Smt.S.Shirisha

C.C.No.96 of 2015 Page 1

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT :: Atmakur.

Present: Smt.S.Shirisha,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Atmakur-A.

This the 07 th day of September, 2022.

C.C.No. 96 of 2015

Between

State by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Atmakur Police Station. … Complainant.

And

Vadthyavath Hanmanthu Naik S/o Chatria Naik, Age: 40 years, Occ: Agriculture,

R/o Chandrappa Thanda h/o Amarachinta Village. ...Accused.

Section of Law:354-A(1)(i), 509 of IPC

Plea of accused:Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the Court:Found guilty U/Secs.354-A(1)(i), 509 of IPC

Sentenceor :In the result, accused is found guilty for the orderoffence under sec 354- A(1)(i) and 509 of Indian Penal Code and consequently he is convicted under section 248(2) Cr.P.C. The accused therefore sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six (06) months for the offence punishable under Sec-354-A(1)(i) of Indian Penal Code and he is also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (five hundred only) and in default in payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six (06) months for the offence punishable under section 509 IPC and he is also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. The substantive sentences awarded shall run concurrently and the default sentence awarded for non-payment of fine shall run consecutively. Since the accused was not remanded even for a single day to the judicial custody before or during the trial period, therefore section 428 of Cr.P.C. is not invoked. No material objects are marked. The accused is informed about the right of appeal against judgment and sentence passed by the Court for which he submitted that he knew that he have right to prefer appeal against the

C.C.No.96 of 2015 Page 2 judgment and sentence and on sufficiency of means to prefer appeal the convicts submitted that they have sufficient means to prefer Appeal. A copy of judgment shall be given to the accused as per Section-363 of Cr.P.C r/w Rule-72 of Criminal Rules of Practice at free of cost. -o0o- This C.C is came before me on 05-09-2022 for final hearing in the presence of the Sri MKQ.Baqhtiyar, A.P.P. for the State and of Sri.K.Muktheshwar, Counsel for Accused and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The accused have arraigned before this court for the offences punishable U/Secs-354-A(1)(i) and 509 of Indian Penal Code 1860.

2. The Sub-Inspector of police, Atmakur laid charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.50/2015 for the offences U/Secs.354-A(1)(i) and 509 of Indian penal code 1860.

3. The brief Averment of the case are as follows;

It is the case of the prosecution that on 27-03-2015 at about 18:30 hours PW9 sub inspector of police, Atmakur Police station received a complaint from PW1/LW1/Nunsavat Shantamma stating that on 13-02-2015 at about 10.00 P.M., while she was sleeping at her residence accused came on bike to her house and knocked the door when PW1 opened the door the accused asked water to drink, PW1 gave water to accused later he demanded

PW1 for sex and dragged her to the floor and tried to outrage her modesty. PW1 refused the demand of accused, he immediately went to roof of her house and slept there, later she informed the same to her son, who is residing at Hyderabad. PW1 and her son held panchayath among the village elders and warned accused, from then the accused was abusing the complainant as she gave complaint to village elders against him. Thereby accused committed an offences punishable U/Secs-354-A(1)(i) and 509 of

IPC. After completion of investigation the LW9/PW9/G.Naresh

Kumar, S.I of Police Atmakur filed a charge sheet against the

C.C.No.96 of 2015 Page 3 accused.

4.Basing on the report given by PW1, PW9 registered a case in a Cr.No.50 of 2015 for the offence punishable U/Secs-354-A(1)(i) and 509 IPC against accused and took up the investigation.

During the course of investigation PW9 examined and recorded the statements of PW1 to PW8. Further he visited scene of offence and conducted the scene of offence panchanama in the presence of PW5 and PW6 and drawn rough sketch in CDF form.

Thereafter On 16-04-2015 PW9 served a notice under section 41-

A Cr.P.C to accused. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against accused for the offences U/Secs-354-A(1)(i) and 509 of IPC.

5.After filing the charge sheet, the case was taken on file for the offences punishable U/Secs-354-A(1)(i) and 509 of IPC against the accused.

6.On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were furnished to him in compliance U/Sec-207 of Cr.P.C and he was examined U/Sec-239 of Cr.P.C and charged for the offences

U/Secs-354-A(1)(i) and 509 IPC were framed, explained and read over to him, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.During the course of trial the prosecution examined PW1 to

PW9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6.

The list of Witnesses examined by the prosecution are as

follows:

PW-1: Shanthamma- is the Defacto complainant cum Victim.

PW-2: Nunsavath Gopal Naik – is the Elder son of Victim.

PW-3: Nunsavath Pandu Naik – is the 3rd son of Victim.

PW-4: P.Palya Naik – Caste Elder.

PW-5: D.Kurumurthy – Panch for scene of offence.

PW-6: D.Anajeyulu – Panch for scene of offence.

C.C.No.96 of 2015 Page 4

PW-7: N.Gopal Naik – Caste Elder.

PW-8: Kum.Rani - is the Granddaughter of Victim.

PW-9: G.Naresh Kumar – Investigating Officer.

The list of Documents exhibited by the prosecution are as

follows

Ex.P1: Report of PW1 (Exhibited through PW1).

Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2 (Exhibited through PW2).

Ex.P3: Portion of signature of PW5 on scene of offence panchanama (Exhibited through PW5).

Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW7 (Exhibited through PW7).

Ex.P5: FIR (Exhibited through PW9).

Ex.P6: CDF (Exhibited through PW9).

8.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined U/Sec-313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied and reported no defence evidence.

9.Heard arguments of learned APP and learned counsel for accused.

10.Now the point for determination is

Whether the prosecution could able to prove the offences U/Secs.354-A(1)(i),509 IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt?

11.PW1, who is the de-facto complainant cum victim herein deposed that she is having six sons and one daughter, all of her children settled at Hyderabad for their livelihood. She deposed that accused is her villager. She further deposed about three years back from the date of her deposition at about 10:00 P.M the accused came to her house and requested for some water, she offered water to him. Later accused consumed alcohol and even offered her to drink along with him, but she refused and thereafter the accused in intoxicate state attempted to commit

C.C.No.96 of 2015 Page 5 rape on her forcibly she further deposed that she resisted him and in the meanwhile her granddaughter i.e., PW8 tried to rescue her from accused she raised hues and cries, then the accused fled away from there. She deposed that at the time of incident her sons were in Hyderabad for their livelihood, later she informed the same thing to her sons over phone, she also deposed that after one month of the incident she lodged a report

before the police against the accused and she stated the reason

for the delay is for the interest of family respect.

During cross-examination, PW1 testified that she informed about the incident to the village elders before lodging of the report in the police station. She further testified that the accused took lease and cultivated the land of one Krishna Naik, she also testified that there is a dispute between accused and herself which arose when her domestic animals were destroyed the standing crop of the accused. She denied the suggestion that she is stating for the first time in the Court that the accused offered her liquor while he was drinking and she denied that she has not stated to the police that accused has run away.

12.PW2, who is the son of PW1, deposed that about three years back from the date of his deposition he received a phone call from PW1 and was informed that the accused at about 10:00 P.M came to their house and asked PW1 a glass of water, at his request PW1 offered water to accused later accused consumed alcohol and even offered alcohol to PW1, but PW1 refused it.

Later the accused in intoxicate state attempted to commit rape on PW1 forcibly, but PW1 resisted him and in meanwhile his daughter PW8 tried to rescue PW1. He deposed that after knowing the said incident he came to his village and discussed about the said incident before the village elders. During his cross- examination, he testified that accused is his brother-in-law and denied the suggestion that there are disputes between his family

C.C.No.96 of 2015 Page 6 and the accused.

13.PW3, who is the son of PW1 deposed that about three years back from the date of his deposition received a phone call from his mother and informed that at about 08:00 P.M accused came to her house and asked a glass of water, at his request PW1 offered water to accused, later accused consumed alcohol and even offered alcohol to PW1, but PW1 refused it. Later the accused in intoxicate state attempted to commit rape on PW1 forcibly, but PW1 resisted him and in meanwhile his daughter

PW8 tried to rescue PW1. He deposed that after knowing the said incident he came to his village and discussed about the said incident before the village elders.

During the cross-examination PW3 testified that the accused is not related to them, PW1 telephoned him and informed about the incident. He testified that the accused tore the dress of PW1 and also broke the mangalsutra of PW1. He also testified that when PW3, PW2 and PW1 took the torn clothes to police station while lodging the report, but the police did not received it. He further testified that he informed PW2 about the incident.

14.PW4, PW5, PW6 and PW7, who were caste elders and panchas of scene of offence turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case the learned APP cross examined PW4, PW5,

Pw6 and Pw7, but nothing have been elicited from them in support of prosecution and in cross examination they denied having stated to the police as an Exs.P2, P3 and P4 (161

Statements).

15.PW8, who is the granddaughter of PW1 and daughter of

PW2 deposed that she know accused as he is resident of their village. She deposed that about three years ago from the date of her deposition at about night 09:00 P.M when she along with PW1 was at their house preparing to sleep by closing the door, the

C.C.No.96 of 2015 Page 7 accused came and knocked the door, PW1 opened the door and accused asked water for which PW1 provided the same. After sometime accused misbehaved with PW1 inturn PW1 resisted accused. Later accused dragged the PW1 on the floor and after some time the accused went away from there.

During cross-examination PW8 testified that she is an illiterate and the accused is uncle in relation to her. She admitted that there was dispute between the accused and PW1 about cattle which damaged the crop of accused in his agriculture land.

She admitted that PW1 not sustained any injuries in the alleged incident as stated above (As witness is minor the preliminary examination is conducted to know the competency of the witness. During the preliminary examination it is found that the witness is competent and her testimony was not the result of tutoring and the witness was capable of understanding the question and give a cogent answer).

16.PW9 in his chief examination deposed that on 27-03-2015 at about 18:30 hours he received Ex.P1 from PW1 and registered a case vide in Crime.No.50/2015 for the offences U/Secs-354-A(1)(i) and 509 of IPC and issued Sec.41-A notice to accused. Ex.P5 is the FIR. He deposed that he examined and recorded the statements of PW1 to PW8. Ex.P6 is CDF. On completion of investigation he filed the charge sheet against the accused.

During cross-examination he testified that the accused and

PW1 to PW3 and PW8 belong to the same caste and they are the relatives, he testified that he do not know whether there are land disputes between the accused and PW1 to PW3. PW9 testified that the houses in Thanda or located far from each other and he further adds that there was only one house of the PW1, and there was no neighbouring houses as he could not examine the neighbours, but he adds that he has examined the caste elders, who held the Panchayath between PW1 and accused.

C.C.No.96 of 2015 Page 8

17.Point:-Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case and upon careful scrutiny and evaluation of the evidence on record. For bringing home the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable U/Secs.354-A(1)(i) and 509 IPC.

Firstly the prosecution has to prove:-

(i) Physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures as per Sec-354-A(1)(i) of IPC and

(ii) Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of women as per Sec-509 of IPC.

Now let us see, the prosecution could prove the ingredients as per Secs.354-A(1)(i) and 509 of IPC.

18.It is the case of prosecution that on 13-02-2015 at about 10:00 P.M while PW1 was sleeping at her residence along with

PW8, accused came on bike to her house and knocked the door, when PW1 opened the door, the accused asked water to drink,

PW1 gave water to accused. Later accused demanded PW1 for sex and dragged her to the floor. PW1 refused the demand of the accused, he immediately went to the roof of PW1 house. In support of this PW1 deposed in her chief-examination that the accused came to her house on specified date at 10:00 P.M and asked glass of water. She offered water to accused, later accused consumed alcohol and even offered PW1 where she refused.

Thereafter The accused in intoxicate state attempt to commit rape on her forcibly when PW1 raised hues and cries, her granddaughter i.e., PW8 tried to rescue her, immediately accused fled away. The depositions made by PW1 is on the same line of her Sec-161 Cr.P.C statement. Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement is corroborating with her open Court statement. But, PW1 added a new fact in her deposition that the accused consumed alcohol

C.C.No.96 of 2015 Page 9 which was not present either in her complaint or 161 Cr.P.C statement. It is an improvement made to her previous statement.

Whereas coming to the act of the accused that he dragged her on to the floor, which was explained by PW1 was same in her complaint, 161 Cr.P.C statement and in her deposition and the main ingredients of Secs-354-A(1)(i) and 509 IPC are satisfied, i.e., accused physically contacted and advances involuntary unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures and an act intended to insult the modesty of woman. Even though if we take the fact that accused was in drunken state it is also not an defence as per

Sec-85 of IPC.

19.Coming to the evidence of PW2 and PW3, their evidence is on the same line of PW1. But here the PW2 and PW3 or not direct witnesses. Their evidence is based upon the information given by

PW1, so the evidence will be here say evidence and it is not reliable.

20.The evidence of PW4, PW5, PW6 and PW7 was not useful to the prosecution as they turned hostile. Even after cross examining them nothing could be elicited in favour of prosecution.

21.Coming to the evidence of PW8, who is the crucial evidence for this case. PW8 is the granddaughter of a PW1, who is the one and only eyewitness to the incident. She deposed that on the day of incident she was along with her grandmother i.e., PW1. When the accused came and knock the door PW1, opened the door, accused asked water to drink when PW1 offered water to him the accused misbehaved with PW1 and dragged PW1 on the floor, but PW1 resisted accused. After sometime the accused went away from there. During the cross-examination by the defence counsel nothing was elicited in contrary to her deposition in her chief-examination. PW8 stands on the same line of the evidence

C.C.No.96 of 2015 Page 10 in all her depositions. The statement given by PW8 in her 161

Cr.P.C statement corroborates with her deposition in the open

Court. The defence counsel in his argument submitted that as a witness is a minor, the Court cannot be relied upon her evidence.

The Apex Court in Mangoo and Another Vs State of Madya

Pradesh AIR 1995 SC 959, while dealing with the evidence of child witness observed that there was always scope to Tutor a child, however it cannot alone be ground to come to the conclusion that the child witness must have been tutored. The

Court must determine whether the child has been Tutored or not.

It can be ascertained by examining the evidence and from the contents thereof whether there are any traces of Tutoring. Here in this case this Court after preliminarily examining the child witness and coming to the conclusion that she is giving rational answers to the questions and after satisfying that she is competent and her testimony is not a result of the tutoring her evidence was recorded and Sec-134 of Indian Evidence Says that to prove a fact, the number of witnesses may not be essential it is the quality of evidence which is important. Even though the counsel for defence cross examined the PW8 nothing could be elicited in favour of defence. In my opinion the evidence given by

PW8 is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused.

22.On holistic consideration of the entire Gamut Of evidence on record, particularly taking into consideration the evidence of PW1 and PW8, I see no reason why the evidence of PW1 and PW8 shall not be believed. Nothing significant could be elicited by the accused in order to discredit the testimony of PW1 and PW8. For the aforesaid discussions, this court came to the conclusion that the prosecution could establish the case for the offences

U/Secs.354-A(1)(i) and 509 of IPC against the accused person beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly the point No.1 is answered.

C.C.No.96 of 2015 Page 11

23.In the result this Court found the accused guilty for the offences U/Secs.354-A(1)(i) and 509 of IPC and consequently he is convicted U/Sec-248(2) Cr.P.C.

Dictated to Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me, in the Open

Court this the 07th day of September, 2022.

Sd/-

Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Atmakur-A.

23. Upon hearing the accused, on the quantum of sentence to be awarded, the accused/convict prayed mercy of this Court stating that, he is having old aged parents and he is only the sole bread earner to look after his family and parents. In case, he sentenced to imprisonment, his parents and children would suffer. Submitting thus the accused pleaded mercy of this Court in sentencing him by taking lenient view.

The offences U/Secs.354-A(1)(i) is shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to 03 years or with fine or with both.

Having considered the submissions made by the accused this court is of the view that no lenient view could be taken against the accused considering the gravity of the offences. The accused therefore sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six (06) months for the offence punishable

U/Sec.354-A(1)(i) of IPC and he is also sentenced to pay fine of

Rs.500/- and in default in payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six (06) months for the offence punishable U/Sec-509 of IPC and he is also

C.C.No.96 of 2015 Page 12 sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default in payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. The substantive sentences awarded shall run concurrently and the default sentence awarded for non-payment of fine shall run consecutively. Since the accused was not remanded even for a single day to do the judicial custody before or during the trial period therefore Sec-428 of Cr.P.C is not invoked. No material objects are marked. The accused is informed about the right of appeal against judgment and sentence passed by the Court for which he submitted that he knew that he have right to prefer appeal against the judgment and sentence and on sufficiency of means to prefer appeal the convict submitted that he has sufficient means to prefer Appeal. A copy of judgment shall be given to the accused as per Sec-363 of Cr.P.C r/w Rule 72 of

Criminal Rules of Practice at free of cost.

Dictated to Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me, in the Open Court

this the 07th day of September, 2022.

Sd/-

Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Atmakur-A.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

PW-1: Shanthamma - None -

PW-2: Nunsavath Gopal Naik

PW-3: Nunsavath Pandu Naik

PW-4: P.Palya Naik

PW-5: D.Kurumurthy

PW-6: D.Anajeyulu

PW-7: N.Gopal Naik

PW-8: Kum.Rani

PW-9: G.Naresh Kumar

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR : PROSECUTION

C.C.No.96 of 2015 Page 13

Ex.P1: Report of PW1.

Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2.

Ex.P3: Portion of signature of PW5 on scene of offence panchanama.

Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW7.

Ex.P5: FIR.

Ex.P6: CDF.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR : DEFENCE: --NIL--

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED --NIL--

Sd/-

Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Atmakur-A.

C.C.No.104 of 2017 Page 1

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT :: Atmakur.

Present: Smt.S.Shirisha,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Atmakur-A.

This the 08 th day of September, 2022.

C.C.No. 104 of 2017

Between

State by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Atmakur Police Station. …Complainant.

And

A1: Burgapally Sriram Reddy S/o Bojji Reddy, Age: 50 years, Occ: Agriculture, A2: Burgapally Madhavi W/o Sriram Reddy Age: 48 years, Occ: Agriculture, A3: Burgapally Dinesh Kumar Reddy W/o Burgapally Sriram Reddy, Age: 22 years, Occ: Agriculture, All R/o Rechinthala Village of Atmakur Mandal.

...Accused

.

Offence:326, 324, 323, 447, 504 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC

Plea of accused:Pleaded not guilty

Finding :Found not guilty

Sentenceor :Accused A1 to A3 are found not guilty of the orderoffences U/secs. 326, 324, 323, 447, 504 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted of the same under sec. 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused persons shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. -o0o-

This case is coming up before me on 07-09-2022 for final hearing in the presence of the Sri MKQ.Baqhtiyar, A.P.P. for the State and of Sri.D.Ashok Kumar, Counsel for Accused and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Atmakur, P.S. laid Charge sheet against accused in Cr.No. 37/2017 for the offence U/Secs.

C.C.No.104 of 2017 Page 2 326, 324, 323, 447, 504 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 05.02.2017 at about 02:10 hours, the LW1/PW1/Burgapally Krushna Kumar Reddy lodged a Telugu written petition by stating that on 03.02.2017 at about 05:00 P.M., his father LW2/PW2/B.Hanmanthu Reddy went to his agriculture land to water the crop and heard death news of his relative and went to attend the funerals on 04.02.2017. On the same day afternoon at about 03:00 P.M., PW2 called the PW1 that to check the water in his agriculture land. Then PW1 went to their field and discovered that the accused A1 diverted the water to his land, then he asked the same to accused A1, he replied that after filling the water in his land, he gave to others, then

PW1 questioned the accused A1, but accused A1 abused him in filthy language and beat him, in the mean time PW2 came there and tried to rescue the PW1 from the clutches of accused A1, but he also beat the PW2 and escaped from there. When PW1 and

PW2 reached to their home, accused A1 to A3 went to the complainants house and beat the PW3/LW/B.Sushilamma with hands on the back, throat and on stomach, as a result she received soared wounds, on seeing the same PW1 and PW2 asked them, but accused A1 to A3 beat them with blunt knife, stick and stones, as a result Pw1 received bleeding injury on his head and on left hand, PW2 received bleeding injuries on his legs and hands. Based on the above report the LW8/S.I of Police,

Atmakur registered a case vide Cr.No.37 of 2017 for the offences under Sections- 324, 323, 447, 504 and 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C and investigated upon.

3.During the course of investigation LW8 examined and recorded the statement of PW1 at police station. Further he visited the scene of offence, situated at Rechinthala Village and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of

LW5/Harijan Vallanna and LW6/Borelli Harijan Narsimha and also

C.C.No.104 of 2017 Page 3 seized the a knife and stick which were used for commission of offence under cover of scene of offence panchanama, later he recorded the statements of PW2, PW3 and LW4/B.Narsimha

Reddy. On 07.02.2017 LW10 issued Sec.41-A Cr.P.C notice to accused A1 to A3 on furnishing sufficient sureties, directed them to appear before the Hon’ble JFCM Court, Atmakur, whenever required and released them on station bail. Later LW8 received medical certificates of PW1 to PW3 issued by the LW7, who treated PW1 to PW3 opined that PW1 received injuries are grievous and simple injuries and PW2 and PW3 received injuries are simple in nature. After completion of investigation, LW8 filed the charge sheet against the accused A1 to A3.

4.Basing on the material available on the record the cognizance was taken against the accused A1 to A3 for the offenses punishable U/Secs. 326, 324, 323, 447, 504 and 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) and the summons were issued. On appearance of Accused A1 to A3, they were served with case papers as per Sec. 207 Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.P.C) and later they were examined U/Sec. 239 Cr.P.C by explaining the substance of charge for the offences U/Secs. 326, 324, 323, 447, 504 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC, for which they denied and claimed to be tried.

5.At trial, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5. PW1 is the complainant cum injured and

PW2 and PW3 are eye witnesses cum injured persons. The learned APP given up the evidence of LWs.4 to 8 including the investigating officer. Ex.P1 is the portion of signature of PW1 on report, Ex.P2 is the report, Exs.P3 to P5 are the 161 Cr.P.C statements of PW1 to PW3. On completion of prosecution evidence the examination of Accused A1 to A3 U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C is dispensed as no incriminating evidence against the accused A1 to A3.

C.C.No.104 of 2017 Page 4

Heard both sides and perused the record.

Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused A1 to A3 for the offences U/Sec. 326, 324, 323, 447, 504 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt ?

6.The prosecution in support of its case has examined PW1 to

PW3 and got marked Exhibits-P1 to P5. Whereas on behalf of the accused neither any document was marked nor any evidence was led in. On Marshalling the evidence and considering the material placed before this court. It would be appropriate to refer the evidence adduced by the prosecution for just conclusion of the case. The PW1 at whose instance the criminal law was set into motion during the course of his evidence before the court has turned hostile and didn’t support the prosecution case. The

PW1 has categorically stated during his chief-examination that the accused A1 to A3 never committed any offense against him and he never lodged any report against the accused to the police. The village elders obtained his signature on some white blank papers. No incident ever took place between the accused persons and myself enabling me to lodged a report against the accused persons.

7.The prosecution in-order to strengthen their case has examined PW2 and PW3, who were then the eye witnesses cum injured persons. But to the dismay of the prosecution the PW2 and PW3 equally turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case, the suggestion posed by the learned APP with the permission of the court was denied. At this juncture the learned APP has given the evidence of LW4 to LW8, who were then the eye witness, panchas for scene of offence, Doctor and investigating officer. However, the act of the Learned APP seems to be justifiable in the process administration of justice and in the

C.C.No.104 of 2017 Page 5 light of the present facts and circumstances of the case.

8.On analysis of the evidence there are contradictions and inconsistency in the testimony of the witnesses when compared with their earlier statements recorded by the police under Sec- 161 of Cr.P.C. In fact the defacto complainant and the injured herein has denied the contents in his complaint under Ex.P2 and categorically testified that neither such report was ever lodged nor such incident was ever reported. All the prosecution witnesses have turned hostile and there is no incriminating evidence against the accused A1 to A3 as to their involvement in the alleged commission of the offence and to connect them with the alleged commission of the offence and bring home the guilt of the accused persons. The accused A1 to A3 cannot be penalized in the absence of sufficient independent testimony to corroborate and arrive at a conclusion. Therefore with due regards to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case coupled up with the evidence placed before this court, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused A1 to A3 beyond reasonable doubt and hence the accused A1 to A3 herein is entitled for acquittal.

In the result the Accused A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offences U/Secs. 326, 324, 323, 447, 504 and 506 r/w 34 of

IPC, and accordingly they are acquitted for the same U/Sec.

248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused persons shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked case property i.e., one Stick and one Sickle deposited before this Court

Vide CPR No.63/2017 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to Typist, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me

in open Court on this the 08st day of September, 2022.

Sd/-

Judicial Magistrate of First

C.C.No.104 of 2017 Page 6

Class, Atmakur-A.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE: PW-1: B.Krishna Kumar Reddy - None -

PW-2: B.Hanmanth Reddy

PW-3:B.Susheelamma

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR : PROSECUTION

Ex.P1: Portion of signature of PW1 on report.

Ex.P2: Report.

Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW1.

Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW2.

Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW3.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR : DEFENCE: --NIL--

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

--NIL--

Sd/-

Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Atmakur-A.

C.C.No.124 of 2017 Page 1

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT :: Atmakur.

Present: Smt.S.Shirisha,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Atmakur-A.

This the 08 th day of September, 2022.

C.C.No. 124 of 2017

Between

State by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Atmakur Police Station. …Complainant.

And

A1: B.Hanmanthu Reddy S/o Late Bajji Reddy, Age: 55 years, Occ: Agriculture, A2: Burgapally Krishna Kumar Reddy S/o Burgapally Hanmanthu Reddy, Age: 33 years, Occ: Agriculture, A3: Burgapally Shushilamma W/o Burgapally Hanmanthu Reddy, Age: 50 years, Occ: Agriculture, All R/o Rechinthala Village of Atmakur Mandal.

...Accused

.

Offence:324, 504 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC

Plea of accused:Pleaded not guilty

Finding :Found not guilty

Sentenceor :Accused A1 to A3 are found not guilty of the orderoffences U/secs. 324, 504 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted of the same under sec. 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused persons shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. -o0o-

This case is coming up before me on 07-09-2022 for final hearing in the presence of the Sri MKQ.Baqhtiyar, A.P.P. for the State and of Sri.B.V.Rathnam, Counsel for Accused and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Atmakur, P.S. laid Charge sheet against accused in Cr.No. 36/2017 for the offence U/Secs.

324, 504 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

C.C.No.124 of 2017 Page 2

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 04.02.2017 at about 22:15 hours, the LW1/PW1/Burgapally Sriram Reddy lodged a

Telugu written petition by stating that on the same day at about 02:30 P.M., he went to his agriculture land, situated beside

Krishna river from his home to get the water to his fields from the combined pipe lines of co-shares, in the mean time accused A1 and A2 came there and abused him in filthy language and asked him not to take water to his fields and beat him with footwear.

Then he escaped from there and went to his house. Accused A2 came with knife, accused A1 and A3 beat him with stones, on seeing the same complainant’s wife/PW2/LW2/B.Madhavi and his son LW3/B.Dhinesh Kumar Reddy came there and rescued the

PW1 from the clutches of accused persons, at that time accused

A2 thrown a knife on PW2, as a result PW2 received bleeding injury on left side of her neck and PW1 received bleeding injuries on his left leg and right hand finger. Accused A2 inflicted injuries on LW3 with knife on his both shoulder and accused A2 and A3 also beat the PW2 and LW3 with stones on their heads, as a result they received bleeding injuries and PW2 also received injury on her left leg fingers. Accused A1 to A3 threatened them with dire consequences. Based on the above report the LW10/S.I of Police, Atmakur registered a case vide Cr.No.36 of 2017 for the offences under Sections- 324, 504 and 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C and investigated upon.

3.During the course of investigation LW10 examined and recorded the statement of PW1, PW2 and LW3 at police station.

Further he visited the scene of offence, situated at Rechinthala

Village and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of LW7/Harijan Vallanna and LW8/Borelli Harijan

Narsimha and also seized the two stones which were used for commission of offence under cover of scene of offence panchanama, later he recorded the statements of LW4 to LW6.

C.C.No.124 of 2017 Page 3

On 07.02.2017 LW10 issued Sec.41-A Cr.P.C notice to accused A1 to A3 on furnishing sufficient sureties, directed them to appear

before the Hon’ble JFCM Court, Atmakur, whenever required and

released them on station bail. On receipt of medical certificate and on completion of investigation, LW10 filed the charge sheet against the accused A1 to A3.

4.Basing on the material available on the record the cognizance was taken against the accused A1 to A3 for the offenses punishable U/Secs. 324, 504 and 506 r/w 34 of Indian

Penal Code (for short IPC) and the summons were issued. On appearance of Accused A1 to A3, they were served with case papers as per Sec. 207 Code of Criminal Procedure (for short

Cr.P.C) and later they were examined U/Sec. 239 Cr.P.C by explaining the substance of charge for the offences U/Secs. 324, 504 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC, for which they denied and claimed to be tried.

5.At trial, the prosecution examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4. PW1 is the complainant cum injured and

PW2 eye witness cum injured. The learned APP given up the evidence of LWs.3 to 10 including the investigating officer in view of evidence given by PW1 and PW2. Ex.P1 is the portion of signature of PW1 on report, Ex.P2 is the report, Exs.P3 and P4 are the 161 Cr.P.C statements of PW1 and PW2. On completion of prosecution evidence the examination of Accused A1 to A3

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C is dispensed as no incriminating evidence against the accused A1 to A3.

Heard both sides and perused the record.

Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused A1 to A3 for the offences U/Sec. 324, 504 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt ?

C.C.No.124 of 2017 Page 4

6.The prosecution in support of its case has examined PW1 and PW2 and got marked Exhibits-P1 to P4. Whereas on behalf of the accused neither any document was marked nor any evidence was led in. On Marshalling the evidence and considering the material placed before this court. It would be appropriate to refer the evidence adduced by the prosecution for just conclusion of the case. The PW1 at whose instance the criminal law was set into motion during the course of his evidence before the court has turned hostile and didn’t support the prosecution case. The

PW1 has categorically stated during his chief-examination that the accused A1 to A3 never committed any offense against him and he never lodged any report against the accused to the police. The village elders obtained his signature on some white blank papers, No incident ever took place between the accused persons and myself enabling me to lodged a report against the accused persons.

7.The prosecution in-order to strengthen their case has examined PW2, who was then the eye witness cum injured. But to the dismay of the prosecution the PW2 equally turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case, the suggestion posed by the learned APP with the permission of the court was denied.

At this juncture the learned APP has given-up the evidence of

LW3 to LW10, who were then the eye witnesses, circumstantial witnesses and panchas for scene of offence, Doctor and investigating officer. However, the act of the Learned APP seems to be justifiable in the process administration of justice and in the light of the present facts and circumstances of the case.

8.On analysis of the evidence there are contradictions and inconsistency in the testimony of the witnesses when compared with their earlier statements recorded by the police under Sec- 161 of Cr.P.C. In fact the defacto complainant and the victim

C.C.No.124 of 2017 Page 5 herein has denied the contents in his complaint under Ex.P2 and categorically testified that neither such report was ever lodged nor such incident was ever reported. All the prosecution witnesses have turned hostile and there is no incriminating evidence against the accused A1 to A3 as to their involvement in the alleged commission of the offence and to connect them with the alleged commission of the offence and bring home the guilt of the accused persons. The accused A1 to A3 cannot be penalized in the absence of sufficient independent testimony to corroborate and arrive at a conclusion. Therefore with due regards to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case coupled up with the evidence placed before this court, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused A1 to A3 beyond reasonable doubt and hence the accused A1 to A3 herein is entitled for acquittal.

In the result the Accused A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offences U/Secs. 324, 504 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC, and accordingly they are acquitted for the same U/Sec. 248(1) Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of the accused persons shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked case property i.e., Two

Stones weighing about ½ kg each deposited before this Court

Vide CPR No.64/2017 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to Typist, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me

in open Court on this the 08st day of September, 2022.

Sd/-

Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Atmakur-A.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

PW-1: B.Sriram Reddy - None -

C.C.No.124 of 2017 Page 6

PW-2: B.Madhavi

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR : PROSECUTION

Ex.P1: Portion of signature of PW1 on report.

Ex.P2: Report.

Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW1.

Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW2.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR : DEFENCE: --NIL--

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

--NIL--

Sd/-

Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Atmakur-A..

C.C.No.80 of 2017 Page 1

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT :: Atmakur.

Present: Smt.S.Shirisha,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Atmakur-A.

This the 08 th day of September, 2022

C.C.No. 80 of 2017

Between

State by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Atmakur Police Station. … Complainant.

And

Nalla Laxmanna S/o Nalla Danaiah, Age: 24 years, Occ: Driver of TATA Ace bearing No.TS15UA2682, R/o Bhoodanpochampally Village and Mandal, Bhoovanigiri Taluq of Nalgonda District, Cell No.9948533059.

Offence:304-A of IPC

Plea of accused:Pleaded not guilty

Finding :Found not guilty

Sentenceor :Accused is found not guilty of the offence orderU/sec. 304-A of IPC, and accordingly he is acquitted of the same under sec. 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. -o0o- This case coming up before me for final hearing on 07-09-2022 in the presence Sri Sri MKQ.Baqhtiyar, A.P.P. for the State and of Sri.G.K.Ramulu, Advocate for the Accused, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Atmakur, P.S. laid Charge sheet against accused in Cr.No. 169/2016 for the offence U/Sec.

304-A of IPC.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 25.07.2016 at about 08:00 hours, the PW1/LW1/Sandyapaga Srinivasulu lodged a

Telugu written petition by stating that on 14.07.2016 night about 07:30 P.M., his father namely Sadyapaga Hanmanthu came to

Atmakur Village from Kothakota Village on his motor bike bearing

C.C.No.80 of 2017 Page 2

No.AP22-P-4084 and on the way, at Allipur cross road near the

Atmakur pond the driver/accused of the TATA ACE vehicle bearing

No.TS15-UA-2682 drove the vehicle with high speed, in rash and negligent manner and gave dash to the bike of complainant’s father in opposite direction, as a result his father fell down on the road, received severe bleeding injuries to his forehead, right leg knee as well as invisible injuries on his body, then he was shifted to Government Hospital, Atmakur from there to Government

Head Quarter’s Hospital, Mahabubnagar and later to Gandhi

Hospital, Hyderabad, while undergoing treatment deceased succumbed to injuries on 25.07.2016 at about 06:15 hours.

Based on the above report, the Lw12/CH.Raju, S.I of Police,

Atmakur have registered a case vide Cr.No. 169 of 2016 under

Sec-304-A of IPC and investigated upon.

3.During the course of investigation, Lw12 recorded the statement of PW1 at police station and on the instructions of

LW12, LW11/J.Rathnaji Rao, H.C of Atmakur P.S visited the scene of offence i.e., near the Atmakur Tank at Allipur Cross Road and conducted the scene of offence panchanama in the presence of

LW6/B.Chennaiah and LW8/Vemula Raghavendra Goud. Then

LW11 visited the Gandhi Hospital, Hyderabad, examined and recorded the statements PW2/LW2/S.Shivanna, PW3/LW3/S.Pedda

Gopal and Lw4/PW4/S.Anjaneyulu and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased namely Sadyapaga Hanmanthu in the presence of LW6 and LW7/MD.Shareef and subjected the dead body of the deceased for PME. The LW10/Dr.S.Mohan Singh conducted PME over the dead body of deceased and handed over the corpus to his relatives for funerals. LW11 handed over the CD file to LW12 for further investigation and he found it to be on proper lines. On 30.07.2016 Lw12 examined and recorded the statement of LW5/A.Madhava Swamy at P.S. On 30.07.2016 LW12 issued Sec.41-A Cr.P.C notice to accused on furnishing sufficient sureties, directed him to appear before the Hon’ble JFCM Court,

C.C.No.80 of 2017 Page 3

Atmakur whenever required and released him on station bail.

Lw12, who inspected the Crime vehicle, issued MVI report. On receipt of PME & MVI report, Lw12 filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Sec.304-A of IPC.

4.Based on the material available on record, the cognizance was taken for the offence punishable under Section-304-A of

Indian Penal Code and accordingly the summons were issued to the accused. On appearance the accused, he was served with the case papers as per Sec. 207 Code of Criminal Procedure (for short

Cr.P.C) and thereafter he was examined U/Sec. 251 Cr.P.C by explaining the substance of accusation for the offences punishable U/Sec.304-A of IPC, in Telugu, for which he denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.At the time of trial, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5. PW1 is the complainant and son of deceased, PW2 is the circumstantial witnessed cum younger son of deceased, PW3 and PW4 are the circumstantial witnessed cum brother of deceased. The learned App given of the evidence of

LW5 to LW12 including the investigating officer. Hence the evidence of LW5 to Lw12 is closed. Ex.P1 is the signature of PW1 on report and Exs.P2 to P5 are the 161 Cr.P.C statements of PW1 to PW4. After closure of prosecution evidence, as there is no incriminating material against the Accused, the examination of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with.

Heard both sides and perused the record.

Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence U/Sec. 304-A of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt ?

6.The prosecution in support of its case has examined PW1 to

PW4 and got marked Exhibits-P1 to P5. Whereas on behalf of the accused neither any document was marked nor any evidence

C.C.No.80 of 2017 Page 4 was being led in. On marshalling of the evidence and considering the material placed before this court. It would be appropriate to refer the evidence adduced by the prosecution for just conclusion of the case.The gist of the prosecution case is that on 14.07.2016 at about 07.30 P.M., while the deceased Sandyapaga

Hanumanthu was proceeded to Atmakur Village from Kothakota

Village on his motor cycle bearing No.AP22-P-4084 and on the way, at Allipur cross road near Atmakur pond the crime vehicle which was coming to opposite direction dashed the motor cycle of the deceased, due to which he fell down on the ground and received severe injuries and later the deceased succumbed to injuries. This case was registered on the report of the son of the deceased. But the defacto complainant though deposed that his deceased father died in a road accident, deposed that he did not know the details of the accident and he never lodged any report

before the police in the matter of the death of his deceased

father. He only identified his signature on the report and said that police obtained his signature on blank papers while he was at the place of accident, but he did not know the contents of the report.

Even during the course of examination by the learned APP after declaring him as hostile, nothing could be elicited in favour of prosecution. The younger son and brother’s of the deceased, who are examined as PWs.2 to 4 also deposed that they did not know the details of the accident and that no report was lodged by PW1 in the matter of the death of the deceased. All these witnesses deposed that police never came to them and that they did not state anything to them. Even during the course of their examination by the learned APP after declaring them as hostile, nothing favour could be elicited.

10. In view of the hostile testimony the defacto complainant and the circumstantial witness, the learned APP has given up the evidence of the remaining witnesses including investigating offi- cer. In these facts and circumstances absolutely there is no evi-

C.C.No.80 of 2017 Page 5 dence that the accident was occurred due to rash or negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle and that the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle and thus the accused is enti- tled for acquittal.

In the result Accused is found not guilty for the offences under section 304-A of IPC and accordingly he is acquitted for the same under section 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. As no property is deposited there is no order as to property.

Dictated to Typist, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court

on this the 08th day of September, 2022.

Sd/-

Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Atmakur-A.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

PW-1: S.Srinivasulu - None - PW-2: S.Shivanna PW-3: S.Pedda Gopal PW-4: S.Anjaneyulu

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR : PROSECUTION

Ex.P1: Portion of signature of Pw1 on report. Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw1. Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw2. Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw3. Ex.P5: 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw4.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR : DEFENCE: --NIL--

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED- --NIL--

Sd/-

Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Atmakur-A

C.C.No.80 of 2017 Page 6

C.C.No.424 of 2024 Page 1

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:

ATMAKUR-A

This the 18 th day of October, 2024

Present: Smt.S.Shirisha, Judl.Magistrate of First Class. Atmakur-A.

C.C.No. 424 of 2024

Between:

State through Proh. & Excise Sub-Inspector of Police, Excise P.S.Atmakur.

...Complainant.

And

K. Abhilash S/o K. Srinu, Occupation: Business, R/o Nandimalla (v) Amarchintha (M), Wanaparthy (Dist.)

...Accused.

Offence:34(a) of T.S Excise Act, 1968.

Plea of accused:Pleaded not guilty

Finding :Found not guilty

Sentence or order:In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under sec. 34(a) of T.S Excise Act, 1968 and accordingly he is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked case property deposited before this court shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

*** This case is coming-up before me for final hearing on 17.10.2024 in the presence of Sri Arunodaya Kumar, A.P.P. for the State and of Sri.K.Muktheshwar, Advocate for the accused and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day the Court delivered the following:-

C.C.No.424 of 2024 Page 2 :: J U D G M E N T ::-

1. The Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Atmakur filed Charge sheet against the accused in PCOR.No. 119/2024 for the offence punishable U/Sec- 34(a) of T.S Excise Act, 1968.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 09.05.2024at about 09.30

P.M., on receipt of reliable information about the illegal Trasportation of IML

Liqour, LW3 C.Krishna Kanth, the Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector,

Atmakur along with his staff proceeded to road leads Gadwal to Atmakur of

Nandimalla Village and secured the presence of two mediators and found the accused with motor cycle Pulsar 150, Bearing No.TS 34 C6720. On search they found (12) bottles of Mc.Dowells whisky, (180)ml, (24) bottles of

Mc.Dowells whisky, (375)ml, (12) bottles of old admiral whisky, (180)ml, (36) bottles of K.F.Strong beer, (650)ml, (24) bottles of K.F.Premium beer, (650)ml, total (13.32) liters whisky and (39) liters beer. Later Lw3 seized the property in the presence of mediators under cover of Panchanama and drawn two samples of IML/Beer bottles under cover of panchanama and returned to Excise station along with samples and seized property and handed over to Lw3 for further action. Basing on the panchanama, Lw3 issued P.C.O.R No. 119/2024 for the offence punishable U/sec. 34(a) of T.S

Excise Act, 1968. On 09.05.2024 Lw3 issued a notice under sec. 41-A

Cr.P.C to the accused. The sample so drawn was deposited before the court with a requisition to send it to the chemical examiner for examination and remaining sized property deposited before Deputy Commissioner of Excise

Mahabubnagar for confiscation. The chemical examiner vide his C.E. report bearing No. 3645/2024/E/1, dated 24.06.2024 opined that the “Sl.No.6710 to 6712 contains alcohol as shown in the column, they are Indian Liqour,

Sl.No. 6713 and 6714 contains alcohol as shown in the column sugar and carbon dioxide it is Beer”.”. After completing the investigation Lw3 filed the charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable under section-34(a) of T.S Excise Act, 1968.

3.After filing the charge sheet, the case was taken on file under section 34(a) of T.S Excise Act, 1968 against the accused.

C.C.No.424 of 2024 Page 3

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were furnished to him in compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C., and he was examined u/sec. 239 Cr.P.C., and the charge there upon was framed against him for the offence punishable under sec. 34(a) of T.S Excise Act, 1968. The contents of the charge were read over and explained to him in

Telugu, to which he denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW3 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, to which he denied and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard the arguments of learned APP and learned counsel for accused.

8.Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution

could prove the offence against the accused under section

34(a) of T.S Excise Act, 1968 beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:-

9.The prosecution examined PW1 to PW3, PW1 and PW2 who were the panch witness to the seizure panchanama has turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The PW3 is the Investigating Officer and interested witness. On perusal of entire material on record, except the evidence of PW3, who is the Investigating Officer, there is no other oral or documentary evidence supporting the case of prosecution. In the absence of independent corroborative evidence, it cannot be said that the accused was selling or transporting the IML Liqour illegally. The prosecution failed to prove that the accused was in illegal possession of IML Liqour for the purpose of its sale or its otherwise illegal use. Further, it is also noticed that

PW3 is the Investigating Officer cum complainant in the present case and in such a case, his sole testimony cannot be relied to believe the prosecution case and to connect the crime to the accused person. Hence, there is no cogent evidence against the accused person to connect him with the alleged commission of the offence punishable under sec. 34(a) of T.S Excise Act,

C.C.No.424 of 2024 Page 4 1968. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused person beyond all reasonable doubt and hence he is entitled for acquittal.

10.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under sec. 34(a) of T.S Excise Act, 1968 and accordingly he is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked case property deposited before this court shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to Typist, typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in

open Court on this the 18 th day of October, 2024.

Judl. Magistrate of First Class. Atmakur-A.

:: Appendix of evidence:: Witnesses examined for Prosecution: Defence: None PW1. B.Ananthaiah / Panch witness PW2. G.Pandu / Panch witness PW3. C.Krishna Kanth / Investigating Officer.

::Exhibits marked for::

Prosecution: Defence: Nil

Ex.P1: Signature of Pw1 on panchanama. Ex.P2: Seizure Panchanama. Ex.P3: PCOR No.119/2024 Ex.P4: Forensic Report.

::Material objects marked for:: -Nil-

Judl. Magistrate of First Class. Atmakur-A.