Sri. R.Rajkumar

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM SPL. JUDL.

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS (MOBILE) KAMAREDDY

Present:-Sri R.Raj Kumar,

Addl.Junior Civil Judge cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Spl(Mobile), Kamareddy.

On Saturday, this the 28 th day of December, 2019

DVC.No. 24 of 2013

Between:- Engue Shamala W/o Engue Rajreddy, Aged: 38 years, Occ: House Hold R/o Argonda village of Tadwai Mandal Nizamabad Dist. ... Aggrieved person //And//

1. Engue Rajireddy S/o Engue Ramulu @ Ram Reddy, Aged: 48 years, Occ: Agriculture

2. Engue Ramulu @ Ram Reddy S.o Late Engue Balaiah, Aged: 65 years, Occ: Agriculture

3. Engue Laxmi W/o Engue Rajreddy aged: about 42 years, Occ: Agriculture

4. Engue Rajamani W/o Engue Rajreddy aged: about 32 years, Occ: agriculture

5. Engue Vijay Reddy S/o Engu Rajreddy aged about 23 years, Occ: student All R/o H.No: 5-45, SC Wada, Argonda village of Tadwai Mandal Nizamabad Dist.

(...Respondents no. 1 to 5)

This case coming on 28-12-2019 for fnal hearing before me in the presence of Sri.R.B.Ramesh Chand, advocate for petitioner/aggrieved person and of Sri.T.Narender Reddy, advocate

for respondent No.1 to 5, and having stood over for consideration

till this day, the court delivered the following:

O R D E R

1. This is an application fled by the petitioner/under section 12 of Protection of Women for Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) praying for the reliefs of protection order, residence order, maintenance order and compensation order under various provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

2. The brief averments of the petition are as follows;

The petitioner/aggrieved person is a legally wedded wife of respondent No.1 and their marriage was performed about 26 years ago (as on the date of fling the application before court) at vemulawada temple of Karimnagar district and the same is consummated and is subsisting legally. At the time of marriage the parents of petitioner/aggrieved person presented dowry in cash an 2 DVC 24 of 2013 amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) and 2½ thula of gold ornaments and house hold article of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees

Twenty Thousand Only) to Respondent no. 1. That, after marriage the petitioner/aggrieved person joined the company of respondent no. 1 and started leading happy marital life for a period of 20 years at Argonda village of Tadwai mandal along with all the respondent’s in their house and all the respondents started harassing the petitioner/aggrieved person for additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) and started abusing petitioner/aggrieved person and used to beat petitioner/aggrieved person but petitioner/aggrieved person tolerated with a hope that good days will prevail in her life. Out of the wedlock of petitioner/aggrieved person one son was born and he died. The harassment of respondent’s continued for demand of additional dowry and thereafter respondent no. 1 shifted his residence to Kamareddy town and resided at Sri Ram Nagar colony and after one year again shifted to Vidya Nagar Colony Kamareddy and there all the respondents used to harass the petitioner/aggrieved person demanding additional dowry of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh

Only) and used to bet her indiscriminately and several times they tried to take her life and even then the petitioner/aggrieved person tried to lead happy marital life but all the respondents did not change their habits. The parents of petitioner/aggrieved person visited and requested respondent’s to not to harass the petitioner/aggrieved person. That, thereafter respondent no. 1 shifted the residence to his native place i.e., Argonda village of

Tadwai mandal and lived (06) months and during that period also respondent no. 1 and his family members harassed petitioner/aggrieved person for additional dowry and used to bet her and necked out from the house by snatching all the gold and silver ornaments and helplessly she went to her parents house at

Devaipally village of Tadwai mandal and after (08) days the petitioner/aggrieved person and her parents visited the house of respondents and requested them to receive her but they refused to receive i.e, join their company and they threatened to take their lives and as such helplessly they returned back. That, on 20-09-2013 the petitioner/aggrieved person went to the house of her brother/Earra Pratap Reddy and thereafter on the same day the 3 DVC 24 of 2013 petitioner/aggrieved person and her brother/Ex-Sarpanch/Earra

Shyam Reddy and one Earra Ragav Reddy all went to the house of respondents and requested them to receive the petitioner/aggrieved person and not to harass by demanding additional dowry but inspite of receiving the petitioner/aggrieved person the respondents abused her and bet her indiscriminately and not allowed her into the house and the petitioner/aggrieved person sustained injuries and reported the matter in Police Station, Tadwai and a case was registered in crime number 121/2011 for the ofences U/s. 290, 323, 504 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and charge sheet was fled and numbered as

C.C. No. 307/2011. That, the petitioner/aggrieved person received witness summons from the court and on 20-10-2013 she appeared

before court, at that time the respondent’s abused and threatened

her outside the court to give statement against complaint otherwise they will take her life and due to that fear she submitted a memo

before the court stating that she has life threat in the hands of

respondents, as such she fled transfer petition before the Hon’ble

District Court and when she came outside the court at that time the respondent’s attacked on her at 01:00PM and abused her in most flthy language “LLanja Lamadi Bhosidim and threatened her to take her life and induced to give false statement in their favour and close the case and attacked and bet her with hands and legs and the case was posted on 07-11-2013. That, after some time the petitioner/aggrieved person when reached near Revenue Divisional

Office Kamareddy the respondents again abused her in most flthy language “LLanja Lamadi Bhosidim and threatened her to withdraw the case otherwise they will take her life and due to interference of witnesses her life was saved otherwise the respondents would have killed her. The petitioner/aggrieved person reported the matter to

Police Station, Kamareddy and a case was registered vide crime number 622/2013. That, on 20-11-2013 the petitioner/aggrieved person reported the matter to Ex-sarpanch and other elders, accordingly they called the respondents at Gram Panchayath Office at Argonda Village and panchayath was conducted by both side elders and they advised the respondents to receive the petitioner/aggrieved person and lead happy marital life and to not to harass by demanding additional dowry but inspite of it the respondents attacked on petitioner/aggrieved person and bet her 4 DVC 24 of 2013 indiscriminately and created nuisance and petitioner/aggrieved person sustained injuries and she reported the matter to Police

Station, Tadwai and a case was registered in Cr.no. 163/2013 for the ofence U/s. 160 of Indian Penal Code and when both the parties were produced before the court and in court premises the respondents agreed to receive the petitioner/aggrieved person and accordingly all of them pleaded guilty and paid fne. Thereafter, next day as agreed by respondents the petitioner/aggrieved person visited the house and respondents but inspite of receiving her they again abused her in most flthy language “LLanja Lamadi Bhosidim and bet her indiscriminately and threatened her by saying “LNee Anthu

Chustam Mukalla Mukalla Chestamm and helplessly the petitioner/aggrieved person returned back and reported the matter to Station House Officer of Police Station, Tadwai but instead of registering the case he fled a false report before Revenue Divisional

Officer Kamareddy without verifying the report and on the intervention of police Revenue Divisional Officer issued notice and harassed her by fxing dates at Tadwai, Domakonda, Machareddy

Tahsil office by fxing several dates.

3. That Respondent no. 1 during the subsistence of marriage with petitioner/aggrieved person illegally married Respondents no. 3 and residing at her house as such he is liable to petitioner/aggrieved person for the ofences U/s. 494 of Indian Penal Code in which the other respondents i.e., parents and relatives of respondent no.3 abetted for committing the ofence. That the petitioner/aggrieved person made several eforts to rejoin the company of respondents but the respondents did not allow petitioner/aggrieved person not receive her and made false allegations and harassed her demanding

additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees One Lakh Only) but inspite

of it the petitioner/aggrieved person was interested to continue her marital life as she has good love and afection towards her husband and respect towards her in laws but the respondents are not allowing her into their house and not provided any separate maintenance. That, the respondents have got three RCC constructed houses in Argonda village and Respondent no. 1 is also having 20 acres of agricultural land and raising commercial crops by doing agriculture and he is getting annual income of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees 5 DVC 24 of 2013

One Lakh Only) per month and having one tractor and 20 bufalos at

Argonda village and also having 4 house site plots at Kamareddy and Respondent no. 1 is having sufficient source of income to maintain the petitioner/aggrieved person but willfully and intentionally neglecting and harassing the petitioner/aggrieved person.

4. That due to continuous harassment of the respondents the petitioner/aggrieved person sufered mentally, physically and particularly the respondents treated the aggrieved person very badly and caused physical and mental torture. The respondents used to threaten the aggrieved person. Thus, prayed to grant appropriate reliefs.

5. Notice issued to respondent No.1 to respondent No.5. Notice served to respondent No.1 to respondent No.5 and they fled counter denying the allegations of the petitioner/aggrieved person. During the course of inquiry, the petitioner/aggrieved person examined herself as Pw1 by fling chief evidence affidavit reiterating material averments of the petition and also examined one other witness i.e.,

Pw2 who is mother of petitioner/aggrieved person and got marked

Ex’s P1 and P4 in support of her case. The respondent No.1 got himself examined as Rw1 and also got examined RW2 and got marked Ex.R1 to R4 in support of his case.

6.The respondents in their counter denied the marriage of petitioner/aggrieved person and also denied that out of wedlock one son was also born and died. The respondent’s submitted that when the marriage of Respondent no. 1 was not performed with petitioner/ aggrieved person the question of giving gold ornaments and dowry amount to the respondent no. 1 does not arise and those allegations were created and concocted for the purpose of this case. The respondents denied the allegations in para 3 to 7 of the petition by the petitioner/aggrieved person in toto and the petitioner/aggrieved person is put to strict proof of the same. The Respondents also denied the allegation in para no. 8 to 11 and stated that petitioner/aggrieved person is quarrel some lady and used to pick up quarrel with others now and then and she has a habit of foisting false cases against others on one pretext or other, hence, the petitioner/aggrieved person is put to strict proof of the same. That, 6 DVC 24 of 2013 the respondents are from the respectable family and having reputation in and surrounding the villages, and in order to tarnish the image and respect of the respondents, the petitioner/aggrieved person is fling cases against them. The respondents also denied the allegations in Para no. 12 to 19 of the petition and stated that the petitioner/aggrieved person created the same to gain something from the respondents under the guise of the petition. The respondents stated that the real facts of the case are that: at the very outset the petitioner/aggrieved person is not wife of respondent no. 1 and that respondent no. 1 has not contracted marriage with the petitioner/aggrieved person at any point of time and that had there been any marriage between respondent no. 1 and petitioner/aggrieved person certainly there would have been documentary proof, and in the absence of the same the petitioner/aggrieved person is taking the vague plea on fimsy grounds that about 26 years back her marriage was performed with respondent no. 1. That, on 27-02-2002 the petitioner/aggrieved person fled a complaint before Police Station, Kamareddy against her own husband/Mohan Reddy S/o Venkat reddy and police registered a case in Cr.no. 42/2002 for the ofences U/s. 417 and 342 of Indian Penal Code against husband of petitioner/aggrieved person. Which itself is sufficient to conclude that the petitioner/aggrieved person married with one Mohan Reddy S/o

Venkat Reddy and she is the legally wedded wife of Said Mohan

Reddy. That, petitioner/aggrieved person in the said case admitted that she is wedded wife of Mohan Reddy in complaint as well as in her 161 Cr.P.C Statement and that case was ended in compromise and in the said compromise they got separated and Mohan Reddy paid an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) towards past and future maintenance and the relationship between them was dissolved on the date of compromise i.e., 22-03-2003, that itself clearly showing that petitioner/aggrieved person is not legally wedded wife of respondent no. 1. That, the petitioner/aggrieved person has not come to the court with clean hands and by suppressing the real facts she has fled the present DVC against the respondents. As such, the petition is not tenable in the eyes of law and is devoid of merits and there are no bonafdes in it and the 7 DVC 24 of 2013 petition was fled with all fctitious contentions to harass the respondents as such the petition is liable to be dismissed.

7.Now the point for determination is; “LWhether the petitioner/aggrieved person is entitled for relief’s as prayed form?

POINT:

8. In the course of inquiry, the petitioner/aggrieved person examined herself as Pw1 and she reiterated the material averments of the petition and her evidence is that the respondent No.1 to 5 subjected her to domestic violence and abandoned her, since then she is residing at her parent’s house. In order to prove her case, petitioner examined one other witness i.e., Pw2 who is mother of petitioner/aggrieved person. Pw1 in her cross examination deposed that she fled documents in the court in this case to show that she and respondent no. 1 are wife and Husband. She denied the suggestions put to her by the learned counsel for respondents that she has fled Ex.P1 though she is not residing in the address mentioned in the Ex.P1 but has fled such documents for the purpose of this case. She admitted that Ex.P1 and P2 were issued prior to fling of this case, she also deposed in her cross examination that she has not fled any complaint against any person by name Mohan

Reddy and she is not aware of any case registered against such person. PW1 denied the suggestion that she has compromised the case registered against Mohan Reddy by taking an amount of Rs.

2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) for future maintenance on 22- 03-2003. Pw1 denied the suggestion that after ending the marital life with one Mohan Reddy she has fabricated the documents and fled present case against respondents with false allegations and that the respondents never harassed her at any point of time but she is deposing false. PW1 also denied the suggestion put to her by the learned counsel for respondents that there is no marital relationship between respondent no. 1 and her and that she has fled the case against respondents with false allegations.

9.Pw2 deposed in her evidence reiterating the allegations of the harassment mentioned in the petition fled in this case against respondents in her chief examination affidavit and further she mentioned that the respondent no. 1 illegally got performed the 8 DVC 24 of 2013 second marriage with R3 and also performed third marriage with R4 during the subsistence of marriage of her daughter/PW1. PW2 further stated in her chief affidavit that the respondents harassed and bet PW1 several times and demanded for additional dowry and several cases were pending against them. PW2 further mentioned that respondent no. 1 is having sufficient source of income and inspite of it he has not provided separate maintenance to PW1 as such he is liable to pay compensation and to pay maintenance to

PW1 and Pw1 is entitled for all the reliefs as prayed in this petition.

PW2 deposed in her cross examination that her daughter name is

Shyamala and she denied the suggestions that her daughter/PW1 is also called by name Anitha. PW2 deposed in her cross examination that after fxing the marriage of petitioner/aggrieved person with

Respondent no. 1 a lagna patrika was also prepared and invitation cards were also printed but they have not fled wedding invitation cards in this case. PW2 also deposed in her cross examination that the marriage of petitioner/aggrieved person and respondent no. 1 was attended only by herself and her husband and no others were present at the time of marriage. She deposed that she does not remember whether any entry was made with regard to the performance of marriage of respondent no. 1 and petitioner/aggrieved person in the temple at the time of their marriage where their marriage was performed. She denied the suggestion that the marriage of petitioner/aggrieved person and respondent no. 1 was not performed as such there was no entry with regard to their marriage and as such the petitioner/aggrieved person has not fled any document as proof and deposing false. PW2 deposed in her cross examination that she does not know whether petitioner/aggrieved person compromised the case with Mohan

Reddy by taking the money from him.

10.The respondent No.1 got himself examined as Rw1 and it is his evidence that the petitioner/aggrieved person fled this present case against respondents with false allegations and in support of his contentions mentioned in the counter of the respondents he got marked Ex.R1 to R4. In his cross examination he denied the suggestion put to him by the petitioner/aggrieved person that he had distant relationship with the parents of petitioner/aggrieved person prior to his marriage but he is deposing false. He also denied 9 DVC 24 of 2013 the suggestion that after marriage with petitioner/aggrieved person they led happy marital life for some period and further out of their wedlock a child was begotten and due to ill-health that child was died but he is deposing false. Rw1 denied the suggestion that the petitioner/aggrieved person is his illegally wedded wife but in order to evade payment of amount for her maintenance he is deposing false and he also denied the allegations made against respondents by petitioner/aggrieved person.

11.The respondents also examined one person by name

T.Bhasker as RW2 in this case and he stated in his chief examination that he knows the respondents and petitioner/aggrieved person in this case and further stated that respondent no. 1 has never married petitioner/aggrieved person and they never resided together. It is further stated that the respondent no. 1 married Respondent’s 3 and 4 and thereafter marriage was solemnized and they are leading happy marital life and out of their wedlock they begotten 2 sons. In his cross examination he deposed that he has not attended the marriage of petitioner/aggrieved person and respondent no. 1 at vemulawada. He denied the suggestion that petitioner/aggrieved person is wife of respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 1 married another woman after marriage with petitioner/aggrieved person in this case. He denied the suggestion put to him by the petitioner/aggrieved person that he does not know anything about the relationship of petitioner/aggrieved person and respondent no. 1 in this case but he is deposing false at the instance of Respondent no. 1 in this case.

12.A perusal of evidence of Pw’s1 and 2 and Rw’s 1 and 2 coupled with Ex.P1 to P11 and Ex.R1 to R4 marked on both sides and having heard the counsels on both sides, this court arrived at conclusion that there is a dispute with regard to the relationship of petitioner/aggrieved person and respondent no.1 in this case. In nutshell it is the case of the Petitioner/aggrieved person that the respondents have harassed her demanding additional dowry and subjected her to domestic violence, in contra it is the case of respondent side that the Petitioner/aggrieved person is not the wife of respondent no. 1 and petitioner/aggrieved person did not reside with the respondent in shared house hold hence the allegations of subjecting the petitioner/aggrieved person to domestic violence by 10 DVC 24 of 2013 respondents is absolutely false. The petitioner/aggrieved person has not established that she was married to respondent no. 1 in this case and there is no documentary proof to show that she shared house hold with respondents and the respondents harassed. Further, there is no documentary proof with regard to the marriage of petitioner/aggrieved person and respondent no. 1 and averments of petitioner/aggrieved person that at the time of marriage with respondent no. 1 the parents of petitioner/aggrieved person presented as dowry an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh

Only), 2½ thulas of gold ornaments and house hold articles worth of

Rs.20,000 (Rupees twenty thousand only) to respondent no. 1 is false and frivolous and concocted to suit her case and no documentary proof fled to that efect by petitioner/aggrieved person to substantiate her version. A perusal of evidence of PW2 shows that she deposed in her cross examination that after fxing the marriage of petitioner/aggrieved person with respondent no. 1 a lagna patrika was also prepared and invitation cards were also printed but non fling of such invitation cards as proof in this case and non fling of any documents to show that a entry was made with regard to performance of marriage of petitioner/aggrieved person and respondent no. 1 in temple where the marriage was said to have been performed casts doubt about the actual performance of such marriage, more particularly when no person who has witnesses such marriage is examined as witness in this case to prove the case of the petitioner/aggrieved person. It is the case of the respondents that petitioner/aggrieved person was already married to one Mohan reddy and that the petitioner/aggrieved person fled a complaint against that person and a case was registered and she compromised that case taking an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh only) from Mohan Reddy for future maintenance. on 22-03-2003 and after that the petitioner/aggrieved person foisted this case against respondents by fabricating Ex.P1 and P2 by incorporating the name of respondent no. 1 as her husband in order to harass respondents and there was no marital relationship between Respondent no. 1 and petitioner/aggrieved person, hence the question of the respondents harassing her at any point of time does not arise, As such, the petitioner/aggrieved person is not entitled for any of the reliefs as prayed for by her and the petition is liable to be dismissed. The 11 DVC 24 of 2013 respondents in support of their contentions have fled Ex.R1 and R4.

Ex.R1 and R2 shows that the petitioner/aggrieved person has fled a case against one Mohan Reddy who is legally wedded husband of petitioner/aggrieved person as per the case of respondents. Further

Ex.P3 shows that petitioner/aggrieved person stated in it that Mohan

Reddy is her husband and also Ex.P4 clearly shows that petitioner/aggrieved person fled compromise petition before court.

Therefore, the perusal of Ex.R1 and R4 is clearly establishing the relationship between petitioner/aggrieved person and one Mohan

Reddy and that they are married to each other and there was a marital relationship between them. But, a perusal of petition of petitioner/aggrieved person and evidence adduced by the petitioner/ aggrieved person does not show that she disclosed about her relationship with Mohan Reddy and the learned counsel for respondents contended that the petitioner/aggrieved person has not come to the court with clean hands and by suppressing real facts the petitioner/aggrieved person has fled the present application against the respondents in order to extract money illegally from the respondents and that shows that she is in the habit of fling cases against the persons and a perusal of record also clearly establishes the same, and the document fled by petitioner/aggrieved person clearly shows that she fled a case against her husband Mohan reddy and also many cases against respondents hear in with false allegations in those cases ended and the judgment was passed againstthepetitioner/aggrievedperson.Thoughthe petitioner/aggrieved person fled Ex.P1 and P2 which shows the name of Respondent no. 1 as husband of petitioner/aggrieved person but a perusal of Ex.P1 does not show the photograph of

Respondent no. 1 in the photo along with the petitioner/aggrieved person and in these circumstances it casts doubt about as to why respondent no. 1 photo is missing i.e, not with the petitioner/aggrieved person more particularly when Ex.P1 was said to have been issued in the year 2013 and when PW1 as categorically deposed in her evidence that Ex.P’s was issued prior to fling of this case i.e, when petitioner/aggrieved person and respondent no. 1 were said to have been leaving together. Hence in these circumstances, it casts doubt as to whether they have resided together and lead marital relationship. A perusal of Ex.P5 to P11 fled 12 DVC 24 of 2013 by the petitioner/aggrieved person though shows the name of respondent no. 1 in those documents but apart from these documents no other documents are fled by petitioner/aggrieved person in order to show that petitioner/aggrieved person and respondent no. 1 resided together as wife and husband and lead marital relationship in shared household and there was a domestic relationship between them and no independent evidence was let in by the petitioner/aggrieved person to substantiate her version.

Therefore, in absence of any cogent evidence as to the relationship between petitioner/aggrieved person and respondent no. 1 this court is of the opinion that petitioner/aggrieved person failed to prove that there was a domestic relationship between petitioner/aggrieved person and respondents and they have lived in a shared household at any point of time. In the light of discussion, this court holds that the Petitioner/aggrieved person failed to establish that the respondents subjected her to physical, verbal, emotional and economic abuse and hence Petitioner/aggrieved person is not entitled to any relief in this case. I answer the point accordingly against the Petitioner/aggrieved person.

,,,,13. In the result, the DVC is dismissed.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her and after

correction pronounced by me in Open Court this the 28th day of December, 2019.

Addl.Junior Civil Judge cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Spl(Mobile)Court, Kamareddy.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Petitioner For Respondents

PW1Enugu Shamala RW1Enugu Rajreddy PW2Paidi Bashavva RW2Thammannagari Bhasker

Exhibits marked

For Petitioner For Respondents

Ex.A1House Hold cardEx.R1Certifed copy of First Information Report no.45 of 2002 Ex.A2Aadhar cardEx.R2Certifed copy of charge sheet Ex.A3Notice to Revenue Divisional Ex.R3Certifed copy of 13 DVC 24 of 2013

Officer, dated 07-11-2013statements (2) Ex.A4Medical prescriptionEx.R4Certifed copy of compromise memo Ex.A5Petty case charge sheet,

dated 21-01-2014

Ex.A6Attested copy of First Information Report no. 63 of 2011, dated 24-04-2011 Ex.A7Attested copy of First Information Report no. 121 of 2011, dated 27-09-2011 Ex.A8Attested copy of First Information Report no. 622 of 2013, dated 26-11-201 Ex.A9Attested copy of First Information Report no. 06 of 2014, dated 09-01-2014 Ex.A10Attested copy of First Information Report no. 104 of 2015, dated 03-08-2015 Ex.A11Attested copy of First Information Report no. 11 of 2016, dated 01-02-2016

Addl.Junior Civil Judge cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Spl(Mobile)Court, Kamareddy.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

AT: KAMAREDDY.

PRESENT: Sri R. Rajkumar,

ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS SPECIAL (MOBILE) COURT, AT: KAMAREDDY

FAC: JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, AT KAMAREDDY.

On Saturday, the 28 th day of December, 2019

CC.No. 155 of 2014

Between: The State of T.S. through Sub Inspector of Police, P.S.Tadwai. … Complainant // And //

A1) Patimeedi Santhosh Reddy, S/o PM Saireddy, aged: 32 yrs, Caste: Guradikapu, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Endriyal village of Tadwai mandal

A2) PM Sai Reddy, S/o Late PM Hanumanthu @ Hanumanthu Reddy, aged: 65 yrs, Occ: Agriculture A3) PM Rajavva A@ Rajamani , W/o PM Saireddy, aged: 63 yrs, Caste: Guradikapu, Occ: Agriculture, A4) Smt. PM Meghana, W/o PM Sanga Reddy, aged: 33 yrs, Occ: Agriculture, A5) Smt. Banala Yellareddy, S/o Late Bandala Vittala Reddy, aged: 35 yrs, Occ: Agriculture, All R/o Endriyal village of Tadwai mandal, Dist. Nizamabad A6) Smt. Sangitha, W/o Amerender Reddy, aged: 33 yrs, Occ: Agriculture, A7) Amerender Reddy, S/o Not known, aged: 35 yrs, Occ: Agriculture, Both R/o Faizabad village of Medak Dist. A8) S.Ramesh Reddy, S/o S. Siddaramulu, aged: 32 yrs, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Kankal village of Tadwai mandal, Dist. Nizamabad. A9) Paidy Venkat Reddy, S/o Paidy Venkat Reddy, aged: 36 yrs, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Devaipally village of Tadwai mandal, Dist: Nizamabad (… Accused A1 to A9)

This case is coming before me for fnal hearing on 28-12-2019 in the presence of the Learned Assistant Prosecutor for the complainant and Sri. V.L. Narsimha Reddy, Advocate, counsel for accused and being stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivers the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, Police Station, Tadwai has laid charge sheet against A1 to A9 alleging them of committing ofences under Sec. 498-A, 323, 506 and 109 of Indian Penal Code in Cr.no. 05 of 2014 of Police Station,

Tadwai.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 08.01.2014 at 18.30 hours a petition was received from court vide Crl.M.P.No. 22/2014 and Dis.No.

37/2014 which was lodged by PW1 stating that she is legally wedded wife of

Santhosh reddy/A1 and the marriage was performed on 03.06.2010 at

Chityala village of Tadwai mandal. That, at the time of marriage the parents 2 CC. 155 of 2014 of PW1 presented dowry cash an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs

Fifty Thousand Only), 05 thulas of gold, 15 thulas of silver ornaments and one passion plus motor bike, and house hold utensils worth of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) were presented and after the marriage PW1 joined the company of accused persons and the marriage was consummated and subsisted legally and out of their wedlock one daughter was born namely

Sahithi who is 2½ years. That after the birth of her daughter the accused started harassing for additional dowry demanding an amount of Rs.10 lakhs and 10 acres of agricultural land and used to abuse her and beat PW1 very frequently as she gave birth to female child and thereafter her husband continued illegal intimacy with another lady and they were caught hold red- handedly and when they were caught hold of their illegal relationship the accused persons bet PW1 indiscriminately and PW1 sustained injuries all over the body and informed the same to her family members and a panchayath was conducted in that regard and in panchayath A1 was directed to stop the illegal contacts and advised to live separately and they agreed and lived one day separately and thereafter he continued in agricultural felds and when questioned by PW1 all the accused persons bet PW1 indiscriminately and abused PW1 in most flthy language and threatened to take her life and demanded her to give additional dowry of Rs.10 lakhs and 10 acres of agricultural land, even though PW1 continued her relationship with a hope that good days will prevail in her life. That, the harassment continued several times of additional dowry and the accused persons bet and abused her and threatened to take her life and A5 to A9 continuously used to visit the house of accused persons as they are the nearest relatives of A1 and they used to provoke and abet the other accused persons and they used to beat PW1 for

additional dowry demanding for Rs.10 lakhs and 10 acres of agricultural land

but PW1 tolerated and informed the same to her parents and they visited several times and requested not to harass PW1 and lead happy marital life but the accused persons did not change. On 31.05.2018 at 03.30 PM all the accused persons conspired together and prepared a plan to take the life of

PW1 and they all bet PW1 and her husband/A1 kicked PW1 with legs and caught hold her neck and thrown her towards wall and she sustained severe head injuries and other injuries and at the same time all the accused persons demanded additional dowry of Rs. 10 lakhs and 10 acres of agricultural land and necked out PW1 from the house by snatching all gold and silver ornaments immediately PW1 informed to her younger brother/Santhosh reddy and he reached the house of PW1 but they did not allow him and bet him indiscriminately and necked out PW1 and Santhosh reddy form their house and helplessly PW1 reached her parents house and reported the matter in 3 CC. 155 of 2014

Police Station, Tadwai and she was shifted to Government Hospital,

Kamareddy and SHO of Police Station, Tadwai called all the accused persons and conducted counseling and advised to receive PW1 and her daughter and not to harass her and advised A1 to stop illegal relationship and stop demanding of additional dowry but the accused did not turn up to receive

PW1. That, accused is characterless and used to consume liquors and developed illegal intimacy and all the accused persons continued their harassment for additional dowry and bet PW1 frequently and harassed mentally and physically which amounts to cruelty. On 20.11.2013 all the accused persons came to the house of PW1 and abused PW1 and threatened to put her signature on some divorce papers for which PW1 refused and all the accused persons attacked PW1 and bet her indiscriminately and threatened to take her life by saying "NEE ANTHU CHUSTHAM, NEE SHAVAM

KALLA CHUSTHAM" on that PW1 made hues and cries and on that some persons came there and tried to stop the accused persons but the accused persons escaped. As such PW1 requested to take necessary action. As per the directions of the court a case was registered in Cr.no. 05/2014 for the ofences u/S. 498-A, 323, 506, 509 of IPC against A1 to A9, issued First

Information Report and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation PW6 visited the scene of ofence and examined and recorded the statements of PW1 and also examined and recorded the statements of other witnesses. On 10.01.2014 a notice U/s. 41-A of Cr.P.C was served to accused persons and he was arrested on 18.01.2012 at 12.00 hours and A2 to

A9 surrendered in the court and on 21.01.2014 and the information was received from the court vide dis.no.462/2014, dated 21.01.2014. After collection of all the relevant documents and completion of investigation PW8 fled Charge sheet.

3. This case was taken on fle by on 28-03-2014 for the ofences punishable

U/sec. 498-A, 323, 506 and 109 of Indian Penal Code. Copies of case documents furnished during the course of case proceedings and case was proceeded against A1 to A9 in this case.

4. Upon appearance of A1 to A9, copies of case documents were furnished to them and A1 to A9 were examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C and charge was framed under section 240 of Cr.P.C against them for the ofences U/sec.

498-A, 323, 506 and 109 of Indian Penal Code was read over and explained to them in vernacular language, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.The prosecution cited Eight witnesses and the listed witnesses were examined as PW's.1 to PW8 and got marked Ex.P1 and P2 were marked to prove its case.

4 CC. 155 of 2014

6. On closure of evidence of prosecution, A1 to A9 were examined

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C and they denied the incriminating material appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. A1 to A9 did not choose to examine any defence witnesses.

7. Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the Record.

8. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that prosecution successfully proved the guilt of accused for the ofences charged against him accused and thus prayed to convict the accused. Whereas the learned counsel for accused submitted that accused is no way concerned with this case and that accused is innocent and he further submitted that prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of the ofences charged against the accused in this case.

9.Now the point for determination is: “Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of A1 to A9 for the ofences punishable U/s 498-A, 323, 506 and 109 of Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt?”

POINT:

10.PW1 who is defacto complainant in this case deposed in her evidence that she got married to A1 on 03-06-2010 at Chityala village and at the time of marriage her parents presented cash of Rs. 4,50,000/- (Rupees Four Lakh

Fifty Thousand Only), 15 thulas of gold, 15 thulas of silver, household articles were of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) and motorcycle worth of

Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) to A1. She deposed that they lived happily two years after the marriage at that time she gave birth to one daughter and thereafter A1 to A9 started harassing her demanding Rs.10 lakhs and 10 acres of land from her parents and at the instance of village elders A1 to A9 looked after her properly for some period. She also deposed that A1 developed illegal intimacy with other lady and she has witnessed the same and that A1 started beating her at the instance of her in- laws and she and A1 residing separately from her in-laws for about 20 days. She also deposed that A1 and A2 started harassing her both mentally and physically by demanding an amount of Rs.10 lakhs and 10 acres of land. She further deposed that on 31-05-2013 when A1 bet her she telephoned to her parents and her brother came to her house and at that time A1 bet her brother and

A4 abused her brother in flthy language and further her parents came there and herself and her brother went to Police Station and went to the hospital and reported that A1 is demanding an amount of Rs. 10 lakhs and 10 acres of land and A1 demanded it even in Police Station. She also said that A1 promised to take her back along with him in the Police Station but he failed to 5 CC. 155 of 2014 take her back. On 20-11-2013 when PW1 was alone in her house, A1 to A9 came to her house and bet her and forced her to put signatures on divorce papers but she refused and when PW5 who is her relative came there, then

A1 to A9 went away from that place. He also deposed that he lodged a private complaint in the court and Police examined and recorded her statement in this case. In her cross examination she deposed that she was earlier married to one T.Ravinder Reddy in the year 2007 who was resident of

Sadhashivnagar and that person has thrown her into the well and she sustained injuries on her hands and legs. She denied the suggestions put to her by the learned counsel for accused that when she was thrown in the well she sustained injuries on her head and as such she became mentally imbalance. She admitted that the articles which were presented to A1 at time of her marriage with A1 was not reduced into writing. She deposed that she has stated in Ex.P1 that A1 and A2 had sexual relationship between them and that she caught hold of them red-handedly, again she stated that A1 and A2 had no sexual relationship between them but A1 had illegal relationship with other women. She deposed that she fled the medical report and the complaint given to the police in the court when accused bet her on 31-05- 2013. She also deposed in her examination that on 20-11-2013 all the accused persons came to their house in the morning at about 11.00AM on motorcycle and obtained her signatures for divorce on stamp papers and obtained her signatures on 4 to 5 pages. She deposed that she did not go to her in-laws house after that incident on 31-05-2013. She denied the suggestions which are against the case of the prosecution put to her by the learned counsel for accused.

11.PW2 who is father of PW1 in this case deposed in his evidence that the marriage of PW1 was performed with A1 in June, 2010 at Chityal Village and

Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only), 05 thulas of gold, 15 thulas of silver ornaments and one passion plus motor bike, and house hold articles worth of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) to A1. He deposed that A1 to A9 started harassing PW1 demanding for Rs. 10 lakhs as additional dowry and 10 acres of land. PW2 also deposed that on 31-05-2013 A1 to A9 beat PW1 and threatened to kill her and demanded additional dowry and snatched away the gold ornaments of PW1 and when she informed to PW4,

PW4 went there and when he questioned the accused persons they bet PW4 and when PW4 informed about it he along with LW4, Chamballa Malliah, Patha

Rajam and his wife went to the accused and the accused demanded for

additional dowry and sent away PW1 along with them to their house. He also

deposed that on 20-11-2013 all the accused persons came to their house and 6 CC. 155 of 2014 threatened PW1 and signed on divorce papers. He further deposed that PW1 lodged a complaint and police examined and recorded his statement in this case. In his cross examination he deposed that the name of frst husband of

PW1 is Ravinder reddy resident of Sadhashivnagar, in fact, that person divorced PW1 and they did not fle a order of divorce in the court or in the police station. He denied the suggestions put to him by the learned counsel

for accused that he performed marriage of PW1 with A1 without informing

about the frst marriage of PW1. He denied the suggestions which are against the case of the prosecution put to him by the learned counsel for accused.

12.PW3 who is mother of PW1 deposed in her evidence in similar lines of

PW2 as to the allegations levelled against accused persons in this case. He also deposed that police examined and recorded her statement in this case.

In the cross examination she deposed that she does not know whether she stated to police that Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) was given towards pasupu kumkuma and she also deposed that she does not remember whether she stated to police that A1 along with others and Sub

Inspector of Police came to their house and demanded PW1 to sign on divorce papers and threatened them. She denied the other suggestions which are against case of the prosecution put to her by the learned counsel for accused.

13.PW4 is the brother of PW1 deposed in his evidence that in the meanwhile of May, 2013 when he was going to the village of accused on his job purpose, the villagers informed him that the accused was beating PW1 and locked her in the house and on that he went to the house of accused but the accused did not allow him inside the house and A1 came to beat him with a stick and on that the neighbours rescued him and took him near to the house of accused. He also deposed that the villagers of the accused telephoned to PW2 and informed about the incident and on that the village elders came to the house of accused and while he was explaining the incident to their village elders, A1 hit his head against a wall and PW1 fell unconscious and himself and PW1 were shifted to the hospital for treatment. He also deposed that PW1 told him that the accused demanded her for additional dowry of Rs. 10 lakhs and 10 acres of land and are harassing her from past 5 to 6 months. He further deposed that police examined and recorded his statement in this case. In his cross examination he admitted that PW1 was earlier married to one Ravinder Reddy of sadhashivnagar and he does not know why PW1 got divorced to Ravinder Reddy as he was too young. He denied the suggestions which are against case of the prosecution put to her by the learned counsel for accused.

7 CC. 155 of 2014

14.PW5 who is caste elder as per the case of the prosecution deposed in his evidence that about 4 to 5 years ago (as on the date of deposing the evidence in the court) PW4 on the information about dispute at the house of accused, went to the house of accused and PW4 telephoned to PW2 that A1 and PW1 were quarrelling with each other and A1 bet PW1 and was also about to beat PW4 and on the request of PW4, PW2 took him along with 4 to 5 others to the house of accused. He also deposed that A1 also tried to beat

PW2 and PW2 telephoned to police and police came there and rescued. He deposed that he does not know the cause for dispute between PW1 and accused. In his cross examination he admitted that PW1 to 4 belongs to his caste. He deposed that he does not know the date and year in which he went to the house of accused. He also deposed that PW1 was earlier married to some other person and later got divorced, but he does not know the reason for divorce.

15.PW6 to 8 are the investigating ofceres have deposed in their evidence as to the course of investigation conducted in this case, PW6 deposed in his cross examination that he does not know whether PW1 and her family members lodged any complaint against accused persons before fling Ex.P1.

PW6 also deposed that on 31-05-2013 PW1 and her family members did not come to police station and he did not refer them to the hospital nor did he visited Endriyal village. He deposed that PW1 stated to him that her parents gave property towards pasupu kumkuma. He also deposed that he cannot say whether A1 had illegal intimacy with other women and he deposed that PW1 did not state to him that A1 had illegal intimacy with one Meghana. He deposed that on 20-11-2013 he did not threaten PW1 and did not take her signature on stamp papers. He also deposed that PW1 did not state in her statement recorded by him and that the accused forcibly put his signature on divorce papers and he did not collect the papers on which the accused obtained signatures of

PW1. PW8 deposed in his cross examination that A1 to A9 are from diferent village and PW1 to 5 have not stated in their statements that the accused received dowry from PW1es parents. He deposed that PWes 2 to 5 have not stated in their statements recorded in this case about the illegal relationship of A1 with other lady and holding of panchayaths in that aspect. He also deposed that PW1 did not state about the illegal relationship of A1 with one Meghana. He deposed that he does not know whether on 20-11-2013 all the accused along with SI of police went to the house of parents of PW1 and forced PW1 to sign on divorce 8 CC. 155 of 2014 papers. PW6 to 8 have denied the suggestions which are against the case of the prosecution put to them by the learned counsel for accused.

16.A careful perusal of evidence of prosecution witnesses and material on record discloses that PW1 in this case was married to another person by name T.Ravinder Reddy who was resident of

Sadhashivnagar and the same was deposed by other panch witnesses i.e., PWes 2 to 5 in this case. A perusal of evidence of Prosecution witnesses is not disclosing specifcally the reason for the divorce of PW1 with T.Ravinder Reddy and the Investigating ofcers have also categorically deposed in their evidence that they have not enquired with regard to the divorce of PW1. The learned counsel for accused contended that there are many discrepancies in the evidence of Panch witnesses as to the presenting of alleged dowry to A1 in this case as

PW1 deposed in her evidence that 15 thulas of gold was presented to

A1 whereas the father of PW1 deposed that 5 thulas of gold was presented to A1 at the time of marriage and PW8 who is investigating ofcer categorically deposed in his evidence that PWes 1 to 5 have not stated in their statements recorded in this case that the accused on receiving dowry from PW1es parents. He also contended that as per the statements of PWes 1 to 4 the amount and the articles were presented to A1 at the time of marriage under pasupu kumkuma and no documentary proof is fled to substantiate the same. Therefore the allegations made against accused persons that dowry was given at the time of marriage of PW1 with A1 is not proved by the prosecution and there is no cogent evidence to prove the same. The learned counsel for accused also contended that the evidence of PW1 is inconsistent with the contents of the allegations leveled against accused in Ex.P1 and there are many improvements in her evidence stated that A1 had illegal intimacy with A2 who is none other than the father of A1 and she made inhuman allegations against A1 that she caught hold of them red- handedly and again deposed in her evidence that A1 has illegal intimacy with one Meghana and she caught hold of them red-handedly and panchayaths were also held in that regard and she reported the same to the police of Tadwai but no evidence was let in by PW1 to substantiate the same and no documentary proof was fled in that aspect and furthermore, PW8/investigating ofcer deposed that PW1 9 CC. 155 of 2014 did not state in her statement recorded in this case that A1 had illegal relationship with one Meghana and that PWes 2 to 5 have also not made any whisper in their evidence regarding the illegal intimacy of A1 with one Meghana or with any other person, therefore it goes to show that

PW1 with a bad intention had made inhumane allegations against A1 without any proof. The learned counsel for accused also contended that

PWes 1 and 2 have deposed in their evidence that on 31-05-2013 all the accused persons bet PW1 and 4 at the house of accused in Endriyal

Village and on that PW1 and 2 went to Ps, Tadwai and fled a complaint against accused and police referred PW1 to 4 to Govt. Hospital,

Kamareddy whereas PW1, 3 and 4 have deposed in their evidence that police of Ps, Tadwai came to the accused house at Endriyal village and rescued PW1 and 4 from the accused and referred them to Govt.

Hospital, Kamareddy and both the versions of PWes 1 to 4 were denied by PW6 and PW8 who are investigating ofcers in this case and furthermore they deposed that PW1 and 2 never came to Ps, Tadwai and not fled any complaint against the accused persons and police never rescued PWes 1 to 4 from the clutches of accused in Endriyal village and they never referred any alleged injured persons to Govt.

Hospital, Kamareddy. The learned counsel for accused contended that with regard to the alleged case on 20-11-2013, PW1 deposed that the accused came to her parentes house at Chityala village on 20-11-2013 and bet those persons and forced to take her signature on divorce papers but she refused to sign on it. But, against she deposed in her cross examination that the accused obtained her signatures on divorce papers forcibly whereas, PW2 deposed that accused came to her house along with Sub-Inspector of Police, Tadwai and forced her daughter/PW1 to sign on divorce papers and on that PW1 refused to sign on it, but, those versions of PW1 and 3 was denied by PW6 and 8 who are investigating ofcers and in contrary PW6 deposed that he never visited chityala village along with accused and forced PW1 to sign on divorce papers. Therefore, the alleged incident of 20-11-2013 is not established by the prosecution. He also contended that PW5 who is the caste elder as per the version of prosecution categorically deposed in his evidence that he does not know the cause for dispute between PW1 and accused and that he has not stated that version of prosecution. Therefore, the learned counsel for accused contended that there are many 10 CC. 155 of 2014 contradictions in the evidence of Prosecution witnesses with regard to the allegations leveled against accused persons and the specifc instances of alleged harassments by the accused persons are not proved by the prosecution and there is no cogent evidence to show that the parents of PW1 gave dowry to A1 and that the accused person have demanded PW1 for additional dowry and that the accused persons have abetted A1 for demanding additional dowry from PW1 and threatening

PW1. Therefore, prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of the ofences charged against the accused persons.

17.From the foregoing discussion, this court is of opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the A1 to A9 for the ofences punishable under section 498-A, 323, 506 and 109 of Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, A1 to A9 are entitled for beneft of doubt. Accordingly, the point is answered against the case of the prosecution.

18.In the result, A1 to A9 are found not guilty for the ofences under section 498-A, 323, 506 and 109 of Indian Penal Code, accordingly, A1 to A9 are acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 to A9 shall stand cancelled after expiry of six months as contemplated under section 437-A of Cr.P.C. No case property.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 28th day of December, 2019.

Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Kamareddy

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witness Examined

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW1: P.Swapna -None- PW2: J. Raja reddy PW3: Manemma PW4: J. Santhosh Reddy PW5: Karnakar Reddy PW6: D.Rambabu PW7: D.Deva Kumar PW8: K.Nagaraju Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution: For Defence:

Ex.P1: Private Complaint -Nil- Ex.P2: First Information Report

Judl.Magistrate of First Class,

Kamareddy.

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS SPECIAL (MOBILE) COURT,

AT: KAMAREDDY

PRESENT: Sri R. Rajkumar,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

FAC: ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF FIRST CLASS SPECIAL (MOBILE) COURT, AT: KAMAREDDY

On Tuesday, the 22 nd day of December, 2020

CC.No. 236 of 2011

Between: State of T.S. through Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. Rajampet … Complainant // And //

Kammari Beema Chary S/o Venkati, aged: 35 yrs, Caste: Kammari, Occ: Driver of Abhydhay school bus, R/o. Fareedpet village of Machareddy mandal … Accused

This case is coming before me for fnal hearing on 22-12-2020 in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and Sri S.Goverdhan, advocate for accused and being stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivers the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, P.S Bhiknoor has laid charge sheet against accused alleging him of committing ofence under Sec. 304-A of IPC in Cr.No.

186 /2011 of PS. Bhiknoor.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 19.07.2011 at 17.30 hrs

PW1 came to Police Station, Bhiknoor and lodged a report stating that on 19- 07-2011 at about 15.00 hrs she came to Police Station, Bhiknoor and lodged a report stating that on 19-07-2011 at about 15.00 hrs she came to her parents house along with her husband and son and at about 16.00 hrs her son/Shivasai aged about 02 years came to on road from the house, at that time one driver of school bus bearing no. AP-25-W-2740 drove the bus in rash and negligent manner and dashed her son and ran over the bus front and rear wheels and due to it head and testicals of her son were broken and died immediately. That, accused was witnessed by PW1 and others and the driver of bus took to heel at a distance. But on enquiry, PW9 came to know the name of the driver of bus as Kammari Bheema Chary/Accused and that she can identify the accused. As such, she requested to take necessary action. Basing on the report PW9 registered a case in Cr.no. 186/2011 for the 2 CC. 236 of 2011 ofence U/s. 304-A of Indian Penal Code, issued First Information Report and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation PW9 examined and recorded the statement of PW1 and visited scene of ofence along with

PW1 and observed the scene of ofence and prepared Crime details form in the presence of PW7 and LW8/C.Mohan Reddy. On 20.07.2011 PW9 visited

Government Area Hospital, Kamareddy and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of PW7 and 8 and also examined and recorded the statements of other witnesses in this case. A notice U/s. 41-a of

Cr.P.C was served to accused on 20.07.2011 and on 21.07.2011 at 07.00 hrs the accused came along with PW6 i.e, owner of the bus and on interrogation accused voluntarily confessed his guilt in this case and was produced before the court for Judicial Custody. PW9 examined and recorded the statement of

PW6. PW10 collected the report issued by PW8 who opined the cause of death of deceased as died due to Head Injury and also collected report issued by LW10/M.A Shakeel Ahmed who inspected motor vehicle i.e, bus bearing no. AP-25-W-2740 and issued report that the accident occurred was not due to any mechanical defects of the crime vehicle and after collection of all the relevant documents and completion of investigation PW10 fled charge sheet.

3.This case was taken on fle on 27-08-2011 for the ofence punishable

U/sec.304-A of Indian Penal Code and summons was issued to accused.

4.Upon appearance of accused, copies of case documents was furnished to him as contemplated U/sec 207 of Cr.P.C. The accused was examined

U/sec 251 of Cr.P.C by explaining the substance of the accusation levelled against him for which he denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3 CC. 236 of 2011 5.The prosecution cited Tweleve witnesses and learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor given up the evidence of LW8/Chinnappagari Mohan Reddy,

LW10/M.A Shakeel Ahmad and other listed witnesses examined as PW's.1 to

PW10 and got marked Ex.P-1 to P-7 to prove its case.

6. On closure of evidence of prosecution, accused was examined

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C and he denied the incriminating material appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The accused did not choose to examine any defence witnesses.

7.Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the Record.

8. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contented that the evidence of prosecution witnesses amply establishes the fact that the accident took place because of the rash and negligent driving of accused of the crime vehicle i.e., school bus bearing no. AP-25-W-2740 resulting in the death of the deceased in the accident. It is further contented that all the circumstances points to the guilt of the accused and thus, canvassed for the conviction of accused.

9.On the other hand the learned counsel for accused contended that this is a false case foisted against accused and accused is innocent of the alleged ofence. It is further contended that there is no evidence from the prosecution to show that the accused drove the crime vehicle i.e., bus bearing no. AP-25-W-2740 in a rash and negligent manner. It is further contended that the investigating ofcer has foisted this case against accused so as to facilitate the family members of the deceased in claiming compensation for the death of deceased. By contending so, it is argued that the prosecution has failed to establish the ingredients for the ofences alleged against accused and thus, prayed for acquittal of accused.

10.Now the point for determination is: “Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the ofence punishable U/s. 304-A of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt” 4 CC. 236 of 2011 11. To prove the ofence under section 304-A of IPC in road accident cases, more particularly, in this case the prosecution has to prove the following aspects:

a) That the accident has taken place with the crime vehicle i.e., school bus bearing no. AP-25-W-2740

b) That the deceased died due to injuries sustained in the said accident.

c) That the accused was the driver of crime vehicle i.e., bus bearing no. AP-25-W-2740 at the time of accident.

d) That the accused drove the crime vehicle in a rash and negligent manner resulting in the accident.

POINT: 12.A perusal of the record discloses that the following aspects i.e., occurrence of accident, involvement of crime vehicle i.e., school bus bearing no. AP-25-W-2740 in the accident, death of deceased due to the accident.

Thus, the only aspect that remains for deliberation is whether the accused being driver of motor cycle drove the vehicle in rash or negligent manner and caused the accident. The prosecution in order to establish the occurrence of accident has examined PW’s 1 to PW10.

13.PW1 who is defacto complaintant deposed in his evidence that the deceased in this case is her son. She deposed that on 19.07.2011 her son succumbed to injuries in an accident occurred at Thalamandla village at her parent’s house. She also deposed that the driver of the school bus bearing no. AP-25-W-2740 drove the bus in rash and negligent manner in front of their parent’s house at that time her child/A.Shivsai was on the road along with them and at that time the driver of the bus i.e, accused drove the bus in rash and negligent manner and dashed her son and due to it the bus front and rear tyres of the bus went over the body of her son and due to it he sustained severe injuries and succumbed to injuries on the spot. He further deposed that the driver of the bus stopped the bus at a distance from the place of accident and fed away from that place. She further deposed that she lodged a complaint in Police Station, Bhiknoor and a case was registered in that regard and police examined and recorded her statement in this case.

In her cross examination she deposed that she was not very near to the place of accident at the time of occurrence of alleged accident in this case.

She admitted that she received an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees One

Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) from the school authorities as compensation for the death of the deceased in this case. She deposed that she came to know the name of the driver of the crime vehicle through her husband/PW2 and also from others who witnessed the alleged incident in this case. She denied 5 CC. 236 of 2011 the suggestions which are against the case of the prosecution put to him by the learned counsel for accused.

14.PW2 who is father of the deceased and husband of PW1 in this case deposed in his evidence in similar lines of PW1 as to the occurrence of alleged incident in this case. He also deposed that on receiving information over phone about the accident he also called the accused over phone to enquire about his son but he did not give any proper reply and disconnected the call. He further deposed that when he reached the place of the accident the driver of the bus/accused fed away from the place of accident and further deposed that police examined and recorded his statement in this case. In his cross examination he denied the suggestions which are against the case of the prosecution put to him by the learned counsel for accused.

15.PW3 deposed in his evidence that he knows the deceased and accused in this case. He deposed that in the year 2011 i.e, on 19.07.2011 his daughter/PW1 along with PW2 came to their house at Thalamandla village at about 01.00PM and after dropping them in their house PW2 left that place.

He also deposed that upon hearing sound of the school bus his daughter/PW1 went out of the house along with her son and after getting down from the bus i.e, the daughter of PW1 from the school bus, at that time the son of PW1 who was on the road was dashed by the driver of the school bus. He also deposed that due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the school bus his grandson succumbed to injuries. He further deposed that after the accident the driver of the bus stopped the bus at a distance from the place of accident and fed away from that place by leaving the bus. In his cross examination he deposed that after recording his statement at

Government area hospital, Kamareddy by police, police did not examine and did not record his statement in this case at any other place. He denied the suggestions put to him by the learned counsel for accused that he did not witness the alleged incident in this case and has not witnessed the driver of the bus in this case but he is deposing false.

16.PW4 who is grandmother of PW1 in this case deposed in her evidence that on 19.07.2011 in the evening hours when her daughter/PW1 went outside their house to bring her daughter who came in a school bus, at that time the son of PW1 who was on the road was dashed by the driver of the school bus due to rash and negligent driving of the school bus and due to it her grandson succumbed to injuries. She also deposed that the alleged 6 CC. 236 of 2011 accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the school bus and that police examined and recorded her statement in this case. In her cross examination she deposed that at the time of occurrence of alleged accident she was in their house as such she did not witness the alleged accident in this case. She denied the suggestions which are against the case of the prosecution put to her by the learned counsel for accused.

17.PW5 who is photographer deposed in this case that he does not know anything about the facts of this case. He deposed that at the instance of PW3 he has captured the photographs of the dead body of the deceased in this case who died in a road accident in Thalamadla village and handed over the photos to police of Police Station, Bhiknoor. In his cross examination he deposed that he captured photographs in this case at the request of PW3 in this case. He also deposed that the police paid him the amount towards charges for the photographs captured by him and given to them but they did not issue me any receipt for that payment. He denied the suggestions that he did not capture any photographs in this case but he is deposing false.

18.PW6 who is the owner of the crime vehicle as per the case of the prosecution deposed in his evidence that he know the accused in this case and he was the driver of the school bus bearing no. AP-25-W-2740. He also deposed that he does not know the deceased in this case and does not know anything about the facts of this case and further deposed that police did not examine and did not record his statement in this case, he turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution in this case.

19.PW7 who is panch witness for Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 deposed in his evidence that on 19.07.2011 police of Police Station, Bhiknoor observed the scene of ofence and prepared Crime details form and also held inquest over the dead body of the deceased at Government area hospital, Kamareddy on 20.07.2011 in his presence and in the presence of LW8/Ch.Mohan reddy and they have put their signatures in Ex.P3 and P4. In his cross examination he deposed that he is resident of Thalamadla village. He also deposed that the father of the deceased in this case was resident of their village and he denied the suggestions put to him by the learned counsel for accused that

Ex.P3 was not conducted in his presence but he is deposing false.

20.PW8 who is doctor deposed in his evidence that he had conducted Post

Mortem Examination over the dead body of the deceased in this case and 7 CC. 236 of 2011 issued Ex.P5 and as per his opinion, the cause of death of deceased was died due to Head Injury.

21.PW9 who is investigating ofcer who registered the case deposed in his evidence as to the course of investigation conducted by him in this case. In his cross examination he admitted that apart from family members of the deceased any other person was not examined as witness with regard to the alleged incident in this case. He also deposed that PW7 and LW8/Ch. Mohan reddy who are panch witness for Ex.P3 and 4 were residents of Jangampally village. He denied the suggestion put to him by the learned counsel for accused that the alleged accident in this case occurred only due to negligence of PW1 who did not take care of the child who was along with her on the side of the road.

22.PW10 who is another investigating ofcer in this case who fled charge sheet in this case deposed that on 21.07.2011 the accused surrendered

before him in Police Station, Bhiknoor who came along with the owner of the

crime vehicle i.e, PW6. He also deposed that he examined and recorded the statement of PW6 and produced accused before this court for Judicial

Custody. Further deposed that after collection of all relevant documents he fled charge sheet. In his cross examination he deposed that PW1 to 4 are one family members. He also admitted that PW7 and LW8/Ch. Mohan reddy were residents of Jangampally village and not locality peoples where Ex.P3 was conducted in this case. He also admitted that the witnesses examined in this case have not stated specifcally in their statements that they have seen the accused at the scene of ofence in this case. He denied the suggestions put to him by the learned counsel for accused that the case was registered against accused only to facilitate the family members of the deceased in claiming compensation for the death of the deceased and that the accused is no way concerned with this case but he is deposing false.

23.The learned counsel for accused contended that the prosecution in this case frstly has to prove that the alleged accident in this case occurred with the alleged crime vehicle i.e, school bus bearing no. AP-25-W-2740. He contended that prosecution has not fled any documents in this case to show that the bus belongs to the particular school and that the accused was the driver of the bus on the date of the alleged accident in this case. He also contended that the prosecution has not proved that the accused was on duty on the day of alleged accident and that he was driving the alleged crime 8 CC. 236 of 2011 vehicle on the date of accident in this case. Then, he also contended that the prosecution has not shown any rash and negligent acts on the part of the accused and there is no evidence from any of the prosecution witnesses examined in this case stating the speed of the vehicle at the time of occurrence of alleged accident in this case and the manner in which the alleged accident said to have been occurred is also not deposed by any of the prosecution witnesses examined in this case. He further contended that the prosecution has to prove that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained in the alleged accident in this case and those injuries were sustained due to the rash and negligent driving and causing the accident by the accused, but those aspects were not deposed by any of the prosecution witnesses examined in this case. He further contended that PW1 deposed in her evidence that she came to know the name of the driver of the crime vehicle from her husband i.e, PW2 and other persons who have witnessed the alleged accident in this case, but from the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the material on record, PW1 said to have been present near the place of accident and PW2 was not present at the place of accident and he was elsewhere and he received information about the accident through his wife/PW1 over phone, in these circumstances PW2 who is circumstantial witnesses stating the name of the accused as the driver of the crime vehicle to PW1 cannot be believed as he is not the Eye-witness in this case and when no other independent witnesses are examined by prosecution in this case, there is no identifcation of accused as the driver of the crime vehicle in this case. He further contended that the accused said to have surrendered

before PW10 in the Police Station in the presence of PW6 who is owner of the

crime vehicle in this case, whereas PW6 has not deposed anything about the surrender of the accused and about involvement of the vehicle in the alleged accident in this case and he turned hostile. In these circumstances, the surrender of the accused and confessing of guilt by the accused in the presence of PW6 is also not proved by the prosecution.

24.I have perused the entire evidence and other material on record. A perusal of evidence of prosecution witnesses discloses that though PW1 who was said to be present near the place of the accident and witnessed the alleged accident in this case, she has not identifed the driver of the alleged crime vehicle in this case when the accused was present in the court hall while deposing her evidence during the course of the trial. PW1 deposed in her cross examination that she had acquaintance with the driver of the crime 9 CC. 236 of 2011 vehicle in this case prior to the date of the alleged accident in this case and that she came to know the name of the driver of the crime vehicle through her husband/PW2 and also from others who witnessed the alleged accident in this case, it goes to show that apart from PW1 some other persons also have witnessed the alleged accident in this case but prosecution has not examined any other person as eye-witness in this case. PW9 and PW10 have categorically admitted in their evidence that apart from family members of the deceased no other persons were examined as witnesses in this case, at this juncture, the learned counsel for accused contended that non- examination of any other independent eye-witness in this case by police goes to show that police have registered the case against the accused by falsely implicating him in this case only to facilitate the family members of the deceased in claiming compensation for the death of deceased. He also contended that the investigating ofcers have categorically admitted that

PW7 and LW8/Ch. Mohan Reddy are not locality people of the place where

Ex.P3 was conducted in this case and furthermore PW7 categorically admitted in his cross-examination that the father of the deceased in this case was resident of their village, it goes to show that he is not an independent witness and not locality person and in view of hostility of LW8 who is another panch witness for Ex.P3 the evidence of PW7 alone cannot be believed and it casts doubt as to the conducting of Ex.P3 by police at the scene of ofence in this case and that police have not followed the procedure of conducting panchanama as contemplated under Code of Criminal

Procedure. Therefore the learned counsel for accused contended that Ex.P3 is not proved by the prosecution. The evidence of PW’s.1 to PW7 does not disclose about the identifcation of the accused as the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident. Though prosecution examined PW3 who is eye witness, she turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution in any manner and nothing was elicited in support of the case of prosecution in her cross examination by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor who cross examined her after seeking permission of the court. Hence, her evidence is no way helpful to the prosecution case with regard to the identifcation of the accused as the driver of the crime vehicle and there is no evidence from any of the other independent prosecution witnesses, either oral or circumstantial that accused drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner which resulted into the accident. Though PW1 deposed in his evidence in chief examination that police examined her and recorded her statement but in her cross examination she deposed that police did not examine her and did not 10 CC. 236 of 2011 record her statement in this case, in these circumstances it is doubtful as to whether police examined him and recorded statement of PW1 in this case.

Hence, such evidence of PW1 with regard to the occurrence of alleged accident cannot be believed in absence of any corroboration to his evidence from the eye witnesses in this case i.e., PW3 who turned hostile. No incriminating material is appearing against the accused in the evidence of

PW6 and PW7 who are panch witnesses for Ex.P8/Crime details form and

Ex.P9/Inquest Panchanama of deceased.

25.In absence of identifcation of accused, prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW9 whose version is that accused had voluntarily surrendered

before him in police station. But the same is not corroborated by any

independent witness. Such uncorroborated testimony of investigation ofcer with regard to the surrender of accused cannot be believed. Even if it is believed the prosecution has to establish that the accused was the driver of crime vehicle and drove it in a rash and negligent manner and caused the death of deceased. No material is placed by the prosecution to show that accused was the driver of crime vehicle at the time of occurrence of accident in this case and PW9 admitted in his cross examination that the crime vehicle in this case does not belong to the accused in this case, in these circumstances, it is doubtful as to who drove the alleged crime vehicle at the time of occurrence of alleged accident in this case. Though defence counsel has not disputed with regard to death of deceased but in view of non- identifcation of accused as driver of crime vehicle at the time of accident, prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of the ofences charged against accused in this case.

26.From the foregoing discussion, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the ofences under section 304-A of Indian Penal Code, beyond all reasonable doubt, as such accused is entitled for beneft of doubt, accordingly the point is answered against the case of prosecution.

27.In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the ofence under section 304-A of IPC, accordingly accused is acquitted under section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bailbonds of accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of six months as contemplated under section 437-A of Cr.P.C. No case property.

11 CC. 236 of 2011

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 22nd December, 2020.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

FAC: Addl.Junior Civil Judge cum

Judl.Magistrate of First Class,

Spl (Mobile) Court, at Kamareddy

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witness Examined

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW1: A.Rajeshwari -None- PW2: A.Thirumalesh PW3: P. Durgaiah PW4: P. Durga PW5: P. Prabhaker PW6: Sudershan Reddy PW7: V. Mohan Reddy PW8: Dr. V. Vijay Kumar PW9: C. Yadagiri Goud PW10: G. Shekar

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution: For Defence:

Ex.P1: Report of PW1 -Nil- Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW6 Ex.P3: Crime details form Ex.P4: Inquest Panchanama Ex.P5: Post Mortem Examination report Ex.P6: First Information Report Ex.P7: Motor Vehicle Inspector Report

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

FAC: Addl.Junior Civil Judge cum

Judl.Magistrate of First Class,

Spl (Mobile) Court, at Kamareddy

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS SPECIAL (MOBILE)

COURT, AT: KAMAREDDY

PRESENT: Sri R. Rajkumar,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

FAC: ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS SPECIAL (MOBILE) COURT, AT:

KAMAREDDY

On Tuesday, the 06 th day of March, 2020

CC.No.329 of 2015

Between: The State of T.S. through Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. Lingampet … Complainant // And //

A1)Badavath Rajya, S/o Badrya, aged: 45 yrs

A2)Badavath Chanki W/o Rajya aged: 42 yrs

A3)Badavath Humla S/o Rajya aged: 25 yrs, all Caste: ST Lambada, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Parmalla Thanda of Lingampet mandal

(...Accused no. 1 to 3)

This case is coming before me for fnal hearing on 06-03-2020 in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and Sri. P.Pandari, advocate for the accused persons and being stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivers the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, Police Station, Lingampet has laid charge sheet against A1 to A3 alleging them of committing ofences under Section 447, 353, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code in Cr.no.120 of 2013 of Police Station,

Lingampet.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that On 07.08.2013 at 19.00 hrs PW1 came to police station, Lingampet and lodged a report stating that on 07.08.2013 at about 3.45 PM PW3 along with range ofcers PW2, 4 and 5 and striking force went to forest area for inspection in the forest area of Bollaram R/

F. camp No. 73 wherein plantation works are in progress. During the inspection, the ofcers found one person ploughing in the forest land with a plough and they tried to stop the ploughing. That the son of the said person along with his family persons reached there and abused them in flthy language and the

C.C. 329/2015 2 of 11 woman folk attempted to attack on the forest ofcials. That, on enquiry they came to know the name and address of that person who was ploughing the land as Badavath Rajya/accused no.1 resident of Permalla thanda. On enquiry accused disclosed that he along with his wife and son are cultivating lands and threatened them with dire consequences that if the forest ofcials take any action against accused, the accused will come back on bail and will set fre on the jeep and also on the forest ofcials. The accused persons also pushed aside

PW’s 2 and 3 and obstructed the forest ofcials who are in uniforms and abused in flthy language and obstructed while discharging their legitimate duties and also threatened with dire consequences to kill, if the forest ofcials visit the area they will kill and dig them on the spot. Due to the threatening of the accused persons the forest ofcials returned back in their vehicles. As such,

PW1 requested to take necessary action against the accused/Badavath Rajya along with his wife and other family members and also on the thanda persons otherwise the plantation for which the Forest department ofcials expended more than 7.5 lakhs of amount may be damaged. Basing on the report PW9 registered a case in Cr.No.120/2013 for the ofences U/s. 447, 353 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC, issued First Information Report and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation PW9 examined and recorded the statements of PW1 and other witnesses in this case and visited the scene of ofence and observed the scene of ofence and prepared Crime details form in the presence of PW’s 7 and 8. On 12-06-2016 a notice U/s. 41-A of Cr.P.C was served to A1 to A3 and they confessed their guilt in this case. After collection of all the relevant documents and completion of investigation in this case PW9 fled charge sheet.

3.This case was taken on fle by my predecessor on 07-12-2015 for the ofences punishable U/sec. 447, 353, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and summons was issued to A1 to A3.

C.C. 329/2015 3 of 11

4.Upon appearance of accused persons, copies of case documents were furnished to them as contemplated U/sec 207 of Cr.P.C. The A1 to A3 were examined U/sec 251 of Cr.P.C by explaining the substance of the accusation levelled against them for which they denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.The prosecution cited Ten witnesses and the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor given up the evidence of LW9/T.Rajesh, and the other listed witnesses were examined as PW's.1 to PW9 and got marked Ex.P1 to P4 to prove its case.

6.On closure of evidence of prosecution, A1 to A3 are examined U/Sec.313

Cr.P.C and they denied the incriminating material appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The accused persons did not choose to examine any defence witnesses.

7. Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the Record.

8.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that prosecution successfully proved the guilt of A1 to A3 for the ofences charged against them and thus prayed to convict the accused persons. Whereas the learned counsel

for accused persons submitted that accused persons are no way concerned with

this case and that they are innocent and further submitted that prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of the ofences charged against the accused persons in this case.

9.Now the point for determination is; “Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of A1 to A3 for the ofences punishable U/s. 447, 353, 506 r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?”

POINT:

10.PW1 who is defacto complainant in this case deposed in his evidence that in the year 2013 the forest ofcials planted i.e, Neelgiri plantation in compartment no. 731 of reserve forest of Bollaram beat and section. He deposed that on 07.08.2013 at about 03.30 pm their staf members i.e, PW2 to 6 while going near that plantation for inspection, on the way they found two persons running away from that place and among them one female person was also present and when the staf members informed about that to him when he was near the plantation i.e, Bollaram beat and section. On that information

C.C. 329/2015 4 of 11 when he went to that place and there he found the accused persons abusing their staf members in flthy language and he also deposed that when their staf members tried to stop the accused persons from ploughing the land those persons attacked on forest ofcials and obstructed them from performing their legitimate duties and threatened with dire consequences. He also deposed that upon hearing the hues and cries from that place the villagers of the accused persons came there and when they their staf member i.e, PW2 tried to capture the galata some persons took her mobile phone and thrown away and the accused persons stated to them that they would not permit them to do plantation at that place and they would damage the plantation if they take up plantation in future. He also deposed that he lodged a written complaint in

Police Station, Kamareddy and a case was registered in that regard and police examined and recorded his statement. In his cross examination he deposed that he has not mentioned the total extent of land in the compartment at the alleged scene of ofence in this case but have mentioned that the accused persons tried to damage about 02 acres of plantation at alleged scene of ofence in this case.

He admitted that when the galata started near the scene of ofence he was not present but subsequently he came there and thereafter also the alleged incident took place in this case. He deposed that they have not fled in the court in this case any photographs or any other documents to show that accused persons have caused damage at the alleged scene of ofence in this case. He also deposed that he has not mentioned specifcally in Ex.P1 about the specifc place of damage caused by accused persons and the total extent of the land at the alleged scene of ofence in this case. He further deposed that he has not mentioned in Ex.P1 the specifc abusive words alleged to have been used by the accused persons in this case. He admitted that apart from the names of the accused persons he cannot say the names of the other persons who were present at the scene of ofence at the time of occurrence of alleged scene of ofence in this case and he deposed that they came to know about the identity particulars of accused persons upon enquiring the accused persons. He denied the other suggestions which are against the case of prosecution put to him by the learned counsel for accused.

11.PW2 deposed in her evidence that in the month of August, 2013 a tree plantation was done in Paramalla thanda in an extent of 25 acres of land and after plantation herself along with PW’s 4 and 5 and other striking force went to the plantation place and at that time they found some persons belonging to ST community ploughing the land where plantation was done. She deposed that

C.C. 329/2015 5 of 11 when they tried to stop those persons they made hues and cries and open hearing it the villagers came to that place along with crime weapons and as per the instruction of PW1 when she tried to capture the photos and videos of those persons who are attacking on them, some person among them took away her mobile phone with which she was capturing and thrown away the phone. She also deposed that as per the instructions of PW3, they went to near their vehicle but those persons followed them and came near the vehicle and threatened them and stated that they would damage the plantation. She further deposed that a case was registered in this regard and Police examined and recorded my statement. In her cross examination she admitted that the alleged place of ofence does not fall under the jurisdiction of Yerraphad where she was working at that time. She admitted that adjacent to the land at the scene of ofence there are lands belonging to the revenue authorities. She deposed that she does not know whether there are any disputes with regard to the land near the scene of ofence between forest and revenue department. She admitted that she has not stated in her statement recorded by police the specifc place where the alleged ofence took place in an total extent of land at the alleged scene of ofence and that he has not stated the specifc abusive words alleged to have been used by the accused persons in this case. She denied the suggestions which are against the case of prosecution put to her by the learned counsel for accused.

12.PW3 deposed in her evidence in similar lines of PW2 as to the alleged incident in this case. She further deposed that police examined and recorded her statement in this case. In her cross examination she deposed that she cannot say the total extent of land in which plantation was done in Bollaram forest area in this case. She deposed that adjacent to the forest land in

Bollaram beet forest area there are also lands belonging to private persons. She admitted that she has not stated the specifc abusive words alleged to have been used by the accused persons in this case. She denied the suggestions which are against the case of prosecution put to her by the learned counsel for accused.

13.PW4 deposed in his evidence that in the month of August, 2013 during regular inspection of plantations raised by PW1 in Bollaram section, paramalla thanda in compartment no.731 they found accused persons doing illegal cultivation in reserved forest area and when they objected for it those persons picked up quarrel with them and assaulted PW1 and 2 and also twisted the

C.C. 329/2015 6 of 11 hand of PW1 and obstructed them from performing their legitimate duties and also tried to beat PW2 and 3 with sticks. He also deposed that on seeing it he went to that place and those persons snatched away their mobile phone while capturing photos and those persons also abused in most flthy language and also attacked on the Government vehicle and tried to set fre to the vehicle i.e,

Jeep bearing no.AP-25-AD-3116. He also deposed that he spoke with the son of

A1 in this case and requested to return cell phone and later they returned his cell phone on his request and they told them not to visit that place and also threatened them and so they left that place and they lodged a complaint in

Police Station, Lingampet and Police examined him and recorded his statement.

In his cross examination he admitted that he has not stated in the statement recorded by police the specifc overtacts of each of the accused persons in this case. He also deposed that he has not stated in the statement recorded by police the total number of plants and variety of plants alleged to have been damaged by the accused persons in this case. He admitted that he has not given any documents to police in this case to show that the land at the alleged scene of ofence in this case belong to forest department. He denied the suggestions which are against the case of prosecution put to him by the learned counsel for accused.

14.PW5 deposed in his evidence in similar lines of PW4 as to the occurrence of alleged incident in this case and Police examined him and recorded his statement. In his cross examination he deposed that the accused persons illegally ploughed the land on the western side of the compartment no.731. He denied the suggestions which are against the case of prosecution put to him by the learned counsel for accused.

15.PW6 who is one of the eye-witness in this case deposed in his evidence that the accused persons picked up quarrel with them and assaulted PW1 and 2 and also twisted the hand of PW1 and obstructed them from performing the legitimate duties and also tried to beat PW2 and 3 with sticks. He also deposed that a case was registered in that regard and police examined him and recorded his statement. In his cross examination he deposed that he can identify the accused persons who obstructed them in this case. He denied the suggestions which are against the case of prosecution put to him by the learned counsel for accused.

16.PW7 and 8 who are panch witnesses for Ex.P2 deposed in their evidence that few years ago at the instance of police of Police Station, Lingampet they

C.C. 329/2015 7 of 11 have put their Thumb impression and signature in Ex.P2 and they do not know the contents of it and what was written in it subsequently and denied conducting of Ex.P4 in their presence, turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution.

17.PW9 is investigating ofcer who conducted the investigation deposed in his evidence as to the course of investigation conducted by him in this case. He deposed in his cross examination that prior to registering of Ex.P3 they have not received any information relating to the alleged incident in this case from any persons. He deposed that Ex.P1 does not contain any endorsement of any ofcial. He also deposed that the forest ofcials have not fled any document along with Ex.P1 to show that the land at the alleged scene of ofence belongs to forest department. He admitted that he has not obtained the signature of

PW1 at Col.No.14 of Ex.P3. He also admitted that the compartment number of the land at the alleged scene of ofence was not mentioned in Ex.P4 conducted by him and also the total extent of land alleged to have been ploughed by the accused persons was also not mentioned by him. He further admitted that in

Ex.P4 there is no mention about any encroachment of land, further he admitted that witnesses examined in this case have not stated in his statement recorded by him the specifc overtacts of each of the accused persons and the abusive words alleged to have been used by the accused persons in this case and also has not stated the brand names of the trees/plants planted by the forest ofcials on the alleged scene of ofence in this case. He deposed that PW1 to 6 belong to forest department and no other witnesses were examined in this case. He denied the suggestions which are against the case of prosecution put to him by the learned counsel for accused.

18.A careful perusal of evidence of prosecution witnesses and material on record discloses that A1 to A3 are alleged of trespassing into the forest land and obstructing and threatening forest ofcials. A perusal of evidence of PW1 discloses that he deposed in his chief examination that on receiving information from their staf members about the galata, he went to the scene of ofence in this case and then the accused persons attacked on forest ofcials and obstructed them from performing their legitimate duties and threatened with dire consequences and subsequently in his cross examination he deposed that he was not present at the scene of ofence when the galata started near the scene of ofence, at this juncture the learned counsel for accused contended that it is doubtful as to the presence of PW1 at the scene of ofence as his

C.C. 329/2015 8 of 11 evidence is inconsist as to his presence at the scene of ofence at the time of occurrence of alleged incident in this case but PW2 deposed in her cross examination that the alleged place of ofence does not fall under the jurisdiction of Yerrapahad when she was working at that time. The learned counsel for accused contended that when the scene of ofence does not fall under the jurisdiction of Yerrapahad the presence of PW2 at the scene of ofence is doubtful and no explanation was given by the prosecution with regard to her presence at the scene of ofence at the time of occurrence of alleged incident in this case.

19.He also contended that PW4 deposed in his evidence that the accused persons snatched away his mobile phone and later upon his request they returned his mobile phone whereas PW2 deposed in her evidence that the accused persons took away her mobile phone and thrown away the mobile phone when she captured the alleged incident in this case, their evidence is contrary to each other’s evidence and casts doubt as to the occurrence of the alleged incident in this case. He also contended that PW4 categorically deposed in his evidence that no documents were given to police in this case to show that the land at the alleged scene of ofence in this case belongs to the forest department, where as Investigating ofcer i.e, PW9 also admitted the same and stated that no documents were fled along with Ex.P1 to show that the land at the alleged scene of ofence belongs to the forest department. At this juncture the learned counsel for accused contended that when the prosecution has not proved that the land at the alleged scene of ofence belongs to forest department, then PW1 will not have any locus standi to fle a complaint in this case as there is no proof to show that the land at the alleged scene of ofence in this case was owned or possessed by the forest ofcials, then the ingredients of section 441 of Indian Penal Code which is punishable U/s. 447 of Indian Penal

Code are not proved by the prosecution and he also contended that no document is fled by the prosecution to show that the forest ofcials were on duty and they were performing their legitimate duties at the time of occurrence of alleged incident in this case which is an essential ingredient to prove an ofence which is punishable U/s. 353 of Indian Penal Code. He also contended that the prosecution witnesses examined in this case have categorically deposed in their evidence that they have not stated the specifc overtacts of each of the accused persons in this case. In these circumstances the ingredients of the ofence punishable U/s. 506 of Indian Penal Code is also not proved by the prosecution. He further contended that PW9 who is the investigating ofcer

C.C. 329/2015 9 of 11 categorically deposed in his evidence that he has not examined any other independent witnesses and all the witnesses examined by him belong to forest department, hence the in absence of evidence of any other independent witnesses the evidence of PW1 to 6 who belong to the forest department cannot be solely believed as they are interested witnesses, More particularly when PW7 and 8 who are panch witnesses for Ex.P4 have denied conducting of Ex.P4 in their presence and turned hostile and when Ex.P4 is not proved by the prosecution. He further contended that, in Ex.P4 there is no mention of compartment number or specifc place of alleged encroachment by the accused persons and alleged vehicle which the accused persons alleged to have been damaged is also not shown in Ex.P4, therefore there are many lapses in the investigation conducted by police. Therefore, Ex.P4 is not proved by the prosecution and no weapon i.e, sticks which are alleged to have been used by the accused persons were seized by the police in this case, therefore all these aspects goes to show the falsity of the case and that forest ofcials have foisted this case against accused persons by falsely implicating them in this case.

20.From the foregoing discussion, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of

A1 to A3 for the ofences under section 447, 353, 506 r/w 34 of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt, as such Accused persons are entitled for beneft of doubt and accordingly the point is answered against the case of prosecution.

21.In the result, A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the ofences under section 447, 353, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code accordingly A1 to A3 are acquitted under section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 to A3 shall stand cancelled after expiry of six months as contemplated under section 437-A of Cr.P.C. No case property.

Typed to dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 06th day of March, 2020.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

FAC: Addl.Junior Civil Judge cum

Judl.Magistrate of First Class,

Spl(Mobile) Court, at Kamareddy

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

C.C. 329/2015 10 of 11

Witness Examined

For Prosecution: For

Defence: PW1: Daya Radha Kishan - None- PW2: Kumari Jangam Padma PW3: B.Praveena PW4: K.Chandrakanth Reddy PW5: C.Ramesh PW6: T.babu PW7: D Chandra PW8: B.Ramza PW9: M. Kumar Raja

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution: For Defence:

Ex.P1: Report -Nil- Ex.P2: Signature in Crime details form Ex.P3: First Information Report Ex.P4: Crime details form

Judicial Magistrate of First

Class FAC: Addl.Junior Civil Judge cum

Judl.Magistrate of First Class,

Spl (Mobile) Court, at Kamareddy

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

KAMAREDDY

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT OF CASE TRIED BY JFCM,

KAMAREDDY

C.C. No. 142 of 2014

Name of the police station : Sadhashivnagar

Cr.No. : 21 of 2014

Description of the accused : M.A. Habeeb

Date of offence : 01-02-2014

Date of complaint : 01-02-2014

Date of apprehension : 25-02-2014

Date of commencement of trial : 07-08-2018

Date of closure of trial : 27-11-2018

Date of sentence or order : 28-12-2019

Explanation for delay or remarks : ---

Findings : Not Guilty

Sentence/Order : Acquittal

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kamareddy

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

2 of 9 C.C. 142/2014

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS,

AT: KAMAREDDY.

PRESENT: Sri R. Rajkumar,

ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF FIRST CLASS SPECIAL (MOBILE) COURT, AT: KAMAREDDY

FAC: JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, AT

KAMAREDDY.

On Saturday, the 28 th day of December, 2019

CC.No. 142 of 2014

Between: The State of T.S. through Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. Sadashivnagar. … Complainant // And //

MA Habeeb S/o Sallauddin, aged 36 years, Caste: Muslim, Occ: Contractor, R/o Ramareddy village of Sadashivnagar mandal, Nizamabad district. … Accused

This case is coming before me for fnal hearing on 28-12-2019 in the presence of the Learned Assistant Prosecutor for the complainant and Sri. T. Bala Krishna, Advocate, counsel for accused and being stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivers the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, P.S Sadhashivnagar has laid charge sheet against accused alleging him of committing ofence under Sec. 420 of Indian

Penal Code in Cr.no. 21 of 2014 of PS. Sadhashivnagar.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 01-02-2014 at 15.00 hrs

PW1 came to Police Station, Sadashivnagar and lodged a report stating that his villager M.A Habeeb/accused is his close friend and he provided an amount of

Rs. 2,42,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs Fourty Two thousand only) for his personal needs from 2008 to 2012. That, PW1 provided the said amount to accused person and that the family member’s gold was put in the Deccan Grameena

Bank, Ramareddy village and took the loan and provided the said amount to accused. PW1 requested the accused to repay his loan amount but accused dragged the matter and he is regularly roaming around him and his house.

That, in this regard PW1 convened a panchayath with the caste elders on 26-12- 3 of 9 C.C. 142/2014 2012 when accused promised to pay the said loan amount and executed a bond and a cheque of Vijaya bank among the village elders to pay on 06-06-2013.

Later, PW1 approached Vijaya bank authorities for realization of amount and the said bank authorities disclosed that there is no amount in that account. Later,

PW1 approached the accused and informed regarding funds not available in his account and requested to repay the amount and on that the accused stated

PW1 to do whatever he want to do and also threatened him with dire consequences. As such, PW1 requested to take necessary action. Basing on the report, LW6/D.Satish Reddy registered a case in Cr.No.21/2014 for the ofence

U/s. 420 of Indian Penal Code, issued First Information Report and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation LW6 examined and recorded the statements of PW1 to PW3 and also later examined and recorded the statements of other witnesses. On 24-02-2014 LW6 served a notice U/s. 41-A of

Cr.P.C was issued against accused and on 25-02-2014 at 10.00 hrs Accused came to Police Station, Sadashivnagar and surrendered and on interrogation he voluntarily confessed his guilt in this crime and he was produced before this court for Judicial Custody. After collection of all the relevant documents and completion of investigation LW6/D.Sathish Reddy fled Charge sheet.

3. This case was taken on fle by my predecessor on 25-03-2014 for the ofence punishable U/sec.420 of Indian Penal Code. Copies of case documents furnished during the course of case proceedings and case was preceded against accused in this case.

4.Upon appearance of accused, copies of case documents were furnished to him and accused examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C and charge was framed under section 240 of Cr.P.C against them for the ofences U/sec. 420 of Indian

Penal Code was read over and explained to him in vernacular language, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.The prosecution cited Six witnesses the court closed the evidence of LW5/

N.Rajashekar and LW6/D.Satish Reddy and other listed witnesses examined as

PW's.1 to PW4 and got marked Ex.P1 to P4 were marked to prove its case.

6. On closure of evidence of prosecution, Accused was examined U/Sec.313

Cr.P.C and he denied the incriminating material appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Accused did not choose to examine any defence witnesses.

4 of 9 C.C. 142/2014

7. Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the Record.

8.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that prosecution successfully proved the guilt of accused for the ofence charged against him accused and thus prayed to convict the accused. Whereas the learned counsel

for accused submitted that accused is no way concerned with this case and that

accused is innocent and he further submitted that prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of the ofences charged against the accused in this case.

9.Now the point for determination is: “Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the ofence punishable U/s. 420 of Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt?”

POINT:

10.PW1 who is the defacto complainant in this case deposed in his evidence that he know the accused and he got acquaintance with accused as he was his brother’s friend. He deposed that on the request of his friend, he gave loan amount to accused on several occasions. He also deposed that since the accused was unable to repay the gold loan, he demanded accused to re-pay the loan amount on which accused executed a bond showing the diferent loan amounts provided to him for Rs. 2,42,000/- (Rupees Two lakh Fourty Two

Thousand Only). He also deposed that thereafter accused issued a blank cheque and he went to the bank and on inquiry he came to know that accused has no balance in his account and he informed the same to accused and after several demands accused threatened him and also did not pay him the loan amount.

Accused also executed a slip acknowledging the amount paid by him. Therefore, he deposed that since accused cheated him and not repaying the amount, he has handed over the bond paper to police and he further deposed that police examined and recorded his statement in this case. In his cross examination he deposed that he cannot say the date, month in which he gave the cash of

Rs.2,42,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Fourty Two Thousand Only) to accused for the period from 2008 to 2012 and in what installments he gave to accused. He deposed that Ex.P2 was executed by accused on 26.12.2012 only in the presence of his Head Master by name Ganesh and a panchayath was held in

Gnanajyothi High School. He admitted that he did not state to police that accused on 26.12.2012 executed Ex.P2 only in the presence of his headmaster by name Ganesh and panchayath was held in Gnanajyothi High School. He deposed that Ex.P2 was scribed by Ganesh on the instructions of accused. He denied the suggestions put to him by the learned counsel for accused that he 5 of 9 C.C. 142/2014 had stated to police that Ex.P2 was scribed by Ganesh. He deposed that he did not specify in Ex.P2 as to what period of the interest was calculated to be

Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) on Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty

Thousand Only). He admitted that he did not mention in Ex.P2 the date on which he gave Rs.1,65,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Sixty Five Thousand Only) and

Rs.36,000/- (Rupees Thirty Six Thousand Only) and also the place where the amount was given to the accused. He admitted that he did not mention the date and month in which he gave Rs.2,42,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Fourty Two

Thousand Only) to accused. He also further admitted that Ex.P2 was not signed by Ganesh who scribed it and he also admitted that he cannot say the date, month and year in which the accused issued cheque to him. He further admitted that Ex.P4 does not contain date, year, month, amount and name of the payee and deposed that accused issued blank cheque. He deposed that he did not present Ex.P4/Cheque in the bank but the bank accountant told him that there is no cash as such he did not present cheque. He also deposed that he does not remember date, month and year on which he went to bank and he came to know that the accused has no amount in the bank. He admitted that he cannot say the designation of the person who told him that the accused has no cash in his account. He denied the suggestion put to him by the learned counsel

for accused that he has forged the signatures on Ex.P2 and P4 and accused

never executed them and never attended any panchayath and that Ex.P3 was executed and scribed by accused himself and cash of Rs. 3,12,000/- (Rupees

Three Lakh Twelve Thousand Only) is also written by accused in Ex.P3. He also deposed in his cross examination that the accused promised to pay the amount by August, 2013 in three installments and that did not specify the date and month in which each installment will be paid by him. He also deposed that he and accused were present at the time of executing Ex.P3 in his house. He denied the suggestions which are against the case of the prosecution put to him by the learned counsel for accused.

11.PW2 who is wife of PW1 in this case deposed in his evidence that PW1’s elder brother who was lecturer at Kamareddy and was friend of the accused and as such PW1 has acquaintance with accused. She deposed that on request of accused, PW1 gave Rs.2,41,000/- (Rupees Two lakh Fourty One Thousand Only) to accused as hand loan on diferent occasions from the year 2008 to 2012. She deposed that she gave Rs. 2,41,000/- (Rupees Two lakh Fourty One Thousand

Only) with her hands from her house to PW1 to give to accused. She also deposed that accused inspite of several demands failed to repay the amount 6 of 9 C.C. 142/2014 and as such they incurred several debts. She also deposed that Accused thereafter executed a bond, cheque (Ex.P4), undertaking receipt (Ex.P3) in favour of PW1. She further deposed that in the year 2013, during Dasara holidays accused called them from Adilabad to Kamareddy for repayment of amount but failed to repay the amount and PW1 being vexed lodged a complaint in Police Station in the year 2014 and police examined and recorded her statement in this case. In her cross examination she deposed that she gave

Rs.1,65,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Sixty Five Thousand Only) to accused on 03.04.2012 and she does not remember the date when they gave other amount to the accused. She admitted that the date, month and year is not mentioned in

Ex.P2. She also admitted that the date, month, year and name of the person was not mentioned in Ex.P2 and she deposed that Ex.P2 to Ex.P4 was executed in the house of Ganesh but she does not know who scribed Ex.P2 to P4 as she was in the house. She admitted that she did not state to police that in the year 2013 when they went on Dussehra vacations the accused called them from

Adilabad to Kamareddy for repayment of amount to them. She denied the suggestions which are against the case of the prosecution put to her by the learned counsel for accused.

12.PW3 deposed in his evidence that he came to know from the villagers that accused has taken some money from PW1 and several panchayaths were held.

He deposed that he does not know what amount and when it was given by PW1 to accused and that police did not examine him and he turned hostile. In his cross examination by learned counsel for accused, he deposed that he does not remember the date and time of executing Ex.P2 and that he was not present at the time of its execution. He also deposed that Ex.P2 does not contain his signature. He deposed that he does not know the year and in whose presence panchayaths were held between PW1 and accused.

13.PW4 deposed in his evidence that in the year 2014 he came to

Kamareddy along with LW5/N.Rajashekar and PW1 as accused has to give amount to PW1. He deposed that accused requested time to give money to PW1 and since accused failed to repay the money to PW1, PW1 lodged complaint against accused and police examined and recorded his statement in this case.

In his cross examination he deposed that he did not state to police about the date, time and place they went to Kamareddy. He deposed that he came to know from PW1 that accused has to give money to PW1. He deposed that he does not know when PW1 gave money and quantum of money and for what 7 of 9 C.C. 142/2014 purpose it was given to accused. He deposed that he does not remember when police examined him and that he came to court along with PW1. He denied the suggestions which are against the case of the prosecution put to him by the learned counsel for accused.

14.A careful perusal of evidence of prosecution witnesses and material on record discloses that Investigating ofcer who conducted the investigation in this case is not examined by the prosecution and even after closure of evidence of LW5 and 6 prosecution has not taken any steps for examining them to prove its case. At this juncture, the learned counsel for accused contended that non- examining of investigating ofcer is fatal to the case of prosecution. He also contended that there are many inconsistencies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses examined in this case. PW3 in whose presence Ex.P2 was said to be executed by accused on 26.02.2012 turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution and categorically deposed in his cross examination that he does not know the date and time of executing Ex.P2 and that Ex.P2 does not contain his signature, it goes to show that Ex.P2 was not scribed by PW3 and it was not executed in the presence of PW3, therefore Ex.P2 stands not proved.

He also contended that PW3 categorically deposed in his evidence that he came to know from villagers that accused has taken some money from PW1 and a panchayath was also held in this regard, it goes to show that PW3 was not aware of any money transactions between PW1 and accused and he also contended that though PW4 has deposed in his evidence that accused has requested time to give money to PW1 in his presence but in his cross examination he categorically deposed that he does not know when PW1 gave money and quantum of money and for what purpose it was given to the accused. Therefore the evidence of PW3 and 4 is no where helpful to the prosecution and their evidence is not corroborating with the evidence of PW1 and 2. The learned counsel for accused contended that PW1 categorically deposed in his cross examination that he cannot say the date and month in which he gave the amount of Rs. 2,42,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Fourty Two

Thousand Only) to accused for the period from 2008 to 2012 and in what installments he gave that amount to accused, as such his statement casts doubt as to the transactions between PW1 and accused in this case. More particularly when PW3 in whose presence Ex.P2 was said to be executed by accused has turned hostile. A perusal of evidence of PW1 shows that he deposed that he cannot say the date, month and year in which accused issued cheque to him and that Ex.P4 is a blank cheque and PW1 categorically deposed 8 of 9 C.C. 142/2014 that he has not presented Ex.P4 in the bank for realization as bank accountant had said him that there is no amount in the account of accused as such it goes to show that Ex.P4 was not dishonored by bank and to prove such statement of

PW1 bank accountant who said to have informed PW1 about insufciency of funds in account of accused is not examined by the prosecution, therefore the evidence of PW1 with regard to Ex.P4 cannot be believed in absence of any corroborating evidence from any other independent witnesses. The evidence of

PW2 i.e, wife of PW1 shows that she deposed that Ex.P2 to P4 were executed in the house of Ganesh but she does not know who scribed Ex.P2 to P4 as she was in her house goes to show that the evidence of PW2 is contrary to the evidence of PW3 who turned hostile and denied conducting of Ex.P2. The learned counsel

for accused contended that Ex.P2 to P4 cannot be taken into consideration as

the persons in whose presence those documents were said to be executed have not deposed about execution of such documents and furthermore PW3 in whose presence Ex.P2 was said to be executed turned hostile and categorically deposed in his evidence that Ex.P2 does not contain his signature and that

Ex.P2 does not contain the names of any of the witnesses in whose presence it is said to be executed therefore in absence of any evidence to that efect and more particularly Ex.P4/Blank cheque was not presented in the bank for realization. Thus documents i.e, Ex.P2 to P4 are not of much credence to the case of prosecution and there are many inconsistencies in the evidence of PW1 and 2 wherein they have not deposed categorically the specifc amounts and dates on which those amounts were said to be advanced as loan to accused.

Therefore, the advancement of alleged loan amount to accused by PW1 is not proved by PW1, Hence, when such transaction amounts between PW1 and accused is not proved then the allegations that the accused deceived PW1 as contemplated under Sec.417 of IPC which is punishable U/s. 420 of Indian Penal

Code is not proved by the prosecution.

15.From the foregoing discussion, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused for the ofence punishable U/s.420 of Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, accused is entitled for beneft of doubt. Accordingly, the point is answered against the case of the prosecution.

16.In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the ofence under section 420 of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, accused is acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of six months as contemplated under section 437-A of Cr.P.C. No case property.

9 of 9 C.C. 142/2014

Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 28th day of December, 2019 .

Judl.Magistrate of First Class,

Kamareddy

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witness Examined

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW1: Shaik Amanullah pasha -None- PW2: Aswiya Ansar PW3: D. Ganesh PW4: G.Sathyanarayana

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution: For Defence:

Ex.P1: Complaint to police -Nil- Ex.P2: Bond executed by accused on 26-12-2012. Ex.P3: Undertaking dated: 06-06-2013 issued by M.A.Habeeb Ex.P4: Cheque bearing no.689054

Judl.Magistrate of First Class,

Kamareddy.