Smt. P. Rama Devi

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS FOR RAILWAYS,

GUNTUR.

Present: Smt P. Rama Devi

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, For Railways, Guntur.

Wednesday, this is the 13 th day of February, 2026

Calendar Case. No. 03 of 2026

Between:-

Asst. SubInspector, Railway Protection Force, Nandyala.

...Complainant.

And

1.Mandla Srinivasulu, Age 41yrs, S/o.Sambaiah, R/o.H.No.10-177a, Diguvametta, Prakasham.

2. Dandagala Venkateshwarlu, Age 23yrs, S/o.Venkata Ramana,R/o.H.No.10-125a, Diguvametta, Prakasham.

3. Gaddam Ramesh, Age 39yrs, S/o.Ramaiah, R/o.Yellupalle, Giddalur, Prakasam.

...A1 to A3.

This case came up before me for a final hearing on 01-04-2026 in the presence of Sri M. Srinivas, Public Prosecutor for Railways, and Sri

D.V.H.Srinivasarao, Advocate appearing for A1 to A3 and upon perusing the material available on record, upon hearing both sides and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

This complaint was filed by the Asst. Sub Inspector, Railway Protection Force,

Nandyala Under Section 180(A) of the Railway Act, 1989 in Cr. No.4/2025 of

Narasaraopet Post alleging that A1 to A3 committed an offence Under Sec. 3 (A) of

RP (UP) Act,1966.

2

2.The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

On 06.04.2025, under the supervision of E.Nagabhushana Inspector/

RPF/Nandyal, LW1/A.Hanuma Reddy. ASI/RPF/Nandyal, K. Pitchi Reddy. SIPF/

Giddalur out Post along with LW2/CH.Venkata Rao, HC-0591/Nandyal and

P.Nagaraju, Con-486/Nandyal detained three persons while on confidential watch at

Diguvametta railway station yard at Km No.215/25-26 at about 15.30 hours noticed 03 persons in suspicious manner having each one polythene cover having a black color cable bundle carrying on their hands moving towards east side. On suspicious

LW1/A.Hanumantharao/ASI/RPF/Nandyal detained them and secured two mediator.

In their presence caused enquiry with A-1 to A-3 they revealed their names and address i.e A1 to A3. Then LW1/ASI/RPF/Nandyal checked the each Polythene covered a black colour cable bundle in presence of two mediators and found 01 bundle 06 Meters Black color Railway signal 30 core copper cables marked as "MAXX CADIRSS63/2014" from A-1, found 01 bundle 07 Meters Black color Railway signal 30 core copper cables marked as "MAXX CADIRSS63/2014" from A2 and found 01 bundle 07 Meters Black color Railway signal 30 core copper cables marked as "MAXX CADIRSS63/2014" from A-3. Total 20 meters of Black color Railway signal 30 core copper cables marked as "MAXX CADIRSS63/2014 Value

RS.10,000/-. LW1/ASIPF/AHR/NDL caused enquiries about the voucher or any authority for the possession of materials. A1 to A3 revealed that they did not possess any voucher or authority. On further enquiry with A-1 to A-3 about the said property, they disclosed that on 06.04.2025, at about 03.45 hours they were noticed some railway copper cables besides the railway track in diguvametta railway yard Nandyal side, due to the greed of money they have committed theft of said 30 core Railway signal copper cable Diguvametta railway yard at km No-215/36-38 by cutting the cable with axe and cut into about 06, 07 and 07 Meters length and concealed nearby bushes. On the same day at about 15.30 hours carried by them as stolen property by covering polythene bags. While carrying by them they were apprehended by RPF.

LW1/ASIPF/NDL drafted panchanama and recorded their confessional statements, in which they were admitted their guilt.

3

3.Then LW1/ASIPF/NDL seized the property and pasted the punch slips upon them duly signed by mediators. ASIPF, The accused A-1 to A-3 along with seized property i.e. 20 meters(03 pieces) total value Rs.10,000/- were brought to RPF

Post/Nandyal and registered a case in crime No. 04/2025 U/S 3(a) RP(UP) Act RPF/ post Nandyal. On 7.4.25 A1 to A3 along with seized property produced before the court for judicial custody.

4.On 8.4.25 LW1 received theft report from LW3/Y.Venkata prasad/SSE/Signal/

Nandyala for 20 meters of 30 core signal copper cable. On 26.4.25 LW1 recorded the statement of LW3. On 27.4.25 LW1 recorded the statements of mediators

LW4/D.Narayanareddy/Mediator-1 and LW5/G.Srikanth, Mediator-2.

5.After completion of enquiries, LW1/complainant filed a complaint against A1 to

A3 under section 3(a) of R.P (UP) Act. Hence the complaint.

6.The case was taken on file against A1 to A3 for the offence under Sec. 3 (a) of RP (UP) Act.

7.On the appearance of A1 to A3, the copies of documents were furnished to them under section 230 of BNSS.

8. At the pre-charge stage, the Public Prosecutor for Railways, Guntur examined

LW1 as PW1, and got marked Ex. P1 to P10, MO1. As the prosecution reported pre charge enquiry closed. A1 to A3 were examined under Section 246(2) Cr.P.C./269(2)

BNSS and a charge framed under Section 3(a) of RP (UP) Act, and the accusation is read over and explained to them in Telugu language, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

9.During trial PW1 was recalled and cross-examined by defence counsel.

Further Learned Public Prosecutor for Railways, Guntur has given up the evidence 4 of LW/2/ Ch.Venkata Rao, LW3/Y.Venkata Prasad, LW4/Donapati Narayana Reddy,

L.W.5/Ganti Srikanth and reported prosecution evidence is closed.

10.A1 to A3 were examined under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code 1973/351 of BNSS which explained the incriminating circumstances appeared against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, they denied the same, reported no defence evidence, and no documents were marked on the defence side.

11. Heard the Learned Public prosecution for Railways, Guntur, and the learned counsel appearing for A1 to A3.

12. Now the following points are for the determination:

1. Whether the prosecution could establish that A1 to A3 committed theft of railway property at Diguvametta railway yard at Km No.215/36-38 beyond all reasonable doubt?

2. Whether the prosecution could establish the guilt of A1 to

A3 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence charged under

Section 3(a) of RP (UP) Act,1966?

13. Point 1:

P.W.1/B.Sankararao/Inspector/RPF, Guntur testified that on 06.4.25 he along with his S.I, Giddaluru and his staff while on watch at Diguvametta Railway station yard at Km No.215/25-26 at about 15.30hours 3 persons while they were carrying each one polythene bags each on their shoulder. On suspicious he detained them and secured the presence of two mediators LW4 and LW5. In their presence he enquired A1 to A3 they revealed their identity particulars. He searched A1 bag and found 6 meters of 30 core copper cable black in colour and marked as MAXX

CADIRSS 63/2014. He checked the bag in the possession of A2 and found 7 meter's of MAXX CADIRSS 63/2014. He checked the bag in the possession of A3 and found 7 meters of MAXX CADIRSS 63/2014. On enquiry they revealed that early 5 hours of the same day they came to railway station and cut the cable wire with the help of axe and hide near the bushes. While they were taking the same caught by

RPF. A1 to A3 did not produce any valid authority to possess the railway property.

Then he arrested the A1 to A3 and seized copper cable from the possession of A1 to

A3 under cover of panchanama/ExP1. He examined and corded the statements of

A1 to A3/ExP2 to P4. On the same day he lead and shown by A1 to A3 to proceeded the place where they cut the cable at about 17.40 hours on 6.4.25. He prepared observation panchanama/ExP5 at the spot. He brought A1 to A3 along with seized property/MO1 to RPF post, Nandayala and registered a case in crime NO.4/25 u/sec.3(a) of RP UP Act. On 7.4.25 he produced A1 to A3 for judicial remand. On 8.12.25 he received theft report/ExP6 from LW3 regarding missing of 20 meters 30 core copper cable wire at Diguvametta yard. On 26.4.25 he produced the case property from LW3. He examined and issued certificate/ExP7. He examined and recorded the statement of LW3/ExP8. On 27.4.25 he examined and recorded the statements of LW4 and LW5/ExP9 and P10. After completion of enquiries he filed complaint.

14.P.W.1 admitted in his cross examination that he has not taken photographs of the property along with A1 to A3 and not obtain ledger copy with regard to railway property committed theft by A1 to A3. He denied that mediators are working as hawkers and A1 to A3 never committed theft of railway property and they were no way concerned to this offence and wantonly filed a false case against them and deposing false.

15. The learned public prosecutor has contended that from the testimonies of

PW1 and coupled with Ex.P1 to P10 and MO1 has been successfully established beyond all reasonable doubt that the 20 meters of black colour railway signal 30 core copper cable found in the possession of A1 to A3 which belongs to railway property without having any authority from railways, having Railway property in their possession is an offence. Hence A1 to A3 are liable for conviction.

6

16.The defence counsel for A1 to A3 argued that the confession statements of A1 to A3 i.e Ex.P2 to Ex.P4 are not admissible in evidence as it is hit by the Indian

Evidence Act and a false case was foisted against A1 to A3. The alleged mediators are stock witnesses to the railway protection force and their signatures were obtained by using force. Therefore, it is unsafe to base conviction on unreliable and untrustworthy evidence of PW1. A1 to A3 are entitled to the benefit of the doubt and acquittal.

17. The case of the prosecution is based on the confession statement given by

A1 to A3 to PW1 and also recovered the railway property in the presence of two independent mediators in order to establish the case against A1 to A3, the prosecution has to prove the case as per section 3 (A) of the Railway Property (unlawful possession) Act, 1966.

18.In the case State of Maharashtra Vs. Viswanath Tukaram Umale 1979 (4)

SCC 23 in Para No.4 it is held by Hon'ble Apex Court that the following essential requirements of the section have to be established by the prosecution against the person accused who is in possession of railway property that

(a) the property in possession should be Railway property;

(b) It should be reasonably be suspected of having been stolen or unlawfully obtained.

(c) it should be found or proved that the accused was or had been in possession of that property.

19.On a careful examination of the evidence available on record, the prosecution against A1 to A3 established that 20 meters of black colour railway signal 30 core copper cables marked as "MAXX CADIRSS63/2014" from A-1, found 01 bundle 07 Meters Black color Railway signal 30 core copper cables 7 marked as "MAXX CADIRSS63/2014" from A2 and found 01 bundle 07 Meters

Black color Railway signal 30 core copper cables marked as "MAXX

CADIRSS63/2014" from A-3 recovered from the possession of A1 to A3 belongs to Indian Railways. The evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 and

MO1 clearly established that A1 to A3 were committed theft of railway property and they did not possess any valid license for such property.

In the case Balakishan A Devi Dayal Vs State of Maharashtra AIR 1981, SC 379 in Para No.58 it is held that.

‘’ Officer of Railway Protection Force could not be deemed to be a ‘’

Police officer’’ within the meaning of Sec.25 of the Evidence Act, and therefore, any confessional or incriminating statement recorded by him in the course of an enquiry U/Sec.8 (1) of the 1966 Act, cannot be excluded from the evidence Under the said section.’’

20.In the light of the foregoing discussion, this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving from the cogent, consistent, and reliable evidence of P.W.1. The evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Ex.P1 to P10,

MO1 cannot be excluded from the evidence, As P.W.1 is an officer of the Railway

Protection Force, but not a police officer. Sec.25 of the Indian Evidence Act,

Explains that no confession made to a police officer is admissible in evidence. A1 to A3 contention is that the 20 meters of black colour railway signal 30 core copper cables recovered from the possession of A1 to A3 not belongs to Indian Railways, but the certificate given by Senior Section Engineer/Nandyala. The seized railway property belongs to the Indian Railway Property and exclusively used by railway S and T Department and the said railway material neither auctioned nor available in open market. Another contention of A1 to A3 are that no photos were obtained at the time of the seizure of railway property and that this case is filed for statistical purposes. But such contention was not established by A1 to A3 before the court.

The prosecution of the case against A1 to A3 establishes that property i.e 20 8 meters of black colour railway signal 30 core copper cables recovered from the possession of A1 to A3 belongs to Indian railways. It is for A1 to A3 to establish that such railway property i.e 20 meters of black colour railway signal 30 core copper cables came into their lawful possession by producing any authoritative document. No such document was produced before the court by A1 to A3. Hence, it is held that A1 to A3 are liable under section 3(a) of the Railway Property (unlawful possession) Act, 1966 beyond all reasonable doubt.

POINT No.2

21. As discussed above in point No.1 the prosecution of the case against A1 to A3 establishes that A1 to A3 are in unlawful possession of railway material and the learned public prosecutor for railways establishes the case against A1 to A3 beyond all reasonable doubt that A1 to A3 are guilty of the offence Under Section 3(a) of the

Railway Property (unlawful possession) Act, 1966. Hence points 1 and 2 are answered accordingly.

22.In the result, A1 to A3 are found guilty of the offence Under Sec. 3 (A) of R.P.

(UP) Act. Accordingly, they are convicted under section 248(2) of Cr.P.C/271(2)

BNSS.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer (Grade-III) directly on computer corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 13th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- P. Rama Devi,

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, For Railways, Guntur. // True Copy //

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, For Railways, Guntur.

9

23.Heard the quantum of the sentence from A1 to A3 in the presence of Learned

Public Prosecutor, Railways, and the Counsel appearing for A1 to A3. A1 to A3 were informed about the sentence imposed under Section 3 (A) of the R.P. (UP) Act which reads as follows.

Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession)

Act, 1966 reads as follows.

Penalty for unlawful possession of railway property

Whoever is found, or is proved to have been, in possession of any railway property reasonably suspected of having been stolen or unlawful obtained shall, unless he proves that the railway property came into his possession lawfully, be punishable.

(a) for the first offence, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both and in the absence of special and adequate reasons to be mentioned in the judgment of the Court, such imprisonment shall not be less than one year and such fine shall not be less than one thousand rupees;

(b) for the second or a subsequent offence, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and also with fine and in the absence of special and adequate reasons to be mentioned in the judgment of the

Court, such imprisonment shall not be less than two years and such fine shall not be less than two thousand rupees.

10

24.Then A1 to A3 pleaded mercy of the Court, stating that they are working as coolies. They are having old age parents and they are the breadwinner of their families, and they are very poor, their old age parents and their families are dependent on them. This is the first offence committed by them. A1 to A3 further submitted that they will not commit any offence in future and prayed court to take lenient view towards them. The counsel for A1 to A3 also prayed to show lenient view towards them.

25.Considering the submissions of A1 to A3 and the voluntary admission of A1 to

A3 in committing the offence, the economic conditions explained to the court, it seems that A1 to A3 are poor and earn a meager amount to lead their families. This

Court is of the opinion that this is not a fit case to apply the Probation of Offenders

Act, 1958 as he committed offence under the Railway Act, 1989. Having gone through the evidence on record, the facts of the complaint, and the submission of A1 to A3, it is appropriate to impose a sentence of a fine, in order to meet the ends of justice.

26.In the result, A1 to A3 are found guilty of the offence punishable under section 3(A) of RP (UP) Act, 1966 convicted under section 248(2) Cr.P.C., and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- [Rupees Two thousand only] each, for the offence under section 3(A) of RP (UP) Act, 1966 in default of payment of a fine amount, shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month each. The case property under CPR No. 20/2026 i.e., MO1 shall be returned to the concerned railway authority after the lapse of appeal time.

27.A1 to A3 were informed about the sentence imposed against them and also their right to appeal against the present Judgment and get free legal aid even at the appeal stage. A free copy of the Judgment also furnishes to A1 to A3 immediately upon pronouncing the Judgment and obtaining their endorsement thereof.

11

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer (Grade-III) directly on the computer corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 13th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- P. Rama Devi,

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, For Railways, Guntur.

// True Copy //

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, For Railways, Guntur.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For prosecution: For Defence: None

P.W.1 : B.Sankararao

Exhibits marked

Ex.P1 is panchanama

Ex.P2 is statement of A1

Ex.P3 is statement of A2

Ex.P4 is statement of A3

Ex.P5 is observation panchanama

Ex.P6 is theft report

Ex.P7 is case property certificate

Ex.P8 is statement of Y.Venkata prasad

Ex.P9 is statement of D.Narayanareddy

Ex.P10 is statement of G.Srikanth

Material Objects Marked

1. MO1 is 20 meters of 30 core copper cable 12

Sd/- P. Rama Devi,

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, For Railways, Guntur.

// True Copy //

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, For Railways, Guntur.

13

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

In the Court of Judicial Magistrate of I Class for Railways, Guntur

C.C. 03 / 2026

Date ofDate FilingApprehensiReleasedCommenceClosureSentence offenceComplaintonon Bailment of trialof trial or Order of A1 to A3 06.04.2526.05.25----30.03.2630.03.2613.04.26

Explanation for the Delay : A1 to A3 are appeared before the Court on 16.02.2026, A1 to A3 were examined under section 262(2) BNSS on 30.03.2026. P.W.1 examined and Ex.P1 to P10 and Mos 1 marked. A1 to A3 were examined under section 351 BNSS and Heard arguments on both sides on 01.04.2026. Judgment pronounced on 13.04.2026. Hence the delay.

Complainant :

Asst. SubInspector, Railway Protection Force, Nandyala.

Name of the Accused:- 1.Mandla Srinivasulu, Age 41yrs, S/o.Sambaiah, R/o.H.No.10-177a, Diguvametta, Prakasham.

2. Dandagala Venkateshwarlu, Age 23yrs, S/o.Venkata Ramana,R/o.H.No.10-125a, Diguvametta, Prakasham.

3. Gaddam Ramesh, Age 39yrs, S/o.Ramaiah, R/o.Yellupalle, Giddalur, Prakasam.

Offence: Under Section. 3 (A ) of R.P. (UP) Act,1966

Finding: Found Guilty

Sentence or Order: In the result, A1 to A3 are found guilty of the offence punishable under section 3(A) of RP (UP) Act, 1966 convicted under section 14 248(2) Cr.P.C., and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- [Rupees Two thousand only] each, for the offence under section 3(A) of RP (UP) Act, 1966 in default of payment of a fine amount, shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month each. The case property under CPR No. 20/2026 i.e., MO1 shall be returned to the concerned railway authority after the lapse of appeal time.

Sd/- P. Rama Devi,

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, For Railways, Guntur.

Copy Submitted to: The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur.

// True Copy //

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, For Railways, Guntur.

1

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS FOR RAILWAYS,

GUNTUR

PRESENT: SMT. P.RAMA DEVI,

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS FOR RAILWAYS, GUNTUR.

Monday, this is the 13 th day of April, 2026

C.C.No. 531 of 2026

Between :

Asst. Sub Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Guntur. … Complainant. AND

Sadam Meghanandhudu, Age 33yrs, S/o.Sadam Srinivasa Rao, R/o.15-117-15, ASR colony, Ring Road, Gujjanagundla, Guntur.

….. Accused.

This Case came up before me for a final hearing on 09-4-2026 in the presence of Sri.M. Srinivas, Public Prosecutor for Railways, and Sri Ch.Siva

Sankara Sasthry, Advocate appearing for the accused and upon perusing the material available on record, upon hearing both sides and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This complaint was filed by the Asst. Sub-Inspector of Railway Protection

Force, Guntur under section 180-A of the Railways Act, 1989 in Crime

No.116/2026, Railway Protection Force, Guntur alleging that accused committedan offence under Section 154 of the Railways Act.

2

2.The brief facts of the case are as follows.

On 22.01.2026, at about 12:58 hours, all Concerned message was received from Station Superintendent/Manipuram cabin through Divisional

Security control, Guntur stating that while closing L.C Gate No. 249 (Engineering Interlocked Gate) at Km No. 22/23-25 between MIX cabin

Vejendla railway stations for the passage of DN Train No. 16031 Express which left Vengendla, at about 12:19 hours an unknown Tractor with water tanker hit the "B' boom resulting "A" piece got damaged.

3.On receipt of LW1/S. Venkateswarlu, ASIPF/Guntur attended the spot and caused enquiries with the on-duty Gate man/LW2/Damati Latha. On enquiry, she stated that on 22.01.2026, as per the instructions of

Superintendent/Manipuram cabin while closing the gate at about 12:19 hours for the passage of Train No.16031 Express a tractor with water tanker vehicle suddenly entered the LC gate from the eastern side and hit the 'B' boom resulting 'A' piece got damaged of LC Gate No. 249. After the incident, the vehicle driver along with the vehicle fled away from the spot. Due to the suddenness of the incident, the gate man could not identify the vehicle number.

In this regard, LW4/P. Kanakaraju, ESM-I/Reddipalem and LW1/ASIPF/Guntur prepared a Joint Observation Report at the spot. LW4/P. Kanakaraju,

ESM-I/Reddipalem replaced the damaged boom. Thereafter, the statement of the LW2/on-duty gate man was recorded. In this connection, LW1 registered a case against the unknown vehicle driver vide Crime No. 116/2026 under

Section 154 of the Railways Act, and took up enquiries.

4.During the course of enquiries, on 05.02.2026, one person along with his

Tractor with water tanker bearing registration No. AP 16CB 6866 voluntarily surrendered before LW1/S.Venkateswarlu. LW1 secured two mediators, and on enquiry, the person revealed his name and address as Sadam Meghanadhudu/

Accused. He stated that he is working as Tractor driver in his own vehicle at

Guntur Urban area. Further he stated that, on 22.01.2026 at about 12.15 hours, 3 while going with his tractor with water tanker bearing registration No. AP 16 CB 6866 from Nandivelugu side to Old Guntur after supply the water at Agricultural lands. At the time he observed the level crossing gate No. 249 at Nandivelugu fly over was closing for train, then he negligently entered into the gate with an intention to cross the gate before it was closed. Due to that his tractor was hit the LC gate lifting barrier resulting it was damaged. Out of fear, he fled from the spot along with his vehicle. He voluntarily surrendered on 05.02.2026 before

LW1/ASI/RPF/Guntur along with his Tractor with water tanker bearing registration No. AP 16CB 6866 and produced the Certificate of Registration copy and prepared the Mediators Report, accused was arrested and recorded his statement. The vehicle was seized under the cover of Mediators Report.

The accused and the seized vehicle were connected in Cr. No. 116/2026 U/S 154 Railways Act. The accused was granted bail with instructions to appear

before the court as and when summoned.

5.On 30.01.2026, LW1/complainant examined and recorded the statement of LW2/Domati Lata. On 30.01.2026, LW1/complainant obtained the damage cost certificate for LC Gate No. 249, damaged by the tractor bearing registration

No. AP 16 CB 6866, from LW5/Samuel Prasad/ SSE/Signal/Guntur vide Lr. No.

GNT/SG/LC Gates/25-26 . The assessed damage cost was Rs. 5000/-

6.On 05.02.2026, LW1/complainant examined and recorded the statements of the mediators LW6/Dara Jojaiah, Mediator-1, and LW7/Gandham

Mohan, Mediator-2. On 08.02.2026, LW1/complainant examined and recorded the statement of LW4/P. Kanaka Raju, ESM-1/Reddipalem, regarding the restoration of LC Gate No. 249 and the Joint Observation Report.

7. On 08.02.2026, LW1/complainant examined and recorded the statement of Station Master LW3/D. Jayaprakash, Who performed duty at Manapuram

Cabin on 22.01.2026 and issued the messages relating to the Tractor bearing

Registration No. AP 16 CB 6866 hitting and damaging LC Gate No. 249.

4

8.On 25.02.2026, LW1/complainant obtained Crime vehicle Fitness certificate from LW8/D.L.B.G Prasad, Motor vehicle inspector, Guntur.

9.On 26.02.2026, LW1/complainant handed over the crime Tractor bearing Registration No. AP 16 CB 6866, to Sadam Meghanadhudu/Accused.

10.After completion of enquiries, LW1 filed a complaint against the accused under section 154 of the Railways Act, 1989. Hence the complaint.

11.This case was taken cognizance against the accused for the offence under section 154 of the Railways Act, 1989.

12.On the appearance of the accused copies of documents were furnished under section 230 BNSS.

13.Accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C/274 BNSS for the offence under Section 154 of the Railways Act, the accusation was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu language, and the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

14.In order to establish the case against the accused, the Learned Public

Prosecutor for Railways, Guntur adduced the evidence of P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P12 documents on behalf of the prosecution and further

Learned Public Prosecutor for Railways, Guntur has given up the evidence of

LW2/Domati Lata, LW3/D.Jaya Prakash, LW4/P.Kanaka Raju, LW5/Samuel

Prasad, LW6/D.Jojaiah LW7/G.Mohan, LW8/D.L.B.G.Prasad and reported prosecution evidence closed.

15.Accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C./351 BNSS explained the incriminating circumstances appeared against him in the evidence of 5 prosecution witnesses, the accused denied the same, reported no defence, and no documents were marked on the defence side.

16.Heard the Learned Public prosecution for Railways, Guntur, and the learned counsel appearing to the accused.

Points for determination: - (1)Whether the prosecution could establish that accused drove Tractor with water tank and hit the LC gate No.249 due to which LC gate A piece was damaged?

(2)Whether the prosecution could establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under section 154 of the Railways Act, 1989?

POINT NO.1

17.P.W.1/S.Venkateswarlu/Asst. Sub Inspector/RPF/Guntur testified that on 22.1.2026 at about 12.58 hours he received a message/ExP1 from station superintendent, Manipuram through security controle, Guntur with regard to LC gate No.249 was hit by the tractor with water tanker and caused damaged to the LC gate. On receipt of message he along with his staff proceeded to the spot. There he noticed damaged gate. There LW4 was present. He along with

LW4 prepared joint observation report/ExP2. No one was found on the spot. He returned to RPF post, Guntur and registered a case in crime No.116/26 u/sec.154 of Railways Act. On 5.2.26 at about 17.00hours one person i.e accused along with tractor bearing No.AP16CB 6866. He secured two mediators LW6 and LW7. In their presence he enquired accused he revealed his identity particulars and also stated that on 22.1.26 he hit the LC gate with his tractor due to fear he fled away from the spot. He surrendered before him as the

RPF team searching for him. He arrested the accused and seized the tractor under cover of mediator report/ExP3 and recorded his statement/ExP4 and 6 connected him as accused in crime No.116/26. He released the accused on bail with an instructions to appear before the court as and when summoned. On 30.1.26 he examined and recorded the statement of LW2/ExP5. On 30.1.26 he obtained damage certificate/ExP6 from LW5. On 5.2.26 he examined and recorded the statements of LW6 and LW7/ExP7 and P8. On 8.2.26 he examined and receded the statements of LW3 and LW4/ExP9 and P10 and

LW8 examined the seized vehicle and issued fitness certificate/ExP11. On 26.2.26 he handed over the vehicle to its owner under acknowledgment/

ExP12.After completion of enquiries he filed complaint.

18.P.W.1 categorically admitted in his cross-examination that he has not received duty particulars from gate women and he has not filed before the court as she is doing duty on that particular day and not examine train manager and not shown as a witness in this case and not taken any photographs to the damaged gate and there are speed breakers before and after the LC gate. He denied that even though there are speed brakes accused did not drove the tractor and wantonly filed a false case against accused and mediators are working as hawkers and accused is no way concerned to this offence .

19.The Learned Public Prosecutor for Railways argued the case and submitted that the prosecution established that the accused is guilty of the offence under section 154 of the Railway Act, 1989 and further submitted that accused drove Tractor with water tank and hit the LC gate No.249 due to which

LC gate A piece was damaged and accused is liable for punishment for the offence under Sec.154 of the Railways Act.

20.The learned counsel for the accused contended that investigation officer not enquired and not filed the case properly and all case papers are prepared at

RPF out post and filed this case for statistical purpose. Hence, accused is entitled to acquittal.

21.As seen from the evidence of P.W.1, as well as the Ex.P1 to P12 documentary evidence produced before the Court, the case of the prosecution 7 is established that accused drove Tractor with water tanker vehicle bearing

Registration No. AP 16 CB 6866 while closing LC gate No.249 for passing of

Train No.16031 Express at K.M.No.22/23-25 in between Mix Cabin – Vejendala

Railway Stations, hit LC gate ‘B’ boom in a rash and negligent manner, due to which LC gate ‘A’ piece was damaged,. Accused gave a confession statement/

Ex.P4 to the investigating officer.

22.The confessional statement of the accused/Ex.P4 is admissible in evidence. He did not deny the confession statement recorded by P.W.1. The evidence of P.W.1, cannot be kept aside as he does not falls under the purview of section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act reads as follows that confession to a police officer not to be proved:- No confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against the accused of any offence. PW1 is an officer of the Railway

Protection Force, his nature of duties are not like a police officer.

23.In a case, reported in AIR 1981 SC 379 between Bala Kishan A.Devi

Dayal Vs State of Maharashtra it is explained by the Hon’ble Apex Court at para No.58 that the Officer of Railway Protection Force cannot be equated with

Police Officer.

“Officer of Railway Protection Force could not be deemed to be a Police Officer within the meaning of section 25 of the Evidence Act, and therefore, any confessional of incriminating statement recorded by him in the course of an inquiry under section 8(1) of the 1966 Act, cannot be an inquiry under section 8(1) of the 1966 Act, cannot be excluded from evidence under the said section.” 8

24. The evidence before the court through P.W.1 is cogent and reliable, there is nothing intrinsic in his evidence which his testimony unreliable. Nothing whatsoever has been brought out in the cross-examination of P.W.1 to create any amount of doubt that this witness had any animosity to give false evidence against the accused except suggested to him that a false case was foisted against the accused for statistical purpose. This court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving from the cogent, consistent and reliable evidence of PW.1 coupled with Ex.P1 to Ex.P12 and it establishes that accused drove Tractor with water tanker vehicle bearing

Registration No. AP 16 CB 6866 while closing LC gate No.249 for passing of

Train No.16031 Express at K.M.No.22/23-25 in between Mix Cabin – Vejandala

Railway Stations, hit LC gate ‘B’ boom in a rash and negligent manner, due to which LC gate ‘A’ piece was damaged. Ex.P4 is the statement of accused recorded by PW1 in the presence of mediators is admissible in this case.

Accused was not submitted any documentary evidence and none of the witness were examined on his behalf that he did not commit any offence which was stated by the defence counsel. Hence, the accused committed the offence and he is liable for punishment for the offence under Sec. 154 of the Railways Act.

POINT No.2

25.As discussed above in point No.1 the prosecution establishes that the accused is guilty of offence Under Section 154 of the Railway Act, 1989.

26.In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence under section 154 of the Railway Act, 1989. Accordingly, he is convicted under section 255(2) of Cr.P.C/278(2) BNSS.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer (Grade-III) directly on computer corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 13th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- P. Rama devi,

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, For Railways, Guntur.

9 // True Copy //

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, For Railways, Guntur.

27. Heard the quantum of a sentence from the accused, in the presence of

Learned Public Prosecutor, Railways, and the Counsel appearing of the accused. The accused was informed about the sentence imposed under

Sections 154 of the Railways Act which reads as follows.

Section 154 of Railway Act reads as follows:-

Endangering safety of persons travelling by railway

by rash or negligent act or omission:- If any person in a rash and negligent manner does any act, or omits to do what he is legally bound to do, and the act or omission is likely to endanger the safety of any person traveling or being upon any railway, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

28.Then Accused pleaded mercy in Court, and stated that he is a farmer and he is very poor and he committed the offence for the first time and he is having old age parents and a wife. He further submitted that he will not commit any offence in future and prayed court to take lenient view towards him. The counsel for accused also prayed to show lenient view towards accused.

29.Considering the submissions of the accused and the voluntary admission of the accused in committing the offence, the economic conditions explained to the court, it seems that the accused is poor and earns a meager amount to lead his family. This Court is of the opinion that this is not a fit case to apply the 10

Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 as he committed offence under the Railway

Act, 1989. Having gone through the evidence on record, the facts of the complaint, and the submission of the accused, it is appropriate to impose a sentence of fine, in order to meet the ends of justice.

30.In the result, Accused is found guilty of the offence punishable under section 154 of the Railway Act, convicted under section 255(2) Cr.P.C.,/278(2)

BNSS, sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- [Rupees two thousand only], for the offence under Section 154 of the Railways Act, in default, shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The vehicle given by Asst. Sub

Inspector/RPF/Guntur to its owner under acknowledgment shall made absolute.

30. Accused was informed about the sentence imposed against him and also his right to appeal against the present Judgment and get free legal aid even at the appeal stage. A free copy of the Judgment was also furnished to the accused immediately upon pronouncing the Judgment and obtaining his endorsement thereof.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer(Grade-III) directly on computer corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 13th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- P. Rama devi,

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, For Railways, Guntur.

// True Copy //

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, For Railways, Guntur.

11

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For prosecution: For Defence: – None -

P.W.1 : S.Venkateswarlu

Exhibits marked

For Prosecution: For Defence: NIL

Ex.P1 is message

Ex.P2 is joint observation report

Ex.P3 is mediators report

Ex.P4 is statement of Meghanadhudu

Ex.P5 statement of D.Latha

Ex.P6 is damage certificate

Ex.P7 is statement of D.Jojaiah

Ex.P8 is statement of G.Mohan

Ex.P9 is statement of Kanakaraju

Ex.P10 is statement of Jayaprakash

Ex.P11 is fitness certificate

Ex.P12 is acknowledgment given by accused

Material objects:-

-- NIL --

Sd/- P. Rama devi,

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, For Railways, Guntur.

// True Copy //

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, For Railways, Guntur.

12

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

In the Court of Judicial Magistrate of I Class for Railways, Guntur

C.C. 531 / 2026

Date ofDate FilingApprehensionReleaseCommenceClosureSentence offenceComplaintof Accusedd on Bailment of trialof trial or Order 22.01.2601.04.26----08.04.2608.04.2613.04.26

Explanation for the Delay : Accused appeared before the Court on 02.04.2026,

Accused was examined under section 274 BNSS on 08.04.2026. P.W.1 gave evidence on 08.04.2026 and on the same day prosecution evidence closed.

Accused was examined under section 351 BNSS and Heard arguments on both sides on 09.04.2026. Hence the delay.

Complainant :

Asst. Sub Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Guntur.

Name of the Accused:-

Sadam Meghanandhudu, Age 33yrs, S/o.Sadam Srinivasa Rao, R/o.15-117-15, ASR colony, Ring Road, Gujjanagundla, Guntur.

Offence: Section 154 of Railway Act, 1989. Endangering safety of persons travelling by railway by rash or negligent act or omission.

Finding: Found Guilty

Sentence or Order: In the result, Accused is found guilty of the offence punishable under section 154 of the Railway Act, convicted under section 255(2)

Cr.P.C.,/278(2) BNSS, sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- [Rupees two 13 thousand only], for the offence under Section 154 of the Railways Act, in default, shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The vehicle given by Asst. Sub Inspector/RPF/Guntur to its owner under acknowledgment shall made absolute.

Sd/- P. Rama Devi,

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, For Railways, Guntur.

Copy Submitted to: The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur.

// True Copy //

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, For Railways, Guntur.

1

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS FOR

RAILWAYS,

GUNTUR.

PRESENT: SMT. P.RAMADEVI,

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS FOR RAILWAYS, GUNTUR.

Tuesday, this the 9th day of August, 2024

C.C.NO. 141/2018

(Old Case No. 309/2015 on the file of

VI Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur)

Between: State:- Sub-Inspector of Police,

Pedakakani Police Station. ...Complainant.

And

Vasimalla David Raju @ Devid, S/o.Devadanam, 29Yrs, Asst. Professor, Acharya Nagarjuna University, Nagarjuna Nagar, Guntur and resident of GF 6 Nagarjuna Apartments, 16/1 Arundelpet, Guntur urban.

...Accused.

This case came up before me for a final hearing on 07.08.2024, in the presence of Kum. B.Jahnavi, the learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor for the complainant and Sri G.Narasimharao,

Advocate for the accused and upon perusing the material available on record, upon hearing both sides and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Pedakakani P.S. laid a charge sheet against the accused alleging that the accused committed an offence punishable under section 341 of IPC of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter it is referred as I.P.C.) in Crime No.37/2015 of Pedakakani

Police Station.

2.Brief facts of the case are as follows:

The scene of offence took place in Acharya Nagarjuna University,

Nagarjuna Nagar, Guntur. On 28.01.2015, at 9.45 Hours the 2

L.W.1/G.Baburao came to know that some unknown miscreants have locked the 9 rooms in Architecture Department on the existing College

Locks through L.W2/P.Sharief, LW3/N.Lalitha Aditya, LW4/N.Prasanth and LW5/M.Avinashreddy who are to be attended their classes.

Immediately the L.W.1 has instructed the Engineering Staff to break the locks immediately over phone. The accused came to the College at about 07.30 Hours, on the day of occurrence and it was noticed by

L.W.6/M.Sai Sumanth. The accused called L.W.6 and stated that the rooms of the Architecture will be locked but L.W.6 refused to do so and went away by saying that as to why enter in to the matter. Later the accused locked the doors after left L.W.6 from him. L.W.6 informed the same to the other students L.W7/K.Satya Munindra babu,

LW8/C.Kamala Laya and LW9/D.Rama chanti over phone as it was done by Vasimalla David S/o Deva Sahayam, Assistant Professor and recorded the same from his phone and handed over the same to the

Pedakakani Police in the shape of C.D. The accused is coming to the

College every day at 10.00 Hrs., only. While the Engineering staff were breaking double locks, the accused has interfered, restrained and objected them not to open due to prevailing personal grudges in between the complainant and the accused for long time.

3.On receipt of the report from L.W.1, L.W.10/A.Jagath Singh registered the same as FIR in Cr. No.37/2015 Under Section 341 IPC of Pedakakani P.S., on 29.01.2015 at 15.00 Hrs., and investigated in to this case.

4.L.W.10 inspected the scene of offence, examined the same, prepared a rough sketch of the scene of offence.

3

5.L.W.10 examined L.W.s 1 to 9 and recorded 161 Cr. P. C.

Statements in Part II of the case diary while examining LW1 he handed over broken Locks to LW10.

6.L.W.10 issued Notice Under Section 41(A) Cr. P. C. to the accused who surrendered before him in the Police Station on 25.03.2015.

7. After completion of the investigation LW10 has filed Charge Sheet against the accused under section 341 of IPC. Hence the charge sheet.

8.The case was taken on file by the learned VI Addl. Junior Civil

Judge, Guntur for the offence punishable under Section 341 of IPC and

numbered as C.C.No.309/2015. Later same was transferred to this court and re-numbered as C.C.No.141/2018 as proceeding of the

District Judge, Guntur in Dis.No.768 dt.30.11.2017.

9.On the appearance of the accused the copies of documents were furnished to the accused as required under Sec. 207 of Criminal

Procedure Code 1973.

10.Accused was examined under Section 251 of Cr.P.C under

Section 341 of IPC had been framed, read over, and explained to the accused in Telugu language, and the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial of the case.

11.During the trial to substantiate the version, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 4 and Exs. P1 to P3 and MO1 are marked.

L.W.1/G.Baburao was examined as P.W.1, L.W.2/P. Shareef was examined as PW.2. L.W.6/M.Sai Sumanth was examined as P.W.3,

L.W.10/A.Jagathsingh was examined as P.W.4 and reported that the prosecution evidence is closed.

12.After completion of the prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined Under Section 313 Cr. P.C. explaining the incriminating 4 material elicited against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which the accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf. Hence, the defence side evidence was closed.

13.Heard arguments on both sides.

14.Now the point is for determination:- a. Whether the prosecution could establish, the guilt of

the accused under Section 341 of IPC beyond all

reasonable doubt?

15.Point No.

To prove the ingredients U/Sec.341 IPC, the prosecution has to establish:- (1) that the accused obstructed a person.

(2) that such obstruction prevented the person from proceeding in a direction in which he had a right to proceed.

(3) that the accused caused such obstruction voluntarily.

(4) the accused must intend or know or have reason to believe it to be likely that the means adopted would cause the obstruction to the complaint.

16. P.W.1/G.Baburao, Principal of Architecture and planning college at Acharya Nagarjuna University testified that he knew LW2 to LW9 who are students of Acharya Nagarjuna university. He knew accused who is Assistant Professor in Acharya Nagarjuna University. On 19.1.2015, he usually reach at college at about 10-00am some of the students called him between 9.30 to 9.45am and they informed him that all the rooms in a college were locked. They are trying to break open the lock. Then one of the faculties instructed them not to break the locks. After reaching to the college he informed the same to the 5 registrar who is in seminar. The registrar informed to university engineer to break open the locks. Then the engineering staff opened the locks. Due to this locking of the rooms the students not able to entered the class rooms. On 28.1.2015, he addressed a letter/Ex.P1 to registrar Acharya Nagarjuna University on the instructions of registrar. There after the registrar sent a letter to Pedakakani police station.

17.P.W.1 categorically admitted in his cross-examination that his college timings are 10-00am to 5-00pm and he does not know who locked the college rooms and also other persons who informed him about the incident. He denied that on that day architecture college rooms did not locked and he is the one of the accused in case which is pending in POCSO court as the accused is a faculty in Architecture college as he supports the students for that he wantonly filed a false case against accused. He further denied, that case not connected to this case and accused is no way concerned to this case and deposing false against accused.

18. P.W.2/P.Khasim Sharif/Architect deposed that he studied

Acharya Nagarjuna university in Architecture department, Nagarjuna

Nagar, Guntur. He knew accused/Asst. professor he teaches structural mechanics. On 28.1.2015, at about 9.45am he went to college and observed that all class rooms including HOD rooms are double locked.

There are around 9 to 10 rooms are double locked. One of the students informed to principle. Then principle informed to staff of engineering department to break open the locks. Then accused objected not to break the locks. Usually accused came to college at about 9.30am but that day went to college in 7.30am. He came to know the accused came at 7.30am on that day through his juniors.

6

19.P.W.2 categorically admitted in his cross-examination that he went to college at about 9.45am. He did not witnessed accused while locking the doors. He further admitted that it may be done by any other person. He denied that accused not objected while break open the locks and accused is no way concerned to this case. Classes commenced from afternoon on wards. He further denied that due to influence of principal/PW1 deposing false against accused.

20. P.W.3/M.Sai Sumantha/Architect testified that he knew accused / Asst. professor he teaches structural mechanics. On 28.1.2015, he came from his native place to college, class rooms of college campus at about 8.00am he noticed accused at campus.

Accused called him and requested to lock the class rooms. He objected and went away from there to hostel. Later he called to his friends they stated that all class rooms were double locked for that classes are not started. They said that accused double locked the class rooms. He also proceeded to the class rooms students are all present at corridor told that they informed to principal. Engineering department trying to break down the locks accused obstructed while break open the locks. Afternoon proceeded for attending of classes.

Usually accused went to college at about 10-00am. But on that day he came to college on 7.30am. His juniors also observed that. Accused double locked the class rooms.

21.P.W.3 categorically admitted in his cross-examination that he did not witnessed the accused while double locking the doors of class rooms and did not stated before the police name of the person who called him. He denied that he did not state before the police that he came from Kadapa on that day and accused objected at the time of break opening the locks and he did not came from Kadapa on that day 7 and deposing false as per the instructions of PW1 and he did not call any one for that he did not told the names of persons.

22. P.W.4/A.Jagathsingh/S.I/Pedakakani P.S deposed that on 29.1.2015, at about 15.00 hours he received report from one professor Baburao. Basing on that report he registered a case/Ex.P2 in crime NO.37/2015 u/sec.341 of IPC. Then he proceeded to Acharya

Nagarjuna university architect Engineering college with the complainant/PW1 and visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch/ExP3 and he examined PW2, LW3 to LW5 and recorded their statements. Then he seized the 11 locks/MO1 which was broken by the engineering department of the said university. On 3.2.2015, he examined and recorded the statements of PW3, LW7 to LW9. On 25.2.2015, he served section 41-A notice to accused. Later he filed charge sheet.

23.P.W.4 admitted in his cross-examination that the seized 11 locks are available in open market and did not pasted any slips on the seized property and while seizing of MO1 not prepared any mediatornama and not followed any procedure and PW3 did not stated before him he came from Kadapa on that day and while break open by the engineering department accused obstructed. He denied that he did not went to the university and not investigated as per the higher authorities filed a false case against accused.

24.The learned Assistant Public prosecution while advancing arguments has submitted by examining Pws.1 and 4 and marked

Ex.P1 to P3 and MO1 there is a corroboration between their evidences.

PW4 who is an investigation officer. It has been successfully established beyond reasonable doubt to bring home guilt of the accused for the offence u/Sec. 341, of IPC and though there are minor 8 discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, same are not fatal to the case of prosecution. Therefore, accused is liable for conviction.

25.Per contra, the learned counsel for the accused while advancing arguments would submit that there is no eye witness in this case to state that the accused committed the offence. PW1 is the principal of

University there are disputes between the accused and PW1. PW2 and

PW3 are the students. They deposed as per the instructions of PW1.

PW4 who is the investigating officer not investigated the case properly.

which creates a doubt about genesis of the incident. PW1 to PW4 did not support the version of prosecution in toto. There are number of contradictions, admissions and omissions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. It is highly unsafe to base a conviction, on the unreliable and untrustworthy evidence of prosecution witnesses and hence prayed to acquit the accused.

26.On careful scrutiny of the evidence available on record, absolutely, there is no iota of oral or documentary evidence placed

before this court by the prosecution to establish that the accused

double locked the rooms in Architecture Department in Acharya

Nagarjuna University. It is the version of PW1 the incident was informed by students but he did not know who informed him and their names, he instructed the engineering department to break open the locks. Accused obstructed the staff of engineering department while break open the locks. It is the version of PW2 and PW3 did not witness the incident they came to know about the incident by their juniors.

PW4 admitted that the seized 11 locks are available in open market, he did not paste punch slips on the seized property, while seizing the

MO1 not prepared any mediatornama and not followed any procedure.

9

PW3 did not stated before him that he came from Kadapa that day while opining the double locks by the engineering department accused had obstructed them. There are no eye witness and no direct witness in this case there are so many contradictions in the evidences of PW1 to PW3. PW4 evidence is procedural in nature. There is no evidentiary value of their evidences to prove the guilt of the accused.

27.The upshot of the discussion, this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has not succeeded in bringing home guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 341 of IPC by placing cogent, convincing and reliable evidence. The burden on the prosecution to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. But in this case, the prosecution has failed to discharge its burden. In view of the facts and circumstances, I am of the considering opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and as such the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. This point is answered accordingly in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

28.In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offence under Section 341 of IPC. Accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C. for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of Six months as contemplated under section 437-A of Cr.P.C. from the date of this judgment. The case property under CPR No.22/24 M.O.1 shall be destroyed after the lapse of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer(Grade-III) directly on the computer corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 9th day of August,2024.

Sd/- P.Rama Devi,

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, For Railways, Guntur.

10

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution For Defence: None P.W.1/G.Baburao P.W.2/P.Khasim Shareef

P.W.3/M.Sai Sumanth

P.W.4/A.Jagath Singh

Exhibits marked.

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1 is letter to registrar

Ex.P2 is FIR

Ex.P3 is rough sketch

For Defence: Nil.

Material Objects Marked

MO1 is 11 locks

Sd/- P.Rama Devi,

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, For Railways, Guntur.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

In the Court of Judl. Magistrate of I Class for Railways, Guntur.

C.C. 141/2018

Date ofDate of filingApprehension ReleasedCommencemeClosure ofResult offencecomplainton bailnt of trialtrial of accused 28-01-201502-04-2015---06-12-20236-8-202409-8-2024

Complainant:-

State:- Sub-Inspector of Police, Pedakakani Police Station.

Name of the accused:-

Vasimalla David Raju @ Devid, S/o.Devadanam, 29Yrs, Asst. Professor, Acharya Nagarjuna University, Nagarjuna Nagar, Guntur and resident of GF 6 Nagarjuna Apartments, 16/1 Arundelpet, Guntur urban.

Sentence or Order :In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offence under Section 341 of IPC. Accordingly, he is acquitted under

Section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C. for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of Six months as contemplated under section 437-A of Cr.P.C. from the date of this judgment. The case property under CPR No.22/24 M.O.1 shall be destroyed after the lapse of appeal time.

Explanation for the delay:-This case was taken file on 15.4.2015. In this case, copies of documents were furnished to the accused on 09-8-2023. The accused was examined U/sec.251 of Cr.PC on 02.11.2023. During the course of trial, Pws 1 to 4 were examined and got marked Exs. P1 to P3, MO1 and the prosecution evidence was closed. On 06.08.24, the accused was examined U/Sec.313 Criminal Procedure Code. On 07-08-24, heard arguments on both sides. On 9-08-2024, Judgment pronounced.

Sd/- P.Rama Devi,

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, For Railways, Guntur.

Copy Submitted to: The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur.

1

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS FOR RAILWAYS,

GUNTUR

PRESENT: SMT. P.RAMA DEVI,

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS FOR RAILWAYS, GUNTUR.

Monday, this is the 13 th day of April, 2026

C.C.No.47 of 2026

Between :

Asst. Sub Inspector, Railway Protection Force/ DR/Guntur @ Narasaraopet. … Complainant.

AND

Mundru Srinivasarao, Age 58yrs, S/o.Sriramulu, R/o.Pedda Kancharla Village, Vinukonda Mandal, Palnadu District.

….. Accused.

This Case came up before me for a final hearing on 09-4-2026 in the presence of Sri.M. Srinivas, Public Prosecutor for Railways, and Sri E.Srinivasa

Buchacharyulu, Advocate appearing for the accused and upon perusing the material available on record, upon hearing both sides and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This complaint was filed by the Asst. Sub-Inspector of Railway Protection

Force/DR/Guntur @ Narasaraopet under section 180-A of the Railways Act, 1989 in Crime No.720/2025, Railway Protection Force, Narasaraopet alleging that accused committed an offence under Section 154 of the Railways Act.

2

2.The brief facts of the case are as follows.

On 19.08.2025, at about 15.00 hours all concerned message.

received message from Station Superintendent/Santhamaguluru, Train

Manager of T.No. BOX/N-116, at about 14.43 hours while passing through signal one cattle suddenly came across the track, to run over at KM No.73/25- 23 between Vinukonda - Savalyapuram Railway stations.

3.On receipt of information LW2/G.Nagaraju/IPF/Narasaraopet along with

HC.442 rushed to the spot and noticed one Cattle was run over and lying middle of the up and down line tracks, engineering staff attended no obstruction of track/train movement JE/P Way/Vinukonda given track fit certificate, on searching ear tag was available vide bearing No.105709/363496. In this regarding registered a Case in Crime No.720/2025 u/s 154 Railway Act, and took up further enquiries. IPF/Narasaraopet entrusted to the case to LW6/SK

Subhani,/ASIPF/Narasaraopet for further enquiries.

4.On 01.11.2025, at about 17.00 hours one person came to RPF office

Narasaraopet, surrender before LW6/ASIPF/NRT, revealed his name and address as Mundru Srinivasa Rao/Accused. On 19.08.2025, his buffalo was missing from his possession, while searching for his buffalo at various places/villages, it is known that, his buffalo was found dead at km.no. 73/25-23, between Vinukonda and Savalayapuram Railway stations and he reached the spot, identified his buffalo, due to moral fear he left from the spot.

LW6/ASIPF/NRT arrested the accused, recorded his statement and connected to Cr.No. 720/2025 u/s 154 Railway Act. After completion of legal formalities, he is released on bail with proper surety and instructed to appear before the court as and when summoned.

5.During the course of enquiries, on 16.10.2025, LW6/ASIPF/Narasaraopet recorded the statement of LW4/Kumbha Naga Srinivasarao, Goods train

Manager, of BOXN-116, Guntur regarding the incident. On 18.10.2025, 3

LW6/ASIPF/Narasaraopet recorded the statement of LW5/Kolla Suresh, Asst.P.

Way/Inspector Savalyapuram, regarding the incident.

6.After completion of enquiries, LW1 filed a complaint against the accused under section 154 of the Railways Act, 1989. Hence the complaint.

7.This case was taken cognizance against the accused for the offence under section 154 of the Railways Act, 1989.

8.On the appearance of the accused copies of documents were furnished under section 230 BNSS.

9.Accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C/274 BNSS for the offence under Section 154 of the Railways Act, the accusation was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu language, and the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

10.In order to establish the case against the accused, the Learned Public

Prosecutor for Railways, Guntur adduced the evidence of P.W.1 and PW2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4 documents on behalf of the prosecution and further

Learned Public Prosecutor for Railways, Guntur has given up the evidence of

LW2/G.Nagaraju,LW3/G.V.V.P.Reddy,LW4/K.NagaSrinivasarao,

LW5/K.Suresh and reported prosecution evidence closed.

11.Accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C./351 BNSS explained the incriminating circumstances appeared against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the accused denied the same, reported no defence, and no documents were marked on the defence side.

12.Heard the Learned Public prosecution for Railways, Guntur, and the learned counsel appearing to the accused.

4

Points for determination: - (1) Whether the prosecution could establish that accused cattle run over and hit by train No.BOX/N-116 at Km No.73/25-23 and died?

(2) Whether the prosecution could establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under section 154 of the Railways Act, 1989?

POINT NO.1

13.P.W.1/Sk.Subhani/Asst. Sub Inspector/RPF/Narasaraopet testified that on 19.8.25 at about 15.00 hours he received all concerned message/ExP1 from station superintendent, Santhamagaluru with regard to cattle run over incident occurred by goods train No.BoxN 116 at km No.73/25-20. On receipt of message he along with LW2 proceeded to the spot. There he noticed carcass of the cattle. He registered a case in crime No.720/25, u/sec.154 of Railways Act.

On 1.11.25 at about 17.00 hours one person/accused surrendered before him.

He secured mediator M.Narendra babu. In his presence he enquired accused he revealed his identity particulars. On enquiry he stated that his cattle was died due to hit by train. He admitted his guilt. He arrested him and recorded his statement/ExP2 and he connected him as accused in crime No.720/25. He released the accused on bail with an instructions to appear before the court as and when summoned. On 16.10.25 he examined and recorded the statement of

LW4/ExP3. On 18.10.25 he examined and recorded the statement of

LW5/Ex.P4. As he got transfer he handed over the case file to LW1 for further investigation.

14.P.W.1 categorically admitted in his cross-examination that he has not filed any duty particulars of train manager and did not file ownership particulars of cattle before the court and not enquired the persons who are in the village of accused and not cited them as witness. He denied that accused not having any 5 cattle accused and no way concerned to this offence and wantonly filed a false case against accused and deposing false.

15.P.W.2/Sk.Subhani/Asst. Sub Inspector/RPF/Narasaraopet testified that he received case file from PW1 on 20.10.25. He verified the investigation conducted by PW1. As they are on correct lines and filed complaint.

16. P.W.2 categorically admitted in his cross-examination that the entire investigation done by PW1. He denied that he does not have any knowledge about this case.

17.The Learned Public Prosecutor for Railways argued the case and submitted that the prosecution established that the accused is guilty of the offence under section 154 of the Railway Act, 1989 and further submitted that accused cattle run over and hit by train No.BOX/N-116 at Km No.73/25-23 and died and accused is liable for punishment for the offence under Sec.154 of the

Railways Act.

18.The learned counsel for the accused contended that investigation officer not enquired and not filed the case properly and all case papers are prepared at

RPF out post and filed this case for statistical purpose. Hence, accused is entitled to acquittal.

19.As seen from the evidence of P.W.1, as well as the Ex.P1 to P4 documentary evidence produced before the Court, the case of the prosecution is established that accused cattle run over and hit by train No.BOX/N-116 at

Km No.73/25-23 in between Vinukonda and Savalyapuram stations and died.

Accused gave a confession statement/Ex.P2 to the investigating officer.

20.The confessional statement of the accused/Ex.P2 is admissible in evidence. He did not deny the confession statement recorded by P.W.1. The evidence of P.W.1, cannot be kept aside as he does not falls under the purview of section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act reads as follows that confession to a 6 police officer not to be proved:- No confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against the accused of any offence. PW1 is an officer of the Railway

Protection Force, his nature of duties are not like a police officer.

21.In a case, reported in AIR 1981 SC 379 between Bala Kishan A.Devi

Dayal Vs State of Maharashtra it is explained by the Hon’ble Apex Court at para No.58 that the Officer of Railway Protection Force cannot be equated with

Police Officer.

“Officer of Railway Protection Force could not be deemed to be a Police Officer within the meaning of section 25 of the Evidence Act, and therefore, any confessional of incriminating statement recorded by him in the course of an inquiry under section 8(1) of the 1966 Act, cannot be an inquiry under section 8(1) of the 1966 Act, cannot be excluded from evidence under the said section.”

22. The evidence before the court through P.W.1 and PW2 are cogent and reliable, there is nothing intrinsic in their evidence which his testimony unreliable. Nothing whatsoever has been brought out in the cross-examination of P.W.1 and PW2 to create any amount of doubt that this witness had any animosity to give false evidence against the accused except suggested to them that a false case was foisted against the accused for statistical purpose. This court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving from the cogent, consistent and reliable evidence of PW.1 and PW2 coupled with Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 and it establishes that accused cattle run over and hit by train No.BOX/N-116 at Km No.73/25-23 in between Vinukonda and

Savalyapuram stations and died. Ex.P2 is the statement of accused recorded by PW1 in the presence of mediators is admissible in this case. Accused was not submitted any documentary evidence and none of the witness were examined on his behalf that he did not commit any offence which was stated by the defence counsel. Hence, the accused 7 committed the offence and he is liable for punishment for the offence under

Sec. 154 of the Railways Act.

POINT No.2

23.As discussed above in point No.1 the prosecution establishes that the accused is guilty of offence Under Section 154 of the Railway Act, 1989.

24.In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence under section 154 of the Railway Act, 1989. Accordingly, he is convicted under section 255(2) of Cr.P.C/278(2) BNSS.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer (Grade-III) directly on computer corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 13th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-P.Ramadevi,

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, For Railways, Guntur.

// True Copy //

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, For Railways, Guntur.

25. Heard the quantum of a sentence from the accused, in the presence of

Learned Public Prosecutor, Railways, and the Counsel appearing of the accused. The accused was informed about the sentence imposed under

Sections 154 of the Railways Act which reads as follows.

Section 154 of Railway Act reads as follows:-

Endangering safety of persons travelling by railway

by rash or negligent act or omission:- If any person in a rash and negligent manner does any act, or omits to do what he is legally bound to do, and the act or omission is likely to endanger the safety of any person traveling or being upon any railway, he shall be 8 punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

26. Then Accused pleaded mercy in Court, and stated that he is a farmer and he is very poor and he committed the offence for the first time and he is having old age parents and a wife. He further submitted that he will not commit any offence in future and prayed court to take lenient view towards him. The counsel for accused also prayed to show lenient view towards accused.

27. Considering the submissions of the accused and the voluntary admission of the accused in committing the offence, the economic conditions explained to the court, it seems that the accused is poor and earns a meager amount to lead his family. This Court is of the opinion that this is not a fit case to apply the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 as he committed offence under the Railway Act, 1989. Having gone through the evidence on record, the facts of the complaint, and the submission of the accused, it is appropriate to impose a sentence of fine, in order to meet the ends of justice.

28.In the result, Accused is found guilty of the offence punishable under section 154 of the Railway Act, convicted under section 255(2) Cr.P.C.,/278(2)

BNSS, sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- [Rupees two thousand only], for the offence under Section 154 of the Railways Act, in default, shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

29. Accused was informed about the sentence imposed against him and also his right to appeal against the present Judgment and get free legal aid even at the appeal stage. A free copy of the Judgment was also furnished to the accused immediately upon pronouncing the Judgment and obtaining his endorsement thereof.

9

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer(Grade-III) directly on computer corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 13th day of April, 2026

Sd/-P.Ramadevi,

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, For Railways, Guntur. // True Copy //

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, For Railways, Guntur.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For prosecution: For Defence: – None -

P.W.1 : Sk.Subhani

P.W.2: Sk.Subhani

Exhibits marked

For Prosecution: For Defence: NIL

Ex.P1 is message

Ex.P2 is statement of accused

Ex.P3 is statement of K.Naga Srinivasarao

Ex.P4 is statement of K.Suresh

Material objects:-

-- NIL --

Sd/-P.Ramadevi,

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, For Railways, Guntur.

// True Copy //

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, For Railways, Guntur.

10

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

In the Court of Judicial Magistrate of I Class for Railways, Guntur

C.C. 47/2026

Date ofDate FilingApprehensionReleaseCommenceClosureSentence offenceComplaintof Accusedd on Bailment of trialof trial or Order 19.08.2527.01.2025----08.04.2608.04.2613.04.26

Explanation for the Delay : Accused appeared before the Court on 01.04.2026, Accused was examined under section 274 BNSS on 6.04.2026. P.W.1 gave evidence on 08.04.2026 and on the same day prosecution evidence closed. Accused was examined under section 351 BNSS and Heard arguments on both sides on 09.04.2026. Hence the delay.

Complainant :

Asst. Sub Inspector, Railway Protection Force/ DR/Guntur @ Narasaraopet.

Name of the Accused:-

Mundru Srinivasarao, Age 58yrs, S/o.Sriramulu, R/o.Pedda Kancharla Village, Vinukonda Mandal, Palnadu District.

Offence: Section 154 of Railway Act, 1989. Endangering safety of persons travelling by railway by rash or negligent act or omission.

Finding: Found Guilty

Sentence or Order: In the result, Accused is found guilty of the offence punishable under section 154 of the Railway Act, convicted under section 255(2) Cr.P.C.,/278(2) BNSS, sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- [Rupees two thousand only], for the offence under Section 154 of the Railways Act, in default, shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

Sd/- P.Rama Devi,

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, For Railways, Guntur.

11

Copy Submitted to: The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur.

// True Copy //

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, For Railways, Guntur.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS FOR

RAILWAYS, GUNTUR.

Present: Smt P. Rama Devi

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, For Railways, Guntur.

Friday, this the 9 th day of August, 2024

Calendar Case. No.40 of 2020

( C.C.No.409/2018 on the file of VAJCJ Court, Guntur)

State: Sub-Inspector of Police,

Arundelpet P.S. ...Complainant

Vs

1) Gujjala Nagamani, W/o Tirumalareddy, 65 years, PS Nagar, 1st Lane, Guntur Town.

2) Tirumalareddy Balireddy, S/o Souri Reddy, 70 years, PS Nagar, 1st Lane, Guntur Town.

... A1 and A2.

This case came up before me for a final hearing on 08.08.2024, in the presence of Kum.B.Jahnavi, Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, and Sri

Ashok, Advocate appearing for A1 and A2 and upon perusing the material available on record, upon hearing both sides and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, delivered the following:

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Arundelpet Police Station has laid a charge sheet against the A1 and A2 alleging that they have committed the offence punishable under Sections 427, 448 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC” for brevity) in Cr.No.157/2018 of Arundelpet Police

Station.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

2

A1 and A2 being in-laws of L.W1/Tirumalareddy Shilpa subjected her to cruelty as such she filed a case in C.C.No.144/2015 for the offences punishable under sec.498-A of IPC and Sec3 and 4 of DP Act. In the said case

A2 was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 2 years. Hence,

A2 preferred an appeal in Cr.A.No.400/2016 on the file of I Addl. District

Judge, Guntur and the same is pending. During the pendency of the said

appeal A1 and A2 used to demand her to compromise the case. On said aspect in the month of November, 2017 when she went to her parents house

A1 and A2 criminally trespassed into her house situated at 1st lane, PS Nagar,

Guntur and broke open the locks, gained entrance into her house and fell down the clothes and damaged her household articles. On 17.04.2018 she came to her house and noticed all the articles in her house in fell mall condition.

3.On receiving the report of L.W.1/T.Shilpa, L.W.7/K.Chinnakondaiah registered the same as a case in Cr. No. 157/2018 U/S 427, 448 R/W 34 IPC of

Arundelpet P.S and L.W.7 taken up investigation.

4.During the course of investigation, L.W.7 examined L.W.1 and recorded her detailed statement. L.W.7 visited the scent of offence along with

L.W.5/E.Rajasekhar and LW7/K.China Kondaiah who are mediators at time of scene observation. L.W.7 has seized Godrej navatal 7 leavers brass lock for the purpose of further investigation under the cover of mediatornama, duly attested by the mediators and prepared a rough sketch of the same. L.W.7 secured the presence of L.Ws. 3/T.Kalyani and LW4/M.Keerthi examined them and recorded their detailed statements.

3

5.During the course of further investigation, on 20.04.2018 L.W.7 served notices to accused compelling them to attend before the court, whenever summoned. L.W.8, who verified the investigation done by L.W.7.

6.After completion of the investigation, LW8/P.Premaiah has filed charge sheet against A1 and A2 under sections 427, 448 r/w 34 of IPC. Hence the charge sheet.

7.Originally, this case was taken on file by the V Addl. Junior Civil Judge’s

Court, Guntur against A1 and A2 for the offence under Sections 427, 448 r/w 34 of IPC and numbered as C.C 409/2018. Later this case has been transferred to this court and re-numbered as C.C.No.40/2020 as per proceedings of the Hon’ble District Judge, Guntur in Dis.No.827 dt.17.2.2020.

8.On the appearance of A1 and A2 copies of documents were furnished to them as required under Sec. 207 of Criminal Procedure Code 1973.

9.A1 and A2 were examined under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. and had been framed, read over and explained to A1 and A2 in Telugu language, and they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

10.In order to prove the case, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4, MO1. LW1/T.Shilpa was examined as PW1,

LW.7/K.Chinnakkondaiah was examined as P.W.2.

11.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has filed a memo along with a report of VRO and she reported LW1/T.Shilpa, LW2/B.Anthonamma,

LW3/T.Kalyani and LW4/M.Keerthi whereabouts are not known. Hence their evidence closed.

12.After completion of the prosecution side evidence A1 and A2 was examined Under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating material 4 elicited against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which they denied the same and reported no defense evidence on their behalf. Hence, the defense side evidence was closed.

13.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for complainant. The

Learned Counsel for A1 and A2. Perused the material available on record both oral and documentary evidence.

14.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution could establish to bring home the guilt of A1 and A2 for the offence punishable under Sections 427, 448 r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.?”

15.To bring home the guilt of A1 and A2 for the said offence, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 and PW2 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 and MO1 are marked.

16.POINT:

In order to secure conviction U/s 447 IPC, the prosecution has to establish the following ingredients:-

1. The complainant was in possession of property;

2. The accused entered into or upon the property unlawfully or having entered into or upon such property lawfully remains there with an intention to:

(a) Commit an offence;

(b) intimidate;

(c) insult;

(d) annoy any person in possession of property.

17.For proving the offence U/s 448 IPC, it has to be shown that“The accused trespassed into the house of LW1/T.Shilpa with an intention to commit an offence.” 5

18.PW1/E.Raja Sekhar, who is a mediator in this case did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. The learned APP after obtaining permission from the court had cross-examined PW1 nothing was elicited in his evidence except the marking of Ex.P1/Signature on mediatornama.

19.P.W.2/K.China Kondaiah/the then A.S.I, Arundelpet testified that on 17.4.2018, at about 7.00 pm while he was present at Arundelpet police station LW1 presented a written report stating that she vacated the house and went to her parent's house. Later she noticed her in-laws open the lock and trespassed and also put Tolet board. Basing on the report he registered a case/Ex.P2 in crime No.157/2018 u/sec.427,448 r/w 34 of IPC. On his instructions constable secured two mediators PW1, LW6. He along with mediators went to the house of LW1 situated at P.S. Nagar, 1st line, D.No.4- 16-486 in second floor Guntur. There he found break open the lock. He drafted mediatornama/ExP4 in the presence of mediators and prepared rough sketch/ExP3 and seized lock/MO1. On the same day, he secured LW1 to LW4 and examined and recorded their statements. After completion of the investigation, he handed over the case file to LW8. After verification of investigation done by him LW8 filed a charge sheet.

20.PW2 categorically denied in his cross examination that LW1 did not came to the police station and not presented a report and in her complaint she did not state her house locks break open and put tolet board and also denied that he along with mediators did not went to the scene of offence and not drafted mediatornama and not prepared rough sketch and no offence took place at the spot and all the papers are prepared at police station.

21.The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the case filed against the A1 and A2 as the offence committed Sections 427 and 428 r/w 34 6 of IPC. PW2 who is the investigation officer filed charge sheet against A1 and

A2 as per the report of LW1. Therefore, PW2 is supported the case of the prosecution and established the guilt of A1 and A2, therefore, prayed to convict A1 and A2.

22.The Learned Defence Counsel for the A1 and A2 contended that PW1 who is the mediator did not support the case and PW2 is the Investigation officer adduced the evidence in this case. There are no eye-witnesses and no independent witnesses in this case. PW2 evidences is not sufficient in this case to establish the guilt of the A1 and A2. Therefore, prayed to acquit A1 and A2.

23.As per the basic theory of the prosecution, A1 and A2 criminally trespassed into the house of LW1 with common intention and broke open the locks, fell down the clothes and damaged her household articles. PW1 is the mediator in this case turned hostile and deposed a contrary version from the case of the prosecution. Though the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor was permitted to put the questions which are in the nature of cross-examination, no worthful elicitation were made out except putting the case of the prosecution as mere suggestion and he specifically denied the same. The prosecution can get no advantage from the testimony of P.W.1 and marked

Ex.P1 signator on mediatornama.

24.PW1 is turned hostile and not supported the prosecution's case. P.W.2 is the investigation officer in this case and an interested witness to the prosecution case, his evidence is not sufficient to prove this case and P.W.2 evidence alone may not be sufficient to satisfy the guilt of A1 and A2 beyond a reasonable doubt in the absence of supporting evidence or corroboration and his evidence cannot be taken into consideration.

7

25.The evidence on record is not sufficient to hold that A1 and A2 criminally trespassed into the house of LW1 and broke open the locks, fell down the clothes and damaged her household articles. Therefore, this court is of the considered opinion that evidence placed on record is not sufficient to come to conclusion that A1 and A2 in pursuance of their common intention, criminally trespassed into house of LW1 and broke open the locks, fell down the clothes and damaged her household articles.. Therefore, A1 and A2 are entitled for acquittal.

26.In view of my foregoing discussion, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish its case against the A1 and A2 for the offence under Sections 447,448, r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. Thus, A1 and A2 are entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt.

27.The point is answered accordingly in favour of A1 and A2 and against the prosecution.

28.In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty of the offence under

Section 427, 448 r/w 34 of IPC. Accordingly they are acquitted under Section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of Six months as contemplated under section 437-A of

Cr.P.C. from the date of this judgment. The case property under CPR No.21/24

M.O.1 shall be destroyed after the lapse of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer (Grade-III) directly on computer corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 9th day of August, 2024.

Sd/- P.Rama Devi,

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, For Railways, Guntur.

8

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE: None

P.W.1: E.Raja Sekhar P.W.2: K.China Kondaiah

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE: NIL

Ex.P1 : Signature on mediatornama

Ex.P2 is FIR

Ex.P3 is rough sketch

Ex.P4 is mediatornama

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO1 is Godrej lock

Sd/- P.Rama Devi,

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, For Railways, Guntur.

9

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

In the Court of Judl. Magistrate of I Class for Railways, Guntur.

C.C. 40/2020

Date ofDate of filingApprehension ReleasedCommencementClosure ofResult offencecomplaintof accusedon bailof trialtrial 17-04-201818-7-2018---06-8-2406-8-2409-08-2024

Complainant:-

State:- Sub-Inspector of Police, Arundelpet, Guntur Urban.

Name of the accused:-

1) Gujjala Nagamani, W/o Tirumalareddy, 65 years, PS Nagar, 1st Lane, Guntur Town.

2) Tirumalareddy Balireddy, S/o Souri Reddy, 70 years, PS Nagar, 1st Lane, Guntur Town.

Sentence or Order :In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty of the offence under Section 427, 448 r/w 34 of IPC. Accordingly they are acquitted under Section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of Six months as contemplated under section 437-A of Cr.P.C. from the date of this judgment. The case property under CPR No.21/24 M.O.1 shall be destroyed after the lapse of appeal time.

Explanation for the delay:-This case was taken file on 25.7.2018. In this case, copies of documents were furnished to the accused on 20-09-2018. The accused was examined U/sec.251 of Cr.PC on 01.11.2019. During the course of trial, Pws 1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs. P1 to P4, MO1 and the prosecution evidence was closed. On 08.08.24, the accused was examined U/Sec.313 Criminal Procedure Code and on the same day heard arguments on both sides. On 09.08.2024, Judgment pronounced.

Sd/- P.Rama Devi,

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, For Railways, Guntur. Copy Submitted to: The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur.