Rama Mohan Reddy

1 Of 11

OS.No.24/2016

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT: BICHKUNDA.

Present: Sri D. Rama Mohan Reddy, Junior Civil Judge, Bichkunda.

Dated this the 29th day of March, 2022.

O.S.No.24 of 2016

Between:

1)Uttarwar Veeresham, S/o.Rukman, Aged about 50 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Degloor Village Tq., Deglur, Nanded District, at present temporarily come down R/o. Shankkarga (Small) Village, Madnoor Mandal, Kamareddy District.

2)Uttarwar Santosh, S/o Rukman, Aged: 35 years, Occ: Agricutlure, R/o. Purana Sarafa Tekale Gally Degloor, Tq., Degloor, Nanded District, at present temporarily come down, R/o. Shakkarga (Small) Village, Madnoor Mandal, Kamareddy District.

...Plaintiffs No.1 and 2

A n d

1)Bhagirthi Bai, W/o. Narayana, Aged:60 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Shakkarga (Small) Village, Madnoor Mandal, Kamareddy District, at present R/o. H.No.1-4-348/A, Saraswathi Nagar, Bodhan Mandal, Nizamabad District.

2)Narayana, S/o. Damaiah Gangula, Aged:62 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Shakkarga (Small) Village, Madnoor Mandal, Kamareddy District, at present R/o. H.No.1-4-348/A, Saraswathi Nagar, Bodhan Mandal, Nizamabad District.

...Defendants No. 1 and 2.

This suit coming before me on 28-03-2022 for final hearing in the presence of Sri A.Vittal Rao, Advocate for the Plaintiffs and of Sri G.Malleshwar, Advocate for defendantsand the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :-

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

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against defendants restraining them, their men, agents, servants, henchmen etc., from causing any sort of interference or obstruction in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule properties and for costs.

2.That the material points for consideration as culled out from the plaint is that plaintiff No.1 is the owner, pattedar and possessor of agricultural land in 2 Of 11

OS.No.24/2016

Sy.No.80/KA1/1B admeasuring Ac.00-20 gts and in Sy.No.80/KA2B admeasuring

Ac.00-26 gts aggregating to Ac.01-06 gts situated at Chinna Shagarga Village of

Madnoor Mandal and that plaintiff No.2 is the owner, pattedar and possessor of agricultural land in Sy.No.80/KA/1A admeasureing Ac.00-20 gts and in

Sy.No.80/KA/2A admeasuring Ac.00-26 gts aggregating to Ac.01-26 gts and that the said properties are their ancestral properties and are in joint possession and enjoyment of the same which would be referred to as suit lands herein after.

Subsequently names of plaintiffs were mutated in revenue records vide

Proceedings No:ROR.No.9 of 2015 dated 02-04-2015 and ROR.No.227 of 2015

dated 05-10-2015 respectively and were issued pattedar passbooks and title

deeds. Thus plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of suit lands as absolute owners since long time and are cultivating their lands every year and that in the current season they have raised Soybean crop in the suit lands.

While so, defendants who are nothing to do with the suit lands are un- necessarly interfering and obstructing agricultural operations of plaintiffs. On 12- 07-2016 defendants came to the suit lands and illegally tried to dispossess the plaintiffs from their lawful possession which acts were thwarted by plaintiffs with great difficulty. However, while leaving defendants threatened the plaintiffs that they would come again along with their henchmen and occupy the suit lands by dispossessing the plaintiffs. Hence, the suit.

3.Refuting the above averments of the plaint, defendant Nos.1 & 2 jointly filed written statement denying the averments in the plaint and further submitted that plaintiffs obtained mutation proceedings, pattedar passbook and title deeds fraudulantly by misrepresenting the facts before the Tahsildar, Madnoor and plaintiffs are never in possession of suit lands, as such the question of defendants trying to interfere and dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit lands does not arise.

It is further submitted that, father of plaintiffs namely Rukman died on 29-05-2003 leaving behind four sons and wife namely Veeresham, Santhosh, plaintiffs No.1 and 2, Dilip and Ashok (died) and wife Bhoomabai also died. Father of plaintiffs 3 Of 11

OS.No.24/2016

i.e., Rukman was the owner of Ac.01-00 gts of land only in Sy.No.80/KA2 and after his death Tahsildar, Madnoor issued ROR Proceedings No.9/2015 dated 02-05- 2015 in favour plaintiff Nos.1 & 2 to an extent of Ac.00-20 gts each. Plaintiffs obtained ROR Proc.No.227/2015 dated 05-10-2015 fraudulantly in collusion with revenue officials, by misrepresenting the facts. Immediately after the death of father of plaintiffs namely Rukman land in Sy.No.80/K2 admeasuring Ac.01-00 gts was mutated in the name of his wife Bhoomabai and revenue records do not disclose that Rukman was the pettadar and owner of land in Sy.No.80/K2 admeasuring Ac.01-12 gts, as such, defendant No.1 peferred an appeal before

RDO, Bodhan aggrieved by the Proceedings issued by Tahsildar, Madnoor vide

Proc.No.227/2015 and that RDO granted stay against proceedings issued by

Tahsildar, Madnoor. Therefore, the proceedings issued by Tahsildar, Madnoor vide

ROR.No.227/2015 cannot be looked into as the same were issued by Tahsildar illegally without any enquiry and the proceedings are liable to be cancelled as name of father of the plaintiffs i.e., Rukman is not reflected in revenue records at any point of time. As such, plaintiffs failed to establish their possession over the land in Sy.No.80/K2 admeasuring Ac.01-12 gts. When plaintiff No.1 tried to interfere over the suit land in Sy.No.80/K2 admeasuring Ac.01-12 gts defendants lodged a report before the SI of Police, Madnoor on 28-03-2016 before whom plaintiff No.1 admitted that he do not know where his land is situated and that defendants cultivated the suit land and that he will never interfere with the suit schedule land in future and requested to excuse him. Plaintiffs taking advantage of old age of defendant Nos.1 & 2 and their non presence in the village, along with other un-social elements are trying to interfere over the suit land. As a matter of fact plaintiffs are the owners of only Ac.01-00 gts land in Sy.No.80/K2 which they acquired through Bhoomabai after the death of their father Rukman.

Defendant No.1 filed a suit for declaration, declaring that he is a absolute owner of agricultural land in Sy.No.80/KAA3 admeasuring Ac.01-12 gts and in

Sy.No.80/KAA3/1 admeasuring Ac.01-00 gts aggregating to Ac.02-12 gts before the Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge, Bodhan which is registered as O.S.No.73 of 2012 4 Of 11

OS.No.24/2016

along with a petition for grant of interim injunction, which was granted on 04-10- 2012 and the same is in force. In the said suit defendant No.1 filed a petition for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to survey and demarcate the land in

Sy.No.80 which was allowed and as per the survey it is shown that plaintiff No.2 is the owner of land in Sy.No.80/K4 admeasuring Ac.01-00 gts and that plaintiffs who were present at the time of survey, did not raise any objection. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.

4.Basing on the rival contention of both the sides, the following issues were framed for consideration during trial :

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction in repect of suit schedule property against defendants ?

2. Whether the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment over suit schedule property as on date of filing of suit ?

3. To what relief ?

5.During the course of trial plaintiff No.1 examined himself as PW.1 and got exhibited Ex.A1 to A10. On behalf of defendants, defendants No.1 & 2 were examined as DW.1 and DW.2 and got exhibited Ex.B1 to B17.

6.Heard, learned counsel for plaintiffs, who submitted to pass judgment on merits. On the other hand the counsel for defendants submitted that plaintiffs are not in possession of entire suit schedule property and are in possession of only

Ac.01-00 gts of land. After filing of the suit, mutation proceedings in favour of plaintiffs No.1 & 2 under Ex.A6 are set aside by the RDO, Bodhan under Ex.B2 on an appeal by the defendants, preferred prior to filing of the suit and since the said proceedings are continued and disposed off by orders under Ex.B2 the same are relevant though orders under Ex.B2 is passed subsequent to the filing of suit, as such, subsequent documents relied upon by the plaintiff cannot be considered and absolutely there is no documentary evidence to show that plaintiffs are in possession of entire suit schedule property and that plaintiffs approached with unclean hands.

5 Of 11

OS.No.24/2016

7.Issues No.1 & 2:

since both these issues are interwoven, I am proceeding with my discussion on both the issues jointly for convenience and brevity.

The case of the plaintiffs is that suit schedule A and B properties are their ancestral properties and that their names were mutated in revenue records vide

Proceedings issued by Tahsildar and were issued pattedar passbook, title deeds and have been in continuous possession of the same by cultivating and that that illegal interference by defendants have constrained them to file this suit against defendants.

8.On the other side it is the case of defendants that plaintiffs are not in possession of entire land admeasuring Ac.02-12 gts and that they are in possession of only Ac.01-00 gts of land as the same was succeeded by them from their father and they are not in possession of remaining Ac.01-12 gts of land and plaintiffs have obtained proceedings under Ex.A6 fraudulantly which constrained them to prefer an appeal against the proceedings issued by Thasildar, Madnoor mutating the names of plaintiffs in respect of Ac.01-12 gts of land which they are not in possession. Therefore the question of interference of defendants over the suit land do not arise and as RDO stayed the proceedings the documents relied upon by plaintiffs under Ex.A1 to A10 cannot be considered as they were brought into existence fraudulantly in collusion with revenue officials.

9.In a suit for perpetual injunction, the burden lies on the plaintiff to establish his case on his own. As per Secs.101 and 103 of Indian Evidence Act, the burden lies on the plaintiff to establish the existence of the facts which he asserts and the facts which he wishes the court to believe. It is pertinent to note that the plaintiff on whom heavy burden lies, cannot depend on the weakness of the defendants.

10.On behalf of plaintiffs, plaintiff No.1 examined himself as PW1 and deposed reiterating their case in the chief examination affidavit and got marked Ex.A1 to

A10. Ex.A1 is original old title deed of plaintiff No.1. Ex.A2 is original old pattedar 6 Of 11

OS.No.24/2016

passbook of plaintiff No.1. Ex.A3 is original old pattedar passbook of plaintiff No.2.

Ex.A4 is original old title deed of plaintiff No.2. Ex.A5 is the mutation proceedings issued by the Tahsildar, Madnoor, dated 02-04-2015 under which names of plaintiffs No.1 & 2 are mutated in revenue records to an extent of Ac.00-20 gts each in Sy.No.80K/1/1 and Sy.No.80K/1/1 aggregating Ac.01-00 gts. Ex.A6 is the mutation proceedings issued by the Tahsildar, Madnoor, dated 05-10-2015 under which names of plaintiffs No.1 & 2 are mutated in revenue records to an extent of

Ac.00-26 gts each in Sy.No.80K2 and Sy.No.80K2 aggregating Ac.01-12 gts. Ex.A7 is the digitalized copy of pahani for the fasli 1426 issued in favour of plaintiff No.1.

Ex.A8 is the digitalized copy of pahani for the fasli 1426 issued in favour of plaintiff No.1. Ex.A9 is the digitalized copy of pahani for the fasli 1426 issued in favour plaintiff No.2. Ex.A10 is the digitalized copy of pahani for the fasli 1426 issued in favour of plaintiff No.2. During the course of cross examination certain crucial information is elicited by the learned counsel for defendants, as such for better appreciation the said relevant portion of the cross examination is excerpted as follows:

“My father expired in the year, 2003 and I was aged about 30 years in the year, 2003. After the death of my father I have inquired with the revenue officials and came to know that my father was the owner of Ac.01-12 gts as on the date of his death. It is true that each of Balram, Rukman and Bhagirthi Bai (D1) were allotted Ac.05-36 gts in partition between them, as such they became absolute owners of their respective shares. It is true that out of Ac.05-36 gts of land that fell to my father Rukman and Bhagirthi Bai, they sold an extent of Ac.03-24 gts each to one Veeresham. After selling of said lands to Veeresham, my father

Rukman and Bhagirthi Bai are in possession of remaining extent of Ac.02-12 gts each as pattedar. It is true that out of remaining Ac.02-12 gts of land in possession of my father Govt. acquired Ac.01-12 gts and my father Rukman received compensation amount of Rs.50,312/- from the Govt., in the year, 2003.

It is true that the remaining extent of Ac.01-00 gts standing in the name of father 7 Of 11

OS.No.24/2016

was mutated in favour my mother namely Bhoomabai and that myself and my brother partitioned the said extent of Ac.01-00 gts and each of us got Ac.00-20 gts towards our share. I am not the beneficiary of Rythu Bandu scheme. We were not issued any new digitalized pattedar passbook cum title deed from revenue authorities.”

11.From the above cross examination it is patent that father of plaintiffs No.1 & 2 died in the year, 2003 and as plaintiff succeeded the properties of his ancestors their names must have been mutated in revenue records subsequent to the death of their father or after the death of their mother. It is also patent that Bhagirthi

Bai i.e., defendant No.1 is the sister of Rukman and that in a partition each of them were alloted Ac.05-36 gts of land and out of which they sold Ac.03-24 gts each to one Veeresham and that they are left with Ac.02-12 gts of land and also that out of Ac.02-12 gts of land standing in the name of his father Govt. has acquired Ac.01-12 gts of land and that his father also received compensation of

Rs.50,312/- from the Govt., in the year, 2003 only, which means land of Ac.01-12 gts was acquired by Govt., during the life time of father of plaintiffs. When Govt., acquired Ac.01-12 gts land in the year, 2003 i.e., during the life time of father of plaintiffs he would be naturally left with the remaining extent of only Ac.01-00 gts of land. Perusal of Ex.B5 also discloses that wife of Rukman i.e., mother of plaintiffs was the pattedar of land only to an extent of Ac.01-00 gts of land and that the same was equally transferred in favour of plaintiff No.1 and plaintiff No.2 to an extent Ac.00-20 gts each. If such is the case it is not known as to how plaintiffs No.1 and 2 are claiming to have succeeded the land of Ac.02-12 gts of land. Hence, it is apparent that plaintiffs have succeeded only Ac.01-00 of land, as such, mutation of their names in the revenue records under Ex.A5 to an extent of Ac.0-20 gts. each appears to be correct, but mutation of names of plaintiffs in respect of remaining extent of Ac.01-12 gts under Ex.A6 vide Proc.No.227/2015 do not appear to be legal, as such, defendants have preferred an appeal and was stayed by RDO. Bodhan, when the suit was filed. Perusal of Ex.B2 clearly goes to 8 Of 11

OS.No.24/2016

disclose that RDO. Bodhan has set aside the proceedings of Tahsildar, Madnoor vide ROR.No.227/2015 on 06-09-2019, which means there is no documentary evidence to show that plaintiffs are in possession of Ac.01-12 gts of remaining land, which boosts the case of defendants that plaintiff are in possession of only

Ac.01-00 gts of land but not in possession of entire extent Ac.02-12 gts of land. It is also settled law that in a suit for injunction subsequent events can be taken into consideration. Though material point for consideration in a suit for injunction is as to who was in possession of suit property as on date of filing of suit, but as on date of filing of suit itself defendants have preferred appeal before RDO, Bodhan which was stayed by the RDO. Hence, order of RDO. Bodhan under Ex.B2 though passed subsequent to filing of the suit can be considered. If the same is consideredthentheproceedingsofTahsildar,Madnoorvide

ROR.Proc.No.227/2015 is set aside, as such, the subsequent documents under

Ex.A7 to A10 and pettadar passbooks cum title deed under Ex.A1 to A4 in respect of remaining extent of Ac.01-12 gts under which plaintiffs No.1 and 2 are claiming to be in possession of entire suit properties cannot be considered at all and are not relevant.

12.Even otherwise also there is difference in the sub-division numbers in the revenue records under Ex.A1 to A4 and A7 to A10 with that of schedule of properties said to have been in possession of plaintiffs No.1 & 2 even to an extent of Ac.01-00 gts of land also. However, as there is no dispute with regard to possession of plaintiffs No.1 and 2 over an extent of Ac.01-00 gts of land the same pales into insignificance. Ex.B3 also clarifies that father of the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 namely Rukman has received an amount of Rs.50,312/- from Govt., from MRO towards compensation in respect of land said have been acquired by Govt. to an extent of Ac.01-12 gts. Ex.B11 also clearly demonstrates that father of the plaintiffs namely Rukman was pattedar and in possession of only Ac.01-00 gts. in suit survey number. When father of plaintiffs himself was pattedar and in possession of only Ac.1-00 gts. of land in suit survey number, the question of 9 Of 11

OS.No.24/2016

plaintiffs succeeding Ac.2-12 gts. of land from their ancestors do not arise. Thus,

Ex.B2 and B3 clearly boosts the case of the defendants that plaintiff are in possession only Ac.01-00 gts of land in suit survey numbers and not in possession of entire extent of Ac.02-12 gts of land. In addition to that, it is also suggested by plaintiffs counsel to DW2 that plaintiffs are having only Ac.01-00 gts of land in

Sy.No.80/K2 which is admitted by DW2. This suggestion itself clearly goes to disclose that plaintiffs are in possession of only Ac.01-00 gts of land in

Sy.No.80/K2 i.e., suit survey number. Therefore, I have no hesitation to come conclusion that plaintiffs are not in possession of entire suit schedule property as on date of filing of suit.

13.The admissions of PW1 during the course of his cross examination also clarifies about acquiring land of Ac.01-12 gts of land by Govt., from the possession of their father and that their father also received compensation of Rs.50,312/-.

This fact of acquiring land of Ac.01-12 gts from the possession of their father is not revealed by the plaintiffs in their plaint and also the relationship between plaintiffs and defendant No.1 is not disclosed in the plaint, which clearly goes to manifest that plaintiffs did not approach this court with clean hands and suppressed material facts. It is settled law that injunction is an equitable relief and a person who approaches the court seeking equitable relief has to do equity. The conduct of plaintiffs as discussed supra, would goes to demonstrate that they suppressed material facts, as such, are not entitled to the equitable relief of injunction.

14.It is true that the documents relied upon by the defendants under Ex.B1 to

B17 do not disclose that they are in possession of Ac.01-12 gts of land in

Sy.No.80/Kha 2B and shows their possession in respect of other sub-division number. However, in a suit for injunction, the burden is on the plaintiffs to establish that they are in lawful possession of suit schedule properties as on date of filing of suit and cannot depend upon the weakness of defendants case and as discussed supra plaintiffs failed to prove their lawful possession over the entire 10 Of 11

OS.No.24/2016

suit schedule A and B properties and are also guilty of suppression of material facts. Hence, suit is liable to be dismissed but with costs as defendants were unnecessarily made to run from pillar to post for the past 6 years. These issues are answered in favour of defendants and against the plaintiffs.

15.In the result, suit is dismissed with costs.

Typed to my dictation by P.A., corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this, the 29th day of March, 2022.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

BICHKUNDA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiffs:

PW1: Uttarwar Veeresham.

For Defendants:

DW1: Bhagirthi Bai.

DW2: Narayana.

D OCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiffs:

Ex.A1: Original title deed bearing No.145789 of Patta No.804 of plaintiff No.1

Ex.A2: Original pattadar passbook bearing No.145789 of patta No.804 of plaintiff No.1.

Ex.A3: Original pattadarpassbook bearing No.145789 of patta No.804 of plaintiff

No.2.

Ex.A4: Original title deed bearing No.145790 of patta No.803 of plaintiff No.2.

Ex.A5: Original mutation proceedings issued by Tahsildar, Madnoor in favour of plaintiff No.1 dated 02-04-2015.

Ex.A6: Original mutation proceedings issued by Tahsildar, Madnoor in favour of plaintiff No.2 dated 05-10-2015.

Ex.A7: Digitalized copy of pahani for the fasli 1426, dated 16-07-2016 of plaintiff No.1.

Ex.A8: Digitalized copy of pahani for the fasli 1426, dated 16-07-2016 of plaintiff No.1.

Ex.A9: Digitalized copy of pahani for the fasli 1426, dated 16-07-2016 of plaintiff No.2.

Ex.A10: Digitalized copy of pahani for the fasli 1426, dated 16-07-2016 of plaintiff No.2.

11 Of 11

OS.No.24/2016

For Defendants:

Ex.B1: Original old title deed of defendant No.1 bearing patta No.131.

Ex.B2: Orders passed by the RDO, Bodhan dated 06-09-2019.

Ex.B3: Original Form-D issued by MRO dated 21-04-2003.

Ex.B4: Digitalized copy of pahani for the fasli, 2019 dated 31-01-2020 of defendant No.1.

Ex.B5: Certified copy of Form-I abstract.

Ex.B6: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1980-81.

Ex.B7: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1990-91.

Ex.B8: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2001-02.

Ex.B9: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2010-11.

Ex.B10: Original new pattedar cum title deed of defendant No.1 bearing No.T12120020093.

Ex.B11: Old pattedar passbook of father of plaintiffs vide patta No.178.

Ex.B12: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2008-09.

Ex.B13: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2009-10.

Ex.B14: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2010-11.

Ex.B15: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2012-13.

Ex.B16: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2013-14.

Ex.B17: Certified copy of Ad-interim Injunction order dated 04-10-2012.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

BICHKUNDA.

1 of 8

CC.No.130/2016

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, BICHKUNDA

Present:- Sri. D. Rama Mohan Reddy,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Bichkunda.

Dated, this the 16th day of May, 2022.

CC.No.130 of 2016

Between:-

The State through, SHO Police Station, Bichkunda in Crime No.08 of 2016.

...Complainant.

AND

Bhudwade Baban @ Rajaram, S/o. Dhondiram, Age:20 years, Caste:Koli (Tenugu), Occ: Labour, R/o. Babhalgaon of Lathur Tq., & District, Maharashtra State.

...Accused.

This case coming before me on 12-05-2022 for final hearing in the presence of Learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the complainant and Sri K.Lakshman Rao, Advocate for accused and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day this Court delivered the following :-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Bichkunda filed charge sheet against accused in Cr. No.08 of 2016 of his station for the offences punishable U/Sec.457 & 380 of IPC

2.In a nutshell the case of the prosecution is that on 16-01-2016 at 17:00 hrs PW.1 came to Bichkunda P.S., and lodged a report by alleging that in view of

Sankrathi festival, on 10-01-2016 at about 14:00 hrs he left the village duly locking his house and went to his native place Pedda Takli of Madnoor Mandal along with his family members. On 16-01-2016 at about 13:00 hrs he received telephonic message from one Ennawar Srinivas that the lock of the main gate was locked but the lock of his house is broke opened, as such, he immediately returned to his house and found the same and then he entered into his house and found that some unknown offenders gained entry into his house by opening the lock and committed theft of net cash of Rs.1000/- and gold necklace (small) weighing ½ tula worth of Rs.7,500/- and decamped with booty.

2 of 8

CC.No.130/2016

Basing on the report of PW1, LW10/G.Nagraju registered a case in crime

No.08 of 2016 U/s.457 & 380 of IPC and investigated into.

During the course of investigation, LW10/G.Nagraju recorded the statement of PW.1 and he visited scene of offence and recorded the statement of

LW2/Gaikwad Suneetha and by securing PW.2 and LW6/Takoor Shahipal Singh conducted scene of offence panchanama by drawing a rough sketch in CDF and then he has sent RM’s to all the SI’s in Telangana and also sent search parties to all the direction to apprehend the local MO criminals, but no clues was found.

Later Lw10/G.Nagraju secured the presence of LW3/Yennawar Srinivas and

LW4/Wagmare Venkat Gonda recorded their statements but they also corroborated the version of PW1. On 13-06-2016 Lw10/G.Nagraju received information from the PW4 that on 13-06-2016 in the morning at about 06:00 hours while PW4 along with his staff performing vehicle checking at Chinna Shakkarga X

Road, apprehended the accused/Bhudwade Baban @ Rajaram and on enquiry the said person confessed about commission of offence pertaining to Cr.No.25/2016

U/sec.454, 380 IPC of P.S., Madnoor as such PW4 secured the presence of PW3 and Lw8/Shaik Azmeer recorded confession of accused. The accused has confessed that on 19-02-2016 he broke open the locks of one house at Menoor village and committed theft of net cash of Rs.50,000/- and one Micromax cell

phone and decamped with booty.. Accused further confessed that he has used

the entire cash of Rs.50,000/- for his personal expenses.

Accused further confessed that one month prior to commission of the above offence i.e., 15-01-2016 he committed theft of one necklace weighing about ½ tula and net cash of Rs.1,000/- in a house at Bichkunda village near Ambedkar

Chowrasta. PW4 seized amount of Rs.1,900/- from accused as the remaining amount of sale proceeds of necklace was used by him for his personal necessities.

After recording the panchanama PW.4 effected his arrest by following the procedure contemplated U/Sec.50 of Cr.P.C and produced before this court for judicial custody. After completion of investigation LW10/G.Nagaraju laid charge sheet against accused for the offences punishable U/sec.457 & 380 of IPC.

3 of 8

CC.No.130/2016

3.This Court took cognizance of the offences punishable U/s.457 & 380 of IPC.

against accused. On appearance of the accused copies of documents in this case were furnished to him as contemplated U/Sec. 207 of Cr.p.c.

4.Accused is examined U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C., which was denied. Charges framed for the offences punishable U/sec.457 & 380 of IPC was read over and explained to him, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial prosecution examined PWs.1 to 4 and got exhibited Exs.P1 and P2. Learned APP given up the evidence of LWs.3, 4, 8 and

10. PW.1 is the complainant. PW2 are witness to scene of offence panchanama.

PW3 is the witness for confession. PW.4 is the investigating officer and recovered the stolen property. Ex.P1 is the report lodged by PW.1. Ex.P2 signature of PW2 on scene of offence panchanama.

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused was examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating material against him for which accused pleaded that all such evidence is false and reported no defense evidence.

7.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record. Learned APP.

submitted to pass Judgment on merits. Learned counsel for defence submitted that PW1 himself stated before the court that police obtained his signatures on blank papers and that the report is not the one lodged by him, as such, accused is falsely implicated in this case. PW2 clearly admitted that he signed on panchanama at P.S., as such, scene of offence panchanama was not conducted at the house of PW1 and also that PW3 is a stock witness to the prosecution, as such, his testimony cannot be relied. Therefore prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

8.Now the points for determination of the case is :

1. Whether the accused on 16-01-2016 gained entry into the house of PW.1 by breaking the locks of doors in order to commit theft ?

2. Whether the accused committed theft of cash of Rs.1,000/-and gold necklace (Small) weighing ½ tula worth of Rs.7,500/- from the house of PW.1 on 16-01-2016 ?

9. POINTS No.1 and 2 :

As both these points are interwoven and as evidence is common, both the 4 of 8

CC.No.130/2016

points are taken up together for convenience. The crux of the prosecution of the case is that accused by breaking the locks of the doors of the house of PW1 entered into the house and committed theft of Rs.1,000/- cash and gold necklace (Small) weighing ½ tula worth of Rs.7,500/-.

The case of the accused is one of total denial.

10.In order to establish its case prosecution examined PWs.1 to 4. PW.1 is the complainant, PW.2 is witness to scene of offence panchanama. PW.3 is the crucial witness and star witness to the prosecution case who is witness to the confession- cum-recovery panchanama of accused. PW.4 is the investigating officer. I gone through the testimonies of PWs.1 to 4.

11.According to PW.1 who is the complainant during the Sankrathi holidays of 2016 he went to his native place by locking the doors of his house and after two days, PW2 informed him over phone that some unknown offenders gained entry into his house and committed theft, as such, he immediately returned to his house and found that locks of the doors of his house was broken and he also noticed that even the lock of bedroom as well as almirah in his house was also broken by unknown offenders. On further observation he noticed that gold necklace of 1 tula, ½ tula ear-ring and cash of Rs.50,000/- were committed theft by unknown offenders, as such, he immediately lodged a report before P.S., Bichkunda. But interestingly on confrontation of the report dated 16-01-2016 he clearly stated that it is not the same report which is lodged by him and that SHO of P.S.,

Bichkunda manipulated contents and obtained his signature by concealing the said report.

During the course of cross examination also he affirmed that the report

dated 16-01-2016 is not the report given by him to P.S., Bichkunda and that

police, Bichkunda obtained his signature on blank papers. He also stated during the course of cross examination that he stated to police that a gold necklace of 1 tula, ½ tula of gold ring and cash of Rs.50,000/- were committed theft by unknown offender. It is also stated by PW1 in the chief examination itself that PW4 stated to him that they did not recover any articles from the custody of accused. From the 5 of 8

CC.No.130/2016

above evidence of PW1 it is apparent that the report lodged by him is not the report i.e., placed or brought on record. PW1 is the person who set the law into motion by filing a report before SHO of P.S., Bichkunda and when he himself clearly stated that the report dated 16-01-2016 is not the report lodged by him

before P.S., Bichkunda the entire case of the prosecution is doubtful and it is not

free from blemish, as rightly contented by the learned counsel for defence.

According to PW.1 unknown offenders committed theft of 1 tula gold necklace, ½ tula ear-ring and cash of Rs.50,000/- but the very case of the prosecution is that unknown offender i.e., accused has committed theft of ½ tula of gold necklace and Rs.1,000/- cash from the house of PW.1. When PW.1 himself clearly stated that PW.4 informed him that they did not recover any articles from the custody of accused it is not known as to how SHO of P.S., Bichkunda i.e., PW.4 is alleging that they have recovered ½ tula of gold necklace and cash of Rs.1,000/- from the possession of accused, as such, the same lays a cloud over the recovery.

12.PW.2 is the witness to the scene of offence panchanama though he supported the prosecution case with regard to intimation given by him to PW.1 but he did not state at all that police have conducted scene of offence panchanama in his presence. During the course of cross examination also it is clearly stated by him that police obtained his signature on scene of offence panchanama at P.S.,

Bihckunda. This statement of PW.2 further enhances serious doubt over the case of prosecution regarding the commission of theft in the house of PW1. If really police conducted scene of offence panchanama at the house of PW1, they ought to have obtained the signature of PW2 at the house of PW1 and not at P.S.,

Bichkunda.

13.The star witness to the prosecution case is PW3 who is witness to the confession-cum-seizure panchanama. According to him in the year, 2016 on one day he was returning from Degloor and was present at Chinna Shakkarga X Road chowrasta and that police Bichkunda was questioning accused and also that accused confessed about commission of theft of Rs.50,000/- and a mobile phone at Menoor and also further confessed that he committed theft of Rs.1,000/- cash 6 of 8

CC.No.130/2016

and ½ tula gold at Bichkunda. It is also stated by him that after the confession of accused he was possessing one mobile phone and cash of Rs.1,900/- which was seized by police in his presence.

During the course of cross examination of PW.3 it is clearly elicited that accused committed theft in a house of Thukaram Goud at Menoor Village which is adjacent to high way road and it is also admitted by him that Thukaram Goud is his villager. This statement of PW3 makes his testimony unreliable because the very charge sheet do not disclose that accused committed theft in the house of

Thukaram Goud. Even the confession of accused also do not disclose about commission of theft in the house of Thukaram Goud. It is very strange that accused who is an unknown person stated about the name of the owner of the house in which he committed theft. No person who committed theft would be knowing the details of owner of the house in which he committed theft unless he has prior acquaintance with such owner. Accused in the present has no prior acquaintance with Thukaram Goud nor he is resident of Bichkunda or Menoor.

This statement itself raises any amount of doubt over the trustworthiness of PW3.

Crucially there is no statement by PW3 about the selling of ½ tula of gold necklace to some unknown person for an amount of Rs.5,000/- which is patent from the confession of accused. PW3 also clearly stated that the cash seized from the accused was in the denomination of Rs.100/- notes. But perusal of the

Form.60 clearly discloses that the denomination of the property that is deposited

before the court is one five hundred rupee note and fourteen hundred rupees

notes. Hence, it can be clearly inferred that entire recovery in the presence of

PW3 itself is doubtful.

14.Coming to the testimony of PW4 who is the investigating officer who stated that on 19-02-2016 he received a report from Patan Thukaram Goud of Menoor village regarding commission of theft in his house and that he registered a case at

P.S., Madnoor in Cr.No.25/2016 and took up investigation and during the course of investigating he apprehended the accused and conducted confession-cum-seizure panchanama. And basing on the confession of accused LW10 registered a case at 7 of 8

CC.No.130/2016

P.S., Bihckunda in Cr.No.08/2016 and that he recovered an amount of Rs.1,900/- from the possession of accused. It is clearly admitted by him that to perform vehicle checking duty he would cause an entry in the G.D and proceed to the spot and also that he caused an entry in G.D. and proceeded to Chinna Shakkarga X

Roads. He stated that he cannot say the registration number of any of the vehicle he checked on 13-06-2016 and also that he cannot say how many vehicles he has checked at Chinna Shakkarga X Roads on 13-06-2016 and also as to how many vehicles he has collected fine amount who contravened the M.V. Act. From the perusal of the said testimony of PW4 in the very chief examination itself he did not state about conducting of vehicle checking at Chinna Shakkarga X Roads which as per the charge sheet is apparent. Further he could not disclose any details of the vehicle checked or fines imposed on the violators in such vehicle checking from which it manifests a doubt about his presence at Chinna Shakkarga

X Roads and conducted any vehicle checking where he recovered cash of

Rs.1,900/- from accused, the same assumes significance from the testimony of

PW1 according to whom PW4 stated that he did not recover any article or property from the custody of accused.

14.Above all, testimony of PW4 is not in consonance with section 27 of Indian

Evidence Act as to the recovery. Bald statement that PW4 recovered stolen property from the accused is not sufficient to establish the nexus of accused with the offences alleged. If really accused committed theft of stolen property from the house of PW1 by breaking the locks of their doors, finger prints of accused would be definitely available either on doors or on the house hold articles or on the almirah from which accused said to have committed theft of cash and gold. Even perusal of rough sketch drawn by PW.4 do not disclose about breaking of the doors or atleast the broken lock. Neither PW.3 nor PW.4 atleast deposed that accused confessed about spending of remaining amount for his necessities.

However, as discussed supra, as the presence of PW.3 at Chinna Shekkarga

X roads itself is doubtful and as testimony of IO. is not convincing regarding recovery of stolen property from the possession of accused, therefore, I hold that 8 of 8

CC.No.130/2016

prosecution failed to prove the recovery of stolen property from the accused beyond reasonable doubt and consequently the offences alleged against him.

Accordingly these points are answered against the prosecution and in favour of accused.

15.In the light of above discussion, I hold that as prosecution failed to prove the seizure of Rs.1,900/- from accused, beyond reasonable doubt and consequently failed to prove the guilt of accused for the offences with which he is charged.

16.In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offences punishable

U/sec.457 and 380 of IPC and he is acquitted of the same Under Section 248(1) of

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months from this day as provided U/Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. PW.1 is entitled to take return of cash of Rs.1,900/-(Rupees One Thousand and Nine Hundred Only) after the lapse of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by P.A., corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 16th day of May, 2022.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Bichkunda.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW-1: Gaikwad Sailu - None - PW-2: Yennawar Janardhan PW-3: Zubrer Suresh PW-4: M.Kashinath.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

Ex.P-1: Report of the PW1-NIL- Ex.P-2: Signature on scene of offence panchanama by PW2.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-Nil-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Bichkunda.

1 Of 4

CC.No.37/2021

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, BICHKUNDA

Present:- Sri D. Rama Mohan Reddy,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Bichkunda.

On this the 16th day of May, 2022.

C.C.No.37 of 2021

Between:-

The State through, SHO Police Station, Jukkal in Crime No.10 of 2019.

...Complainant.

AND

A1-Kummari Chinna Gangaram, S/o. Kummari Chinna Lingaiah @ Linganna, Age:32 years, Caste:Kummari, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Wajidnagar Village of Bichkunda Mandal, Kamareddy District.

A3-Kummari Balavva, W/o.Chinna Lingaiah, Age:60 years, Caste:Kummari, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Wajidnagar Village of Bichkunda Mandal, Kamareddy District.

A5-Kummari Gangamani, W/o. Kummari Gangaram, Age:40 years, Caste:Kummari, Occ: Household, R/o. Edgi Village, Birkur Mandal, Kamareddy District.

A6-Kummari Gangaram, S/o. Balaiah, Age:45 years, Caste:Kummari, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Barang Edgi Village of Birkur Mandal, Kamareddy District.

...Accused Nos.1, 3, 5 & 6.

This case coming before me on 16-05-2022 for final hearing in the presence of Learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the complainant and none appeared for accused persons and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day this Court delivered the following :-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Jukkal filed charge sheet against accused

Nos.1, 3, 5 & 6 in Cr.No.10 of 2019 of his station for the offences punishable

U/sec. 498-A, 323, 506 of IPC.

2.PW1 filed private complaint before the court by alleging that the marriage of PW1 with A1 was solemnized in the year, 2015 at Wajeednagar village of

Bichkunda Mandal as per prevailing customs in their community and that at the time of marriage cash of Rs.1,00,000/-, house hold articles of worth

Rs.50,000/- and (3) tulas gold ornaments were presented to the accused No.1 and his family members towards dowry and during their wedlock they are blessed with 2 children namely Shashanth and Gayathri. After the birth of 2 Of 4

CC.No.37/2021

second child, A1 started consuming alcohol daily and developed illegal contact with one Kummari Rukmini and spend money on her and as well as for his bad habits, A1 turned alcoholic and used to beat PW1. Every day A1 in intoxication condition, tortured PW1 physically and mentally at the instance of his family members i.e., Kummari Linganna, Kummari Balavva, Kummari Gangamani,

Kummari Gangaram and his concubine Kummari Rukmini by demanding to bring

additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- for their luxury life. Accused Nos.5 & 6 used to

stay at Wajeednagar and they also demanded PW1 to bring additional dowry. But

PW1 tolerated all the ill-treatment and harassment of the above said persons. In the month of September, 2018 all the above said persons beat the PW1 mercilessly, snatched her gold and silver ornaments from her and necked her from their house along with her children. Since then PW1 is residing at her parents house at Ladegaon village. After that, parents of PW1 and village elders held panchayath and convinced the accused persons not to harass PW1 and advised them to take back PW1 and her children. But A1 did not heed the request of the elders. On 21-12-2018 at 1:00 PM, the accused persons came to

Ladegaon village by engaging auto and demanded additional dowry of

Rs.2,00,000/- and beat PW1 mercilessly and also threatened her with dire consequences to kill her, if she did not bring additional dowry. In the meantime the village elders Kummari Balaiah, Biradar Digambar Rao, Peershetty Bhumaiah rescued her from the clutches of the accused.

The above private compliant was referred to Police, Jukkal U/sec.156 (3) of

Cr.P.C, basing on which, LW13/B.Abhilash registered a case in Cr.No.10/2019

U/sec.498-A, 323, 506 of IPC & Sec.156 (3) Cr.P.C and took up investigation.

During the course of investigation on 14-02-2020 LW13/B.Abhilash visited

Ladegaon village and recorded statements of PW1 and Lws.2 to 5 and in the of presence of Lws.11 & 12 conducted scene of offence panchanama by drawing a rough sketch. On 06-03-2019, LW13/B.Abhilash visited Wajidnagar village and recorded the statements of Lws.6 to 10. On 20-03-2019, LW13/B.Abhilash served notice to A1 U/sec. 41(A) Cr.P.C. On 25-06-2020, LW14/R.Dathatri Goud assumed 3 Of 4

CC.No.37/2021

charge of P.S., Jukkal and took up further investigation into this case and on 28- 07-2020, LW14/R.Dathatri Goud issued notice to A3, A5 and A6 U/sec.41(A) Cr.P.C.

After completion of investigation LW14/R.Dathatri Goud laid charge sheet against accused Nos.1, 3, 5 & 6 for the offences punishable U/sec.498-A, 323, 506 of IPC.

3.This Court took cognizance of the offences punishable U/sec.498-A, 323, 506 of IPC. against A1, A3, A5 & A6. On appearance of the A1, A3, A5 & A6 copies of documents in this case were furnished to them as contemplated U/sec.207 of

Cr.P.C.

4.Accused Nos.1, 3, 5 & 6 were examined U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C., which was denied. Charges framed for the offences punishable U/s.498-A, 323 & 506 of IPC, were read over and explained to them, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, prosecution examined Pw1 and got exhibited

Exs.P1 & P2. Learned APP given up the evidence of Lws.2 to 14, as material witness did not support the prosecution case.

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, as no incriminating evidence appeared against the accused No.1, 3, 5 & 6 as such, examination as contemplated U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. was dispensed with.

7.Heard and perused record.

8.Now the points for determination of the case is :

“ Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused Nos.1, 3, 5 & 6 for the offences punishable U/sec.498-A, 323 & 506 of IPC ? ”

9. POINT:

In order to establish its case prosecution examined PW1. PW.1, who is the complainant deposed that she do not know anything about the case and due to petty disputes between her and A1, she filed private complaint against accused.

In spite of cross examination of PW1 by the learned APP with the permission of this Court, nothing material could be elicited as PW1 stood intact and destructed the prosecution case. Since material witness turned hostile to the version of prosecution case, learned APP. given up the evidence of LW2/Kummari

Balaiah, LW.3/Kummari Satyavva, LW4/Biradar Digambar, LW5/Peershetty 4 Of 4

CC.No.37/2021

Bheemaiah, LW6/Battu Venkat Rao, LW7/Gunde Mogulaiah, LW8/Mangalagiri

Mallappa @ Mallikarjun, LW9/Jalla Balaiah, LW10/Bandi Ramesh, LW11/Konure

Balaji @ Kishore, LW12/Devkate Rajashekar, LW13/B.Abhilash and LW14/R.Dathatri

Goud, as no purpose would be served in examining them. Thus absolutely there is no iota of evidence against the accused No.1, 3, 5 & 6 to establish their guilt.

Prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of accused No.1, 3, 5 & 6 with which they are charged. Accordingly this point is answered against the prosecution and in support of accused No.1, 3, 5 & 6.

10.In the result, accused Nos.1, 3, 5 & 6 are found not guilty of offences punishable U/Sec.498-A, 323 & 506 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted under Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused Nos.1, 3, 5 & 6 shall be in force for a period of six months from this day as provided U/Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

Since no material objects were produced before the court, no order need to be passed.

Typed to my dictation by P.A., corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 16th day of May, 2022.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Bichkunda.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW-1: Kummari Anjavva. - None -

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

Ex.P-1: Private Complaint vide Crl.M.P.No.12/2019 -NIL-

Ex.P-2: Sec.161 of Cr.P.C. Statement of PW1.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Bichkunda.

1 Of 4

CC.No.115/2018

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE: BICHKUNDA

Present:- Sri D. Rama Mohan Reddy,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Bichkunda.

Dated, this the 23rd day of May, 2022.

C.C.No.115 of 2018

Between:-

The State through, SHO Police Station, Madnoor in Crime No.53 of 2018.

...Complainant.

AND A1-Bogdewar Nagu @ Naganath, S/o. Bogdewar Shanker, Age:38 years, Caste:Lingayath, Occ:Agriculture, R/o. H.No.2-49/2, Pedda Shakkarga Village of Madnoor Mandal, Kamareddy District.

A2-Bogdewar Maruthi, S/o. Bogdewar Baswanth Rao, Age:78 years, Caste:Lingayath, Occ:Agriculture, R/o. H.No.2-49/2, Pedda Shakkarga Village of Madnoor Mandal, Kamareddy District.

A3-Bogdewar Umakanth, S/o. Bogdewar Hanmanth Rao, Age:30 years, Caste:Lingayath, Occ:Agriculture, R/o. H.No.2-36/1, Pedda Shakkarga Village of Madnoor Mandal, Kamareddy District.

A4-Bogdewar Nilikanth @ Kamtu, S/o. Bogdewar Vittal Rao, Age:37 years, Caste:Lingayath, Occ:Agriculture, R/o. H.No.2-49/3, Pedda Shakkarga Village of Madnoor Mandal, Kamareddy District.

A5-Bogdewar Gangadhar @ Gangu, S/o. Bogdewar Nagappa, Age:55 years, Caste:Lingayath, Occ:Agriculture, R/o. H.No.2-36, Pedda Shakkarga Village of Madnoor Mandal, Kamareddy District.

...Accused Nos.1 to 5

This case coming before me on 19-05-2022 for final hearing in the presence of Learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the complainant and Sri M.Laksshman Rao, Advocate for accused Nos.1 to 5 and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day this Court delivered the following :-

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

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Madnoor filed charge sheet against accused

Nos.1 to 5 in Cr.No.53 of 2018 of his station for the offences punishable

U/sec.324, 448, 504 r/w Sec.34 of IPC.

2.In a small compass the case of the prosecution is that on 27-05-2018 at 21:00 hours PW1 came to P.S., and lodged a report alleging that she asked accused No.1 that “why he is tying his she-buffalo in-front of her house”, over which, A1 to A5 entered into the house of PW1 and beat her with hands and chappals, as such, her bangles were broken and she received bleeding injury.

2 Of 4

CC.No.115/2018

Basing on the report of the PW1, LW9/MD. Sajidullah registered a case in

Cr.No.53/2018 for the offences punishable U/sec.324, 448, 504 r/w Sec.34 of IPC and entrusted to LW8/T.Venkatrao for further investigation.

During the course of investigation LW8/T.Venkatrao recorded the statement of PW1. On 28-05-2018, LW8/T.Venkatrao visited the scene of offence situated at

Pedda Shakkarga village where he conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of LW5/Pichewar Baswaraj and LW6/Biradhar Babu Patel and drawn a rough sketch and also seized one cheppal from scene. Later, LW8/T.Venkatrao recorded the statements of LW’s.2 to 4. On 09-06-2018, A1 to A5 came to P.S.

and surrendered themselves and voluntarily confessed about the commission of this offence, then LW9/MD. Sajidullah served notices U/sec.41-A Cr.P.C on the accused persons, with instructions to appear either before the police or before the court. After completion of investigation LW9/MD. Sajidullah laid charge sheet against A1 to A5 for the offences punishable U/sec.324, 448, 504 r/w Sec.34 of

IPC.

3.This Court took cognizance of the offences punishable U/sec.324, 448 r/w

Sec.34 of IPC against accused Nos.1 to 5. On appearance of the accused Nos.1 to 5 copies of documents in this case were furnished to them as contemplated

U/sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

4.Accused Nos.1 to 5 are examined U/Sec.251 of Cr.P.C., which was denied.

Charges framed U/sec.323, 448 r/w Sec.34 of IPC were read over and explained to them, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial prosecution examined PW’s.1 & 2 and got exhibited Exs.P1 to P3. Learned APP given up the evidence of LW’s. 2, 4 to 7.

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, no incriminating evidence appeared against the accused Nos.1 to 5, as such, examination as contemplated

U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. was dispensed with.

7.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record.

8.Now the points for determination of the case is :

“Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused Nos.1 to 5 for the offences punishable U/sec.323, 448 r/w Sec.34 of IPC ?” 3 Of 4

CC.No.115/2018

9. POINT: In order to establish its case prosecution examined PW1, deposed that about three years back one day in the evening an altercation took place between

A1 to A5 and her. Except this, she do not know anything about this case.

10.PW2 deposed that he do not know anything about the case, he never witnessed any accident.

11.In spite of cross examination of PW’s.1 & 2 by the learned APP with the permission of this Court, nothing material could be elicited as PW’s. 1 & 2 stood intact and destructed the prosecution case. Since material witnesses turned hostile to the version of prosecution case, learned APP. given up the evidence of

LW2/Shakpale Hanmanth, LW4/Gourishetty Shiva, LW5/Pichewar Baswaraj,

LW6/Biradhar Babu Patel, LW7/Dr.Laxman, LW8/T.Venkatrao and LW9/MD.

Sajidullah, as no purpose would be served in examining them. Thus absolutely there is no iota of evidence against the accused Nos.1 to 5 to establish their guilt.

Prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of accused Nos.1 to 5 with which they are charged. Accordingly this point is answered against the prosecution and in support of accused Nos.1 to 5.

12.In the result, accused Nos.1 to 5 are found not guilty of offences punishable

U/Sec.323, 448 r/w Sec.34 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted under

Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused Nos.1 to 5 shall be in force for a period of six months from this day as provided U/Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the P.A., transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 23rd day of May, 2022.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Bichkunda.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW-1: Gourishetty Vijay bai. - None -

PW-2: G. Shiva.

4 Of 4

CC.No.115/2018

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

Ex.P-1: Signature on report dated 27-05-2018 -NIL-

Ex.P-2: The 161 of Cr.p.c. Statement of PW.1.

Ex.P-3: The 161 of Cr.p.c. Statement of PW.2.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Bichkunda.

1 of 4

CC.No.129 /2017

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE BICHKUNDA.

Present:­ Sri. D. Rama Mohan Reddy,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Bichkunda.

Dated, this the 29th day of March, 2022.

C.C.No.129 of 2017

Between:­

The State through, SHO Police Station, Jukkal in Crime No.17 of 2017.

...Complainant.

AND A1:Devkathe Narsingh, S/o. Gangadhar, Ahr:29 years, Caste:BC­Hatkar, Occ:Agriculture, R/o. Chandegoan Village of Jukkal Mandal.

A2:Devkathe Ganapathi, S/o. Maruthi, Age:63 years, Caste:BC­Hatkar, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Chandegoan Village of Jukkal Mandal.

...Accused Nos.1 & 2.

This case coming before me on 25­03­2022 for final hearing in the presence of Learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the complainant and Sri A.Prakash, Advocate

for accused person and the matter having been heard and stood over for

consideration till this day this Court delivered the following :­

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Jukkal filed charge sheet against accused

Nos.1 & 2 in Cr.No.17 of 2017 of his station for the offences punishable

U/sec.290, 324 r/w Sec.34 of IPC.

2.In a small compass the case of the prosecution is that on 11­03­2017 at about 16:00 hours PW1 came to P.S., and lodged a report alleging that on 10­03­ 2017 at about 17:00 hrs was chating with his villagers i.e., Pws.2, 3 and other at

Hanuman Mandir. Meanwhile, A2/Devkathe Ganapathi came there in a drunken condition and abused him in filthy language keeping previous grudges in his mind and when PW1 requested him not to interfere and leave the place but

A1/Devkathe Narsingh who was present there pelted stones on PW1, due to which he received injuries on his head and left hand. PW1 lodged a report on 11­ 03­2017 as village elders convinced him not to lodge report on the date of incident.

2 of 4

CC.No.129/2017

Basing on the report of the PW1, LW9/A. Ravi Kumar registered a case in

Cr.No.17/2017 for the offences punishable U/sec.290, 324 r/w Sec.34 of IPC and took up investigation.

During the course of investigation LW9/A. Ravi Kumar examined and recorded the statements of Pw1 and referred him to the hospital for treatment and later visited scene of offence and recorded the statements of Pw2, 3 and 4 and

Lw4/Shinde Narsingh and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of Lw6/Shinde Baburao and LW7/Sandeep Nagurao by drawing rough sketch in

CDF and seized 3 stones. On 21­03­2017 LW9/A. Ravi Kumar issued Sec.41 A

Cr.P.C notice to accused, received wound certificates from LW8/ . After completion of investigation LW9/A.Ravi Kumar laid charge sheet against A1 & A2 for the offence punishable U/sec.290, 324 r/w Sec.34 of IPC.

3.This Court took cognizance of the offences punishable U/s.290, 324 r/w

Sec.34 of IPC against accused Nos.1 & 2. On appearance of the accused Nos.1 & 2 copies of documents in this case were furnished to him as contemplated U/sec.207 of Cr.P.C.r

4.Accused Nos.1 & 2 are examined U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C., which was denied.

Charges framed U/sec.290, 324 r/w Sec.34 of IPC were read over and explained to them, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial prosecution examined Pws.1 to 4 and got exhibited

Exs.P1 to P5. Learned APP given up the evidence of Lws.4, 6 to 9.

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, no incriminating evidence appeared against the accused Nos.1 & 2 as such, examination as contemplated U/Sec.313 of

Cr.P.C. was dispensed with.

7.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record.

8.Now the points for determination of the case is : 

3 of 4

CC.No.129/2017

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused Nos.1 & 2 for the offences punishable U/sec.290, 324 r/w Sec.34 of IPC ?

9. POINT:

In order to establish its case prosecution examined Pws.1 to 4. PW.1, deposed that he do not know anything about the case, he never sustained any injury and police obtained his signature on the blank papers. 

10.Pws.2 to 4 in one word deposed that they do not know anything about the case.

11.In spite of cross examination of Pws.1 to 4 by the learned APP with the permission of this Court, nothing material could be elicited as Pws. 1 to 4 stood intact and destructed the prosecution case. Since material witnesses turned hostile to the version of prosecution case, learned APP. given up the evidence of

Lw4/Shinde Narsingh, LW6/Shinde Baburao, LW7/Sandeep Nagurao,

LW8/Dr.Jyothishuba and LW9/A.Ravi Kumar, as no purpose would be served in examining them. Thus absolutely there is no iota of evidence against the accused

Nos.1 & 2 to establish their guilt. Prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of accused Nos.1 & 2 with which they are charged. Accordingly this point is answered against the prosecution and in support of accused Nos.1 & 2.

12.In the result, accused Nos.1 & 2 are found not guilty of offences punishable

U/Sec.290, 324 r/w Sec.34 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted under

Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused Nos.1 & 2 shall be in force for a period of six months from this day as provided U/Sec.437­A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in

the open court on this the 29th day of March, 2022. 

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Bichkunda.

4 of 4

CC.No.129/2017

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW­1: I. Sambaji. ­ None ­ PW­2: P. Pandari. PW­3: K. Narayana. PW­4: H. Anil.

 EXHIBITS MARKED 

For Prosecution: For Defence:

Ex.P­1: Signature on report dated 11­03­2017 ­NIL­ Ex.P­2: The 161 of Cr.p.c. Statement of PW.1. Ex.P­3: The 161 of Cr.p.c. Statement of PW.2. Ex.P­4: The 161 of Cr.p.c. Statement of PW.3. Ex.P­5: The 161 of Cr.p.c. Statement of PW.4.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

­NIL­

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Bichkunda.