Rubina Fatima

1 of 11

CC 83 of 2023

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

BODHAN

Present:- Smt. Rubina Fatima

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Bodhan.

Dated this the 20th day of September, 2023

C.C NO.83 of 2023

Between:

The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S Bodhan Rural, represented by Assistant Public Prosecutor. …Complainant AND

Mekala Jallaboi S/o Mallaiah @ Mallesh, Aged: 35 years, Caste: Goondla, Occ: Labour, R/o H.No.3-70, Bardipur village of Bodhan mandal.

...Accused

This case was came up before me on 12-09-2023 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor representing for the State/Complainant and Sri Wajeed Hussain, Legal Aid counsel for accused, upon perusal of record and upon hearing both sides and having stood over the matter to this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

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

1.The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, police station

Bodhan Rural had filed charge sheet against accused in Crime No.77 of 2023 for the offences punishable under sections 457, 380 of Indian Penal Code [for short IPC].

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:- [a] The Defacto complainant/LW1/Gaini Gangaram lodged a complaint

before P.S Bodhan Rural in which alleged that he and his wife/LW2 went to

Sirpoor Takli village and his mother went to Raikur village by duly locked 2 of 11

CC 83 of 2023

their teen house. Thereafter on 16.05.2023 at about 1915 hours, LW3/Gaini

Ravi who is his neighbour made phone call to him and informed that about broke opened the lock of the teen shed. Immediately he went to the house and found some sounds in the house and the accused was escaped from the back side of the teen shed. Due to late night hours he went to his house and found that the silver vattulu, silver kadiyas total (10) tulas, one gram of gold pogulu, some net cash was found missing from the biruva by broke opened the lock of the biruva. Hence the case.

[b] Basing on the complaint lodged by LW1, LW8 had registered a case in crime No.77/2023 for the offences under Sections 457, 380 IPC, issued First Information Report and took up the investigation into the case.

During the course of investigation, he had examined and recorded the statement of complainant. Thereafter LW8 along with LW1 proceeded to scene of offence situated at Bardipoor village, where he secured the presence of witnesses and later he conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn the rough sketch of the scene and preserved the same in crime details form. Thereafter on 24.05.2023 at 0800 hours, he apprehended the accused and secured the presence of two mediators i.e., LW6 and LW7 recorded the confessional statement of accused and later brought the accused to police station and produced him before the Hon’ble Court where he was remanded to judicial custody. After completion of entire investigation charge sheet was filed for the offences under sections 457, 380 Indian Penal

Code against the Accused.

3 of 11

CC 83 of 2023

Cognizance of offence:

3.This Court has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under

Sections 457, 380 of Indian Penal Code against the accused. On production of accused person from Jail, copies of documents were furnished to him in compliance with the provisions of section 207 of Cr.P.C.

Examination of accused:

4.On production of accused from Jail, he was examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. Charges for the offences under Sections 457, 380 of Indian

Penal Code against the accused is framed, read over and explained to him in vernacular language, for which accused did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried.

Evidence on record:

5.During the course of trial, prosecution had examined PW.1 to PW.5 and got exhibits P1 to P4 and material object marked as MO.1. The defacto complainant/LW1/ Gaini Gangaram was examined as PW1. LW3/Gaini Ravi who is an eye witness to this case was examined as PW2. LW4/Sunkari Ravi who is one of the panch witness for scene was examined as PW3.

LW6/Maddela Mahendar who is one of the panch witness for confessional statement of accused was examined as PW4. LW8/L. Sandeep who is an investigating officer was examined as PW5. Thereafter prosecution has given up the remaining witnesses i.e., LW2/Smt. Gaini Mounika,

LW5/Kopperga Saidudu and LW7/Gaini Sailu.

4 of 11

CC 83 of 2023

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under

Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code where all the incriminating raised by the prosecution read over and explained to him in vernacular language, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard both sides.

8.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution proves that the accused is guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 457, 380 of Indian Penal Code, beyond reasonable doubt ?

Point:

9. In so far as the House breaking by night and commission of theft is concerned the prosecution has to prove that the accused had committed theft from the house of PW1 and the part of the stolen property is recovered from the possession of accused.

10. To prove the guilt of accused, the prosecution has examined PW1 to

PW5 and Exs.P1 to P4 marked.

11. PW1 had deposed that on 16.05.2023 he along with his family went to his in-laws house at Sirpur Takli village of Madnoor mandal, on the same day at about 7 to 7.30 pm he received phone call from LW3 and he inform about commission of theft at his house by brokoing the locks of his house.

Thereafter on the next day at 10.00 am he came back to home and found 5 of 11

CC 83 of 2023

missing of silver vattulu 10 grams, gold ear rings of one gram. Thereafter on the same day he went to police station and filed report.

12. PW2 who is an eye witness had deposed that on 14.05.2023 during morning hours PW1 went to his village along with family, then on 16.05.2023 at about 6.00 pm, he went to Bardipur Bus stand and return back at about 7.15 pm and he noticed that the lights of PW1’s house was switched on, then he went to his house and called PW1 from outside but he observed accused was at his house by seeing him, escaped from the house of PW1, then he tried to apprehend him but went in vain. Immediately he informed to PW1 about the same and also informed that by seeing him, accused escaped from the house.

13. PW3 who is one of the panch witness for the scene of offence panchanama had deposed that on 17.05.2023 at about 12.30 pm, police have conducted scene of offence panchanama with regard to theft in the house of PW1 and thereafter police have drawn the rough sketch of the scene in crime details form before him and LW5 and obtained his signature on the same.

14. PW4 who is one of the panch witness for confession and recovery panchanama had deposed that on 24.05.2023 at about 8.00 am while he was at Gram panchayath office, then police came there and inquired about the accused and also instructed him to inquire the accused then accused confessed the commission offence by stating that on on 16.05.2023 at about 6 of 11

CC 83 of 2023

7.00 pm no person were present at the house of PW1 then he broke open the door lock with stone and entered into the house and committed theft of silver gotlu, silver bangles, gold wg., about one gram and net cash of

Rs.5000/- from the almarah and he was coming outside the house after committing the offence, meantime PW1 called PW1 by taking his name as

Gangaram, by seeing him the alleged escaped from the house of PW1 while he was the silver ornaments were fell down and he returned by taking the cash of Rs.5000/- and went to the near by village and after two days returned back to Bhardipur village then the police apprehended him and the same was scribed by police in his presence and obtained signatures on the same.

15. PW5 who is an investigating officer had deposed that on 17.05.2023 he received a complaint from PW1 and basing on it, registered a case in crime No.77/2023 for the offence under Sections 457, 380 IPC and issued first information report and took up the investigation into the case. During the course of investigation, he had examined and recorded the statement of

PW1 and later he visited the scene of offence, where secured the presence of PW3 and LW5 conducted scene of offence panchanama. Thereafter on 24.05.2023 he apprehended the accused and on interrogation accused voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence. Thereafter produced the accused before this Honorable court for judicial custody and after completion of entire investigation he had filed charge sheet before this

Court.

7 of 11

CC 83 of 2023

Discussion, Decision and reason there on :

16. In view of the foregoing discussion, the prosecution is successful in establishing that some unknown offender committed house breaking at the house of PW1.

17.So far as the allegation whether accused is guilty for the house breaking U/sec.457, 380 IPC of stolen property from the house of PW1 is concerned, prosecution had examined PW4 who is one of the panch for confession panchanama who deposed that the accused confessed to have committed the crime. Moreover, upon the cross examination of PW4, I do not find anything substantial which can create any reasonable doubt as regards the veracity of the statement made by the informant in his chief examination to the effect that the accused had stolen the property from the possession of PW1. The defense during the cross examination of PW4 had basically put a few suggestions (adverse to the case of prosecution) which were denied by the witnesses. Hence it is evident that the version of PW4 is very much consistent with the version stated by PW1 to PW3. Moreover, the evidence of PW4 remains by and large unshaken.

18.The confession by the accused coupled with overwhelming evidence as indicated above clearly goes to show that the accused entered into the house of PW1 and committed house breaking in the house of PW1.

19.Though the above mentioned confession by the accused is said to made before the police, the same confession led to the fact of identification 8 of 11

CC 83 of 2023

of stolen property at the instance of accused and such confession is admissible as per Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act.

20.In view of the law laid down in State of Bombay Vs. Kathi Kolu

Oghad reported in AIR 1961 SC 1808, also, the mere fact that the accused while making the statements was in police custody will not attract the provision under Article 20 of the Indian Constitution. It has to be decided whether or not the accused has been compelled to make the statements.

21.PW5 who is an investigating officer in this case had deposed his version in the lines of charge sheet and his investigation corroborates to the version stated by PW1 to PW4.

22.So far as the discussion made above the prosecution has been successful in establishing the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt.

23.Therefore, considering the entire discussion made above, I find that the witness examined by the prosecution have proved beyond reasonable doubt that the stolen property belonging to the PW1.

24.Moreover, though the accused specifically denied the allegation towards him in his 313 Cr.P.C examination, but the said accused has not adduced any evidence to prove such allegation.

9 of 11

CC 83 of 2023

25.On perusal of the evidence the court found PW1 stated he is an illiterate person and he cannot write any language, as such complaint was written by police. It is further observed from the evidence that PW2 has seen the accused was coming out from the house of PW1, PW1 evidence is corroborated with the evidence of eye witness and the scene and confession panch witness. Therefore, the court found the prosecution has successfully proved the commission of offence by accused, beyond all reasonable doubts.

26.Therefore, considering the entire discussion made above, I find that the materials available in the case on record proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed house breaking U/sec.457, 380 IPC of the above said property and thus the accused is held guilty for the commission of the offence under Sections 457, 380 Indian Penal Code.

Accordingly accused is convicted under section 248 (2) Cr.P.C for the above said offences.

27. In the result, this court found that accused is guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 457, 380 of Indian Penal Code and accordingly the accused is convicted under Section 248(2) of Criminal Procedure Code for the said offences.

Typed to my dictation by the stenographer and after correction,

pronounced by me in open court on this the 20th day of September, 2023.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Bodhan.

10 of 11

CC 83 of 2023

28.Accused is questioned with regard to quantum of sentence, he submitted that he is the sole bread winner of his family, if he was put in jail his family members would suffer immensely. Hence, prayed to take lenient view with regard to quantum of sentence.

29. It is not a fit case to invoke the provisions of Probation of Offenders

Act. Further accused was involved in several property offences so it is not fit case to take lenient view. The property was recovered and seized, handed over to owner, so imposing the period of sentence is sufficient.

30. Accordingly, the accused is sentenced to undergo Simple

Imprisonment for a period of (3) Months and also to pay fine of Rs.50/- (Rupees fifty only)for the offence punishable U/sec.457 IPC, indefault of payment of fine amount he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of (10) days.

31.Accused also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of (3) Months and also to pay fine of Rs.50/- (Rupees fifty only) for the offence punishable under Section 380 IPC, indefault of payment of fine he shall undergo Simple imprisonment for a period of (10) days only.

Both sentences i.e., under Section 457 IPC and Section 380 IPC shall run concurrently. Total fine amount of Rs.100/- (Rupees one hundred only).

32.The period of detention wasalready undergone by the accused from 24.05.2023 to till today i.e., 20.09.2023 shall be given set off under section 11 of 11

CC 83 of 2023

428 Cr.P.C. Accused shall be set at liberty after completion of above set off period, if he is not required in any other cases.

33. The convicted was informed about his right to prefer appeal against this judgment to Honorable District and Sessions Court, Nizamabad. He is also informed about his right to free legal aid to prefer appeal. Office is directed to supply the free copy to prefer appeal of the judgment to the convicted forthwith.

Typed to my dictation and after correction, pronounced by me in the open court on this the 20th day of September, 2023.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Bodhan.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution : For Defence:

PW1: Gaini Gangaram / complainant – None – PW2: Gaini Ravi / eye witness PW3: Sunakri Ravi / panch witness for scene PW4: Maddela Mahendar / panch witness for confession panchanama PW5: L. Sandeep / Investigating officer.

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution : For Defence:

Ex.P1: Report lodged by PW1 - NIL - Ex.P2: Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P3: Confession panchanama of accused Ex.P4: First Information Report.

Material Objects

- NIL -

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Bodhan.

1 of 10

CC No.334/2019

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

BODHAN

Present:- Smt. Rubina Fatima,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Bodhan.

Dated on this the 21st day of September, 2023.

C.C. NO.334 of 2019

Between: The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, police station Bodhan. Represented by Additional Public Prosecutor.

...Complainant

AND

Khandare Babu Rao S/o Gangaram, Aged: 42 years, Caste: Mala, Occ: RTC Driver, Bodhan Depot. R/o Achanpally, Bodhan.

...Accused

This case is came before me on 14-09-2023 for final hearing in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor representing the State/Complainant and of Sri V. Sangam, Advocate for accused persons and upon perusal of record and upon hearing both sides and having stood over the matter to this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

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

1.The State represented by Sub Inspector of Police, police station

Bodhan filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.377/2019 for the offences under Section 427 of Indian Penal Code and Section 7(1) Criminal

Law Amendment Act, Sec. 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows :- [a]On 19.10.2019 at 0745 hours, LW1/Mavoori Raju lodged a complaint before police, police station Bodhan in which alleged that on 19.10.2019 the RTC employees Unions gave call for Telangana Band.

2 of 10

CC No.334/2019

Accordingly he along with LW2 were performing escort duty with the Bus bearing No.AP 29 Z 0844 from Bodhan to Ambam gate and when the Bus reached near Achanpally X road at 7.15 am in order to intensify the Band call and with an intention to create tense in the locality by causing the damage of Government property the accused Khandare Babu pelted stone on windscreen of the said Bus from back side and caused damage.

[b]Basing on the report received from the complainant, LW7 had registered a case in crime No.377/2019 under Section 427 IPC and Section 7(1) Criminal Law Amendment Act, Section 3 of PDPP Act and investigated into the matter. During the course of investigation, he had examined and recorded the statements of witnesses and later visited the scene of offence and conducted panchanama and drawn the rough sketch of the scene and preserved the scene in Crime Details form. During the course of inspection of scene the incriminating material i.e., Stone was seized under cover of panchanama. Thereafter arrested the accused and produced him before the

Honorable court. After completion of entire investigation, charge sheet was

filed against accused for the offences under Sections 427 IPC and Section 7(1) Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 3 of PDPP Act.

Cognizance of offence:

3. This Court has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under sections 341, 427, 506 R/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of

Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act against accused Nos.1 to 4. On appearance of accused persons, copies of documents were furnished to them in compliance with the provisions of Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

3 of 10

CC No.334/2019

Examination of accused:

4.On appearance of accused, he was examined under Section 239 of

Criminal Procedure Code. Charges for the offences under Section 427 IPC and Section 3 of PDPP Act is framed, read over and explained to him in vernacular language, for which he did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried.

Evidence on record:

5.During the course of trail, prosecution had examined PW.1 to PW.5 and got marked exhibits P1 to P3 and material objects marked as Mos.1 and 2.

LW1/Mavoori Raju who is complainant and eye witness was examined as

PW1. LW2/Surya Vamshi who is another eye witness to the incident was examined as PW2. LW5/Chanda Srinivas and LW6/Shaik Basheet who are panch witnesses for scene and seizure panchanama were examined as PW3 and PW5 respectfully. Investigating officer i.e., LW7/Mood Ambarya was examined as PW4. Prosecution filed report stating that LW3/Shaik Jeelani and LW4/MD. Basheeth were not residing in the given address, hence their evidence is closed by this Court.

6. After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under

Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code. All the incriminating material raised by the prosecution witnesses was read over and explained to him in vernacular language for which he denied the incriminating evidence and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

4 of 10

CC No.334/2019

7.Heard both sides and perused entire record.

8.Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the prosecution proves the charge for the offences under

Section 427 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of Prevention of

Damage to Public Property Act against the accused, beyond reasonable doubt?

Point :

9.The prosecution is required to prove that accused has mischievously caused damage to the Bus and use of criminal intimidation in damaging public property.

10.PW1 who is an eye witness to this case had deposed that on 19.10.2019 in between 7.00 to 8.00 am, he along with LW2were deputed for escorting the duties at TSRTC employees gave call for Telangana Bund and accordingly while they were moving in the Bus bearing No.AP 29 Z 0844 from Bodhan to Ambam gate and when the Bus reached near Achanpally cross roads, Bodhan the accused pelted stone on windscreen of said Bus from back side and caused damage. On seeing them the accused tried to fled away, immediately they got down from the Bus and apprehended him and took him to police station and later he lodged a report. Whereas in his cross he stated that the alleged incident was occurred soon before reaching

Pegadapally bypass and there are many building shopping complexes at

Chowrasta and it is crowdy place. He further admits that being a passenger in the Bus it is not possible for him to find out the persons who pelted the 5 of 10

CC No.334/2019

stone on the windscreen of the Bus from rear end. He had not seen directing while the accused pelting stone on the Bus.

11.PW2 who is an another eye witness to this case had deposed that on 19.10.2019 at 4.00 am, himself and PW1 were deputed for escorting the duties for TSRTC Buses from Bodhan Bus stand to Ambam Gate, as the

TSRTC employees gave call for Telangana Bund and while they were moving in the Bus bearing No.AP 29 Z 0844 from Bodhan Bus stand to Ambam gate and when the bus reached near Achanpally cross roads, Bodhan some person pelted stone on windscreen of said Bus from back side rear end and caused damage to the glass. Immediately while he along with PW1 get down from the Bus, they noticed that one person was running away, they chased and caught him. On enquiry the said person revealed his name as Babu Rao.

Thereafter they took the accused to police station and handed over to police

Bodhan. During his cross examination he admitted that he had stated in his 161 Cr.P.C statement that one person pelted stone on the back side of Bus due to which the glass was broken. Further stated that he sat on the first seat he cannot say who has thrown stone on the Bus from the back side of

Bus.

12.PW3 who is one of the panch witness for scene and seizure panchanama had deposed that in the year 2019 at the time of TSRTC employees agitation at Pegadapally chowrasta, police arrieved there and seized one stone and glass pieces in his presence under cover of 6 of 10

CC No.334/2019

panchanama. Further the police have prepared scene of offence panchanama and obtained his signature on it. During his cross examination he admitted he do not know the contents of Ex.P2 and also police are not readover the contents of Ex.P2 to him.

13. PW4 who is an Investigating Officer in this case had deposed that on 19.10.2019 at 0745 hours, he received complaint from PW1, basing on the same he registered a case in crime No.377/2019 for the offence under

Section 427 IPC and Section 3 of PDPP Act and issued first information report. During the course of investigation, he recorded the statements of witnesses, visited the scene of offence and conduced panchanama in the presence of PW3 and PW5 and seized one stone and glass pieces under cover of panchanama. Thereafter effected the arrest of accused and produced him before the court for judicial remand and after completion of entire investigation he filed charge sheet before this Court against the accused person.

14. PW5 who is an another panch witness for scene and seizure had deposed that one day while he was going to Nizamabad in his vehicle then the police stopped his vehicle at Bypass road and obtained his signature on the panchanama. During his cross he admitted that he do not know the purpose and reason for obtaining the signature on panchanama and on the instructions of police he signed on it. Further admits that he do not know the contents mentioned in the panchanama.

7 of 10

CC No.334/2019

Discussion, Decision and reason there on :

15. In order ascertain whether the accused is guilty for the offence under

Section 427 IPC and Sec.3(2) of PDPP Act, it would be expedient to analyse the ingredients under Section 427 IPC and Section 3 (2) of Prevention of

Damage to Public Property Act.

Section 427 IPC read thus : Mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees.—Whoever commits mischief and thereby causes loss or damage to the amount of fifty rupees or upwards, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

Section 3(2) in The Prevention of Damage to Public Property

Act, 1984 (2) Whoever commits mischief by doing any act in respect of any public property being—

(a) any building, installation or other property used in connection with the production, distribution or supply of water, light, power or energy;

(b) any oil installations;

(c) any sewage works;

(d) any mine or factory;

(e) any means of public transportation or of tele-communications, or any building, installation or other property used in connection therewith, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to five years and with fine: Provided that the court may, for reasons to be recorded in its judgment, award a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months.

8 of 10

CC No.334/2019

16. If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc. — and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.

17. At the out set, let us briefly analyze the charges framed against the accused. Firstly the accused was charged for having committed an offence under Section 427 of Indian Penal Code. In order to prove the offence under

Section 427 IPC, the accused must have the intention and knowledge to commit an act which may cause loss and damage to the person or the property. The prosecution must first establish whether any damage was caused to the property and the value of loss and damage must be Rs.50/- or upwards.

18.The present case on hand, on perusal of record, PW1 and PW2 who are eye witnesses to the incident. During cross examination they admits that some unknown person pelted stone on the back side of the Bus glass and they have not seen the accused directly neither witnessed the incident.

Therefore, their evidence cannot be taken into consideration and they are official witnesses (police constables). Therefore the oral evidence of the eye witnesses and complainant does not corroborate with the evidence with each 9 of 10

CC No.334/2019

other and it does not clearly shows about commission of offence at the scene on the alleged day. Hence, the court found the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients under Section 427 IPC and Section 3 of PDPP Act.

Accordingly, the accused is not found committing the offence under Section 427 IPC and Section 3 of PDPP Act.

19.In the instant case, PW1(complainant), PW2(eye witness) who are police officials they deposed that one person has pelted stone on windshield of Bus but their evidence is not supported with independent witness and clearly stated they have not seen the incident directly. The panch witness to the scene of offence and seizure both the panch witnesses deposed that panchanama was conducted by police in their presence but clearly states that they do not know the reason and contents mentioned in the said panchanama and the reason of obtaining their signatures. Therefore, their evidence is not corroborated with the evidence of official witness. Hence the court found due to absence of independent witness the court found prosecution has failed to prove the commission of offence by accused beyond all reasonable doubts.

20. In the result, this court found that the accused is not guilty for an offence under Section 427 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2) of

Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act and accordingly the accused is acquitted under Section 248(1) Criminal Procedure Code for the said 10 of 10

CC No.334/2019

offences. The case property i.e., MO.1 and MO.2 shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 21st day of September, 2023. [Sd/-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Bodhan.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution : For Defence:

PW1: Mavoori Raju / complainant- None - PW2: Surya Vamshi Ashok / eye witness PW3: Chanda Srinivas /panch for scene and seizure PW4: Mood Ambarya / investigating officer PW5: Shaik Basheet / panch for scene and seizure.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution :

Ex.P1: Report lodged by PW1 Ex.P2: Crime details form and seizure Ex.P3: First Information report

For Defence: - NIL -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO.1: Stone MO.2: Glass piece.

Sd/-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Bodhan.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I-ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT BODHAN.

Present: Smt. Rubina Fatima.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum Judl. Magistrte of First Class, Bodhan. FAC: I-Addl. Junior Civil Judge – cum - I-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan.

Dated on this the 21 stday of August, 2023.

CC. No.416 of 2018

(Crime No. 45 /2016)

Between:

The State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Yedapally, District Nizamabad.

…Complainant

//AND//

A1. Chepuri Naragoud S/o Ramagoud, Age: 50 years,

A2. Chepuri Srinivasgoud S/o Naragoud, Age; 28 years,

A3. Ramdas Vishnuvardhan goud S/o Laxminarsagoud, Age; 22 years,

All are Caste; Goud, All are R/o Mangalpahad village.

...Accused No. 1 to 3

This case coming on this day before me for consideration in

the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State by

Sri Jadav , Advocate for accused and having stood over, this Court

made the following: -

:: JUDGMENT ::

1) The State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police,P.S Yedapally, has filed a charge sheet in Crime No.45/2016 for the offences alleged under

Sections 323, 506 R/w 34 of IPC against accused No.1 to 3.

2

2)The complainant Sri Degam Sailu lodged a report at Yedapally P.S stating that, on 21-03-2016 at about 4 AM his villagers/Accused Nos. 1 to 3 were came to his house and picked up quarrel with him alleging that, he put two goat heads in front of their house and beat him with hands by saying that, he is sorcerer and practicing sorcery on them and threatened with dire consequences. Hence, he requested to take necessary action against them.

3. Based on the contents of the report, SI of Police, PS Yedapally registered a case in Cr.No. 45/2016 under sections 323, 506 R/w 34 of IPC and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation Lw-6 examined and recorded the statements of complainant and witnesses, conducted the scene of offence panchanama as well as drew the rough sketch. Lw-6 issued notice under Sec. 41-A Cr.PC to accused No.1 to 3 with a request to cooperate with the investigation.

4.This case was taken on file on 25-04-2016 for the offences punishable under sections 323, 506 R/w 34 of IPC against accused No.1 to

3. On appearance of accused No.1 to 3, copies were furnished under section 207 Cr.PC. Accused No.1 to 3 was examined under section 239

Cr.PC for the offences punishable under sections 323, 506 R/w 34 of IPC wherein the substance of the accusation was explained to them in their vernacular language for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.To prove the guilt of accused Nos. 1 to 3, the prosecution examined 3

Pw-1 to Pw-6 and got Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 marked. Ex.P1 is the medical certificate of Pw1, Ex.P2 is the report and Ex.P3 is the F.I.R.

6.Heard both sides. The learned counsel submitted a case law Sharath

Kumar S. Vs. Karnataka on 11 April, 2022.

point for determination:-

7. whether the prosecution the proved the guilt of accused Nos.

1 to 3 for the offences punishable under sections 323, 506 R/w 34

of IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

Provision of law:-

Section 323 of IPC:- Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.

Section 506 of IPC:- Punishment for criminal intimidation [

Evidence on record:-

8. PW-1/ complainantdeposed that about 4 years ago, at around 4.00

AM, while he was in his house at Yedapally, meantime, Pratap, Srinivas

Goud and Nara Goud knocked the door of his house. He opened the door and they tied him to a window and beat him. Thereafter, police took him to the police station. Police examined him and recorded his statement.

During cross examination he deposed that police examined and recorded his statement on the same date of alleged incident. The arrayed accused and he stay adjacent to each other, the cattle and the tractor of the arrayed accused are placed adjacent to his house. He also stated that

Srinivas goud runs a fertilizer shop at Yedapally. He own acre-2 of agricultural land at Mangalpahad road, Yedapally, he purchased fertilizers from, the shop of Srinivas goud. He owed Rs. 3,000/- to Srinivas goud. He 4 deposed that Pratap is not involved in this case.

9. PW-2 deposed that Pw-1 is her husband. At about 6 years ago, while she was present at her house along with Pw-1 at 4.00, Nara Goud, Rama

Goud, Srinivas Goud and Vishnuvardhan knocked the door of the house.

They even entered in to their house and pushed her aside. They beat Pw-1 and PW2. They also dragged him out side to the varanda, tied him to a window and beat him. Pw-1 lodged a report with the police. During cross examination she deposed that police examined her and recorded her statement after three years of the alleged incident, and he did not state to the police in her Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement that the arrayed accused pushed her aside. On the day of alleged incident, the police came home and took Pw-1 to the police station.

10. PW-3-deposed that on 21.03.2016, he heard noise from his adjacent lane at around 4.15 AM, when he went near the house of Nara

Goud, he saw Nara Goud, Srinivas Goud and Vishnuvardhan Goud beating

Pw-1 with hands. On his enquire with Pw-1, Pw-1 replied that the accused beat him since they suspected that he killed two goats in the name sorcery.

During cross examination he deposed that he denied suggestions made by the prosecution.

11. PW-4deposed that in the year 2016, he came to know through others that Pw-1 was beaten by Nara Goud and Vishnuvardhan Goud. He called the Police. They beat over a dispute pertaining to killing of goats and sorcery. During cross examination he deposed that at the time of alleged incident, his wife was the Sarpanch of Mangalpahad village. At that time he belong to BJP party, that one Smt. Vijaya contested from Congress Party 5 against his wife who stood from BJP Party. The accused belong to Goud’s community and he belongs to BC community. He also stated that he stay one kilo meter away from the bus stop. Pw3 stays 100 to 200 meters away from the house of the accused.

12. PW-5- Sri Dr. Tarunam Naaz, Civil asst. Surgeon, deposed that on 21.03.2016, Pw-1 was treated by her as an out patient No.3842. There were no external injuries on his body. He issued the medical certificate.

Ex.P1 is the medical certificate of Pw-1. During cross examination he deposed that no external injuries were found on Pw-1’s body. Ex.P1 does the time of admission.

13. PW-6- Sri MD. Asif, S.I of Police,deposed that he worked as S.I of

Police, PS Yedapally from 2015 to 2017. On 21.03.2016, Pw-1 came to the police station and lodged a report based on which he registered a case In

Cr.No.45/2016 under section 323, 506 of the IPC. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statement of Pw-1. He also referred him to Govt. Hospital Bodhan for treatment. Thereafter, he visited the scene of crime situated at Mangalpahad village, examined and recorded the statements of Pw-2 to Pw-4. On 22.03.2016, accused No.1 to 3 voluntarily surrendered in the police station. He issued notices under section 41-A Cr.P.C to accused No.1 to 3 with instructions to cooperate with the investigation and since they cooperated, they were as not arrested. He also obtained medical certificate of Pw-1. On completion of investigation, he laid the charge sheet. During cross examination he denied that sections 323, 506 r/w 34 IPC are non-cognizable. No FIR is to be issued without prior permission from the magistrate. He never obtained permission from the 6

Magistrate to investigate into such non-cognizable offences and column

Nos. 14 of Ex.P3 is left blank by him. Eax.P3 was received by the court on 22.03.2016, at 8 PM he never conducted the scene of offence panchanama. He also stated that Ex.P2 was not written by him and not written in his presence. He never seized the necks of goats tied infront of the father and son. Accused No.1 to 3 are belonging to the same community. He never mentioned the time of recording Section 161 Cr.P.C.

statements.

Decision / Reason there on:

14.On going through the evidence the court found Pw-1/complainant and Pw-2 wife of complainant stated that the alleged accused bet Pw1 by tying his hands to window and his evidence is supported by eye witness.

But the court found Investigating Officer himself admits he have not obtained permission from Magistrate for conducting investigation. In every non-cognizable offence the permission of Magistrate is necessary to conduct investigation. Therefore, the investigation conducted by the

Investigating Officer is against the procedure. Therefore, the court found lacunas in the investigation conducted and the ingredients under section 323, 506 r/w 34 of the IPC is not attracted and the procedure is not followed. Therefore, the court found it proper to acquit the accused.

15. In the result, accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under section 323, 506 r/w 34 of the IPC. Therefore, accused

No.1 to 3 are acquitted under section 248 (1) of CrPC for offence 7 punishable under section 506 r/w 34 of the IPC. The bailbonds and surety bonds of accused No.1 to 3 shall stand cancelled subject to Sec. 437-A of

Cr.PC. Since no property is seized or deposited by the police in this case, there is no order as to property.

Typed to dictation to stenographer, corrected and pronounced by P.O in the open Court, this the 21 st day of August, 2023.

FAC: I Addl Junior Civil Judge- cum- I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE: 89 Pw-1. Sri D. SailuNil Pw-2. Smt. D. MadhaviNil Pw-3. Sri M. PedduluNil Pw-4. Sri B. HanumanluNil Pw-5. Sri Dr. Tarunam NaazNil Pw-6. Sri MD. AsifNil

EXHIBITS MARKED

EX.P1: Is the Medical certificate of Pw-1 Ex.P2: Is the report Ex.P3: Is the F.I.R

FAC: I-Addl Junior Civil Judge- cum-

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C.,

Bodhan.

8

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT (IN THE FORM OF C.D.)

IN THE COURT OF I-ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

BODHAN.

CC. No. 416 of 2018

1.Date of Offence:21-03-2016

2.Date of Complaint:21-03-2016

3.Date of apprehension:22-03-2016

4.Date of release:22-03-2016

5.Date of commencement of trial:29-01-2021

6.Date of closure of trial:09-01-2023

7.Date of Judgment :21-08-2023

8.Explanation of delay of remarks:--

Complainant

The State through P.S: Yedapally

Description of accused :

A1. Chepuri Naragoud S/o Ramagoud, Age: 50 years,

A2. Chepuri Srinivasgoud S/o Naragoud, Age; 28 years,

A3. Ramdas Vishnuvardhan goud S/o Laxminarsagoud, Age; 22 years,

All are caste; Goud, All are R/o Mangalpahad village.

Offence Under Section:323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

Finding:Not guilty

Sentence:Acquitted

FAC: I-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan.

To The Hon’ble I-Addl. Dist. & Sessions

Judge, Nizamabad.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I-ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT BODHAN.

Present: Smt. Rubina Fatima.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan FAC: I-Addl. Junior Civil Judge – cum - I-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan.

Dated on this the 14 thday of August, 2023.

CC. No.349 of 2018

(Crime No. 221 /2014)

Between:

The State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Yedapally, District Nizamabad.

…Complainant

//AND//

A1. Katakam Shankar S/o Gangaram, Age: 38 years, Caste: Munnurukapu, Occup: Agriculture, R/o Yedapally Village.

A2. Katakam Sayamma W/o Pentaiah, Age: 60 years, Caste: Munnurukapu, Occup: Agriculture, R/o Yedapally Village and mandal.

...Accused Nos. 1 and 2

This case coming on this day before me for consideration in

the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State by

Sri Subba Rao, Advocate for accused and having stood over, this

Court made the following: -

:: JUDGMENT ::

1) The State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S Yedapally has filed charge sheet in Crime No.221/2014 for the offences alleged under

Sections 326, 323 of IPC against accused Nos. 1 and 2.

2)The complainant Sri Katakam Sayanna lodged a report on 03-12- 2014 at Yedapally PS stating that, he and his brother Gangadhar having agriculture land both places. One place his brother channel water through 2 his submersible bore, another place he channel water through his brother submersible bore, brother was not giving water and given to other persons, for which complainant asked to his brother Gangadhar why you are not giving water to my land. On 9.10.2014 at 7.30 PM complainant and his brother Gangadhar discussing about in this matter meantime his elder brother Katakam Shankar interfere into the matter and in angry asked them why you are causing damage our good name. In furtherance of it is pending against you in Police station. Consequently in annoyance beet to complainant with a stick over his right hand, as result the complainant sustained bleeding injury. On 02.12.2014 at 6.30 PM while complainant along with his wife were coming to PS to give a petition, mean while

Shankar obstructed and Katakam Sayamma beat to his wife with hands.

Consequently his wife fell down on the ground and sustained simple injury and shifted to the Hospital, Nizamabad for treatment. In this matter complainant does not give a petition due to counseling of caste elders. But caste elders not conducting the counseling. On 3.12.2014 he came to PS and he requested to take necessary action against Katakam Shankarand

Katakam Sayamma.

At this stage the witnesses is declared hostile and the learned APP sought the permission of the Court to put such questions as put by the adverse party as the witnesses resiled from his earlier statement.

Permitted.

3. Based on the contents of the report, SI of Police, PS Yedapally registered a case in Cr. No.221/2014 under section 326, 323 of IPC and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation Lw-12 examined and recorded the statements of complainant and witnesses, 3 conducted the scene of offence panchanama as well as drew the rough sketch. Lw-12 issued Sec. 41-A Cr.PC Notice to accused Nos. 1 and 2 with a request to cooperate with the investigation.

4.This case was taken on file on 23-01-2015 for the offence punishable under section 326, 323 of IPC against accused Nos.1 and 2. On appearance of accused Nos.1 and 2, copies were furnished under section 207 Cr.P.C. accused Nos.1 and 2 was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C.

for the offences punishable under Sections. 326, 323 of IPC wherein the substance of the accusation was explained to them in their vernacular language for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.To prove the guilt of accused Nos.1 and 2, the prosecution examined

Pw-1 to Pw-8 and got Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 and Ex.D1, Ex.D2 marked.

Heard both sides. Perused the record.

6. Now the point for determination:

whether the prosecution the proved the guilt of accused Nos.1 and

2 for the offences punishable under sections 326, 323 of IPC

beyond reasonable doubt?

Provision of law:-

Section 326 of IPC:- Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means.

Section 323 of IPC:- Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.

Evidence on record:-

7. PW-1deposed that he own agricultural land at two places at

Ibrahimpur shivar. At one place, he raise the crop using the bore water of 4 his elder brother/Gangadhar. At another place where he own agricultural land, as per the understanding between Gangadhar and him, Gangadhar has to allow him to to use water from his bore to raise his crop. But

Gangadhar has been allowing others to use his water and he never allowed him. When he asked about this on 9.10.2014 between 7.30 to 8.00 p.m.

and when quarrel took place, they all three brothers quarreled with one other and abused one and other. Thereafter, his elder brother/shanker beat him with a stick on his right hand and on his abdomen. They thought of resolving their dispute with their caste elders. On this pretext, shanker also sought two months time. In the month of December, 2014, when he went to the police Stanton to lodge the report, Sayamma and Shanker obstructed Lw-2/Smt. Mamatha and beat her. She sustained an injury on her neck and she is undergoing treatment till date. She immediately took her to Government Hospital, Nizamabad. They also went to NIMS hospital,

Hyderabad for better treatment. He never lodged a report with the police.

Police examined him and recorded his statement. During cross examination he deposed that he was discussing about the bore water issue with

Gangadhar in our house. They are three brothers reside adjacent to one and other. All three of them were engaged in heated quarrel. All our relatives have their housed adjacent to his house on the main road. The toddy shop was public in it. He and Gangadhar own acre 2-10 guntas of agricultural land. Shankar owns acre 2- 20 guntas of agricultural land.

Sayamma is also their agnate before getting married to one Sri Pentaiah.

He cross the police station in our village in order to go to Nizamabad he lodged a report with the police when Katkam Shankar beat him in the month of October, 2014. Around 4 – 5 people gathered when Katakam, 5 shankar beat me with a stick on my right hand in October, 2014. No panchayati held to resolve our disputes.

8. PW-2 deposed that Pw-1 is her husband. In the year 2014, Pw-1 and

Gangadhar/His elder brother were discussing about the bore motor issue with each other. They gradually entered in to a heated quarrel. Pw-1 asked

Gangadhar that he would use the water from the bore of Ganadhar to raise his crop in return for the water that Gangadhar had been using for his crop from the bore of Pw-1. Katkam Shanker interfered in the dispute by stating that the prestige of the family is getting lost because of his disputes. Pw-1 replied stating that the prestige of the family was lost on the day when

Katkam Shanker pulled the hand of one Golla caste woman. Katkam

Shanker beat Pw-1 with a stick on his right hand. He sustained a fracture and was treated at Guru Raghavendra hospital, Nizamabad. Pw-1 lodged a report with the police before going to Guru Raghavendra hospital for treatment. Though village elders came to hold a panchayati, no panchayati was held since the village elders refused to interfere in their family affairs. They also went to the police station to seek protection.

Thereafter, when they were returning from police station to their house,

Katkam Shanker beat her when Katkam Sayamma held her from behind.

Thereafter, she was taken to Chandrashekar hospital, Nizamabad for treatment. Police examined her and recorded her statement. During cross examination she deposed that Police examined her and recorded her statement after 2 to 3 days from the date of alleged incident. The alleged incident took place in December, 2014. Katkam shankar never beat and katkam sayamma never held her from behind when they were returning 6 from police station to their house. She did not state before the police that

Pw1 lodged a report with the police before going to Guru Raghavendra

Hospital for treatment. She did not state before the police that Pw1 and gangadhar gradually enter into a heated quarrel. Pw3 to Pw7 did not supported to the prosecution they turned hostile.

12. Decision / Reason there on:

On going through the evidence the court found expect the evidence of Pw1 and Pw2 there is no independent evidence available on record, it is further observed Pw2 is wife of Pw1 and the eye witness and independent witness has not supported the prosecution. The investigating officer is not examined as has evidence was closed. The prosecution has failed to take any steps it is further observed the medical certificates of Pw1 treatment is not filed and neither marked in evidence. The court found prosecution has failed to prove the commission of offence against accused beyond any reasonable doubt.

Dictated to stenographer, corrected and pronounced by P.O in the

open Court, this the 10 th day of August, 2023.

FAC: I Addl Junior Civil Judge- cum- I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan.

7

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

Pw-1. Sri K. SayannaNil Pw-2. Smt. K. Mamatha Nil Pw-3. Sri K. GangadharNil Pw-4. Sri K. Vittal Nil Pw-5. Sri. K. Pentaiah Nil Pw-6. Sri MD Sirajuddin Nil Pw-7. Sri Y. Bhaskar Nil Pw-8. Sri D. Sailu Nil

EXHIBITS MARKED

Ex.P1: Is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw-3 Ex.P2: Is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw-4 Ex.P3: Is the scene of crime panchanama of Pw-5 Ex.P4: Is the signature of the confession cum recovery panchanama on the accused of the Pw-6 Ex.P5: Is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw-7 Ex.P6: Is the signature of scene of crime panchanama along with rough sketch of Pw-8.

FAC: I Addl Junior Civil Judge- cum-

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Bodhan.

8

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT (IN THE FORM OF C.D.)

IN THE COURT OF I-ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

BODHAN.

CC. No. 349 of 2018

1.Date of Offence:09-10-2014

2.Date of Complaint:03-12-2014

3.Date of apprehension:13-12-2014

4.Date of release:13-12-2014

5.Date of commencement of trial:10-01-2022

6.Date of closure of trial:19-01-2023

7.Date of Judgment :14-08-2023

8.Explanation of delay of remarks:--

Complainant

The State through P.S: Yedapally

Description of accused :

A1. Katakam Shankar S/o Gangaram, Age: 38 years, Caste: Munnurukapu, Occup: Agriculture, R/o Yedapally Village.

A2. Katakam Sayamma W/o Pentaiah, Age: 60 years, Caste: Munnurukapu, Occup: Agriculture, R/o Yedapally Village and mandal.

Offence Under Section:326, 323 of IPC.

Finding:Not guilty

Sentence:Acquitted

FAC: I-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan.

To The Hon’ble I-Addl. Dist. & Sessions

Judge, Nizamabad.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I-ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS AT BODHAN.

Present: Smt. Rubina Fatima,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge- cum- Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan FAC: I-Addl. Junior Civil Judge – cum - I-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan.

Dated on this the 25 thday of July, 2023

CC. No. 310 of 2017

(Crime No. 129 /2017)

Between:

The State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Varni, District Nizamabad. …Complainant //AND//

A1- Velturla Malyadhri Reddy S/o Anki Reddy,Age:37 years, Caste:Reddy, Occ:Business and Congress Constituency learder, R/o Kothapally Village of Kotagiri Mandal.

A2- Banoth Ranjya Naik S/o Lalsingh, Age:52 years, Cast: Lambada, Occ: Ex-ZPTC, Varni R/o Saidpur thanda, Laxmapur GP, Varni Mandal.

A3- Diviti Kishore Yadav S/o Late Sayanna, Age:45 years, Caste:Yadav, Occ:Ex-ZPTC, Birkur, R/o Durki Village of Birkur Mandal.

A4- Misani Srinivas S/o Ashok, Age:32 years, Caste:Mudhiraj, Occ:Business & Congress leader, R/o Tagilepally Village of Varni Mandal.

A5- Thonta Shanker S/o Laxman, Age:38 years, Caste:Vanjari, Occ:Kirana Business & Congress leader, R/o Tagilepally Village of Varni Mandal.

A6- Gaini Gopi S/o Gangaram, Age:32 years, Caste:SC Mala, Occ:CPM party leader, r/o Tagilepally Village of Varni Mandal, Occ:Agriculture, R/O Renjal. …Accused Nos.1 to 6 2

This case coming on this day before me for

consideration in the presence of learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor for State and counsel Sri Vidhya Sagar, Advocate

for accused and having stood over, this Court made the

following: -

:: JUDGMENT ::

1. The State represented by SI of Police, PS Varni/ Lw-8 suo motto registered a case in Cr.No.129/2017 for the offence punishable under section 147, 283, 341 r/w 34 IPC against accused No.1 to 6.

2. The reason for registering a suo motto case on 12.08.2017 by

Lw-8/SI of Police, PS Varni is that under the leadership of the A1/

Malyadhri Reddy Congress leader and other accused and some other party workers were assembled unlawfully in front of Police Station

Varni and trying to obstruct vehicle by conducting rasta roko in front of PS Varni in protest against the arrest of A. Kodandaram and gave slogan against the Telangana Government as Congress Zindabad,

Kodandaram Zindabad.

3.Basing on the contents of the report Lw-8 registered a case in Cr. No. 129/2017 or the offences punishable under section 147, 283, 341 r/w 34 IPC against accused No.1 to 6 and took up the investigation.

4.During the course of investigation Lw-8 examined and recorded the statements of the complainant/Lw-1 and constable/eye 3 witness/Lw-2 at police station Varni conducted the scene of offence panchanama as well as drew the rough sketch, issue notice U/sec.

41(A) Cr.P.C. to the accused No.1 to 6 with request to cooperate with the investigation, and finally laid the Charge Sheet for the offence punishable under section 147, 283, 341 r/w 34 IPC on completion of investigation

5. This case was taken on file for the offences punishable under section 147, 283, 341, r/w 34 IPC against accused No.1 to 6 on 23.09.2017. On appearance of accused No.1 to 6, copies were furnished under section 207 Cr.P.C. They were examined under section 251 Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable under sections 147, 283, 341, r/w 34 IPC. They denied accusation for the offences punishable under sections 147, 283, 341, r/w 34 IPC were framed, read over and explained to them in their vernacular language for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove the guilt of accused No.1 to 6, the prosecution examined seven witnesses as Pw-1 to Pw-7. Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 marked.

On closure of the prosecution evidence, accused No.1 to 6 were examined under section 313 of Cr.PC wherein they were questioned with respect to the incriminating material appearing in the evidence of the prosecution appearing against him for which they denied such circumstances, maintained innocence and reported no defence evidence.

4

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

8. Now, the point for determination:-

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused

Nos.1 to 6, for the offences punishable under sections 147,

283, 341 r/w 34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

Provision of Law:-

Section 147 of IPC: Punishment for rioting

Section 283 of IPC: Danger or obstructing in public way or

line

Section 341 of IPC: Wrongful restraint or wrongfully restraint

any person

Evidence on record:-

9. Pw-1 and Pw-5 are the police men who assisted Lw-8/ SI of

Police, PS Varni on the date of the alleged incident. This Lw-8 / SI of

Police PS Varni suo motto registered the crime and the Investigating

Officer who did the investigation and filed charge Sheet.

10. PW-1- Sri T. Srinivas, PW-5- Sri B. Bhaskar, PS Yedapally they deposed that on 12.08.2017, while they were conducting watch duty at around 1.00 PM, a protest Raasta Roko was staged infront of PS

Varni under the leadership of Congress Party since professor

Kodandaram and he was arrested. Since the said Raastaroko caused inconvenience to General Public, the Pw1 lodged report with the police. The persons on whom he lodged report are Malyadri Reddy,

Ranjya Naik, Kishore Yadav, Gopi, Srinivas and Shanker. He could identify the said persons if seen and the person standing in the dock 5 were the persons who conducted Raasta roko and caused inconvenience to general public.

11. PW-6-Sri G.Anjaiah Inspector of Police, Kamareddy deposed that on 12.08.2017, Pw-1 lodged a report basing on which he registered a case In Cr.No. 129/2017 for the offences punishable under section 147, 283, 341 r/w 149 IPC. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of Pw-1,

Pw-5 at the police station. Thereafter, he proceeded to the scene of crime situated at Varni – Bodhan main road and secured the presence of Lw-6 and Pw-4. After conducted the scene of crime panchanama along with rough sketch. He also secured the presence of three eye witnesses, namely Lw-3/Sri T. Bhaskar, Pw-2 and Pw-3.

They examined and recorded their statements. Thereafter, issued

Sec.41-A Cr.P.C notice to the accused Nos.1 to 6 with instructions to cooperate with the investigation and they were released on station bail. On completion of investigation, he laid the charge sheet against accused No.1 to 6.

Discussion/Decision reason there on:-

12.On going through the evidence the Court found except the evidence of police official i.e. Pw-1, Pw-5, Pw-6, there is no independent evidence available on record to corroborate the evidence of official evidence and the independent eye witnesses to the incident and panch witness to the scene of offence panchanama 6 not supported the prosecution and they turned hostile. Therefore, the court found basing on the evidence of police official the court cannot proceed in convicting the accused and found prosecution has failed to produce evidence of independent witness and failed to prove the ingredients under sections 147, 283, 341 r/w 149 IPC.

Accordingly, they are set at liberty for the offence and they are acquitted for the offence is not proved successfully by the prosecution.

In the result, accused No.1 to 6 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 147, 283, 341 r/w 34 of IPC.

Therefore, accused 1 to 6 are acquitted under sections 248 (1) of

Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable under section 147, 283, 341 r/w 34 of IPC. The bailbonds and surety bonds of accused 1 to 6 shall stand cancelled subject to Sec. 437-A of Cr.P.C. Since there is no property in this case, there is no order as to property.

Dictated to stenographer, corrected and pronounced by P.O in

the open Court, this the 25 th day of July, 2023.

FAC: I-Addl Junior Civil Judge- cum-

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Bodhan.

7

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

Pw-1. Sri T. SrinivasNil Pw-2. Sri S. Raju Nil Pw-3. Sri Mohammed Rafeeq Nil Pw-4. Sri R. Ramesh Nil Pw-5. Sri B. Bhaskar Nil Pw-6. Sri G. Anjaiah Nil Pw-7. Sri R. Gopal Nil

EXHIBITS MARKED

Ex.P1: Is the police Report Ex.P2: Is the signature of scene of crime panchanama along with rough sketch Ex.P3: Iis the F.I.R. Ex.P4: Is the signature of scene of crime panchanama along with rough sketch Ex.P5: Is the signature of scene of crime panchanama along with rough sketch

FAC: I-Addl Junior Civil Judge- cum-

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of Fitst Class,

Bodhan.

8

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT (IN THE FORM OF C.D.)

IN THE COURT OF I-ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS, BODHAN.

CC. No. 310 of 2017

1.Date of Offence:12-08-2017

2.Date of Complaint:12-08-2017

3.Date of apprehension:12-08-2017

4.Date of release:12-08-2017

5.Date of commencement of trial:14-11-2022

6.Date of closure of trial:05-01-2023

7.Date of Judgment :25-07-2023

8.Explanation of delay of remarks:--

Complainant

The State through P.S: Varni

Description of accused :

A1- Velturla Malyadhri Reddy S/o Anki Reddy,Age:37 years, Caste:Reddy, Occ:Business and Congress Constituency learder, R/o Kothapally Village of Kotagiri Mandal.

A2- Banoth Ranjya Naik S/o Lalsingh, Age:52 years, Cast: Lambada, Occ: Ex-ZPTC, Varni R/o Saidpur thanda, Laxmapur GP, Varni Mandal.

A3- Diviti Kishore Yadav S/o Late Sayanna, Age:45 years, Caste:Yadav, Occ:Ex-ZPTC, Birkur, R/o Durki Village of Birkur Mandal.

A4- Misani Srinivas S/o Ashok, Age:32 years, Caste:Mudhiraj, Occ:Business & Congress leader, R/o Tagilepally Village of Varni Mandal.

A5- Thonta Shanker S/o Laxman, Age:38 years, Caste:Vanjari, Occ:Kirana Business & Congress leader, R/o Tagilepally Village of Varni Mandal.

9

A6- Gaini Gopi S/o Gangaram, Age:32 years, Caste:SC Mala, Occ:CPM party leader, r/o Tagilepally Village of Varni Mandal, Occ:Agriculture, R/O Renjal.

Offence Under Section: 147, 283, 341 r/w 34 of IPC.

Finding:Not guilty

Sentence:Acquitted

FAC: I-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan.

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