R. Ashok Kumar

J.F.C.M, Madakasira 1 C.C.No.245 of 2018

APAN170004622018

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

MADAKASIRA.

Present: Sri R.Ashok Kumar

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Madakasira.

Monday, the eleventh (11th) day of May, 2026

C.C.No.245 of 2018

Between: State Represented by The Sub-Inspector of Police, Madakasira P.S. … Complainant.

And:

K.Sreenivasulu, 45 years, S/o. K.C.Kondanna, R/o. D.P.Colony, Hindupur town, Ananthapuramu District. Executive Officer, Grade-II Group of temples.

… Accused.

This case coming before me on 5.5.2026 for final hearing in the presence of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri H.S.Narayonow Gowd & Sri C.R.Vijaya Bhaskar, Advocate for the accused, upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Madakasira Police Station

J.F.C.M, Madakasira 2 C.C.No.245 of 2018 filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.8/2018 for the offences under sections 420, 408, 409 of Indian Penal Code.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are :-

The accused, being the Executive Officer of Sri

Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanams, Bhaktharahalli village and Sri

Anjaneya Swamy temple, Zilledukunta village of Madakasira mandal, started collecting amounts from the devotees and having collected a sum of Rs.3,50,467/- from the devotees by issuing receipts for the said amount, the accused has taken up developmental works of the temple without prior permission from the concerned authorities. P.W.5, being one such donor, having donated a sum of Rs.216/-, obtained receipt for the said amount and having found flexis erected as to the donations received by the temple, he obtained information under Right to Information Act and came to know that the accused has been collecting amounts from the devotees and started developmental activities in the temple without sanction from the appropriate authorities. On that, P.W.5 sent a complaint to P.W.1 who was working as Deputy Commissioner, Endowments

Department at Kurnool, upon which, P.W.1 got an inquiry conducted through P.Ws.2 & 3 who were working as Assistant Commissioner of

Endowments and Inspector in Endowments Department who confirmed that the accused did such act of collecting amounts from the donors and undertook developmental activities in the temple without prior permission from the appropriate authorities. On that, P.W.1, having, initiated departmental action, has also lodged report to the police basing on which, this case is registered against the accused.

J.F.C.M, Madakasira 3 C.C.No.245 of 2018

3.Cognizance was taken for the offences under sections 408, 420, 409 of Indian Penal Code and summons were issued to the accused.

4.After appearance of the accused before the Court, copies of all documents were furnished to him as contemplated under

Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code.

5.On consideration of entire material on record, the accused is examined under section 239 of Criminal Procedure Code and he denied the prosecution allegations, charges for the offences under sections 409, 420 of Indian Penal Code have been framed against him, read over and explained to him in Telugu for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.The prosecution, in order to prove its case, having cited twenty eight witnesses, examined thirteen witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 13 and got exhibited Exs.P.1 to P.23. On behalf of the defence, Exs.D.1 & D.2 are marked. Police filed report along with copies of death certificates of

C.Ramamurthy (L.W.9) & Ramachandra Gowd (L.W.6). Hence, evidence of C.Ramamurthy (L.W.9) & Ramachandra Gowd (L.W.6) is closed on 27.11.2025 and 5.3.2026. The evidence of other witnesses, is given up by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

7.On closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused is examined Under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code explaining the available incriminating material on record, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

J.F.C.M, Madakasira 4 C.C.No.245 of 2018

8. Heard both sides.

9.Now the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution is able to prove its case

against the accused for the offences alleged against him, beyond all

reasonable doubt ?

10. POINT:

It is the evidence of P.W.1 that on 20.9.2017, while he was working as Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Kurnool, he received a complaint from P.W.5 and he forwarded the same to P.Ws.2 & 3 with a direction to conduct enquiry and P.Ws.2 & 3, having held enquiry and basing on the said complaint, submitted report to him and he forwarded the same to the Commissioner of Endowments, Vijayawada.

Later, having received instructions to lodge report before the police, he lodged report in the police station on 9.1.2018.

11.The evidence of P.W.1 is supported by the evidence of

P.Ws.2 & 3 who also deposed evidence on similar lines that having received complaint of P.W.5 from P.W.1, they conducted enquiry, visited the said temple and having found developmental activities going on in the temple without permission and having found that the accused got receipt books printed without permission, he affixed facsimile signatures on those receipts, they submitted report to P.W.1 accordingly and that the accused has credited a sum of Rs.73,000/- in the account, having collected a sum of Rs.3,52,467/-.

12.The evidence of P.W.4 is as to the proposal sent by the accused for the developmental activities of the temple in the year 2016

J.F.C.M, Madakasira 5 C.C.No.245 of 2018 and is submitted estimates for the same and about the accused taken up those works without prior permission from the appropriate authorities. It is his further evidence that the accused has donated a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the temple.

13.The evidence of P.W.5 is that on 7.9.2017, having visited the temple, he noticed some renovation work going on in the temple and flexies were erected in the temple requesting donations. He donated a sum of Rs.216/- and obtained receipt for the same and having found in the flexies that the priest of the temple has donated a sum of

Rs.50,000/- apart from others, he obtained information under Right to

Information Act and came to know that receipt books were printed and amounts were collected without permission from Endowments Department and he filed complaint before Deputy Commissioner on such issue.

14.It is the evidence of P.W.6 that the accused sent proposals to officials for developmental activities in the temple and having not received any permission, he undertook developmental activities by collecting amounts from donors, at the request of devotees.

15.The evidence of other witnesses is as to the construction work taken up and bill books got printed by the accused.

16.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argues that the prosecution, having examined almost all the witnesses and having exhibited so many documents, succeeded in proving its case against the accused for the offences alleged against him and the accused is liable for conviction.

17.On the other hand, the learned defence counsel argues that the prosecution utterly failed in proving its case against the accused

J.F.C.M, Madakasira 6 C.C.No.245 of 2018 for the offences alleged against him and that the accused is entitled for acquittal.

18.It was elicited during the course of cross examination of

P.W.1 as well as P.Ws.2 & 3 that the Endowments Department has dropped further action against the accused with a finding that there was no misappropriation of amounts by the accused.

19.To make out an offence of 409 of Indian Penal Code and 420 of Indian Penal Code, burden is on the prosecution to prove that the accused, being a public servant, entrusted with properties or with dominion over the property in his capacity as a public servant, committed criminal breach of trust in respect of such property and has misappropriated the funds entrusted to him and that he cheated the donors and the government. For better understanding of the said offences, sections 405, 409 and 415 of Indian Penal Code are being reproduced here under.

405. Criminal breach of trust :-

Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or willfully suffers any other person so to do, commits "criminal breach of trust".

409. Criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent :-

Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property in his capacity of a public servant or in the way of his business as a banker, merchant,

J.F.C.M, Madakasira 7 C.C.No.245 of 2018 factor, broker, attorney or agent, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property, shall be punished with 1[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

415. Cheating :- Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived,and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat". Explanation,--A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section.

20.As can be understood from section 405 of Indian Penal

Code, such an offence can be made out when a person entrusted with property or with dominion over the property, " dishonestly" misappropriates or converts to his own use that property or dishonestly uses or disposes off that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged.

21.As can be understood from the evidence culled out during the course of cross examination of P.Ws.1 to 3 as well as their evidence in their chief examination, it is not the allegation of the prosecution that the accused misappropriated the said amounts for his own use but the allegation is that without prior permission of appropriate authorities, he started collecting amounts from the donors and also started developmental activities in the temple. No doubt, P.W.3 has come up with the evidence that the accused has collected a sum of Rs.73,148/- and has remitted said amount by deducting Rs.55/-, after lapse of 71/2 months and

J.F.C.M, Madakasira 8 C.C.No.245 of 2018 that too after the complaint was made by P.W.5. Having made allegation during the course of evidence before the court that amount was remitted by the accused after lapse of 71/2 months and the sum of Rs.55/- was not remitted by the accused, P.W.3 seems to have not stated such facts

before the police while being examined. Further, no document is placed

before the court that amount was remitted after lapse of such long period

or that the sum of Rs.55/- was not remitted.

22.By this, it can be understood that there was no misappropriation of funds by the accused for his own use.

23.No doubt, coming to latter portion of definitions of criminal breach of trust i.e., dishonestly using or disposes the property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, the very beginning lines of the definition itself requires ‘dishonest intention’ from the person who alleged to have misappropriated property entrusted to him.

24.For better understanding of the said offence, the definition of dishonestly as defined under section 24 of Indian Penal Code under the caption dishonestly is being reproduced here under.

24. "Dishonestly" :- Whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person, is said to do that thing "dishonestly"

25.As can be understood from the said definition, a person is said to have committed an act dishonestly who had intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person. This dishonesty as defined under section 24 of Indian Penal Code, is lacking in

J.F.C.M, Madakasira 9 C.C.No.245 of 2018 the act of the accused. No doubt, as can be understood from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the accused has undertaken developmental works in the temple, having collected amounts from the donors without prior permission from the appropriate authorities. In this act of the accused, there appears no such dishonest intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person. In such case, no offence of under section 409 of Indian Penal Code is made out as against the accused since there was no ‘dishonest intention’ on his part and as can be understood from the evidence of P.Ws.6 & 7, the accused has taken up such developmental activities of the temple at the request of devotees of the temple.

26.In this regard, the learned defence counsel also highlights the contents of Exs.D.1 & D.2 wherein the disciplinary authority has dropped action against the accused, having found that there was no misappropriation of funds. This court is not convinced with this contention of the learned defence counsel for the reason that the findings if any of the disciplinary authority cannot be basis for the findings of the court. Those proceedings of the disciplinary authority runs on completely different lines.

Out of this, it can be understood that the act of the accused in collecting amounts from the donors and taking up developmental activities of the temple is purely procedural irregularity and no offence can be made out, out of such act since there was no ‘dishonesty’ in the said act.

27.Same is the position of another offence alleged i.e., cheating. There was no intention on the part of the accused to cheat any person by dishonest or fraudulent intention to deliver any property or to

J.F.C.M, Madakasira 10 C.C.No.245 of 2018 retain any property but purely a bonafide intention of developing the temple but without prior sanction from the authorities. In view of the circumstances, this court finds no necessity to appreciate the evidence of

P.Ws.12 & 13, the Investigating Officers since the evidence of crucial witnesses like P.Ws.1 to 5 itself failed to make out the offences against the accused.

28.For the above discussion, this court is of the considered view that the prosecution utterly failed in proving its case against the accused for the offences alleged against him, beyond all reasonable doubt.

29.IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offences under sections 409, 420 of Indian Penal Code and he is acquitted under section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code. His bail bond shall remain in force for six months as required under section 437-A

Criminal Procedure Code. No order in relation to property is being made since no property is produced before the court.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, transcribed by

him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 11th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-R.Ashok Kumar

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Madakasira.

J.F.C.M, Madakasira 11 C.C.No.245 of 2018

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

P.W.1: V.Demullu -None-

P.W.2: K.Vani

P.W.3: K.Ramatulasi

P.W.4: S.Satheesh

P.W.5: M.Anand Kumar

P.W.6: P.Prabhakar

P.W.7: P.Kesavamurthy

P.W.8: Venkatesh Naik

P.W.9: T.Ravi Shankar

P.W.10: B.Malleshappa

P.W.11: P.L.Aswarthanarayana

P.W.12: K.M.Linganna, the then S.I of Police, Madakasira P.S.

P.W.13: K.Gopi, the then S.I of Police, Madakasira P.S.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P.1: Report of P.W.1 to Police. Ex.P.2: Attested copy of representation of P.W.5 dt. 20.9.2017. Ex.P.3: Attested copy of inquiry report of P.W.2 dt. 3.11.2017. Ex.P.4: Attested copy of inquiry report of P.W.2 dt. 15.11.2017. Ex.P.5: Cash receipt dt. 26.7.2017 with SI.No.154 for Rs.5,116/-. Ex.P.6: Attested copy of memo bearing number memo.no.B3/7005/2017/Adm./dated:7.11.2017. Ex.P.7: Letter addressed by P.W.1 to the SHO, Madakasira vide Lr.No.B3/7005/2017/Adm./dt.18.1.2018. Ex.P.8: Attested copy of explanation of the accused dt. 10.9.2017. Ex.P.9: Attested copy of statement of P.V.Prabhakar & R.Jayaramachandra (without date).

J.F.C.M, Madakasira 12 C.C.No.245 of 2018

Ex.P.10: Attested copy of petition given by the priest of Bhaktharahalli temple to the Executive Officer to the temple dt. 27.9.2017. Ex.P.11: Attested copy of statement given by the accused to the Inspector of Endowments Department dt. 9.10.2017. Ex.P.12: Attested copy of memo issued by the Asst. Commissioner Endowments Department, Ananthapuramu vide Rc.No.A3/3048/2017,Adm., dt.27.9.2017. Ex.P.13: Attested copy of directions of the Commissioner, Endowments Department, Vijayawada vide Rc.No.V3/20026/47/2017 dt. 19.12.2017. Ex.P.14: Memo issued by P.W.1 to the Deputy Executive Engineer, Endowments Department, Ananthapur vide Rc.No.B3/7005/2017/Adm.,dt. 14.1.2018. Ex.P.15: Attested letter addressed by the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kurnool vide Rc.No.3/2018 (valuation report) dt.18.1.2018. Ex.P.16: Attested copy of report of Deputy Executive Engineer, Endowments Department, Kurnool dt. 18.1.2018 along with photostat copies of photographs, 6 in number. Ex.P.17: Attested copy of report of the Deputy Executive Engineer, Endowments Department, Kurnool as to the estimates. Ex.P.18: Signature of P.W.11 in the 1st page ofmahazarnama dt. 4.7.2018. Ex.P.19: First Information Report in Cr.No.8/2018 of Madakasira P.S. Ex.P.20: Police proceedings dt. 19.1.2018. Ex.P.21: Police proceedings dt. 20.1.2018. Ex.P.22: Police proceedings dt. 24.1.2018. Ex.P.23: Portion of mahazarnama dt. 4.7.2018.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

Ex.D.1: Letter of the then District Collector, Ananthapuramu to Assistant Commissioner, Endowments, Ananthapuramu in Rc.No.H3/7123/2017

dt. 8.12.2017.

Ex.D.2: Proceedings of the Commissioner, Endowments Department in Rc.No.V2/20026/47/2017, dt. 26.4.2019.

J.F.C.M, Madakasira 13 C.C.No.245 of 2018

MATERIAL OBJECT MARKED

-Nil-

Id/-R.A.K

JFCM,MDK

//True Copy//

JFCM, Madakasira.

J.F.C.M, Madakasira 1 C.C.No.198 of 2023

APAN170005972023

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, MADAKASIRA.

Present: Sri R.Ashok Kumar

Judl. Magistrate of I Class

Wednesday, the thirteenth (13th) day of May, 2026

C.C.No.198 of 2023

Between:

State Represented by The Sub-Inspector of police, Agali P.S. … Complainant.

And:

1. Shaik Imran, 25 years, S/o. Abdul Shameer, (A.1), R/o. Tippu Sulthan street, Hindupur town.

2. Balija Balaji @ Platu, 23 years, S/o. Nagaraju, (A.2), R/o. D.R.Colony, Hindupur town.

(Case against A.1 is split up and numbered as C.C.No.180 of 2026)

… A.1 and A.2.

This case coming before me on 8.5.2026 for final hearing in the presence of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri H.S.Kristappa & Sri S.P.Babu Naik, Advocate for the accused, upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J.F.C.M, Madakasira 2 C.C.No.198 of 2023

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Agali Police Station filed charge sheet against A.1 & A.2 in Crime No.83/2021 for the offences under sections 457, 380 of Indian Penal Code.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are :-

On 30.9.2021, at about 8.30 AM., some unknown offenders gained entrance into the house of P.W.1 in the absence of inmates of the house and committed theft of the gold chain weighing 5 grams, gold ring weighing 4 grams, a pair of ear studs weighing 4 grams all worth Rs.65,000/- and cash of Rs.30,000/-. Later, P.W.1 lodged report to the police, basing on which, a case was registered in Cr.No.83 of 2021 of

Agali Police station. On 9.2.2022, P.W.8, being the Investigating Officer in this case along with other cases, received credible information, apprehended this accused along with five others and on enquiry, they confessed about their involvement in this case as well as several other cases consequent to which, several stolen properties were recovered from their possession in the presence of mediators, under a cover of mahazarnama.

3.Cognizance was taken for the offences under sections 457, 380 (or) 411 of Indian Penal Code and summons were issued to A.1 and A.2.

4.After appearance of A.1 and A.2, copies of all documents were furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 of Criminal

Procedure Code.

J.F.C.M, Madakasira 3 C.C.No.198 of 2023

5.On consideration of entire material on record, A.1 and

A.2 were examined under section 239 of Criminal Procedure Code, charges under sections 457, 380 (or) 411 of Indian Penal Code are framed against

A.1 & A.2, read over and explained the substance of accusation to A.1 and

A.2 in Telugu, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.The prosecution, in order to prove its case, having cited ten witnesses, examined nine witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 9 and got exhibited

Exs.P.1 to P.5 and M.O.s.1 to 8 are marked. The evidence of another witness, is given up by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and prosecution side evidence is closed.

7.At this stage, A.1 submitted a petition that he is intending to admit the offences and permit him to admit the offences. Hence, case against A.1 is ordered to be split up and numbered as C.C.No.180 of 2026.

A.2 is examined Under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code explaining the available incriminating material on record, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard both sides.

9.Now the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution is able to prove its case

against A.2 for the offences alleged against him, beyond all

reasonable doubt ?

10. POINT:-

It is the evidence of P.Ws.1 & 2 that on the date of incident which was about four years prior to 3.7.2025 i.e., their evidence

before the court, both of them, being the husband and wife, left to their

J.F.C.M, Madakasira 4 C.C.No.198 of 2023 agricultural land without locking the house and at about 10.30 AM., they returned home and found the doors of the house opened and having entered into the house, they found the steel almirah break opened and on verification, they found missing of a pair of gold zumkes, a pair of hangings, a ring weighing 8 grams, another ring weighing 5 grams, two reverse chains, a pair of gold ear studs, a pair of studded ear studs and hangings all weighing 48 grams, worth Rs.1,95,900/- besides cash of Rs.7,500/- upon which, P.W.1 lodged report to the police.

11.The evidence of P.Ws.1 & 2 is supported by the evidence of P.Ws.3 & 4 whose evidence is that on 30.9.2021, a theft occurred in the house of P.Ws.1 & 2.

12.Though it is the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 that theft occurred in the house of P.Ws.1 & 2, their allegation is not against these accused and it is against unknown offenders. Even the cross examination by learned defence counsel also is not seriously challenging the commission of theft in their house but only regarding the delay in lodging report to the police.

13.Thereby, the prosecution succeeded in proving that theft occurred in the house of P.Ws.1 & 2 but could not connect these accused with the house breaking or commission of theft in their house.

14.Now, coming to the other point as to the recovery of stolen articles from the possession of this accused along with others, it is the evidence of P.W.5, the then Village Revenue Officer of Amidalagondi village who was in charge of Madakasira by then, that on 9.2.2022, during the vehicular check conducted by the Inspector of Police and other police officials at Yelloti cross, at about 5.30 AM., they found six persons coming

J.F.C.M, Madakasira 5 C.C.No.198 of 2023 on two wheelers from Hindupur side and on seeing the police, they tried to flee away but were apprehended and on enquiry, they confessed about commission of theft of MOs.1 to 8 and cash of Rs.7,500/- in a house in

Madhudi Gollahatti village and that MOs.1 to 8 were seized by the

Inspector of Police from their possession under a cover of mahazarnama.

15.It is the evidence of P.W.7, the then Sub-Inspector of

Police, Agali Police station that on 2.10.2021, having received report from

P.W.1, she registered a case and investigated into and that on 9.2.2022, having received call from their Circle-Inspector, she along with other Sub-

Inspectors within the circle followed their Circle-Inspector and reached

Yelloti cross on Hindupur road where they found six persons coming on two wheelers who tried flee away on seeing them but were apprehended. On enquiry, they revealed their names as Shaik Iliyaz @ Illu of Hindupur town,

Yerikala Kavadi Nagendra @ Nagendra of Hindupur town, Shaik Nizam @

Angala of Hindupur town, Shaik Imran @ Emmri of Hindupur town, Balija

Balaji @ Platu and Yerikala Sake Ramanjineyulu @ Ramanji of Hindupur town and they confessed of theft at various places within the limits of

Madakasira, Rolla, Agali, Gudibanda and Amarapuram mandals by committing house breaking. A.1 confessed about commission of theft in

Madhudi Gollahatti village along with A.2 and sharing of stolen articles between him and A.2 and that they further confessed about commission of theft in other cases also and the stolen articles were seized from their possession under a cover of mahazarnama and they were produced before the court for judicial custody.

16.Though P.W.5 has deposed about apprehending six persons and seizure of stolen articles from their possession consequent to

J.F.C.M, Madakasira 6 C.C.No.198 of 2023 their confessional statements, not even a whisper is made by P.W.5 as what is the necessity for him to be present along with the police officials on that day and at that particular time, at that place. Further, having deposed that MOs. 1 to 8 were seized from the possession of those persons, not even a whisper is made by P.W.5 that any of the accused present before the court, were among those six persons who were apprehended on that day by the Circle-Inspector, Madakasira.

17.Coming to the evidence of P.W.7, though the said police officer has deposed evidence in detail as to the proceedings that were allegedly held at Yelloti cross on 9.2.2022 in her presence, she admits during the course of cross examination that she has not signed on the said mahazarnama. Further, she also came up with evidence that unless she peruses the record, she cannot say the details of each accused found on respective bikes.

18.By this, it can be understood that P.W.7 cannot depose anything about details of those persons apprehended on that day except on perusing the record on which she did not even put her signature. No other evidence is placed before the court to show that P.W.7 has participated in such proceedings at Yelloti cross on 9.2.2022. Hence, her evidence cannot be given much weight.

19.Now, the entire case of the prosecution as to the apprehension of the accused and recovery of stolen properties from their possession consequent to their confessional statements, solely rests upon the evidence of P.W.8, the then Circle-Inspector of police, who actually said to have conducted said proceedings on 9.2.2022 along with other officials

J.F.C.M, Madakasira 7 C.C.No.198 of 2023 and mediators. As can be seen from the evidence of P.W.8, it was so carelessly mentioned that on 9.2.2022, having received credible information about the accused involved in crime Nos.4 of 2021 of

Amarapuram Police station, Cr.No.85 of 2021 of Agali Police station and

Cr.No.376 of 2021 of Madakasira Police station, he secured the presence of P.W.5 and another mediator who gathered his staff and proceeded to

Yelloti cross where he found Shaik Iliyaz, Yerikala Kavadi Nagendra, Shaik

Nizam, Shaik Imran, Balija Balaji and Sake Ramanjineyulu trying to flee away but were caught by them and those six persons admitted several cases and that A.1 & A.2 herein committed theft in Cr.No. 83 of 2021 of

Agali Police station and total stolen property was recovered from their possession.

For better appreciation, it is felt proper to reproduce the evidence of P.W.8 in his chief examination.

"Presently, I am working as Inspector of Police in Proddutur I Town PS. Previously, I worked as Circle Inspector of Police in Madakasira PS from 2.7.2021 to 20.11.2022. On 9.2.2022, while I was present in the Police station at about 4.00 AM., I received credible information, about the accused involved in Cr.Nos.4/2021 of Amarapuram PS, 85/2021 of Agali PS, 376/2021 of Madakasira PS, I secured the presence of 2 mediators viz., PW.5 and D.Vannurappa (LW.7), gathered my staff ie., Sub Inspectors of Madakasira, Rolla, Gudibanda, Agali and other staff and reached Yelloti cross, situate on Madakasira-Hindupur road. On seeing the police personnel, Shaik Iliyaz, Yerikala Kavadi Nagendra, Shaik Nijam, Shaik Imran, Balija Balaji and Sake Ramanjineyulu tried to flee away but were caught by us. Those 6 persons admitted several cases. A.1 & A.2 herein committed theft in Cr.No.83/2021 of Agali Police station. In the said case, total stolen property was recovered from those accused. After completion of preparation of mahazar and seizure of property, they were sent to court for judicial custody. During such proceedings, only stolen ornaments were seized but cash could not be seized."

J.F.C.M, Madakasira 8 C.C.No.198 of 2023

20.It shall always be the confessional statement of the accused which shall lead to discovery of certain other facts and in this case, recovery of stolen articles but not vice versa, as per section 27 of

Indian Evidence Act. The evidence of P.W.8 is not that those stolen articles were recovered from the accused consequent to their confessional statements and it is as if those accused with their names are previously known to him and he caught them and recovered stolen articles from their possession and recorded their confessional statements. The said witness, having appeared before the court at 3.20 PM., as can be seen from the record, has deposed evidence so casually and carelessly as if no procedure is followed while arresting the accused or recovering stolen property from their possession.

21.Neither P.W.5 nor P.W.8 identified any of the accused present before the court as the persons found on 9.2.2022 at Yelloti cross along with others. In such case, prosecution cannot succeed in proving its case against A.2 for the offences alleged against him.

22.The evidence of P.W.9 is to a very limited extent of taking up investigation from P.W.7, verifying investigation and filing charge sheet and hence, it does not invite any appreciation in depth.

23.For the above discussion, this court is of the considered view that the prosecution failed to connect this accused with the offences alleged, beyond all reasonable doubt.

24.IN THE RESULT, A.2 is found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 457, 380 or 411 of Indian Penal Code and he is acquitted under section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code. M.Os.1 to 8

J.F.C.M, Madakasira 9 C.C.No.198 of 2023 which were received by P.W.1 towards interim custody, shall be retained by her after lapse of appeal time. A.2 shall execute personal bond for

Rs.10,000/- and it shall remain in force for six months as required under section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code. A.2 shall be set at liberty forthwith if he is not required in any other case.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, transcribed by

him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 13th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-R.Ashok Kumar

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Madakasira.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

P.W.1: Shashikala -None- P.W.2: Eeranna

P.W.3: G.Yashoda

P.W.4: G.Viswanath.

P.W.5: V.H.Narasappa, V.R.O.

P.W.6: T.H.Narasimha Murthy, V.R.O.

P.W.7: S.Divya, the then S.I of police, Agali PS.

P.W.8: K.Sreeram, the then Inspector of police,

Madakasira P.S.

P.W.9: D.Lavanya, the then S.I of police, Agali PS.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P.1: Report of P.W.1. Ex.P.2: Mahazar, dt. 9.2.2022.

J.F.C.M, Madakasira 10 C.C.No.198 of 2023

Ex.P.3: Identification Mahazar dt. 24.2.2022. Ex.P.4: First Information Report in Cr.No.83/2021 of Agali P.S. Ex.P.5: Rough sketch.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

-Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECT MARKED

MO.1 : Pair of gold earstuds MO.2 : Gold ring MO.3 : Reverse chain wg.10 grams MO.4 : Reverse chain wg.4 grams MO.5 : Reverse chain wg.3 grams MO.6 : Gold ring MO.7 : Ear rings MO.8 : Pair of Zumkees.

Id/-R.A.K JFCM, Madakasira.

//True Copy//

JFCM, Madakasira.

J.F.C.M, Madakasira 1 C.C.No.119 of 2024

APAN170003182024

IN THE COURT OF THE

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, MADAKASIRA.

Present: Sri R.Ashok Kumar

Judl. Magistrate of I Class

Tuesday, the fifth (5th) day of May, 2026

C.C.No.119 of 2024

Between: State Represented by The Sub-Inspector of Police, Gudibanda PS. … Complainant And:

M.Mare Gowd, 31 years, S/o.Gidda Mareppa. R/o.Dinnehatti village, Gudibanda mandal. … Accused

This case coming before me on 4.5.2026 for final hearing

before me in the presence of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State and

of Sri S.P.Gopinath, Advocate for the accused, upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Gudibanda Police Station has filed the charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.154/2020 for the offence punishable Under section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act r/w 8 (b) (ii) of A.P.

Prohibition Act.

J.F.C.M, Madakasira 2 C.C.No.119 of 2024

2. The prosecution case in nutshell is as follows:

On 29.5.2020, at 5.00 PM., on credible information, during the course of raid conducted by A.P.Masthan (L.W.7) along with his staff, in

Dinnehatti village, Gudibanda mandal, they found the accused with a black colour cover and on seeing them, the accused tried to flee away but was apprehended. On enquiry, the accused confessed that he is possessing liquor packets. On verification of the cover possessed by the accused, they found it containing 33 nips of Old Tavern whiskey, belonging to Karnataka.

A.P.Masthan (L.W.7) drew one packet as sample from the contraband, seized the remaining contraband and arrested the accused under a cover of police proceedings drafted on the spot. On return to the station, A.P.Masthan (L.W.7) handed over police proceedings, contraband, sample and the accused to

P.W.1. Basing on police proceedings, P.W.1 registered a case in

Cr.No.154/2020 and he served section 41-A Cr.P.C., notice on the accused.

Later, A.P.Masthan (LW.7) took up investigation from P.W.1 and he sent the sample to the Chemical Examiner, Chittoor for analysis, who opined that the sample is “Indian made liquor”.

3.Cognizance was taken for the offence under section

Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and summons were issued against the accused.

4.After appearance of the accused before the Court, copies of all documents were furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 of

Criminal Procedure Code.

5. On consideration of entire material on record, the accused is examined under section 239 of Criminal Procedure Code, a charge under section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act is framed against him, read over and explained the substance of accusation to the accused in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

J.F.C.M, Madakasira 3 C.C.No.119 of 2024

6. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, cited nine witnesses, among them, examined two witnesses as P.Ws.1 & 2 and got exhibited Exs.P.1 to P.4 and M.O.1 is marked. Consequent to the failure of prosecution to produce witnesses in spite of conditional orders, evidence of

E.Nagaraju (L.W.1), P.Ramanjinamma (L.W.3), E.Chinnavali (L.W.4),

G.B.Karunakar (L.W.5), A.P.Masthan (L.W.7), K.Suresh (L.W.8) and

B.T.Venkateswarlu (L.W.9) is closed on 17.4.2026.

7.On closure of prosecution evidence, the accused is examined Under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, explaining the available incriminating material on record, the accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

8. Heard both sides.

9. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that with the evidence adduced, the prosecution succeeded in proving its case against the accused.

10. Per contra, the learned defence counsel argued that the evidence available on record is not sufficient to prove the case against the accused and that the accused entitled for acquittal.

11. Now the Point of determination is :

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt

of accused for the offence under Section 34(a) of

A.P. Excise Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

12. POINT:

To prove the offence under Section 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act,

J.F.C.M, Madakasira 4 C.C.No.119 of 2024 the prosecution has to establish that the accused herein was transporting, exporting, importing, manufacturing, collecting or possessing any intoxicants in contravention of A.P. Excise Act or any license or permit granted or issued under this Act.

13. The evidence of P.Ws.1 & 2 is that on 29.5.2020, at about 5.00 PM., during the course of raid conducted by A.P.Masthan (L.W.7) along with his staff, in Dinnehatti village, they found the accused with a black colour bag and on seeing them, the accused tried to flee away but was apprehended. On verification of the bag possessed by the accused, they found it containing 33 nips of Old Tavern whiskey, belonging to Karnataka.

They tried for mediators but in vain. A.P.Masthan (L.W.7) drew one packet as sample from the contraband, seized the remaining contraband and arrested the accused under a cover of police proceedings drafted on the spot. On return to the station, A.P.Masthan (L.W.7) handed over police proceedings, contraband, sample and the accused to P.W.1. Basing on police proceedings,

P.W.1 registered a case in Cr.No.154/2020 and he served section 41-A

Cr.P.C., notice on the accused. Later, sample was sent to the Chemical

Examiner, Chittoor for analysis, who opined that the sample is “Indian made liquor”. The remaining contraband was destroyed as per the proceedings of

Superintendent of Police, Puttaparthi and on completion of investigation

B.T.Venkateswarlu (L.W.9), filed charge sheet.

14.During the course of cross examination, P.W.1 admitted that he has no personal knowledge as to the manner of detection of offence and whether any attempt is made to secure mediators. P.W.2 admitted that there are 100 residential houses in the said village. Police proceedings were prepared at the scene of offence and boundaries of the house of the accused

J.F.C.M, Madakasira 5 C.C.No.119 of 2024 are not mentioned in the police proceedings. Except their Sub-Inspector of

Police, none else signed on the police proceedings.

15. When the search and seizure is in open place, there is no mandatory requirement to secure independent mediators of the locality but to prove their case beyond any iota of doubt, it is expected that the police officials should have seriously and sincerely tried for independent mediators to show their impartial investigation. No doubt, the acts of police officials in discharge of their official duties, are presumed to be correct unless contrary is proved but, when there was opportunity to secure the mediators, no convincing attempts were made by A.P.Masthan (L.W.7). At this juncture, it is relevant to note a decision made in:

S.Babu Saheb @ Babu v. State of A.P., 2010 (1) A.L.T. (Crl.) 32 A.P. wherein it was held ‘no efforts being made to secure the mediators is doubtful. The necessity was emphasized by the Hon’ble High Court when there is seizure of contraband’. Also in, Gajamker Narayana v. State of A.P., 2005 (3) A.L.T. (Crl.) 1, it was held “.... Section 100(4) Cr.P.C. lays down that before making a search, the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situated or of any other locality...”, the seizure of contraband was held to be illegal when the provision of Section 100 (4) Code of Criminal Procedure are not complied. Also, it was held that the evidence of Excise officials is interested, artificial and routine. In this case on hand also, P.W.2 did not depose convincing reasons for non-securing of the independent mediators from the locality.

In Botcha Raju v. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Vizianagaram Rural Circle, 1994 (2) A.L.T. (Crl.) 69 (A.P.), it was held “...the Courts below fell in error by accepting the version of the Police Officers without the corroboration of the disinterested witnesses...”.

16.There is no sufficient material placed by the prosecution to establish that the accused possessed contraband. Therefore, the prosecution

J.F.C.M, Madakasira 6 C.C.No.119 of 2024 miserably failed to establish the guilt against the accused for the offence under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act. In the light of above discussion, and the evidence of P.Ws.1 & 2 being police officials and their evidence pertaining to Ex.P.1 and above referred citations, accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

17.With regard to the alleged confessional statement of the accused before A.P.Masthan (L.W.7), the same is hit by Sec.25 of Indian

Evidence Act and is inadmissible in evidence.

18.For the above discussion, this Court feels that prosecution utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act.

19. IN THE RESULT, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and he is acquitted U/s.248(1)

Criminal Procedure Code. Accused shall execute personal bond for

Rs.10,000/- and it shall remain in force for six months as required Under

Section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 5th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-R.Ashok Kumar

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Madakasira.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

P.W.1: C.Sreenivasulu, the then Head Constable, Gudibanda PS. -None-

P.W.2: P.N.Lakshmi Kumar, the then Police Constable.

J.F.C.M, Madakasira 7 C.C.No.119 of 2024

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P.1: Police Proceedings dt.29.5.2020. Ex.P.2: First Information Report in Cr.No.154/2020, Gudibanda P.S. Ex.P.3: Analysis report. Ex.P.4: Copy of panchanama dt. 26.7.2022.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

-Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECT MARKED

M.O.1: Sample bottle of Old Tavern Whiskey.

Id/-R.A.K

JFCM,MDK./ //True Copy//

JFCM, Madakasira.

J.F.C.M, Madakasira 1 C.C.No.204 of 2021

APAN170003642021

IN THE COURT OF THE

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS , MADAKASIRA.

Present: Sri R.Ashok Kumar

Judl. Magistrate of I Class

Monday, the fourth (4th) day of May, 2026

C.C.No.204 of 2021

Between: State Represented by The Sub-Inspector of Police, Gudibanda P.S. … Complainant And:

1. S.Pandappa @ Pandi, 28 years, S/o. Sanna Rangappa,

2. S.Paramesh, 32 years, S/o. Sanna Rangappa,

3. Ranganath, 22 years, S/o. Sanna Rangappa,

4. Ravi Kumar @ Ravi, 40 years, S/o. Sanna Rangappa,

5. Hanumantharayappa, 40 years, S/o. Sanna Rangappa,

6. Thipanna, 55 years, S/o. Kambanna.

All are R/o. C.C.Giri village, Gudibanda mandal.

… A.1 to A.6.

This case coming before me on 1.5.2026 for final hearing in the presence of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri G.Radha Krishna, Advocate for the accused, upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J.F.C.M, Madakasira 2 C.C.No.204 of 2021

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Gudibanda Police Station filed charge sheet against A.1 to A.6 in Cr.No.272/2020 for the offences punishable Under Sections 324, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

2.The prosecution case in brief is as follows:

There are some misunderstandings and ill-feelings between the family of Harijana Ranganatha (L.W.1) and the family of accused in relation to landed property in Sy.No. 187-2 in their village. On 6.4.2020, while Harijana Ranganatha (L.W.1) was proceeding towards his village from Palaram village, some people tried to cause obstruction and attack him but he escaped on his motorcycle. On 25.9.2020, at about 7.30

PM., while Harijana Ranganatha (L.W.1) and P.W.1 were discussing about their family issues, A.1 to A.6, having formed themselves into a group, attacked Harijana Ranganatha (L.W.1) and P.W.1 with sticks, picked up quarrel with them, abused Harijana Ranganatha (L.W.1) in filthy language, caught hold of his shirt and beat him sticks and stones and caused bleeding injuries. When P.W.1 intervened, the accused have also caught hold of him, beat him with hands and kicked him causing injuries. The accused have also threatened to see their end.

3.Cognizance was taken for the offences under sections 324, 506 of Indian Penal code and summons were issued to A.1 to A.6.

4.After appearance of A.1 to A.6 before the court, copies of all documents were furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 Criminal Procedure Code.

5. On consideration of entire material on record, A.1 to A.6 were examined under section 239 of Criminal Procedure Code and they denied the prosecution allegations, charges for the offences under

J.F.C.M, Madakasira 3 C.C.No.204 of 2021 sections 324, 506 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code have been framed against them, read over and explained to them in Telugu for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, cited seven witnesses, examined four witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 4 and got exhibited

Exs.P.1 to P.4. Police filed reports along with copy of death certificates of

Harijana Ranganatha (L.W.1) & Santhosh (L.W.3). Hence, evidence of

Harijana Ranganatha (L.W.1) & Santhosh (L.W.3) is closed on 18.3.2025 & 10.2.2026. Consequent to the failure of prosecution to produce witness in spite of conditional orders, evidence of G.Sudhakar Yadav (L.W.7) is closed on 27.2.2026.

7.On closure of prosecution evidence, A.1 to A.6 are examined Under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, explaining the available incriminating material on record, A.1 to A.6 denied the same and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

8. Heard both sides.

9. Now the Point of determination is :

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of A.1 to A.6 for the offences alleged against them, beyond all reasonable doubt?

10. POINT:

The evidence of Harijana Ranganatha (L.W.1) as well as Santhosh (L.W.3) is closed by this court basing on the report filed by police that they are no more.

11.It is the evidence of P.W.1 that on the date of incident, the accused beat his brother Harijana Ranganatha (L.W.1) at the agricultural land and on the same day, while he was present in his house,

J.F.C.M, Madakasira 4 C.C.No.204 of 2021 all the accused came to his house at about 7.30 PM., picked up galata with him, A.1 and one Eswarappa beat Harijana Ranganatha (L.W.1) with a stick on his left shoulder and caused injuries. Eswarappa torn the clothes of Harijana Rangantha (L.W.1). The accused have also beat him, caused injuries to him and torn his clothes. Later, they went to the police station and lodged report.

12.P.W.2 who is examined as an independent eye witness to the incident, has not supported the case of the prosecution stating that he does not know anything about the facts of this case.

13.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argues that though the evidence of P.W.1 is not supported by the evidence of other witnesses, prosecution case cannot be brushed aside and that the accused are liable for conviction.

14.On the other hand, the learned defence counsel argues that the alleged victim of the offences/ defacto-complainant himself is not examined before the court and that the evidence of P.W.1, not supported by the evidence of P.W.2, is quiet inconsistent with the case of the prosecution itself and suffers from improvements and that thereby, prosecution utterly failed in proving its case against A.1 to A.6 for the offences alleged against them, beyond all reasonable doubt.

15.Since the evidence of P.W.1 is not supported by the evidence of any other witnesses and eye witnesses to the incident, his evidence shall not give scope for any iota of doubt and needs to be appreciated cautiously.

16. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that one Eswarappa has also participated in the attack along with other accused which is not at all the case of the prosecution. Further, it is his evidence that A.1 and

J.F.C.M, Madakasira 5 C.C.No.204 of 2021

Eswarappa beat his brother Harijana Ranganatha (L.W.1) with a stick on his left shoulder and caused injuries. This portion of evidence of P.W.1 is not properly supported by the evidence of Medical Officer P.W.3, whose evidence is that on 26.9.2020, having examined Harijana Ranganatha (L.W.1), she found an abrasion all over the body.

17.One more point to be considered here is, the evidence of P.W.1 who stated that they went to the government hospital,

Madakasira at about 1.00 PM., on the following day of the incident, is quiet inconsistent with the evidence of P.W.3, the Medical Officer that she examined Harijana Ranganatha (L.W.1) at 10.00 AM., on 26.9.2020.

Further, there is no evidence from the prosecution as to the alleged injuries sustained by P.W.1 in the incident. P.W.3 did not even make a whisper about the examination of P.W.1. Hence, the evidence of P.W.1 that he was beaten by the accused and he sustained injuries, is not supported by any other evidence.

18.Added to this, the evidence of P.W.1 in his chief examination is as if they went to the police station on the same day of the incident and lodged report though he came up with evidence during the course of cross examination that they went to the police station on the following day. This portion of evidence of P.W.1 is quiet inconsistent with the evidence of P.W.4 whose evidence is that he received report from

Harijana Ranganatha (L.W.1) on 28.9.2020 at about 9.00 AM., basing on which he registered the case. For the reasons best known to P.W.4, the

Investigating Officer, no reason is assigned for the delay in lodging report.

Even there was no mention in Ex.P.3 report as to the delay in lodging report. Further, as can be seen from Ex.P.3, the date is mentioned as 26.9.2020 by the defacto-complainant but it was received by the police on 28.9.2020. Such an abnormal delay in lodging report by victim of the offences, is definitely fatal to the case of the prosecution, throwing several

J.F.C.M, Madakasira 6 C.C.No.204 of 2021 doubts as to the alleged incident as narrated by P.W.1.

19.With regard to the another offence alleged i.e., criminal intimidation, there is not even a whisper from P.W.1 that any of the accused have committed any act to cause fear or threat in him.

20.For the above discussion, this court is of the considered view that the prosecution utterly failed in proving its case against A.1 to

A.6 for the offences alleged against them, beyond all reasonable doubt.

21.IN THE RESULT, A.1 to A.6 are found not guilty for the offences under sections 324, 506 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code and they are acquitted under section 248 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code. Their bail bonds shall remain in force for six months as required under section 437-

A of Criminal Procedure Code. No order in relation to property is being made since no property is produced before the court.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, transcribed by

him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 4th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-R.Ashok Kumar

Judl. Magistrate of I Class Madakasira.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

P.W.1 : Govidnappa -None- P.W.2 : Hanumantharayappa

P.W.3 : Dr.B.Sasirekha, Medical Officer, Madakasira.

P.W.4 : B.Sudhakar, the then Head Constable, Gudibanda P.S.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P.1 : Section 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.2. Ex.P.2 : Wound certificate of P.W.1.

J.F.C.M, Madakasira 7 C.C.No.204 of 2021

Ex.P.3: Report of P.W.1. Ex.P.4 : First Information Report in Cr.No.272 of 2020 of Gudibanda P.S.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

-Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-Nil-

Id/-R.A.K

JFCM,MDK.

// True copy//

JFCM, Madakasira.

J.F.C.M, Madakasira 1 C.C.No.707 of 2025

APAN170010172025

IN THE COURT OF THE

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, MADAKASIRA.

Present: Sri R.Ashok Kumar

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Madakasira.

Friday, the eighth (8th) day of May, 2026

C.C.No.707 of 2025

Between:

State Represented by The Sub-Inspector of Police, Rolla P.S. … Complainant.

And:

1. Eeranna, aged 35 years, S/o.Chowdappa, R/o. R.Vadrahatti village, Rolla mandal.

(Case against A.1 is split up from C.C.No.308 of 2022) … Accused No.1

This case coming before me on 6.5.2026 for final hearing in the presence of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri V.Nagaraju, Legal Aid Counsel for the accused, upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Rolla Police Station filed

J.F.C.M, Madakasira 2 C.C.No.707 of 2025 charge sheet against A.1 to A.8 in Crime No.93/2021 for the offence under section 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are :-

On 9.7.2021, at about 7.30 PM., in Rolla Vadrahatti village, A.1 beat P.W.1 with a stone and caused bleeding injury. A.2 to A.8, being relatives of A.1, supported him, beat her with hands and kicked her.

3.Cognizance was taken for the offence under section 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and summons were issued to A.1 and the other accused.

4.After appearance of A.1 and the other accused before the

Court, copies of all documents were furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code.

5.On consideration of entire material on record, A.1 and the other accused were examined under section 239 of Criminal Procedure

Code and they denied the prosecution allegations, charges for the offences under sections 324, 323 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code have been framed against them, read over and explained to them in Telugu for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.The prosecution, in order to prove its case, having cited seven witnesses, examined them as P.Ws.1 to 7 and got exhibited Exs.P.1 to P.7.

7.On closure of prosecution side evidence, A.1 and the remaining accused are examined under section 313 of Criminal Procedure

Code explaining the available incriminating material on record, they denied the same and reported no defence evidence. When the matter was posted

J.F.C.M, Madakasira 3 C.C.No.707 of 2025 for arguments and after the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor advanced his arguments, case was adjourned for the arguments of the learned defence counsel and at that stage, this accused remained absent and the bail bonds of the sureties of this accused, were forfeited. This court, having been satisfied that there is no chance for apprehending this accused in near future, split up case against this accused from C.C.No.308 of 2022.

Thereafter, this accused was produced before the court on execution of

Non-Bailable Warrant in this case. Since the entire evidence in C.C.No.308 of 2022 was recorded in the presence of this accused, the certified copies of documents along with certified copies of depositions of the witnesses in the said case, are considered in this case.

8. Heard both sides.

9.Now the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution is able to prove its case

against A.1 for the offences alleged against him, beyond all

reasonable doubt ?

10. POINT:

It is the evidence of P.W.1 that A.1 is her younger brother and she gave her daughter P.W.2 in marriage to A.1. In view of disputes between P.W.2 and A.1, she advised them not to quarrel and while she was returning to the house of P.W.3, A.1 came upon her, beat her with a stone on her head and caused bleeding injury whereas the other accused beat her with hands and kicked her.

11.The evidence of P.W.1 is supported by the evidence of her daughter P.W.2 who deposed evidence on similar lines. P.Ws.3 to 5, who are examined as independent eye witnesses to the incident, have not

J.F.C.M, Madakasira 4 C.C.No.707 of 2025 supported the case of the prosecution stating that they do not know anything about the facts of this case.

12.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argues that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 itself is sufficient to prove the case of the prosecution and that the accused is liable for conviction.

13.On the other hand, the learned defence counsel argues that the prosecution utterly failed in proving its case against the accused for the offences alleged against him and that he is entitled for acquittal.

14.Since the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 being interested witnesses to the case of the prosecution, is not supported by the evidence of other witnesses, though their evidence cannot be brushed aside on such ground, it shall not give scope for any iota of doubt and their evidence needs to be appreciated cautiously.

15.It is the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 that A.1, having beaten her with a cut stone, caused bleeding injury on her head, which is quite contrary to the evidence of P.W.6, the Medical Officer who found only an abrasion on the left side of forehead of P.W.1 on examination.

16.P.W.1, during the course of cross examination, went a step ahead and deposed that she handed over blood stained clothes to the

Police. Abrasion as found by P.W.6, the Medical Officer, will not cause such a bleeding injury to the extent of staining clothes of the victim. Further, during the course of cross examination, P.W.6 deposed that there is no chance for such injury when beaten with a cut stone used for foundation since there is chance for severe injury in such case.

17.Though it is the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 that all the

J.F.C.M, Madakasira 5 C.C.No.707 of 2025 other accused beat P.W.1 with hands and kicked her, P.W.6, the Medical

Officer did not find any other injury on P.W.1. Further, it is not the evidence of P.W.1 that she sustained any injury having been attacked by A.2 to A.8.

18.In view of the circumstances where there were standing disputes between A.1 and P.W.2, in the circumstances where the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 as to the injuries sustained by P.W.1 is not consistent with the findings of P.W.6, the Medical Officer, this court feels it not safe to believe the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 as to the manner of incident.

19.Coming to the evidence of P.W.7, the Investigating

Officer, his role in this case is very limited as to registration of the case basing on the report of P.W.1, recording the statements of witnesses and basing on their statements, building up a case. Even inspite of the evidence of P.W.1 that the alleged incident took place on 9.7.2021 and she lodged report on 12.7.2021 i.e., on the fourth day of the incident, for the reasons best known to him P.W.7, mentioned at column No.8 of First Information

Report as ‘no delay’.

20.For the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution utterly failed in proving its case against A.1 for the offences alleged against him, beyond all reasonable doubt.

21.IN THE RESULT, A.1 is found not guilty for the offences under sections 324, 323 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code and he is acquitted

U/s.248 (1) Criminal Procedure Code. He shall be set at liberty forthwith if he is not required in any other case. He shall execute a personal bond for

Rs.10,000/- which shall remain in force for six months as required under section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code. No order in relation to property

J.F.C.M, Madakasira 6 C.C.No.707 of 2025 is being made since no property is produced before the court.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 8th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-R.Ashok Kumar

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Madakasira.

A PPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

P.W.1: Chowdamma -None-

P.W.2: Suvarna

P.W.3: K.T.Nagaraju

P.W.4: P.Hanumantharayappa

P.W.5: Thimmaraju

P.W.6: Dr.B.Sashirekha, Medical Superintendent, Madakasira

P.W.7: C.T.Maqbul Basha, the then S.I of Police, Rolla P.S.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P.1: Report of P.W.1.

Ex.P.2: 161 (3) Cr. P. C. statement of P.W.3.

Ex.P.3: 161 (3) Cr. P. C. statement of P.W.4.

Ex.P.3: 161 (3) Cr. P. C. statement of P.W.5.

Ex.P.5: Wound certificate of P.W.1.

Ex.P.6: First Information Report in Cr.No.93/2021 of Rolla P.S.

Ex.P.7: Rough sketch.

J.F.C.M, Madakasira 7 C.C.No.707 of 2025

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

-Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECT MARKED

-Nil-

Id/-R.A.K

JFCM,MDK

//True Copy//

JFCM, Madakasira.