Smt. P. Uma Maheswari

CC No.324 of 2022 Dated:16.08.2023 Page.No. 1

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

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: AT :: ASIFABAD.

PRESENT : Smt. P. Uma Maheswari,

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Asifabad.

Wednesday, this the 16th day of August, 2023.

CC.No. 324 of 2022

Between:

The State of Telangana Rep. Sub Inspector of Police Kerameri Police Station (Cr.No.200 of 2018).

… Complainant //AND//

Gouthre Ganapathi, S/o. Gangaram, Age:28 years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o.Indhapur village of Kerameri Mandal. … Accused

This case is coming on before me on 10.08.2023 for final hearing in the presence of learned in-charge Asst.Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri T.Suresh, counsel for accused, upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Kerameri Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 354(B) IPC, alleging that based on the complaint received from the complainant/Vadai Shailu on 12/11/2018 at 19.00 hours, a case in

Cr.No.200 of 2018 is registered under Sections 354,354(B) IPC and investigated into. After completion investigation, which established the commission of the offences punishable under Section 354, 354(B) IPC by the accused, charge sheeted him accordingly.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 12/11/2018 at 13.00 hours, while the complainant was alone in her house and washing the clothes in

CC No.324 of 2022 Dated:16.08.2023 Page.No. 2

the backyard of her house under a shed, her villager Gauthre Ganapathi came near her and caught hold her hand, forcibly took her into her house and asked her to fulfill his desire. When the complainant raised hue and cry, her elder sister and mother-in-law rushed to the spot and rescued her from the said Ganapathi. Meanwhile, the complainant beat the said

Ganapathi with stones, upon which he fled away from there.

Subsequently, the complainant approached the Police Station and gave complaint.

3.During the course of investigation, Woman Police Constable-3639 recorded the statement of the complainant and the Investigating Officer visited the scene of offence situated at Indhapur village, observed it minutely, but did not prepare the crime detail form due to odd hours.

Later, the Investigating Officer examined and recorded the statements of

LWs.2 to 4 and on 12.11.2018 he again visited the scene of offence, secured two mediators and drafted the crime detail form and rough sketch in their presence. He also examined and recorded the statement of

LW5 at the scene of offence. On 15.11.2018, the accused-Gothre

Ganapathi himself came to Police Station and surrendered before the

Investigating Officer, by admitting his guilt. Later, notice under Section 41-A CrPC served on the accused. The Investigating Officer gave requisition to the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bellampalli to record the statement of the victim under Section 164 CrPC. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet is filed against the accused.

4.On the strength of the said charge sheet, the Court has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Section 354 IPC against the accused and issued summons to him. On appearance of the accused

before the Court, case copies furnished to him duly complying Section 207

CC No.324 of 2022 Dated:16.08.2023 Page.No. 3

CrPC and thereafter, he is examined under Section 239 CrPC for the accusation levelled against him under Section 354 of IPC, for which he pleaded not guilty. Charge framed for the said offence, read over and explained to the accused in vernacular language, for which he claimed to be tried.

5.In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P1 to Ex.P5. PW1 is the complainant, PW2 is the sister of

PW1, PW3 is the mother-in-law of PW1, PW4 is the husband of PW1 and

PW5 is the Investigating Officer. On behalf of defence Exs.D1 and Ex.D2 are marked.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused is examined under Section 313 Cr.PC, for which he pleaded innocence and reported no defence evidence.

6.Heard both sides.

7.The learned in-charge APP submitted that the prosecution through the oral and documentary evidence adduced by it, has proved its case against the accused and hence, the accused is liable to be convicted. On the other hand, learned defense counsel contended that there are several inconsistencies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and admittedly there are civil disputes pending between the complainant’s family and the family of the accused, due to which a false case is filed against the accused. He also contended that the evidence of PW4 that he went to the

Court to attend the case about the land disputes between them and the accused, on the date of the alleged offence supports his contentions. He further contended that there is no consistency in the evidence of PW1 in her evidence before this Court and her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC, which is evident from Ex.D1. In support of his contentions,

CC No.324 of 2022 Dated:16.08.2023 Page.No. 4

learned defence counsel placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Pandurang Sitaram Bhagwat Vs. State of

Maharashtra 1, Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Karri Suri

Babu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 2 , Hon’ble High Court of Andhra

Pradesh in Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh Vs.

Nammi Narayana (Accd.)3 and Hpon’ble Gauhathi High Court in

Md. Royal Ali Vs. State of Assam 4 .

8.The point for consideration is:

“Whether the accused, with an intention to outrage the modesty of the complainant, has used criminal force on her ?”

P O I N T:

9.PW1, in her evidence before this Court, stated that about four years ago, when she was alone in the house and washing clothes in the back side of the house, the accused/Gouthre Ganapathi came there and caught hold her and asked her to fulfill his desire and also forcibly took her inside the house, upon which she raised hue and cry. She also stated that listening the same Vadai Sombai, her sister and Vadai Tarabai, her mother-in-law came there and on seeing them, the accused fled away. On her cross examination, she stated that she do not know to read and write in Telugu and ExP1 complaint is drafted by the Police. She admitted that the father of the accused is Gangaram and that there are land disputes between them and the said Gangaram. She also admitted that there are cases and counter cases pending against them and a civil dispute also pending between them. She also admitted that the house of her mother- 1 2005 CRL.L.J.880 2 2000 (1) ALT (Crl) 352 (A.P.) 3 2002 (1) ALT (Crl.) 272 (A.P.) 4 Cri. Revision No.407/1987

CC No.324 of 2022 Dated:16.08.2023 Page.No. 5

in-law is away from their house and there is a thorn fencing around their house. She admitted that in her statement given under Section 164 CrPC, she did not state that she was washing clothes inside the house as in

Ex.D1. Again she denied that she did not state in her 164 CrPC statement that she was washing clothes in the backyard of their house. She specifically stated that when the accused caught hold her right hand, her bangles did not broke and her clothes were also not torn. She further stated that she had thrown stones upon the accused, which were present in her house. She stated that the said stones were brought by her children.

10.PW2 is the sister of PW1 and she stated that when the accused came to the house of PW1, she was present in front of her house and PW1 was washing clothes at the back side of her house. She stated that when she heard the hues and cries of PW1, she went to the house of PW1 and at that time, the accused fled away. Later, on her enquiry, PW1 stated that the accused caught hold her hand. On her cross examination, she admitted that the house of LW3/mother in law is away from their house, but she stays with them. Having admitted that there are houses surrounding their house, she stated that nobody came from the neighbouring house. She also admitted that there are disputes and cases between them and the accused. She stated that on the date of the incident, her husband came to attend the Court. She stated that she did not see when the accused caught hold the hand of PW1 and it is only PW1, who stated to her. She also admitted that there is a thorn fencing around the house of PW1.

11. PW3, the mother-in-law of PW1, stated that when herself and PW2 were in front of their house about four years ago, PW1was washing

CC No.324 of 2022 Dated:16.08.2023 Page.No. 6

clothes at the backyard of their house and at that time, they heard the hues and cries of PW1, upon which, they went to her house and saw the accused fleeing away. When they enquired PW1, she stated that the accused caught hold her hand and tried to outrage her modesty. On cross-examination, she admitted that her house is away from the house of

PW1. She also stated that after 15 minutes of the hues and cries of PW1, they reached there. She also admitted that her husband and Vadai

Badugu are brothers and there are land disputes between their family and the family of the accused and cases also pending in the Court. She stated that PW1 told them that her bangles were broken, when the accused caught hold her hand and the same were seized by the Police.

12.PW4, is the husband of PW1 and he stated that on 12.11.2018 at about 08.00 am, he went to Asifabad Court and PW1 was alone in the house. Around 01.30 pm, he received phone call from PW1, who stated that while she was washing clothes in the back yard under the shed, the accused came into the house and caught hold her hand and asked her to fulfill his desire, upon which PW1 made hue and cry, on hearing the same

PWs.2 and 3 went there, upon which the accused fled away. He also stated that PW1 thrown stones on the accused. On cross-examination, he admitted that he went to the Court to attend in a case about the land dispute between them and the accused family and that there are four cases between them. He stated that no bangles were broken when the accused caught hold the hand of PW1. He admitted that he did not state to the Police about pelting of stones by PW1. He admitted that their house is surrounded by thorn bushes. He admitted the house of his mother-PW3 is situated two furlongs away from their house. He denied to have stated to the Police as in Ex.D2 i.e.,“under the shed in the backyard of their house.”

CC No.324 of 2022 Dated:16.08.2023 Page.No. 7

13.PW5 is the Investigating Officer and he spoke about the investigation done by him commencing from issuance of FIR till filing of the charge sheet. On cross-examination, he admitted that there are criminal cases filed by the father-in-law of PW1 against the accused regarding civil disputes. He admitted that in Ex.P1-complaint it is mentioned that when the complaint was present in the house on the date of the incident, the other inmates went to attend Asifabad Court in a case.

He also admitted that there is a fencing around the house of PW1, but it is a wooden fencing. He admitted that PW4 stated before him as in Ex.D2 and in Ex.P5, PW1 stated as in Ex.D1. The other suggestions are denied by him.

14.Consequent on bifurcation of new Judicial Districts, as per the orders of the Hon’ble High Court for the state of Telangana at Hyderabad vide ROC No.346/E1/2021, dated:19.05.2022, this case is received from the Court of Addl. Junior Civil Judge-Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Asifabad vide orders of the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-

Assistant Sessions Judge, Komuram Bheem Asifabad vide

Proc.Dis.No.676/2022, dated:04/07/2022 at part heard stage.

15.The judgments relied upon by the learned defence counsel are not applicable to the facts of the present case as the judgment of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Pandurang Sitaram’s case (1st cited), it was held that where there is discrepancy as to exact place and manner of occurrence, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. In the instant case, PW1, the victim categorically stated that the accused came to her while she was washing clothes in the backyard of her house and then took her forcibly into the house. The evidence of PWs.2 and 3, who are the

CC No.324 of 2022 Dated:16.08.2023 Page.No. 8

circumstantial witnesses also spoke to the same affect.

16.Coming to the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra

Pradesh in karry Suri Babu’s case (2nd cited), in the said case it was held that since there is no corroborative evidence to the evidence of the victim, as the prosecution failed to examine the only eye witness available, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt since there was inherent improbability in the evidence of PW1 herself. In the instant case, there is no eye witness at all and hence, this case is also not applicable to the facts of the present case. As far as the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of

Andhra Pradesh in Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra

Pradesh ( 3rd cited), in the said case, the accused was held to be entitled for acquittal on the ground that there was delay in lodging the complaint.

In the instant case, there is no such delay in giving the complaint, as the alleged incident took place on 12.11.2018 around 01.00 pm, as per Ex.P1 and the complaint was given on the same day around 07.00 pm, as per the endorsement made by the Sub-Inspector of Police on Ex.P1. Coming to the judgment of Hon’ble Gauhathi High Court in Md. Royal Ali’s case (4th cited), in the said case the Hon’ble Gauhathi High Court held that the delay of two days in lodging the FIR is materially contradicted by prosecutrix herself by exaggeration and there is no corroboration to the said evidence of the prosecutrix. In the instant case, as already stated above there is no delay in lodging the FIR.

17.The contention of the learned defence counsel that the entire investigation is completed on the date of giving the complaint itself, however, deserves consideration inasmuch as, the complaint is received at 07.00 pm on 12.11.2018 and as per the 161 CrPC statements, all of them

CC No.324 of 2022 Dated:16.08.2023 Page.No. 9

were recorded on the same day, the crime detail form is also drafted on the same day, though in the charge sheet it is mentioned that the

Investigating Officer having visited the scene of offence on the same day, did not prepare the crime detail form due to odd hours and it is mentioned that on 12.11.2018, the Investigating Officer, re-visited the scene of offence. When the complaint is received on 12.11.2018, the above averments in the charge sheet that the Investigating Officer visiting the scene of offence on the same day and not preparing in the crime detail form due to odd hours on that day and re-visiting on 12.11.2018 supports the contention of the learned defence counsel that the FIR is an ante- dated one and the entire investigation is table investigation conducted on the same day. The admissions made by the prosecution witnesses that there are both civil and criminal cases pending between them and the family of the accused also supports contention of the defence counsel that in view of such cases, a false case is filed against the accused and hence, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

18.In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC and he is acquitted of the said offence under Section 248(1) of CrPC. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled.

Dictated to Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and after correction pronounced

by me in the open Court on 16h day of August, 2023.

Sd/-

Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Asifabad

CC No.324 of 2022 Dated:16.08.2023 Page.No. 10

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For prosecution:

PW-1 : Vadai Shailu PW-2 : Vadai Sombai PW-3 : Vadai Tarabai PW-4 : Vadai Hanumanthu PW-5 : K.Satyanarayana

For Defense : -NIL-

Exhibits marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1 : Complaint given by PW1. Ex.P2 : First Information Report. Ex.P3 : Crime Detail Form. Ex.P4 : Rough Sketch. Ex.P5 : 164 Statement of PW1.

For Defense: - NIL -

Ex.D1 : Part of 161 CrPC statement of PW1. Ex.D2 : Part of 161 CrPC statement of PW4.

Material Objects Marked: - NIL -

Sd/-

Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Asifabad.

CC No.151 of 2021 Dated:18.08.2023 Page.No. 1

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

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: AT :: ASIFABAD.

PRESENT : Smt. P. Uma Maheswari,

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Asifabad.

Friday, this the 18th day of August, 2023.

CC.No. 151 of 2021

Between:

The State of Telangana Rep. Sub Inspector of Police Asifabad Police Station (Cr.No.36 of 2021).

… Complainant //AND//

Bottupalli Kusumakar, S/o.Bijju, Age:36 years, R/o.Rajura village of Asifabad Mandal. … Accused

This case is coming on before me on 11.08.2023 for final hearing in the presence of learned in-charge Asst.Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri J.Shyam Kumar, counsel for accused, upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Asifabad Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 385, 506 IPC, alleging that based on the complaint received from the complainant/Lonare Shankarbai on 07/02/2021 at 12.30 hours, a case in

Cr.No.36 of 2021 is registered under Sections 354, 385, 506 of IPC and investigated into. After completion investigation, which established the commission of the said offences by the accused, charge sheeted him accordingly.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 31/01/2021 around 10.00 am, while the complainant alone was going to attend coolie work at agricultural fields, her villager Bottupalli Kusumakar, S/o.Bijju came to

CC No.151 of 2021 Dated:18.08.2023 Page.No. 2

her and pulled her by catching hold her hand and then pressed her throat and tried to pull her ear rings and also threatened her with dire consequences of killing her. On hearing that the villagers were passing from that day, the said Kusumakar escaped from there due to fear.

Thereafter, the complainant discussed with her family members and on 07/02/2021, she went to Police Station and lodged complaint.

3.During the course of investigation, the Woman Police Constable- 1501 examined and recorded the statement of the complainant. Later, the

Investigating Officer visited the scene of offence situated at Rajura village of Asifabad Mandal and recorded the statements of LWs.2 to 5.

Thereafter, he drafted the crime detail form in the presence of mediators and subsequently issued notice under Section 41-A CrPC to the accused directing him to appear before him on 08/02/2021, which is complied by the accused. Thereafter, notice under Section 41 CrPC is served on the accused and he was released from the Police Station. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet is filed.

4.On the strength of the said charge sheet, this Court has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 506 and 385 r/w.511 of IPC against the accused and issued summons to him. On appearance of the accused before this Court, case copies furnished to him duly complying Section 207 Cr.PC and thereafter, he is examined under

Section 239 Cr.PC for the accusation levelled against him under Sections 354, 506 and 385 r/w.511 of IPC, for which he pleaded not guilty.

Charges framed for the said offences, read over and explained to the accused in vernacular language, for which he claimed to be tried.

5.In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P9. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the

CC No.151 of 2021 Dated:18.08.2023 Page.No. 3

accused is examined under Section 313 Cr.PC, for which he pleaded innocence and reported no defence evidence.

6.Heard both sides. Learned in-charge APP submitted that all the prosecution witnesses supported its case and hence, the accused is liable to be convicted. On the other hand, learned defence counsel contended that there is abnormal delay of one week in giving the complaint from the date of incident. Though PW1 stated that her bangles were broken, the same were not seized by the Police and the medical record is not produced by the prosecution, though PW1 stated that she obtained treatment for her neck pain and also to the injuries received to her hands, as she stated that when the bangles were broken, she received injuries to her hands and obtained treatment. He further contended that according to PW3, who is the brother-in-law of PW1, he was informed him about the incident after four days and he did not see any injuries on PW1. Thus stating, the learned defence counsel sought for acquittal of the accused.

7.The points that arises for consideration are:

1.“Whether the accused tried to outrage the modesty of the complainant on 31/01/2021 at 10.00 hours, while she was going alone to the attend agricultural works?”

2.“Whether the accused attempted to snatch away her ear rings in the process of his outraging the modesty of the complainant?”

3.“Whether the accused threatened the complainant with dire consequences of killing her?’

POINT NO.1:

8.PW1, in her evidence before this Court, stated that about two years ago, around 10.00 am, while she was going to the agricultural fields at

Rajura, on the way, the accused came and caught hold her hands, but when she could take away her hands from his clutches, the accused

CC No.151 of 2021 Dated:18.08.2023 Page.No. 4

caught hold her neck, closed her mouth and threatened her of killing demanding her ear rings. On hearing the noice of somebody coming, the accused escaped. She also stated that when she went home, her son was not at home and he returned home on the next day, upon which, she narrated the incident to him. She also stated that thereafter they informed the incident to their villagers-LWs.3 to 5 and as the accused absconded for one week, the village elders advised her to give complaint to the Police. She specifically stated that her husband is not alive. On cross-examination, she stated that the S.I of Police did not visit the scene of offence, but he came to her agricultural field and she had not shown the broken bangles to the S.I. She further stated that when the bangles were broken, she received injuries to her hands, for which she got treatment after giving complaint to the Police from an R.M.P Doctor. She also stated that she did not receive any injuries on her neck, but there was pain and she obtained treatment for her neck pain also.

9. PW2 is the son of PW1 and he spoke about PW1 informing him about the incident that took place on 31/01/2021, on which date, he was not present in the house. He stated that he return back home on 06/02/2021. On cross-examination, he stated that they informed the village elders on 06/02/2021 and PW1 received injuries on her hands and ears, for which she had taken treatment from an R.M.P Doctor. He admitted that it was cotton plucking season and the coolies will be coming to the fields around 10.00 am. The other suggestions are denied by him.

10.PW3 is the brother-in-law of PW1 and he stated that in the year 2022, PW1 informed him that the accused came upon her and tried to snatch away her ear rings and also threatened her. He further stated that they tried to summoned the accused, but he was absconding and hence,

CC No.151 of 2021 Dated:18.08.2023 Page.No. 5

they advised PW1 to give complaint to the Police. On cross-examination, he stated that he was informed about incident after four days and he did not see injuries on PW1. The other suggestions are denied by him.

11.PW4, deposed before this Court that he knows PWs.1 to 3, LW4 and also the accused. He stated that about three years ago, PWs.1 and 2 informed him, PW3 and LW4 that the accused caught hold the hands of the PW1 and tried to snatch away her ear rings, while she was going to agricultural fields at Rajura. Since the accused was absconding, they advised PW1 to give complaint to the Police. On cross-examination, he admitted that his daughter was given in marriage to the son of PW1. He also stated that PW1 showed him the injuries sustained to her hands and since the Police did not ask him about the injuries to PW1, he did not state the same. When suggested to the witness that since his daughter was given in marriage to the son of PW1, he is deposing false in favour of

PW1, he stated that the said marriage took place only nine months ago, while the incident took place about three years ago.

12.PW5, deposed before this Court about PWs.1 and 2 informed him that the accused tried to snatch away the ear rings of PW1. He also stated that they thought of summoning the accused and enquiring him, but as the accused was not available in the village for about three days,

PW1 gave complaint to the Police. On cross-examination by the prosecution, he denied to have stated to the Police as in Ex.P2. On cross- examination by the defence, he stated that PWs.1 and 2 informed him about the incident on the same day and he did not observe any injuries on the person of PW1. He admitted that there are family disputes between

PW1 and the accused and in that regard panchayaths were also held.

CC No.151 of 2021 Dated:18.08.2023 Page.No. 6

13. PW6 is the Woman Police Constable, who recorded the statement of the victim and she spoke about the same. On cross examination, she admitted that in the statement recorded by her it is not mentioned that

Kusumakar dragged the complainant towards him. PWs.7 and 8, the panch witnesses for crime detail form and rough sketch, did not support the prosecution case.

14.PW9, the Investigating Officer, spoke about the investigation done by him, commencing from issuance of FIR till filing of the charge sheet.

On cross examination he stated that he visited the scene of offence at 04.00 pm, though as per ExP8-crime detail form, the date and time of visit is shown as 13.45 hours i.e., 01.45 pm. Apart from that, being the

Investigating Officer, when the defence counsel suggested to him that the accused never misbehaved with PW1 and attempted to snatch her ear rings, his answer is the victim gave complaint.

15.A perusal of the above evidence adduced by the prosecution reveals that according to PW1, the accused caught hold her hands and when she could take away her hands from his clutches, he caught hold her neck, closed her mouth and threatened her of killing demanding her ear rings.

This evidence of PW1 no where attracts the ingredients of Section 354

IPC, as she did not state that the accused intended to outrage her modesty and her evidence only shows the intention of the accused to snatch away her ear rings. Except this evidence of PW1, there is no direct evidence to speak about the acts of the accused. Just because there is no direct evidence, the solitary evidence of the victim cannot be thrown away, if the same is trustworthy. In the instant case, PW1 stated that when her bangles were broken in the alleged incident, she received injuries to her hands, for which she got treatment after giving complaint

CC No.151 of 2021 Dated:18.08.2023 Page.No. 7

to the Police from an R.M.P Doctor. According to the evidence of PW1, the incident occurred on 31/01/2021 and the complaint was given on 07/02/2021 i.e., after one week. It is not known why PW1 kept quite without taking treatment for one week and what necessitated her to take treatment after one week. According to her, she also taken treatment for the pain caused to her on her neck. As rightly contended by the learned defence counsel, no medical record with regard to the alleged treatment obtained by PW1 is produced by the prosecution. Coming to the evidence of PW4, he stated that PWs.1 and 2 informed him about the incident and since the accused was absconding, they advised PW1 to give complaint.

During the course of cross-examination of this witness it is suggested to him that his daughter was given in marriage to the son of PW1, which is admitted by him. However, he denied that he is deposing false in favour of PW1 in view of the same by saying that the incident took place three years ago, while the marriage took place only nine months ago. Be that asitmay, the witness gave his evidence before the Court after the marriage of his daughter with the son of PW1 and hence, the suggestion put to the witness deserves consideration. As far as PW5 is concerned, according to him, PWs.1 and 2 informed him about the incident on the same day, which is quite contradictory to the evidence of not only PW1, but also to the evidence of PW2, who is the son of PW1 and PWs.3 and 4.

Apart from that, he admitted that there are family disputes between PW1 and the accused and in that regard panchayaths were also held. PW6, the

Woman Police Constable, who recorded the statement of the victim admitted that in the statement of PW1 recorded by her it is not mentioned that the accused dragged the complainant towards him, which is also makes out that the offence under Section 354 of IPC is not attracted.

CC No.151 of 2021 Dated:18.08.2023 Page.No. 8

16.As already stated above, the evidence of PW1 is not at all trustworthy for the reasons mentioned above and there is no direct evidence and furthermore, the evidence of other witnesses is also not supporting the version of PW1, though they are circumstantial witnesses to find the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 385 r/w.511 IPC. In view of the evidence of PW1, which this Court considered to be not trustworthy for the reasons mentioned above the offence under

Section 506 of IPC is also not made out against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt and for acquittal of all the charges levelled against him for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 385 r/w.511 IPC and Section 506 IPC.

17.In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 354, 385 r/w.511 IPC and Section 506 IPC and he is acquitted of the said offences under Section 248(1) of CrPC. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled.

Dictated to Copyist, transcribed by him, corrected and after correction pro-

nounced by me in the open Court on 8th day of August, 2023.

Sd/-

Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Asifabad

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For prosecution:

PW-1 : Lonare Shankarabai PW-2 : Lonare Vinod PW-3 : Lonare Jayaram PW-4 : Karotkar Ramesh PW-5 : Botupelli Gopal PW-6 : Embadi Saritha PW-7 : Evula Venkatesh PW-8 : Boire Mallaiah PW-9 : M.Rajeshwar

For Defense : -NIL-

CC No.151 of 2021 Dated:18.08.2023 Page.No. 9

Exhibits marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1 : Complaint given by PW1. Ex.P2 : Part of 161 CrPC statement of PW5. Ex.P3 : Signature of PW7 on crime detail form. Ex.P4 : Signature of PW7 on rough sketch. Ex.P5 : Signature of PW8 on crime detail form. Ex.P6 : Signature of PW8 on rough sketch. Ex.P7 : First Information Report. Ex.P8 : Crime detail form. Ex.P0 : Rough sketch.

For Defense: - NIL -

Material Objects Marked: - NIL -

Sd/-

Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Asifabad.

CC No. 79 of 2022 Date:26/07/2023 Page.No. 1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT ASIFABAD.

PRESENT : Smt.P. Uma Maheswari, Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Asifabad. FAC:Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class Asifabad.

Wednesday, this the 26th day of July, 2023.

CC.No. 79 of 202 2

Between:

The State of Telangana rep. by Sub Inspector of Police, Rebbena Police Station (Cr.No.52 of 2022) … Complainant //AND//

Sayed Inkashaf Ali @ Syed Saif Ali, S/o.Sabeer Ali, Age:23 years, Occ:Auto Driver, R/o.Taiba Nagar, Kagaznagar now at Caltex Bellampalli, Mancherial District. … Accused

This case is coming on before me on 20.07.2023 for final hearing in the presence of learned in-charge Asst.Public Prosecutor for the State and of Legal Aid Counsel Mr.S.Chandra Kumar for accused upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Rebbena Police Station, filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 420 of IPC and Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act-1955, r/w. 17(e) of

Telangana State Public Distribution System (Control) Order-2016, alleging that on 07/03/2022 at about 15.00 hours, the Head Constable 1813 of PS Rebbena gave complaint, based on which a case in Cr.No.52 of 2022 is registered under Sections 420 of IPC and Section 7 of Essential

Commodities Act-1955, r/w.17(e) of Telangana State Public Distribution

System (Control) Order-2016 and investigated into. After completion of investigation, which established the commission of the said offences by the accused, charge sheeted him accordingly.

CC No. 79 of 2022 Date:26/07/2023 Page.No. 2

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 07/03/2022 at 13.30 hours, the complainant, along with PC-3606 and HG-115/J.Santhosh of PS

Rebbena, was conducting patrolling duty. While, conducting patrolling duty, on reliable information, they rushed to Thakkalapalli Bus Stop and conducted vehicle checking and stopped auto bearing No.AP36 TV 1253 coming from Bellampalli towards Asifabad. On searching the auto, they found (20) bags of PDS rice, total (10) quintals of PDS rice. On enquiry, the driver of the said auto revealed his name as Sayed Inkashaf Ali @

Syed Saif Ali, S/o.Sabeer Ali and confessed that to gain money quickly, he purchased PDS rice at Bellampalli and surrounding villages from the villagers at lower price i.e. Rs.12 per for Kg, dumped the said rice in his house and transporting the same to Maharashtra state by auto bearing

No.AP36 TV 1253 and selling the same to rice merchants for high rate i.e.,

Rs.15 per Kg. The said confession is recorded in the presence of mediators and the rice is seized under cover of panchanama. Thereafter, the seized rice and vehicle, along with the accused brought to Police

Station and gave complaint.

3.During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer examined and recorded the statements of LWs.1 to 3, visited the scene of offence i.e., Thakkalapalli bus stop of Rebbena, drafted the crime detail form and rough sketch in the presence of mediators. The Investigating

Officer served notice under Section 41-A CrPC to the accused, directing him to appear before him on 09/03/2022 at 10.00 hours. Thereafter, the

Investigating Officer deposited the seized PDS rice of (10) quintals at MLS point, Asifabad and obtained acknowledgment copy. The accused complied the notice given to him by appearing before the Investigating

Officer on 09/03/2022 and then his undertaking under Section 41 CrPC is

CC No. 79 of 2022 Date:26/07/2023 Page.No. 3

obtained and he was released from Police Station. After completion of investigation, the charge is filed.

4.On the strength of the said charge sheet, this Court has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 420 of IPC and 7 of

Essential Commodities Act by the then Presiding Officer and summons issued to accused. On appearance of accused before this Court, case copies furnished to him duly complying Section 207 Cr.PC and thereafter, he is examined under Section 239 Cr.PC for the accusation levelled against him under Sections 420 IPC and Section 7 of Essential

Commodities Act, for which he pleaded not guilty and charges framed for the said offences, read over and explained to the accused in vernacular language, for which he claimed to be tried.

5.In Support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P1 to P9. PW1 is the complainant, PWs.6 and 7 are the Police

Constable and Home-guard, who accompanied PW1, PWs.2 and 3 are the panch witnesses for scene of offence, PWs.4 and 5 are the panch witnesses for confession and seizure and PW8 is the Investigating Officer.

After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused is examined under

Section 313 Cr.PC, for which he pleaded innocence and reported no defence evidence.

6.Heard both sides. Learned in-charge APP contended that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused as PW5, the panch witness for confession and seizure identified the accused and also spoke about seizure of PDS rice from the possession of the accused pursuant to his confession. On the other hand, learned legal aid counsel for the accused contended that the prosecution failed to prove its case against

CC No. 79 of 2022 Date:26/07/2023 Page.No. 4

the accused, as the other mediator for confession and seizure failed to identify the accused.He also contended that the Investigating Officer admitted in his cross-examination that LWs.1 to 3 did not state the names of the mediators in their statements given before him and also contended that the Investigating Officer admitted that LWs.1 and 2 did not state

before him that they opened the rice bags. Thus contending, the learned

defence counsel sought for acquittal of the accused.

7.The point for consideration is:

“Whether the accused cheated the public and was found in possession of PDS rice on 07/03/2022 during the vehicle checking conducted by the complainant at Thakkalapalli Bus Stop of Rebbena?”

P O I N T:

8.PW1, the complainant, deposed before this Court that on 07/03/2022, while he, along with LWs.2 and 3, was conducting patrolling duty at Thakkalapalli village bus stand of Rebbena, they found one TATA

Ace vehicle in suspicious manner. On checking the said vehicle, they found (20) bags of PDS rice, each weighing differently and total (10) quintals of PDS rice. He also stated that on enquiry, the driver of the auto stated his name as Syed Asif Ali, resident of Bellampalli and that he purchased the PDS rice from surrounding villages of Bellampallil at Rs.12 per Kg and was selling the same by transporting to Maharashtra at

Rs.15/- per Kg. Thereafter, he secured the presence of one Shankar and

Venkatesh as panch witnesses and conducted confession-cum-seizure panchanama in their presence and seized the PDS rice along with auto.

Thereafter, the seized property along with the accused was brought to

Police Station and then, he gave complaint to the Police. The portion of the confession and seizure panchanama is marked as ExP1, ExP2 is the complaint given by the complainant. On cross-examination, he stated that

CC No. 79 of 2022 Date:26/07/2023 Page.No. 5

he has opened the bags. He also stated that ExP2-complaint is prepared when he was orally stating the facts and the same was written in blue-ink.

In this regard, the contention of the learned defence counsel is that the complaint-ExP2 is a typed one, but according to PW1, it was written in blue-ink and hence, ExP2 is a created one. PWs.2 and 3, the panch witnesses for crime detail form and rough sketch, did not support the prosecution case. PW4 is the person in-charge of MLS point, Asifabad during the relevant period, he spoke about receiving (10) quintals of PDS rice at MLS point and issuing ExP7-custodian receipt. On cross- examination, he stated that he opened the seized bags with the help of workers and found PDS rice. He stated that he cannot say the weight of each bag and he did not give any statement before the S.I of Police.

However, he denied that he did not takeover the seized PDS rice.

9.PW5, one of the panch witnesses for confession and seizure deposed

before this Court that on 07/03/2022, Police called him to Thakkalapalli

Bus Stop and stated that they have seized one TATA Ace vehicle, while

PDS rice was being transported in it. He also stated that he had seen the said TATA Ace vehicle being loaded with rice. He further stated that he had seen the driver of the TATA Ace present there and identified the accused as the driver of the said TATA Ace by stating that the driver disclosed his name as Ali and confessed that he purchases PDS rice from the villagers and transports the same to Maharashtra for sale at higher price. On cross-examination, he stated that he went to the place of seizure around 02.00 pm and was present there for about half an hour. He denied that ExP8, the confession and seizure panchanama is not drafted in his presence and that he signed on ExP8 at Police Station. However, he admitted that PDS rice is not weighed in his presence.

CC No. 79 of 2022 Date:26/07/2023 Page.No. 6

10.PW6 is the Police Constable, who accompanied PW1 and he spoke about apprehending TATA Ace loaded with (20) bags of rice. Having stated that he can identify the driver of the said TATA Ace, he failed to identify the accused, who was produced from jail on 18/05/2023, on which date, the evidence of PW6 is recorded, by stating that the driver is not present in the Court after going through the entire Court hall. On cross- examination by the prosecution, he stated that he is unable to re-collect the face of the driver of the TATA Ace and then he admitted that the accused present in the Court is the driver of TATA Ace.

11.PW7, the Home-guard, who accompanied PW1 also spoke about the apprehension of TATA Ace bearing No.AP36TV 1253 loaded with (20) bags of PDS rice and the accused being the driver of the said TATA Ace.

He also spoke about the confession of the accused and seizure of the PDS rice in the presence of mediators under cover of panchanama. On cross- examination, he stated that the rice is weighed at the scene of offence. He stated that it took about one hour to conduct the panchanama and some of the bags were opened and seen.

12.PW8, the Investigating Officer spoke about the investigation done by him, commencing from issuance of FIR, till filing of charge sheet. On cross-examination, he admitted that LWs.1 to 3 did not state before him that they opened the rice bags. He admitted that the receipt is handed over to him by MLS point on the same day of handing over the rice.

13.A perusal of the above evidence of the prosecution reveals that one of the mediators for confession and seizure i.e., PW5 supported the prosecution case by stating that Police seized TATA Ace vehicle loaded with PDS rice under cover of panchanama, on which, himself and PW6

CC No. 79 of 2022 Date:26/07/2023 Page.No. 7

signed. However, according to him, Police called him to Thakkalapalli bus stand and stated that they have seized one TATA Ace vehicle, while it was transporting PDS rice. This evidence of PW5 clearly goes to show that the

TATA Ace vehicle is not seized in his presence. Be that asitmay, since it is the case of the prosecution that it was PDS rice that was seized from the possession of the accused, it is necessary for the prosecution to establish the same. In this regard, no evidence is adduced by the prosecution though it is mentioned in the charge sheet that the accused is alleged to have purchased the PDS rice from the villagers of Bellampelli and surrounding villages and selling the same to Maharashtra at higher price.

No such villager is examined to speak about the same. Apart from the above, there is no technical or expert evidence to say that the rice seized is PDS rice. Based on the oral evidence of the official witness and one of the panch witness for seizure, who also stated that the Police stated to him that they seized a vehicle loaded with PDS rice, this Court holds that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused for the charges levelled against him under Sections 420 IPC and Section 7 of

Essential Commodities Act beyond reasonable doubt and hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

14.In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 420 IPC and Section 7 of Essential

Commodities Act and he is acquitted of the said offences under Section 248 (1) CrPC. The accused is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other cases.

Dictated to Copyist, transcribed by him, after correction, pronounced by me in

the open Court on 26th day of July, 2023.

Sd/-

Prl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class Asifabad FAC:Addl.Juld.Magistrate of First Class Asifabad

CC No. 79 of 2022 Date:26/07/2023 Page.No. 8

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For prosecution: For Defense : - NIL -

PW-1 : S.Mahendrapalan PW-2 : Azmera Sitharam PW-3 : Banoth Aravindh PW-4 : K.Achutharao PW-5 : Kodipe Venkatesh PW-6 : G.Anjaneyulu PW-7 : Santhosh Jaiswal PW-8 : PVS. Bhavani Sen

Exhibits marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1 : Marked portion of confession-cum-seizure panchanama. Ex.P2 : Report lodged by PW1. Ex.P3 : Signature of PW2 on crime detail form. Ex.P4 : Signature of PW2 on rough sketch. Ex.P5 : Signature of PW3 on crime detail form. Ex.P6 : Signature of PW3 on rough sketch. Ex.P7 : Custodian receipt, dated:03.09.2019. Ex.P8 : Confession-cum-seizure panchanama. Ex.P9 : First Information Report.

For Defense: - NIL -

Material Objects Marked: - NIL-

Sd/-

Prl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class Asifabad FAC:Addl.Juld.Magistrate of First Class Asifabad

CC No. 386 of 2022 Dated:22/06/2023 Page.No. 1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE­CUM­ JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT ASIFABAD.

PRESENT : Smt. P. Uma Maheswari,

Principal Junior Civil Judge­cum­ 

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Asifabad. 

FAC: Additional Junior Civil Judge­cum­ 

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Asifabad. 

Thursday, this the 22nd day of June, 2023.

CC.No. 386 of 2022

Between:

The State of Telangana Sub­Inspector of Police Rebbena Police Station (Cr. No. 126/2022) … Complainant.

//AND//

Islavath Goriya @ Goppe, S/o. Duthiya @ Shivaraj Singh, Age: 30 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Khairguda village of Rebbena Mandal.

… Accused.

This case is coming on before me on 15.06.2023 for final hearing in the presence of learned in­charge Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri Pradeep Naiak, counsel for accused, upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court delivered the following:­

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub­Inspector of Police, Rebbena Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 454, 380 of IPC alleging that based on the complaint received from the complainant/Rathod

Santhosh on 24/07/2022 at 10.10 hours, a case in Cr.No.126/2022 is registered under Sections 454, 380 of IPC and investigated into. After completion of investigation, which established the commission of the said offences by Accused, charge sheeted him accordingly. 

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 23/07/2023 morning around 11.00 am, the complainant, along with his wife, went to fields by locking their door

CC No. 386 of 2022 Dated:22/06/2023 Page.No. 2

and when they returned home around 06.30 pm, they noticed the doors of the house open. When they entered inside the house, they saw that the things in the house were scattered and the dressing table doors opened and an amount of

Rs.3,000/­ (Rupees Three Thousand only) kept in the purse in the dressing table was found missing and the oil tin worth of Rs. 1,500/­ (Rupees One

Thousand Five Hundred only) was also found missing in the house. Hence, the complainant gave complaint to the Police.

3.During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer examined and recorded statements of the witnesses, visited the scene of offence situated and drafted the crime detail form and rough sketch in the presence of mediators and on 26/07/2022 at 08.00 hours, on reliable information, apprehended the accused at Goleti Cross Road. On interrogation, the accused disclosed his identity particulars and when he was about to confess, the Investigating Officer secured the presence two mediators and recorded the confession of the accused pursuant to which an amount Rs.500/­ (Rupees Five Hundred Only) cash and five kg Tasty Drop Sunflower Oil tin is recovered under cover of panchanama in the presence of mediators. Thereafter, the accused is arrested and produced

before the Court for judicial remand. After completion of investigation, the

charge sheet is filedduly depositing the case property before the Court.

4.On the strength of the said charge sheet, this court has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under sections 454, 380 IPC against the accused and issued summons to accused. On appearance of accused before this court, case copies furnished to him duly complying section 207 Cr.P.C and thereafter, he is examined under section 239 Cr.P.C for the accusation levelled against him

CC No. 386 of 2022 Dated:22/06/2023 Page.No. 3

under Sections 454, 380 of IPC against accused for which he pleaded not guilty.

Charges framed for the said offences, read over and explained to accused in vernacular language, and he claimed to be tried.

5.In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P1 to P11 and MO.No.1. After closure of prosecution evidence, accused is examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, for which he pleaded innocence and reported no defence evidence.

6.Heard both sides. Learned In­charge APP submitted that the accused himself admitted in his 313 Cr.P.C examination that the oil can is recovered from his possession and hence, the accused is liable to be convicted. On the other hand, the Learned Legal Aid defence counsel contended that the mediators for confession and recovery did not support the prosecution case and there is no direct evidence to the commission of the offence and hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

7.The points that arises for consideration are:

1. “Whether the accused entered into the house of PW1 during day time on 23/07/2022 by breaking open the door lock with an intention to commit theft?”

2. “Whether the accused having entered the house of PW1 by breaking open the door lock, committed theft of cash of Rs. 3,000/­ and an oil can from the house of PW1?”

POINT Nos. 1 and 2:

8.PW1 in his evidence before the Court spoke about the theft that took place in his house during the absence of the inmates of the house by breaking open the door and cash of Rs.3,000/­ (Rupees Three Thousand only), one purse, one oil can and other edible items being committed theft. The Legal Aid

CC No. 386 of 2022 Dated:22/06/2023 Page.No. 4

Counsel did not choose to cross examination the witness, in spite of giving sufficient opportunity. PW2, the panch witness for crime detail form and rough sketch stated that Police called him to the house of PW1 and conducted panchanama in connection with a theft that took place in the house of PW1.

PW3, another mediator for crime detail form and rough sketch corroborated the version of PW2. PW4, who is the circumstantial witness spoke about coming to know of the theft that took place in the house of PW1, who is his neighbor,

PWs.5 and 6, both the mediators for confession and seizure did not support the prosecution case, though they admitted their signatures on the confession and recovery panchanama which are marked as Ex.P6 and P7 respectively.

9.PW7 the Investigating Officer spoke about the investigation done by him commencing from issuance of FIR till filing of the charge sheet. On cross examination, he stated that he is not aware of the dispute between the complainant and the accused that took place two months prior to the incident in this case. The other suggestions are denied by him.

10.A perusal of the prosecution evidence discussed supra reveals that the evidence of PW1 is only circumstantial and as rightly contended by the learned defence counsel, there is no direct evidence to the commission of theft in the house of PW1. Though PW2, the panch witness for Crime Detail Form, supported the prosecution case, his evidence is silent about the door of the house of PW1 being broken. A perusal of Ex.P9 Crime Detail Form also nowhere discloses that the door of the house of PW1 was found broken, though

PW1 stated in his complaint that by the time they returned back home they found the lock of their house broken and the doors open. Thus, the prosecution

CC No. 386 of 2022 Dated:22/06/2023 Page.No. 5

failed to prove the scene of offence both from the oral and documentary evidence and as far as the involvement of the accused in the commission of the offence punishable under Section 454 IPC is concerned, since the very scene of offence is not proved and there is not direct evidence, the question of the accused committing the offence punishable Section 454 IPC does not arise and the point is answered accordingly.

POINT NO.2:­

11.Since the prosecution failed to establish the scene of offence and that it was the accused, who entered into the house of PW1 by breaking open the lock, the prosecution failed to establish that the accused committed theft cash of

Rs.3,000/­ (Rupees Three Thousand only) and oil can from the house of PW1.

The contention of the learned Incharge­APP that since the accused himself admitted that the police seized one oil can from his possession in his 313 Cr.P.C examination and hence the accused is liable to be contended, does not deserve any consideration inasmuch as the accused simply stated that the police did not seize cash of Rs.500/­ (Rupees Five Hundred only) from him, but the seizure of the oil can is true. However, on being questioned as to whether he want to say anything in his 313 Cr.P.C examination, he stated that while he was in a drunken state his villagers beat him and made him to confess. Apart from this, it is settled a principle of law that since a statement given during the examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C is not substantive evidence and is not given on being administered oath, the same need not be considered, particularly in the facts and circumstances of the present case where PW1 did not state in his complaint the particulars of the oil can that was committed theft from his house. It is only in the seizure panchanama the particulars of the oil can are

CC No. 386 of 2022 Dated:22/06/2023 Page.No. 6

mentioned as Tasty Drop Sunflower Oil Can. In the absence of the seizure being proved through the independent evidence, just because the accused admitted in his 313 Cr.P.C examination that “Oil Can” is seized, he cannot be held liable for the offence punishable under Section 380 IPC, as the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

12.In the result, accused is found not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 454, 380 of IPC and he is acquitted of the said offences under

Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property vide Item No.1 of CP

No.59/2022 i.e., cash of Rs.500/­ shall be returned to PW1 and MO.No.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

The accused is directed to be set at liberty forthwith as if he is not required in any other facts.

Dictated to Stenographer Grade­III, transcribed by her, corrected and after

correction pronounced by me in the open Court on 22 nd day of June, 2023.

Sd/­ Prl. Junior Civil Judge­cum­

 Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Asifabad FAC: Addl. Junior Civil Judge­cum­

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Asifabad

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For prosecution:

PW­1 : Rathod Santhosh PW­2 : Dharavath Srinivas PW­3 : Jarupula Vinodh PW­4 : Jadhav Vasudev PW­5 : Burayu Ramesh PW­6 : Korrala Raju

CC No. 386 of 2022 Dated:22/06/2023 Page.No. 7

PW­7 : L. Bhoomesh

For Defense : ­NIL­

Exhibits marked 

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1 : Report, dated:24.07.2022. Ex.P2 : Signature of PW2 on Crime Detail Form. Ex.P3 : Signature of PW2 on Roughsketch. Ex.P4 : Signature of PW3 on Crime Detail Form. Ex.P5 : Signature of PW3 on Roughsketch. Ex.P6 : Signature of PW5 on Confession and recovery panchanama. Ex.P7 : Signature of PW6 on Confession and recovery panchanama. Ex.P8 : First Information Report. Ex.P9 : Crime Detail Form. Ex.P10 : Roughsketch. Ex.P11 : Confession and Recovery panchanama.

For Defense: ­ NIL ­

Material Objects Marked:­

MO.No1: One Tasty Drop Oil Can.

Sd/­ Prl. Junior Civil Judge­cum­

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Asifabad. FAC: Addl. Junior Civil Judge­cum­

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Asifabad.

//True Copy//

Prl.Junior Civil Judge­cum­

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Asifabad. FAC: Addl.Junior Civil Judge­cum­

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Asifabad.

CC No. 47 of 2022 Date:26/07/2023 Page.No. 1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT ASIFABAD.

PRESENT : Smt.P. Uma Maheswari, Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Asifabad. FAC:Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class Asifabad.

Wednesday, this the 26th day of July, 2023.

CC.No. 47 of 202 2

Between:

The State of Telangana rep. by Sub Inspector of Police, Rebbena Police Station (Cr.No.35 of 2022) … Complainant //AND//

Sayed Inkashaf Ali @ Syed Saif Ali, S/o.Sabeer Ali, Age:23 years, Occ:Auto Driver, R/o.Taiba Nagar, Kagaznagar now at Caltex Bellampalli, Mancherial District. … Accused

This case is coming on before me on 20.07.2023 for final hearing in the presence of learned in-charge Asst.Public Prosecutor for the State and of Legal Aid Counsel Mr.S.Chandra Kumar for accused upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Rebbena Police Station, filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 420 of IPC and Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act-1955, r/w.17(e) of

Telangana State Public Distribution System (Control) Order-2016, alleging that based on the complaint received from the complainant on 08/02/2022 at about 16.00 hours, a case in Cr.No.35 of 2022 is registered under Sections 420 of IPC and Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act- 1955, r/w.17(e) of Telangana State Public Distribution System (Control)

Order-2016 and investigated into. After completion of investigation, which established the commission of the said offences by the accused, charge sheeted him accordingly.

CC No. 47 of 2022 Date:26/07/2023 Page.No. 2

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 08/02/2022 at 15.00 hours, the complainant HC-1813 along with AR PC-3825 and HG-115 of PS

Rebbena, while conducting patrolling duty, got reliable information, upon which, they rushed to Arts and Science Degree College of Rebbena and conducted vehicle checking. At that time, they found one auto bearing

No.TS01 UB 7939 coming from Bellampelli towards Asifabad. On searching the auto, they found (8) bags of PDS rice, containing (3) quintals of PDS rice. On enquiry, the driver of the auto revealed his name as Syed Saif Ali, S/o.Sabeer Ali and that to earn money quickly, he purchased PDS rice at Bellampalli and surrounding villages from the villagers at lower price i.e., Rs.12/- per Kg and illegally dumped the same at his house and then transporting the same to Maharashtra state in his auto bearing No.TS01 UB 7939 for selling the same to the rice merchants at higher price i.e., Rs.15/- per Kg. Hence, the complainant summoned two mediators and conducted confession and seizure panchanama in their presence and brought the accused along with the seized property to

Police Station and gave complaint.

3.During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer examined and recorded the statements of LWs.1 to 3, visited the scene of offence and drafted the crime detail form and rough sketch. The

Investigating Officer served notice under Section 41-A CrPC to the accused, directing him to appear before Station House Officer, Rebbena on or before 12/02/2022 and thereafter, deposited the seized property at

MLS point, Asifabad and obtained acknowledgment. On 12/02/2022, the accused complied notice under Section 41-A CrPC and executed an undertaking, upon which, he was released from Police Station. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet is filed.

CC No. 47 of 2022 Date:26/07/2023 Page.No. 3

4.On the strength of the said charge sheet, this Court has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 420 of IPC and 7 of

Essential Commodities Act and summons issued to accused. On appearance of accused before this Court, case copies furnished to him duly complying Section 207 Cr.PC and thereafter, he is examined under

Section 239 Cr.PC for the accusation levelled against him under Sections 420 IPC and Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act, by the then

Presiding Officer, for which he pleaded not guilty and charges framed for the said offences, read over and explained to the accused in vernacular language, for which he claimed to be tried.

5.In Support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P12. PW1 is the complainant, PW2 is the in-charge of

MLS point, PWs.3 and 4 are the panch witnesses for confession and seizure, PWs.5 and 6 are the panch witnesses for crime detail form, PW7 is the Home Guard, who accompanied PW1, PWs.8 and 9 are the

Investigating Officers. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused is examined under Section 313 Cr.PC, for which he pleaded innocence and reported no defence evidence.

6.Heard both sides. Learned in-charge APP submitted that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused through the evidence of PWs.1, 7 and the Investigating Officers. On the other hand, learned

Legal Aid Counsel for the accused contended that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused, as both the mediators for confession and seizure and the mediators for crime detail form, also did not support the case and hence, no reliance can be placed on the evidence of other witnesses, who are official witnesses. Thus contenting, he sought for acquittal of the accused.

CC No. 47 of 2022 Date:26/07/2023 Page.No. 4

7.The point for consideration is:

“Whether the accused cheated the public and was found in possession of PDS rice on 08/02/2022 during the vehicle checking conducted by the complainant at Arts and Science Degree College, Rebbana?”

P O I N T:

8.PW1, the complainant, spoke about apprehension of an auto loaded with (8) bags of PDS rice, containing total (3) quintals on 08/02/2022 at

Arts and Science Degree College, Rebbena. He also spoke about the accused being the driver of the said auto and confessing that he purchased the said rice from the surrounding villages of Bellampalli at

Rs.12/- per Kg and selling the same by transporting to Maharashtra at

Rs.15/- per Kg. He further stated that he recorded the confession of the accused and seized the PDS rice in the presence of mediators, it is stated that ExP1 is the marked portion of confession and seizure panchanama and ExP2 is the complaint given by him. On cross-examination, he admitted that they did not weigh the seized rice. He also stated that he had opened the bags and the bags are in different colours, but the same is not mentioned in his statement before the S.I of Police. The other suggestion are denied by him.

9.PW2 is the in-charge of MLS point and he spoke about receiving (3) quintals of PDS rice, contained in (8) bags and issuing ExP3-custodian receipt.

10.PWs.3 to 6, the panch witnesses for confession and seizure and crime detail form, did not support the prosecution case.

11.PW7, 1the Home-guard, who accompanied PW1, spoke about the apprehension of an auto loaded with PDS rice, containing (3) quintals in (8) bags and seizure of the same in the presence of mediators from the

CC No. 47 of 2022 Date:26/07/2023 Page.No. 5

possession of the accused, who is the driver of the auto. He stated in his cross-examination that the bags were weighed at Arts and Science

College.

12.PW8, the First Investigating Officer, spoke about issuing of FIR, based on the complaint received from PW1 along with seizure panchanama and recording the statements of PW1, LWs.2 and 3 and then handing over the CD file to PW9. On cross-examination, she stated that

PW1 did not mention in his statement that he obtained the signatures of mediators after completion of panchanama and he also did not state the colour of the rice bags. She further stated that PW1 did not state where the rice bags were weighed and that he has opened the rice bags. The other suggestions are denied by her. PW9, Investigating Officer, who took up investigation from PW8, spoke about recording the statements of

LWs.2 and 3, visiting the scene of offence, drafting crime detail form and rough sketch and then handing over the case property at MLS point,

Asifabad. He also stated that on 18/02/2022, he issued notice under

Section 41-A CrPC to the accused and on 24/02/2022 filed the charge sheet.

13.A perusal of the above evidence of the prosecution reveals that except the evidence of the official witnesses, as rightly contended by the learned legal aid counsel, there is no independent evidence to speak about the seizure of the PDS rice from the possession of the accused. The prosecution even failed to prove the scene of offence, as both the mediators for scene of offence also did not support its case. The

Investigating Officer did not choose to examine any of the villagers from whom the accused is alleged to have purchased the PDS rice to say that it was PDS rice nor he had subjected the PDS rice allegedly seized from the

CC No. 47 of 2022 Date:26/07/2023 Page.No. 6

possession of the accused for any expert analysis to say that it was PDS rice. Thus, the prosecution miserably failed in proving its case against the accused for both the charges levelled against him under Sections 420 IPC and Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act beyond reasonable doubt and hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

14.In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 420 IPC and Section 7 of Essential

Commodities Act and he is acquitted of the said offences under Section 248 (1) CrPC. The accused is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other cases.

Dictated to Copyist, transcribed by him, after correction, pronounced by me in

the open Court on 26th day of July, 2023.

Sd/-

Prl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class Asifabad FAC:Addl.Juld.Magistrate of First Class Asifabad

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For prosecution: For Defense : - NIL -

PW-1 : S.Mahendrapalan PW-2 : K.Achutharao PW-3 : Kole Srinivas PW-4 : Chunarkar Prakash PW-5 : Chokka Ramesh PW-6 : Goli Thirupathi PW-7 : Santhosh Jaiswal PW-8 : R.Thirumala PW-9 : PVS.Bhavani Sen

Exhibits marked

For Prosecution: Ex.P1 : Marked portion of confession-cum-seizure panchanama. Ex.P2 : Report lodged by PW1. Ex.P3 : Custodian receipt, dated:03.09.2019. Ex.P4 : Signature of PW3 on confession-cum-seizure panchanama. Ex.P5 : Signature of PW4 on confession-cum-seizure panchanama. Ex.P6 : Signature of PW5 on crime detail form. Ex.P7 : Signature of PW5 on rough sketch. Ex.P8 : Signature of PW6 on crime detail form. Ex.P9 : Signature of PW6 on rough sketch.

CC No. 47 of 2022 Date:26/07/2023 Page.No. 7

Ex.P10: First Information Report. Ex.P11: Crime detail form. Ex.P12: Rough sketch. For Defense: - NIL - Material Objects Marked: - NIL-

Sd/-

Prl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class Asifabad FAC:Addl.Juld.Magistrate of First Class Asifabad