Smt. Peddi Chandana

CC.No. 430 of 2021 Page No. 1 of 8 Date: 16.04.2021

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

FOR TRIAL OF (PROH. & EXCISE) OFFENCES CUM

IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NIZAMABAD

Present:Smt.Peddi Chandana, Spl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, For trial of (Proh. & Excise) Offences Cum IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad.

Dated this the 16 th day of April, 2021

CC.No. 430 of 2021

Between: The State of Telangana through Proh. & Excise Inspector, S.H.O, Nizamabad. ...Prosecution // And //

A1: Abbula Mallesh Goud, S/o. Dubba Goud, Aged 42 years, Occ: toddy vendor, R/o.H.No.3-100/1, Madhavanagar, Nizamabad.

A2: S.Kistagoud, S/o. Mallagoud, T.F.T. Licensee, R/o. H.No.5-42, Borgaon (P) village of Mugpal (M) Dist. Nizjamabad.

A3: Sudhagoni Shanker Goud, S/o. Mutha Goud, T.F.T. Licensee, r/o. H.No. 4-15/1, Borgaon (P) village of Mugpal (M) Nizamabad.

A4: Sudhagoni Yadagiri Goud, S/o. Mutha Goud, T.F.T. Licensee, r/o. H.No. 4-15/1, Borgaon (P) village of Mugpal (M) Nizamabad.

A5: Mallepula Soma Goud, S/o. Bala Goud, T.F.T. Licensee, 60 years, r/o. H.No. 6-88/14/2, Borgaon (P) village of Mugpal (M) Nizamabad.

A6: Mugdhala Venugopal Goud, S/o. Govind, 46 years, toddy seller, r/o. H.No.3-99/1, Borgaon (P) village of Mugpal (M) Nizamabad.

...Accused No.1 to 6

This case came before me on 16-04-2021 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and of Sri G.Madhusudhan Goud and A.Deepak, learned counsels for the accused No.2 to 4, and Sri D.Suresh, learned counsel for the accused No.1, 5 and 6, upon hearing the both sides, on perusal of record 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. PW3 filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under sections 34(a) read with 34 (1) and 37 (a) of

Telangana State Excise Act, 2015 (Herein after called T.S. Excise Act) and U/R. 4 (a) and 5 (a) of Telangana State. Chloral Hydrate Rules,

CC.No. 430 of 2021 Page No. 2 of 8 Date: 16.04.2021

1973, alleging that on 04-02-2020, on receipt of reliable information regarding illegal sale of adulterated toddy at T.F.T toddy shop,

Boargaon (P) of Mugpal (M), PW-3, along with his Excise staff proceeded to said toddy shop by duly securing the presence of PW-1 and PW-2 as panch witnesses, while checking found three persons selling toddy, who on enquiry disclosed their identity as A1/ Abbula

Mallesh goud, S/o. Dubba Goud, A5/Mallepula Soma Goud, S/o. Bala

Goud and A6/Mugdhala Venugopal Goud, S/o. Govind on enquiry all of them stated that they are conducting sales of toddy on behalf of

A2/S.Kistagoud, S/o. Malla goud, T.F.T. licensee (License No.

E2/56/NZB/2007) A3/Sudhagoni Shanker Goud, S/o. Mutha Goud T.F.T.

licensee (License No. E2/56/NZB/2007), and A4/Sudhagoni Yadagiri

Goud s/o. Mutha Goud T.F.T. licensee (License No. E2/56/NZB/2007).

Hence, PW-3 issued search memo to the accused persons and entered into the said shop. On search, they found Thirty five (35) plastic crates each containing 12 bottles, each 650 ml of toddy, totally 273 liters of toddy . On further search of the premises of the toddy shop PW3 found one polythene bag containing (7.3) Kgs of

Raw chloral Hydrate (which is prohibited intoxicant used as an adulterant in toddy) and they seized the same. PW-3 tested the toddy on the spot with prescribed chemicals and found that the toddy was adulterated with Chloral Hydrate, even then PW-3 drawn three samples each sample having 350 ml. Toddy and seized (2) samples of Chloral Hydrate of (50) grams each, for the purpose of analysis, sealed the samples in the prescribed manner in the presence of above said panch witnesses under the cover of panchanama and destroyed the remaining toddy at the spot and arrested the accused No.1, Accused No. 5 and Accused No.6,

CC.No. 430 of 2021 Page No. 3 of 8 Date: 16.04.2021

thereafter they returned to excise station, Nizamabad along with

Accused No. 1, Accused No. 5 and Accused No. 6 and case papers, samples and registered this case in Crime Occrance report

No.21/2020 for the offences under sections 34(a) read with 34 (1) and 37 (a) of T.S. Excise Act, 2015 and U/R. 4(a) and 5(a) of T.S.

chloral Hydrate rules 1973 against the accused No.1 to Accused No.

6 and produced the accused No.1, Accused No.5 and Accused No.6

before the Hon’ble court for judicial remand and submitted the case

documents to the Hon'ble Court. Accused No.2 to Accused No. 4 voluntarily surrendered before the Hon’ble court. The sample bottles have been deposited into the Hon’ble Court vide CPR No. 43/2020 with a requisition to send the samples to Chemical Examiner for

Excise, Nizamabad, for analysis and report and Chemical Examiner for Excise, Nizamabad, who examined the samples seized in this case opined that the sample sent to him i.e., toddy was ”fermented toddy adulterated with Chloral Hydrate” and another sample was “Chloral

Hydrate”.

2.This case was taken on file for the offence punishable under sections 34(a) read with 34 (1) and 37 (a) of T.S. Excise Act, 2015 and U/R. 4(a) and 5(a) of T.S. chloral Hydrate rules 1973, against the accused No. 1 to 6. On the appearance of the accused No. 1 to 6, the copies of case documents were furnished to them as contemplated under section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code. The accused No. 1 to 6 were examined under section 239 of Criminal

Procedure Code and they denied the commission of offence. A charge for the offence punishable under sections 34(a) read with 34 (1) and 37 (a) of T.S. Excise Act, 2015 and U/R. 4(a) and 5(a) of T.S.

CC.No. 430 of 2021 Page No. 4 of 8 Date: 16.04.2021

chloral Hydrate rules 1973, framed, read over and explained to the accused No.1 to 6 in Telugu, for which they denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PWs-1 to PW-3 got marked Ex: P1 to P6 and M.O-1 and M.O.2.

4. After Closure of prosecution evidence, the accused No.1 to 6 were examined under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, and incriminating evidence is readover and explained to them, having understood the same, they denied the incriminating evidence as false and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

5. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

6. The POINT for consideration is:-

“Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the accused

for the offences punishable under sections 34(a) read with 34

(1) and 37 (a) of T.S. Excise Act, 2015 and Under Rule 4(a)

and 5(a) of T.S. chloral Hydrate rules 1973 beyond all

reasonable doubts?”

7. POINT: In order to establish the guilt of the accused No.1 to 6 the prosecution examined two panch witnesses and one investigation officer. The question is whether the prosecution evidence is sufficient to prove the charge or not.

8. To prove the guilt of the accused No.1 to 6, the prosecution examined one Excise official i.e PW3, who conducted raid, seizure of

CC.No. 430 of 2021 Page No. 5 of 8 Date: 16.04.2021

contraband, and filed charge sheet, apart from them, the prosecution also examined two panch witnesses i.e., PW-1 and PW-2 in whose presence the alleged raid was said to have conducted, but PW-1 and

PW-2 turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution case. The Asst. Public Prosecutor cross examined PW-1 and PW-2, but nothing was elicited to prove that PW1 and PW2 intentionally supported the accused. Thus there remains the evidence of PW-3 .

9. PW3 deposed in his evidence that on 04.02.2020 on reliable information regarding illegal sale of adulterated Toddy at T.F.T toddy shop situated at Borgaon (P) village of Mogpal (M), he proceeded to the said place along with staff, there he secured two panchas i.e.,

PW1 and PW2, they found accused No.1, Accused No. 5 and Accused

No. 6 selling toddy and they stated that they are conducting sale of toddy on behalf of Accused No.2, Accused No. 3 and Accused No. 4.

on serving the search memo, searched the toddy shop and found 35 plastic crates each containing 12 bottles each 650 ml of toddy, totally (273) liters of toddy, on further search of the premises of the toddy shop he found one polythene bag containing (7.3) kgs of Raw

Chloral Hydrate, he conducted spot test to the toddy with prescribed chemicals and found toddy was adulterated with chloral hydrate and he informed the said accused No.1, Accused No. 5 and

Accused No. 6 that the sale of adulterated toddy in the Licensed premises is an offence as per the T.S.Excise Act 2015 and also illegal possession of Raw chloral Hydrate is an offence as per the T.S.

chloral Hydrate Rules 1973 and seized the said contraband and drawn three samples each 350 ml from said toddy, drawn (2) samples of chloral Hydrate of (50) grams each, in the presence of the panch witnesses, pasted the panch chits and sealed them in the prescribed manner under the cover of panchanama and the

CC.No. 430 of 2021 Page No. 6 of 8 Date: 16.04.2021

remaining contraband was destroyed at the spot and arrested the accused No.1, Accused No. 5 and Accused No. 6, returned to the

Excise station along with accused, case papers, samples and registered this case, produced the accused persons for judicial remand and received chemical examiner’s report and filed charge sheet.

10. The above is the evidence adduced by the prosecution narrated supra, as already discussed above, there is no evidence on record to corroborate the version of PW-3 even though the prosecution examined two panch witnesses to speak about the alleged raid and seizure, the said panch witnesses did not support the prosecution case. It is settled Law that the Excise officials are to be treated as police officials and therefore their evidence is as good as the evidence of police officer conducting investigation and in the absence of corroborative piece of evidence from independent source, the solitary testimony of investigation officer i.e., PW-3 cannot from the basis for conviction. The PW-3 failed to follow the procedure laid down under section 100 of Cr.P.C.

11. The learned defence counsel on the basis of hostile evidence of

PW-1 and PW-2/panch witnesses contended that PW-1 and PW-2 turned hostile as such, the very allegations of the prosecution that they conducted raid remained doubtful and there is clear lapse in the investigation process. On a perusal of the evidence adduced on record this Court finds sufficient force in the said contention. Thus in this case except the oral evidence of PW-3 there is no independent evidence to prove the alleged search and seizure. The said evidence is not sufficient enough to prove the charge. Therefore, the benefit of doubt should go in favour of the accused. For the above reasons,

CC.No. 430 of 2021 Page No. 7 of 8 Date: 16.04.2021

the accused are entitled for acquittal, as the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the all accused beyond all reasonable doubts.

12. IN THE RESULT, this Court found the Accused No.1 to Accused

No. 6 not guilty for the offence punishable under sections 34(a) read with 34 (1) and 37 (a) of Telangana State Excise Act, 2015 and

U/Rules 4(a) and 5(a) of Telangana State chloral Hydrate rules 1973.

Accordingly, Accused NO. 1 to Accused No. 6 are acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. Sureties bonds of the all accused shall stand canceled after the expiry of six months.. M.O-1 and M.O.2 i.e., sample of toddy, and the sample of Chloral Hydrate shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

(Typed to my Dictation directly by the Typist, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 16 th day of April,

2021).

Spl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, for trial of(Proh. & Excise), offences Cum IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge,

Nizamabad.

::APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE::

(WITNESSES EXAMINED)

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

PW1: Sri. B.Sailoo -NONE- PW2: Sri. Eti Kankaiah PW3: Sri. A. Kamalakar Reddy (Proh.& Excise Inspector).

::EXHIBITS MARKED::

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

Ex: P1: Signature of PW-1 on panchanama.-NIL- Ex: P2: Signature of PW-2 on panchanama Ex: P3: Search memo. Ex: P4: Panchanama. Ex: P5: Crime Occurrence report. Ex: P6: Chemical Examiner report.

CC.No. 430 of 2021 Page No. 8 of 8 Date: 16.04.2021

::MATERIAL OBJECTS::

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

M.O-1: sample of toddy. -NIL- M.O-2: sample of Chloral Hydrate.

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

for trial of(Proh. & Excise), offences Cum IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad.

CC.No.94/2018 1 Dtd. 05-03-2020

IN THE COURT OF SPL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:

(MOBILE) UNDER PCR ACT-CUM-III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT NIZAMABAD.

Present:- Smt. Peddi Chandana,

Spl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class for trial of (Proh.&Excise) offences Cum IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad. FAC Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile) Under PCR Act Cum III Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad.

Thursday on this the 05 th day of March, 2020.

C.C. No. 94 of 2018

in

C. C. No. 67 of 2017

Between:

The State through Sub Inspector of police, Women Police Station, Nizamabad. …… Prosecution. A N D 1: Jalal Khan @ Rahmathkhan S/o. Peerkhan, Age: 22 years, Caste: Muslim, Occ: Labour, R/o. H.No. 08-04-370, Chopala Water Tank, Siddinathpuri, Takiya road, of Nanded Town. 2: Smt Khamar Begam @ Khamarunnisabegam W/o. Peerkhan, Age: 50 years, Caste: Muslim, Occ: Labour, R/o. H.No. 08-04-370, Chopala Water Tank, Siddinathpuri, Takiya road of Nanded Town. 3: Peerkhan, S/o. Late Bisimillakhan, Age: 60 years, Caste: Muslim, Occ: Labour, R/o. H.no. 08-04-370, Chopala Water Tank, Siddinathpuri, Takiya road of Nanded Town.

.... Accused No.1 to 3

This case coming on this day before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the prosecution and Sri G. Younus Khan counsel for the accused No. 1 to 3, 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, Rural, Police Station, Women,

Nizamabad, has filed charge sheet in Crime No. 14 of 2016 against the accused No.1 to 3 for the offence punishable under section 498-A of the

Indian Penal Code and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, alleging as follows:

CC.No.94/2018 2 Dtd. 05-03-2020

The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 26-02-2016 at 12-00 noon, the PW-1/Smt Amena Nishanth, submitted report in which it was submitted that her parents performed her marriage on 05-10-2015 with the accused No.1, at the time of marriage the parents presented net cash of Rs. 60,000/- as Jodeki Rakam, 4 tulas of gold ornaments, 15 tulas of silver leg chains, one Pulsar bike, and furniture, after the marriage PW-1 went to the in laws house i.e.,

Chowpalagally near Water Tank of Nanded Town, about three months the couple led marital life happily, thereafter the accused No.1 to 3 stating to the PW-1 that the PW-1 brought less dowry, if the accused

No.1 get marry another woman they will get more dowry and they started harassment physically and mentally to the PW-1, and all the accused persons abused her in filthy language and beat her, and also harassed demanding to take additional dowry an amount of Rs.

3,00,000/- for the purchase of centering material, and they are not providing proper food, and took the ornaments and necked out the

PW-1 from their house on 15-01-2016.

2.Basing on the report of PW-1, LW-7/Sri B. Balram/Inspector of police, police station women, Nizamabad, registered this case in crime No. 14 of 2016 for the offence punishable under section 498-A of the Indian Penal

Code and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, examined PW-1s and 2 and LW-2/Imthyazbegam, LW-3/Shaik Rasheed and recorded their statements. LW-8/V. Shivaram/S.I of police, police station, Women,

Nizamabad, received case file from LW-7/Sri B. Balram/Inspector of police, police station women, Nizamabad, and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, on 27-02-2016 he visited the driver colony of

Nagaram of Nizamabad and secured the presence of LW-5/Abdul Moin and

LW-6/Syed Gaffoor examined them and recorded their statements. On 01-

CC.No.94/2018 3 Dtd. 05-03-2020

03-2016 he issued and served notices under section 41(A) of the Criminal

Procedure Code to the accused No.1 to 3, on interrogation the accused

No.1 to 3 voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence and released them on furnishing sureties.

3.The learned I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad, took cognizance for the offences punishable under section 498-A of the Indian

Penal Code and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the accused

No.1 to 3 and ordered summons to the accused No.1 to 3. At this stage, this case was transferred to this Court as per the orders vide Dis. No.7015,

Dtd. 28-12-2017. After appearance of the accused No.1 to 3, copies of documents furnished to them as contemplated under section 207 of the

Criminal Procedure Code. The accused No.1 to 3 were examined under section 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Charges for the offences punishable under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, are framed read over and explained to them, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.On behalf of the prosecution, it examined Pws 1 and 2 and got marked Exs. P-1 and P-2. On perusal of the prosecution evidence there is no incriminating evidence against the accused No.1 to 3, hence, examination of the accused No.1 to 3 under section 313 of the Criminal

Procedure Code is dispensed with.

5.Heard and perused the record.

6.The point that arises for consideration is “Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the accused No.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and section 4 of

the Dowry Prohibition Act, beyond all reasonable doubt”?

7.POINT: Pw-1 is the defacto complainant and Pw-2 is the father of the PW-1. In this case prosecution has given up the evidences of LW-

CC.No.94/2018 4 Dtd. 05-03-2020

2/Imthyazbegam, Lw-4/M.A. Mohiuddin, LW-5/Abdul Moin, Lw-6/Syued

Gaffoor, Lw-7/B. Balram/Insepctor of police, police station, women,

Nizamabad, Lw-8/V. Shivaram/Sub Inspector of police, police station, women, Nizamabad, as the PW-1 not support the prosecution case.

8.Coming to the evidence adduced by the prosecution in this case, the

PW-1 who is said to be victim in this case deposed that the accused No.1 is his husband, accused No.2 and 3 are parents of accused No.2. Lw- 2/Imtiyaz Begum and PW-2 are her parents, they are compromised with the accused persons out side the Court, hence, they do not want to proceed with this case, accused paid permanent alimony of Rs. 2,50,000/- to her.

PW-1 turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution.

During the cross examination of PW-1 by the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor nothing was elicited to bring home the guilt of the accused persons.

9.PW-2 is the father of the PW-1 deposed before this Court that PW-1 is her daughter, accused No.1 is his son in law, accused No.2 and 3 are parents of the acused No.1, LW-2/Imtiyaz Begum is his wife, they are compromised with the accused persons out side the Court, hence, they do not want to proceed with this case, accused paid permanent alimony of Rs.

2,50,000/- to PW-1. PW-2 turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. During the cross examination of PW-2 by the learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor nothing was elicited to bring home the guilt of the accused persons.

10. Pws-1 and 2 did not state any fact which connects that the accused

No.1 to 3 with the offences punishable under section 498-A of the Indian

Penal Code and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. On carefull observation of the entire evidence of Pws-1 and 2 there is no incriminating evidence agaisnt the accused No.1 to 3 to establish the prosecution’s

CC.No.94/2018 5 Dtd. 05-03-2020

allegations for the offences punishable under section 498-A of the Indian

Penal Code and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Ther material witness i.e., Pws 1 and 2 did not state anything to inspire the confidence of the Court to convict the accused No. 1 to 3. The cardinal principle in the criminal justice system is that guilt of the accused must be proved by the prosecution beyond all the reasonable doubts. Hence, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove its case by adducing relevant evidence.

11.In the result, this Court found the accused No.1 to 3 not guilty for the offences punishable under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and accordingly they are acquitted under section 248(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Bail bonds of the accused No.1 to 3 shall stands canceled after expiry of six months. No property deposited in this case, hence, no order is passed regarding disposal of the case property.

Typed to my dictation directly by the Stenographer,

corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 05 th day

of March, 2020.

FAC Spl. JMFC,( Mobile) under PCR Act- Cum-III Addl. JCJ, Nizamabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.

WITNESSES EXAMINED.

For Prosecution: For Accused:

PW1 : Smt. Amena Nishath,- Nil –

PW2: Smt. Imthyazbegam

DOCUMENTS MARKED.

For Prosecution: For Accused:

Ex.P1 is Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-1, -None-

Ex.P2 is Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-2,

M.Os marked.

-Nil-

CC.No.94/2018 6 Dtd. 05-03-2020

Spl. JMFC,( Mobile) under PCR Act- Cum-III Addl. JCJ, Nizamabad

IN THE COURT OF SPL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:

(MOBILE) UNDER PCR ACT-CUM-III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT NIZAMABAD.

CC No. 94 of 2018

in

CC No. 67 of 2017

1Name of Complainant::The State through Sub Inspector of Police, Women Police Station, Nizamabad.

2Names of Accused::1.Jalal Khan @ Rahmathkhan S/o. Peerkhan, Age: 22 years, Caste: Muslim, Occ: Labour, R/o. H.No. 08-04-370, Chopala Water Tank, Siddinathpuri, Takiya road, of Nanded Town.

2.SmtKhamarBegam@ KhamarunnisabegamW/o. Peerkhan, Age: 50 years, Caste: Muslim, Occ: Labour, R/o. H.No. 08-04-370, Chopala Water Tank, Siddinathpuri, Takiya road of Nanded Town.

3.Peerkhan,S/o.Late Bisimillakhan, Age: 60 years, Caste: Muslim, Occ: Labour, R/o. H.no. 08-04-370, Chopala Water Tank, Siddinathpuri, Takiya road of Nanded Town.

3Nature of Offence::Under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act 4Finding:: Not guilty 5Sentence ::Acquitted 6Date of Occurrence of offence::15-01-2016 7Date of Complaint::26-02-2016 8Date of Surrender/Apprehension ::01-03-2016 the accused 9Date of released on bail::Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. notice 10Date of Commencement of trail::29-04-2019 11Date of Closure of trial::07-02-2020 12Date of Sentence or Order::05-03-2020 13Explanation of delay::___

FAC Spl. JMFC,( Mobile) under PCR Act- Cum-III Addl. JCJ, Nizamabad

To The Hon’ble I-Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad

CC.No.94/2018 7 Dtd. 05-03-2020

CC.No. 197/2014 1 of 6 Date: 12-12-2019

IN THE COURT OF SPL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:

(MOBILE) UNDER PCR ACT-CUM-III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT NIZAMABAD.

Present:-Smt. P. Uma Maheshwari, II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad. FAC Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, for trial of (Proh.&Excise) ofeeces Cum IV Addl. Jueior Civil Judge, Nizamabad.

Dated this the 12 th day of December, 2019

C.C.No. 197 of 2014

Between: The State of Telaegaea through Sub Iespector of police, Police Statioe, Towe-IV, Nizamabad.

… Complainant

And

1.Akulawar Rajeeder @ Paekar Rajeeder @ Raju S/o. Mueeaji, Aged 28 years, Caste: M/Kapu, Occ: Amber Masala salesmae, R/o. Koedalwadi of Naeded District, M.H. State, eow preseet at Haemaegadh/Thajeagar of Naeded.

2.Bharath Kumar Sharma @ Rahul S/o. Shiva Kumar Sharma, Aged 22 years, Caste: Brahmie, Occ: Labour, R/o. Krisheaeagar eear Crackers factory, Waraegal.

3.Lakhae Kumar Sharma @ Lakhae, S/o. Gaeesh Kumar Sharma, Aged 45 years, Caste: Brahmie, Occ: Labour, R/o. Krisheaeagar eear Crackers factory, Waraegal.

...Accused No.1

(The case against the accused No.2 and 3 are split up vide CC. No.

1083/2019)

This case is comieg before me oe this the 10th day of December, 2019 for fieal hearieg ie the preseece of Assistaet Public Prosecutor for the State aed legal couesel appoieted oe behalf of the accused havieg stood over for coesideratioe till this day, this court delivered the followieg:

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

1.The Circle Iespector of Police, Nizamabad towe, filed charge sheet agaiest accused Nos.1 to 3 for the ofeeces pueishable ueder sectioes 457, 380 aed 411 read with 75 of the Iediae Peeal Code allegieg that based oe the complaiet received from the complaieaet/Sri. Gollapally

Maruthi Goud oe 25-09-2012 at about 01-45 p.m, a case ie

Cr.No.165/2012 is registered ueder sectioes 457, 380 or 411 of the

Iediae Peeal Code aed ievestigated ieto. After completioe of

CC.No. 197/2014 2 of 6 Date: 12-12-2019

ievestigatioe, which established the commissioe of the said ofeeces by accused, charge sheeted them accordiegly.

2.The case of the prosecutioe is that oe 24-09-2012 at 7-00 p.m, the complaieaet Gollapally Maruthi Goud, aloeg with his wife Gollapally

Padma, weet to Pragathi hospital for treatmeet duly lockieg their house situated at Vieayakeagar, Nizamabad. Aroued 8-45 p.m., his street dweller by eame Muthyala Raju ieformed the complaieaet oe phoee that the maie doors of his house are opeeed. Immediately, the complaieaet weet to his house aed foued the lock of the maie door brokee, some uekowe ofeeder gaieed eetry ieto the house by breakieg opee the maie door lock, opeeed the almirah kept ie the bed room aed committed theft of 1) Gold Loeg Chaie with ear tops sevee tulas, 2) Gold eecklace about 4 tulas, 3) Gold Kaekaealu three tulas, 4) Gold Nallapusala thadu weighieg about four tulas, 5) Gold jugili peru, 6) Four gold riegs, 7) Gold chaie, 8) Baby ear tops, 9) Gold bracelet, 10) Cellphoee aed some eet cash. It is also stated that the ofeeders gaieed eetry ieto the house of his eeighbourers eamely Guruvaiah aed Prem Siegh aed attempted to commit theft ie their houses.

3.Durieg the course of ievestigatioe oe 23-10-2012 the Circle

Iespector of police, Nizamabad, towe Circle, appreheeded the accused

No.1 to 3 at Kumargally, Nizamabad, aed oe ieterrogatioe, accused No.1 to 3 coefessed to have committed this ofeece. Oee gold Kaekaeam, three gold riegs, oee Radha Krishea locket of the Jugiei Peru, which fell to the share of the accused No.1 are disposed of by accused No.1.

Accused No.2 coefessed that out of his share he pledged oee gold loeg chaie with Brichaed Merchaet Raisoei Multi State Co Operative Society

Limited, Baek aed took loae amouet through LW-5/Rupesh Raghueath

Mueke aed kept the gold black beads chaie with accused No.3, Accused

No.1 aed 2 also coefessed that they did eot commit theft of aeother gold

CC.No. 197/2014 3 of 6 Date: 12-12-2019

Kaekaeam, aeother gold rieg, geets gold chaie, three pairs of gold ear tops aed oee gold bracelet as alleged ie the complaiet.

4.Pursuaet to the coefessioe of the accused No.1 two pure gold pieces weighieg about 20 grams are seized from the house of

LW-5/Rupesh Raghueath Mueke, situated at Koedalwadi towe of Naeded

District, M.H. State. LW-5/Rupesh Raghueath Mueke lead the accused, paechas aed police to Merchaet Raisoei Multi Co Operative Society

Limited, Baek of Dharmabad of M.H. State. There the statemeet of LW- 6/Powar Saetosh Govied, Maeager of Baichaed Merchaet Raisoei Multi

State Co Operative Society Limited, Baek at Dharmabad of Maharastra

State is recorded aed oee gold loeg chaie weighieg about 52 grams is seized from the LW-6 at the iestaece of LW-5/Rupesh Raghueath Mueke aed accused No.2. The charge sheet further reveals that accused No.1 aed accused No.3 are habitual ofeeders aed previously ievolved ie several theft cases of various police statioes of Nizamabad District aed

Hyderabad aed Cyberabad commissioeerates aed coevicted aed after release from the jail they agaie decided to commit theft aed accordieg to their plae they committed the preseet ofeece. After completioe of ievestigatioe, charge sheet is filed.

5.Oe the streegth of such charge sheet, the I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of first class, Nizamabad, has takee cogeizaece for the ofeeces pueishable ueder sectioes 457 aed 380 or 411 of the Iediae Peeal Code.

Thereafter, this case is traesferred to this Court as per the order of the

Hoe’ble Prl. District & Sessioes Judge, Nizamabad, vide Dis. No. 42,

Dtd.09-01-2014 to dispose of the case as per law. As per the police report the case agaiest the accused No.2 aed 3 is split up. Oe appearaece of the accused No.1, he is examieed ueder sectioe 239 of the Crimieal Procedure Code aed charges framed for the ofeeces pueishable ueder sectioes 457, 380 aed 411 of the Iediae Peeal Code

CC.No. 197/2014 4 of 6 Date: 12-12-2019

duly complyieg sectioe 207 of the Crimieal Procedure Code. The accused No.1 pleaded eot guilty aed claimed to be tried.

6.Ie support of its case the prosecutioe examieed Pws1 to 5 aed got marked Ex.P1 to P9. After closure of the prosecutioe evideece, the accused is examieed ueder sectioe 313 of the Crimieal Procedure Code for which he pleaded ieeoceece aed reported eo defeece evideece.

7.PW1 is the Complaieaet, PW-2 aed 3 are the paech witeesses for sceee of ofeece paechaeama, PW-4 is the witeess, PW-5 is the

Ievestigatioe ofcer.

8.Heard both sides.

9.The poiet for coesideratioe is:

Whether the accused No.1, along with the accused No.2

and 3, committed theft in the house of the PW-1 by

breaking open the door lock?

Point:

10.PW-1 deposed before this Court about the theft ie his house oe 24- 09-2012 aroued 8-30 p.m, by breakieg opee the door lock. He also stated that gold loeg chaie weighieg 6 ½ tulas, black beads chaie, three tulas of gold eecklace, four pairs of ear tops, aed four riegs weighieg four tulas, gold bracelet weighieg three tulas, oee gold juguei peru weighieg 1 ½ tula were committed theft aed the same were received by him from the Court.

11.Pws 2 aed 3, the paech witeesses for the sceee of ofeece paechaeama, spoke about coeductieg of the sceee of ofeece paechaeama at the house of PW-1 with regard to the theft.

12.PW-4 aeother victim, spoke about the theft ie his house situated at

Vieayakeagar, Nizamabad, five or six years ago whee he weet to

Maidukoor. He also stated that 2 to 2 ½ gold black beads chaie aed oee

CC.No. 197/2014 5 of 6 Date: 12-12-2019

gold pusthe aed eet cash of Rs. 4,000/- to Rs. 5,000/- are commit theft, but the same are eot recovered by the police.

13.PW-5, the Ievestigatieg ofcer spoke about the ievestigatioe doee by him, after receivieg the F.I.R, ie crime No. 165 of 2014 from LW-11/U.

Chaedra Shekar.

14.A perusal of the evideece adduced by the prosecutioe reveals that the prosecutioe could establish that the thefts took place ie the houses of Pws 1 aed 2 by breakieg opee the doors of their houses. Comieg to the ievolvemeet of the accused No.1 ie committieg the said thefts, prosecutioe failed to prove the same ie asmuchas except the evideece of Ievestigatioe ofcer eo evideece is let ie by the prosecutioe to show that the stolee property is recovered from the possessioe of the accused

No.1. The poiet is aeswered accordiegly.

15.From the above evideece, the prosecutioe failed to prove its case agaiest the accused for both the ofeeces pueishable ueder sectioes 457, 380 aed 411 of the Iediae Peeal Code. Heece, the accused No.1 is eetitled for acquittal.

16.Ie the result, the accused No.1 is foued eot guilty of the charges leveled agaiest him for the ofeeces pueishable ueder sectioes 457, 380 aed 411 of the Iediae Peeal Code aed he is acquitted of the said ofeeces ueder sectioe 248(1) Crimieal Procedure Code. Accused No.1 is directed tobe set at liberty forthwith if he is eot required ie aey other case. No property order is passed siece the split up case agaiest accused No.2 aed 3 is peedieg.

(Dictated to Steeographer, traescribed by her, corrected aed proeoueced by me ie the opee court oe this the 12th day of December, 2019).

FAC Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, (Mobile) under PCR Act cum III Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad.

CC.No. 197/2014 6 of 6 Date: 12-12-2019

::Appendix of Evidence::

Witnesses Examined

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Pw1: Sri. Gollapally Maruthi Goud-None- Pw2: Sri Koyyada Srihari Goud Pw3: Sri Abbula Swamy Goud Pw4: Sri Vaddemaei Guruvaiah Pw5: Sri N. Saidulu

::Exhibits Marked::

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

Ex.P1: Police report.-NIL- Ex.P2: Sceee of ofeece paechaeama aloeg with rough sketch of the sceee. Ex.P3: Crime details form. Ex.P4: First ieformatioe report. Ex.P5: Coefessioe aed recovery paechaeama of accused No.1. Ex.P6: Coefessioe aed recovery paechaeama of accused No.2. Ex.P7: Coefessioe aed recovery paechaeama of accused No.3. Ex.P8: Seizure report of LW-5/Rupesh Raghueath Mueke. Ex.P9: Seizure report of LW-6/Powar Saetosh Govied :Material Objects.Marked:

-NIL-

FAC Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, (Mobile) under PCR Act cum III Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS FOR

TRIAL OF (PROHIBITION & EXCISE) OFFENCES, -CUM IV ADDL. JUNIOR

CIVIL JUDGE, NIZAMABAD.

Present:- Smt.Peddi Chandana, Spl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, for trial of (Proh.&Excise) offences, -Cum – IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad.

Dated this the 16 th day of April, 2021

C.C.No.66 of 2017.

(OLD C.C.NO. 497/2014)

Between:

The State through Inspector of police, I Town Police Station, Nizamabad.

… Complainant

// And //

A1: Kammari Veeraiah, S/o Bhramaiah, age: 35 years, Caste: Kammari, Occ: Carpenter work, R/o. H.No.6-10-98, Hamalwadi, Nizamabad. A2: Ramesh Bau, S/o Kistaiah, age: 41 years, Occ: CPM Dist. Secretary member, R/o. H.No.6-9-62, Namdevwada, Nizamabad. A3: Dandi Venkati, S/o Mallaiah, age: 45 years, Caste: BC-A, Occ: CPM Dist. City Secretary R/o. H.No.6-15-401, Sanjeevaiah Colony, Nizamabad.

..Accused No. 1 to 3

This case is coming before me on 16-04-2021 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri Asha Narayana, counsel for the Accused No.1 to 3, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, upon hearing both sides, on perusal of the record, the Court delivered the following:

:: JUDGMENT ::

1. The Inspector of police, I- Town Police Station, Nizamabad has filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 3 for the offences punishable

U/sections. 147, 148 353 read with Section. 149 of Indian Penal Code and

Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act in Crime No.

268/12 of I- Town Police Station, Nizamabad.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 1-12-2012 at 11-45 am

PW-1 lodged report before the Station House officer of I-Town police station,

Nizamabad stating that on the instructions of MTO he along with force proceeded in Icher Van Bearing No. AP-9-P3554 for bundobust duty and found

CPM party and their associate organizations i.e. CITU, SFI leaders with followers with regard to public issues trying to attempt on collectrate, on that duty police officers and staff while trying to stop them while entering into collectrate office, the agitators pushed them away and felted stones on them and in the incident

PW2 and PW3 sustained bleeding injuires. Immediately the police staff boarded the agitators into van and said CPM party persons attacked with stones due to which PW1 sustained injuries and van front mirror, two side mirrors damaged.

Hence PW1 requested for legal action.

3. Basing on the report of PW-1 this case was registered, examined PW-1 and recorded his statement and visited the scene and secured the presence of two mediators, conducted the scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch of the scene and secured the presence of other witnesses examined them and recorded their statements. PW6 issued notice under section 41(A)(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code to the accused No.1 to accused No. 3 and after completion of investigation, PW6 filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 3 .

4.. The Learned I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad took cog- nizance for the offences punishable under sections 147,148,353 read with Sec- tion 149 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to

Public Property Act against the accused No.1 to 3 and ordered summons to them.

5. After appearance of the accused No.1 to 3, copies of case documents fur- nished to them as contemplated under section 207 Criminal Procedure Code.

The accused No.1 to 3 were examined under Section 239 of Criminal Procedure code. Charges for the offences punishable under sections 147,148,353 read with

Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act framed, read over and explained to them, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Afterwards this case was trans- ferred to this Court as per the order of the Hon’ble Prl. Dist.&Sessions Judge,

Nizamabad, vide Dis. No. 3602, Dtd. 10-07-2017 to dispose the case as per law.

6.. On behalf of the prosecution, it examined PWs.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P- 1 to P-4. After prosecution reported its evidence as closed, the accused No.1 to 3 were examined under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, by explaining and reading over the incriminating evidence that appeared against them in the prosecution evidence. They denied the prosecution evidence as being false and reported no defence evidence.

7. Heard both sides and perused the record.

8. The point that arises for consideration is :-

Whether the accused No.1 to 3 committed the offences punishable under sections 147,148,353 read with Sections 149 of the Indian

Penal Code and section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public

Property Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

9. POINT: PW1 is the defacto complainant/Police constable No. 340 and as well as van driver, PW2/Sub Inspector of police and PW3/police constable are the eye witnesses/ injured persons, PW4 is one of the panch witnesses for scene of offence panchanama, PW5 is the doctor who treated the injured persons and PW6 is the Investigation officer. The prosecution has given up the evidences of LW5/bandi Srikanth/Police constable, LW6/ Annagoudala Vishnu Goud/Police constable, LW7/Arman

Mohammed, LW8/Salman Khan, LW11/Dr.Sravan Kumar/who treated the

PW1 and LW14/N.Yadaiah/Sub Inspector of police as Pws 1 to PW6 supported the case.

10. Coming to the appreciation of evidence on record unlawful assembly is a sine qua non to constitute an offence under section 146 read with Section 147 IPC. To establish unlawful assembly there must be five or more persons. But in this case there are only Accused No.1 to

Accused No. 3 were allegedly said to have involved in this case. When the unlawful assembly is not established, there would be no question of proving section 146 which defines roiting. In the absence of proof of unlawful assembly the offence under section 148 and 149 of IPC also not proved in this case.

11. To prove section 353 IPC against accused No. 1 to Accused No. 3 the prosecution must prove that the accused assaulted or used criminal force against a public servant. In this case it was alleged that accused persons beat the Injured persons with stones. But the alleged stones/weapons were not recovered by Investigating agency.

12. To prove the offence under section 3 of Prevention of Damage to

Public property Act., It is alleged by the prosecution that the accused persons along with some others pelted stones on the van of the police, due to which the van front mirror, two side mirrors were damaged. But to prove the same prosecution or investigation agency could not adduce any satisfactory evidence, could not produce the photographs or video graphs of the damaged van and scene of offence. PW1 in his evidence could not depose the material contents of his report to the police/Ex.P1. PW1 could not even spoke that accused No.1 to 3 attacked them with stones.

13. PW2 also did not depose that Accused No.1 to 3 thrown stones on them. PW1, PW2 merely identified accused persons in the court-hall. PW3 also deposed the same version as PW2. PW2 and PW3 deposed that they received injuries. But to prove the injuries the prosecution could not produce medical evidence on record.

14. PW4 deposed that police conducted scene of offence panchanama at

Collectorate, Nizamabad. PW5 deposed that she examined PW2 and PW3 and issued certificates as simple injuries, LW11/Dr.Shravan Kumar treated

PW1 and issued injury certificate/Ex.P3 as simple injury. During the cross examination PW5 deposed that there was no date and identification marks in Ex.P3.

15. PW6/ Investigation officer merely deposed that he registered this case, examined witnesses, conducted scene of offence panchanama and about the Investigation carried out by second Investigation officer. During cross examination PW6 deposed that he did not find broken glass pieces of the police van at the scene of offence. As discussed above already, the prosecution failed to adduce reliable, cogent and convincing evidence in this case. Therefore, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused No.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 353 read with section. 149 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. Therefore, the benefit of doubt should go in favour of the accused No.1 to Accused No. 3.

16. IN THE RESULT, this Court found the accused No.1 to 3 not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 353 read with section.

149 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act and they are acquitted under section 248 (1) of the

Criminal Procedure Code. No property deposited before this Court in this case, hence, no order passed regarding disposal of the case property. No sureties furnished in this case, hence no order passed regarding sureties.

( Typed to my Dictation directly by the Typist, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 16 th day of April, 2021).

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, For trial of (Proh.&Excise) offences, Cum IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad.

::Appendix of Evidence::

( Witnesses Examined on behalf of)

FOR PROSECUTION: ACCUSED : PW1: Sri. S. Manas Reddy./AR Police constable. -None- PW2: Sri. Thalali Khan/Sub-Inspector of police. PW3: Sri. Mohd.Ashraf/Home Guard-236. PW4: Sri. Shaik Dasthagiri/Panch witness PW5: Sri. Dr.T.Shailaja/who treated injured persons PW6: Sri A/Srinivas//Investigating officer.

::Exhibits Marked::

FOR PROSECUTION ACCUSED

Ex.P1: Police report. -NIL- Ex.P2: Crime details form. Ex.P3: Injury certificate of PW1. Ex.P4: First information report.

:Material Objects Marked:

FOR PROSECUTION ACCUSED

-NIL-

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, For trial of (Proh.&Excise) offences Cum IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad.

CC.No. 1608/2018 1 of 7 Date: 17-12-2019

IN THE COURT OF SPL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:

(MOBILE) UNDER PCR ACT-CUM-III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT NIZAMABAD.

Present:-Smt. P. Uma Maheshwari, II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad. FAC Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, for trial of (Proh.&Excise) ofeeces Cum IV Addl. Jueior Civil Judge, Nizamabad.

Dated this the 17 th day of December, 2019

C.C.No. 1608 of 2018

Between:

The State of Telaegaea through Sub Iespector of police, Police Statioe, Towe-IV, Nizamabad.

… Complainant

And

Rajeedra Mueeaji Aakulwar S/o. Mueeaji, Age: 36 years, Caste: Mueeurukapu, Occ: Cloth Veedor, R/o. C/o. Gaepatsiegh Thakur, Haeumaegadh Road, Taj Nagar, Taroda Bk. Naeded District of Maharashtra State.

...Accused

This case is comieg before me oe this the 13th day of December, 2019 for fieal hearieg ie the preseece of Assistaet Public Prosecutor for the State aed legal couesel appoieted oe behalf of the accused havieg stood over for coesideratioe till this day, this court delivered the followieg:

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

1.The Sub Iespector of Police, IV Towe, police statioe, Nizamabad, filed charge sheet agaiest the accused for the ofeece pueishable ueder sectioe 379 read with 511 of the Iediae Peeal Code allegieg that based oe the complaiet received from the complaieaet/Sri. Akueuri Sampath

Kumar oe 03-07-2018 at about 08-00 a.m, a case ie Cr.No.155/2018 is registered ueder sectioe 379 read with 511 of the Iediae Peeal Code aed ievestigated ieto. After completioe of ievestigatioe, which established the commissioe of the said ofeece by the accused, charge sheeted him accordiegly.

CC.No. 1608/2018 2 of 7 Date: 17-12-2019

2.The case of the prosecutioe is that oe 03-07-2018 at about 07-00 hours, the security mee of Reliaece shoppieg mall, Vieayakeagar,

Nizamabad, foued a mae movieg ie suspicioe maeeer aed tryieg to opee the lock of the motorcycle forcibly aed they ieformed the complaieaet A.

Sampathkumar, maeager of Reliaece Shoppieg mall about the same.

Oe eequiry, the said persoe, who was caught by the security mee, revealed his eame as Akulwar Rajeedhar R/o. Maharashtra State.

Heece, he was haeded over to the police for eecessary actioe. Durieg the course of ievestigatioe, the Sub Iespector of police, towe-IV,

Nizamabad, recorded the coefessioeal paechaeama of the accused aed recovered tee(10) false keys from the accused ueder cover of the paechaeama aed after completioe of ievestigatioe, the charge sheet is filed.

3.Oe the streegth of such charge sheet, the I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of first class, Nizamabad, has takee cogeizaece for the ofeece pueishable ueder sectioe 379 read with 511 of the Iediae Peeal Code.

Thereafter, this case is traesferred to this Court as per the order of the

Hoe’ble Prl. District & Sessioes Judge, Nizamabad, vide Dis. No. 762,

Dtd.13-02-2019 to dispose of the case as per law. Oe appearaece of the accused before the Court, he is examieed ueder sectioe 239 of the

Crimieal Procedure Code aed charge framed for the ofeece pueishable ueder sectioe 379 read with 511 of the Iediae Peeal Code duly complyieg sectioe 207 Cr.P.C. The accused pleaded eot guilty aed claimed to be tried.

4.Ie support of its case the prosecutioe examieed Pws1 to 6 aed got marked Ex.P1 to P4. After closure of the prosecutioe evideece, the accused is examieed ueder sectioe 313 of the Crimieal Procedure Code for which he pleaded ieeoceece aed reported eo defeece evideece.

5.PW1 is the Complaieaet, PW-2 is ae eye witeess, PW-3 is the

CC.No. 1608/2018 3 of 7 Date: 17-12-2019

paech witeess for sceee of ofeece paechaeama, PW-4 is the paech witeess for coefessioe aed recovery paechaeama, Pws 5 aed 6 are the

Ievestigatioe ofcers.

6.Heard both sides.

7.The poiet for coesideratioe is:

Whether the accused attempted to commit theft of a motor

cycle from the parking area of Reliance shopping mall,

Vinayak nagar on 03-07-2018 ?

Point:

8.The leareed Assistaet Public Prosecutor coeteeded that the evideece of the both the eye witeesses is sufcieet to coevict the accused persoes. The defeece couesel submitted that the matter may be decided oe merits.

9.PW-1 deposed before this Court that oe 03-07-2018 while he was workieg as security iecharge of Reliaece Shoppieg mall, Nizamabad, at 7-00 a.m, PW-2 the security guard aed LW-2/Aekam Mahesh aeother security guard came to him aed ieformed that oee persoe was tryieg to opee the lock of the motor cycle ie the parkieg area, heece, he observed the C.C. T.V camera footage aed foued the same. Immediately, he weet to the parkieg area aed foued the said persoe aed caught hold him, ieformed to the police. Later he aloeg with the staf took the said persoe aed haeded over to the police aed also lodged complaiet. He ideetified the accused as the persoe who tried to commit theft of the motor cycle. Oe cross examieatioe, he stated that the C.C. T.V Camera footages are submitted by him to the police through his mobile phoee.

However, the same is eot meetioeed ie Ex.P-1/complaiet.

10.PW-2 Security guard, also spoke about the accused tryieg to opee the lock of the motor cycle ie the parkieg area aed haedieg over the

CC.No. 1608/2018 4 of 7 Date: 17-12-2019

accused to the police. Oe cross examieatioe he stated that he ieformed

PW-1 about the iecideet oe phoee aed he do eot have idea about the eumber of the motor cycle. The other suggestioes are deeied by him.

11.PW-3, paech witeess for sceee of ofeece spoke about the same statieg that Ex.P-2 is the sceee of ofeece paechaeama drafted at

Reliaece shoppieg mall, Nizamabad.

12.PW-4 paech witeess for coefessioeal cum recovery paechaeama did eot support the prosecutioe case.

13.PW-5 aed 6 spoke about the ievestigatioe doee by them. PW-5 stated that he deposited 10 motor cycle keys before the Court vide

C.P.R No. 119 of 2018.

14.A perusal of the above evideece reveals that PW-1 had seee the accused while he was attemptieg to opee the lock of a motor cycle ie the parkieg area through CC T.V camera aed thee weet to the parkieg area aed caught hold the accused. PW-2 is the security guard who directly observed the accused while attemptieg to commit theft aed he did eot meetioeed the eumber of the bike which is attempted tobe committed theft by the accused much less make of the bike. Accordieg to PW-1 he submitted the CC T.V. Footage to the police through his mobile phoee, but, accordieg to PW-6 he did eot evee see whether there are C.C Cameras at Reliaece shoppieg mall aed his evideece is sileet about the fureishieg of C.C. T.V footage by PW-1. Comieg to the evideece of PW-3, he stated that police coeducted sceee of ofeece paechaeama at Reliaece shoppieg mall but his evideece does eot disclose that the paechaeama is coeducted at the parkieg area of the

Reliaece shoppieg mall. Accordieg to PW-5, he deposited tee motor cycle keys before the Court vide C.P.R. No. 119/2018 but the prosecutioe did eot choose to get them exhibited.

CC.No. 1608/2018 5 of 7 Date: 17-12-2019

15.Accordieg to PW-5 he has takee charge of the case from PW-6 who has deposited the motor cycle keys ie the Court but the evideece of PW- 6 is completely sileece about the same. Ie the circumstaeces, mere ideetificatioe of the accused by Pws 1 aed 2 by statieg that they foued the accused tryieg to opeeieg the lock of the motor cycle is eot of aey help to the prosecutioe case ieasmuch as both of them did eot speak about either the eumber of the bike or at least the make of the bike.

Further, accordieg to PW-1, PW-2 aed the other security guard came to him persoeally aed ieformed him about the iecideet upoe which he observed the C.C. T.V footage. But, PW-2 stated that he ieformed PW-1 through phoee. It is eot evee tried to be elicited by the prosecutioe as to whom the alleged bike beloegs as the alleged iecideet took place aroued 7-00 a.m,.ie the parkieg area of Reliaece shoppieg mall. Ie these circumstaeces, this Court holds that the prosecutioe failed to prove its case for the ofeece pueishable ueder sectioe 379 read with 511 of the Iediae Peeal Code beyoed reasoeable doubt. Heece, the accused is eetitled for acquittal.

16.Ie the result, the accused is foued eot guilty for the ofeece pueishable ueder sectioe 379 read with 511 of the Iediae Peeal Code aed he is acquitted of the said ofeece ueder sectioe 248(1) Crimieal

Procedure Code. The accused is directed to be set at liberty forthwith if he is eot required ie aey other case.

17.The uemarked case property vide C.P.R. No. 119/2018 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

(Dictated to Steeographer, traescribed by her, corrected aed proeoueced by me ie the opee court oe this the 17th day of December, 2019).

FAC Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, (Mobile) under PCR Act cum III Addl. Junior Civil Judge,

CC.No. 1608/2018 6 of 7 Date: 17-12-2019

Nizamabad.

CC.No. 1608/2018 7 of 7 Date: 17-12-2019

::Appendix of Evidence:: Witnesses Examined

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Pw1: Sri. Akueuri Sampath Kumar-None- Pw2: Sri Kursam Praveee Pw3: Sri Kruthiveeti Tarakarama Pw4: Sri Bhukya Rajeeder Pw5: Sri Y. Ashok Reddy Pw6: Sri G. Narayaea

::Exhibits Marked::

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

Ex.P1: Policer report.-NIL- Ex.P2: Sceee of ofeece paechaeama aloeg with rough sketch of the sceee. Ex.P3: Sigeature of PW-4 oe Coefessioeal cum recovery paechaeama. Ex.P4: First ieformatioe report. :Material Objects.Marked:

-NIL-

FAC Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, (Mobile) under PCR Act cum III Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad.