Rita Lalchand

Page 1 of 13 C.C. No. 117 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE AT MEDAK 

Dated this the 20 th day of May, 2022.

Present:­ Smt. Rita Lalchand

Principal Junior Civil Judge Cum 

Judicial First Class Magistrate At 

Medak 

C.C.No. 117 OF 2017

Between :

The State ­ Rep., through the Sub­Inspector of police, P.S. Shankarampet ­R, Medak

…..Complainant. 

A N D

A­1) Yedla Kishtaiah S/o Bagaiah Age: 46 years, Occ: Agriculture A­2) Jala Ravinder S/o Laxmaiah Age: 53 years, Occ: Engineer A­3) L. Rama Krishna S/o Narayana Age: 60 years, Occ: Agriculture A­4) Akula Srinivas S/o Ramulu Age: 43 years, Occ: Advocate A­5) Hema venkatesham S/o Laxmaiah Age: 43 years, Occ: MPTC A­6) K. Satyanarayana Reddy S/o Nagireddy Age: 56 years, Occ: Agriculture A­7) Choudaripally Sailu S/o Nagi Reddy Age: 56 years, Occ: Agriculture A­8) K. Rajireddy S/o Narayana Reddy Age: 36 years, Occ: Agriculture All R/o Shankarampet village and Mandal, Medak. 

 ….. Accused 

This Case is coming before me on 18­05­2022 for final hearing in the presence of learned Public Prosecutor, for the Complainant; and Sri. M. Balaiah, Advocate for the accused and after perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

Page 2 of 13 C.C. No. 117 of 2017

: : J U D G M E N T : : 

1.The Sub­Inspector of Police, PS. Shankarampet­R, filed charge sheet in Crime No. 12 of 2017 for the offence punishable under

Section 353, 427, 506, 188 Indian Penal Code.

2. The brief averments of the prosecution case is that: The defacto­complainant/M. Bhoopal lodged a complaint on 01­02­2017 at 09­30 hours stating that on 01­02­2017 at 07­30 hours, as instructed by Sub Inspector of Police, he along with PW­2 and PW­6 came near the new office of gram panchayath for bandobust duty for

Deputy Speaker. It was stated that when they were performing their duty, the accused came near them and obstructed their duties and damaged the new gram panchayath office inscription. The same was witnessed by the witnesses. As such complaint was lodged, based on which case was registered as Cr.No. 12/2017 for the offence under

Section 353, 427, 506, 188 Indian Penal Code and FIR was issued.

The investigating officer examined and recorded the statement of witness, visited scene of offence and drafted scene of offence panchanama and drew rough sketch. Further, the accused were served with notice under Section 41­A Criminal Procedure Code with a direction to appear before the court on receipt of summons. After

Page 3 of 13 C.C. No. 117 of 2017 completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offence under Section 353, 427, 506, 188 Indian Penal Code.

3.The case was taken on file for the offence under Section 353, 427, 506, 188 Indian Penal Code against accused.

4.After appearance of the Accused, copies of documents were furnished under section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code.

5.The Accused were examined under Section 239 of Criminal

Procedure Code by explaining the substance of accusation in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and hence charges were framed under Section 240 Criminal Procedure Code for the offence under

Section 353, 427, 506, 188 Indian Penal Code, which were explained to them and having understood, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution got examined PW­1 to PW­8 and got marked Ex P­1 to P­6. The details of the documents marked are mentioned in the appendix of evidence. 

Page 4 of 13 C.C. No. 117 of 2017

7.After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code on the incriminating evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses and the accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence. Hence defence evidence was closed. 

8.Heard both sides. Perused the record.

9.Now the point for consideration is 

1. Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the

accused for the offence under Section 353 Indian Penal

Code beyond all reasonable doubts?

2. Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the

accused for the offence under Section 427 Indian Penal

Code beyond all reasonable doubts?

3. Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the

accused for the offence under Section 506 Indian Penal

Code beyond all reasonable doubts?

4. Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the

accused for the offence under Section 188 Indian Penal

Code beyond all reasonable doubts?

Page 5 of 13 C.C. No. 117 of 2017

10. POINT No. 4: Before adverting to the merits of the case, this court intends to look into the section of law under which the accused are charged. Section 188 Indian Penal Code reads as follows:

Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant.

Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management, disobeys such direction, shall, if such disobedience causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any persons lawfully employed, be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both; and if such disobedience causes or tends to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. 

Explanation.—It is not necessary that the offender should intend to produce harm, or contemplate his disobedience as likely to produce harm. It is sufficient that he knows of the order which he disobeys, and that his disobedience produces, or is likely to produce, harm.

Page 6 of 13 C.C. No. 117 of 2017

11.The provision specifically deals with the offence of disobedience to an order duly passed by a public servant. As per this provision, any person who has the knowledge of an order passed by a competent public servant, by which he is directed to abstain from doing any act or a certain direction with respect to property possessed or held by him, disobeys such direction, he shall be liable to be punished under this section. Section 188 is a cognizable offence and thus, apart from powers of arrest without warrant which accrue to the police in such offences, the police can register a FIR and initiate investigation into such offence.

12.However, Section 195(1)(a) Cr.P.C provides that no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 172 to

Section 188 of Indian Penal Code except on a written complaint of the public servant concerned or of his superior. Along with barring private complaints, it also expressly bars a court from taking cognizance of this offence on the basis of a final report by the police.

13.The police authorities ignored the procedure prescribed under section 195 Cr.P.C and directly submitted final report, based on which the court took cognizance of the offence. Even in C Muniappan and

Page 7 of 13 C.C. No. 117 of 2017

Others v. State of Tamil Nadu, the Court elucidated that in a case where the charge is under S. 188 IPC, cognizance by the Court under

Section 195, Cr.P.C, can only be taken on the basis of a complaint in writing by the public servant whose lawful order had been contravened, and if not, the whole proceedings will stand vitiated and will be liable to be set aside. The provision of Section 195, Cr.P.C being mandatory, any non­compliance thereto would necessarily vitiate the entire prosecution. Thus, by virtue of above discussion, the accused cannot be held liable for the offence under Section 188 Indian

Penal Code. 

14. POINT NO 1 TO 3: To avoid repetition of facts and evidence, all the points are considered at once. Here the prosecution shall prove that the accused had assaulted or used criminal force to deter the public servant from discharge of their duty. Further, the prosecution shall prove that the accused have caused mischief causing damage of more than Rupees fifty. Finally the prosecution shall prove that the accused had criminally intimidated to caused injury to person or property. Only if the ingredients of the offence charged are proved, the accused shall be held guilty.

Page 8 of 13 C.C. No. 117 of 2017

15.The case of the prosecution is that the accused had obstructed the police officials from performing their duty appointed for doing bandobust at the new gram panchayath office and damaged the new construction of gram panchayath inscription. 

16.PW­1 deposed that at 07­30 am on instructions of Sub

Inspector he along with other staff went to the foundation stone for new proposed gram panchayath office for conducting Bandobust duty and the Deputy Speaker was the chief guest. He further deposed that meantime, accused/A­1 to A­8 came there and damaged the foundation stone meant for inauguration by the Deputy Speaker. PW­ 1 then informed the incident to Sub Inspector of Police and lodged complaint under Ex P­1. 

17.During cross examination of PW­1, it was elicited that at the time of the incident, PW_1 was performing his duties at the bus stand waiting for arrival of Deputy Speaker and the distance from the place where he was standing and the place of incident is 100 meters. It was further elicited from PW­1 that there was a galata between the members of TRS party and congress party, due to which all fell on the foundation stone and so the stone got damaged. PW_1 clearly deposed that he cannot say as who damaged the foundation stone. Further he

Page 9 of 13 C.C. No. 117 of 2017 admitted that it is for the first time in court he deposed that when he tried to stop the accused, the accused did not hear the words and damaged the foundation stone. Thus, from the evidence it is clear that he is not eye witness to the damage of foundation stone nor his evidence states that he was abused by the accused, nor it states that the duties of PW­1 were stopped by the accused. Hence the evidence of PW­1 is of no help to the prosecution. 

18.The prosecution then examined PW­2, who deposed to be on duty along with PW­1 and further deposed that there was a galata between the TRS party leaders and the accused and they fell on the stone and the foundation stone got damaged. In the cross examination, it was elicited from PW_2 that he was at the distance of 100 meters from the place of incident and that he cannot say how the foundation stone got damaged. Hence the evidence of PW­2 also do not speak about the acts performed by the accused for the offence charged. 

19.PW­3 deposed that at 09­00 am on the day of incident a mob gathered and fell on the foundation stone, due to which it was damaged and that he cannot identify the accused as who damaged the stone. Similarly PW­4 deposed that on the day of incident at 09­00

Page 10 of 13 C.C. No. 117 of 2017 am, the accused came and started galata to not to start the bus stand at the said place. He further deposed that the accused had damaged the incripted foundation stone and also obstructed the police in performing the duty. However, PW_4 did not depose the specific acts of the accused as how they stopped the police from performing their duty. Further, in the cross examination, it was elicited that PW_4 did not state before the police in his Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code statement that the accused damaged the foundation stone and obstructed the police from performing their duty. Hence the evidence of PW­3 and PW­4 are of no help to the prosecution. 

20.PW­6 deposed that he was on bandobust duty on the day of incident and that a galata took place between the congress party and

TRS party and many people i.e., 100 gathered. He further noticed that the foundation stone was damaged. However, he could not depose as how the stone got damaged. PW­6 did not depose any thing about the accused abusing/criminally intimidating the police officials or obstructing them from performing the duty. Similarly, PW­7 deposed that on the day of incident, when he was waiting for arrival of chief guest, public came forward and the stone on which the foundation stone was to be placed was damaged. The police came and cleared the mob. Thereafter the inauguration was completed. PW_7 did not

Page 11 of 13 C.C. No. 117 of 2017 deposed anything to connect the accused with the present crime.

Hence, the evidence of PW­6 and PW­7 is hardly of any help to the prosecution. 

21.PW­8, the investigating officer deposed that he received complaint from PW_1 under Ex P­1 and registered the case as Cr. NO.

12/2017 and issued FIR under Ex P­4. He then examined and recorded the statement of witness, visited scene of offence and drafted scene of offence panchanama and rough sketch under Ex P­5 and P­6 in the presence of PW­5 and LW­8. In support of the same PW­5 was examined by the prosecution. However, he did not support the case of the prosecution and he deposed that his signatures were obtained.

Hence the evidence of PW­5 is of no help to the prosecution. 

22.PW­8 further deposed that he served notice to the accused under Section 41­A Criminal Procedure Code with direction to the accused to appear before the court on receipt of summons and then after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet against the accused. 

23.Thus, from the above evidence, it appears that the witnesses were placed at bandobust duty for inauguration of new gram

Page 12 of 13 C.C. No. 117 of 2017 panchayath office and that a galata took place between the parties, which resulted in damage of the foundation stone. None of the witnesses have deposed about the accused obstructing the duties of public servant or criminally intimidating them. Further in regard to the damage caused, there is no complaint from gram panchayath office and this is admitted by PW­8. PW­8 further admitted that Ex P­ 1 do not discloses the nature of damage caused nor had seized the damaged stone. Further, he had not taken any photographs of the scene of offence to enable the court to ascertain the situation. Added to it, PW­8 admitted to not to examine any of the independent witnesses, which is serious infirmity in the case of prosecution. 

24.Thus, in absence of any independent witness the accused cannot be charged for the offence charged. Hence, it is clear that the prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused for the offence charged and hence the accused are found not guilty for the offence charged. Accordingly, the points are answered. 

Page 13 of 13 C.C. No. 117 of 2017

In the result, the accused are found not guilty for the offence under Section 353, 427, 506, 188 Indian Penal Code and are acquitted under Section 248(1) Criminal Procedure Code . The surety bonds shall remain in force until expiry of appeal period. 

(Typed to my dictation by my personal assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 20th day of May 2022)

Principal Junior Civil Judge Cum 

Judicial First Class Magistrate At Medak 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED 

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE: PW­1: M. Bhoopal ­ Nil ­ PW­2: V. Venu Yadav PW­3: S. Vijay Kumar PW­4: M. Mallesham PW­5: N. Satyanarayana PW­6: Akula Narsimulu PW­7: R. Vijayalaxmi PW­8: R. Prakash Goud

EXHIBITS MARKED 

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: 

Ex P­1: Complaint ­ Nil ­ Ex P­2: Signature of PW­5 on scene of offence panchanama Ex P­3: Signature of PW­5 on rough sketch Ex P­4: FIR Ex P­5: Scene of offence panchanama Ex P­6: Rough sketch 

MATERIAL OBJECTS

­Nil­

Principal Junior Civil Judge Cum

Judicial First Class Magistrate At Medak 

OS. NO. 08/2021 1 14-10-2024

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE –CUM- JUDICIAL

FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE :: AT MEDAK

PRESENT: SMT. RITA LALCHAND

Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-

Judicial First Class Magistrate Medak.

Dated this the 14 th day of October, 2024

OS. NO. 08 of 2021

Between:-

1. Manne Narayana, S/o. Balaiah, Age: 35 yrs, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H. No. 9- 9, Balanagar, Medak Mandal & District.

2. Manne Laxmi @ Gudala Laxmi, W/o. Mallesh, Age: 38 yrs, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Jankampally Village, Medak Mandal & District. …Plaintiffs. A N D

1. Manne Shekulu, S/o. Balaiah, Age: 45 yrs, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H. No. 9-9, Balanagar, Medak Mandal & District.

2. Yelaboina Balamani, W/o. Chandu, Age: 35 yrs, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Rajpally Village, Medak Mandal & District.

...Defendants.

This suit coming before me for final hearing on 24-09-2024 in the presence of Sri. K. Subhash Chandra Goud, Advocate for the plaintiffs and Sri. Maya Venkatesham, Advocate for defendants; and upon perusing the material on record and upon hearing arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day the court made the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit for partition and separate possession to allot share in the suit schedule properties.

2.The averments of the plaint in brief are as follows: The plaintiff stated that one

Manne Balaiah was the kartha of the family who died on 01-06-2013 interstate by leaving his two wives Pedda Pochamma and Chinna Pochamma. The defendants stated to be son and daughters of Pedda Pochamma and the plaintiffs said to be son and daughter of Chinna Pochamma. It was stated that M. Balaiah inherited the land in

OS. NO. 08/2021 2 14-10-2024

Sy. No. 26/AA to an extent of Ac. 0-13 guntas, Sy. No. 86/A to an extent of Ac. 1-10 guntas, Sy. No. 30/109 to an extent of Ac. 0-38 guntas Sy. No. 3/42 to an extent of Ac.

0-20 guntas, Sy. No. 3/45 to an extent of Ac. 0-10 guntas here in after referred as schedule A to E of the suit schedule properties and House No. 9-6 consisting of 250

Sq. Yards herein after referred as schedule F of the suit schedule property. It was stated that the plaintiffs and defendants form joint Hindu undivided family and the property was not partitioned after the death of M. Balaiah. It was stated that on 01-05- 2020, when the plaintiffs demanded partition the defendants refused. The plaintiffs learnt that the name of the defendant no.1 was mutated in revenue records without giving any share to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs stated that when they went to Chittiyal village to reside with their maternal uncle, the defendant no.2 misrepresented the revenue authorities and grabbed the share of the plaintiffs. It was stated that the plaintiffs are in possession of Schedule A of the suit schedule property which includes

Ac. 1-00 of assigned land and Ac. 0-13 guntas of patta land. Since partition was denied, the present suit is filed.

3.The averments of the written statement in brief are as follows: The defendants denied the contention of the plaintiffs and stated that Chinna Pochamma was never the second wife of M. Balaiah and so the plaintiffs are not legal heirs. It was stated that M.

Balaiah had only one wife by name M. Pochamma i.e., mother of the defendants and that the entire stry is cooked up by the plaintiffs. It was contended that the name of the father of the plaintiffs is Durgaiah and that address mentioned by the plaintiffs is also wrong. In support of the same, the defendants stated to have relied upon on the Aadhar card copy and bank account passbook of the plaintiff no.1 which shows the father’s name as Durgaiah. It was further contended that the alleged assigned land was not

OS. NO. 08/2021 3 14-10-2024

included in the suit schedule property and that the plaintiffs have no right over suit schedule properties as they are not the legal heirs of the M. Balaiah. Hence, the defendants prayed to dismiss the suit.

4.Based on rival contentions of the both the parties, this court framed the following issues on 04-02-2022:

1.Whether the plaintiffs and defendants are entitled for share in the suit schedule property as prayed for?

2.If so to what relief?

5.In order to prove the case of the plaintiffs, the plaintiff No 1 got examined himself as

PW-1 and got marked Ex A-1 to A-15. Further, the plaintiffs also got examined one

M. Devaiah as PW-2. The defendants though came forward to cross examine PW-1 partly did not come forward to cross examine PW-2. There is no evidence adduced on behalf of defendants. Hence, evidence of defendants is closed. The details of the documents marked are mentioned in the appendix of evidence.

6.Heard learned counsel for the plaintiffs. Since there is no representation on behalf of the defendants, the arguments of the defendants was treated as heard.

7.ISSUE No 1: It is the case of the plaintiffs that they have share in the suit schedule property and that the defendants denied the same. As it is the plaintiffs who have approached the court, the burden lies on the plaintiffs to prove the case.

8.PW-1 deposed reiterating the contents of the plaint in his chief affidavit. PW-1 deposed that he and plaintiff no.2 are legal heirs of M. Balaiah. PW-1 further deposed that M. Balaiah married twice i.e., P.Pochamma and Chinna Pochamma. From out of the wedlock of M. Balaiah and Pedda Pochamma, defendants were born and from out of the wed lock of M. Balaiah and C. Pochamma, plaintiffs were born. PW-1 further

OS. NO. 08/2021 4 14-10-2024

deposed that M. Balaiah was the owner of the schedule A to F of the suit schedule properties and that his name is mutated in the revenue records. To show that schedule

A to E of the suit schedule property stands in the name of M. Balaiah, PW-1 relied upon Ex. A-1 to A-12. PW-1 deposed that he and plaintiff no.2 demanded partition but the defendants refused partition and so the present suit is filed. PW-2 also deposed on similar lines to that of PW-1.

9.On the other hand, as per the defendants the main contention is that the plaintiffs are not the legal heirs of late M. Balaiah and that the name of the father’s name of the plaintiffs is Durgaiah. In this regard it is pertinent to mention that PW-1 was partly cross examined and a copy of Aadhar card and the bank account passbook of APGVB

Bank was confronted and PW-1 admitted that same belongs to him and the said documents shows the name of father of PW-1 as Durgaiah and not Balaiah. Though the documents are not marked the same were admitted by PW-1 in open court. Thus, a doubt is created that the father’s name of PW-1 and plaintiff no.2 is Durgaiah and so heavy burden lies on the plaintiff to show that the name of their father is Balaiah and not Durgaiah. In this regard no clarification was given by PW-1. However, PW-2 deposed in his chief examination that due to illiteracy the school teacher mentioned the father’s name as Durgaiah who is the maternal uncle of plaintiff no.1 and not

Balaiah. This self serving statement of PW-2 alone is not enough to show that the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of Balaiah. Since the plaintiffs failed to prove that they are the legal heirs of the Late Balaiah, they are not entitled for the relief. Accordingly the issue is answered.

10.ISSUE NO 2: As issue No 1 is answered against the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief.

OS. NO. 08/2021 5 14-10-2024

In the result, the suit is dismissed without cost.

(Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 14 th day of October 2024)

Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-

Judicial First Class Magistrate Medak.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PLAINTIFF

PW-1: Manne Narayana PW-2: M. Devaiah

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENDANT

--Nil—

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF

Ex A-1: True copy of pahani for the year 55-56, 56-57, 57-58

Ex A-2: True copy of pahani for the year 1979-80

Ex A-3: True copy of pahani for the year 1981-82

Ex A-4: True copy of pahani for the year 1985-86

Ex A-5: True copy of pahani for the year 1989-90

Ex A-6: True copy of pahani for the year 2000-01

Ex A-7: True copy of pahani for the year 1994-95

Ex A-8: True copy of pahani for the year 2005-06

Ex A-9: True copy of pahani for the year 2008-09

Ex. A-10: True copy of pahani for the year 2009-10

Ex. A-11: True copy of pahani for the year 2010-11

Ex. A-12: True copy of pahani for the year 2011-12

Ex. A-13: True copy of pahani for the year 1420 (5 pages)

Ex. A-14: True copy of pahani for the year 1427 (4 pages)

Ex. A-15: True copy of pahani for the year 1421

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT

--Nil—

Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-

Judicial First Class Magistrate Medak.

OS. NO. 08/2021 6 14-10-2024

DECREE

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM- JUDICIAL

FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE AT :: MEDAK

Present: SMT. RITA LALCHAND

Principal Junior Civil Judge- cum-

Judicial First Class Magistrate Medak.

Dated this the 14 th day of October, 2024

OS. NO. 08 of 2021

Between:-

1. Manne Narayana, S/o. Balaiah, Age: 35 yrs, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H. No. 9-9, Balanagar, Medak Mandal & District.

2. Manne Laxmi @ Gudala Laxmi, W/o. Mallesh, Age: 38 yrs, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Jankampally Village, Medak Mandal & District. …Plaintiffs. A N D

1. Manne Shekulu, S/o. Balaiah, Age: 45 yrs, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H. No. 9-9, Balanagar, Medak Mandal & District.

2. Yelaboina Balamani, W/o. Chandu, Age: 35 yrs, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Rajpally Village, Medak Mandal & District.

...Defendants.

CLAIM: - Suit for Partition and Separate Possession

Suit presented on: 16-12-2020 Suit filed on : 16-12-2020

Cause of Action: That the Cause of action arose on 01-05-2020 when the plaintiffs demanded for partition and defendants refused for partition.

Suit Valuation & Court Fee:- That the total value of the suit schedule properties valued is Rs 5,51,000/- seeking partition of four equal shares between plaintiff and defendant upon which plaintiffs share comes at Rs. 2,75,500/- upon which a court fee of Rs. 200/- is paid under Section 34(2)(1) of TS CF& SV Act.

OS. NO. 08/2021 7 14-10-2024

This suit coming before me for final hearing on 24-09-2024 in the presence of Sri. K. Subhash Chandra Goud, Advocate for the plaintiffs and Sri. Maya Venkatesham, Advocate for defendants; and upon perusing the material on record and upon hearing arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration doth order and decree as follows:-

In the result, the the suit is dismissed without cost.

Given under my hand and the seal of this court on this the 14 th day of October 2024

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Medak.

COSTS OF SUIT

PlaintiffDefendants 01Stamps of Plaint 02Stamps for power 03 Stamps for Exhibits 04Pleader’s fee 05Service of process 06Miscellaneous

Total

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court on this the 14 th day of October 2024

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Medak

SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTIES

All properties situated at Bollaram Village of Medak Mandal & District.

A- Schedule Property

OS. NO. 08/2021 8 14-10-2024

Sy. No. Extent Boundaries 26/AA 00-13 gts East: Land of Manne Sataiah

West: Land of Katte Kistaiah

North: Land of Katte Kistaiah

South: Land of Jumpala Sudhakar

B- Schedule Property

Sy. No. Extent Boundaries 86/A 01-10 gts East: Road

West: Land of Sattaiah

North: Land of Timakkapally

South: Land of Anjaiah

C- Schedule Property

Sy. No. Extent Boundaries 30/109 00-38 gts East: Land of M. Ramu

West: Land of K. Bashamma, Kistaiah

North: Land of Lambadi Narayana

South: Land of S. Ashok

D- Schedule Property

OS. NO. 08/2021 9 14-10-2024

Sy. No. Extent Boundaries 3/42 00-20 gts East: Land of J. Shyam

West: Road Kalwat

North: Land of Lambadi Chander

South: Vorre Canal

E- Schedule Property

Sy. No. Extent Boundaries 3/45 00-10 gts East: Land of J. Shyam

West: Gajju Baavi & Bondha

North: Land of Anjaiah

South: Manne Balaiah

F- Schedule Property

H. No. Extent Boundaries 9-6 250 Sq. yards open East: Land of Ellari place 30 Sq. yards West: Land of M. Mangamma

North: CC Road

South: Open place & M. Sataiah and Lachaiah

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Medak

C C No. 463 of 2019 1 15-10-2024

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM JUDICIAL FIRST

CLASS MAGISTRATE AT MEDAK

Dated this the 15 th day of October 2024

Present:- Smt. Rita Lalchand

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial First class Magistrate Medak.

C.C.No. 463 OF 2019

Between :

The State - Rep., through the Sub-Inspector of police,

P.S. Medak Town. …..Complainant.

A N D

Duggirala Sai Teja, S/o. Suresh, Age: 22 yrs, Occ: Labour, R/o. H. No. 1-9-11/1/1, Azampura,

Medak Town & District. ….. Accused

This Case is coming before me on 04-10-2024 for final hearing in the presence of learned Public Prosecutor for the Complainant; and Sri. V. Raji Reddy, Advocate for the accused and after perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS. Medak Town filed charge sheet in Crime No. 147/2019 for the offence punishable under Section 354 Indian Penal Code.

2.The brief averments of the prosecution case is that : The defacto complainant lodged complaint on 11-10-2019 on 18:00 hrs stating that she got married with Ashok about 9 years ago and is blessed with one son and daughter. The defacto complainant further stated that since one month her neighbour by name Sai has been harassing her to fulfill his sexual desire and threatening saying that he had recorded video while she was taking bath and in case the defacto complainant does not fulfill his sexual desire he would release the video to others. Due to the said harassment, the defacto complainant said to have committed suicide two times but her husband stopped her. Further, the accused

C C No. 463 of 2019 2 15-10-2024

used to follow her and harass her. As such, complaint was lodged. Based on complaint, case was registered as Cr. No. 147/2019 for the offence under Section 354 Indian Penal

Code. During investigation, witnesses were examined, scene of offence panchanama was drafted and the accused was issued notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C with the direction to appear before the court on receipt of summons. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offence under Section 354 Indian Penal Code.

3.The case was taken on file for the offence under Section 354 Indian Penal Code.

4.After appearance of the Accused, copies of documents were furnished under Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code.

5.The Accused was examined under Section 239 of Criminal Procedure Code for the offence under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code by explaining the substance of accusation in Telugu, for which the accused pleaded not guilty for offence under Section 354 Indian Penal Code and hence charge under Section 240 Criminal Procedure Code was framed against the accused for the offence under Section 354 Indian Penal Code and having understood the same, the accused claimed to be tried.

6.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution got examined PW-1 to

PW-3 and got marked Ex P-1 to P-3. The police filed the death certificate of LW-4 and

LW-5 and hence the evidence of LW-4 and LW-5 were closed. The learned APP gave up the evidence of LW-3/M. Veeramani. The details of the documents marked are mentioned in the appendix of evidence.

7.After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code on the incriminating evidence adduced by the prosecution

C C No. 463 of 2019 3 15-10-2024

witnesses. The accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence. Hence, defence evidence was closed.

8.Heard both sides. Perused the record.

9.Now the point for determination is: Whether the prosecution could able to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 354 Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubts?

10.POINT: Here, the prosecution should prove that the accused has committed an act outraging the modesty of the defacto complainant. Only if the ingredients of the offence charged are proved, the accused can be held guilty of the offence charged.

11.PW-1 deposed that the accused used to come to her house and that there exist a gap near her bath room. She further deposed that she did not know when the accused took her videos of taking bath. PW-1 deposed that based on the said videos, the accused started black mailing her. At one point of time PW-1 tried to committed suicide and when her husband questioned her act and she informed the entire incident to her husband/PW-2.

PW-1 deposed that she along with her husband warned the accused to not to commit such act. But the accused threatened PW-1 that he would send the videos to T. Yellesh who was not having good terms with PW-1 and PW-2. As such, PW-1 lodged complaint under Ex. P-1.

12.PW-2, husband of PW-1, deposed that one day PW-1 committed suicide and when he asked the reason, PW-1 informed him that on 11-06-2019 the accused took her videos when she was taking bath. As such, on the next day PW-2 along with PW-1 went to the police station and lodged complaint stating that the accused black mailed PW-1 by showing the video. PW-3, investigating officer deposed that on 11-06-2019 at 18.00 hrs, he received complaint from PW-1 and registered the case as Cr. No. 147/2019 for the

C C No. 463 of 2019 4 15-10-2024

offence under Section 354 IPC and issued FIR under Ex. P-2. PW-3 further deposed that he examined and recorded the statement of witnesses, visited scene of offence, drafted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of mediators under Ex. P-3. He then apprehended the accused and remanded him to judicial custody and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 354

Indian Penal Code.

13.Thus there exist evidence PW-1 to PW-3 on record to prove the guilt of the accused.

Now It has to be seen as whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts.

14.The main case of the prosecution is that the accused took the video of PW-1 while she was bathing. As such the main evidence is the alleged video said to have been taken by the accused of PW-1. Admittedly, no such video is produced before the court nor the primary evidence i.e., phone is produced before the court to ascertain the contentions.

Added to it, PW-3 investigating officer has clearly deposed that he had neither collected any audio or video or phone or call data in the present case. Non collection of the video or phone based on which the entire case is depended upon is a serious infirmity in the case of the prosecution.

15.PW-1 deposed that her video was taken while she was taking bath and that the accused by showing the video was black mailing her to come to him. In the chief examination,

PW-1 did not depose anything stating that the accused was threatening to fulfill his sexual desire as stated in the complaint. Above that, PW-1 deposed that the accused threatened PW-1 that he would share the videos to one Yellesh who is not having good terms with her and her husband. However, during cross examination it was elicited that

PW-1 had not stated before the police in her Section 161 Cr.P.C statement and that the

C C No. 463 of 2019 5 15-10-2024

accused threatened to send the video to Yellesh and hence the version of PW-1 is an improved version.

16.In regard to the alleged black mail said to have made by accused to PW-1, the contention of the accused is that earlier there was a loan transaction between the parents of the accused on one hand and PW-1 and PW-2 on the other hand. To avoid payment, the present complaint is lodged based on false allegations. No proper evidence is adduced in this regard. However, PW-1 and PW-2 both admitted in the cross examination that there are no good terms between the accused family and PW-1 and PW-2. Thus, a doubt is raised in the mind of court about genuienty of the complaint. Added to it, there is no evidence to show that the bathroom of PW-1 is easily accessible to any person to take a video. In view of the above infirmities, it is clear that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts for the offence charged and hence the accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly the point is answered.

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 354 Indian Penal

Code and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 248[1] Criminal Procedure Code for the above offence. The surety bonds of the accused executed earlier shall stand canceled after lapse of appeal time.

(Typed to my dictation by my personal assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 15th day of October 2024)

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Medak

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW-1: D. Soundarya/Complainant - NIL -

PW-2: D. Ashok/Witness

C C No. 463 of 2019 6 15-10-2024

PW-3: P. Rajashekar/IO

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex. P-1: Complaint/PW-1 - NIL - Ex. P-2: FIR/PW-3 Ex. P-3: Scene of Offence Panchanama/PW-3

MATERIAL OBJECTS

- NIL -

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Medak

CC No 463 of 2019 7 15-10-2024

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS, MEDAK.

C.C.No. 463 OF 2019

1 Name of the Complainant The State - Rep., through the Sub-Inspector of police, PS Medak Town. 2 Name of the AccusedDuggirala Sai Teja, S/o. Suresh, Age: 22 yrs, Occ: Labour, R/o. H. No. 1-9-11/1/1, Azampura, Medak Town & District. 3 Date of Offence 11-06-2019 4 Date of Report 18-06-2019 5 Offence U/sec Section 354 IPC 6 Date of arrest of Accused Sec 41-A CrPC Notice 7 Date of release of Accused Nil 8 Date of Appearance 28-03-2023 9 Commencement of Trial 14-11-2023 10 Closure of Trial 06-05-2024 11 Date of Argument 04-10-2024 12 Date of Judgment 15-10-2024 13 Plea of Accused Total denial of offence 14 Finding Not Guilty 15 ResultIn the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 354 Indian Penal Code and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 248[1]

Criminal Procedure Code for the above offence. The surety bonds of the accused executed earlier shall stand canceled after lapse of appeal time.

16 Remarks ----

Prl. Junior Civil Judge-Cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Medak. To The Hon'ble I Addl. Dist & Sessions Judge, Medak.

OS. NO. 266/2024 1 16-10-2024

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE –CUM- JUDICIAL

FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE :: AT MEDAK

PRESENT: SMT. RITA LALCHAND

Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-

Judicial First Class Magistrate Medak.

Dated this the 16 th day of October, 2024

OS. NO. 266 of 2024

Between:- Yerva Surekha, W/o. Anji Reddy, Age: 45 yrs, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H. No. 1-69, Karnalpally Village, Chegunta Mandal, Medak District. Rep. By her GPA Holder Erva @ Yerva Anji Reddy, S/o. Narsa Reddy, Age: 48 yrs, Occ: Agriculture/Labour, R/o. H. No. 8-5- 213/211, Sai Krishna Colony, Old Bowenpally, Secunderabad. …Plaintiff. A N D

1. Yerva Bal Reddy, S/o. Raji Reddy, Age: 70 yrs, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Karnalpally Village, Chegunta Mandal, Medak District.

2. Vantari Kondal Reddy, S/o. Raji Reddy, Age: 47 yrs, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H. No. 1-31, Karnalpally Village, Chegunta Mandal, Medak District.

3. Vantari Ram Reddy, S/o. Narsa Reddy, Age: 55 yrs, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H. No. 2-13, Karnalpally Village, Chegunta Mandal, Medak District.

...Defendants.

This suit coming before me for final hearing on 14-10-2024 in the presence of Sri. Yerva Anji Reddy, GPA Holder for the plaintiff in person and defendants remained exparte; and upon perusing the material on record and upon hearing arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day the court made the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed for perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

2.The averments of the plaint in brief are as follows: The plaintiff stated to be the owner and possessor of agricultural land in Sy. No. 58/Lu to an extent of Ac. 0-33 guntas and Sy. No. 59/A1 to an extent of Ac. 0-32 guntas total Adm. Ac. 1-25 guntas

OS. NO. 266/2024 2 16-10-2024

situated at Chinna Shivnoor village, Chegunta Mandal, Medak. The said property is herein after referred as suit schedule property. The plaintiff said to have purchased the suit schedule property under a registered sale deed vide document no. 1598/2014 dated 03-06-2014 from Kurma Komraiah. It was further stated that originally the land in Sy.

No. 58 Adm. Ac. 11-11 guntas and land in Sy. No. 59 Adm. Ac. 10-20 guntas belonged to one Mohammed Nazeemuddin and the plaintiff’s vendor i.e., Kurma

Komaraiah purchased the Ac. 0-33 guntas in Sy. No. 58 and Ac. 3-12 guntas in Sy.

No. 59 under simple sale deed and that his name was mutated in revenue records and

Section 13-B certificate was issued vide proceedings number B/2171/93 and pattedhar passbook was issued to him. The plaintiff further stated that after the purchase, the plaintiff applied for mutation but the plaintiff’s request was rejected under endorsement no. B/631/2014 dated 30-09-2015. Challenging the same, the plaintiff said to have preferred an appeal vide No. G/52/2020 at Special Tribunal Medak and the same was dismissed on 08-02-2021. Further, as per the orders in WP No. 20/2021

dated 06-07-2021, the plaintiffs made an application to District Collector Medak and

then her name was mutated in revenue records and Pattedhar Passbook was issued. It was stated that the defendants having no right or interest over the property caused interference but a false criminal case was filed against the husband of the plaintiff vide

Cr. No. 141/2018 and 106/2019 which was compromised without the consent of the plaintiff. As such, to restrain the act of the defendants the present suit is filed.

3.Despite service of summons, defendant no. 1 to 3 failed to appear before the court and hence were set exparte on 20-08-2024.

4.In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff got examined as GPA holder as

PW-1 and got marked Ex. A-1 to A-4. Further the plaintiff also got examined B.

OS. NO. 266/2024 3 16-10-2024

Siddamma and Zafar Mohinuddin as PW-2 and PW-3. The details of the documents marked are mentioned in the appendix of evidence.

5.Heard learned counsel for the plaintiff. Perused the record.

6.Now the point for consideration is Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction in respect of suit schedule property as prayed for?

7.POINT: It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property and that the defendants caused interference. As it is the plaintiff who has approached the court, the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove the case.

8.PW-1 deposed reiterating the contents of the plaint in his chief affidavit. PW-1 deposed that he is the GPA holder of the plaintiff and that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property having purchased the same under registered sale deed vide

Ex. A-1. Subsequently, the plaintiff said to have approached the revenue authorities for mutation but her name was not recorded against which she filed a Writ Petition no.

20/2021 and then approached the District Collector wherein the name of the plaintiff was recorded in the revenue records and pattedhar passbook was issued under Ex. A-2.

PW-1 deposed that the defendants having no concern over the suit schedule property caused interference. PW-2 and PW-3 deposed on similar lines to that of PW-1. This evidence of PW-1 to PW-3 coupled with documentary evidence goes to show that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property and this evidence remains unchallenged as the defendants are set exparte. Hence the plaintiff is entitled for the relief. Accordingly the point is answered.

OS. NO. 266/2024 4 16-10-2024

In the result the suit is decreed with cost by granting perpetual injunction in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

(Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 16 th day of October 2024)

Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-

Judicial First Class Magistrate Medak.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PLAINTIFF

PW-1: Erva @ Yerva Anji Reddy PW-2: Bolla Siddamma PW-3: Zafar Mohinuddin

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENDANT

--Nil—

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF

Ex A-1: Mee Seva Copy of Registered Saledeed vide Doc. No. 1598/2014 dt: 03-06-2014

Ex A-2: Pattedhar Passbook cum Title deed of the plaintiff

Ex A-3: Copy of Order dated: 06-07-2021 passed by the Special Tribunal, Medak District in

Case No. F3/Sp. Tribunal/635/2021

Ex A-4: Copy of application to the District Collector, Medak Dated: 26-10-2024

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT

--Nil—

Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-

Judicial First Class Magistrate Medak.

OS. NO. 266/2024 5 16-10-2024

DECREE

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM- JUDICIAL

FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE AT :: MEDAK

Present: SMT. RITA LALCHAND

Principal Junior Civil Judge- cum-

Judicial First Class Magistrate Medak.

Dated this the 16 th day of October, 2024

OS. NO. 266 of 2024

Between:- Yerva Surekha, W/o. Anji Reddy, Age: 45 yrs, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H. No. 1-69, Karnalpally Village, Chegunta Mandal, Medak District. Rep. By her GPA Holder Erva @ Yerva Anji Reddy, S/o. Narsa Reddy, Age: 48 yrs, Occ: Agriculture/Labour, R/o. H. No. 8-5-213/211, Sai Krishna Colony, Old Bowenpally, Secunderabad. …Plaintiff. A N D

1. Yerva Bal Reddy, S/o. Raji Reddy, Age: 70 yrs, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Karnalpally Village, Chegunta Mandal, Medak District.

2. Vantari Kondal Reddy, S/o. Raji Reddy, Age: 47 yrs, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H. No. 1-31, Karnalpally Village, Chegunta Mandal, Medak District.

3. Vantari Ram Reddy, S/o. Narsa Reddy, Age: 55 yrs, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H. No. 2-13, Karnalpally Village, Chegunta Mandal, Medak District.

...Defendants.

CLAIM: - Suit for Perpetual Injunction

Suit presented on: 11-07-2024 Suit filed on : 11-07-2024

Cause of Action: That the Cause of action arose on 28-06-2024 and again on 01-07- 2024 when the defendants with their henchmen tried to cause interference of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

Suit Valuation & Court Fee:- That the total market value of the property is Rs.

8,83,688/- The suit for the relief of perpetual injunction the plaintiff is notionally

OS. NO. 266/2024 6 16-10-2024

valued at Rs. 50,000/- upon which a fixed court fee of Rs. 2,386/- is paid under

Section 26(c) of TS CF& SV Act.

This suit coming before me for final hearing on 19-09-2024 in the presence of Sri. Yerva Anji Reddy, GPA Holder for the plaintiff in person and defendants remained exparte; and upon perusing the material on record and upon hearing arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration doth order and decree as follows:-

In the result, the the suit is decreed with cost by granting perpetual injunction in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

Given under my hand and the seal of this court on this the 16 th day of October 2024

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Medak.

COSTS OF SUIT

PlaintiffDefendants 01Stamps of Plaint 02Stamps for power 03 Stamps for Exhibits 04Pleader’s fee 05Service of process 06Miscellaneous

Total

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court on this the 16 th day of October 2024

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Medak

OS. NO. 266/2024 7 16-10-2024

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY

All that the part and parcel of the agricultural land in Sy. No. 58/Lu Adm. Ac.

0-33 gts and Sy. No. 59/A1 Adm. Ac. 0-32 gts, total Adm. Ac. 1-25 gts, situated at

Chinna Shivnoor Village, Chegunta Mandal, Medak District, bounded by:

East: Cartway

West: NH-44 Bypass Road

North: Agricultural land of Yerva Narsi Reddy

South: Agricultural land of Bacholla Bagaiah

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Medak

C.C.No.117/2020 1 Dt: 28-03-2022

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

SPECIAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE AT MEDAK 

Dated this the 28 th day of March, 2022.

Present:­ Smt. RITA LALCHAND

Principal Junior Civil Judge Cum 

Judicial First Class Magistrate At Medak FAC I Additional Junior Civil Judge­ Cum Special Judicial First Class Magistrate, At Medak.

C.C.No. 117 OF 2020

Between :

The State ­ Rep., through the Sub­Inspector of Police, P.S. Chegunta. 

…..Complainant. 

A N D

Peddakotla Dinesh Kumar, S/o. Ravi Kumar, Age: 21 years, Occ: Private Employee and Driver of Car bearing No. TS 07 GA 4970, R/o. H.No. 3­97/1, GBR Colony, Turka Yamjal, Hayathnagar, R.R. District.

 ….. Accused 

This Case is coming before me on 17­03­2022 for final hearing in the presence of learned Public Prosecutor, for the Complainant; and Sri. G. Mahathma, G. Naresh Advocates for the accused and after perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

: : J U D G M E N T : : 

1.The Sub­Inspector of Police, PS. Chegunta filed charge sheet in Crime

No. 221 of 2019 for the offence punishable under Section 304­A Indian Penal

Code. 

2. The brief averments of the prosecution case is that :

The defacto­complainant/Pitla Mallesh lodged complaint on 29­12­2019 at 08­00 hours stating that on 28­12­2019 at 14­00 hours his brother in law by name Shiva Ashok and his friend Vallepu Bikshapathi started from

Tooparan on motor cycle bearing No TS 15EH 5672 and were proceeding to

C.C.No.117/2020 2 Dt: 28-03-2022

Medak. It was stated that when they crossed Chegunta railway gate at 14­39 hours, driver of the car bearing NO TS 07 GA 4970 came from opposite direction and drove the car in rash and negligent manner and dashed the vehicle of brother in law of the complainant. Due to which the motorcycle skid and the Ashok received bleeding injuries and was shifted to hospital by the pillion rider. The pillion rider informed the incident to the complainant and the injured, while undergoing treatment demised at Gandhi hospital on 29­12­2019 at 02­30 hours. As such complaint was lodged. Based on the complaint, case was registered as Cr. No. 221/2019 for the offence under Section 304­A Indian

Penal Code and investigation was commenced by LW­10 who examined and recorded the statement of witnesses, visited scene of offence and drafted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of mediators and conducted inquest panchanama over the dead body of the deceased and subjected the same for

Post Mortem Examination. Later Post Mortem Examination report was collected and Motor vehicle was inspected and MVI report was issued. Further LW­10 said to have issued notice under Section 41­A Criminal Procedure Code to the accused with a direction to appear before the court on receipt of summons.

After completion of investigation charge sheet, was filed against the accused for the offence under Section 304­A Indian Penal Code. 

3.The case was taken on file for the offence under Section 304­A Indian

Penal Code against accused. 

4.After appearance of the Accused, copies of documents were furnished under section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code.

C.C.No.117/2020 3 Dt: 28-03-2022

5.The Accused was examined under Section 251 of Criminal Procedure

Code by explaining the substance of accusation in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 

6.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution got examined PW­1 to PW­5 and got marked Ex P­1 to P­4. The details of the documents marked are mentioned in the appendix of evidence. The learned APP gave up the evidence of LW­2/Shiva Nagulu, LW­7/R. Anjaneyulu, LW­8/G.

Mahender, LW_9/K. Vasu and LW­10/B. Subhash Goud. 

7.Since there was no incriminating evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses, the examination of the accused under Section 313

Criminal Procedure Code was dispensed with. 

8.Heard both sides. Perused the record.

9.Now the point for consideration is 

Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the accused for the

offence under Section 304­A Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable

doubts?

10. POINT : Here the prosecution should prove that the death of the deceased is caused due to rash or negligent act of the accused. Only if the ingredients of the offence charged is proved, the accused shall be held guilty of the offence charged.

C.C.No.117/2020 4 Dt: 28-03-2022

11.The case of the prosecution as per investigation is that the brother in law of the complainant was on bike and was coming towards Medak and when he along with pillion rider reached Chegunta railway gate, the accused who is the driver of the car, drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and hit the vehicle of the deceased, due to which the deceased sustained bleeding injuries and finally died while undergoing treatment. However, it appears that none of the prosecution witness have supported the case of the prosecution. 

12.PW­1/complainant deposed that about an year ago, he received a phone call that his brother in law met with an accident, however, he is not aware as how the accident occurred. He further deposed that he is not aware of the contents of complaint. The wife and grandfather of the deceased who were examined as PW­2 and PW­4 also deposed that the deceased died in an accident however they deposed that they are not aware as how accident took place. Hence their evidence is of no help to the prosecution. 

13.The next best evidence as per the prosecution is of PW­3, who was pillion rider of the vehicle on which accident occurred. However, PW­3 also did not support the case of the prosecution. In order to prove the scene of offence panchanama and inquest panchanama, prosecution examined PW­5, but he also did not support the case of the prosecution. 

14.From the above, it is clear that the prosecution could not prove the guilt of the accused for the offence charged and hence the accused is entitled for acquittal. 

C.C.No.117/2020 5 Dt: 28-03-2022

In the result, the accused is acquitted under Section 255(2) Criminal

Procedure Code for the offence under Section 304­A Indian Penal Code. The surety bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months. 

(Typed to my dictation by my personal assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 28th day of March, 2022)

Principal Junior Civil Judge Cum 

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Medak FAC I Additional Junior Civil Judge­Cum Spl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Medak

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED 

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE: PW­1: P. Mallesh ­None­ PW­2: Shiva Madhavi PW­3: V. Bixapathi PW­4: Shiva Bixapathi PW­5: V. Yella Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED 

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: 

Ex.P1 is Signature of PW.1 Ex.P2 is Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.1 ­Nil­ Ex.P3 is Signature of PW.5 on scene of offence panchanama Ex.P4 is Signature of PW.5 on Inquest panchanama

MATERIAL OBJECTS

­ NIL ­

Principal Junior Civil Judge Cum 

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Medak 

FAC I Additional Junior Civil Judge­ Cum 

Spl.Judicial First Class Magistrate,Medak

C.C.No.117/2020 6 Dt: 28-03-2022

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-SPL.JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS (MOBILE) COURT, MEDAK:

C.C No. 117/2020

1Name of the Complainant State of Telangana through Sub- Inspector of Police, Chegunta 2Name of the AccusedPeddakotla Dinesh Kumar S/o. Ravi Kumar.

3Date of Offence and Time28-12-2019 at about 14.40 hours 4Date of Report29-12-2019 at 08.00 5Offence U/sec304-A IPC 6Date of arrest of Accused31-12-2019 7Date of release of Accused31-12-2019 8Date of Appearance07-04-2021 9Commencement of Trial30-09-2021 10Closure of Trial17-03-2022 11Date of Argument17-03-2022 12Date of Judgment28-03-2022 13Plea of AccusedTotal denial of offence 14FindingNot Guilty 15ResultIn the result, the accused is acquitted under Section 255(2) Criminal Procedure Code for the offence under Section 304­A Indian Penal Code. The surety bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months. 

16Remarks ----

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medak

FAC- I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-Cum- Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, (Mobile) Court, Medak. To

The Hon'ble I Addl. Dist & Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.