Sri R. Ajay Kumar

Page No.1 of 11 Judgment in CC. No.564 of 2017 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Alair.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT: ALAIR

Present:- Sri R. AJAY KUMAR

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Alair (Dated this the 17 th day of March, 2026)

CC . 564 of 20 17

( Crime No.65 of 2017 of Athmakur-M PS)

Between: The State of Telangana, through, Station House Officer, Athmakur-M P.S. ...Prosecution A n d

1. Bodamatla Ramchandra Reddy, S/o. Bakka Reddy, Age: 48 years, Occ: Farmer, R/o. Pallepahad village.

2. Bodamatla Laxmi, W/o. Ramachandra Reddy, Age: 44 years, Occ: Farmer, R/o. Pallepahad village.

3. Nalla Sanjeeva Reddy, S/o. Venkat Reddy, Age: 25 years, Occ: Car driver, R/o. Eppalla, H/o. Koratikal village.

4. Nalla Bhaskar Reddy, S/o. Venkat Reddy, Age: 28 years, Occ: Farmer, R/o. Eppalla H/o. Koratikal village.

5. Bodamatla Sridhar @ Naveen Reddy, S/o. Ramachandra Reddy, Age: 21 years, Occ: Student, R/o. Pallepahad village.

...Accused Nos.1 to 5

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of APPO for the State and Sri G.Srinivas Reddy, Advocate counsel for the accused Nos.1 and 2 and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following.

JFCM, Alair

Page No.2 of 11 Judgment in CC. No.564 of 2017 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Alair.

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

01)The above accused nos.1 to 5 are indicated for the offence under sections 324, 504 and 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code (herein after referred as IPC) in Cr.No. 65 of 2017 by the Sub-Inspector of police, Athmakur-M Police

Station.

02) T he brief facts of the charge-sheet are as follows:-

On 26.05.2017 at about 10.30 hours, the accused persons, bored land dispute in their mind, picked up quarrel with PW1, and accused no. 1 beat him with a spade handle over his left thigh and stomach and caused injuries.

When PW2 tried to rescue PW1, the accused pushed her aside, pelted stone over her right leg and fisted blows over her stomach and caused injuries.

Following that, all the accused abused them in filthy language and threatened them with dire consequences. Aggrieved by the acts of the accused, PW1 went to the police station and lodged the report to the police as in Ex.P1.

03)Based on the report/Ex.P1, PW7/Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case in Cr. No. 65 of 2017 for the offence U/secs. 447, 324, 504, and 506 r/w 34 of the IPC, issued an FIR, and took up the investigation. During the course of the investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of

PW1 and PW2 and referred them to District Headquarters Hospital for treatment. Thereafter, he visited the scene of offence, where he examined and recorded the statement of PW3 and conducted CDF in the presence of PW4 and

Lw4/K.Harishchandra. Later, he received wound certificates of PW1 and PW2 and found they sustained simple injuries. On 15.06.2017, PW6/Sub-Inspector of

JFCM, Alair

Page No.3 of 11 Judgment in CC. No.564 of 2017 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Alair.

Police issued 41A Cr.P.C. notices to accused nos. 1 to 5 and summoned them to

P.S. on 25.06.2017. During the enquiry, accused nos. 1 to 5 admitted their guilt in this case. On that, he issued 41 A (3) Cr.P.C. notices to them with a direction to appear before the court on receipt of summons. After completion of the investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the accused nos. 1 to 5 for the offence under sections 324, 504 and 506 r/w 34 of the I.P.C.

04)Upon receipt of the charge sheet, my learned Predecessor took cognizance for the offence U/secs.324, 504 and 506 r/w 34 IPC against the accused nos.1 to 5 and assigned the case number as CC.564 of 2017.

05) On appearance of the accused nos.1 to 5, copies were furnished to them under Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code (herein after referred as

Cr.P.C.) and they were examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C and charges were framed for the offence U/sec.324, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC , read over and explained to them in their vernacular language, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

06)Out of (08) witnesses, the prosecution got examined (07) witnesses. PW1 is the informant/injured. PW2 is the eyewitness/injured. PW3 is the circumstantial witness. PW4 is the mediator to the CDF. PW5 is the medical officer. PW6 and PW7 are the investigation officers. Based on the report filed by SHO PS Athmakur-M, the evidence of LW4/K.Harishachandra has been closed. On behalf of the prosecution, Exs. P1 to P5 were marked.

JFCM, Alair

Page No.4 of 11 Judgment in CC. No.564 of 2017 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Alair.

07)After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused nos.1 to 5 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.

08)Heard the arguments of learned Appo and learned counsel for accused nos.1 to 5.

9) Now the point s for determination in this case are:

I) "Whether the accused nos. 1 to 5, in furtherance of common

intention, voluntarily caused simple hurt to PW1 by means of a spade

handle on 26.05.2017 at about 10.30 AM and thereby committed an

offence punishable under Sec. 324 r/w 34 IPC?"

II) "Whether the accused nos. 1 to 5, in furtherance of common

intention, threatened PW1 with dire consequences to kill him on

26.05.2017 at about 10.30 AM and thereby committed an offence

punishable under Sec. 506 r/w 34 IPC?"

III) "Whether the accused nos. 1 to 5, in furtherance of common

intention, intentionally insulted PW1 by using filthy language on

26.05.2017 at about 10.30 AM and thereby committed an offence

punishable under Sec. 504 r/w 34 IPC?"

P oints No.I to III :-

JFCM, Alair

Page No.5 of 11 Judgment in CC. No.564 of 2017 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Alair.

All the points are addressed together for clarity, brevity, and to avoid repetition.

10)In a nutshell, it is the prosecution’s case that, on 26.05.2017 at about 10.30 AM, accused nos. 1 to 5 picked up a quarrel with PW1 and beat him with the handle of a spade over his left thigh and stomach and caused injuries. When

PW2 tried to rescue PW1, all the accused pushed her aside and pelted stone over her right leg and fisted blows over her stomach and caused injuries. All the accused abused them in filthy language and threatened them with dire consequences to kill.

11)PW1/Informant and the injured testified that about 6 years ago, while he was adjusting the boundary line (Gattu) at his agricultural land, accused nos. 1 to 4 and Suresh came there and took the parakannu from his hand and beat him, due to which he sustained an injury over his left leg, and also they fisted blows over his stomach and threatened to kill him. When his wife came and interfered, the accused pelted stone on her, beat her and left. He further testified that the accused beat them due to a land dispute, and the incident occurred at 10.30 AM. In the evening he went to the police station and lodged the report to the police as in Ex. P1.

12)PW2/Injured testified that, about 6 years ago, while she along with her husband was adjusting the boundary line (Gattu) at her agricultural field, at the time the accused nos. 1 to 5 came there and beat her husband with a para, and when she interfered, the accused pelted stones over her right leg, beat her and left. She further testified that the accused beat her husband more, and she

JFCM, Alair

Page No.6 of 11 Judgment in CC. No.564 of 2017 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Alair.

fell unconscious. The accused beat them due to land disputes, and the incident occurred at 10.30 AM. In the evening she went to the police station and gave the report to the police.

13)PW3/circumstantial witness testified that, about 7 years ago, at about 10.00 AM, their parents were doing agricultural work (varalu theesthunuru) in their land at the agricultural well, and in the meantime, accused nos. 1 to 5 beat his father with parakannu; as a result, his father sustained an injury to his left leg. When his mother interfered, the accused pushed her and pelted stone on his mother, due to which his mother sustained an injury to her right leg. He further testified that the accused threatened his parents that they would kill them. The incident was reported to him by his father through phone, and immediately he went there and shifted his parents to the hospital in an auto.

14)PW4/mediator to the CDF, denied his presence at the scene of offence, failed to support the prosecution case and completely turned hostile.

15)PW5/Medical Officer testified that, on 26.05.2017 at about 2.40 PM,

PW1 and PW2 came to the hospital along with requisitions for treatment. On receipt of requisitions, she examined PW1 and found the following injuries:- (1) Abrasion of size 6 X 2 cm over the left thigh.

(2) Abrasion of size 1 X 2 cm over the right hand.

She opined the above injuries were simple in nature and fresh.

Accordingly, she issued wound certificate as in Ex. P2.

JFCM, Alair

Page No.7 of 11 Judgment in CC. No.564 of 2017 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Alair.

Following that, she examined PW2 and found an abrasion of size 2 X 0.5 cm over the right leg. She opined that the above injury was simple in nature and fresh. Accordingly, she issued wound certificate as in Ex. P3.

16)PW7/investigation officer testified about the receipt of Ex.P1 from PW1, based on which he registered a case in Cr.No.65/2017 for the offence under sections 447, 324, 504 and 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C., issued an FIR (Ex.P4) and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of PW1 and PW2 and referred them to District

Headquarters Hospital for treatment. Thereafter, he visited the scene of offence, where he examined and recorded the statement of PW3 and conducted

CDF in the presence of PW4 and LW4/K. Harishchandra as in Ex. P5.

Thereafter, he received wound certificates of PW1 and PW2 from PW5 and later handed over the CD file to PW6 for further investigation.

17)PW6/Investigation Officer testified that on receipt of the CD file from

PW7, he verified the investigation done by him, found it on proper lines and took up further investigation. During the course of the investigation on 15.06.2017, he issued 41A Cr.P.C. notices to accused nos. 1 to 5 and directed them to appear on 25.07.2017. Upon enquiry, they confessed their guilt in this offence. Thereafter, he issued notices under section 41A (3) of Cr.P.C. and directed them to appear before the court on receipt of summons. On receipt of necessary certificates and completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the accused nos. 1 to 5 for the offence under sections 324, 504 and 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C.

JFCM, Alair

Page No.8 of 11 Judgment in CC. No.564 of 2017 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Alair.

18) The case at hand involves assault, criminal intimidation, and insult intended to provoke a breach of peace against PW1 and PW2 by the accused nos. 1 to 5. According to the testimony of PW1 and PW2, who are husband and wife, while they were adjusting the boundary line, the accused arrived and beat

PW1 with a spade handle over his left thigh and fisted blows on his stomach.

When PW2 intervened, the accused pushed her away, pelted stone on her right leg, beat her and fled. PW1 and PW2 testified that the accused beat them over a land dispute. Except for the evidence of PWs 1 and 2, no other independent eyewitnesses were cited by PWs 6 and 7. PW3, the son of PW1 and PW2, testified that PW1 informed him of the incident, and then he went to the scene and shifted them to the hospital. Moving on to the evidence of PW5/medical officer, she testified that she examined PW1 and PW2 and found two abrasion injuries on PW1's left thigh and right hand and one abrasion injury on PW2's right leg, which were examined by her on 26.05.2017 at around 2.40 PM.

During cross-examination, PW1 and PW2 categorically stated that they filed a report with the police between 5.00 and 6.00 PM. However, a review of Ex.P1 shows that Pw7 received Ex.P1 at 1400 hours. When PW3's evidence was considered, he immediately after the incident shifted PW1 and PW2 to the hospital. When PW1 and PW2 proceeded directly to the hospital, Ex.P2 and

Ex.P3/wound certificates show that they were examined by PW5 at 2.30 PM and 2.40 PM, respectively, on 26.05.2017. When they went directly to the hospital, receiving Ex.P1 by PW7 at 14.00 hours casts doubt on the prosecution case, as PW1 and PW2 indicated that they filed the report between 5.00 and 6.00 PM. Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 shows that the requisitions were issued by Police

Athmakur-M. When PW1 and PW2 proceeded directly to the hospital, the issuance of a requisition by police Athmakur-M raised reasonable doubt.

JFCM, Alair

Page No.9 of 11 Judgment in CC. No.564 of 2017 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Alair.

Furthermore, PW1 and PW2 did not describe the specific overacts of each accused in terms of assault against them with a spade handle. The evidence of

PW6 and PW7 clearly demonstrates that they did not seize the spade handle.

During the cross-examination of PW1 and PW2, it was revealed that they had shown the spade handle and stone to the investigating officers. However, PWs 6 and 7 denied the same. PW6's and PW7's evidence is silent on why they have not made efforts to seize the crime weapon in this case. PW1 reported that

Accused Nos. 1 to 4 and one Suresh beat him, whereas PW2 claimed that

Accused Nos. 1–5 beat them. Though there may be small conflicts and omissions due to the passage of several years in deposing evidence, the presence of the accused at the scene creates disparities when the evidence of

PW1 and PW2 is compared. During the arguments, the learned counsel for the defence pointed out that an offence under section 447 of the IPC was registered in the FIR against the accused, but no offence under 447 was specified in the charge sheet, and no explanation was offered. It is true that an FIR was initially registered for the offence under section 447 along with other charges, and when the charge sheet was filed, no grounds were given for the non-indication of 447

IPC. As noted above, when PW1 and PW2 went to the police station in the evening, PW7's evidence to refer them to the hospital immediately after receiving the report calls into question the prosecution case. As a result of the parties standing civil disputes, it is not safe to rely solely on PW1 and PW2's evidence in the absence of any independent eyewitness. All of these circumstances compel this court not to rely on the evidence of PW1 to PW3, as well as the evidence of PW6 and PW7, whose failure to make steps to seize the crime weapon during the investigation casts doubt over the prosecution case.

Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused nos. 1 to 5 for

JFCM, Alair

Page No.10 of 11 Judgment in CC. No.564 of 2017 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Alair.

the offence under sections 324, 504, and 506 r/w 34 of the IPC beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused nos. 1 to 5 are entitled to acquittal. The points are answered in favour of the accused nos. 1 to 5 and against the prosecution.

19) In the result, accused nos.1 to 5 are found not guilty for the offence

U/sec. 324, 504 and 506 read with 34 IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted

U/sec. 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The accused nos.1 to 5 are set at liberty forthwith.

The bail bonds of the accused nos.1 to 5, if any shall be canceled after lapse of appeal time as per section 437-A Cr.P.C. There is no such thing as case property or unmarked property in this case to pass final orders.

(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this 17 th day of March-2026)

Sd/-

Judicial Magistrate Of First Class,

Alair.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence: PW1 B.Mohan Reddy NIL

PW2 B.Pulamma

PW3 B.Narender Reddy

PW4 S.Anjaiah

PW5 B.Kiran Kumari

PW6 D.Anil

JFCM, Alair

Page No.11 of 11 Judgment in CC. No.564 of 2017 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Alair.

PW7 M.Janardhan Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: For Defence: Ex.P1 is the report NIL

Ex.P2 is the wound certificate.

Ex.P3 is the wound certificate.

Ex.P4 is the First Information Report.

Ex.P5 is the CDF.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-NIL-

// TRUE COPY //

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Alair .

JFCM, Alair

Page No.1 of 9 Judgment in CC. No.156 of 2018 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Alair

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT: ALAIR

Present:- Sri R. AJAY KUMAR

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Alair (Dated this the 17 th day of March, 2026)

CC . 156 of 20 18

( Crime No.136 of 2017 of Athmakur-M PS) Between:

The State of Telangana, through, Station House Officer, Athmakur (M) P.S. ...Prosecution

A n d

Indrapalli Narsaiah @ Narsing Rao, S/o. Kistaiah, Age: 40 years, Occ: RTC Driver at Hyderabad II Depo, R/o. Pothireddypalli, Athmakur (M), Yadadri- Bhongir District. Now H.No.3-6-64/1, Indra Nagar, Ramanthapur, Uppal, Hyderabad.

..Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of APPO for the State and Sri S.Srinivas Goud, 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 above accused is indicated for the offence under Sections 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as IPC) in Cr.No. 136 of 2017 by the Sub-Inspector of police, Athmakur-M Police Station.

JFCM, Alair

Page No.2 of 9 Judgment in CC. No.156 of 2018 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Alair

02) T he brief facts of the charge-sheet are as follows:-

On 15.11.2017 in the morning hours, the Bhu-survey programme was commenced at Pothireddipalli village of Athmakur-M in the presence of revenue authorities, and in this context, PW1 got casual leave from SHO

Gundala police station and proceeded to Pothireddipalli village, and he reached Pothireddipalli village Panchayathi office at 11.00 hours and was discussing his land issue with PW2. In the meantime, the accused approached him by keeping previous land disputes in mind, picked up quarrel, beat him with hands, threatened him with dire consequences and abused him in filthy language. Aggrieved by the acts of the accused, PW1 went to the police station and lodged a report to the police as in Ex.P1.

03)Based on the report Ex.P1, LW7/Head Constable P.S. Athmakur-M registered a case in Cr. No. 136 of 2017 for the offence U/secs. 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC, issued an FIR, and took up the investigation. During the course of the investigation, he examined and recorded the statement of PW1, visited

Pothireddipalli village where he examined and recorded the statements of PW2 to PW4, and conducted CDF in the presence of PW5 and Lw5/K.Ailaiah. On 17.11.2017 the accused came to the police station, surrendered before him and voluntarily admitted his guilt in this case. Upon that, he issued a 41A Cr.P.C.

notice to the accused with a direction to appear before this court on receipt of summons. Subsequently, PW6/Sub-Inspector of Police took up further investigation, verified the investigation done by him, found it on proper lines, and after completion of the investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Sections 323, 504 and 506 of the I.P.C.

JFCM, Alair

Page No.3 of 9 Judgment in CC. No.156 of 2018 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Alair

04)Upon receipt of the charge sheet, my learned Predecessor took cognizance for the offence U/secs. 323, 504 and 506 of IPC against the accused and assigned the case number as CC.156 of 2018.

05) On appearance of the accused, copies were furnished to him under

Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code (herein after referred as Cr.P.C.) and he was examined under Section 251 of Cr.P.C in respect of accusation for the offence U/secs. 323, 504 and 506 of IPC, read over and explained to him in his vernacular language, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

06)Out of (08) witnesses, the prosecution got examined (06) witnesses.

PW1 is the informant/victim. PW2 to PW4 are the eyewitnesses. PW5 is the mediator to the CDF. PW6 is the Investigation Officer. Based on the report filed by SHO P.S. Athmakur-M, the evidence of LW5/K. Ailaiah has been closed. The learned A.P.P. gave up the evidence of LW7/Head Constable. On behalf of the prosecution, Exs. P1 to P5 were marked.

07)After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused was given an opportunity of being heard by putting before him 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.

JFCM, Alair

Page No.4 of 9 Judgment in CC. No.156 of 2018 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Alair

08)Heard the arguments of learned Appo and learned counsel for accused.

09) Now the point s for determination in this case are:

I) "Whether the accused voluntarily caused simple hurt to PW1 by

means of hands on 15.11.2017 at about 11.00 hours and thereby

committed an offence punishable under Sec. 323 of IPC?"

II) "Whether the accused abused PW1 in the most filthy language to

provoke a breach of peace on 15.11.2017 at 11.00 hours and thereby

committed an offence punishable under Sec. 504 of IPC?"

III) "Whether the accused threatened PW1 with dire consequences to

kill him on 15.11.2017 at 11.00 hours and thereby committed an

offence punishable under Sec. 506 of IPC?"

10) P oints No.I to III :-

All the points are addressed together for clarity, brevity, and to avoid

repetition.

11)In a nutshell, it is the prosecution’s case that, on 15.11.2017 at about 11.00 hours, the accused picked up a quarrel with PW1 by keeping previous land disputes in his mind and beat him with his hands while abusing him in filthy language and threatened with dire consequences to kill him.

JFCM, Alair

Page No.5 of 9 Judgment in CC. No.156 of 2018 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Alair

12)PW1/Informant and victim testified that the accused is his junior paternal uncle and there have been land disputes between them since six months prior to filing this case. On 15.11.2017, the revenue department Tahsildar and their staff were conducting a land survey. On receiving said information from

Gundala, he went to his village at about 11.00 hours. While he was speaking with MRO regarding the mutation of his name in revenue records under pouthi proceedings, as his father died, the accused came there, and while speaking to him, suddenly attacked him and tried to kill him by pressing his neck. Villagers came and pushed the accused. Thereafter on the same day, he went to the police station and lodged the report to the police as in Ex. P1. He further testified that he has disputes with the accused with regard to land in sy.no.414 measuring

Ac.2-00 guntas.

13)PW2/Eyewitness testified that, on 15.11.2017, there was a grama saba land purification programme which was conducted by the government, and as part of the said programme, he, along with PW3 and his staff, went to

Pothireddipally village. While they were conducting the grama saba programme at about 10.30 to 11.00 AM, all the villagers gathered and submitted about their issues. In the meantime, one villager submitted something, and another person came there and made a galata about how the villager could get a patta in his name. Then, he sent both of them aside to solve the issue and continued his work. He failed to identify the said person due to lapse of seven years.

14)PW3/Eyewitness testified that, on 15.11.2017, there was a grama saba land purification programme which was conducted by the government, and as

JFCM, Alair

Page No.6 of 9 Judgment in CC. No.156 of 2018 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Alair part of the said programme, he, along with PW1 and their staff, went to

Pothireddipally village. While they were conducting the grama sabha programme at about 10:30 to 11:00 AM, all the villagers gathered and submitted their issues. In the meantime, PW1 came with an application regarding the mutation of Ac.2-00 guntas of land in his name, and at the same time, the accused, who was present in the court hall, made a galata with PW1 and objected to the application. Then PW2 sent the both of them aside to solve the issue, and they continued their work.

15)PW4/Eyewitness testified that he knew nothing about the facts of the case and did not witness any incident. He failed to support the prosecution case and completely turned hostile.

16)PW5/Mediator to the CDF, denied his presence at the scene of offence, failed to support the prosecution case and completely turned hostile.

17)PW6/Investigation Officer testified that on 15.11.2017 at 13.00 hours, while LW7/Head Constable P.S. Athmakur-M, discharging SHO duties at P.S., received Ex.P1 from PW1, based on which he registered a case in

Cr.No.136/2017 for the offence under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC, issued an

FIR/Ex.P4 and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statement of PW1 at the police station, visited

Pothireddipally village, where he examined and recorded the statements of

PW2 to PW4, and conducted CDF in the presence of PW5 and LW5/K. Ailaiah as in Ex. P5. On 17.11.2017, the accused surrendered before him and voluntarily admitted his guilt in this case. Thereafter, he issued a 41A Cr.P.C.

notice to the accused with a direction to appear before the court on receipt of

JFCM, Alair

Page No.7 of 9 Judgment in CC. No.156 of 2018 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Alair summons. Subsequently, he took up the investigation from him, verified the investigation done by LW7, found on proper lines and took up further investigation. After completion of the investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence under sections 323, 504 and 506 of the

I.P.C.

18)The case at hand involves assault, criminal intimidation and insult to provoke breach of peace against PW1 by the accused. According to PW1's evidence, on 15.11.2017, while he was speaking with PW2 about a land mutation in his name, the accused suddenly attacked him and tried to kill him by pressing his neck. Immediately, villagers came and pushed the accused.

After that, he went to the police station and lodged the report, as in Ex.P1. He also testified that he and the accused had land disputes. The evidence of PW2 and PW3, who are MRO and VRO, demonstrates that while PW1 was submitting an application, the accused came and made galata. Immediately,

PW2 sent them away to resolve the issue. However, the evidence of PW2 is silent on the identification of the accused and PW1. PW4 and PW5, who were eyewitness and mediator to the CDF respectively, denied their presence at the scene and completely turned hostile. Though PW1's testimony indicates that the accused attacked him and pressed his neck, PW2 and PW3's evidence suggests nothing about the accused attacking PW1 by pressing the neck. The other independent eyewitness, PW4, failed to support the prosecution and turned hostile. Except for the evidence of PW1, there is no other independent eyewitness who can support PW1's version. The evidence of PW6/investigation officer discloses about the formal investigation conducted by him. As evidenced by the record, PW1 stated that he and the accused had a civil dispute since six

JFCM, Alair

Page No.8 of 9 Judgment in CC. No.156 of 2018 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Alair months prior to filing the report, and that in the absence of independent eyewitness and medical evidence, it is not safe to rely solely on PW1's evidence.

As discussed supra, in light of the parties long-standing land disputes, as well as the lack of independent eyewitnesses to support PW1's version and medical evidence, this court believes it is not safe to rely solely on PW1's testimony and to give the accused the benefit of the doubt. Therefore, the prosecution failed to bring the accused to home of the guilty for the offence under sections 323, 504 and 506 of the I.P.C. beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the accused is entitled to acquittal. The points are answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

19) In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence U/secs. 323, 504 and 506 of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted U/sec. 255 (1) of Cr.P.C. The accused is set at liberty forthwith. The bail bonds of the accused, if any shall be canceled after lapse of appeal time as per section 437-A Cr.P.C. There is no such thing as case property or unmarked property in this case to pass final orders.

(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this 17 th day of March-2026)

Sd/-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Alair.

JFCM, Alair

Page No.9 of 9 Judgment in CC. No.156 of 2018 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Alair

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence: PW1 I.Prakash None PW2 J.Narsimha PW3 Y.Mallikarjun PW4 M.Nagamallaiah PW5 M.Venkataiah PW6 K.Yadagiri

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: For Defence: Ex.P1 is the report. NIL Ex.P2 is the 161 of Cr.P.C statement of PW2. Ex.P3 is the 161 of Cr.P.C statement of PW4. Ex.P4 is the First Information Report. Ex.P5 is the CDF.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-NIL-

// TRUE COPY //

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Alair.

JFCM, Alair

Page No. 1 of 8 Judgment in CC.No.333 of 2025 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Alair.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT: ALAIR.

Present:- Sri R. AJAY KUMAR

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Alair.

(Dated this the 12 th day of March, 2026)

C.C. 333 of 2025

(Cr. No.90 of 2025 of Motakondur PS)

Between:

The State of Telangana, through, Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S.Motakondur. ...Prosecution A n d

Peetla Narsimha, S/o. Yadagiri, Age: 50 years, Occ: Labour, R/o. Muthireddigudem village of Motakondur Mandal.

...Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of APPO for the State and Sri K.Murali Krishna, 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 above accused is indicated for the offence under Section 106 (1) of

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred as BNS) and Sections 181 and 196 of M.V Act in Crime No.90 of 2025 by the Sub Inspector of Police, Motakondur

Police Station.

Page No. 2 of 8 Judgment in CC.No.333 of 2025 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Alair.

02) T he brief facts of the charge sheet are as follows:-

On 19.05.2025 at about 19.00 hours, the deceased, Peetla Padma, and the accused proceeded to Nancharipet village on the tractor bearing no. AP-24-TA-5413 and the trolley bearing no. AP-24-AK-4998 (Swaraj Tractor 735 FE) to load granite stones, and after loading, the same was shifted to one Ganesh's house situated at

Katepally village, and the material was unloaded. While the accused and the deceased were returning in the tractor, the deceased sat on the engine bonnet, and the accused drove the tractor. When they reached near Katepally bridge on the

Mothkur to Raigiri Road at about 12.30 hours, the accused drove the tractor in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, and suddenly a lorry came in the opposite direction, due to which the accused lost control over the vehicle, resulting the tractor along with the trolley turning turtle and falling into the roadside ditch, causing the trolley to fall on the deceased, who sustained blunt injuries over her abdomen, bleeding injury over her chest and fracture injury over her left leg, and died on the spot. After knowing about the incident, PW1 went to the police station and lodged the report dated 19.05.2025 with the police.

03)Based on the report, dated 19.05.2025, LW18/Sub-Inspector of Police P.S.

Motakondur registered a case in Crime No. 90 of 2025 for the offence under Section 106 (1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, issued an FIR, and took up the investigation. During the course of the investigation, he examined and recorded the statement of PW-1, visited the scene of offence situated near the bridge in Katepally village on the Mothkur-Raigiri road, where he examined and recorded the statements of LW5 to LW11 (Peetla Raju, Orsu Raju, Peetla Anjaiah, Peetla Shekar, Kommagani

Prabhakar, Orsu Yadagiri and Dandla Mallesh) and conducted the scene of offence

Page No. 3 of 8 Judgment in CC.No.333 of 2025 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Alair.

panchanama in the presence of LW12/P.Bharath and LW13/P.Mahesh, photographed the scene of offence and shifted the dead body to Government Area Hospital,

Bhongir. Thereafter, he visited District Head Quarters Hospital, Bhongir, photographed the dead body and conducted inquest in the presence of LW14 and

LW15 (Alakuntla Yadagiri and Vallepu Sunitha) and requested the medical officer/LW16/Dr Sara Seeman, to conduct autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. During the inquest, he examined and recorded the statements of PW2,

PW3 and LW4 (Gandikota Mahesh). Based on the investigation, a prima facie case was made out against the accused, and on 30.05.2025, he issued a notice under section 35 (3) of BNSS to the accused with a direction to appear before him and submit the evidence, if any, in his defence. On 02.06.2025, he appeared before him, and on interrogation, he admitted his guilt in this case. On enquiry, it was found that the accused did not produce a driving licence and insurance for the crime vehicle; as such, he added sections 196 and 181 of the MV Act. Later, he was served with notice under section 35 (5) of BNS with a direction to appear before the court on receipt of summons. On 22.05.2025, he requested LW17/AMVI to visit the police station and inspect the crime vehicle. Accordingly, he visited the police station and inspected the crime vehicle and furnished a report. Later, he collected the autopsy report from

LW16/the medical officer. Subsequently, LW19/Sub-Inspector of Police took up further investigation, and on receipt of the necessary reports and completion of the investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence under

Section 106 (1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 181 and 196 of the

M.V. Act.

Page No. 4 of 8 Judgment in CC.No.333 of 2025 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Alair.

04)Upon receipt of the charge sheet, this court took cognizance of the offence under Section 106 (1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 181 and 196 of

M.V Act against the accused and assigned the case number as C.C. 333 of 2025.

05) On appearance of the accused, copies were furnished to him under Section 230 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (herein after referred as BNSS) and accused was examined under Section 274 of BNSS in respect of accusation for the offence under Section 106 (1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 181 and 196 of

M.V Act, read over and explained to him in his vernacular language, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

06)Out of (19) witnesses, the prosecution examined (03) witnesses. PW1 is the informant and son of the deceased. PW2 and PW3 are the circumstantial witnesses and children of the deceased. The Ld.APP gave up the evidence of LW4 to LW19 (Gandikota Mahesh, Peetla Raju, Orsu Raju, Peetla Anjaiah, Peetla Shekar,

Kommagani Prabhakar, Orsu Yadagiri, Dandla Mallesh, P. Bharath, E. Mahesh,

Alakuntla Yadagiri, Vallepu Sunitha, medical officer, MVI and investigation officers) as the material witnesses failed to support the prosecution case and completely turned hostile. On behalf of the prosecution, Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 were marked.

07)As there is no incriminating evidence appearing from the prosecution evidence against the accused, examination under section 351 of BNSS is dispensed with.

08)Heard the arguments of learned APPO and learned counsel for accused.

Page No. 5 of 8 Judgment in CC.No.333 of 2025 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Alair.

09) Now the point s for determination in this case are:

(I) "Whether the accused, being the driver of the tractor bearing No. AP-24-

TA-5413 and the trolley bearing No. AP-24-AK-4998, drove in a rash and

negligent manner with high speed, causing the tractor to turn turtle on

19.05.2025 at about 12.30 hours, resulting in the death of the

deceased/Padma, who was sitting on the tractor, and thereby committed an

offence punishable under Sec. 106 (1) of BNS?"

(II) "Whether the accused, being the driver of the tractor bearing No.

AP-24-TA-5413 and the trolley bearing No. AP-24-AK-4998, without

holding an effective driving licence and insurance for the crime vehicle,

drove in a rash and negligent manner on 19.05.2025 at about 12.30 hours

and caused the death of the deceased/P.Padma and thereby committed an

offence punishable under Sections 181 and 196 of the M.V. Act?"

P oint No.I and II:-

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

10)In a nutshell, the prosecution's case is that on 19.05.2025 at about 12.30 hours, the accused, who was the driver of the tractor bearing no. AP-24-TA-5413 and the trolley bearing no. AP-24-AK-4998, drove in a rash and negligent manner at high speed without holding an effective driving licence and insurance for the crime vehicle, lost control over the vehicle, turned turtle, causing the trolley to fall on the deceased, who was sitting on the tractor engine, and resulting in the death of the deceased/P.Padma.

Page No. 6 of 8 Judgment in CC.No.333 of 2025 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Alair.

11)PW1/informant and son of the deceased, testified that he knew nothing about the facts of this case, and at the instance of police, he signed on some written paper.

He further testified that, except for this, he does not know anything about the facts of this case and is unaware of the contents of the report dated 19.05.2025. He failed to support the prosecution case and completely turned hostile.

12)PW-2 and PW-3, who are the circumstantial witnesses and children of the deceased, testified that they did not witness any incident and knew nothing about the facts of the case. They failed to support the prosecution case and completely turned hostile.

13)At the outset, the prosecution's case has no weight based on the above witnesses. As seen from the above, there is not a single piece of incriminating evidence deposed by PW-1 to PW-3 against the accused. Although the death of the deceased, P. Padma, was not disputed, the question of who caused the accident remained unanswered. The evidence of PW-1 to PW-3 is in no way helpful to the prosecution's case. As evidenced by the record, there is no evidence to connect the accused to the incident. None of the witnesses testified that the accused drove the tractor bearing No. AP-24-TA-5413 and trolley bearing No. AP-24-AK-4998 in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, causing the tractor to turn turtle and resulting in the death of the deceased, P. Padma, who sat on the tractor. Hence, the involvement of the crime vehicle, i.e., the tractor bearing No. AP-24-TA-5413 and the trolley bearing No. AP-24-AK-4998, is doubtful. Without proving the accused's identity at the time of the incident and his rash or negligent act beyond reasonable doubt, the accused cannot be held guilty for the offence under Section 106 (1) of the

Page No. 7 of 8 Judgment in CC.No.333 of 2025 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Alair.

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. There is no evidence that the accused lacked a driving licence and valid insurance for the crime vehicle, resulting in the alleged incident. No eyewitness testified that the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle and caused the death of the deceased due to his rash or negligent act. As the material witnesses turned hostile and failed to support the prosecution case, the Ld.APP closed the evidence of LW4 to LW19. In view of any angle, the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case against the accused for the offence under Section 106(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 181 and 196 of the M.V.

Act beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the accused is entitled to acquittal. The points are answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

1 4) In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 106 (1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 181 and 196 of M.V Act and accordingly, he is acquitted U/sec. 278 (1) of BNSS. The accused is set at liberty forthwith. The bail bonds of the accused, if any shall be canceled after lapse of appeal time as per section 481 of BNSS. The re is no such thing as case property or un-marked property in this case to pass final orders .

(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade - III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this 12 th day of March, 2026)

Sd/-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Alair.

Page No. 8 of 8 Judgment in CC.No.333 of 2025 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Alair.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence: PW1 P.Machagiri NIL PW2 P.Madhu PW3 G.Shashikala

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: For Defence: Ex.P1 is the signature on the report dated: 19.05.2025 NIL Ex.P2 is the 161 of Cr.P.C statement of PW-1. Ex.P3 is the 161 of Cr.P.C statement of PW-2. Ex.P4 is the 161 of Cr.P.C statement of PW-3.

Sd/-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Alair

// TRUE COPY //

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Alair

Page No.1 of 7 Judgment in CC. No.694 of 2021 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Alair

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT: Alair

Present:- Sri R. AJAY KUMAR

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Alair (Dated this the 26 th day of March, 2026)

CC . 694 of 20 21

( Crime No.186 of 2021 of Alair PS)

Between: The State of Telangana, through,

Station House Officer, Alair P.S.

...Prosecution

A n d

Mudavath Devadas, S/o. Kuta, Age: 23 years, Occ: Business and driver, R/o.

Puttagudem village, Rajapet Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District.

...Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of the APPO for the state and Sri G.Sai Krishna, advocate and 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 above accused is indicated for the offence under Section 420 of the

Indian Penal Code and Section 7(I) of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as the IPC and EC Act) in Cr. No. 186 of 2021 by the

Sub-Inspector of Police, Alair Police Station.

Page No.2 of 7 Judgment in CC. No.694 of 2021 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Alair

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

On 16.08.2021 in the wee-hours, the accused loaded 48 bags weighing about 23 quintals of PDS rice in his vehicle bearing registration no. TS-30-TA- 0082 (Ashok Leyland), and while illegally transporting the same in the vehicle, in the meantime at 20.30 hours, LW6/Sub-Inspector of Police apprehended the accused and seized the vehicle and PDS rice in the presence of PW1 and PW4 under cover of panchanama.

03.Based on the strength of the panchanama, LW6/Sub-Inspector of Police,

P.S. Alair registered a case in Cr.No.186/2021 for the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7(I) of the Essential Commodities Act, issued an FIR and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of PW1 and PW4 and issued a 41A

Cr.P.C. notice to the accused with a direction to appear before him on receipt of summons. Later, he submitted a requisition to LW5/Deputy Tahsildar (civil supplies), Alair Mandal, and deposited the PDS rice of 48 bags weighing about 23 quintals and an Ashok Leyland vehicle bearing registration no. TS-30-TA- 0082. After completion of the investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7(I) of the Essential Commodities Act.

04.Upon receipt of the charge sheet, my learned Predecessor took cognizance for the offence under section 420 of Indian Penal Code and Section 7(I) of Essential Commodities Act against the accused and assigned the case number as CC.694 of 2021.

Page No.3 of 7 Judgment in CC. No.694 of 2021 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Alair

05.On appearance of the accused, copies were furnished to him under

Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code (herein after referred as Cr.P.C.) and he was examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C in respect of accusation and charge was framed for the offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code and

Section 7(I) of Essential Commodities Act , 1955 , read over and explained to him in his vernacular language, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

06.Out of (06) witnesses, the prosecution got examined (04) witnesses. PW1 and PW4 are the police constables who assisted LW6/sub-inspector of police during the raid. PW2 and PW3 are the mediators to the confession-cum-seizure panchanama. Despite ample opportunities, police failed to serve the summons on LW5/Deputy Tahsildar and LW6/Investigation Officer, and eventually their evidence was closed. On behalf of prosecution, Exs P1 and Ex. P2 were marked.

07.After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused was given an opportunity of being heard by putting before him 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.

Page No.4 of 7 Judgment in CC. No.694 of 2021 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Alair

08.Heard the arguments of learned APPO and learned counsel for accused.

09. Now the point s for determination in this case are:

(I) "Whether the accused illegally transported 23 quintals of PDS rice

in 48 bags on 14.08.2021 at 20.30 hours, which were collected from

beneficiaries at Rs.8/- per kilo, and thereby cheated the public and

government and thereby committed an offence punishable under

Section 420 of I.P.C?"

(II) “Whether the accused illegally transported 23 quintals of PDS rice

in 48 bags on 14.08.2021 at 20.30 hours with an intention to sell the

same at a high price of Rs.18/- per kilo to gain wrongfully and thereby

committed an offence punishable under Sec. 7 (I) of the Essential

Commodities Act, 1955?"

P oint No.I and II :-

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

repetition.

10.In a nutshell, it is the prosecution’s case that, on 16.08.2021 in the night hours while the accused was transporting PDS rice weighing about 23 quintals in 48 bags in a vehicle bearing registration no. TS-30-TA-0082 (Ashok

Leyland) was caught by LW6/Sub-Inspector of Police, who recorded the confession of the accused under cover of panchanama in the presence of PW2 and PW3 and seized PDS rice along with the vehicle and handed it over to

LW5/Deputy Tahsildar (civil supplies).

Page No.5 of 7 Judgment in CC. No.694 of 2021 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Alair

11.PW1 and PW4/police constables (who assisted LW6/Sub-Inspector of police during the raid) testified that on 14.08.2021 at about 8.30 PM, LW6/Sub-

Inspector of police received credible information regarding the transporting of

PDS rice illegally from Manthapuri to Flyover Road in one TATA ACE. Upon receipt of the information, he and PW4 accompanied LW6 and went to Flyover

Road, where LW6 stopped the vehicle bearing no. TS-30-TA-0082 (TATA ACE).

On the instructions of LW6, he and PW4 searched the back side of the vehicle and found PDS rice, and the same was informed to LW6. On that, LW6 secured the presence of Pw2 and PW3 and recorded the panchanama and seized PDS rice of 43 bags; each bag contains approximately 50 kgs, total about 21 quintals of PDS rice (Pw1 stated the 21 quintals of PDS rice, and Pw4 stated the 23 quintals of PDS rice.) Thereafter, LW6 enquired with the driver of the vehicle and shifted the seized vehicle along with PDS rice to the police station and registered the case at hand based on the panchanama. PW1 and PW4 further identified the accused in the open court with his name, i.e., Devadas, as the driver of the seized vehicle.

12.PW2 and PW3 mediators to the confession cum seizure panchanama, denied their presence at the scene, failed to support the prosecution case and completely turned hostile.

13.At the outset, the prosecution relied heavily on the testimony of PW1 and

PW4. Aside from the evidence of PW1 and PW4, no other witnesses supported the prosecution's case and were turned hostile. According to Pw1 and PW4, on 14.08.2021, at 8.30 PM, LW6, sub-inspector of police, received credible information about the illegal transportation of PDS rice from Manthapuri to

Page No.6 of 7 Judgment in CC. No.694 of 2021 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Alair the flyover road. Upon the receipt of information, PW1 and PW4 accompanied

LW6 to the flyover road, where LW6 stopped the vehicle and instructed them to inspect the back of the vehicle, where they discovered PDS rice. LW6 immediately secured the presence of PW2 and PW3, conducted a panchanama, seized PDS rice and a vehicle, and shifted them to the police station. As noted above, PW2 and PW3, who served as mediators to the seizure panchanama, failed to support the prosecution case and turned hostile. As a result, the seizure of 23 quintals of PDS rice from the accused's possession was not proven. Furthermore, the investigation is silent on whether the seized rice was

PDS rice. Nothing was shown to this court to establish that the PDS rice was seized and handed over to LW5. Furthermore, the evidence of PW1 and PW4 indicates that the accused was the driver of the vehicle, and there is no proof on record that the accused is the person who meant to sell the PDS rice or the only driver of the vehicle. On the other hand, the prosecution did not examine LW6, who led the raid, caught the accused, and seized the PDS rice. Nothing in the record indicates that the PDS rice was turned over to LW5/Deputy Tahsildar (Civil Supplies). Aside from the testimony of PW1 and PW4, no other evidence is available in support of the prosecution's case. As a result, this court believes

PW1 and PW2 evidence is insufficient, and it is not safe to convict the accused based exclusively on PW1 and PW2 evidence in the absence of any other independent seizure evidence. Summing up the above discussion, this court believes that there is insufficient evidence to convict the accused for the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7(I) of the Essential

Commodities Act, 1955. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused for the offences of Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7(I) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, beyond reasonable

Page No.7 of 7 Judgment in CC. No.694 of 2021 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Alair doubt. Accordingly, the accused is entitled to an acquittal. The points are answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

14. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code and Section 7(I) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and accordingly, he is acquitted U/sec. 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The accused is set at liberty forthwith. The bail bonds of the accused if any, shall be canceled after lapse of appeal time as per section 437-A Cr.P.C. There is no such thing as case property or unmarked property in this case to pass final orders.

(Typed to my dictation, by the Stenographer Gr-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this 26 th day of March-2026.)

Sd/-

Judicial Magistrate Of First Class,

Alair.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW1 : J.Naveen Kumar None PW2 : K.Sri Ram PW3 : K.Kiran PW4 : D.Chandramouli

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: Ex.P1 is the signature of PW2 on confession cum seizure panchanama. Ex.P2 is the signature of PW3 on confession cum seizure panchanama. For Defence:Nil

Sd/-

Judicial Magistrate Of First Class,

Alair

// True copy //

Judicial Magistrate Of First Class,

Alair

Page No.1 of 7 Judgment in CC. No.390 of 2017 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Alair

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT: ALAIR

Present:- Sri R. AJAY KUMAR

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Alair (Dated this the 12 h day of March, 2026)

CC. No. 390 of 201 7

( Cr. No. 47 of 2017 of Alair PS)

Between: The State of Telangana, through, Station House Officer, Alair P.S ...Prosecution A n d

Motla Radhika, W/o. Late Koti, Age: 23 years, Occ: Labour, R/o. H.No.4-

10/2/B/3, Dharmasagar Road, Madikonda of Warangal District.

...Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of APPO for the State and Sri M.Vanama Raju 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 above accused is indicated for the offence under section 380 R/W 511 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) in Crime No. 47 of 2017 by the Sub Inspector of Police, Alair Police Station.

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

On 01.04.2017 at about 1.00 hours, the accused entered into the house premises of PW2 and tried to snatch Pw2 chain from her neck while she was

Page No.2 of 7 Judgment in CC. No.390 of 2017 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Alair sleeping, and immediately she woke up and made hues and cries. As a result,

PW1 and other people caught her, beat her with hands, and, in the meantime, she escaped from them. Aggrieved by the acts of the accused, PW1 went to the police station and lodged the report, dated 01.04.2017, to the police.

03)Based on the report, dated 01.04.2017, LW9/Sub-Inspector of Police,

Alair police station, registered a case in Crime No. 47 of 2017 for the offence under section 380 R/W 511 IPC, issued an FIR, and took up the investigation.

During the course of the investigation, he examined and recorded the statement of PW1, visited the scene of offence, i.e., the house of PW1 at Adarsh Nagar,

Alair, where he examined and recorded the statements of PW2, PW3, LW3/Y.

Ramanarsaiah, LW5/Y. Sowmya and LW6/Y.Vedhavathi and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of LW7 and LW8 (Karre Sathyanarayana and Jukanti Rajalingam). While the investigation was in progress, he received credible information that one woman was wandering suspiciously at the railway station in Alair and waiting for a train. On 02.04.2017, at about 6.00 hours, he, along with available staff, rushed to the railway station and took her into custody. On enquiry, she is found to be suspicious and brought to her police station at 6.30 hours, and the same was informed to PW1. Thereafter, PW1 and his family members identified the said woman who tried to commit an offence in their house. On interrogation, when she was about to confess something, immediately he secured the presence of LW7 and LW8 and recorded her confession, in which she confessed that she had committed an offence earlier at

Medikonda premises of Warangal District in the year 2013 in Cr.no.179/2013 for the offence under Section 380 of IPC. He seized one cutting blade and a small torch under cover of panchanama in the presence of mediators, arrested and produced her before the court for judicial remand. After completion of the

Page No.3 of 7 Judgment in CC. No.390 of 2017 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Alair investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 380 R/W 511 IPC.

04)Upon receipt of the charge sheet, my learned predecessor took cognizance of the offence under Section 380 R/W 511 of IPC against the accused and assigned the case number as C.C. 390 of 2017.

05)On appearance of the accused, copies were furnished to her under

Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code (herein after referred as Cr.P.C.) and accused was examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C and charge was framed for the offence U/sec. 380 R/W 511 IPC, read over and explained to her in her vernacular language, for which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

06)Out of (09) witnesses, the prosecution got examined (03) witnesses. PW1 is the informant. PW2 is the victim. PW3 is the circumstantial witness. The

Learned App gave up the evidence of LW3 and LW5 to LW9 (Yelagnadula

Ramnarsaiah, Yelagnadula Sowmya, Yelagnadula Vedavathi, Karre

Sathyanarayana, Jukanti Rajalingam and Investigation Officer) as the material witnesses failed to support the prosecution case and completely turned hostile.

On behalf of the prosecution, Exs. P1 to P4 were marked.

07) As there is no incriminating evidence appearing from the prosecution witnesses against the accused, examination under section 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with.

08)Heard the arguments of learned Appo and learned counsel for accused.

Page No.4 of 7 Judgment in CC. No.390 of 2017 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Alair

09) Now the point for determination in this case is:

"Whether the accused gained entry into the house premises of

PW1 on 01.04.2017 at about 1.00 hours and tried to snatch away the

chain from the neck of PW2 and thereby committed an offence

punishable under Section 380 R/W 511 of the Indian Penal Code?"

Point:

10)In a nutshell, the prosecution’s case is that, on 01.04.2017 at about 1.00 hours, the accused gained entry into the house premises of PW1 and tried to snatch away the chain from the neck of PW2.

11)PW1/Informant testified that he knew nothing about the facts of the case, but on the date of the incident some unknown persons attacked. He further testified that he did not witness any incident and admitted his signature on the report dated 01.04.2017. But unaware of the contents of the report. He failed to support the prosecution's case and completely turned hostile.

12)PW2/victim testified that she knew nothing about the facts of the case and did not witness any incident. She failed to support the prosecution's case and completely turned hostile.

13)PW3/circumstantial witness testified that she knew nothing about the facts of the case and did not witness any incident. She failed to support the prosecution's case and completely turned hostile.

14)At the outset, the prosecution's case has no weight in proving the case against the accused based on the evidence of the above witnesses. To begin, it should be noted that none of the witnesses, i.e., PW1 to PW3, witnessed the incident while the accused was committing the alleged offence. PW2, who is

Page No.5 of 7 Judgment in CC. No.390 of 2017 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Alair alleged to be the victim, testified nothing against the accused, and she reported she did not witness any incident. According to PW1, he stated that on the date of the incident some unknown persons attacked, but he did not describe who attacked or what the purpose was. Absolutely, PW1 to PW3 did not depose any theft attempt against any person. As a result, Pw1 to Pw3's testimony adds no weight to the prosecution's case because none of them witnessed the accused attempting to commit theft. In the absence of any direct evidence against the accused for the theft attempt, the accused cannot be said to have been found guilty. Summing up with the above discussion, there were no eyewitnesses to the incident in which the accused attempted to commit theft in PW1's house, and thus the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case against the accused for the offence U/sec. 380 R/w 511 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the accused is entitled to acquit. The points is answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

15) In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence U/sec 380 R/W 511 IPC and she is acquitted U/sec. 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The accused is set at liberty forthwith. The bail bonds of the accused, if any shall be canceled after lapse of appeal time as per section 437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked property vide

C.P.No.108/2017 (small cutter in blue colour and small torch light in red colour) shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this 12 th day of March-2026)

Sd/-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Alair

Page No.6 of 7 Judgment in CC. No.390 of 2017 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Alair

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence: Pw.1: Y.Srinivas None

Pw.2: Y.Laxmi

Pw.3: Y.Umarushi

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

Ex.P1 is the signature on the report of PW1, dated: 01.04.2017 - Nil-

Ex.P2 is the Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW1

Ex.P3 is the Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW2

Ex.P4 is the Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW3.

M.Os marked

NIL

Sd/-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Alair

// TRUE COPY //

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Alair

Page No.7 of 7 Judgment in CC. No.390 of 2017 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Alair