidence on record also discloses existence of prior land dispute between the parties. In the absence of clear proof of possession of Pw.1 over disputed land and also intimidation, insult or annoyance caused by the accused towards Pw.1, the allegation of criminal trespass becomes doubtful.

ii. With regard to the offence under section 427 of IPC, the prosecution must prove that the accused caused destruction of property resulting in wrongful loss or damage.

In the present case, except the interested testimonies of Pws.1 to 3, there is no reliable independent evidence to establish the existence of crops, their extent, or the alleged damage. The Pw.1 himself admitted that he did not state before police the extent of crops cultivated by him in his alleged land by the time of alleged offence.

No agricultural or revenue officer was examined to substantiate the existence and valuation of crops. Thus, the essential ingredients of mischief are not proved.

iii. Coming to the offence under section 379 of IPC, it is incumbent on the part of prosecution to prove dishnoest removal of movable property from the possession of another without consent. Though, the prosecution alleges theft of 55 kilograms of cotton, the seizure of such cotton is doubtful. The Pw.4 who is the panch witness, could not testify before the court as to the person who weighed the cotton or to whom it belongs. Added to that, even the investigation officer/Pw.9 admits that no convincing evidence was collected to establish ownership or possession of the alleged stolen property i.e., 55 kgs of cotton. In the absence of reliable evidence connecting the accused with the removal of cotton, the offence of theft of 55 kgs cotton by the accused is not proved.

iv. As regards the offence of criminal intimidation is concerned, the evidence on record do not disclose any consistent or specific acts of threat attributable to each

CC.No. 377 of 2021

7 Dated: 17-04-2026

accused and there is no consistent and specific evidence regarding threats extended by individual accused. The allegations are omnibus and lack of specificity, which is in-sufficient and hence the same is not proved under section 506 of IPC. Likewise, the prosecution has also failed to establish the common object of the unlawful assembly and specific participation of each accused in alleged rioting, thereby rendering Sections 147 and 149 of IPC in-applicable.

v. The evidence of Pw.4 who is the panch witness for confession-cum-seizure panchanama and Pw.7 who is the panch witness for scene of offence panchanama, also do not inspire confidence of this court, as both admitted their relationship with

Pw.1 and could not testify essential particulars or contents regarding their respective panchanamas. Their inability to speak about the details of seizure and scene observation creates doubt regarding the genuineness of Ex.P2/Confession-cum-

Seizure panchanama and Ex.P5/Scene of Offence panchanama. Further, the Pw.5 and

Pw.8 had turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case, thereby weakening the prosecution. The Pw.6, the photographer, only deposed about taking photographs at the instance of the police, but his evidence do not establish the occurrence of the alleged offence or connect the accused with the alleged crime or alleged incident on the alleged date.

vi. The Investigating Officer who was examined as Pw.9 admitted significant lapses in his investigation. He admits that he did not seize any of the alleged weapons used in the offence and he did not collect any documentary evidence regarding ownership or possession of the disputed land and did not examine any revenue officials, and did not mention proper survey particulars in the scene of offence panchanama. These omissions are material and go to the root of the prosecution case, creating serious doubt about the veracity of the investigation.

vii. It is a well settled principle of criminal law that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and if any reasonable doubt arises, the benefit must go to the accused. In the present case, the cumulative effect of in-consistencies in the

CC.No. 377 of 2021

8 Dated: 17-04-2026

evidence of crucial witnesses i.e., Pws.1 to 3, hostile witnesses i.e., Pws.5 and 8, lack of independent corroboration, and serious lapses in investigation creates reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution case. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 447, 427, 379 and 506 r/w. section 149 IPC beyond reasonable doubt, as such, accused are acquitted and they are set at liberty.

Accordingly, this point is answered against the prosecution and in favour accused.

IN THE RESULT : The Accused A1 to A5, A7 to A14, A16, A17, A19 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Secs. 147, 447, 427, 379, 506 r/w. 149 of

IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted U/Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused persons, if any shall be cancelled after lapse of appeal time as per section 437-A Cr.P.C. The Case property i.e., 55 kgs Cotton/Patthi, which was given to the police concerned for safe custody vide CP No.102 of 2021, Dt.17.07.2021, shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

(Typed to my dictation on computer by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 17 th day of April, 2026.)

Digitally signed by

PONNAPALLI MOUNIKA

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Utnoor.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:

PW.1 : Rabde Mohan Singh, Complainant PW.2 : Rabde Premsingh, Eye witness PW.3: Rabde Eshwar Singh, Eye witness PW.4: Alavath Andhu Singh, Panch witness for Confession-cum-Seizure panchanama PW.5: Jadhav Utham, Eye witness PW.6: Jilapally Rubin, Photographer, PW.7: Kachkad Rangarao, Panch witness for Scene of Offence panchanama

CC.No. 377 of 2021

9 Dated: 17-04-2026

PW.8: Alavath Namdev, Eye witness PW.9: P.Subbarao, Investigation Officer

For Defence:

-None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1 is the Report

Ex.P2 is the Confession-cum-Seizure panchanama

Ex.P3 is the Section 161 Cr.P.C., statement of Pw.5

Ex.P4 is the Photographs (04) along with one Compact Disk

Ex.P5 is the Scene of Offence Panchanama

Ex.P6 is the Section 161 Cr.P.C., statement of Pw.8

Ex.P7 is the First Information Report

For Defence:

-Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-Nil- Digitally signed by Digitally signed by

PONNAPALLIPONNAPALLI

MOUNIKA

MOUNIKA

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Utnoor

CC.No. 377 of 2021

10 Dated: 17-04-2026

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: UTNOOR

C.C.NO. 377 OF 2021

1.Name of the Police Station Utnoor

2.Description of the accusedA1. Athram Chandu, S/o. Pollu, Age: 55 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Somuguda, H/o. Salewada (k) of Utnoor Mandal.

A2. Athram Yadhav @ Yadorao, S/o. Pollu, Age:38 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Somuguda, H/o. Salewada (k) of Utnoor Mandal.

A3. Athram Chathru, S/o. Pollu, Age: 30 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Somuguda, H/o. Salewada (k) of Utnoor Mandal.

A4. Pendur Mothiram, S/o. Somu, Age: 58 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Somuguda, H/o. Salewada (k) of Utnoor Mandal.

A5. Pendur Bheemrao, S/o. Somu, Age: 63 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Somuguda, H/o. Salewada (k) of Utnoor Mandal.

A6. Korenga Ramji @ Ramu, S/o. Kashiram, Age: 44 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Somuguda, H/o. Salewada (k) of Utnoor Mandal. (The Accused no.6 reported died and Death certificate filed, as such, the case against Accused no.6 is Abated)

A7. Madavi Gangaram @ Seetharam, S/o. Sheku, Age: 37 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Somuguda, H/o. Salewada (k) of Utnoor Mandal.

A8. Durva Gangu, S/o. Bhooma, Age: 60 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Somuguda, H/o. Kopargad village of Utnoor Mandal.

A9. Durva Yadorao, S/o. Bhooma, Age: 42 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Somuguda, H/o. Kopargad village of Utnoor Mandal.

CC.No. 377 of 2021

11 Dated: 17-04-2026

A10. Durva Jaggu @ Jugadi Rao, S/o. Bhuma, Age: 37 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Somuguda, H/o. Kopargad village of Utnoor Mandal.

A11. Durva Asherao @ Asharao, S/o.Gangaram, Age: 70 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Somuguda, H/o. Kopargad village of Utnoor Mandal.

A12. Korenga Reddy @ Ashok, S/o. Ramji, Age: 53 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Somuguda, H/o. Kopargad village of Utnoor Mandal.

A13. Madavi Hanmanthu, S/o. Laxman, Age: 40 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Somuguda, H/o. Kopargad village of Utnoor Mandal.

A14. Pendur Maru, S/o. Bheema Rao, Age: 58 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Maruguda, H/o. Kopargad village of Utnoor Mandal.

A15. Vedma Jangu @ Sedmaki Jangu, S/o. Baburao, Age: 45 years, Occ: Agriculture, H/o. Kopargad village of Utnoor Mandal. (The Accused no.15 reported died and Death certificate filed, as such, the case against Accused no.15 is Abated)

A16. Athram Sungi @ Suguna, W/o. Yadav Rao, Age: 29 yers, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Somuguda, H/o. Kopargad village of Utnoor Mandal.

A17. Thodasam Bheemrao, S/o. Gangu, Age: 40 yers, Occ: Adivasi Girijana Sangam State Secretary, R/o. Vidhyanagar Adilabad, N/o. Dosthnagar village of Kadam Mandal of Nirmal District.

A18. Meshram@Mesram Manohar, S/o.Nagorao, Age: 25 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Pipri (v) of Indravelly mandal, now at Adilabad. (The Accused no.18 reported died and Death certificate filed, as such, the case against Accused no.18 is Abated) A19. Jugnaka @ Jugnak Gangaram,

CC.No. 377 of 2021

12 Dated: 17-04-2026

S/o. Pandu, Age: 43 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Somuguda, H/o. Kopargad village of Utnoor

3.a) Date of Occurrence 04-11-2020

b) Date of Complaint 04-11-2020

c) Date of Apprehension -

d) Date of Release on bail -

e) Date of Commencement of 17-11-2025 trial

f) Date of Close of trial 08-04-2026

g) Date of Judgment 17-04-2026

4.Offence U/Secs. 147, 447, 427, 379, 506 r/w. 149 of IPC

5.Finding Not guilty

6.Sentence or order : The Accused A1 to A5, A7 to A14, A16, A17, A19 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Secs. 147, 447, 427, 379, 506 r/w. 149 of IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted U/Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused persons, if any shall be cancelled after lapse of appeal time as per section 437-A Cr.P.C. The Case property i.e., 55 kgs Cotton/Patthi, which was given to the police concerned for safe custody vide CP No.102 of 2021, Dt.17.07.2021, shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

7.Explanation for delay No delay

Digitally signed by

PONNAPALLI

MOUNIKA

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Utnoor.

CC.No. 377 of 2021

13 Dated: 17-04-2026

CC.No. 377 of 2021

14 Dated: 17-04-2026

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT UTNOOR

Dated this the 17th day of April, 2026.

Present: Mounika Ponnapalli, Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Utnoor

C.C.No. 203 of 2025

Between :

The State, through Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Narnoor.

....Complainant

//AND//

Rathod Kamalabai, W/o. Late Ramu, Age: 60 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o. Mallangi village of Narnoor Mandal. ….Accused

This case came before this court for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri Zameer Khan, Learned Counsel for the Accused, having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This is a case filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Narnoor for the offences punishable under sections 7(a) r/w. 8(e) of T.S Prohibition Act, 1995 against the

Accused person.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief as per charge-sheet is as follows:

It is the case of prosecution that on 05.05.2025 at about 10:00 hours, Lw.5 along with his staff, while conducting patrolling duty at Malepur Malangi village, he received credible information that the accused was selling illicit

CC.No. 203 of 2025

2 Dated: 17-04-2026 liquor (Gudumba) at her house. Upon which, they rushed to the house of the accused and allegedly found a plastic can containing 3 liters of illicit distilled liquor (Gudumba) intended for sale. On enquiry, Accused revealed her identity particulars and also with regard to manufacturing and selling of illicit liquor illegally by her in her house premises to consumers at higher prices without any having any valid license. Upon which, Lw.5 had seized contraband i.e., 3 liters of ID Liquor (Gudumba), worth of Rs.900/- (each one liter gudumba worth of

Rs.300/-) in one plastic can, after taking samples from it for chemical examination and sealed them in the presence of mediators, under cover of panchanama by affixing the signed chits of the panchas. Thereafter, Lw.5 brought the accused to police station along with the seized property and lodged report against the accused.

3. The case was taken on file for the offences punishable U/Secs. 7(a) r/w. 8(e) of T.S Prohibition Act, against the accused. On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents are furnished to him as contemplated u/Sec.230

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (herein after referred as BNSS., for the sake of brevity)

4. The Accused is examined under Section 262 BNSS., for which he denied the charge sheet allegations, thereafter charges are framed against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7(a) r/w. 8(e) of T.S. Prohibition Act, 1995. The contents of charges were read over and explained to the accusedin her vernacular language, for which, she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During the course of trial, in support of its case, the prosecution had examined Pws.1 to 4 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 on its behalf.

CC.No. 203 of 2025

3 Dated: 17-04-2026

6. After closing the evidence on the prosecution side, the Accused is examined under section 351 of BNSS in her vernacular language and she denied the incriminating evidence made against her in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and reported no defence evidence. Neither the accused nor any witness were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the accused person.

7. Heard arguments on behalf of the Learned APP and the Learned counsel for the accused and also perused the documents available on record.

8. Now, the point that arise for determination is “ Whether the prosecution

has proved its case and established the guilt of the accused person beyond

reasonable doubt for the offences punishable under Sections 7(a) r/w. 8(e) of

T.S Prohibition Act” ?

9. To establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution had relied upon the evidence of Pws. 1 and 2 who are the police personnel, Pw.3 who is the panch witness for Confession-cum-Recovery panchanama and Scene of offence panchanama and Pw.4 who is the Investigation Officer. The Exhibit marked through prosecution during the course of trial are that Ex.P1 is the Confession- cum-Recovery panchanama, Ex.P2 is the Scene of Offence panchanama, Ex.P3 is the Report, Ex.P4 is the First Information Report and Ex.P5 is the FSL

Analysis Report.

POINT :

i. The Pw.1 and Pw.2, who are police constables, deposed that on 05.05.2025 during patrolling duty, they received credible information with regard to selling of distilled liquor by the accused at her house and upon raiding the house of the accused, they found a plastic can containing 3 liters of illicit liquor (Gudumba). However, in their cross-examination, several material omissions and contradictions were elicited by the learned counsel for the accused, which makes the version of prosecution doubtful. In his evidence, the Pw.1 admitted that the search was conducted without obtaining any

CC.No. 203 of 2025

4 Dated: 17-04-2026 search warrant and she also deposed that the panchanama was drafted by Pw.2 which in fact as per the record conducted by Lw.5 and could not furnish details such as the house bearing number of accused or description or colour of alleged can, in which alleged illicit liquor (Gudumba) was found on the alleged date. Added to that during the course of cross examination of Pw.1, she categorically admitted before the court that she do not know the house bearing number of the alleged premises in which the accused was found to be selling illicit liquor and the Pws.1 and 2 failed to collect any document which could establish that the said house in which alleged Gudumba found belongs to the accused. The Pw.2, though corroborated the evidence of Pw.1 in his chief-examination, however, he contradicted the version of Pw.1 as well prosecution on material particulars. The

Pw.2 had deposed before the court that the colour of the alleged can was yellow and that it had a capacity of 5 liters, which was never deposed by Pw.1 in her evidence nor mentioned by Lw.5 in Ex.P1. The Pw.2 further admitted that the alleged liquor was not tested at the spot. His evidence also reveals inconsistencies regarding the manner of raid and seizure. Further, it is evident on record that the Pws.1 and 2 failed to file their duty passports before this Court to substantiate their presence on official duty at the relevant time and place on the alleged date. These admissions create serious doubt regarding their presence at the scene and the very identity of the place of occurrence.

ii. The Pw.3 who is the panch witness for confession-cum-seizure panchanama had categorically admits before the court that he could not specifically state the contents of Ex.P1/Confession-cum-Seizure panchanama and Ex.P2/Scene of Offence panchanama. The Pw.3 further deposed that one panchanama was prepared on 05.05.2025 and another on 11.05.2025, but not clearly mentioned as to which, when and where each panchanamas (Exs.P1 and P2) were drafted by the police in his presence on the relevant date and such ambiguity would certainly create doubt regarding the timing and genuineness of seizure and scene observation panchanamas.

CC.No. 203 of 2025

5 Dated: 17-04-2026

Mere confession of the accused before Pw.3 that she was manufacturing and selling distilled liquor to the innocent people to have wrongful gain without having valid license is hardly sufficient to prove the contentions of the prosecution that the alleged

Gudumba was seized in the presence of Pw.3 from the possession of accused by the police on the alleged date. Thus, the independent witness has not supported the prosecution case in material particulars, thereby rendering the alleged panchanamas doubtful and unreliable.

iii. The Pw.4 who is the Investigating Officer, deposed regarding receipt of information, conduct of seizure, registration of crime, and filing of charge sheet.

However, the testimony of Pw.4 remains uncorroborated by any trustworthy independent evidence. In his chief-examination, the Pw.4 had categorically de- posed before the court that the incident occurred on 28.07.2025, which is con- tradicting the version of Pws.1 to 3 that the incident took place on 05.05.2025.

This material contradiction goes to the root of the prosecution case and creates serious doubt about the very occurrence. Though, the Pw.4 had testified before the court with regard to the samples which were drawn by him and also with re- gard to the samples sent by him for chemical analysis, the prosecution has failed to satisfactorily establish the nexus between the seized contraband and the samples allegedly examined. At this juncture, it is necessary to examine whether the essential ingredients of the offence under Sec. 7(a) r/w. sec 8(e) of the Telangana Prohibition and Excise Act have been established by the prosecu- tion. To attract the said provisions, the prosecution must prove beyond reason- able doubt that the accused was in conscious and exclusive possession of illic- itly distilled liquor and that such possession was for the purpose of sale or distribution in contravention of law. Mere recovery of alleged contraband is not sufficient unless it is proved that the same was seized from the conscious possession of the accused and that the seizure was conducted in strict

CC.No. 203 of 2025

6 Dated: 17-04-2026 compliance with procedural safeguards. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to establish the foundational fact of possession, as there is no reliable evidence to show that the premises from which the alleged Gudumba was seized belongs to or was in the exclusive control of the accused on the alleged date. The failure to identify the house number or produce any documentary proof linking the accused to the scene of offence creates a serious dent in the prosecution case. Further, the seizure panchanama, which forms the backbone of the prosecution case in excise offences, has not been proved in accordance with law, as the independent panch witness (Pw.3) has not supported the contents and has admitted lack of knowledge about the same. The discrepancies regarding the date of offence, preparation of panchanamas, and manner of seizure create serious doubt about the authenticity of the prosecution version. Further the search of the house of the accused was admittedly conducted without a warrant, and no satisfactory explanation is forthcoming from the side of prosecution and this fur- ther affects the credibility of the alleged seizure. Though the prosecution relied upon the FSL report (Ex.P5), in the absence of trustworthy evidence regarding proper seizure, sampling, and safe custody, the said report alone is insufficient to establish guilt.

iv. It is also pertinent to note here that in cases under the Excise law, strict adherence to procedural safeguards such as proper seizure, sampling, sealing, and establishing an unbroken chain of custody is of paramount importance. Any deviation or doubt in these aspects would render the prosecution case unsafe for conviction. Though the Investigating Officer/Pw.4 has deposed about sending samples for chemical analysis, the prosecution has not satisfactorily demonstrated the link between the seized material and the sample allegedly examined, thereby creating a gap in the chain of evidence. Thus, in the absence of proof of conscious possession, reliable seizure, and compliance with

CC.No. 203 of 2025

7 Dated: 17-04-2026 mandatory procedural safeguards, the statutory requirements to bring home the guilt under Section 7(a) r/w. 8(e) of the Telangana Prohibition and Excise Act remain un-fulfilled.

v. It is a settled principle of criminal law that the prosecution must stand on its own legs and prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case, the material contradictions, lack of independent corroboration, and failure to establish essential ingredients of the offence create reasonable doubt in the prosecution case. The benefit of such doubt must necessarily go in favour of the accused. Accordingly, this Court holds that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offences punishable under Section 7(a) r/w. Section 8(e) of the Telangana Prohibition

Act.

IN THE RESULT: The Accused is found not guilty for offences punishable under sections 7(a) r/w. 8(e) of T.S Prohibition Act, 1995. Accordingly, she is acquitted under section 271(1) BNSS., and the Accused is set at liberty forthwith. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the Accused person shall be in force for a period of (06) months from today U/Sec. 481 of BNSS. The

Un-marked case property i.e., 3 Litres Gudumba which was given to the police concerned for safe custody vide CP no.46 of 2025, Dt. 10-07-2025, shall be destroyed, after lapse of appeal time.

(Typed to my dictation by my Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17 th day of April, 2026). Digitally signed by

PONNAPALLI MOUNIKA

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Utnoor

CC.No. 203 of 2025

8 Dated: 17-04-2026

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined:

For Prosecution:

Pw.1: Rathod Pooja, Police personnel Pw.2: Shivakrishna, Police personnel Pw.3: Jadhav Suresh, Panch witness for Confession-cum-Recovery panchanama and Scene of Offence Panchanama Pw.4: K.Akhil, Investigation Officer

For Defence:

-None-

Documents marked:

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1 is the Confession-cum-Seizure panchanama Ex.P2 is the Scene of Offence panchanama Ex.P3 is the Report Ex.P4 is the First Information Report Ex.P5 is the FSL Analysis Report. For Defence:

-Nil-

Material Objects:

-NIL-

Digitally signed by

PONNAPALLI MOUNIKA

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Utnoor

CC.No. 203 of 2025

9 Dated: 17-04-2026

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: UTNOOR

C.C.NO. 203 of 2025

1.Name of the Police Station Narnoor

2.Description of the accusedRathod Kamalabai, W/o. Late Ramu, Age: 60 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o. Mallangi village of Narnoor Mandal.

3.a) Date of Occurrence 05-05-2025

b) Date of Complaint 05-05-2025

c) Date of Apprehension -

d) Date of Release on bail -

e) Date of Commencement of 10-03-2026 trial

f) Date of Close of trial 15-04-2026

g) Date of Judgment 17-04-2026

4.Offence U/secs.7(a) r/w. 8(e) of T.S Prohibition Act, 1995

5.Finding Not guilty

6.Sentence or order : The Accused is found not guilty for offences punishable under sections 7(a) r/w. 8(e) of T.S Prohibition Act, 1995. Accordingly, she is acquitted under section 271(1) BNSS., and the Accused is set at liberty forthwith. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the Accused person shall be in force for a period of (06) months from today U/Sec. 481 of BNSS. The Un-marked case property i.e., 3 Litres Gudumba which was given to the police concerned for safe custody vide CP no.46 of 2025, Dt. 10-07-2025, shall be destroyed, after lapse of appeal time.

7.Explanation for delay No delay

Digitally signed by

PONNAPALLI MOUNIKA

Judicial Magistrate of First class,

Utnoor

CC.No. 203 of 2025

10 Dated: 17-04-2026

CC.No. 203 of 2025

11 Dated: 17-04-2026

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT: UTNOOR

Present:- Mounika Ponnapalli Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Utnoor.

(Dated this the 17th day of April, 2026)

C.C. 342 of 2021

(Cr. No. 207 of 2019 of Utnoor P.S)

Between:

The State of Telangana, through, Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Utnoor ...Prosecution A N D

A1. Dunnapothula Suman, S/o. Lachaiah, Age: 26 years, Occ: Auto driver, R/o. H.No.6-1, Thogarrayi(v) of Sulthanabad, Now at Hanumannagar of ACC Mancherial

A2. Tekula Gangadhar @ Chanti, S/o. Seetharam, Age: 29 years, Occ: Auto driver, R/o. Utnoor village of Adilabad District . . . Accused

This case came before this court for final hearing in the presence of the

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the State and Sri B. JaiwanthRao, the

Learned counsel for the Accused persons and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

2 CC.No. 342 of 2021

Dated: 17-04-2026

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

01. The Sub Inspector of Police, Utnoor Police Station had filed the charge sheet against the persons who were shown as accused in Crime No. 207 of 2019 for the offences punishable U/Secs. 457, 380 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code (herein after referred as IPC for the sake of brevity).

02. The case of the prosecution in brief as per charge sheet is as follows :

It is the case of prosecution that the De-facto complainant/Lw.1, who resides at Utnoor, went to Hyderabad along with his wife/Lw.2, on 15-09-2019 after duly locking his house and by handing over the keys to

Lw.3, who was working as a maid in his house. In the intervening night of 16/17-09-2019, the accused persons gained entry into the house of Lw.1 by broke opening the lock which situates near Boyawada community hall and committed theft of gold and silver ornaments i.e., 1. Bangaru Nemali Necklace of wt.25.8 gms, 2. Bangaru Necklace of wt.15.5 gms, 3. Small Necklace of wt.13 gms, 4. Bangaru Chevi Kammalu of wt.2.5gms, 5.Vendi Vallem of wt.140gms, 6. Vendi ginnelu (4) of wt.40.4 gms, 7. Vendi pattila jatha (1) of wt.27 gms, total worth of Rs.70,000/- by broke opening the almirahs. Hence the Report.

03.Based on the report given by the complainant, Sub-Inspector of Police,

Utnoor had registered a case in Crime No. 207 of 2019 for the offences punishable U/Secs. 457, 380 r/w. 34 of IPC against the Accused. During the course of investigation, the Sub-Inspector of police examined the witnesses, visited the scene of offence and drawn Crime Details form and also conducted

Confession-cum-Seizure Panchanama and after completion of investigation, 3 CC.No. 342 of 2021

Dated: 17-04-2026

filed the charge sheet against the Accused for the offences punishable

U/Secs. 457, 380 r/w. 34 of IPC.

04.This court took cognizance for the offences punishable

U/Secs. 457, 380 r/w. 34 IPC against the Accused and issued summons to

Accused. On appearance of the Accused, copies of case documents are furnished to them as contemplated U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

05. The Accused are examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C., for which Accused denied the charge sheet allegations, thereafter charges were framed against the

Accused, for the offences punishable U/Secs. 457, 380 r/w. 34 of IPC and the same were read over and explained to the Accused persons, in their vernacular language, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

05. In support of its case, the prosecution had examined Pws.1 to 6 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 and Mos.1 to 6, during the course of trial.

06. After closing the evidence on prosecution side, the Accused are examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in their vernacular language. They denied the incriminating evidence available against them in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and reported no defence evidence. Neither Accused nor any witness are examined nor any documents are marked on behalf of the

Accused.

07. Heard the learned APP for the prosecution and the learned counsel for the

Accused and also perused the documents available on record.

08. Now the point arises for consideration is :-

“Whether the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the

Accused A1 and A2 for the offences punishable U/secs. 457, 380

r/w. 34 of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt ?” 4 CC.No. 342 of 2021

Dated: 17-04-2026

09. In order to establish the guilt of the Accused, the prosecution had relied upon the evidence of Pw.1 who is the Complainant, Pw.2 who is the

Circumstantial witness, Pws. 3 and 4 who are the panch witnesses for Scene of

Offence panchanama, Pw.5 who is the panch witness for Confession-cum-

Recovery panchanama and Pw.6 who is the Investigation Officer. The Exhibits marked through prosecution during the course of trial are that Ex.P1 is the

Report, Ex.P2 is the Scene of Offence panchanama, Ex.P3 is the Confession- cum-Recovery panchanama, Ex.P4 is the First Information Report and Ex.P5 is the Finger Print Expert Report. The material objects marked through prosecution during the course of trial are that MO.1 is the Silver items 5 in number (01 plate, 4 bowls), MO.2 is one pair of silver anklets, MO.3 is the gold necklace (peacock), MO.4 is the Gold chain, MO.5 is the small gold chain,

MO.6 is one pair of gold ear rings.

POINT:

10. To prove its case, the prosecution had relied upon the evidence of

Pws.1 to 6 in support of their contentions, which has to be scrutinized with careful circumspect.

i. At the outset, the evidence of Pw.1 clearly establishes that he had locked his house and went to Hyderabad and that during his absence, theft occurred in his house. His testimony is natural and consistent and is corroborated by the evidence of Pw.2, who testified before the court that she was entrusted with the house keys of Pw.1 and upon her visit to the house of Pw.1, she found the locks of the house were broke opened and she informed the same to Pw.1. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the Pws.1 and 2, insofar as the occurrence of theft is concerned. Thus, the prosecution has successfully proved before this 5 CC.No. 342 of 2021

Dated: 17-04-2026

court that on the alleged date a theft was occurred in the house of Pw.1.

However, the crucial aspect that requires consideration is whether the prosecution has established that it is the accused who committed the said offence. In this regard, the Pws.1 and 2 categorically admits before the court in their evidence that they do not know who committed alleged theft of Mos.1 to 6 and further they deposed some un-known offender has committed theft of

Mos.1 to 6 from the house of Pw.1 which situates at Utnoor on the alleged date.

Thus, there is no speak of evidence which is incriminating as against the accused persons from the testimonies of Pws.1 and 2.

ii. Further, the prosecution relied upon the scene of offence panchanama which is marked as Ex.P2 through Pw.3 and Pw.4. Though Pw.3 had supported the prosecution in his chief-examination, however in his cross-examination, the

Pw.3 clearly deposed before the court that he signed the panchanama at the instance of police and that he do not know the contents of the Ex.P2 and such admission of Pw.3 renders his evidence relating to Ex.P2 doubtful. Though

Pw.4 supported the prosecution, the independent reliability of panchanama/Ex.P2 is weakened and un-reliable. That apart, it is to be noted here that such panchanama/Ex.P2 is only corroborative in nature and not substantive evidence.

iii. Further, the prosecution mainly relied upon the alleged recovery of stolen property under Ex.P3 through Pw.5. In his chief-examination, Pw.5 supported the case of the prosecution by deposing that the accused confessed commission of theft at Utnoor and that the police recovered some gold and silver ornaments in his presence. However, in his cross-examination, the Pw.5 categorically denied the same and testified before the court that he only know the particulars with regard to alleged offences of theft committed by the accused at Mancherial 6 CC.No. 342 of 2021

Dated: 17-04-2026

and Godhavarikani but not Utnoor, and the same would in-turn goes to show that the Pw.5 has no specific knowledge about the alleged commission of theft of Mos.1 to 6 by the accused from the house of Pw.1 on the alleged date.

Thus, the Pw.5 has not supported the prosecution case and has turned hostile on material aspects. In the absence of reliable and independent evidence regarding recovery, the alleged seizure of property from the accused by the police in the presence of Pw.5 and Lw.7, becomes doubtful and cannot be safely relied upon.

That apart, the alleged confession of the accused before Pw.5 also do not inspire the confidence of the court, as the evidence of Pw.5 is not consistent with the prosecution version. Further, no Test Identification Parade was conducted in this case by the Pw.6. The identification of the accused in Court, in the absence of prior identification, carries little evidentiary value, particularly when the witness/Pw.5 himself has expressed ignorance with regard to commission of alleged theft of Mos.1 to 6, from the house of Pw.1 at Utnoor, by the accused herein on the alleged date.

iv. The prosecution further relied upon the fingerprint expert report marked under Ex.P5 to connect Accused No.1 with the crime. However, the fingerprint expert was not examined before this Court and the report was marked through the Investigating Officer/Pw.6. It is a settled principle of law that expert evidence must be proved by examining the expert, unless admitted by the opposite party. In the absence of examination of the expert, the report cannot be treated as substantive evidence. Therefore, the fingerprint evidence relied upon by the prosecution cannot be given due weight.

v. Thus, though the prosecution has succeeded in proving that a theft had occurred in the house of Pw.1 which situates at Utnoor, however, it has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused are the persons who 7 CC.No. 342 of 2021

Dated: 17-04-2026

committed the said offence of theft of Mos.1 to 6 from the house of Pw.1. The evidence on record suffers from serious infirmities, including lack of reliable recovery, absence of properly proved expert evidence, and failure to establish the identity of the accused. The chain of circumstances is in-complete and do not point unerringly towards the guilt of the accused. It is a fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the benefit of doubt must go to the accused.

In the present case, the evidence available on record is not sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused and as such, this court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution had failed to establish the guilt of the accused persons for the offences punishable U/Secs. 457, 380 r/w. 34 of IPC, beyond reasonable doubt.

Accordingly, the point is answered in favor of Accused and against the prosecution.

IN THE RESULT:The Accused A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/secs. 457, 380 r/w. 34 of IPC and they are acquitted

U/sec. 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused, if any shall be cancelled after lapse of appeal time as per section 437-A Cr.P.C. The Case property i.e.,

MOs.1 to 6 which were given to the Pw.1/Complainant/Petitioner/Owner of the property, by this court under interim custody, vide Crl.M.P.No. 302 of 2020,

Dt.08-07-2020 shall be made absolute after lapse of appeal time.

(Typed to my dictation on computer by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this 17 th day of April, 2026.)

Digitally signed by

PONNAPALLI MOUNIKA

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Utnoor.

8 CC.No. 342 of 2021

Dated: 17-04-2026

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:

Pw.1 : Sathpadi Narsaiah, Complainant

Pw.2 : Gummala Bhudevi, Circumstantial witness

Pw.3 : Gummala Bhumesh, Panch witness for Scene of Offence panchanama

Pw.4 : Koleri Gangadhar, Panch witness for Scene of Offence panchanama

Pw.5 : Utturi Satheesh, Panch witness for Confession-cum-Recovery panchanama

Pw.6 : P.Subba Rao, Investigation Officer

For Defence:

-None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1 is the Report

Ex.P2 is the Scene of Offence panchanama

Ex.P3 is the Confession-cum-Recovery panchanama

Ex.P4 is the First Information Report

Ex.P5 is the Finger Print Expert Report

For Defence:

-Nil- 9 CC.No. 342 of 2021

Dated: 17-04-2026

MATERIAL OBJECTS

MO.1 is the Silver items 5 in number (01 plate, 4 bowls)

MO.2 is one pair of Silver anklets

MO.3 is the Gold Necklace (peacock)

MO.4 is the Gold Chain

MO.5 is the Small Gold Chain

MO.6 is one pair of Gold Ear-Rings.

Digitally signed by

PONNAPALLI MOUNIKA

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Utnoor.

10 CC.No. 342 of 2021

Dated: 17-04-2026

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: UTNOOR

C.C.NO. 342 OF 2021

1. Name of the Police Station Utnoor

2. Description of the accused A1. Dunnapothula Suman, S/o. Lachaiah, Age: 26 years, Occ: Auto driver, H.No.6-1, Thogarrayi(v) of Sulthanabad Now at Hanumannagar of ACC Mancherial

A2. Tekula Gangadhar @ Chanti, S/o. Seetharam, Age: 29 years, Occ: Auto driver, R/o. Utnoor village of Adilabad District

3. a) Date of Occurrence 17-09-2019

b)Date of Complaint 17-09-2019

c) Date of Apprehension -

d)Date of Release on - bail

e) Date of 24-02-2026 Commencement of trial

f) Date of Close of trial 09-04-2026

g)Date of Judgment 17-04-2026

4. Offence U/Secs. 457, 380 r/w.34 of IPC

5. Plead of Accused Not Guilty 6Finding Not Guilty 11 CC.No. 342 of 2021

Dated: 17-04-2026

7Sentence or Order : The Accused A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/secs. 457, 380 r/w. 34 of IPC and they are acquitted U/sec. 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused, if any shall be cancelled after lapse of appeal time as per section 437-A Cr.P.C.

The Case property i.e., MOs.1 to 6 which were given to the

Pw.1/Complainant/Petitioner/Owner of the property, by this court under interim custody, vide Crl.M.P.No.302 of 2020, Dt.08-07-2020 shall be made absolute after lapse of appeal time.

8Explanation for delay No delay

Digitally signed by

PONNAPALLI MOUNIKA

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Utnoor.

12 CC.No. 342 of 2021

Dated: 17-04-2026

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT UTNOOR

Dated this the 17th day of April, 2026.

Present: Mounika Ponnapalli, Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Utnoor

C.C.No. 394 of 2025

Between :

The State, through Inspector of Police, Prohibition and Excise Station, Narnoor.

....Complainant

//AND//

Rathod Yashwanthrao, S/o. Dhansingh, Age: 53 years, Occ: Farmer, R/o. Bheempur village of Narnoor Mandal ….Accused

This case came before this court for final hearing in the presence of Learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri B.Jaiwanth Rao, Learned Counsel

for the Accused, having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this

day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This is a case filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Narnoor for the offences punishable under sections 7(A) r/w. 8(D) of T.S Prohibition Act, 1995 against the Accused person.

CC.No. 394 of 2025

2 Dated: 17-04-2026

2. The case of the prosecution in brief as per charge-sheet is as follows:

It is the case of prosecution that on 18-07-2025, at about 17.00 hours, on reliable information Lw.5 along with his staff had rushed to the Bheempur, they found the Accused selling the Illicit Distilled Liquor (Gudumba). On enquiry,

Accused revealed his identity particulars and also with regard to consuming of gudumba by him and manufacturing and selling of illicit liquor illegally in his house premises to consumers at higher prices without any having any valid license. Upon which, Lw.5 had seized the contraband i.e., 3 liters of ID Liquor (Gudumba), worth of Rs.900/- (each one liter gudumba worth of Rs.300/-) in one plastic can, after taking samples from it for chemical examination and sealed them in the presence of mediators, under cover of panchanama by affixing the signed chits of the panchas. Thereafter, Lw.5 brought the accused to police station along with the seized property and registered a sue-motto case against the accused.

3. The case was taken on file for the offences punishable U/Secs. 7(A) r/w. 8(D) of T.S Prohibition Act, against the accused. On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents are furnished to him as contemplated u/Sec.230

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (herein after referred as BNSS., for the sake of brevity)

4. The Accused is examined under Section 262 BNSS., for which he denied the charge sheet allegations, thereafter charges are framed against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7(A) r/w. 8(D) of T.S.

Prohibition Act, 1995. The contents of charges were read over and explained to the accusedin his vernacular language, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During the course of trial, in support of its case, the prosecution had examined Pws.1 to 4 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 on its behalf.

CC.No. 394 of 2025

3 Dated: 17-04-2026

6. After closing the evidence on the prosecution side, the Accused is examined under section 351 of BNSS in his vernacular language and he denied the incriminating evidence made against him in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and reported no defence evidence. Neither the accused nor any witness were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the accused persons.

7. Heard arguments on behalf of the Learned APP and the Learned counsel for the accused and also perused the documents available on record.

8. Now, the point that arise for determination is “ Whether the prosecution

has proved its case and established the guilt of the accused person beyond

reasonable doubt for the offences punishable under Sections 7(A) r/w. 8(D)

of T.S Prohibition Act” ?

9. To establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution had relied upon the evidence of Pws. 1 and 2 who are the police personnel, Pw.3 who is the panch witness for Confession-cum-seizure panchanama and Scene of offence panchanama and Pw.4 who is the Investigation Officer. The Exhibit marked through prosecution during the course of trial are that, Ex.P1 is the Report,

Ex.P2 is the Confession-cum-Seizure panchanama, Ex.P3 is the Scene of

Offence panchanama, Ex.P4 is the First Information Report and Ex.P5 is the

FSL Analysis Report.

POINT :

i. The Pw.1 and Pw.2, who are police constables had deposed before the court that on the relevant date while they along with Pw.4 were on patrolling duty, they received credible information about the accused selling Gudumba, upon which, they proceeded to the spot, and found a plastic can containing illicit liquor. They further deposed that Pw.4 had conducted confession-cum-seizure panchanama and scene of offence panchanama in the presence of Pw.3 and

CC.No. 394 of 2025

4 Dated: 17-04-2026

Lw.4. However, during the course of cross-examination of Pws.1 and 2, they categorically admitted before the court that they do not know the house bearing number of the alleged premises in which the accused was found to be selling illicit liquor and they failed to collect any document which could establish that the said house in which alleged Gudumba found belongs to the accused. The

Pws.1 and 2 also further admits that they have not filed any duty passport

before this Court to substantiate their presence on official duty at the relevant

time and place on the alleged date. These admissions create serious doubt regarding their presence at the scene and the very identity of the place of occurrence.

ii. The Pw.3, who is cited as a panch witness for confession-cum-seizure panchanama and scene of offence panchanama, had deposed before the court in his chief-examination that the police had conducted confession-cum-seizure and scene of offence panchanamas in his presence. However, in his cross-examination, the Pw.3 had testified before the court that he signed the documents only at the instance of police and that he do not know the contents of Exs.P2 and P3, nor the boundaries mentioned in Ex.P3 nor the alleged house bearing number of accused in which alleged seized property was caught hold by the police on the alleged date. Thus, the independent witness has not supported the prosecution case in material particulars, thereby rendering the alleged panchanamas doubtful and unreliable.

iii. The Pw.4 who is the Investigating Officer, deposed regarding receipt of information, conduct of seizure, registration of crime, and filing of charge sheet.

However, his testimony remains uncorroborated by any trustworthy independent evidence. Though, the Pw.4 had testified before the court with regard to the samples which were drawn by him and also with regard to the

CC.No. 394 of 2025

5 Dated: 17-04-2026 samples sent by him for chemical analysis, the prosecution has failed to satisfactorily establish the nexus between the seized contraband and the samples allegedly examined. At this juncture, it is necessary to examine whether the essential ingredients of the offence under Sec. 7(A) r/w. sec 8(D) of the

Telangana Prohibition and Excise Act have been established by the prosecution.

To attract the said provisions, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was in conscious and exclusive possession of illicitly distilled liquor and that such possession was for the purpose of sale or distribution in contravention of law. Mere recovery of alleged contraband is not sufficient unless it is proved that the same was seized from the conscious possession of the accused and that the seizure was conducted in strict compliance with procedural safeguards. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to establish the foundational fact of possession, as there is no reliable evidence to show that the premises from which the alleged Gudumba was seized belongs to or was in the exclusive control of the accused on the alleged date. The failure to identify the house number or produce any documentary proof linking the accused to the scene of offence creates a serious dent in the prosecution case. Further, the seizure panchanama, which forms the backbone of the prosecution case in excise offences, has not been proved in accordance with law, as the independent panch witness (Pw.3) has not supported the contents and has admitted lack of knowledge about the same.

iv. It is also pertinent to note here that in cases under the Excise law, strict adherence to procedural safeguards such as proper seizure, sampling, sealing, and establishing an unbroken chain of custody is of paramount importance. Any deviation or doubt in these aspects would render the prosecution case unsafe for conviction. Though the Investigating Officer/Pw.4 has deposed about sending samples for chemical analysis, the prosecution has not satisfactorily

CC.No. 394 of 2025

6 Dated: 17-04-2026 demonstrated the link between the seized material and the sample allegedly examined, thereby creating a gap in the chain of evidence. Thus, in the absence of proof of conscious possession, reliable seizure, and compliance with mandatory procedural safeguards, the statutory requirements to bring home the guilt under Section 7(A) r/w. 8(D) of the Telangana Prohibition and Excise Act remain un-fulfilled.

v. It is a settled principle of criminal law that the prosecution must stand on its own legs and prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case, the material contradictions, lack of independent corroboration, and failure to establish essential ingredients of the offence create reasonable doubt in the prosecution case. The benefit of such doubt must necessarily go in favour of the accused. Accordingly, this Court holds that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offences punish- able under Section 7(A) r/w. Section 8(D) of the Telangana Prohibition Act.

IN THE RESULT: The Accused is found not guilty for offences punishable under sections 7(A) r/w. 8(D) of T.S Prohibition Act, 1995. Accordingly, he is acquitted under section 271(1) BNSS., and the Accused is set at liberty forthwith. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the Accused person shall be in force for a period of (06) months from today U/Sec. 481 of BNSS. The

Un-marked case property i.e., 3 Litres Gudumba which was given to the police concerned for safe custody vide CP no.90 of 2025, Dt. 09.10.2025, shall be destroyed, after lapse of appeal time.

(Typed to my dictation by my Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17 th day of April, 2026).

Digitally signed by

PONNAPALLI MOUNIKA

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Utnoor.

CC.No. 394 of 2025

7 Dated: 17-04-2026

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined:

For Prosecution:

Pw.1: D.Shiva Krishna, Police personnel Pw.2: Rathod Krishna, Police personnel Pw.3: Jadhav Shyamprasad, Panch witness for Confession-cum-Seizure and Scene of Offence Panchanama Pw.4: K.Akhil, Investigation Officer

For Defence:

-None-

Documents marked:

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1 is the Report

Ex.P2 is the Confession-cum-Seizure panchanama

Ex.P3 is the Scene of Offence panchanama

Ex.P4 is the First Information Report

Ex.P5 is the FSL Analysis Report.

For Defence:

-Nil-

Material Objects:

-NIL-

Digitally signed by

PONNAPALLI MOUNIKA

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Utnoor

CC.No. 394 of 2025

8 Dated: 17-04-2026

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: UTNOOR

C.C.NO. 394 of 2025

1.Name of the Police Station Narnoor

2.Description of the accusedRathod Yashwanthrao, S/o. Dhansingh, Age: 53 years, Occ: Farmer, R/o. Bheempur village of Narnoor Mandal

3.a) Date of Occurrence 18-07-2025

b) Date of Complaint 18-07-2025

c) Date of Apprehension -

d) Date of Release on bail -

e) Date of Commencement of 10-02-2026 trial

f) Date of Close of trial 08-04-2026

g) Date of Judgment 17-04-2026

4.Offence U/secs.7(A) r/w. 8(D) of T.S Prohibition Act, 1995

5.Finding Not guilty

6.Sentence or order : The Accused is found not guilty for offences punishable under sections 7(A) r/w. 8(D) of T.S Prohibition Act, 1995. Accordingly, he is acquitted un- der section 271(1) BNSS., and the Accused is set at liberty forthwith. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the Accused person shall be in force for a period of (06) months from today U/Sec. 481 of BNSS. The Un-marked case property i.e., 3 Litres Gudumba which was given to the police concerned for safe custody vide CP no.90 of 2025, Dt. 09.10.2025, shall be destroyed, after lapse of appeal time.

7.Explanation for delay No delay

Digitally signed by

PONNAPALLI MOUNIKA

Judicial Magistrate of First class,

Utnoor

CC.No. 394 of 2025

9 Dated: 17-04-2026

CC.No. 394 of 2025

10 Dated: 17-04- 2026