Sri. Prateek Sihag

Fair 1 of 12 CC No. 816 of 2014

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS, JAGTIAL .

Present : Sri Prateek Sihag.

IInd ADDL. JMFC, JAGTIAL

Friday, this the 19 th day of November, 2021.

C.C.No.816/2014

(OLD CC No. 170/2013)

Between: State: Sub- Inspector of Police Sarangapur Police Station.

...Complainant

AND

Komuroju Ramchandram S/o Narayana, Age:50 Years Carpenter, R/o Konapur Village of Sarangapur Mandal, Jagtial

...Accused

This case coming before me on 17-11-2021 for final hearing before me in presence of the learned Sr. Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant/State and of Sh. K. Haridas, Advocate for the Accused; upon hearing the arguments of both the counsel and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The brief facts of the case are that it is the case of the complainant by name Komuroju Anandamma w/o Rajaiah (PW1) that her two sons

Komuroju Madhusudhan and Bramhmachary went to Dubai for livelihood and the land on their name to an extent of 1A,20Guntas was given on lease to A. Venkati (PW2). That On night of 15.12.2012 at about 7:00 pm, PW1’s brother-in-law by name Komuroju

Ramachandram, Accused herein, criminally trespassed into her land and damaged 15 Guntas paddy worth Rs.10,000/- and criminally intimidated to kill her. This was witnessed by her neighbouring land owners by name P. Janardhan (PW3) and B. Srinu (PW4). Hence she

Fair 2 of 12 CC No. 816 of 2014 requested for necessary action.

2. Basing on the report , SI of Mallial PS (PW6) registered a case in Cr.

No. 140/2012 u/s 447, 427 and 506 IPC and took up the investigation.

During the course of investigation, SI of Police, Mallial recorded the statement of PW1 Komuroju Anandamma. Later SI of Police PW6, visited scene of offence and examined and recorded statements of

PW2 to PW4 and secured presence of two mediators i.e. PW5 and LW6 and prepared Crime Detail Form. Later PW6 arrested the Accused and produced him before the Hon’ble Court for judicial remand. After completion of investigation, SI of police (PW6) filed charge sheet against the Accused for the offences punishable under Section 447, 427 and 506 IPC.

3. This Court took cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427 and 506 IPC against the Accused. This case was numbered as CC 170/2013 and later this Case was transferred to this Court and renumbered as CC. No. 816/2014

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents relating to the case were furnished to him, as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

The accused was examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. and Charge was framed for the offences U/Sec. 447, 427and 506 IPC against the

Accused. When the charge was read over and explained to Accused in

Telugu, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case proceeded for trial.

5. In order to establish the guilt of the Accused, the prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 6 and exhibits P1 to P5 were marked. PW1 is the

Complainant, PW2 is lease holder of land of Complainant and PW3 and PW4 are neighbouring land owners and eye witnesses PW5 is panch witness for Crime Detail Form, PW6 is the Investigating Officer.

Fair 3 of 12 CC No. 816 of 2014

6. Counsel for Accused reported no defence evidence.

7. Heard the learned Senior APP for the State and the learned defence counsel for the accused. The Ld. Sr. APP argued that althought PW4 and PW5 turned hostile but other witnesses i.e. PW1 to 3 and PW6, all the witnesses are trustworthy and reliable and that the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the Accused beyond reasonable doubt and he is liable to be convicted for offences under Section 447, 427 and 506

IPC. Per contra, the Ld. Counsel for defence argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case as there are several anomalies in the evidence of the witnesses. Further argued that PW2 and

Accused were having previous dispute and he cannot be relied upon.

Further that PW3 has also filed previous complaint against the

Accused hence unreliable and that PW4 and 5 have turned hostile and that no proper investigation was conducted in this case. The Ld.

Counself for defence has pointed out various other anomalies in the testimonies which will be discussed later on.

8. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under

Sections 447, 427, and 506 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubts??

POINT:

9. This is a case in which the PW1 states that around 7 or 8 years back when PW2, who is lease holder of PW1’s Land, raised the paddy crop in his land, the Accused criminally tresspassed and damaged the paddy crops to the extent of 15 Guntas. The same was informed to her by PW3 and PW4. When she reached there and she noticed the damaged crop and later went to Police Station to lodge complaint.

Due to this, loss was caused to an extent of Rs.10,000/-.

10. To prove its case, the prosection has examined 6 witnesses. PW1

Fair 4 of 12 CC No. 816 of 2014 deposed that Accused is son of her brother-in-law and her two sons are residing abroad and they own Ac1 20 Guntas agricultural land and she is looking after the said agricultural land. Further stated that she has leased out the land to PW2 and about 7 or 8 years back and the Accused damaged the paddy crop grown by PW2. PW3 Janardhan and PW4 Srinu, informed the same to her and she went there and noticed the damaged crop and later went to Police Station and lodged

ExP1 which is her complaint. She further stated that due to acts of

Accused, there was a damage to Rs. 10,000/-. In her cross- examination, PW1 admitted that she gave complaint to police but does not know the contents of complaint and that she only put her thumb impression on it. Further that no lease agreement was executed by

PW2 and that she does not know the survery number of the land and no land document was shown to police. She denied having any previous dispute with the Accused but stated that Accused gave a police complaint against her sons. She stated that she does not know whether any photo of damaged crop was taken and that she did not see the Accused damaging the crop and the same was informed to her by her neighbouring land owners PW3 and PW4.

11. PW2 deposed that he is cultivating Land to an extent of 1Ac20Guntas belonging to PW1 on lease basis and about 7 or 8 years back, he raised paddy crop there and when it was ripe for harvesting, the

Accused came to the land and damaged the said paddy crop in half the extent of land and he sustained a loss of Rs.10,000/-. PW3 informed him about incident and later PW1 lodged complaint to the police. In his cross-examination, PW2 stated that no lease agreement was executed between him and PW1. PW2 admitted having many previous disputes between him and Accused with regard to sharing of

Fair 5 of 12 CC No. 816 of 2014 irrigation water. PW2 further admitted that he was not present at the time of incident.

12.PW3 deposed that the incident took in 2012 and he is neighbouring land owner. His land is situated in Sy.No.255 and land of PW1 in

Sy.No. 257 and that PW2 has taken lease of Ac.1-20Guntas land from

PW1 and cultivated the same. Further that on the date of incident, the

Accused set fire to the paddy in extent of 15 or 16 guntas when crop was ripened for harvesting and due to this, PW1 and 2 sustained a loss of Rs.10,000/- and he informed about the incident to PW1 and

PW2 about incident. Later PW1 went to police station and lodged complaint. In his cross-examination, PW3 admitted that he gave complaint against Accused in respect of Ac1-20 guntas land belonging to PW1 and the said case ended in acquittal and that he was also cultivating the land of PW1 on lease basis at that time. He denied speaking false and that he does not know the boundaries of PW1 land. PW3 further stated that he owns 16 Guntas of Land in

Sy.No.255 and his land is first plot after road and land of PW1 is second plot from road. PW3 further stated that one rice mill is situated towards northern side of land of PW1.

13.PW4 stated that he does not know PW1 to 3 and that he does not own any land adjacent to the land of the Accused. Further stated that he was having harvesting machine and around 7 years ago, Accused as well as PW3 engaged his machine to harvest paddy and accordingly it was done. Further stated that he does not know which land belongs to

PW3 or accused and that he does not know any other facts. As the witness turned hostile, Ld. Sr.APP requested the Court to declare witness as hostile and permission for cross-examining the PW4.

Accordingly it was done so and the PW4 in his cross-examination

Fair 6 of 12 CC No. 816 of 2014 stated that it is not true to suggest that he stated before police as in

Ex.P2 and he was deposing false to help the Acccused.

14.PW5 who is panch to CDF stated that Land of Accused and PW1 are sitauted near Yellamma Temple of his village and he is a toddy vendor. Further that about 6 or 7 years back, the police went to him with a map that was prepared by them and obtained his signature and further that he does not know any other particulars of the case and in his presence, no panchanama was conducted. He recognises his signature on CDF as Ex.P3. As the witness turned hostile, Ld. Sr.APP requested the Court to declare witness as hostile and permission for cross-examining the PW5. Accordingly it was done so and the PW5 in his cross-examination stated that it is not true to suggest that on 16.12.2012 the then SI observed scene of offence in his presence and incorporated the details and prepared rought sketch plan and CDF and he attested the same and that he was deposing false to help the

Acccused 15.PW6, who is the investigating officer deposed that he issued FIR which is ExP4 in the case and conducted investigation and during course of Investigation prepared CDF which is Ex.P5. Further that he arrested the Accused and produced before the Court for Judicial

Remand and after completion of investigation filed Chargesheet. In the cross-examination, PW6 admitted that he received complaint i.e.

ExP1 on 16.12.2012 at 15:00 hours and that FIR does not contain reasons for delay and that CDF also mentions the date as 16.12.2012 and time as 15:00 hours. Further admitted that he did not file photographs of scene of offence and that there is no signature in

Column 14 of FIR and that he did not mention survey number of the land in which offence took place and that he did not enquire about

Fair 7 of 12 CC No. 816 of 2014 survey number of land from witnesses. PW6 denied making table made investigation and that due to Civil disputes Accused is implicated in this case.

16.The offences alleged to have been committed by the Accused are under Section 447, 427 and 506 IPC. The various offences alleged to have been committed by the Accused are discussed one by one.

17.Section 506 IPC provides for punishment for Criminal Intimidation and it reads as under:

506. Punishment for criminal intimidation.—Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.—And if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or 1[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute, unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.

18. On perusing the evidence on record, none of witness has deposed that Accused intimidated PW1 or PW2 and that Accused has committed offence punishable under Section 506 IPC. Not even a single word is said by any of the prosecution witness which proves that Accused has criminally intimidated the PW1/PW2 or any death threat was given by the Accused. The prosecution has failed to prove the Charge under Section 506 IPC and thus, it fails.

19. Next offence for which Accused is charged is Section 427 of IPC which provides for “Mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees:- Whoever commits mischief and thereby causes loss or damage to the amount of fifty rupees or upwards, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend

Fair 8 of 12 CC No. 816 of 2014 to two years, or with fine, or with both.” What is ‘mischief’ is defined

Section 425 of IPC which is as under:

“425. Mischief.—Whoever with intent to cause, or knowing that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person, causes the destruction of any property, or any such change in any property or in the situation thereof as destroys or diminishes its value or utility, or affects it injuriously, commits “mischief”nkExplanation 1.—It is not essential to the offence of mischief that the offender should intend to cause loss or damage to the owner of the property injured or destroyed. It is sufficient if he intends to cause, or knows that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to any person by injuring any property, whether it belongs to that person or not. Explanation 2.—Mischief may be committed by an act affecting property belonging to the person who commits the act, or to that person and others jointly

20. Thus, the basic ingredients to establish Mischief as per the definition laid down in section 425 of IPC are as follows:

Intention or the knowledge of the act (mens rea); The act resulting in destruction, damage or change in the property or situation thereof; and (actus rea) The change must lead to diminishing the value or utility.

21. The evidence brought on record in this regard is that PW1 deposed that the Accused trespassed into her land and damaged the paddy crops and caused a loss of Rs. 10,000/-. The PW1 stated that it was informed to her PW3 and PW4. PW2 also stated the same that

Accused damaged the paddy crops which were ready for harvesting and caused a loss of Rs.10,000/- and that it was informed to him by

PW3. PW3 stated that Accused ‘set fire’ to the paddy crops in Extent of 15 or 16 Guntas and caused loss of Rs.10,000/- and that he informed PW1 and PW2 about incident. PW4 turned hostile. PW5 also turned hostile and PW6 who was the investigating officer, in his cross- examination admits that he did not file any photos of the paddy crops

Fair 9 of 12 CC No. 816 of 2014 damaged by the Accused. The evidences brought before the Court are lacking the basic ingredients of Section 425 IPC discussed above.

None of the witness has deposed anything which proves that Accused damaged the paddy crops. PW1 and PW2 are hearsay witnesses as they admitted that they did not see the incident and were informed about damage to paddy crops by PW3 and PW4. PW4 turned hostile and PW3 stated that Accused set fire to the paddy crops. PW1 and

PW2 both failed to state as to what they saw after going to their land.

Both of them vaguely stated that Accused damaged the paddy crops.

The manner of damage or what they observed in damaged crops is not stated. How much paddy crops were damaged is not stated by them although PW3 stated that damage was in extent of 15 to 16 guntas.

CDF mentions the scene of offence but PW5, who was shown as panch witness to CDF turned hostile and the date and time of CDF being same as that of complaint ExP1 casts a doubt on the CDF prepared by

PW6. PW6 states that he did not file any photographs of the damaged crops is also against the case of the prosecution. It has to be held that the Accused cannot be remotely held liable for causing mischief.

Accordingly, the Accused cannot be held liable for offence under

Section 427 IPC as it requires that mischief should take place and due to that mischief there was loss or damage to an amount of fifty rupees or upwards. Vaguely stating that Accused caused a loss of Rs. 10,000/- without substanting with evidences cannot make Accused liable for offence under Section 427 IPC and the charge under Section 427 fails.

22. Another charge against the Accused is Under Sec.447 IPC. Sec.447

IPC provides for punishment for Criminal trespass. What is criminal trespass is defined under Section 441 IPC which reads as follow:-

Whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate,

Fair 10 of 12 CC No. 816 of 2014 insult or annoy any person in possession of such property, or having lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains there with intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person, or with intent to commit an offence, is said to commit “criminal trespass.

23. Thus, the basic ingredients to establish Criminal Trespass as per the definition laid down in section 441 of IPC are as follows:

 There must be unauthorized entry into or upon another's property against the will of the person in the possession  authorized entry lawfully obtained but unlawfully remaining therein;  Such entry or unlawful stay must be with an intention to commit and offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person.

24. On appreciating the evidences brought on record, for Accused to be held liable under Section 447 IPC, it has to be first proved that

Accused gained entry into the property i.e. agricultural land of PW1 and PW2. Admittedly PW1 or PW2 did not see the Accused trespassing into their land as they were informed about the same by

PW3 and PW4. PW4 turned hostile and PW3 stated that Accused trespassed into the land of PW1 and PW2 and set fire to the paddy crops. PW3 is the owner of the neighboring land and cited as eye witness. He is the only witness who deposed that Accused criminally trespassed into the land of PW1. Section 134 of Evidence Act states that no particular number of witnesses is required for proof of any fact and only one witness is enough if his testimony inspires the confidence of the Court but PW3 in his cross-examination admitted that he earlier gave complaint against accused and said case ended in acquittal. He also stated that he used to cultivate land of PW1 on lease basis at some time. These questions makes the testimony of

PW3 unreliable as they casts a doubt upon the truthfulness of the testimony of PW3. These questions tested the veracity of PW3 and the

Fair 11 of 12 CC No. 816 of 2014 testimony of PW3 cannot be relied upon without any corroborating evidences. As such, there are no other evidence which corroborates with the testimony of PW3. PW1 and PW2 are only hearsay witnesses and they cannot be relied upon. PW4 turned hostile and the testimony of PW6 cannot support the case of the prosecution. Hence, the charge under Section 447 IPC has to fail as well.

25. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 427, 447 and 506 of IPC and he is acquitted under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. Accused is set at liberty and his bail bonds shall be in force for a period of 6 months as per

Section 437A of CrPC.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the

Open Court on this the 19th day of November, 2021.

Sd/-,

II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Jagtial.

Fair 12 of 12 CC No. 816 of 2014

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE :

PW1: K. Anandamma-None- PW2: A. Venkati PW3: P. Janardhan PW4: B. Srinivas PW5: T. Janardhan PW6: K. Nageshwar Rao

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE :

Ex.P1: Complaint by PW1- N I L - Ex.P2: 161 Statement by PW4. Ex.P3: Signature of PW5 on CDF. Ex.P4: FIR issued by PW6 Ex.P5: CDF prepared by PW6.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-Nil-

Sd/-,

II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Jagtial.

Fair 1 of 8 CC No. 1127 of 2021

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF FIRST CLASS, JAGTIAL .

Present : Sri Prateek Sihag.

IInd ADDL. JMFC, JAGTIAL

Thursday, 06 th day of January, 2022.

C.C.No.1127/2021

Cr. No. 153/2021 of PS Mallial

Between: State : Circle Inspector of Police, Mallial .

...Complainant

AND

Beenaveni Rajkumar S/o Ellaiah, Age: 31 Years, R/o Gutrajpalli (v) Jagtial Rural(m), Jagtial

...Accused

This case coming before me on 04-01-2022 for final hearing before me in presence of the learned Sr. Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant/State and of Sh. CH. Rama Krishna Rao, Advocate for the Accused; upon hearing the arguments of both the counsel and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant/PW1 went to PS

Mallial and stated that on 25.05.2021 her husband/deceased by name

Singam Rajashekhar left from house for Kodimial in Auto B. No.

TS21T1747 and near the rice mill at outskirts of Nookapalli Village,

Driver of Tractor B. No. TS21J2518 coming from Kondagattu to Jagtial drove his tractor in Rash and Negligent Manner with high speed and dashed to her Husband’s Auto resulting her husband fell down from the auto and received injuries on his back and the said tractor also dashed to another auto B.No. TS21E1282 which was behind her

Husband’s Auto. The said incident was witnessed by her Villager

Md.Masood (PW2) and he informed the same to her brother-in-

Fair 2 of 8 CC No. 1127 of 2021 law(LW2) over phone. Then she along with LW2 rushed to the spot and found her husband with injuries and another auto driver Sd.

Sadiq Hussain (PW4) and his auto passengers PW5, PW6 and PW7 received injuries. Immediately she shifted her husband to Govt.

Hospital, Jagtial and then to Sun Shine Hospital, Karimnagar. On the same day at around 12:18 pm her husband died in Sunshine Hospital,

Karimnagar while undergoing treatment. Hence, she requested for necessary action.

2. Basing on the report , HC 267 of PS Mallial(Lw16) registered a case in

Cr. No. 153/2021 u/s 304A IPC, 337 IPC. During the course of investigation, LW16 informed LW17 over phone and since LW17 was out of Head Quarters, LW16 visited Govt. Hospital where dead body was kept in Mortuary Room and conducted inquest in presence of

LW10 and 11 and got the dead body of deceased photographed through LW6. LW16 recorded the statements of PW1 to 4 and LW2 and LW6, subjected the corpse for PME . Later LW16 visited the scene of offence at outskirts of Nookapalli Village and prepared CDF in presence of LW12 and 13 and sent the crime vehicle to PS Mallial and subjected it for inspection through LW15. Then LW17 took over the

CD file and orally examined PW1 to 4 and LW2 and LW6 and as they reiterated their previous version, he did not re record their statements. Then LW17 recorded statements of PW5, PW6 and PW7.

Accused appeared before LW17 but Accused did not have a Driving

License or Insurance of Crime vehicle. Later LW17 collected PME report who opined cause of death as “shock due to multiple fracture ribs & vital organ failure”. Then LW17 obtained MVI report who opined “no mechanical defects of vehicle”. After completion of investigation, CI of police (LW17) filed charge sheet against the

Fair 3 of 8 CC No. 1127 of 2021

Accused for the offences punishable under Section 304-A, 279 of IPC and Section 3 r/w 181, 196 of MV Act.

3. This Court took cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A, 279 of IPC and Section 3 r/w 181, 196 of MV Act. against the

Accused.

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents relating to the case were furnished to him, as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

The accused was examined under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. for the offences U/Sec. 304-A, 279 of IPC and Section 3 r/w 181, 196 MV Act and when the accusations were read over and explained to him in

Telugu, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to establish the guilt of the Accused, the prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 7 and exhibits P1 to P8 were marked.

6. Counsel for accused reported no defence evidence.

7. Heard the learned Senior APP for the State and the learned defence counsel for the accused.

8. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under section 304-A, 279 of IPC and Section 3 r/w 181, 196 of MV Act beyond all reasonable doubts?

POINT :

9.The police after investigation filed charge sheet citing Seventeen (17) witnesses. While so, in this Court, the prosecution examined Seven(7) witnesses. As all the material witnesses turned hostile, learned Sr.

APP has given up the evidence of LW2, LW6 and LW10 to 17.

10. PW1 deposes that deceased was her husband and about 6 months back at 06 am her husband left the house and when he reached near

Fair 4 of 8 CC No. 1127 of 2021 outskirts of Nukapally Village, he met with an accident and sustained injuries and he was shifted to hospital, Jagtial for treatment and while undergoing treatment he died. Further stated that she came to know about the Accident through LW2 and he was informed by PW2.

Further deposed that while she was in Hospital, police came and took her signature on some papers and that she never gave complaint to the police and that she was not examined by the police and that she does not know as to whose negligence the accident took place and who is responsible for death of her husband. ExP1 is her signature on complaint to police. As the witness turned hostile, the Ld. Sr. App requested the Court to treat the PW1 as hostile witness and accordingly permission was given. During the cross-examination, PW1 again stated that it was false to suggest that she stated before the police as in Ex.P2 which is his 161 statement and that she was deposing false to help the accused as she compromised the matter.

11. PW2 deposes he does not know PW1, LW2 or PW3 and that he does not know the Accused and that he did not witness any accident and he does not know anything about the case and he was not examined by the police. As the witness turned hostile, the Ld. Sr. App requested the Court to treat the PW2 as hostile witness and accordingly permission was given. During the cross-examination, PW2 again stated that it was false to suggest that he stated before the police as in Ex.P3 which is his 161 statement and that he was deposing false to help the accused as he compromised the matter.

12. Pw3 deposes PW1 is his own sister and that deceased was his brother in law and that he knows LW2. Further deposed that at about 6 months ago, PW2 informed him that his brother-in-law has met with an accident and he informed the same to LW2. Then deceased was

Fair 5 of 8 CC No. 1127 of 2021 shifted to Hospital, Jagtial and after that he was shifted to

Karimnagar and while undergoing treatment his brother-in-law died.

Further deposed that he was not examined by the police and that he does not know as to whose negligence the accident took place and who is responsible for death of his brother-in-law. As the witness turned hostile, the Ld. Sr. App requested the Court to treat the PW3 as hostile witness and accordingly permission was given. During the cross-examination, PW3 again stated that it was false to suggest that he stated before the police as in Ex.P4 which is his 161 statement and that he was deposing false to help the accused.

13. Pw4 deposes he does not know PW1 and that he does not know the

Accused and that he did not witness any accident and he does not know anything about the case and he was not examined by the police.

As the witness turned hostile, the Ld. Sr. App requested the Court to treat the PW4 as hostile witness and accordingly permission was given. During the cross-examination, PW4 again stated that it was false to suggest that he stated before the police as in Ex.P5 which is his 161 statement and that he was deposing false to help the accused.

14. PW5 deposes he knows PW4 who is his villager but he does not know the Accused and that he did not witness any accident and he does not know anything about the case and he was not examined by the police.

As the witness turned hostile, the Ld. Sr. App requested the Court to treat the PW5 as hostile witness and accordingly permission was given. During the cross-examination, PW5 again stated that it was false to suggest that he stated before the police as in Ex.P6 which is his 161 statement and that he was deposing false to help the accused.

15. PW6 deposed PW5 is her husband and that she does not know the

Accused and that she did not witness any accident and she does not

Fair 6 of 8 CC No. 1127 of 2021 know anything about the case and she was not examined by the police. As the witness turned hostile, the Ld. Sr. App requested the

Court to treat the PW6 as hostile witness and accordingly permission was given. During the cross-examination, PW6 again stated that it was false to suggest that she stated before the police as in Ex.P7 which is her 161 statement and that she was deposing false to help the accused.

16. PW7 deposed that she knows the PW5 and PW6 but she does not know the Accused and that she did not witness any accident and she does not know anything about the case and she was not examined by the police. As the witness turned hostile, the Ld. Sr. App requested the Court to treat the PW7 as hostile witness and accordingly permission was given. During the cross-examination, PW7 again stated that it was false to suggest that she stated before the police as in Ex.P8 which is her 161 statement and that she was deposing false to help the accused.

17. As the material witnesses turned hostile, learned Sr. APP given up the evidence of LW 2, LW6 and Lw10 to 17.

18. From the evidence on record, it appears that deceased died in an accident, on the other hand there is no evidence on record which proves that Accused was responsible for death of the deceased by doing a rash and negligent act. There exists nothing incriminating in prosecution evidence, hence 313 Cr.P.C. examination of accused was dispensed with. As such, there exists nothing on record to hold

Accused guilty of the offence.

19. Thus, the prosecution failed to prove the accusation that the Accused is guilty of rash or negligent driving of the crime vehicle i.e. Tractor and caused the death of the deceased. Consequently, it must be held

Fair 7 of 8 CC No. 1127 of 2021 that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts.

20. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 304-A, 279 of IPC and Section 3 r/w 181, 196 of MV Act and he is acquitted under Section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C.

Accused is set at liberty and his bail bonds shall be in force for a period of 6 months as per Section 437A of CrPC.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the

Open Court on this the 06th day of January, 2022.

II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Jagtial.

Fair 8 of 8 CC No. 1127 of 2021

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE :

PW1: S. Sandhya -None- PW2: Md. Masood PW3: S. Madhu PW4: Sd. Hussain PW5: M. Lingaiah PW6: M. Laxmi PW7: K. Anitha

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE :

Ex.P1: Signature of PW1 on Complaint. Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1.- N I L - Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2. Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3. Ex.P5: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW4. Ex.P6: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW5. Ex.P7: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW6. Ex.P8: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW7

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-Nil-

II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Jagtial.

Fair 1 of 8 CC No. 1145 of 2014

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF FIRST CLASS, JAGTIAL .

Present : Sri Prateek Sihag.

IInd ADDL. JMFC, JAGTIAL

FRIDAY, this the 19th day of November, 2021.

C.C.No.1145/2014

Cr. No. 107/2014 of PS Sarangapur (Now Beerpur)

Between: State : Sub Inspector of Police Sarangapur Police Station. (Now Beerpur)

...Complainant

AND

1. Myakala Srinivas S/o Nagaiah, Age: 25 Years, R/o Laxmidevipalli Village

...Accused 1

2. Myakala Ramesh S/o Ankaiah, Age: 32 Years, R/o Laxmidevipalli Village

...Accused 2

(NOTE: The case against Accused no.1 was Split up and numbered as

2061/2019 vide docket order dated 10.10.2019)

This case coming before me on 18-11-2021 for final hearing before me in presence of the learned Sr. Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant/State and Sri. S. Gangadhar, Advocate for the Accused2; upon hearing the arguments of both the counsel and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant (PW1) lodged a telugu written complaint stating that he was Bank Manager of DG bank, Beerpur and on 30.07.2014 at around 17:30 hours all the employees locked the bank and went home. On 31.07.2014 at 09:30 hours entered the bank again and opened the Monitors of 4 CC camers and found that only 3 were working and 1 was not working.

When they went to the back side of the bank, they found rear CC camera was missing and they suspected theft and hence gave

Fair 2 of 8 CC No. 1145 of 2014 complaint to the police station.

2. Basing on the report , SI of Sarangapur PS (PW6) registered a case in

Cr. No. 107/2014 u/s 379 IPC and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, PW6 recorded the statement of PW1 at police station and visited scene of offence i.e. DG Bank, Beerpur and observed the scene minutely and secured the presence of PW2 and

PW3 and prepared CDF in their presence and recorded statements of

LW2 and LW3 at scene of offence. Later PW6 on reliable information rushed to Rechapalli X road on 18.09.2014 and apprehended Accused no.1 with electric motro and intrerrogated him and recorded his confession panchnama in presence of PW4 and PW5 and Accused 1 confessed to committing of crime with Accused 2. PW6 recovered one

CC Camera. Later PW6 also arrested Accused no.2 and produced

before the Court. SI of police (PW6) filed charge sheet against the

Accused no.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 379 of

IPC.

3. This Court took cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC against the Accused no.1 and 2.

4. On appearance of the accused no.1 and 2, copies of documents relating to the case were furnished to them, as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. The Accused no.1 and 2 were examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. for the offences U/Sec. 379 of IPC and charge was framed for offence under Section 379 IPC and when the charge was read over and explained to them in Telugu, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Later, NBW was issued against Accused no.1 and due to long pending NBW, the case against Accused no.1 was split up and numbered as 2061/2019 vide docket order dated 10.10.2019.

This case proceeded with the trial of Accused no.2 only.

Fair 3 of 8 CC No. 1145 of 2014

5. In order to establish the guilt of the Accused no.2, the prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 6 and exhibits P1 to P5 were marked.

6. Counsel for Accused no.2 reported no defence evidence.

7. Heard the learned Senior APP for the State and the learned defence counsel for the accused no.2. The learned Sr. APP argued that case should be decided on merits and Ld. Defence counsel argued that all the material witness are hostile and hence Accused no.2 should be acquitted.

8. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused no.2 for the offences punishable under section 379 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubts?

POINT :

9. The police after investigation filed charge sheet citing Eight(8) witnesses. While so, in this court, the prosecution examined Six(7) witnesses. The learned Sr. APP has given up the evidence of LW 2 and

LW3.

10. Out of the witnesses examined by the prosecution. PW1 deposed that he was previously working as Bank Manager, DG bank from 2013 to 2015. On 30.07.2014 after working hours of bank, they locked the bank and on next day i.e. 31.07.2014 at 09:30 am when he went to bank and opened lock, one CC Camera was missing from bank and some unknown offenders committed theft of said CC camera. Then he lodged Ex.P1 i.e. complaint to the police. MO1 is CC Camera which was marked on basis of property form. In his cross-examination, PW1 stated that bank is located on main road and distance between bank and Police station is about 10 kilometers and since he consulted his superior officers, there was delay of 2 days in lodging Ex.P1 and that he did not mention this reason in Ex.P1.

Fair 4 of 8 CC No. 1145 of 2014

11. PW2 who is cited as panch witness for CDF, stated that police did not conduct scene of offence panchnama in his presence at DG Bank, beerpur and that police did not obtain his signature and the signature on CDF are not his sigantures. As witness turned hostile, the Ld. Sr. App requested the Court to treat the PW2 as hostile witness and accordingly permission was given. During the cross- examination, Pw2 again stated that it was not true to suggest that on 02.08.2014 at 04:00 pm at DG Bank, Beepur police conducted CDF in his presence and he signed on it along with PW3 and now he was deposing false to help the accused.

12. PW3 who is cited as other panch witness for CDF, stated that police did not conduct scene of offence panchnama in his presence at DG

Bank, beerpur and that about 31/2 years back when he was in hotel, beepur, the police came and obtained his signature on some papers without disclosing any reason. The PW3 further stated that he had put his signature on paper but CDF is having thumb impression. As witness turned hostile, the Ld. Sr. App requested the Court to treat the PW3 as hostile witness and accordingly permission was given.

During the cross-examination, PW3 again stated that it was not true to suggest that on 02.08.2014 at 04:00 pm at DG Bank, Beepur police conducted CDF in his presence and he was deposing false to help the accused.

13. PW4 who is cited as panch for confession and recovery panchnama of

Accused no.1 stated that he does not know anything about the case and police never conducted confession and seizure panchnama of accused in any case. ExP2 is signature of PW4 which was taken on some white paper and except signature he does not know anything about its contents As witness turned hostile, the Ld. Sr. App

Fair 5 of 8 CC No. 1145 of 2014 requested the Court to treat the PW4 as hostile witness and accordingly permission was given. During the cross-examination, PW4 again stated that it was not true to suggest that on 18.09.2014 at 08:40 am, near rechapalli cross road, the SI of Police Sarangapur conducted confessiona and seizure panchnama of Accused1 in Cr. no.

107/2014 and obtained his signature as Ex.P2 and Seized current moter and that he was not deposing false to help the Accused.

14. PW5 who is cited as other panch for confession and recovery panchnama of Accused no.1 stated signature on confession and recovery panchnama are not his signature and that in his presence nobody made any confession to the police and that the police did not recover any property from any person. As witness turned hostile, the

Ld. Sr. App requested the Court to treat the PW5 as hostile witness and accordingly permission was given. During the cross-examination,

PW5 again stated that it was not true to suggest that on 18.09.2014 at 08:40 am, near rechapalli cross road, the SI of Police Sarangapur conducted confession and seizure panchnama of Accused1 in Cr. no.

107/2014 and obtained his signature and Seized current Moter and that he was deposing false to help the Accused.

15. PW6 who is the investigating officer in the present case stated that he received Ex.P1 from PW1 and he issued FIR Ex.P3 and during course of investigation he recorded statement of PW1, LW2, LW3 and prepared CDF, Ex.P4, in presence of PW2 and PW3 and later arrested accused no.1 and recorded his confession and recovery panchnama,

Ex.P5 in presence of PW4 and PW5 and then arrested Accused no.2 and after completion of investigation, filed chargesheet againt the

Accused no.1 and 2 under Section 379 IPC. In his cross-examination,

PW6 stated that Bank is situated at public place and he did not

Fair 6 of 8 CC No. 1145 of 2014 examine anyany surrounding people. PW6 further denied suggestions regarding table made investigation and Accused no.2 being not related to the case

16. After completion of prosection evidence, the Accused no.2 was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and incriminating evidence was put against him and he denied the allegations and reported no defence evidence. At the stage of arguments, learned counsel for defence argued that delay of 10 days is not explained and all the evidences are hostile and that the Investigating officer has filed this false case and hence Accused no.2 is entitled for acquittal.

17. Appreciating the evidences on record, PW1 has deposed that there was theft of one CC camera but the person who stole it was not named by the PW1. Since PW1 did not witness the incident of theft, it is obvious that PW1 cannot say that the Accused no.2 stole the camera. There are no other independent witnesses in this case. The

PW2 and PW3 who are panch witness for scene of offence turned hostile and they cannot be relied upon. PW4 and PW5 who are panch witnesses for confession and recovery panchnama also turned hostile.

Though it is duty of the Court to separate grain from the chaff but there is nothing in the testimony of witnesses which may favour the case of the prosecution. Nothing was elucidated from the testimonies of PW4 and PW5. The cross-examination of PW4 as well as PW5 cannot be taken as favouring to the prosection. PW6 who is the IO in the present case has deposed nothing which is favourable to the case of prosecution.

18. Thus, the prosecution failed to prove the accusation that the Accused no.2 is guilty of theft of CC Camera which was stolen from the DG bank, Beepur between 30.07.2014 to 31.07.2014. Consequently, it

Fair 7 of 8 CC No. 1145 of 2014 must be held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused no.2 beyond all reasonable doubts.

19. In the result, the accused no.2 is found not guilty for the offence punishable under 379 of IPC and he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. Accused no.2 is set at liberty and his bail bonds shall be in force for a period of 6 months as per Section 437A of CrPC. MO1 marked was given to PS Sarangapur (Now Beerpur) for safe custoday shall be returned to the Complainant/PW1 on proper receipt and acknowledgment.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the

Open Court on this the 19th day of November, 2021.

II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Jagtial.

Fair 8 of 8 CC No. 1145 of 2014

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE :

PW1: M. Mohan-None- PW2: T. Ramesh PW3: K. Gangadhar PW4: B. Posham PW5: S. Gangadhar PW6: M. Naresh

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE :

Ex.P1: Complaint by PW1. Ex.P2: Signature of PW4 on Confession and Recovery Panchnama Ex.P3: FIR issued by PW6- N I L - Ex.P4: CDF prepared by PW6. Ex.P5: Confession and Recovery Panchnama prepared by PW6.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

M.O.1 is CC Camera marked on basis of Property Form

II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Jagtial.

Fair 1 of 6 CC No. 51 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF FIRST CLASS, JAGTIAL .

Present : Sri Prateek Sihag.

IInd ADDL. JMFC, JAGTIAL

FRIDAY, this the 19th day of November, 2021.

C.C.No.51/2017

Cr. No. 29/2017 of PS Kodimial

Between: State : Sub Inspector of Police Kodimial Police Station

...Complainant

AND

Metpalli Mallava w/o Jalapathi Reddy , Age: 58 Years, R/o Kodimial Village and Mandal, Jagtial.

...Accused

This case coming before me on 18-11-2021 for final hearing before me in presence of the learned Sr. Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant/State and Sri. R. Srinivas, Advocate for the Accused; upon hearing the arguments of both the counsel and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant (PW1) lodged a telugu written complaint stating that on 26.02.2017 at 07:30 hours when his mother Mettupalli Laxmi (LW2 and Injured) was standing in front of the house, his aunt (Accused) keeping previous grudges regarding sharing of houses started abusing in most filthy language to his mother and pushed her mother with hands, due to which his mother Laxmi fell down on ground and received injury to her right leg. The PW1 as well his wife PW2 observed the same and tried to stop but then the Accused abused them in filthy language. The said incident was witnessed by PW3, Pw4, LW5. Hence he requested to take necessary action against the Accused.

Fair 2 of 6 CC No. 51 of 2017

2. Basing on the report , HC 1679 of Kodimial PS (LW10) made GD entry and sent LW2 to hospital for treatment with a requisition for Medicial

Certificate. Later SI of PS Kodimial collected MC of LW2 from Medical

Officer (LW8) in which she opined that injuries of LW2 are Grevious in nature. Then as per Medical Certificate, LW11 registered a case in Cr.

No. 29/2017 u/s 290, 325 IPC and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, LW11 recorded the statement of PW1 at police station and visited scene of offence at Kodimial Village and observed the scene minutely and secured the presence of LW9 and LW10 and prepared CDF in their presence and recorded statements of LW2,

PW2, PW3,PW4 and LW5 at scene of offence. LW 11 on reliable information rushed to Kodimial Village on 27.03.2017 and apprehended Accused and produced her before the Court for Judicial

Remand. SI of police filed charge sheet against the Accused for the offences punishable under Section 290, 325 of IPC.

3. This Court took cognizance for the offences punishable under Section 290, 325 of IPC against the Accused.

4. On appearance of the Accused, copies of documents relating to the case were furnished to her, as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

The accused was examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. and Charge was framed for the offences U/Sec. 290, 325 IPC against the Accused.

When the charge was read over and explained to Accused in Telugu, she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case proceeded for trial.

5. In order to establish the guilt of the Accused, the prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 4 and exhibits P1 to P3 were marked.

6. Counsel for Accused reported no defence evidence.

7. Heard the learned Senior APP for the State and the learned defence

Fair 3 of 6 CC No. 51 of 2017 counsel for the accused.

8. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under section 290, 325 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubts?

9. POINT :

10. The police after investigation filed charge sheet citing Eleven(11) witnesses. While so, in this court, the prosecution examined Four(4) witnesses. As all the material witnesses turned hostile, learned Sr.

APP has given up the evidence of LW 5, LW7 to LW11. Report was filed for LW2 that she has died and hence her evidence was closed.

11. Out of the witnesses examined by the prosecution. PW1 gave deposition on 26.09.2019 stating that on 26.02.2017 at about 07:00 or 07:30 am the offence took place in front of their house. At that time

Accused came infront of their house and started abusing him and pushed his mother and due to that his mother fell on ground and injured herself. PW1 was cross-examined. PW2 in her deposition on 26.09.2019 stated that on 26.02.2017 at about 7 to 8 am, there was scuffle between her mother-in-law Laxmi and the Accused and due to that Accused pushed her mother-in-law sustained fracture to her right leg. She was cross-examined.

12. CrMP no. 718/2021 on 01.11.2021 was filed by the Ld. Advocate for defense under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recall of PW1 and PW2. It was allowed. PW1 and PW2 were further Cross-examined on 08.11.2021 and both the witnesses resiled from their earlier testimonies. PW1 stated that after dispute they went to elders and elders took their signature on some papers and LW2 slipped on road when they were returning from Panchayat and that he never gave any complaint to the police and earlier, he stated before the Court at the instance of the

Fair 4 of 6 CC No. 51 of 2017 police. PW2 stated that she does not know any facts of the case and disputes between PW1 and Accused were settled before the elders and they obtained signatures on some paper and while they were returning from Panchayat, LW2 slipped and injured herself and that earlier she stated before the Court at the instance of the police.

13. PW 3 stated that she knows PW1 and PW2 and LW2 who has died and the Accused but that she does not know any facts of the case and that she did not witness any incident. Further that she was not examined by the police. As witness turned hostile, the Ld. Sr. App requested the Court to treat the PW3 as hostile witness and accordingly permission was given. During the cross-examination, Pw3 again stated that it was not true to suggest that she stated before the police as in Ex.P2 which is 161 statement and now she was deposing false to help the accused.

14. PW4 stated that she knows PW1 and PW2, PW3 and LW2 who has died and the Accused but that he does not know any facts of the case and that he did not witness any incident. Further that he was not examined by the police. As witness turned hostile, the Ld. Sr. App requested the Court to treat the PW4 as hostile witness and accordingly permission was given. During the cross-examination, PW4 again stated that it was not true to suggest that he stated before the police as in Ex.P3 which is 161 statement and now he was deposing false to help the accused.

15. As the material witnesses turned hostile, Learned Sr. APP given up the evidence of LW 5 and LW7 to 11. Report was filed for LW2 stating that she has died and hence her Evidence was closed.

16. There exists nothing incriminating in prosecution evidence, hence 313

Cr.P.C. examination of Accused was dispensed with. As such, there

Fair 5 of 6 CC No. 51 of 2017 exists nothing on record to hold Accused guilty of the offence under

Section 290, 325 IPC.

17. Thus, the prosecution failed to prove the accusation that the Accused is guilty for causing public nuisance and causing grevious hurt to the

LW2 Laxmi. Consequently, it must be held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts.

18. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Section 290, 325 IPC and she is acquitted under

Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. Accused is set at liberty and his bail bonds shall be in force for a period of 6 months as per Section 437A of CrPC.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the

Open Court on this the 19th day of November, 2021.

Sd/-,

II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Jagtial.

Fair 6 of 6 CC No. 51 of 2017

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE :

PW1: M. Satyanarayan-None- PW2: M. Mamatha PW3: A.Ammai PW4: M. Pochaiah

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE :

Ex.P1: Complaint by PW1. Ex.P2: 161 statement by PW Ex.P3: 161 Statement of PW4- N I L -

Sd/-,

II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Jagtial.

Fair 1 of 5 CC No. 1253 of 2014

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF FIRST CLASS, JAGTIAL .

Present : Sri Prateek Sihag.

IInd ADDL. JMFC, JAGTIAL

Monday, this the 22 nd day of November, 2021.

C.C.No.1253/2014

Cr. No. 152/2014 of PS Sarangapur

Between: State : Sub- Inspector of Police Sarangapur Police Station.

...Complainant

AND

Gundoju Gangarajam, S/o. Brahmaiah, Age:30 yrs., Caste: Vadla , R/o Rechapalli Village of Sarangapur (M), Jagtial

...Accused

This case coming before me on 19-11-2021 for final hearing in presence of the learned Sr. Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant/State and of Sri P. Anjaneyulu, Advocate for the Accused; upon hearing the arguments of both the counsel and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. It is the case of the de facto complainant by name Gundoju Shireesha (LW1), that she got married with Gundoju Gangarajam(Accused) on 09.04.2014 at Seetharama Temple, Kondagattu. She stayed at

Rechapalli for one month only and thereafter her husband/Accused started harassing her mentally and physically to bring dowry. Her

Husband/Accused necked her out from the house. She asked

Rs.50,000/- from relatives but no one gave her the money. On 12.11.2014, she went to her husband but her husband/Accused questioned her as to why she came empty handed. PW1, PW2, LW3 witnessed the incident. When they questioned the Accused/Husband, the Accused abused them as well in filthy language. Finally she

Fair 2 of 5 CC No. 1253 of 2014 requested for necessary action.

2. Basing on the report, SI of Sarangapur PS (Lw7) registered a case in

Cr. No. 152/2014 u/s 498A IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and took up the investigation. During investigation, SI of PS

Sarangapur recorded statement of Lw1. Later LW7 visited Rechapalli village and observed the scene of offence and prepared CDF in presence of PW3 and PW4 and recorded the statements of LW3,

PW1,PW2. Later LW7 arrested Accused and produced before the court. After completion of investigation, SI of Police Sarangapur LW7 filed Charge sheet against Accused.

3. This Court took cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A of IPC and Section 4 of D.P. Act against the Accused. On appearance of the Accused, copies of documents relating to the case were furnished to him, as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

4. The Accused was examined u/s 239 Crpc and charge was framed for offence under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition

Act. The Charge was read over and explained to the Accused in Telugu for which the Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Hence case proceeded with the trial.

5. In order to establish the guilt of the Accused, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to PW4 and exhibits P1 and P2 were marked.

6. Counsel for Accused reported no defence evidence.

7. Heard the learned Senior APP for the State and the learned defence counsel for the Accused.

8. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the Accused for the offences punishable under section 498-A of IPC and Sec.4 of D.P. Act beyond all reasonable

Fair 3 of 5 CC No. 1253 of 2014 doubts?

POINT :

9. In order to prove the case, the police after investigation filed charge sheet citing 7 witnesses. While so, in this court, the prosecution examined four (4) witnesses. Report was filed for LW1 and LW3 and their evidence was closed. LW7 who is the Investigating officer in this case was given sufficient opportunities to come before the Court but he did not and ultimately his evidence was also closed.

10.Out of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, PW1 is cited as

Caste elder and eye witness to the incident. He deposed that he does not know any family affairs of Accused and LW1 and to his knowledge, there were no disputes between LW1 and accused and that parties never approached him for resolving any dispute between them and he did not witness any quarrel. Further that he does not know where LW1 is residing and that she was not residing in village since long time 11.PW2, is cited as caste elder and eye witness to the incident. He deposed that he knows LW1 but does not know any facts of the case and that police did not examine him.

12.PW3 is cited as panch witness to CDF and he deposed that about 6 years back Sarangapur police obtained his signature in police station and he does not know the purpose or contents of the said document.

He recognizes his signature as ExP1 on CDF. As witness turned hostile, the Ld. Sr. App requested the Court to treat the PW3 as hostile witness and accordingly permission was given. During the cross-examination, Pw3 again stated that it was not true to suggest that on 13.11.2014 the SI of Police observed scene of offence in his presence and prepared CDF and he was deposing false to help the

Fair 4 of 5 CC No. 1253 of 2014

Accused.

13.PW4 who is another panch witness to CDF and he deposed that about 6 years back Sarangapur police obtained his signature in police station and he does not know the purpose or contents of the said document. He recognises his signature as ExP2 on CDF. As witness turned hostile, the Ld. Sr. App requested the Court to treat the PW4 as hostile witness and accordingly permission was given. During the cross-examination, PW4 again stated that it was not true to suggest that on 13.11.2014 the SI of Police observed scene of offence in his presence and prepared CDF and he was deposing false to help the

Accused.

14.Nothing incriminating was there in the evidence on record and for the very reason, 313 Cr.P.C. examination was dispensed with. As such, there exists nothing on record to hold Accused guilty of the offence.

Therefore, I am of the opinion that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the Accused, beyond all reasonable doubts.

15.In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 498-A of IPC and Section 4 of DP Act and he is acquitted under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. His bail bonds shall be in force for a period of 6 months as per Section 437A of CrPC.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the

Open Court on this the 22nd day of November, 2021.

II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Jagtial.

Fair 5 of 5 CC No. 1253 of 2014

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE :

PW1: M. Rajesham-None- PW2: M.Jalander PW3: Md. Ibrahim PW4: M. Venkatesh

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE :

Ex.P1 is the signature of PW3 on CDF. -Nil- Ex.P2 is the signature of PW4 on CDF.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-Nil-

II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Jagtial.