Page No.1 of 5
CC 711 of 2017
IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT THUNGATHURTHY
PRESENT: Smt. Racharla Shalini,
Junior Civil Judge-cum-
Judicial Magistrate of Frist Class, Thungthurthy
CC. No. 711 of 2017
Between: The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, PS. Thirumalagiri.
...Complainant
and
Mahamad Yakub Pasha S/o Late Buran, Age: 26 years, Caste: Muslim, Occ: Auto Dirver, R/o Pragathinagar, H/o Eaturu village of Nagaram mandal.
... Accused
This case is coming on 07-07-2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State-complainant and Sri T. Hari Charan, Learned counsel for accused and having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:
:: J U D G M E N T ::
1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS. Thirumalgiri, filed charge sheet in Cr.
No.196 of 2017 for the offence punishable u/sec. 354(A)(I) IPC against accused.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief as follows:
On 23.11.2017 at 10.00 hours the complainant/Lw-1/Md. Yaaswin stated that her husband Pasha died in a Thonda accident at about 7 months ago. The Lw1/Md.
Yaaswin having one daughter namely Karishma and one son namely Emad. After death of Lw1/Yaaswin husband she is living with her parent’s house which is by the side of Ravi Doctor Hospital in Thirumalagiri. On 16.11.2017 at about 15.00 hrs the accused caught hold her hand and dragged with force and asked her to fulfill his desire. On that she disclosed the matter to the Lw2, 4 and 5/ Jani Begam,
Munnibee, B. Srinivas Thus, the accused committed the offence punishable U/sec.
354(A)(1) IPC.
Page No.2 of 5
CC 711 of 2017
3. On 23.11.2017, on the complaint from LW-1/Yaasmin, the Lw9/V. Ravinder
Reddy registered a case in Cr. No.196/2017 for the offence U/sec. 354-A IPC against accused and investigation entrusted to Lw-9/Ravinder Reddy. During the course of investigation Lw-9/Ravinder Reddy examined and recorded the statements of LW1/Yaasmin at Police Station, Thirumalagiri. Later, he visited the scene of offence house of Lw1/Yaasmin at Thirumalagiri village examined and recorded the statements of Lw2 to 6/Jani Begam, Md. Anjum, Md. Munnibee, B.
Sreenu, B.Komuraiah and conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch in the presence of Lw-7 and Lw-8/T. Laxmi, D. Raju. The accused served notice U/s 41A(1) Cr.P.C on 24.11.2017 and served notice U/s. 41A(3)
Cr.P.C on 27.11.2017 and directed him to appear before the Hon’ble Court soon after receiving accused summons. The accused produced the sufficient sureties, as such released him on bail. After completion of investigation, charge sheet is filed.
4. After considering the material papers on record, this court has taken cognizance against Accused for the offence punishable U/sec. 354(A)(I) IPC.
5. After appearance of accused, the case copies furnished to Accused as per section 207 Cr.P.C. The Accused was examined u/s.239 Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable Section 354(A)(I) IPC and same was denied by accused. Charges have been framed against him for the above said offence, read over the contents of the same in his vernacular language, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. As such, this court has issued summons to the prosecution witnesses to commence the trial.
6. During the Trial, the prosecution examined Lw1/Yaasmin i.e., complainant and was examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. Since the material witnesses turned hostile, the Asst. Public Prosecutor has given up the Evidence of remaining Lw2 to 10/Jani Begam, Md. Anjum, Md. Munnibee, B. Sreenu, B.
Page No.3 of 5
CC 711 of 2017
Komuraiah, T. Laxmi, D. Ranu, V. Ravinder Reddy HC of PS Thirumalgiri, K.
Mahesh S.I of police, PS Thirumalagiri, in view of the compromise of case and reported that prosecution side evidence is closed. As there is no incriminating substance against the Accused, the examination of accused U/s. 313 Cr. P. C. is dispensed off.
7. Heard both sides.
8. Now the point for consideration is:-
Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the Accused for the offence punishable U/sec. 354(A)(2) IPC against accused beyond all reasonable doubt or not?
POINT:
9. The learned APP fairly submitted that the complainant i.e., PW1 in this case has settled all her issues with the Accused out of the court as such she did not support the version of the prosecution and requested the court to take appropriate decision basing on the evidence available on the record.
10. The learned counsel for the Accused has submitted that absolutely there is no evidence against the Accused for the alleged offence, as such he is entitled for acquittal for the said offence.
11. Upon the perusal of the evidence of PW1, she deposed that she do not know the facts of the present case, Police not examined her and not recorded her statement and obtained her signature on a white paper. Ex.P1 is the signature of
Pw1 on the report, Ex.P2 is the Sec. 161 Cr. P. C statement of PW1.
12. At request of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, the PW1 is declared as hostile and permission has granted for cross-examination. During the cross- examination of PW1 by the learned APP, she denied the suggestion that police examined and recorded their statement by then she stated as in Ex .P2 i.e., Sec.
161 Cr.P.C. She also denied the suggestions that she is speaking falsehood due to
Page No.4 of 5
CC 711 of 2017
compromise with the accused. The above said evidence of the PW1 is not showing any incriminating substance to believe the version of the prosecution that the
Accused has committed the offence punishable U/sec. 354(A)(I) IPC. As the PW1 did not support the version of the prosecution, the Learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor has rightly given up the evidence of Lw2 to 10/Jani Begam, Md. Anjum,
Md. Munnibee, B. Sreenu, B. Komuraiah, T. Laxmi, D. Ranu, V. Ravinder Reddy HC of PS Thirumalgiri, K. Mahesh, even though, if they are examined the case of the prosecution could not be strengthened. In view of the above said discussions, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution is failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/sec. 354(A)(I) IPC, for which the Accused is entitled for Acquittal. Accordingly, the point is answered.
13.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable
U/sec. 354(A)(I) IPC against accused and he is acquitted under Section 248(1)
Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months from today as per Sec. 437-A Cr.P.C. The investigation officer has not seized any property as such no orders passed in that regard.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 10 th day of July, 2023.
Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Thungathurthy.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE: PW-1: Md. Yaasmin -NIL-
Page No.5 of 5
CC 711 of 2017
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE: Ex.P1: Signature of PW1 on report. -NIL- Ex.P2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1.
MATERIAL OBJECTS
NIL
Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Thungathurthy.
Page No.6 of 5
CC 711 of 2017
CALENDER AND JUDGMENT
IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :AT: THUNGATHURTHY.
C.C. No. 711 of 2017
1. Date of offence : 16-11-2017
2. Date of report/complaint : 23-11-2017
3. Date of apprehension of the accused : 27.11.2017
4. Date of commencement of trial : 08-01-2018
5. Date of closer of trial : 07-07-2023
6. Date of sentence/order : 10-07-2023
COMPLAINANT: The State through Sub-Inspector of Police : P.S. Thirumalagiri
ACCUSED : Mahamad Yakub Pasha
Offence U/s. : 354(A)(I) IPC
Finding : Found not guilty
Sentence/order: Acquitted
Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Thungathurthy.
To The Hon’ble District & Sessions Judge, Suryapet.