P Uma Maheswari

1CC No.314 of 2015

IN THE COURT OF THE II-ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT NIZAMABAD

Present: Smt.P.Uma Maheswari, II-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad.

Dated this the 5th day of March, 2021.

C.C. No. 314 of 2015

Between: The State through Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. V-Town, Nizamabad. …Complainant // AND //

A1)Malyala Govardhan S/o Rajaiah, age 32 years, Caste: SC, Occ: CPM City Secretary, R/o H.No.6-9-62, Namdev Wada, Nizamabad, Cell No. 7386323202. A2)Md. Shamshuddin S/o Lal Mohammad, age 38 years, Caste: Muslim, Occ: CPM Party Leader, R/o Dharmapuri Hills, Nizamabad, Cell No. 9542866044, 9059287553. A3)Peddi Mahesh S/o Veeraiah, age 45 years, Caste: Vyshya, Occ: Business, R/o H.No.10-10-925, 300 Quarters, Nagaram, Nizamabad, Cell No. 800/8073903. A4)Makkala Gopal S/o Yellaiah, age 30 years, Caste: Waddera, Occ: Business, R/o 80 Quarters, Nagaram, Nizamabad. A5)Smt. Ummeda Kamala W/o Sailu, age 53 years, Caste: Nyakapodu, Occ: Civil Contractor, R/o Neergonda Hanuman Chowrastha, Nagaram, Nizamabad, Cell No. 9912388619.

...Accused Nos.1 to 5

This case is coming before me on this the 02.03.2021 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri Asha Narayana, Counsel for the accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5 and Sri Muralidhar, Counsel for the Accused No.4 and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, V-Town P.S., Nizamabad filed charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 5 for the offences punishable u/s 447, 420 r/w 34

IPC alleging that based on the complaint received from the complainant/G.Rajender on 14.03.2015 at 09.30 hours, a case in

Cr.No.36/2015 is registered u/s 447, 420 r/w 34 IPC and investigated into.

After completion of investigation, which established the commission of the said 2CC No. 314 of 2015 offences punishable by the accused Nos.1 to 5, charge sheeted them accordingly.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 13.03.2015, A1 to A5 encroached into Government land situated at Doddi Komuraiah Colony and 300 Quarters,

Nizamabad Town (Division 36) and encouraged the weaker section people to construct the houses in the said Government land by way of collecting money from Lws2 to 4 and also by erecting Huts, Tin Sheds, though there are no house site patta certificates with them and thereby caused loss to government property.

3.During the course of investigation, 41-A Cr.P.C notices issued to the accused Nos.1 to 5 and after completion of investigation, the charge sheet is filed.

4.On the strength of such charge sheet, this court has taken cognizance for the offences punishable u/s 447, 420 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and on appearance of the accused Nos.1 to 5 before this court, they are examined u/s 239 Cr.P.C and charges framed for the offences punishable u/s 447, 420 r/w 34 IPC duly complying section 207 Cr.P.C. The accused Nos.1 to 5 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In support of its case the prosecution examined Pws1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused are examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C for which they pleaded innocence and reported no defence evidence.

6.Pw1 is the complainant, Pws2 and 3 are summoned by the court vide orders in Crl.M.P.No.101/2019, dated 27.1.2020 on the petition filed by learned

APP, Pw4 is the circumstantial witness, Pw5 is the Investigating Officer.

7. Heard both sides.

3CC No.314 of 2015

8.The points for consideration are:

(i) Whether A1 to A5 encroached into Govt. land situated at

Doddukomaraiah colony, Nizamabad?

(ii) Whether A1 to A5 have cheated weaker section people by encouraging them to raise huts in the above mentioned

Government land by collecting money from them?

9. Learned APP submitted that the matter may be decided on merits.

10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused submitted that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused as the material witnesses are not examined and the evidence of Pws1 to 3 is only created for the purpose of implicating the accused persons falsely.

Point Nos. (i) and (ii):

11.Pw1, who is the then Tahsildar of Nizamabad is the complainant and he spoke about getting information on 13.03.2015 that four persons belonging to

CPI and CPM party were raising huts in government land situated at

Doddukomuraiah colony, Nizamabad. Then he directed the Revenue Inspector to record the statements of the persons who gave the information and then went to police station and gave the complaint along with the statements recorded by the Revenue Inspector. He also stated that VRO Rafeeq along with the Revenue Inspector Srinivas made the enquiry and Rafeeq recorded the statements of Ramu, Mohd. Ilyas and Moinuddin. On cross-examination, he stated that he did not collect any identity proof to say that the said persons belong to CPI and CPM party and he do not know whether the accused belong to BJP and further he do not know whether the persons who gave the statement under Ex.P2 recorded by the VRO belong to Congress party.

12.Pw2, who is summoned on a petition filed by the learned APP, did not support the prosecution case by denying that he was present on 13.03.2015 at 4CC No. 314 of 2015

Division 36 Doddikomuraiah colony and 300 Quarters, Nizamabad when the

CPI and CPM people namely Goverdhan, Shamshoddin, Mahesh, Gopal and

Kamala encroached the government land, divided it into plots for selling to poor people and further denied to have given such statement to the VRO.

13.Pw3, who is also summoned on the petition filed by learned APP vide

Crl.M.P.No.101/2019, dated 27.1.2020 deposed before this court that while he

was working as VRO, Nizamabad Town Circle-III from 2013 to 2016, on 13.3.2015 when government land near Nagaram, Doddi Komraiah area in

Division 36 was being encroached by some persons, he went there and recorded the statements of three persons namely Ramu, Fayaz and Moiuddin, who stated that some persons by name Goverdhan, Shamshoddin, Kamala, Gopal and

Mahesh, belonging to a party, were giving plots in government land to the poor people by taking money. The statement recorded by Pw3 is exhibited as Ex.P2.

14.Pw4, who is stated to be one of the person who is encouraged by the accused to construct houses in the government land did not support the prosecution case by denying to have stated to the police as in Ex.P3.

15.Pw5, who is the Investigating Officer spoke about the investigation done by him commencing for issuance of FIR till the filing of charge sheet. On cross examination, he stated that no ID proofs are colected from the accused to show that they belong to CPI and CPM parties. He admitted that the photos of the scene of offence are not obtained, no document to show that the scene of offence is government land is collected and filed into the court. He also admitted that the statement of Pw1 does not disclose the full particulars of the persons who are alleged to have trespassed into government land. He further admitted that he did not recover any amount from the accused alleged to have been collected by them from Lws2 to 4. He also admitted that the statement of

Pw1 does not disclose that he got information from the VRO and that the 5CC No.314 of 2015 statement of Pw1 also does not disclose the names of the persons who the accused are stated to have instigated.

16.Having filed the petition to summoned Rafeeq, VRO, P. Ramulu S/o

Durgaiah, Md. Fayaz S/o Tazuddin and Moinuddin S/o Mohruddin, the prosecution failed to produce the said witnesses except Rafeeq, VRO and

Ramulu, whose evidence is already discussed above.

17.From the evidence of Pws1 to 5 the prosecution failed to establish that A1 to A5 encroached into the government land situated at Doddikomraiah colony,

Nizamabad as no document is filed to show that it is government land.

Prosecution also failed to establish that A1 to A5 cheated weaker section people by encouraging them to raise huts in government land by collecting money as no such person is examined by the prosecution to speak about same. Hence, prosecution failed to prove its case against A1 to A5 for both the charges levelled against them u/s. 447 and 420 r/w 34 IPC.

18.In the result, the accused Nos.1 to 5 are found not guilty of the offences punishable u/s 447, 420 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted of the said offences u/s 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and the surety bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled.

(Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 5th day of March, 2021).

Sd/-

II-ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NIZAMABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

PROSECUTIONACCUSED

Pw1: G. Rajender NIL

Pw2: Pallapu Ramulu 6CC No. 314 of 2015

Pw3: Shaik Rafeeq Pasha

Pw4: Wagmare Harish

Pw5: S. Saidaiah

EXHIBITS MARKED

PROSECUTIONACCUSED

Ex.P1: Complaint given by Pw.1NIL Ex.P2: Xerox attested copy of statement referred to in Ex.P1. Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of Pw.4

Ex.P4: FIR

Ex.P5: Crime Details Form

MATERIAL OBJECTS

PROSECUTIONACCUSED

-NIL- -NIL-

Sd/-

II-ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NIZAMABAD.

1CC No.361 of 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE II-ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT NIZAMABAD

Present: Smt.P.Uma Maheswari, II-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad

Dated this the 10th day of February, 2021

C.C. No.361 of 2016

Between: The State through Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. Dharpally. …Complainant // AND //

Sk. Azeemuddin S/o Jamaluddin, age 34 years, Caste: Muslim, Occ: Chicken Center, R/o Dharpally village and Mandal.

...Accused

This case is coming before me on this the 08.02.2021 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri. D. Narendhar Reddy, Counsel for the accused having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Dharpally Police station, filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable u/s 374 IPC, Sec. 3, 7, 8 and 14 of Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act 1986 and Sec.26 of

Juvenile Justice Act 2000 alleging that based on the complaint received from the complainant/Sri. Battu Vittal on 13.07.2015 at 18.00 hours, a case in

Cr.No. 61/2015 is registered u/s 374 IPC, Sec. 3, 7, 8 and 14 of Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act 1986 and Sec.26 of Juvenile Justice Act 2000 and investigated into. After completion of investigation, which established the commission of the said offences by the accused charge sheeted him accordingly.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the complainant, who is working as

Incharge of Muskaan Team from 01.07.2015, visited Dharpally village on 13.07.2015 along with the Child Labour Officer Mohan, HC 423 and PC 1400 working as team members and proceeded to Dharpally Market Yard where they found one K.Nagesh S/o Late Ramu, aged 13 years, R/o NTR colony, Dharpally 2CC No.361 of 2016 village working as child labour in Baba Chicken shop of Sk. Azeemuddin.

Hence, they took the said child into custody and examined the owner of Baba

Chicken shop Sk. Azeemuddin, who stated that he has paying Rs.1,000/- to the said boy Nagesh for his work in the Chicken shop. Thereafter, the child labour

Nagesh was handed over to Babu, Child Labour Officer and subsequently he shifted the boy to Rose NGO shelter for the time being.

3.During the course of investigation, 41-A Cr.P.C notice issued to the accused and after collecting all the evidence available and on completion of investigation, the charge sheet is filed.

4.On the strength of such charge sheet, this court has taken cognizance for the offences punishable u/s 374 IPC, under sec. 3, 7, 8 and 14 of Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act 1986 and Sec.26 of Juvenile Justice Act 2000 and on appearance of the accused before this court, he is examined u/s 251

Cr.P.C for the accusation levelled against him under Sec. 374 IPC duly complying section 207 Cr.P.C. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In support of its case the prosecution examined Pws1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused is examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C for which he pleaded innocence and reported no defence evidence.

6.Pw1 is the complainant, Pw2 is one of the members of the Muskaan

Team, Pw3 is a circumstantial witness, Pw4 is the victim, Pw5 is the mother of the victim and Pw6 is the Investigating Officer.

7. Heard both sides.

8.The points for consideration are:

(i) Whether Pws 1 & 2 visited Dharpally village on 13.7.2015 as members of the Muskaan Team? If so, 3CC No.361 of 2016

(ii) Whether Pws 1 & 2, along with other members of the Muskaan Team, found the victim boy Nagesh working as child labour in the Chicken shop of the accused namely Baba Chicken shop?

9.Learned APP contended that the prosecution, through the evidence of Pws1, 2 and the Investigating Officer, has proved its case and hence, the accused is liable to be convicted.

10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused contended that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt inasmuch as the ID proof of the accused is not filed by the prosecution, though the name of the accused is shown as Sk. Azeemuddin in the charge sheet while in the evidence of Pw1 it is mentioned as Azeem. Thus, the prosecution failed to establish the very identity of the accused. He also contended that no proof is filed to show that Pws1 and 2 were the members of the Muskaan Team.

He lastly contended that the victim boy himself did not support the prosecution case and the circumstantial witness and the mother of the victim boy also did not support the prosecution case. Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

Point No.(i):

11.The evidence of Pw1 discloses that he did not furnish to the police that he was the Incharge of the Operation Muskaan Team and the evidence of Pw.6 corroborates with the said evidence of Pw1 as he stated that Pws1, 2 and Lws.3 to 5 did not furnish any document to show that they were the members of the

Operation Muskaan Team. Thus, the point is answered accordingly holding that the prosecution failed to prove that Pws1 & 2 were the members of Operation

Muskaan Team as on 13.7.2015.

Point No. (ii) :-

12.Already point No.1 answered is holding that the prosecution failed to establish that Pws1, 2 and others were members of the Operation Muskaan 4CC No.361 of 2016

Team on 13.7.2015. With regard to Pws1 and 2 visiting Dharpally village on 13.7.2015 and finding the victim boy Nagesh working in the Chicken center of the accused, as rightly contending by the learned defence counsel, the victim boy Nagesh, who is examined as Pw4, did not support the prosecution case by stating that he knows the accused person. However, he stated that 5 years ago when he was playing at their shop situated at Dharpally village, police took him to some place at Nizamabad and later his mother took him back, and he denied to have stated to the police as in Ex.P3. Even Pw5, who is the mother of Pw4, did not support the prosecution case by denying to have stated to the police as in Ex.P4 and further stated that she do not know the accused person. Though, it is the evidence of Pw1 that after finding victim boy working in the Chicken center of the accused on a monthly salary of Rs.1,000/-, as disclosed by the accused himself, they took the victim boy to the NGO shelter home at Gayathri

Nagar, Nizamabad, none was examined by the Investigating Officer from the said NGO shelter home to speak about the victim boy being handed over by

Pw1. The evidence of Pw2, as rightly contended that the learned defence counsel, is different from the version of Pw1 in this regard as according to him they produced the victim boy before the Child Welfare Committee, which in turn sent the boy to Rose NGOs home for rehabilitation. Further, on cross- examination, he admitted that they themselves sent the boy to Rose NGOs shelter home.

13.Apart from the above, the Investigating Officer did not bother to collect any evidence with regard to the license of the Chicken center alleged to have been run by the accused person nor collected any identity proof of the accused.

5CC No.361 of 2016

14.In the above circumstances, this point is answered holding that the prosecution failed to establish that Pw1, 2 and others, as members of the

Muskaan Team, visited Dharpally village on 13.7.2015 and found the victim boy working as child labour in the Chicken center of the accused person.

15.Since the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused for offence punishable u/s. 374 IPC, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

16.In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable u/s. 374 IPC and he is acquitted of the said offence u/s.255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled.

(Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 10th day of February, 2021).

Sd/-

II-ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NIZAMABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

PROSECUTIONACCUSED

Pw1: Battu Vittal-- NIL --

Pw2: Palnati Yohan

Pw3: Banavath Bheema

Pw4: Kammari Nagesh

Pw5: Kammari Geetha

Pw6: K. Shankar

EXHIBITS MARKED

PROSECUTIONACCUSED

Ex.P1: Complaint given by Pw1 NIL Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C. statement by Pw.3

Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C. statement by Pw.4

Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C. statement by Pw.5

Ex.P5: F.I.R.

6CC No.361 of 2016

MATERIAL OBJECTS

PROSECUTIONACCUSED

NIL NIL

Sd/-

II-ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NIZAMABAD.

1CC No.778 of 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE II-ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT NIZAMABAD

Present: Smt.P.Uma Maheswari, II-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad

Dated this the 19th day of November, 2020

C.C. No.778 of 2018

Between: The State through Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. Makloor. …Complainant // AND //

Guguloth Murali S/o Gangaram, age 26 years, Caste: ST (Lambada), Occ: Agriculture, R/o Kalleda thanda, H/o of Kalleda village of Makloor Mandal.

..Accused

This case is coming before me on this the 17.11.2020 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri. G.V.Krupakar Reddy, Counsel for the accused having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Makloor Police station, filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable u/s 379 IPC alleging that based on the complaint received from the complainant/Sri. B.Shivaram, ASI of PS

Makloor on 25.02.2018 at 06.30 hrs. a case in Cr.No.26/2018 is registered u/s. 379 IPC and investigated into. After completion of investigation, which established the commission of the said offence by the accused charge sheeted him accordingly.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 25.02.2018 at 06.00 hrs. while the

ASI B. Shivaram, along with HGs 412 and 462 of Makloor police station, were performing patrolling duty and reached Kalleda village shivar, they found tractor bearing No.TS-16-EE-6094 with trolley No.AP-25-AJ-1247 loaded with sand. On enquiry, the driver of the tractor failed to produce valid license and 2CC No.778 of 2018 permission from the concerned authorities. Hence, the ASI secured the presence of two mediators and conducted confessional and recovery panchanama of the accused in which the accused stated that he had agricultural land at Kalleda village shivar and he bought a tractor and trolley for agriculture work and loaded the tractor with sand with an intention to earn more money by selling the sand to people who are constructing new houses.

Later, the ASI visited the scene of offence and drawn the rough sketch in the presence of same mediators and then took the accused into custody and brought to the police station along with the seized tractor. Based on the confession and recovery panchanama, a case in Cr.No.26 of 2018 is registered u/s. 379 IPC, Sec. 3 of PDPP Act and Sec. 21(i) MMDR Act and took up the investigation.

3.During the course of investigation, the statements of Lws1 and 2 are recorded and then issued 41(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. to the accused to appear before the court as and when required. Later, a requisition is given to the Tahsildar

Makloor to take action on the seized tractor and the Tahsildar Makloor has levied penalty of Rs.5,000/- and released the crime vehicle i.e., tractor bearing

No.TS-16-EE-6094 and trolley No.AP-25-AJ-1247 vide proceedings dated 05.03.2018. On 06.03.2018, the S.I of police, Makloor took up the investigation from Lw5 ASI B.Shivaram and verified the investigation, found it on proper lines and on completion of investigation, the charge sheet is filed.

4.On the strength of such charge sheet, this court has taken cognizance for the offence punishable u/s 379 IPC and on appearance of the accused before this court, he is examined u/s 239 Cr.P.C and charge framed for the offence punishable u/s 379 IPC duly complying section 207 Cr.P.C. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In support of its case the prosecution examined Pws1 to 4 and got marked Ex.P1 to P8. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused is 3CC No.778 of 2018 examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C for which he pleaded innocence and reported no defence evidence.

6.Pw1 is the Home Guard, who accompanied ASI Shivaram, Pws2 and 3 are the panch witnesses for the scene of offence and confession and recovery panchanama, Pw4 is the Investigating Officer.

7. Heard both sides.

8.A perusal of the prosecution evidence shows that Pw1 spoke about accompanying Pw4 in the patrolling duty on 25.02.2018, finding the accused

Murali lifting sand into trolley No. AP-25-AJ-1247 with tractor bearing No. TS- 16-EE-6094 at Nizamsagar canal. He also stated that the accused was not having any permission for lifting the sand and also the vehicle documents. On cross-examination, he stated that he had not seen the accused loading the sand into the trolley.

9.Pws2 and 3, both the panch witnesses for the scene of offence, confession and recovery did not support to the prosecution.

10.Pw4, the Investigating Officer spoke about apprehending the accused while he was transporting the sand from canal katta in the trolley with tractor on 25.02.2018 and also the accused not producing any valid permission. He also spoke about conducting the confession and recovery panchanama and the scene of offence panchanama in the presence of Pws2 and 3 and then issuing

FIR based on Ex.P5 confession and seizure panchanama. He further stated that on the requisition given by him to the MRO, Makloor, the MRO, Makloor imposed fine of Rs.5,000/- to the owner of the tractor and trolley. He further stated that he issued 41-A Cr.P.C. to the accused and handed over the CD file to Lw6, who filed the charge sheet against the accused. On cross-examination, he denied all the suggestions put to him.

4CC No.778 of 2018

11.From the above evidence the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused for the charge levelled against him u/s. 379 IPC beyond reasonable doubt inasmuch as both the mediators for the scene of offence, confession and recovery did not support the prosecution case. Moreover, there is no consistency in the evidence of even Pws1 and 4, as Pw1 stated that he had not seen the accused while loading the sand into the trolley where as Pw4 stated that the accused is apprehended while he was transporting the sand from canal katta in the trolley and that the accused was not having valid vehicle documents which is the evidence of Pw1. In the circumstances, no reliance can be placed on the evidence of Pws1 and 4 who are police witnesses without their evidence being consistent and in the absence of corroboration to their evidence from Pws2 and 3. Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

12.In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable u/s. 379 IPC and he is acquitted of the said offence u/s.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled.

(Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 19th day of November, 2020).

Sd/-

II-ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NIZAMABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

PROSECUTIONACCUSED

Pw1: Rathod Vasanth – NIL --

Pw2: Ashtam Naresh

Pw3: K. Kishan

Pw4: B. Shivaram 5CC No.778 of 2018

EXHIBITS MARKED

PROSECUTIONACCUSED

Ex.P1:Signature on confession and recovery panchanama NIL by Pw2. Ex.P2:Signature on Crime details form by Pw2 Ex.P3:Signature on confession panchanama by Pw3

Ex.P4:Signature on crime details form by Pw3

Ex.P5:Confession and seizure panchanama

Ex.P6:Crime Details Form

Ex.P7:FIR

Ex.P8:Proceedings of the MRO, Makloor dt. 5.3.2018

MATERIAL OBJECTS

PROSECUTIONACCUSED

– NIL –- NIL -

Sd/-

II-ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NIZAMABAD.

6CC No.778 of 2018

FORM No.73

IN THE COURT OF THE II-ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT NIZAMABAD

C.C. No.778 of 2018 1Name of Complainant:: The State through Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. Makloor.

2Name of Accused:: Guguloth Murali S/o Gangaram 3Nature of Offence:: u/s 379 IPC 4Finding:: Found not guilty 5Sentence :: Acquitted 6Date of Occurrence of offence:: 25.02.2018 7Date of Complaint:: 25.02.2018 8Date of Apprehension/ :: 25.02.2018 Surrender of the accused 9Date of release on bail of :: Issued u/s.41-A Cr.P.C. notices on accused 25.02.2018 10Date of Commencement of trial :: 16.03.2020 11Date of Closure of trial:: 17.03.2020 12Date of Sentence or Order:: 19.11.2020 13Explanation of delay:: --

Sd/-

II-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad

To

The Hon’ble I Addl. District &

Sessions Judge,

Nizamabad

1CC No.1231 of 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE II-ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT NIZAMABAD

Present: Smt.P.Uma Maheswari, II-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad

Dated this the 16th day of December, 2020

C.C. No. 1231 of 2019

Between: The State through Sub Inspector of Police, P. S. Rural Nizamabad. …Complainant // AND //

Yemula Uday S/o Ramesh, age 26 years, Caste: Padmashali, Occ: Labour, R/o Nyalkal village of Nizamabad Mandal.

...Accused

This case is coming before me on this the 16.12.2020 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri E. Bhageecharan, counsel for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. Rural Nizamabad, filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable u/s. 354, 323 and 290 IPC alleging that based on the complaint received from the complainant/Somari

Sandhya, on 25.12.2014 at 11.30 hours, a case in Cr.No.515/2014 is registered u/s 354, 323 and 290 IPC and investigated into. After completion of investigation, which established the commission of the offences punishable u/s 354, 323 and 290 IPC by the accused, charge sheeted him accordingly.

2.The case of the prosecution is that Lw1 is resident of Nyalkal village of

Nizamabad mandal. On 21.12.2014 at about 8.00 p.m. while she was alone in her house, the accused, who used to reside opposite to her house, kicked the doors of her house, entered into her house, abused her in filthy language, caught hold her saree and dragged her into the court yard of her house, misbehaved with her and defamed her, while she crying, the accused beat her 2CC No.1231 of 2019 daughter Akshara. Immediately, she along with her two children went outside and on her hues and cries, her tenant Gaddala Jyothi came outside and questioned the accused for his acts. On that accused beat Jyothi and Sayamma.

Accused beat on the chest of Jyothi and abused her in filthy language. While the incident was going on, her village elders namely Muthyam Rao and Somari

Achanna came there and intervened, on that accused caught hold the collar of

Achanna and pushed Muthyam Rao. Meanwhile public gathered and took accused into his house.

3.During the course of investigation, on 28.12.2014, notice u/s. 41-A

Cr.P.C issued to the accused. After completion of investigation the charge sheet is filed.

4.On the strength of such charge sheet, this court has taken cognizance for the offences punishable u/s 354, 323, 290 of Indian Penal Code. Meanwhile the case was transferred to the Spl. Sessions Court for trial of cases relating to

Atrocity against Women, Nizamabad as per ROC.No.179/E/2013, dated 31.03.2010 and subsequently the case is again transferred to this court by the

Circular order of the Hon’ble Prl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad in

Dis.No.3594/2019, dated 04.07.2019. On appearance of the accused before this court, he is examined u/s 239 Cr.P.C and charges framed for the offences punishable u/s 354, 323 and 290 IPC duly complying section 207 Cr.P.C. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In support of its case the prosecution examined Pws1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the examination of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with as nothing incriminating the accused is elicited in the prosecution evidence.

6.Pw1 is the complainant and victim, Pw 2 is the husband of victim woman.

7.Heard both sides.

3CC No.1231 of 2019

8.The point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution has proved its case against the accused

for the charges framed against him u/s 354, 323 and 290 IPC

beyond reasonable doubt?

POINT:

9.Pw1 deposed before this court that she do not know the accused, she do not know anything about the case and she did not give any complaint. She signed on some paper at the instance of police. She admitted her signature on the complaint dated 25.12.2014 which is marked as Ex.P1, but denied to have lodged complaint with the police as in Ex.P2 and further denied to have stated to the police as in Ex.P3.

10.Pw2, who is husband of the victim woman, also did not support the prosecution case by denying to have stated to the police as in Ex.P4.

11.Since the complainant and her husband did not support its case, the prosecution given up the rest of the witnesses and closed its evidence.

12.From the above evidence, the prosecution failed to prove its case and hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

13.In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offences punishable u/s 354, 323 and 290 IPC and he is acquitted of the said offences u/s 248(1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled.

(Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 16th day of December, 2020).

Sd/-

II-ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NIZAMABAD.

4CC No.1231 of 2019

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

PROSECUTIONACCUSED

Pw1: Somari Sandhya -NIL-

Pw2: Somari Gangadhar

EXHIBITS MARKED

PROSECUTIONACCUSED

Ex.P1: Signature on complaint of Pw1-NIL- Ex.P2: Complaint given by Pw1 Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of Pw1 Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of Pw2

MATERIAL OBJECTS

PROSECUTIONACCUSED

NIL -NIL-

Sd/-

II-ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NIZAMABAD.

1CC No.2073 of 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE II-ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT NIZAMABAD

Present: Smt.P.Uma Maheswari, II-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad.

Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2020

C.C. No. 2073 of 2019

Between: The State through Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. V-Town, Nizamabad. …Complainant // AND //

Bumyari Naveen S/o Late Yadaiah, age 24 years, Caste: Madiga, Occ: Tiles work & previously labour, R/o Near Veterinary hospital, Kotagally, present Near Radio station, Nyalkal road, Nizamabad.

..Accused

This case is coming before me on this the 20.11.2020 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri. S.Vijay Kumar, Legal-Aid Counsel for the accused having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, V-Town, Nizamabad Police station, filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable u/s 379 r/w 511

IPC alleging that based on the complaint received from the complainant/Sri.

Peddolla Pramod on 19.11.2019 at 11.00 hrs. a case in Cr.No.134/2019 is registered u/s. 379, 511 IPC and investigated into. After completion of investigation, which established the commission of the said offence by the accused charge sheeted him accordingly.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 19.11.2019 at about 10.00 p.m., the complainant Peddolla Pramod parked his motor cycle Honda Shine blue colour in front of his house and while he was having dinner, one person attempted to open the lock of his motor cycle with another key, which is informed to him by his younger daughter.

2CC No.2073 of 2019

3.During the course of investigation, the statements of Lws1 & 2 are recorded. On 21.11.2019, the accused came to PS and surrendered before Lw7 and then issued 41-A Cr.P.C. to the accused to appear before the court as and when required. On completion of investigation, the charge sheet is filed.

4.On the strength of such charge sheet, this court has taken cognizance for the offence punishable u/s 379 r/w 511 IPC and on appearance of the accused

before this court, he is examined u/s 239 Cr.P.C and charge framed for the

offence punishable u/s 379 r/w 511 IPC duly complying section 207 Cr.P.C.

The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In support of its case the prosecution examined Pws1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused is examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C for which he pleaded innocence and reported no defence evidence.

6.Pw1 is the complainant, Pw2 is the eye-witness and daughter of Pw1,

Pws3 & 4 are the panch witnesses for scene of offence, Pws5 & 6 are the panch witnesses for confession, Pw7 is the Investigating Officer.

7. Heard both sides.

8.Learned APP contended that the matter be decided on merits.

9.A perusal of the record shows that nowhere the number of the bike of the complainant alleged to have been attempted to commit theft is mentioned.

Except the evidence of the Investigating Officer, there is no other evidence to implicate the accused in the commission of this offence as the evidence of Pw1 is only circumstantial and speaks about the attempt to commit theft of his bike while the mediators for confession did not support the prosecution case. Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal as the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused.

3CC No.2073 of 2019

10.In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable u/s. 379 r/w 511 IPC and he is acquitted of the said offence u/s.248(1) Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled.

(Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 23rd day of November, 2020).

Sd/-

II-ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NIZAMABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

PROSECUTIONACCUSED

Pw1: Peddolla Pramod – NIL --

Pw2: Kum. Srija

Pw3: Achalwar Anand

Pw4: Mallela Swamy

Pw5: Dherangula Babu

Pw6: Vemula Raghu

Pw7: A. Jan Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED

PROSECUTIONACCUSED

Ex.P1:Complaint given by Pw1. NIL Ex.P2:Crime Details Form Ex.P3:Signature on confession panchanama by Pw5

Ex.P4:Confession panchanama

Ex.P5:Signature on confession panchanama by Pw6

Ex.P6:FIR

MATERIAL OBJECTS

PROSECUTIONACCUSED

– NIL –- NIL -

Sd/-

II-ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NIZAMABAD.

4CC No.2073 of 2019

FORM No.73

IN THE COURT OF THE II-ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT NIZAMABAD

C.C. No.2073 of 2019 1Name of Complainant:: The State through Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. V-Town, Nizamabad.

2Name of Accused:: Bumyari Naveen S/o Late Yadaiah 3Nature of Offence:: u/s 379 r/w 511 IPC 4Finding:: Found not guilty 5Sentence :: Acquitted 6Date of Occurrence of offence:: 19.11.2019 7Date of Complaint:: 19.11.2019 8Date of Apprehension/ :: 21.11.2019 Surrender of the accused 9Date of release on bail of :: Issued u/s.41-A Cr.P.C. notices on accused 21.11.2019 10Date of Commencement of trial :: 25.02.2020 11Date of Closure of trial:: 13.03.2020 12Date of Sentence or Order:: 23.11.2020 13Explanation of delay:: --

Sd/-

II-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad

To

The Hon’ble I Addl. District &

Sessions Judge,

Nizamabad