Sri R. Ajay Kumar

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

AT MIRYALGUDA.

(Dated this the 28 th day of September, 2018.)

Present :- Sri R. Ajay kumar,

II Addl.Junior Civil Judge

Miryalguda

CC. No. 1291 of 2015

(Cr.No. 212/2015 of PS Miryalguda Rural)

Between:

The State of Telangana, through,

Sub-Inspector of Police,P.S. Miryalguda Rural …Complainant

AND

1. Burri Linga reddy S/o Ram Reddy, Age: 42 years, Caste: Reddy, Occ: Agriculture,

R/o chillapuram (v) Miryalguda Mandal, Nalgonda dist.

2. Burri Srinivas Reddy S/o Ram Reddy, , Age: 38 years, Caste: Reddy, Occ:

Agriculture, R/o chillapuram (v) Miryalguda Mandal, Nalgonda dist.

3. Burri Saidi reddy S/o Ram Reddy, Age: 36 years, Caste: Reddy, Occ: Agriculture,

R/o chillapuram (v) Miryalguda Mandal, Nalgonda dist.

4. Burri Uppaiah reddy S/o Ram Reddy, Age: 33 years, Caste: Reddy, Occ:

Agriculture, R/o chillapuram (v) Miryalguda Mandal, Nalgonda dist.

…Accused no. 1 to 4

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of APPO for the

State and Sri. G. Rama Krishna Reddy Advocate counsel for the Accused, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police,Miryalguda Rural Police Station, filed charge sheet against the accused no. 1 to 4 in crime No. 212 of 2015, for the offence under

Section 323, 326 r/w 34 of IPC.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 21.08.2015 at 1730 hours, the complainant

Lw.1/Shaik Saidulu came to the police station Miryalguda Rural along with Lws. 2 to 4 in which he stated that, on 21.08.2015 at 14.30 hours the complainant proceeded to the his filed along with his son, the neighbour land owners are A1 to A4 has beat the son of the complainant Lw.4 with axes and spades, in incident the son of the complainant sustained bleeding injuries, the accused A1 to A4 has escaped from there, when they thought they died and on seen that bleeding injuries. Then the complainant immediately shifted him to the Govt. Area Hospital, Miryalguda with support of their labours through 108 ambulance, after first aid shifted to Hyderabad for better treatment. Finally the complainant requested to take legal action as per law.

3. Cognizance of the offence under Section 323 IPC was taken against the accused no.1 & 2 and Cognizance of the offence under Section 326 IPC was taken against the accused no.3 & 4 the case was numbered as C.C.No. 1291 of 2015.

4.On appearance of the accused no. 1 to 4, they were furnished with the copies of the documents, as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. The accused no. 1 to 4 were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C with reference to the allegations levelled against them in the charge sheet. Accused no. 1 to 4 denied the same. Charge for the offence under Section 323, 326 IPC was framed against the accused no. 1 to 4 read over and explained to them In Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined PWs.1 to 6 and marked

Exs.P1 to P8`. P.W.1 is the complainant, P.W.2 is the Cir witness, P.W.3 is the Eye-

Witness, Pw.4 & 5 are the Panch for scene of offence & Seizure, P.W.6 is the filed charge sheet, L.w.2 & 7 were given up by Prosecution. Prosecution side evidence was closed.

6.After closure of the Prosecution evidence, accused A1 to A4 were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C explaining them the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Accused denied the same and reported no oral or documentary evidence.

7.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused.

8. The point that arises for determination :-

1) whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused no. 1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence under Sections 323 IPC ?

2) whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused no. 3 and 4 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence under Sections 326 IPC ?

1. Pw.1/ Shaik Saidulu deposed that he is having agricultural land at chillapuram for an extent of Ac.3-00 gts., from his forefathers. The fields of the accused are adjacent to his field. More than one year ago while he was present at the fields in the morning time along with his son/P.w.3, then all the accused came to their fields A3 with axe, A4 brought spade beat Pw.3/ his son. Pw.3 sustained a fractured injury to his left hand and on right side ribs. From there himself and his son came to area hospital, Miryalguda. As the condition of his son is serious he was shifted to Hyderabad for treatment. He gave complaint to the police. Ex.P.1 is his complaint. The MO.1 & Mo.2 are the Axe and spade. He was examined by the police and his statement is recorded.

2.During his cross examination he stated that his son is shifted to hospital by 5.00

PM. The police examined him at the police station by 5.00 PM. They firstly went to the hospital and subsequently to the police station. In the hospital the injured person is examined for about 10 minutes, but no treatment was rendered to the injured. They shifted his son to Hyderabad in a private Ambulance as per the requisition given by the

Area Hospital. while he was present at the fields in the morning time along with his son/P.w.3, then all the accused came to their fields A3 with axe, A4 brought spade beat

Pw.3/ his son. Pw.3 sustained a fractured injury to his left hand and on right side ribs. He did not went along with his son to Hyderabad. One Nooraiah accompanied the injured

Pw.3. He denied the suggestion that he did not stated before the police that he went to the fields at morning time. He stated before the police they went to scene of offence at 4.30 PM. He did not stated before the police as in Ex.D.1. the distance between their village and hospital is 3 miles and the auto facility is also there in their village. while he was present at the fields in the morning time along with his son/P.w.3, then all the accused came to the while he was present at the fields in the morning time along with his son/P.w.3, then all the accused came to their fields A3 with axe, A4 brought spade beat Pw.3/ his son. Pw.3 sustained a fractured injury to his left hand and on right side ribs. ir fields A3 with axe, A4 brought spade beat Pw.3/ his son. Pw.3 sustained a fractured injury to his left hand and on right side ribs. He denied the suggestion that he did not stated in his complaint that who beat Pw.3 with which objects and on which part of the body. . He admitted that at the time of offence there was seedlings in the fields of

A4. Pw.3 is shifted by one auto driver namely Nagaiah and himself and his wife Lw.2 accompanied Pw.3 in the auto. He admitted that at the time of offence there was seedlings in the fields he alone present with Pw.3, but Lw.2hile he was present at the fields in the morning time along with his son/P.w.3, then all the accused came to their fields A3 with axe, A4 brought spade beat Pw.3/ his son. Pw.3 sustained a fractured injury to his left hand and on right side ribs. and pw.2 are not present . The offence had took place beside his fields. He denied that he stated before the police as in Ex.D.2. He admitted that the accused had purchased 19 gts of land from his younger brother. He also admitted that after his brother asking them to purchase it and they did not purchased then only he sold away the land to the accused. Forther he admitted tahat accused purchased the land above 15 years back, after 3 years of purchased Pw.3 beat A3 and he sustained fracture injury. Futhr he admitetd taht the matter was placed before the elders and the elders pacified the matter, on that A3 did not give any report to the police.

Further he denied the siuggestion that when the panchayathdars measure the land after depositing Rs. 10,000/- ecach by the both the partites they decided that the land accused and them her having equally, witness adds that surveyer measure less extend land to them. He further admitted Pw.3 resides at Haliya and he is a motor mechanic. Further he denied the suggestions made by the learned defence counsel.

3.Pw.2 deposed that on 21.08.2015 in between 2-30 or 3.00 PM., on that day herself and her husband are at their house and in the afternoon P.w.1 and P.w.3 went to the fields at Chillapuram. She came to know through Pw.1 that a quarrelled was around in between the accused and Pw.1, Pw.3 .A4 beat Pw.3 with a spade and A3 beat Pw.3 with an axe and her husband sustained injury to his left hand and also ribs were broken. Then

Pw.1 informed the same to them than herself and her mother in law Lw.2 and Pw.1 shifted her husband to the area hospital in an auto. Meanwhile, ambulance also came. As while he was present at the fields in the morning time along with his son/P.w.3, then all the accused came to their fields A3 with axe, A4 brought spade beat Pw.3/ his son. Pw.3 sustained a fractured injury to his left hand and on right side ribs. the condition of her husband is not good, shifted to Omni hospital, Kothapet, Hyderabad from area hospital,

Miryalguda and he was an inpatient for about eight days. He was examined by the police.

During her cross examination she stated that she don’t know how Pw.3 received injuries. She was not examined by police. Due to fear she stated in her chief examination .

4. Pw.3 deposed that they have agricultural fields Ac. 7-20 gts., at Chillapuram. That agricultural lands are acquired to her father from their forefathers. On 21.08.2015 at about 2-30 PM., while himself and his father Pw.1 present at the fields, then all the accused came there and raised a dispute regarding the bund. On that A4 beat him with spade on her left chest. A3 beat him with an axe on her left hand. He received a fractured injury to his left hand and he also sustained severe injury on her left side ribs. Except his father no other persons were present there. His father rescued him, then he fell unconscious. He regain his conscious after crossing the village. He was shifted to the area hospital by his father, mother, his wife and some others. As there is no proper treatment at area hospital, Miryalguda and as per the advice of area hospital doctor ,he was taken to omni hospital, Kothapet, Hyderabad and he was an inpatient at Omni hospital, for about one week from there on wards his health was detoriated. Police examined him at the area hospital, Miryalguda Omni hospital, Hyderabad. He can identify the objects with which the accused beated her. Mos. 1 & 2 are the axe and spade.

5.During his cross examination he stated that he sustained injury due to falling on ground. He was not examined by police. Due to fear he stated in his chief examination that he received injuries because of accused.

6. Pw.4/Shaik Madar and Pw.5/Sk. Hussain categorically deposed that in their presence police not conducted any panchanama and nothing was seized and not drawn any rough sketch. They did not supported the prosecution case and turned hostile.

8.Pw.6/ V. Sardar Naik Investigation Officer deposed that on 21.08.2015 at 17.30 hours he received telugu written complaint from Pw.1 basing on that he registered a case in crime no. 212/2015 under section 324 r/w 34 IPC. FIR is marked as Ex.P.6. Then he recorded statements of Pw.1, Lw.2, Pw.2 and Pw.4 at Police station. On 22.08.2015 he proceeded to scene of offence at chillapuram village limits in the fields of Burri Ram reddy and Shaik Saidulu and secured the presence of pw.5 & Pw.6 conducted scene of panchanama and recover one stick and one axe, and spade under cover of panchanama and drawn rough sketch which is marked as Ex.P.7, Ex.P.8. Thereafter he issued 41(A) notice to A1 to A4. Thereafter he collected Medical certificate basing on MC he altered section from 324 r/w 34 IPC to 323, 326 r/w 34 IPC and filed charge sheet.

9.During his cross examination he stated that he examined Pw.3 around 6.30 to 7.00 PM on 21.08.2015. He further stated that he notice injuries on body of Pw.3. He denied the suggestions made by the learned defence counsel.

Point nos.1 and 2

Points Nos.1 and 2:- All two points are taken up together for adjudication and for the sake of convenience, continuity and brevity.

According to the evidence of PW3/Injured goes to show that On 21.08.2015 at about 2-30 PM., while himself and his father Pw.1 present at the fields, then all the accused came there and raised a dispute regarding to the bund. On that A4 beat him with spade on her left chest. A3 beat him with an axe on her left hand. He received a fractured injury to his left hand and he also sustained severe injury on her left side ribs. Except his father no other persons were present there Ex P1 is a complaint lodged by his father

P.w.1 Police examined him. During his cross examination he stated that he sustained injury due to falling on ground. He was not examined by police.

Pw2 deposed that she came to know through Pw.1 that a quarrelled was arosed in between the accused and Pw.1, Pw.3. A4 beat Pw.3 with a spade and A3 beat Pw.3 with an axe and her husband sustained injury to his left hand and also ribs were broken. Then

Pw.1 informed the same to them than herself and her mother in law Lw.2 and Pw.1 shifted her husband to the area hospital in an auto. During her cross examination she stated that P.w.3 sustained injury due to falling on ground. He was not examined by police.

In the present case, it is clearly shows that the P.w3/injured and P.w.2 has not been consistent in the version put across by them. Though they narrated the incident and stated in their chief – examination that the accused beat P.w.3 ,But their admission in the cross-examination that makes her entire evidence lack of credibility and inadmissible.

The evidence of P.W.1, the father of P.w.3 it goes to show that while he was present at the fields in the morning time along with his son/P.w.3, then all the accused came to their fields A3 with axe, A4 brought spade beat Pw.3/ his son. Pw.3 sustained a fractured injury to his left hand and on right side ribs.

It is also worthwhile to note that in the present case the prosecution has only examined the P.w.1 and P.w.3 as an eye witnesses P.w1./complainant evidence was inconsistence with 161 cr.p.c. statement. P.w.1 stated that in his 161 cr.p.c statement that on listening the hues of P.w.3 he went near him , on seeing him accused fled away but in his evidence he narrated the incident as he was accompanied with P.w.3,

The reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.w.1 is being father of P.w.3 he did stated that he made any attempt to rescue his son/P.w.3, if he really present with P.w.3 he would rescue him, hence the evidence of P.w.1 is suspicious his witnessing the incident and also not corroborating with the evidence of P.w.3, the evidence of p.w.3/injured admitted that he sustained injures by falling on ground .

The evidence of P.w.4 and P.w.5 panch witnesses did not supported the prosecution case and turned hostile. Police filed report with returning the summons of l.w.7 stating the they don’t know where about of L.w.7 considering the same his evidence was closed.

The above discussion leads me to conclude the prosecution has failed in established guilt of accused no.1 to 4 much less beyond reasonable doubt for the offence under section 323 and 326 IPC. In view of the above facts and circumstances the prosecution failed to prove the offence against the accused.

In the result, the accused no. 1 to 4 are not found guilty for the offence under section 323, 326 r/w 34 IPC and acquitted under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and sureties of accused no. 1 to 4 shall be discharged after expiry of appeal time.

If any unmarked case property shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, directly typed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 28th day of September, 2018.

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge

Miryalguda

:: Appendix of Evidence ::

Witnesses Examined

Prosecution:

PW1 : Shaik Saidulu (Complainant)

PW2: Shaik Khatheeja ( Cir-witness)

PW3: Shaik Sayyad Babu ( Eye-Witness)

PW4: Sk. Madar (Panch for scene of offence & seizure)

PW5: Sk. Hussain (Panch for scene of offence & seizure)

Pw.6: V. Sardar Naik (filed charge sheet )

Defence:

Nil

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1 : Complaint lodged by Pw.1

Ex.P2 : Signature of Pw.4 on scene of offence panchanama

Ex.P3 : Signature of Pw.4 on Rough Sketch

Ex.P4: Signature of Pw.5 on scene of offence panchanama

Ex.P5: Signature of Pw.5 on Rough Sketch

Ex.P6: FIR

Ex.P7: Panchanama

Ex.P8: Rough Sketch

For Defence:

Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

NIL

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge

Miryalguda.

Page No. 1 C.C. No. 940 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

AT MIRYALGUDA.

( Dated this the 28 th day of September, 2018)

Present:- Sri R. Ajay Kumar

II Addl.Junior Civil Judge

Miryalguda

C.C. 940 of 2017

( Cr. No. 73/2013 of PS Vemulapally)

Between:

The State of Telangana, through,

Sub-Inspector of Police,

P.S. Vemulapally.

...Complainant

AND

Boddupally Anjaiah S/o Somaiah, Age: 60 years, Caste: Kummari, Occ: Agriculture,

R/o Agamothukur (V)

.....Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of APPO for the

State and Sri. Godala Venkat Reddy, Gudur Srinivas Rao Advocates counsel for the

Accused, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following.

JUDGMENT

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Vemulapally Police Station, filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No. 73 of 2013, for the offence under section 447, 427, 506 IPC.

2.The brief facts of the case is that, on 21.05.2013 at 1930 hours the complainant

Lw.1/ Dommati Devakamma came to Police Station and lodged a complaint stating that she is having wet land in Sy.No. 351 measuring 5-27 Gts on the outskirts of the

Page No. 2 C.C. No. 940 of 2017

Agamothkuru(V) and at that land she growing vegetables and other crops. That on 20.05.2013 at 10 AM. The person A1, Boddupally Saidamma & Boddupally

Krishnaveni are criminally trespassed into their lands and they set fired the Neem trees and they are also vegetables and they are also taken away the vegetables from the fields. On knowing of this incident Lw.1 & Lw.2 and asked them, in which they stated that the said land belongs to them and left the land and went away from there if they want they will be given lease money and they are also threatened them with the dire consequences. In which the complainant informed to the elders Lw.3, Lw.4 and

Lw.5 in which they are also informed them but they did not listen their advice. Thus she requested to take action against the accused.

3.Cognizance of the offence Under Section 447, 427 & 506 IPC was taken against the accused the case was numbered as C.C. No. 940 of 2017.

4.On appearance of the accused, he was furnished with the copies of the documents, as required Under Section 207 Cr.P.C. The accused was examined under section 251 Cr.P.C with reference to the allegations levelled against him in the charge sheet. Accused denied the same. Charge for the offence under section 447, 427 & 506

IPC was framed against the accused read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.The Prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined Pws. 1 to 8 and marked

Exs.P1 to P8. Pw.1 is the Complainant, Pw.2 to Pw.5 are the Cir-Witness, pw.6 is the

Eye-Witness, Pw.7 is the Panch for scene of offence, Pw.8 is the Panch for scene of offence. L.w. 2 & 8 were given up by Prosecution. Prosecution side evidence was closed.

6.After closure of the Prosecution evidence, accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C explaining him the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in

Page No. 3 C.C. No. 940 of 2017 the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Accused denied the same and reported no oral or documentary evidence.

7.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused.

8. The point that arises for determination in this case is whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences under section 447, 427 & 506 IPC.

1.Pw.1/ D. Devakamma deposed that she is possessing Ac. 5-27 guntas land in the outskirts of Aagamothkur village. She purchased the said land through the accused only. Out of the above said Ac. 5-27 guntas land she purchased Ac. 3-00 land from the accused and the remaining Ac. 2-27 guntas land was purchased by her from

Ram Reddy through the accused and it was purchased by her 30 years ago and for the last 30 years she is in possession of the above said land. About more than 4 years ago in the evening at 5.00 PM. Accused interfered in her possession over her land. The above said land was cultivated by the accused by taking it from her on

KOWL(Lease), for about 5 years earlier and in view of the above reason accused obstructed her and interfered with his possession. At that time herself and Devendar were present in her land. She was ploughing the land. Except this accused did not say anything. Accused stated before her saying Neeku Boome Ledu. Therefore, she gave

Ex.P.1 report to the police. Police examined her.

2.During her cross examination she stated that she was literate but she can make signature as she was illiterate she cannot say the date on which she gave report to the police in this case and further fail to say the time of submission of report. Further stated one police constable drafted the report and the same was hand over to the police. Further stated that she gave report against accused and one Saidamma because their both interfered in her possession of her land and also stated that apart from this

Page No. 4 C.C. No. 940 of 2017 present case she filed 4 other cases against the accused. Further she denied the suggestions made by the defence counsel.

3.Pw.2/ D. Seetharamulu deposed that he don’t know anything about the facts of this case. He did not supported the prosecution case and turned hostile.

4. Pw.3 & Pw.4 are categorically deposed that they don’t know anything about the facts of this case. they never witnessed any incident and never heard any incident.

they were not examined by police. They did not supported the prosecution case and turned hostile.

5.Pw.5/ K. Sriramulu deposed that Pw.1 posse’s agriculture land to the extent of 6 acres at Puchakayalagudem. Pw.1 is in the possession in the said agriculture land in 10-12 years. Except this he don’t anything about the facts of this case. Police recorded his statement and examined him. He did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile.

6.Pw.6/ SK. Abdul deposed that he don’t know anything about the facts of this case. He used to work in the adjacent land of Pw.1. Police not recorded his statement and not examined him. He did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile. .

7.Pw.7/ P. Koti reddy deposed that in his presence panchanama was conducted at

Pw.1 agricultural land. He saw that trees were torched. In his presence rough sketch was drawn by police. He signed panchanama rough sketch. At the time of conducting panchanama Lw.8 P. Saidireddy was present. Panchanama isP.6 and rough sketch is

P.7.

8. During his cross examination he stated that at about 3 years back at 10 or 10.30 am panchanama was conducted. Police obtain his sign on a written document on going through document he signed. Further stated that the said land belongs to accused. He denied the suggestion that no trees were set fire and he deposing false

Page No. 5 C.C. No. 940 of 2017

before the court. He stated that no photos taken by police about the fire of trees.

Further he denied the suggestions made by the learned defence counsel.

9.Pw.8/ R. Suman Investigation officer deposed that on 21.05.2013 at 19.30 hours he received a telugu written report from Pw.1 basing on that report he registered a case in crime no. 73/2013 under section 447, 427, 506 r/w 34 IPC and took up investigation. During course of investigation immediately he recorded statement of Pw.1 at police station. On the same day he recorded the statement of

Lw.2, at police station. On the next day he proceeded the scene of offence at

Agamothkuru in survey no. 351/ agricultural field of Lw.2 and secured the presence of Pw.7 and Lw.8 in their presence conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch which is marked as Ex.P.6 & Ex.P.7 and recorded the statement of Pw.3, 4 & 5 at Puchakayalagudem. During investigation on 30.05.2013 he affected the arrest of accused and forwarded him to judicial remand before this court. On completion of investigation he filed charge sheet on 31.05.2013.

10. During his cross examination he stated that Pw.1 along with Lw.2 came to police station and lodged a report. The date of incident took on 20.05.2013 at 10.00

AM. Admitted that 1 day delay in lodging report. by P.w.1 . He stated that he did not enquired that prior to this report how many reports filed by the Pw.1 against the accused. Further he denied the suggestion that the offence relating to civil in nature.

Further he denied the suggestions made by the learned defence counsel.

Point No.1

According to the evidence of P.w.1 in her examination in chief she was in possession in the said since 30 years and about four years ago in the evening at 5.00pm accused interfered in her possession over her land. Admittedly she stated that the said land was cultivated by the accused on lease for about 5 years , and in view of the above reason accused obstructed her and interfered with her possession and further stated

Page No. 6 C.C. No. 940 of 2017 that while she was ploughing her land with the help of tractor accused obstructed her ploughing the land. There is inconsistence between the ExP1/ complaint and her examination in chief.

On considering the evidence. It clearly appears that the evidence was not trustworthy for the following reasons :

a) All the independent circumstantial witnesses and eye-witness (PW-3, 4, 5 & 6) turned hostile and denied knowledge of the incident.L.w.2 and L.w.8 evidence given up by the learned App.

b) The evidence of the PW-1 could not be relied on as she stated in Ex.p1 offence took at 10.00 am but in her evidence she stated in the evening at 5.00pm offence took place as general every person can knowledge the morning and evening hours further during cross examination she stated she cannot say at what time she visited her agriculture land. Further she admitted that apart from present case in hand she filed four cases against the accused .The only question that arises for consideration is whether accused trespassed into her land..

The defence counsel contended that the prosecution has failed to prove the ownership and possession of disputed land. There is no evidence placed before court to show that the said land belongs to P.W.1 except oral testimony of P.W.1. Admittedly the land in issue. Therefore rights of parties are not declared. In these circumstances there is no evidence regarding the ownership and possession of property. When the ownership and possession is not established by the prosecution the question of trespass into the land of accused does not arise. The property is subject matter which is under adjudication. There is no eye witness account to show that accused trespassed the land. As per the evidence of P.W.1 the complaint was not drafted by her contents of complaint were not proved The evidence was also inconsistent with

Page No. 7 C.C. No. 940 of 2017 the allegations in the complaint (Ex. P1) lodged by PW-1.All these contradictions create doubt regarding happening of the event. Hence I find no grounds which substantiate the charge under Sections 447 IPC against accused. This point is answered in favour the accused and against the prosecution.

Point No.2

Now coming to whether the Ingredients of Section 427IPC are fulfilled.

Section 425 IPC defines mischief and the essential Ingredients are as follows:

(1)Whoever (2)with intent to cause or knowing that he is likely to cause (3)Wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person (4)causes destruction of any property or any such change in the property which destroys or diminishes its value or utility or affects it injuriously, is said to commit mischief.

In this respect, from the deposition of one material witnesses being PW7 , who have deposed in his presence police conducted panchanama and drawn rough sketch and stated that he seen 3 trees were torched .In respect of 3 trees torched, the evidence of

Pw.1 was silent , further he did not deposed that accused torched the said trees.

Hence it is clear no ingredients of section 427 was made out against the accused. This point is answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

Point No.3

The other offence allegedly committed by the accused is punishable under section 506 IPC. i.e. punishment for ‘Criminal Intimidation’.

The word ‘criminal intimidation’ is defined under section 503 IPC as whoever threatened another with any injury to his person. Reputation or property or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested with intent to cause alarm to that person. Or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally

Page No. 8 C.C. No. 940 of 2017 bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threats, commits Criminal Intimidation.

In the present case in hand there is no allegations made in the prosecution evidence or did not disclose any such act by any of the accused. In absence of such ingredients the accused cannot to be said committed offence U/sec 506 IPC. Hence, prosecution failed to prove ingredient of section 506. This point is answered in favour of accused and against the prosecution.

Above discussion leads me to conclude that prosecution has failed in establishing guilt of Accused much less beyond all doubt for offence under Section 447,427 and 506 Indian penal code.

In the result, the accused found not guilty for the offence Under Section 447, 427, and 506 Indian Penal Code and acquitted under section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and sureties shall be cancel after expiry of appeal time. If any unmarked non valuable property shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Dictated to Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in open

court, this the 28th day of September, 2018.

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Miryalguda.

::Appendix of Evidence::

Witnesses Examined

Prosecution:

Pw.1 : D. Devakamma ( Complainant )

Pw.2 : D. Seetharamulu ( Cir-Witness)

Pw.3 : S. Madusudhan Reddy ( Cir-Witness)

Pw.4 : R. Venkanna ( Cir-Witness)

Page No. 9 C.C. No. 940 of 2017

Pw.5 : K. Sri ramulu ( Cir-Witness)

Pw.6 : SK. Abdul ( Eye-Witness)

Pw.7 : P. Koti Reddy ( Panch for scene of offence)

Pw.8 : R. Suman ( IO & arrested the accused)

Defence: Nil

EXBHITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1 : Report

Ex.P.2 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.3

Ex.P.3 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.4

Ex.P.4 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.5

Ex.P.5 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.6

Ex.P.6 : Scene of offence panchanama

Ex.P.7 : rough sketch

Ex.P.8 : FIR

For Defence: Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

NIL

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Miryalguda.

Page No. 10 C.C. No. Of 2013

C.C.608/2021

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS MIRYALAGUDA

Present:- Sri R. AJAY KUMAR Prl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Miryalaguda (Dated this the 27 th day of September, 2021)

C.C. 608 of 2021

( Cr. No. 30 of 2021 of Miryalaguda II Town PS)

Between: The State of Telangana, through, Inspector of Police, Miryalaguda II Town ...Prosecution

AND

A.1: Korrapati Veera nagaraju @ Vijay @ Vamshi S/o Venkateshwar Rao,

Age:36 years, Occ: Car Driver, R/o Chitty nagar Kundala market Vijayawada.

( case is split up against A.1 and assigned new C.C.No.1448/2021)

A.2: Panogothu Ranga S/o Mangtha, Age:22 years, Occ: Auto Driver, R/o Banjara Thanda of Adavidevulapally Village and Mandal. A.3: Gajjala Srinivasa Reddy @ Guntur Srinivasa Reddy S/o Subramanyam Reddy, Age:51 years, occ: Painter, R/o Brammanawada opposite Shivalayam, Bhonagiri of Yadadri District.

.....Accused Nos. 1 to 3

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of APPO for the State and Sri M. Uma Shankar Reddy, Advocate counsel for the accused no.2 and Sri M. V. Pavan Kumar, Advocate, Legal Aid counsel for the accused Nos. 1 and 3 and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following.

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

01. The above accused are indicated for the offences under Sections 457, 380 of Indian Penal Code (herein after referred as IPC) by the SHO Miryalaguda II

Town Police Station in Cr.No.30/2021.

02. The brief facts of the charge sheet are as follows:-

It is the case of the serial offences committed by some unknown offenders on 11.02.2021 intervening night at 1.00 a.m., to 2.00 a.m., in the houses of 1OF 8

C.C.608/2021

PW.1, PW.2 and PW.4. As per the facts that some unknown offenders were broken the window inner bolt and removed the main door and gained entry and committed theft of 3 tulas gold ornaments in the house of PW.1. As the same as in the houses of PW.2 and PW.4. Enraged with the occurrence, PW.1 lodged a report as in Ex.P.1 to the Miryalaguda II Town Police Station.

03.Based on the report/Ex.P.1, PW.7/ Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case in Cr.No.30/2021 for the offences under Sections 457, 380 of

IPC and took up investigation. During the investigation, PW.7 recorded the statements of witnesses, visited scene of offence and prepared rough sketch.

While the investigation is ongoing, on 12.04.2021 at 7.00 a.m., while PW.8 along with his team patrolling near the Flyover Bridge on Sagar Road,

Miryalaguda, they observed one auto bearing No.TS-05-UD-3112 proceeding from Miryalaguda town towards Sagar road with three people under suspicious circumstances. They attempted to flee when they saw the police, and when they were apprehended, they confessed of committing several theft offences on the files of various police stations, and during their confession and disclosure statement in the presence of Pws.5 and 6, police seized the property in the case at hand, as well as other several properties from the accused's possession in

Cr.No.54/2021 under Section 457, 380 IPC on the file of Miryalaguda II Town police station. On execution of PT warrant, accused nos. 1 to 3 were produced in this case before the court. After completion of investigation, Miryalaguda II

Town Police submitted charge sheet before this court.

04. The charge sheet as filed is taken cognizance for the offences U/sec. 457, 380 R/w 34 of IPC and alternatively Section 411 IPC against the Accused Nos.

1 to 3 and numbered as C.C.No.608/2021.

05. On production of accused nos. 1 and 3 from District Jail and on appearance of accused no.2, copies were furnished to them under Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code (herein after referred as Cr.P.C.) and accused Nos.

1 to 3 were examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C in respect of accusations for 2OF 8

C.C.608/2021 the offences under Sections 457, 380 R/w 34 of IPC and alternatively Section 411 IPC, read over and explained to them in their vernacular language, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

06.To prove its case the prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.7 and Mos. 1 to 6 in support of its case and the evidence on behalf of the prosecution was closed.

07.Accused no.1 was released on bail on 10.08.2021, since then he failed to appear before this court. Accused no.3 has been in judicial custody since 12.04.2021, and accused no.1 called absent. No representation made on behalf of accused no.1. Hence, NBW is issued against accused no.1. Since April 12, 2021, accused no.3 has been in judicial custody, and the case is at the stage of 313 Cr.P.C examination. It appears to be no immediate prospect of carrying out the NBW against accused no.1. Because of the NBW pending against the accused no.1, there may be a delay in proceeding of the case and it may remain without progress, which may cause difficulty in dealing with U.T.P/A.3, and

U.T.P. cases must be completed within six months. Therefore, this court is consider to split up the case against A.1 by invoking Rule 30 of the Criminal

Rules of Practice; otherwise, A.3 is being held in jail with no progress in the case. In view of above facts and circumstances, the case against A.1 is split up from C.C.608/2021 and assigned a new separate C.C.No.1449/2021. The case is proceeded against A.2 and A.3.

08.The accused nos.2 and 3 were given an opportunity of being heard by putting before them all the accusations alleged by the prosecution witnesses in the form of questions which have been recorded in the prescribed format in the manner as envisaged under section 313 of Cr.P.C. As aforesaid, the defence denied the allegations in toto and declined to adduce evidence (The case against A.1 is split up and assigned a new separate C.C.No.1449/2021).

3OF 8

C.C.608/2021

09.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel

for the accused at length.

10. Points for Determination are:

1. “Whether the accused nos. 2 and 3 with common intention on 11.02.2021 intervening night at 1.00 a.m., to 2.00 a.m., committed lurking house-trespass and stolen 3 thulas of gold ornaments from the house of PW.1, four small gold rings and single gold ear stud from the house of PW.2 and two small gold rings and three pairs of gold ear studs from the house of PW.4 and thus committed an offences U/sec. 457, 380 R/w 34 of IPC?”

2. “Whether the accused nos. 2 and 3 received stolen property namely, 3 thulas of gold ornaments, two small gold rings, three pairs of gold ear studs, four small rings and one gold ear studs belonging to PW.1, Pw2 and PW4 knowing that the same is stolen property and thus committed an offence U/sec 411 of IPC?”

11. P O I N T Nos. 1 and 2 :

Both points are addressed together for clarity, brevity, and to avoid

repetition.

Out of ten witnesses, the prosecution examined seven witnesses. PW.1 is complainant, PW.2 is circumstantial witness/victim, PW.3 is mediator for scene of offence panchanama, PW.4 is circumstantial witness/victim, PWs.5 and 6 are mediators for confession and recovery panchanama, PW.7 is investigating officer and PW.8 is investigating officer who filed charge sheet.

12.In short, it is the case of the prosecution that some unknown offenders committed theft of one Black bead gold chain from the house of PW.1, four small gold rings and single ear stud in the house of PW.2 and two small gold rings, 3 pairs of gold ear studs in the house of PW.4. The theft was committed in the intervening night of 12.02.2021 and same was noticed on the following day by the PW.1, PW.2 and PW.4.

4OF 8

C.C.608/2021

13.PW.1/V. Parvathalu, PW.2/M. Sundar Raju, and PW.4/J. Dev Singh testified that on 12.02.2021, theft occurred in their homes, and that, outraged by the theft, PW.1 filed a police report, as shown in Ex.P1. They also testified that they obtained the property from the court.

14.At the outset, the prosecution must prove that the above accused committed the offence in the houses of PW.1, PW.2 and PW.4 and stolen gold articles. To that end, there is no single eyewitness witnessed the incident.

Despite the fact that PW.1,PW.2 and PW.4 testified about stolen property, they were not an eyewitness to the incident. Hence, their evidence is hearsay, but it is reliable that some unknown offenders committed theft of gold articles from their houses. The prosecution relied on the disclosure statements of the accused recorded in the presence of independent mediators i.e., PWs. 5 and 6.

15. PWs.5 and 6, who are mediators to the accused's confession and disclosure statement, testified that on 12.04.2021 at Bypass Flyover in

Miryalaguda, police recorded confessions of A.1 to A.3 in their presence and confessed that accused had committed several offences in and around

Miryalaguda, and on their disclosure statement, the police seized black beads gold chain, Rs.2,00,000/- cash, gold rings and one car from A.1 to A.3 as well as iron rod/Mo.1 under cover of panchanama. According to the disclosure report/Ex.P.6 the case property, i.e., Mo.1( 3 thulas Black beed Gold Chain),

Mo.2(4 small gold rings, Mo.3( one gold ear stud), Mo.4 (2 small gold rings),

Mo.5 (3 pairs of gold ear studs)/-, was seized at the instance of A.2 in his house in Banjara Thanda, but the evidence of PW.5, one of the mediators, stated that the case property was seized from A.1 to A.3, but he did not specifically state that it was seized from A.2's possession. On the other hand, PW.6, the co- mediator, testified that they went to A.2's house and seized Rs.2,00,000/- (500 rupees denomination) and all above articles. Though PW.5's evidence is improper and clouded, PW.6's evidence reveals that Rs.2,00,000/- and above properties was seized from the possession of A2, which is reliable under Section 5OF 8

C.C.608/2021 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, but the accused's defense through his counsel has impeached PW.6's evidence. It was stated that A.2's house is located in the Housing Board Colony, however, according to the disclosure statement/Ex.P6, recovery was done at A.2's house in Banjara Thanda, not at the Housing Board location. Thus, PW.6's evidence is untrustworthy. If the police truly seized the case property at the request of A.2 in the presence of mediators, they would undoubtedly depose it in the case. Hence, there is a great deal of variation in the evidence of PW.5 and PW.6.

16. Another factor to consider is recovery time, whereas the date of occurrence is 12.02.2020 . The recovery through the A.2 was effected on 12.04.2021. That's means a two-month gap. The evidences of the PW.5 and Pw.6, from their very nature cannot be considered to decide that accused no.2 is receiver or retainer of stolen property. To attract Section 411 of IPC, the stolen articles must be in the accused possession immediately after the theft. As can be seen from the foregoing, a two-month gap is not a immediate period to conclude or presume that the accused is the receiver or retainer of stolen property.

17. Summing up with the above discussion, the prosecution miserably failed to prove that the accused committed theft in the house of PW.1 and and the mediator's evidence is insufficient to prove Section 411 of IPC. The evidences of

Pw.5 and Pw.6 from their very nature cannot be considered to decide the guilt of the accused. Hence, the evidence of the prosecution cannot be held sufficient to decide the guilt of the accused persons, thereby miserably failing in establishing the allegations of the accused persons. Hence, the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused and liable to be acquittal.

18. In the result, the accused Nos. 2 and 3 are found not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 411, 457, 380 R/w 34 of IPC . Accordingly, accused

Nos. 2 and 3 are acquitted under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The Superintendent, 6OF 8

C.C.608/2021

District Jail Nalgonda is directed to release the accused no.3 forthwith if his custody is not required in any other case. The bail bonds of the accused no. 2 shall be in force for a period of 6 months as per section 437 (A) Cr.P.C.

The Mo.1 black bead gold chain weighing about 3 tulas returned to PW.1 on interim custody through Crl.M.P. No.41/2021 shall hold good after lapse of appeal period.

The Mo.2 Four small gold rings and Mo.3 Single gold ear stud returned to PW.2 on interim custody through Crl.M.P. No. 42/2021 shall hold good after lapse of appeal period.

The Mo.4 Two small gold rings and Mo.5 Three pairs of gold ear studs returned to PW.4 on interim custody through Crl.M.P.No.45/2021 shall hold good after lapse of appeal period.

The Mo.6 Iron rod with 1 ½ feet shall be destroyed after appeal time is elapsed.

Dictated to Steno, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 27 th day of September, 2021.

Sd/-

Prl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Miryalaguda

::Appendix of Evidence::

Witnesses Examined

Prosecution: PW.1: Vanam Parvathalu (complainant) PW.2: Marineni Sunder Raju (circumstantial witness) PW.3: Pamoju Rama Chri (mediator for scene of offence panchanama) PW.4: Jatavath Dev Singh (circumstantial witness) PW.5: Raplou Maesh (mediator for confession and recovery panchanama) PW.6: Manchala Venkanna (mediator for confession and recovery panchanama) PW.7: Md. Khayamuddin (investigating officer) PW.8: D. Srinivasa Reddy (investigating officer and find charge sheet)

Defence: Nil 7OF 8

C.C.608/2021

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P.1: Report given by PW.1 Ex.P.2: Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P.3: Rough sketch Ex.P.4: relevant portion of disclosure statement of A.1 Ex.P.5: relevant portion of disclosure statement of A.2 Ex.P.6: relevant portion of disclosure statement of A.2 (recovery of cash of rs.2 lakhs) Ex.P.7: First information report For Defence: NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

Mo.1: Black bead gold chain weighing about 3 tulas Mo.2: Four small gold rings Mo.3: Single gold ear stud Mo.4:two small gold rings Mo.5: three pairs of gold ear studs Mo.6: iron rod with 1 ½ feet

Sd/-

Prl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Miryalaguda

// True Copy//

Prl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Miryalaguda 8OF 8

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

AT MIRYALGUDA.

(Dated this the 28 th day of September, 2018.)

Present :- Sri R. Ajay kumar,

II Addl.Junior Civil Judge

Miryalguda

CC. No. 522 of 2015

(Cr.No. 20/2015 of PS Miryalguda Rural )

Between:

The State of Telangana, through,

Sub-Inspector of Police,

P.S. Miryalguda Rural.

…Complainant

AND

1. Banavath Salku S/o Lachiram, Age: 45 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o

Mysamma Kunta thanda H/o Water tank thanda (v), Miryalguda (m)

2. Banavath Raju S/o Mangtiya, Age: 20 years, Occ: Auto Driver, R/o

Mysamma Kunta thanda H/o Water tank thanda (v), Miryalguda (m)

3. Anaparthy Gangadhar S/o Sathyanarayana, Age: 41 years, Caste: kamma,

Occ: Business, R/o H.No. 7-464, Bangarigadda, Miryalguda (m) …Accused no. 1 to 3

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of APPO for the State and Sri. Muvva Arun Kumar Advocate counsel for the Accused, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Miryalguda Rural Police Station, filed charge sheet against the accused no. 1 to 3 in crime No. 20 of 2015, for the offence under Section 8 (b) of AP Prohibition & Excise Act 1995 sec 34(e) of

AP Excise act 1968.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 17.01.2015 at 1500 hours while perfoming village visit of Mysamma Kunta thanda H/o Water tank thanda(V) received an information about possession of illicit liquor and found the A1 possession ID liquor of (10) litres of in a while plastic in front of his house. On that apprehended the A1 conducted panchanama and seized the said ID liquor in a white of (10) litres, taken sample of two bottles of 180 ML. Basing on the seizure panchanama of the A1 seized a Auto bearing no. AP 24/X-7674 loaded with (9) bags of Alum wach Wg 50 Kgs, a bag of Alum Wg 50 Kgs. The confession statement of the A2 also recorded under a cover of panchanama and seized the Auto, 9 bags of Black Jaggary and a bag of Alum under cover of

Panchanama. The A2 stated that the black jaggary and Alum have been purchased from the shop of A3 and supplying to the customers in and around villages of Miryalguda. At 1700 hours brought the A1 & A2 with seized case property and Auto to Police Station. Basing on the confession panchanama registered a case in Cr. No. 20/2015 U/s 8(b) of AP Prohibhition & Excise Act 1995 sec 34 (e) of AP Prohibition & Excise Act 1968.

3. Cognizance of the offence under Section 8(b) of AP Prohibition Act sec 34 (e) of AP Excise Act was taken against the accused no.1 to 3 the case was numbered as C.C.No. 522 of 2015.

4.On appearance of the accused no. 1 to 3, they were furnished with the copies of the documents, as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. The accused no.

1 to 3 were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C with reference to the allegations levelled against them in the charge sheet. Accused no. 1 to 3 denied the same.

Charge for the offence under Section 8(b) of AP Prohibition Act sec 34 (e) of

AP Excise Act was framed against the accused no. 1 to 3 read over and explained to them In Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined PWs.1 to 5 and marked Exs.P1 to P4. P.W.1 is the Eye-Witness, P.W.2 & 3 are the Panch for confession & Seizure liquor, Pw.4 is the eye witness, P.W.5 is the Complainant & Investigation Officer. L.w. 2 was given up by Prosecution. Prosecution side evidence was closed.

6.After closure of the Prosecution evidence, accused A1 to A3 were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C explaining them the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Accused denied the same and reported no oral or documentary evidence.

7.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused.

8.The point that arises for determination in this case is

1) Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused no. 1 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence under Sections 8(b) of AP

Prohibition and Excise Act 1995.

2) Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused no. 2 and 3 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence under Sections 34 (e) of AP

Excise Act 1968.

1.Pw.1 & Pw.4 are categorily deposed that on 17.01.2015 while they were present in the police station at about after 2.00 PM. At that time along with

Lw.2 & Pw.5 went to the patrolling in village while they are at Mysamma Kunta thanda at the house of A1 and one auto is stationed there. On the suspicion they verified the auto and found 450 Kgs of Jaggary and 50 Kgs of Patika(alum). On the suspicion they verified the house of A1 and found arrack in the plastic can approximately 10 litres. Then his SI called to panch witnesses from village and conducted panchanama for the seizure of the jaggary and alum and plastic can with arrack and A1 is also present at the house and arrested A1 under cover the panchanama and brought to the police station. He was examined by police.

2.During his Cross-Examination he admitted that he did not stated in his statement that panchanama was conducted in the presence of mediators at the scene of offence. Further submitted that whenever they go on duty they has enter into General Diary. He did not handed over to his SI to show that a GD is made for his visit to scene of offence. Further admitted that they did not issued any search memo to the A1. Further they denied suggestions made by the learned defence counsel.

3.Pw.2 & Pw.3 are categorily deposed that police did not conducted any confessional panchanama in their presence and no one confessed and nothing was seized before them. About some years ago they went to police station, police obtained their signatures. Ex.P.1 & Ex.P.2 are their signatures. They don’t know anything about the facts of this case. They did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile.

4.Pw.5/ V. Sardar Naik/ Investigation Officer deposed that on 17.01.2015 at 15.00 hours on credible information he along with Lw.2, Pw.1 & Pw.4 proceeded to Maisamma kunta thanda and went to A1 house and found 10 litres

ID liquor and found 9 bags of black jaggary, 50 Kgs Alum in the Reg.No. AP 24

X 7674. Thereafter he summon Pw.2 & 3 and secured in their presence, in their presence conducted panchanama and seized and taken samples from the seized articles under cover of panchanama. Thereafter they brought him to police station and registered case no. 20/2015 under section 8 (b) of AP Prohibition and Excise Act 1995, section 34 (e) of AP excise Act 1965. FIR is marked as

Ex.P.4 panchanama is marked as Ex.P.3. Thereafter he recorded the statements of Pw.1, Pw.4 & Lw.2 at police station. Then he issued 41(A) notice to A1 &

A2. On 19.01.2015 he issued 41(A) notice to A3. Later they sent samples to

FSL laboratory at Warangal on collecting of FSL report he filed charge sheet.

5.During his cross examination he admitted that he did not issued search warrant to A1. Further he denied the suggestion made by the learned defence counsel.

POINT No. 1 & 2

Points Nos. 1 & 2 :- All two points are taken up together for adjudication and for sake of Convenience, continuity and Brevity.

As they offence took in the same transaction this court inclined to answer the point 1 & 2 with collectively.

A perusal of the charge sheet goes to show that the A1 found with the possession of ID liquor of (10) litres of in a white plastic in front of his house. Further police conducted panchanama and seized the said ID liquor and taken samples of two bottles of 180 ML.

Basing on the seizure panchanama of the A1, police seized a auto bearing no.

AP-24/X-7674 loaded with 9 bags of Alum each bag weigh 50 Kgs. The confession statement of A2 also recorded under a cover of panchanama and seized the Auto, 9 bags of Black Jaggary and a bag of Alum under a cover of panchanama. As revealed that black jaggary and Alum have been purchased from the shop of A3 at Miryalguda.

To prove the seize the prosecution examined two mediators Pw.2 and Pw.3. but both of them showed volte-faces. Both denied their participation in raids seizure of Id liquor, Jaggary, Alum and Auto under cover of panchanama and hence their evidence is not helpful to the case of prosecution.

The remaining evidence is pw.1, Pw.4 and Pw.5 who are police constables and

Investigating Officer. The learned APP contended that evidence of Pw.1, Pw.4 &

Pw.5 can be relied upon to base conviction because they are independent police officials, who has no interest in the result of the case. Learned defence counsel contended that the evidence of Pw.1, Pw.4 & PW.5 cannot be relied upon since it suffers from corroboration. It is true that court cannot reject the evidence of pw.1, Pw.4 & Pw.5 at the threshold on the ground that they are Police official.

However there evidence has to be appreciated with great care and caution. Pw.5 no doubt supported the contents of Ex.P.3 panchanama. Supported the case of prosecution.

There is reason for disbelieve the evidence of pw.5. According to the prosecution Pw.5 had reliable information about the illegal possession of ID liquor. In such case pw.5 has to take search warrant before raids by following the procedure laid down in section 17 of the Act or has to follow the procedure laid down in section 18 of the Act. But, none of them are complied by Pw.5.

Non compliance of mandatory provisions is fatal to the case of prosecution.

There is another reason to disbelieve the evidence of Pw.5. he deposed that his staff also accompanied him and were present at the time of conducting panchanama. But Ex.p.3/Panchanama does not contain the names of staff.

On perusing the evidence of pw.1 and pw.4 it shows from the evidence of pw.4, he was silent about the presence of Pw.1 with them however pw.1 deposed the presence of pw.4. except to this aspect they deposed on same lines, but their evidence was silent in respect of auto registration bearing number. Further all the prosecution witness silent about the owner of auto and no registration certificate filed before this court. Further no prosecution witnesses deposed the participation of A2 and A3 in the said commission of offence.

The learned defence counsel further contended that as per Ex.P.3 panchanama the sample was draw from all the seized material and forwarded to Lw.6/ K.

Sridevi, govt Chemical examiner for analysis and report pertaining to seized material. Further Pw.5 did not state the reasons for not filing of original report

before the court. Hence, a serious doubt arises in the mind of court about

genuineness of the analysis report and case of prosecution.

The counsel for the accused contended that there is a delay in sending the sample to the chemical examiner and on the said point the accused is entitled for acquittal. As rightly contended by the counsel for the accused that there is a delay in sending the sample to the chemical examination. Admittedly, as per

EX.P.3/panchanama the seizure of the sample was made on 17.01.2015 but it appears from the chemical examiners report that the sample was sent to the chemical examiner on 26.01.2015. There is no explanation as to why the samples were not sent to the chemical examination till 26.01.2015 which gives a serious doubt about the case of prosecution.

Above discussion leads me to conclude that prosecution has failed in establishing guilt of accused A1 to A3 much less beyond all doubt for under section 8 (b) of AP Prohibition & Excise Act 1995 against A1 and under section 34(e) of AP excise Act 1968 against A2 & A3. Both points are accordingly answered against the prosecution.

In the result, A1 is found not guilty for the offence under section 8(b) of AP

Prohibition & Excise Act 1995 and A2 & A3 are found not guilty for the offence under section 34(e) of AP excise Act 1968 and accused no. 1 to 3 are acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C for the said offence. Bail bonds of accused A1 to A3 shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. If any case property shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, directly typed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 28th day of September, 2018.

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge

Miryalguda

:: Appendix of Evidence ::

Witnesses Examined

Prosecution:

PW1 : G. Venkanna (Eye-witness)

PW2: D. Ashalu ( (Panch for confessional & seizure liquor)

PW3: G. Kishan (Panch for confessional & seizure liquor)

PW4: Md. Buranuddin (Eye-witness)

PW5: V. Sardar naik ( Complainant , IO & filed charge sheet)

Defence:

Nil

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1 : Signature of Pw.2 on Confession & seizure liquor

Ex.P2 : Signature of Pw.3 on Confession & seizure liquor

Ex.P3 : Panchanama

Ex.P4: FIR

For Defence:

Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

NIL

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge

Miryalguda.

C.C. 1338/2013

Date:30/07/2018

Accused Present

Judgment pronounced in the open court (V.S.J)

In the result Accused is not found guilty for the offence under section 448, 354-A IPC and acquitted and under section 248(1) of

Cr.P.C. The bail Bonds and sureties accused shall be cancel after expiry of appeal time. If any unmarked non valuable case property shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

IIADM

Miryalaguda

1

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

CLASS AT: MIRYALAGUDA

Present:- Sri. R. Ajay Kumar, Prl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, FAC: II Addl. Judl Magistrate of I Class Miryalaguda. (Dated this the 18th day of December, 2020).

C.C. No. 1203 of 2013

Between: The State of Telangana through, Sub-Inspector of Police, Vemulapally P.S.

...Complainant

AND

Malli Sathish Reddy, S/o: Narayana Reddy, Age: 42 years, Occ: Army, R/o: Bhuggabhavigudem, H/o Vemulapally village and Mandal.

.....Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of APPO for the State and Sri K.Pratap Reddy,Advocate counsel for the Accused, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

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

01.The complainant/ PW1/Alugubelli Sujatha presented a private complaint/Ex.P-1

before this court on 04.07.2012 stating inter alia that on 27.12.2011, the accused

trespassed into her house, abused in filthy language and dismantled the compound wall of her house with crowbar. When the complainant/PW1 protested the acts of the accused, he threatened with dire consequences and also tried to attack on her. As a result complainant/PW1 sustained around Rs.30,000/- of loss. Meanwhile, PW2 to PW4 rushed to the scene and rescued the complainant/PW1.

02.Aggrieved by the acts of the accused, PW1 approached Vemualapally police station and lodged a report, but they refuse to register her report. As such she approached this court by way of private complaint/ExP-1.

2

03.On receipt of private complaint, My learned predecessor referred this private complaint to the SHO Vemulapally P.S, through CF.No.1453 of 2012. On receiving the private complaint, SHO Vemualapally registered, as a FIR No.73 of 2012, U/sec., 448,427,506 and 504 IPC against the accused. After completion of investigation, Sub-

Inspector of Vemulapally submitted charge sheet U/sec., 448,427,506 and 504 IPC against the accused.

04.On appearance of the accused, he was furnished with the copies of the documents, as required under section 207 Cr.P.C. The accused was examined under section 251 of

Cr.P.C with reference to the allegations leveled against him in the charge sheet and same was read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

05.The Prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined PW1 to PW9 and marked

Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-4. PW1 is the Complainant, PW2 to PW7 are the Eye witnesses, PW8 and PW9 are the investigation officers. The evidence of LW8/ Gunja Janardhan,

LW2/Alugubelly Matta Reddy and LW10/Gunja Parvathamma is closed basing on the report filed by the SHO Vemualapally.

06.After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused was examined U/sec., 313

Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

07.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused.

Now the point that arises for determination:- (I). “Whether the accused on 27.12.2011 at about 01.00 PM, committed the offence of

house trespass by entering into the land of the PW1 with an intend to commit an

offence or to annoy or intimidate or insult the PW1 and thereby committed an offence punishable U/sec.,448 of IPC ?” 3 (II). “ Whether the accused, on the same day, place and time committed an offence of

mischief by damaging the compound wall of the PW1, worth of which is about

Rs.30,000/- and thereby committed an offence punishable U/sec.,427 of IPC ?”

(III). “ Whether the accused on the same day,place and time had threatened and

insulted with intend to provoke breach of peace against PW1 and thereby committed an offence punishable U/sec., 504 and 506 IPC ?”

POINT No.1 to 3:-

All three points taken up together for brevity, continuation, convenience and to avoid repetition .

08.For the offence of house trespass it has to be proved by the prosecution that the accused entered into or upon property in the possession of PW1 with the intend to commit an offence. In the circumstances of the case, it has to be proved whether the accused entered into the property of the PW1 with the intend to commit offence

U/sec,427/504/506 IPC.

09.It is the case of the complainant that about 15 years ago she purchased house plot from the father of the accused and constructed a house compromising with compound wall. Later in the year 2012 accused came upon the house of PW1 by abusing and demolished the compound wall with the help of crowbar. On seeing the same, PW1 made shouts, on hearing the shouts PW2 to PW4 came to the scene and questioned the accused on seeing them accused fled away from the scene. PW1 sustained a loss of

Rs.30,000/- - Rs.40,000/- in respect of demolish of compound wall.

10.During cross-examination, it is elicited that PW1 stated two different statements on same aspect, where she stated that her self and accused do not have any previous disputes and again says that prior to filing of this case there are standing previous disputes between herself and accused.

11.It is also brought to notice that on 17.07.2012 accused and his mother namely

Parijathamma initiated a suit for recovery of possession and declaration of title against

PW1 on the file of Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda. Admittedly in the said suit 4

PW2 to PW7 and LW8/G.Janardhan are the defendants along with PW1 and the same was decreed in the favour of accused and his mother Parijathamma against themselves and it is also admitted prior to filing of the said suit a case was filed against PW3, PW4 and husband of PW1 i.e., LW2/A.Matta Reddy in Cr.No.44/2012 for the offence U/sec., 435 IPC on the file of Vemulapally police station by mother of accused.

12.The evidence of PW2/P. Saidulu shows that while he returning from his agricultural fields to his house, he saw the accused near the compound wall of PW1 and a dispute going between PW1 and accused in respect of compound wall issue and accused abusing the PW1. However, during cross-examination he admitted that on the entire day he was at his agricultural field. Thus, his presence at the scene is doubtful and his evidence cannot be taken into consideration.

13.The evidence of PW3 shows that when he heard the shouts of PW1, himself and

PW4 went to the spot and observed that accused and PW1 quarreling with each other and accused demolishing the compound wall with the help of crowbar. On questioning the same accused given adamant answer and moved from there.

14.In cross-examination it was admitted by the witness that, a case was filed against

LW2 and himself by the mother of accused on the file of Vemulapally police station and admitted about previous civil disputes between the accused and PW1 family. It is also found that he is the one of the witness in the said Civil suit.

15.Pw4/K.Ravinder Reddy deposed that accused demolished the wall of LW2 who is the husband of PW1 with the help of crowbar. PW2, PW3 and others are witnessed along with him.

16.In the cross-examination it is elicited about standing previous disputes between the family of accused and PW1 and he is one of the defendant in the Civil suit file by the 5 mother of the accused and also arrayed as accused in the criminal case initiated by the accused. It is also found that PW1 is the resident of Miryalaguda.

17.PW5 to PW7 who are alleged eye witness to the occurrence are turned hostile.

18.PW8/M.Rama Rao Sub-Inspector of police deposed that he received private complaint from the court, on receipt of the private complaint he registered as in

Cr.No.73/2012 for the offence U/sec., 448,427,506,504 IPC and tookup investigation.

During investigation he visited Buggabaviguda village and recorded the statements of

PW1 to PW7, LW2/M.Matta Reddy, LW8/G.Janardhan and LW10/G.Parvathamma and addressed a letter to the superior authority of accused as he is working in Military force.

On his transfer he hand over the CD file to PW9/R.Suman/Sub-inspector of police. On receipt of the CD file, PW9 filed charge sheet before this court with a request to issue

NBW against the accused.

19.During cross-examination of PW8 he stated that he did not receive any information with regard to offence as stated by PW1 prior to registering of this case.

Counsel for accused pointed out the delay in-dispatching the FIR to the court. It is further elicited that he did not prepared scene of offence panchanama and rough sketch and nothing is seized in this case on the account that offence took place in the year 2011.

20.About 15years ago, PW.1/A.Sujatha purchased the house plot from the father of the accused and constructed a house compromising of compound wall. In the year 2012, accused came upon the house and erected the compound wall with help of Crowbar. As a result Pw1 sustained loss of Rs. 30,000/- to 40,000/-.

21.Admittedly,on 17.07.2012 accused and his mother namely Parijathamma initiated a civil suit for recovery of possession and declaration of title against Pw.1 on the file of

Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge, Miryalguda and same was decreed in favour of accused and

his mother. P.w2 to P.w.7, L.w.2 and L.w.7 are stood as defendants in the said suit.

6

Admittedly, previous standing disputes are existed between accused and Pw.1 and a crime no 44 of 2012, u/sec 435 IPC was registered against the P.w.3 and P.w.4 which was filed by the mother of the accused. Admittedly, P.w.2 and P.w.6 work under the hands of the L.w.2/Matta Reddy who is the husband of P.w.1. From the above fact it is clear that disputes are going on between the accused and P.w.1. Though P.w.1 stated that accused dismantled the compound wall with crow bar but she did not stated that descriptive details of house .i.e, door number and place. Moreover, in cross examination

Pw.1 admitted she is resident of Miryalguda and alleged occurrence happened at

Buggabavigudem. In absence of particulars of the house and compound wall of P.w.1 the alleged house trespass and mischief by accused is doubtful. Besides P.w.2 is silent in respect of erected the compound wall by accused. P.w.3 and P.w.4 stated that prior to their visit to the scene, P.w.2 already were present at the place. Further they stated that accused demolished the compound wall. It appears there is discrepancy in the evidence of P.w2 and P.w.3.The other alleged eye witnesses .i.e., P.w.5 to P.w.7 turned into hostile and pleaded ignorance to the facts of this case. There is no record put forth by the P.w.1, to what extent the compound wall was damaged by the accused. As seen from the record, there is no rough sketch was prepared by the Investigation officer.

22.The evidence in respect of Sec., 504 and 506 IPC are absolutely absent in the prosecution case except stating that accused abused PW1 in filthy language, However, mere abusing does not fall under the ambit of Sec., 504 and 506 IPC

23.Apart from all above, it appears that Pw.1, who alleged that incident had taken place on 27.12.2011 had filed the Private Complaint/Ex.P1 on 04.07.2012 without giving any reason/explanation for the delay of 06 months caused in filing the Ex.P1.

Another aspect raises suspicious that whereas Pw.1 without knocking the doors of

Vemulapally Police station directly approached the court through private complaint/Ex.P-1. In my considered opinion, delay in lodging the Complaint/Ex.P1 7 without any explanation raises doubt on the prosecution case and also its fatal to the prosecution.

24.Thus, on the basis of discussion made above it appears that the materials placed

before court is not satisfactory enough to believe the prosecution version. In view of the

same, this court of opinion that it will be highly unsafe to rely upon evidences of such witnesses, in order to determine the guilt of the accused. Therefore, it can be said that prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the alleged commission of offence by the accused.

25.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 448,427,506,504 of Indian penal code and he is acquitted under section 255(1) of

Criminal Procedure code. Accused is set at liberty forthwith. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months as per section 437 (A) Cr.P.C. The unmarked non-valuable property if any shall be destroyed after laps of appeal time.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me, this the 18th day of December, 2020).

Prl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, FAC: II Addl. Judl Magistrate of First Class, Miryalaguda.

:Appendix of Evidence::

Witnesses Examined

Prosecution: PW.1: Alugubelly Sujatha (Complainant). PW.2: Poleboina Saidulu (Eye witness). PW.3: Kotla Shankar Reddy (Eye witness). PW.4: Kotla Ravinder Reddy (Eye witness). PW.5: Reka Narshima (Eye witness). PW.6: Poleboina Kashaiah (Eye witness). PW.7: Amireddy Srinivas Reddy (Eye witness). PW.8: M. Rama Rao (Issued FIR). PW.9: R.Suman (I.O. and filed charge sheet ) Defence: Nil 8

EXBHITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P-1: is the Private Complaint of PW1. Ex.P-2 is the 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW5. Ex.P-3 is the 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW6. Ex.P-4 is the First Information Report For Defence: NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

NIL

Prl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, FAC: II Addl. Judl Magistrate of First Class, Miryalaguda.