Sampath Challuri

QE .No.22of 2010

©

INTHE COURTOF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : ATNARAYANKHED

PRESENT:-SAMPATH CHALLURI,

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NARAYANKHED.

Monday, this the 30" dayof December, 2019.

0S.NG. 22 OF 2010

Between:- Malge Kushal Rao, S/o. Shankarappa, age 45 years, Caste:Lingayath, R/o.Morg village of Manoor Mandal, Medak District. «vv.Plaintiff.

AND

Jambal Shankar, S/o. Shivaram, age 42 years, Caste: SC, R/o.Morgi village ofManoorMandal, MedakDistrict.

....Defendant.

‘This suit is coming for final hearing and disposal before me in the presence of Sri. E.Maruthi Reddy, Learned counsel for the Plaintiff, and Sri.P. Laxman Rao, Learned counsel for defendants and upon considering the material available on record and having been heard and having stood over for consideration ill this day, this court made the following:

JUDGMENT

This Is the suit filed by the plaintiff or perpetual injunction against the defendant, his workmen, agents, supporters or anybody claiming on his behalf, restraining them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property i.e., the land in Sy.No.136/AA to an extent of Ac.03.38Gtssituatedvillage of Manoor Mandal, Medak atMorgi

District.

2.The case of the plaintiff in a nutshell is that he purchased the suit scheduledland from hisvendors namelyKashinathS/o.Siddiramaiah, Smt.

Mahadevi w/o. Madhavaiah andSmt. Saranamma,W/o. Ningaiah under registered sale deed document No. 1548/2006 dated 09.05.2006, since then he is in peaceful possessionandenjoyment of the same and his name was mutated in revenue records. The suit schedule property is abutting to the submerged land of Singoor project, towards southem side.

rayankhed ©.€No.22 of 2010 2

The further case of the plaintiff is that the defe dant is no way concerned 3. with the suit land, even he is not having any piece of land but with a mala fide<= his casteand by taking advantage of the submerged land in intention by taking With an intention to grab the suit schedule land, on 18.06.2010 Singoor project, defendant came to the suit schedule property and tried to plough the suit land the with the help of his friends, villagers and tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the

The suit land by alleging that suit land is submerged land in Singoor project.

defendant by taking his caste threatened the plaintiff that he will implicate the plaintiff in criminal cases under Atocity Act and the defendant while leaving threatened the plaintiff that he will come again with sufficient force and will dispossessthe plaintiff from the suit land. Hence, the suit.

On receipt of summons, the defendant made his appearance before this

4

court through his counsel and filed his written statement.

know about he do not

Itisthecaseof defendant ina nus shell isthat.

5. hepurchasing of land by the plaintiff but he purchased the land in Sy.No.136/5 to an extent of Ac.0.34Cts from its original owner prior to filing of this suit, afterthat the plaintiff used to create nuisance and harassment on one pretext or other. The defendant entered into agreement with the owner of the land in Sy.No.136/5 and 1696/2010dated No. videdocument thedocument Jaterheregistered got He never interfered into the land of plainiff at any point of time but 27.07.2010. purchased by him. Afterobtaining ex parte of the land heis inpossession The defendant injunction order, the plaintiff created nuisance and harassment.

name also entered in the revenue records. There is a rivulet in between the land of

The defendant name also reflects in pahanies for the year plaintiffand defendant. 2009-10 at cultivator column prior to purchase of his land. The defendant is

A a

5d

©.C.No.22of 2010 3 cultivating the same on Khoul(tenant) basis and when his vendor offered to sell the * The plaintiff not shown the correct boundaries of the suit *. samehe purchasedit.

there is land of land, on the cast of suit land there is rivuletand after that defendant. The plaintiff falsely shown that on eastern side there is land of Pandu

If there is any variation in the extent of plaintiff he has and Mada Rao. patel every right to get demarcate the land, but he is not doing so and filed this false withoutfacie case,boundaries and baselesssuitwithoutany merits,prima mentioned in the plaint are not correctand not tallied with the registered sale deed, finallyheprayed to dismiss the suit.

Basing on rival contentions of the both parties, my learned predecessor has 6. framed the following issues for trial.

Z.ISSUES:=

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of perpetual 1. injunction as prayed for?

2.To what relief?

8.TRIAL PROCEEDINGS:-

During the course of trial, the plaintiff examined himselfas PW1 and got exhibited Ex.A1 to Ex.A8. To support his case one Ganapathi Rao, K.Maruthi and

SomnathSwamy areexamined as PW2 to PW4.On the other hand,to substantiate his case, thedefendant got examined himself as DW1 and got exhibited Ex.B1 to Ex.B7. He also examined one Nandu Patel and Mallikarjun as

DW2 and DW3.

9.Heard the learnedcounselfor thePlaintiff and the leamed appearing counsel appearing for the Defendants.

10. Perused the material available on record.

11.All the testimonies of both side are very much available in the form of depositionsandsame are not reproduced here to avoid repetition. This court @E No.2 0f 2010 a carefully gone through the testimonies of both the parties and ‘material available on record.

{SSUES No.1;Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of perpetual

The learned counsel for the plaintiff contended that the total extent of Sy. 12. in that the land to an extent of Ac.12.17gts and odd was No.136is Ac.20.12Gts, acquired by the Government in the year 1994 for Singoor project, the remaining

Ac.07.35Gts of land was divided with sub division numbers as 136A to U, up to

Then after, the land 2006 the said land was in possession of the original owners.

10 an extent of Ac.03.37gts i.e, sult schedule property was sold to the plaintiff by the original owners through Ex.A1 and the remaining Ac.03.37Gts was sold to

Therefore, there is no land left for sale or purchase in the suit survey PW3. plaintiff is in peaceful number, Since the date of purchase under Ex.Al the enjoyment of the same, his name also mutated in the revenue

and

possession records. The defendants are no way concerned with the suit schedule property, he was cheated by his vendors and sold the land to the defendant though there is no andcausing defendantisinterfering Infact, the for sale. land existed inconvenience to the plaintiff's possession, the plaintiff has proved his case by and by exhibitingEx.Al to Ex.A8 and hence, he is PW1 toPW4 examining entitled for injunction.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendantsubmitted by 13. plaintiff under Ex.AL and also possession of the plaintiff admittingthe sale of over the suit schedule property. He further contended that the defendant purchased

Ac0.34Gtsof land from DW3 and others by paying sale consideration, he is in of their land.The possession of the his land, the plaintiff is in possession defendant never interfered into the land of plaintiff. Ex.A7 is ex parte order against

QCNo.22of 2010

5®

defendant against which he preferred appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of <

Telangana.The land of defendant not submerged in to Singoorproject, said

Ac.0.34Gts of land was clearly mentioned in Ex.BL and Ex.B2, where the suit schedule property was mentioned as Malai land atSL.No.16by the Hon'ble I Addl.

From Ex.B3 proceedings it is clear that the

District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.

defendant is in possession ofthe suit land. Finally he prayed to dismiss the suit ‘with costs.

In order to grant the perpetual injunction the plaintiff has to establish that, 14.

he is in lawful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property as onthe date of the filing of the suit, the defendant invades or threatens toinvade the plaintiff right and enjoyment over the suit schedule property.The burden lies on the plaintiff to prove his contention that he is in law full possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit.

15.To prove the claim of the plaintiffs, plaintiff No.1 himself examined as

PWI1.On careful perusal of the chief affidavit of PW1, which is nothing but replica of plaint. During the cross examination, PW1 admitted that the father of

Mallikharjun by name Siddiramaiah was having Ac.21.06Gts of land prior to the acquisition for Singoor Project.He further admitted that the land to an extent of

Ac.12.17Gts of said Siddiramaiah was acquired by the Government for Singoor project.From these admissions, andsuggestions put by the learned counsel for thedefendant, it is very clear that there was acquisition by the Government for

Singoor project to an extent of Ac.12.17Gts. PW1 further admitted that the entire suit land to an extent of Ac.03.38Gts,is inhis possession till now. From this admission to the suggestion also it is clear that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property.

16.Now it is important to mention here the admissions by defendant as DW1.

©C,No.22 of 2010 6

On perusal of chict affidavit examination of DW1 which is nothing but replica of

before the court in

During the course of cross examination written statement.

witness box the DW1 admitted as follows:

Admissions made by the parties to the case are have great value under

the IndianEvidence Act.

Itis truemyself and plaintiff are not parties © Ex.B1 to Ex.B3.

(i)

On perusal of Ex.B1, itis a Order copy in A.No 1076 of 1997 in O.S. No

Bailiff of the court in E.P No. 61 of 1997 8 of 1991, Ex.B2 is a warrant issued in 0.5 No.8 of 1991 on the file of the Hon’ble I Addl. District Judge, Medak at

Sangareddy, which are in between the said Mallikarjun family and others. ExB3 is

Proceedings No. B/1231/2010 issued by the Thasildhar, Manoor in favour of the said Mallikarjun for the land to an extent of Ac.0.34Gts. From this admission it is clear that both parties to the suit are not parties to the Ex.B1 to Ex.B3, even on careful perusal of them, it is clear that which are no way concerned with present

Therefore, there is no use of documents under Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 on fact in issue.

behalf of defendants.

lows:

rt]

i)Itis true, the plaindff purchased suit land in the year 2006 from his vendors who are legalheirs of Siddiramaiah under EXAL iii) Itistrue, the suit schedule property was mutated in his name and he is in possessionof the suit schedule property sirice date of purchase.

#) Itstrue the plaindff purchased the suit land from his vendors prior to his

purchaseof his land.

\) Itis true the plaintiff is possession of suit land ill date

From the above admissions made by the DW1 in his cross examination, it 17. manifests that the plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property under Ex.A1

©

©.C.No.22 of 2010 7

©

On careful perusal of crossexamination of DWL,it is registered sale deed. « * evident that there is no dispute with regard to suit schedule property and its extent and possession of the plaintiff as on the date of filing of the suit to till date.

Itsalso important to mention the further admissions made by DW1 as

18.

follows:

Itistrue thereisone rivulet in betweenmyland and the land of plaintiff 1)

Itis true I am not aware atthe timeof purchase of myland that said land

2) intheProject andmyvendorsreceived wasalreadymergedSingoor

compensation fromthe Government. Idonotknow whethermy purchased land

merged into Singoor project. He again addedby seeingthe Encumbrance certificate forthe saidsurveynumber hepurchasedtheland from his vendors.

19.From these admissions and evidence, it is clear that the defendant is not aware atthe time of his purchase from his vendors, whether the said land was acquired bytheGovernment for Singoor project or not and whether any land is available with his vendors to sell. Admittedly, alleged Encumbrance Certificate is not filed before the court as stated by DW1.No single document is filed by the defendant to show that he said to have been purchased Ac.0.34Gts of land from his vendor to substantiate his contention.Therefore, the version of defendant is not believable.

20.The further admissions of DW is also important to mention here:

Itis true as per Ex.A8 all the entries of my land were cancelled from the revenue records. He added that he preferred an appeal by challenging Ex.A6 to

EX.A8 before the Hon'ble High Court.

But he does not know whether he obtained any order copies or not from

Hon’ble High court.

syaME

€CNo.22of 2010 8

A carcful perusal of Ex.A6, it is evident that Joint Collector, Medak at 21.

Sangareddy passed orders for the revision petition filed under section 9 of Andhra

Pradesh Records of Rights in land and Pattedar passbooks Act, 1971 for the wrong entries made bythe Tahasildar, Manoor In respect of land in Sy.No.136 to an extent of Ac.0.34Gts ( alleged land purchased by defendant ).On careful perusal of EX.A6 it shows defendant appeared and filed counter before the court of Joint

Collector. The relevant portion of Ex.A6 is :-

DivisionalOfficer, recommended Revenue »TheTahasildarfinally

Sangareddyto cancel the wrong entries in Sy.No.136 to an extent of Ac.0.34Gts entered in revenue records for theyear2006-07 and in subsequent pahanies. In to come toconclusion that the above thereis noambiguity view of the in the Tahasildar, Manorhas made wrong entries for an extent of Ac.0.34Gts pahaniesfor theyear2006-07 and subsequent pahanies without looking into correspondingold records. Therefore, the Tahasildar, Manoor hereby ordered to delete wrongentries in the pahanies for the yea 2006-07 and subsequent asrecorded in pahanies up to 2005-06. pahanies and restore earlier entries

Appealis allowed accordingly”.

Medakat that the JointCollector, orderit is clear From theabove 22. ordered to delete the entries made in favour of defendant for the land Sangareddy Manoor issued theTahasildar, Ac.0.34Gts.Accordingly, of toanextent proceedings under Ex.A7 for deleting entries in favour of defendant. The relevant portion of the proceedings of Ex.A7 are as follows:

«On behalf oflegal heirs of Siddiramaiah the land to an extent of

Ac.0.34Gtsunder registered sale deed No.1696/2010 was sold to. defendant, as perit, mutation was done wrongly. Therefore, recommended for deletion of said extent from revenue records”

Narayankh ©G.No.22 of 2010 9

©

On Careful perusal of Ex.A8, the Tahasildar, Manoor issued proceedings by 23. « mentioning order of Joint Collector under Ex.A6 and relevantportion of order is as follows:

“Hence, wrong entries in Sy.No.136/5 to an extent of Ac.0.34Gts is hereby deleted i.e. for the year2006-07and subsequent pahanies and restored earlier entries as recordedin thepahanies up to 2005-06.

From Ex.A8it is clear that entries made in favour of defendant in the 24.

revenue records were deleted by the revenue officials.Therefore, Ex.B3 to Ex.B6

Further, the defendant has not filed any are notat all helpful to the defendant.

preferred appeal before the High Court, without single document to show that, he any single document, without cancellation of order under Ex.AS, the version of the defendant is not permitted under law.

It is the evidence of DW2 who is third party,he filed chief affidavit by 25.

supporting the version of defendant that he purchased said Ac.0.34Gts of land and the plaintiff filed the suit intentionally to grab the land of defendant to cause loss.

During the course of cross examination, it was elicited that one rivulet is dividing the suit schedule property of plaintiff and land of defendant. So, when there is property and allegedland of rivulet in between the suit schedulepurchased defendant and on the strength of Ex.ABs, the evidence of DW2 is not helpful.

The defendant got examinedhis vendor Mallikharjun as DW3. On careful 26.

it is nothingbut he supported the version of defendant perusal of his evidence, of saidof land.thecourseof cross aboutAc.0.34GtsDuring purchase examination he admitted that himself and his brother Kashinathsisters Mahadevi, the suitscheduleto theheis in Saranammasoldpropertyplaintiff, were and enjoyment of the same till date.From this admission it is clear possession that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of 2 yanking, o ©.G.No.22of 2010 10

He further admitted that they sold to an extent of filingof the suit ill date.

Ac.0.34Gts to the defendant in Sy.No.136/5, same is different from the land of pug

It is evident from Ex.A8 that said land was deleted from the revenue plaintiff. records. Therefore, the evidence of DW3 also not helpful to the case of defendant.

PW2 to PW3 are filed their chicf examination affidavits by supporting the 27. version of the plaintiff. ON careful perusal of their cross examination, event after {estof cross-examination, nothing was elicited from the mouth of PW2 to PW3, in favor of the case of defendant. From the evidence and from the answers given to the questions put by learned counsel for defendant, it is clear that defendant has no land andit was submerged into Singoor project.

From the evidence of PW1 to PW4, and DW1 to DW3,, it is clear that the 28.

from his evidence plaintiffis in possession of the suit schedule property. Though in the record, that the defendant purchased Ac.0.34Gts of land from DW3, without exhibiting so called registered sale deed and entries made in favour of defendant were deleted under Ex.A8 and from those admissions made by DW1, which are provesthe case of plaintiff.

On careful perusalof Ex.A2, Ex.A3, EX.Ad and EX.ASit is evident that 29.

plaintiffis inpossession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of filling of the suit. In view of discussion made above the documents relied on by defendants from Ex.B1 to Ex.B7 are not at all helpful to the case of defendants.

At this juncture, this court came across theJudgmentof Hon’ble High 30.

Mohammed Ashrar Ahmed

Court of AndhraPradeshdecided in between

Shareef vs, State of AP, 2009 (5) ALT, 403, wherein it was observedby his

Lordships that

Ci Norayankhed 3

1CTIC.No.22of 2010

6)

relevant consideration,possession as “In a suit for perpetualinjunction, injunctioncannot be denied to a person on the date of suit, relief of perpetual who proves his possession of suit land on the strength of certain documents.

coupled with exhibits of both When all the testimonies of both side and to 31. side in a gamut, it is clear that the Plaintiff proved his case that he is in lawful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property as on the date of filing the case.

According to Sub-section (3) of Sec.38 of Specific Relief Act 1963, ‘when 32.

the Defendant invades or threatens to invade the Plaintiffs right to, or enjoyment

It is the apprehension of of property, the Court may grant a perpetual injunction.

is trying to interfere with his possession and the Plaintiff thatthe Defendant

The Defendant, though he had denied his enjoyment of suit schedule property.

interference on 18-06-2010 over the suit schedule property, it is not in dispute that the Defendantis claiming the land to an extent of A.0-34 guts in same survye number. Further,PW-1 to PW-4 categorically deposed that the Defendant is trying to interfere with the Plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit that the it is clear that there is anapprehension schedule property and thus,

Defendant would dispossess the Plaintiff from the suit schedule property.Since, the Plaintiff had established his possession over the suit schedule property, his possession over the suit schedule property is to be protected.

In view of the abovediscussion, this court is of the considered opinion that 33.

This issue is answered plaintiffis entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction.

accordingly in favour of plaintiff against the defendant.

In view of the discussion and findings on issue No.1, this Court holds that the suit of the Plaintiffis liable to be decreed with out costs.

:Ui

Z

©QGNo:2202010

"

RESULT,the suit of the plaintiff is decreed without costs by

IN THE

35.

infavour oftheplaintiff byrestrainingthe grantingperpetualinjunction anybody claiming on his behalf defendant,his workmen, agents, supporters or from interfering into the possession of plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-II, transcribedby him, corrected and pronounced by

me in the open court on this the30 day of December, 2019.

JUN!

NARAYANKHED.

APPENDIX

OF EVIDENCE

‘WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

DEFENDANTS

PLAINTIFE

DW1-Jambal Shankar PW.1-M.Kushal Rao DW2-Nandu Patel PW.2- Ganpathi Rao PW3-K.Maruthi PWi-Somnath Swamy DW3-Mallikarjun

PLAINTIEFES

Ex.Al: Originalregistered sale deed bearing No. 1548/2016

Ex.A2: CC of Pahani for the year 2005-06

Ex.A3: CC of Pahani for the year 2007-08

Ex.A4: CC of Pahani for the year 2008-09

Ex.A5: CC of Pahani for the year 2009-10

Ex.A6: CC o order passed by the Joint Collector dated 25.07.2009

Ex.A7: Proceedingsissued by the Tahasildar Manoor vide B1545/2013

Ex.A8:Proceedings issued by Tahasildar dt. 04.10.2013

DEFENDANTS

Ex.B1is CC of Order copy of in IA No.1076/1997 in OS 8/1991 on the file of 1 AddlDist. Judge, Medak at Sangareddy along with copy of

Hon’ble

Decree.

©QG.No22 of 2010

@

Warrant to the bailiff issued by Hon'ble T Addl. Dist. Judge, ExB2is C.C of + Medak at Sangareddyin EP No.61/1997 in Os 8/1991(2pages)

ExB3isOriginal Proceedings vide bearing No.B/1231/2010 dated 14.05.2010 issued by Tahasildar,Manoor Ex.B4 is CCof Pahani for the year 2007-08

ExBSis CC of of Pahani for the year 2008-09

Ex.B6 is CC of of ROR for theyear1989-90

Ex.B7 is CCof of ROR for the year 1979-80 /

JulCIVIL JUDGE;

NARAYANKHED.

i i

JCJ, Narayankhed

CC No.179 of 2015

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

a,

NARAYANKHED

Present: SAMPATH CHALLURI,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Narayankhed.

Monday, this the 30* Day of December, 2019

C.C. No:179of 2015

Between:- The State of Telangana, through SHO,P.S. Manoor ( Now P.S.Nagalgidda)

....Complainant

And

Al-BingiSailu, $/o.Gangaram, age 28 years, Occ:Agrl, $/0.Gangaram, age55years, Occ:Agrl, A2-Gangaram, A3-Smt. Lachavva, w/o. Gangaram, age 50 years,Occ:Housewife, Ad- Chinna Gangaram, s/o.Gangaram, age 23 years, Occ:Student,

All are r/o. Pothangal village of Kotagiri Mandal of Nizamabad district

«.Accused/Al to Ad

Es

This case is came before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant PublicProsecutor for the State andofSri E.Maruthi Reddy, learned counsel for the accused, upon perusal of the material available on recordand having heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Manoor Police Station has filed charge sheet in Cr. No. 83 of 2014 for the offences punishable w/Secs. 498-A, 323, 504, 506 ) of IPCagainstthe accused herein. (ii

The case of the prosecution in brief is that, on25.10.2014 at 18:30 hours, 2, theLW6/K.Yedukondalu/SI of Police received a Private complaintreferred by

Hon'bleJudicialMagistrateofFirstClassCourt,Narayankhedvide

Dis.N0.839/2014,dated:10.10.2014wherein LW1/B.Sridevi/de facto complainant alleging that her marriagewas performed withA1on 13.06.2012by presenting

Rs.1lakh net cash, 5 tulas of gold, 15tulas of silver leg chains, one Hero Honda

Passion Plus Motor cycle worth of Rs.55,000/- and other household articles worth

CC No.179 of 2015

2

It is further narrated that after her marriage she lived happily with of Rs.50,000/-.

Alfora period of five months only, and they were blessed with a male childand‘ thereafter, Al to Ad started harassing her mentally and physically for want of and threatened to kill her, if she fails to bring

additional dowry of Rs.1,25,000/-

and Al would perform second marriage with another girl.Itis the amount further alleged that on 13.08.2014, Al to Ad necked out of the house bybeating by snatching away the silver and goldomaments,since then she and threatening has been residing with her parents at Nagalgidda village, and on 10.10.2014 Al to house of LW1 andbeat her mercilessly and threatened her with Ad visited the dire consequences saying that they would kill her if she fails to brings additional dowry, upon which village elders andcaste people advised A1and his family members to look after LW1 properly, as such, Al to Ad kept quiet for some time and later again necked out from their house, finally she prayed to take necessary action against the accused persons.

Based on the report of LW1the LW7/SI of Policeregistered a case in 3.

crime No. 83/2014 w/Secs. 498-A, 323,504, 506(ii) of IPCagainst accused and investigation. During the course of issued FIRs to all concerned and took up the investigation he examined and recorded the statements of LW1 to LW3. While so, on 06.06.2015, LW? issued notice to accused wSec.41 Cr.P.C, toappear before him, accordingly on 13.06.2015 accused appeared before him with sureties, upon production of sufficient sureties they were enlarged on bail. Aftercompletion of entire investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused.

This court took the cognizancew/Secs. 498-A,323, 504, 506(ii)IPC against 4.

AltoAd.

On appearance of the accused No. 110 4, the copies of all the documents

5.

were furnished to them as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. The accused No.1 to 4 were examined U/s 239Cr.P.C and after hearing both sides the charge w/Secs.

CC No.179 of 2015(2

3

b

IPC againstA 1to Ad have been framed,read over and 498-A, 323, 504,506(ii) “sxplained to them in their vernacular language for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

To prove ts case, the prosecution examined PW1 to6 and got exhibited [3

ExPlandLW1 who is de facto complainant/victim was examined as PW1. P2.

LW2 and LW3 who are parents of LW1were examined as PW2 and PW3, LW4 and LWS who arecircumstantialwitnesses were examined as PW4 andPWS.

Lwé/Investigationofficer was examined as PW6.On the other hand, Ex.D1 was exhibited on behalf of accused, but no oral evidence was adduced on his behalf.

7ofevidence,theaccusedNo.lto 4,were Afterclosureprosecution examined under section313CrP.C,on the lines ofevidence incriminating appearing against them in the testimoniesof the prosecution witnesses.Accused

No.1 to 4 denied the prosecution evidence,but Ex.D1 got marked in the cross examination of PW1.

8.Heard theof LearnedAPPO andLearnedcounselfor the arguments accused persons.

Now the point for determination is: 9.

‘Whether the prosecution has proved the guilty of accused Al to Ad w/Secs. 498-A, 323, 504, 506(ii)IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

The case of the prosecution is that Al to Ad harassedLW1 physically and 10.

mentally for want of additional dowry of Rs.1,25,000/- andvoluntarily caused injuries to PW1, abused her in filthy language and threatened to kill her.Hence, the charge.

11.To connect the accused persons with the crime, the prosecution examined

LW1/de-factocomplainant/victimwhoset thecriminallawintomotion by presenting Ex.P1private complaint before the court as PW1.During the chief examination she reiterated the contents of Ex.P1.

CC No.179 of 2015

a

During the course of cross-examination she admitted that prior to filing private complaint she did not made a report to the police. She admitted that, aftege registering of this case the accused took her to their house and she stayed there for again they necked her out of the house.She denied that she six months and

She further deposed that she did not state herself left the society of her husband.

before the police that the accused harassed her after 1 year of birth of her son, but

after six months of birth of her son she stated before them that they harassed her the relevant portion of sec161 Cr.P.C statement is marked as ExD1.She

and

left the company ofher husband/A1 her son was of 8 admitted thatwhen she months and later, she was not taken by the accused into their society.She further the police recorded her statement after one month of filing this deposed that

She further stated thatapanchayath was held about a year ago private complaint.

after the panchayath when the accused did in the presence of LW4 and LWS, and not heed the words of elders LW4 and LW5 she filed this case.

examined the parents of PW1 In order to prove its case the prosecution 12.

as PW2 and PW3 and during their chief examination they supported the version of deposed that hestated before the During the cross examination,PW2 PWI.

police that the accused demanded Re. 1,15,000/- towards additional dowry during inability to pay the said amount and in the panchayath and he expressed his response to the accused stated that they would not take Pw1 back into their society stated before the police that Al and unless the said amountis paid.He further

PW1 herself left PW1 lived happily for 2years after marriage and he denied that the society of the A1ashe wasnot interested in leading a conjugal life with AL.

He further admitted that PW1 came to this house two months ago by leaving her son in the house of accused.

During the cross examination PW3 deposed that her daughter/PW1 came at the time when to her house 2years ago and she was with her daughter/PW1

CCNo.179 of2015 @)

5

PW1 was necked out from her in-laws house.She admitted thatafter the unchayath the PW1 was taken to her in-laws house whereinshe stayed for there for about 2 months. She further stated that after two months shebroughtPW1 to her home,thenbefore the police.She denied all Pw1llodgedcomplaint suggestions put to her by defence counsel.

13.In orderto prove its case theexaminedcircumstantial prosecution witnesses as PW4 and PW5 and they supported the version of PW1. During the cross examination, PW4admitted that PW1 is daughter of his friend and that he was not an eyewitness to the harassment meted out by PW1, but he was informed about the incidents as he is elder of the village, he along with other elders conducted panchayath.

14.In order to prove its case the prosecutionexamined theinvestigation officer as PWG.During thechief examination he deposedabout the investigation done by him in chronological manner, i.e., receiving of private complaint from the court, registering the crime, issuing of FIRs and recording the statementsof PW1 to PW5 and about arresting of Aland enlarging A2 to A4 on bail.

On shifting the entire evidence adduced on behalf of prosecution it is 15.

found that thereare contradictions in between them. On careful perusal of Ex.P1 i.e, complaint filed before the court, the PW1 categoricallymentioned that she lived happily for a period of five months, before the court PW1 deposed that they lived happily for a period of six months, PW2 and PW3 parents of PW1 deposed that they lived happily for two years and PW4 and PW5 deposed that they lived happily for about 4or5 months.From this it is clear that there inconsistency with regard to the period of matrimonial life happily with AL.

On careful perusal of EXPL, she categorically mentioned that Al to Ad 16.

‘were harassed PW1 for want of additionaldowry to an amount of Rs.1,25,000/-,

CCNo.179 of2015

6 but before the court PW1 to PW3 stated that they demanded additionaldowry of

7

Rs.1,15,000/-.

PW1 deposed before the court that Al used to consume alcohol and beat 17.

her, but she nowhere stated in Ex.P1 that Al beat her under the influence of

From the evidence it is clear that after registering this case the accused alcohol.

PW1 alleged that later, he again necked out her from his took her to his house.

house, but her statement is contradictory with the evidence of PW2 and PW3.

PW2 categorically admitted that PW1 came to his house by leaving her son in the

PW1 went to her in- house of accused. PW3 deposed thatafter the panchayath,

Jaws house and stayed for two months, then after, PW3 herself brought Pwl to

From this it creates aserious doubt, with regard to the alleged harassment home.

and forcible necking out PW1 by snatching all the jewelery and her son.

Admittedly, PW4 and PWS are elders who deposed that theyattended 18.

the panchayath held in between PW1 and accused persons. PW4, categorically admitted that he was not an eyewitness to the harassment meted out by PW1, but

So, his evidence is hearsay evidence, not helpful to he was informed as a elder.

Mere conducting of panchayath between the couples it the case of prosecution.

cannot be said that said panchayaths are conducted to settle the dowry disputes as

It is evident from the evidence of PW4 that, PW1 is his friend’s alleged byPW1.

presentation of dowry is not daughter and the evidence of PWS with regard to believable for the reasonthatno single document is placed before the court to show that PW1 parents presentedthe dowry as alleged by her.Therefore, the evidence of PW1 to PWS is not at all helpful to the case of prosecution. Further the evidence if PW6 is formal in nature and he deposed about the investigation done by him.

On careful perusal of entire evidence of prosecution, there is no specific 19.

dates of harassment were mentioned by the PW1. From the entire evidence, it

CC No.179of 2015

7 shows that there isno single evidence or no one is examined by the police during

= investigation who are the neighbours of accused to prove that PW1 meted out

harassment from the hands of accused in his house, it is fatal to the case of of PW1 to PW3, absoluiely there is prosecution. Except self serving testimonies

Therefore,from the no evidence is available to believe the version of PW1.

testimonies of prosecution witnesses, it can be said that the prosecution failed to prove the main ingredients for the offences punishable u/Secs 498-A IPC.

A careful perusal of the entire evidence, except selfserving testimonies 20.

is available to prove thechargeswSec. 323 of PW1, there is no evidence intimidation.PW3 whois voluntarily causinghurt and insulted with criminal ‘mother of PW1 herself deposed that she brought PW1 to her home, but nowhere stated that Al to A4 were beat the PW1 in front of her for want of additional

Therefore, the prosecution evidence is not believable and not trustworthy dowry.

and failed prove the offences punishable u/Secs 323, 504, 506(11) IPC.

In the light of the above discussion, this court carefully scrutinized the 21.

evidence of the prosecution witnesses and this court is of the considered opinion that the evidence of prosecution witnesses is not corroborating with each other, in view of the infirmities and failure of the prosecution as discussed above, this court is of the opinion that where the prosecution could not establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt, therefore the testimonies of prime witnesses in this case as lost credibility.

From the discussion and reasonsmentionedabove the prosecutionis 22.

failed to prove the case for theoffences punishable wSecs. 498-A,323, 504, against Alto A4beyond all reasonable doubt, therefore the 506(11) of IPC

Accused No.1to4are entitled

for acquittal.the point is answered Accordingly, against the prosecution in favour of the accused.

CC No.179 of 2015

8

IN THERESULT the accused No.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the 23.

,323, 504, 506(11) of IPCand they arcy” U/secs u/Secs. 498-A offence punishable shall standcancelled The Bail bonds of accused acquitted/Sec. 248(1) CrP.C.

after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to mydictation by Stenographer Grade-II, corrected and pronounced by me in the opencourt on this the 30” day of December, 2019.

FE]CLASS,

JUDICIAL MA

NARAYAN)

APPENDIX

OF EVIDENCE

ITN]E!

FOR DEFENCE:

f

PWI1 : B.Sridevi/De facto complainant

-None- :S.Durgaiah/Father of PW1 PW2 S.Chandramma/Motherof PW2 PW3: M.Nargonda/ Cir.Witness PW4: S.Thukaram/Cir. Witness PWS: K.Yedukondalw/Investigation Officer PWS:

EXHIBITS MARKED

Ex.P1: Private Complaint Ex.P2: FIR

FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.D1-Relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1.

CLASS,

JMFC, Narayan

1 C.C.No.496/2016

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

NARAYANKHED

Present: SAMPATH CHALLURI,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Narayankhed.

Tuesday, this the 31 st Day of December, 2019

C.C. No:496 of 2016

Between:-

The State of Telangana, through SHO, P.S. Manoor(Now P.S Nagalgidda) .…Complainant

And

Md. Hussain, S/o. Khaja Miya, aged 35 years, Occ:Business, R/o. Yesgi village of Manoor Mandal. ***

This case is came before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri E.Maruthi Reddy, learned Counsel for the accused, upon perusal of the material available on record and having heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Manoor Police Station (Now

P.S.Nagalgiddda) has filed charge sheet in Cr. No. 97 of 2016 for the offences punishable u/Secs.509, 506 and 504 of IPC against the accused .

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is that, LW1/Smt. B.Adivvamma/de facto complainant/victim herein on 22.10.2016 at 2100 hrs, went to police station and lodged a report narrating that on 16.10.2016 at 1730 hours she went to

Sulthansha Vali Darga situated in Yesgi village of Manoor Mandal for prayer wherein she offered prayer with a coconut, later she sat in open place adjacent to

Darga and doing meditation, at that time the accused herein came to her and abused her in filthy language stating “ Madiga Lanja, why you came here and this place belongs to me and get out from here and also stated that soon he will

JMFC,Narayankhed 2 C.C.No.496/2016 dismantle the Darga and no Darga will be there” and threatened her with dire consequences by saying “if you come here again you will not return from here” and at that time LW2 to LW4 namely: B.Durgaiah, Majar Khan, Mahaboob were also present there . Finally, she requested to take necessary action.

3.Based on the report of LW1 dated 22.10.2016,the LW9/Md.Rafiuddin/ASI of Police registered a case in crime No.97 of 2016 for the offences punishable u/Secs 509, 506 and 504 of IPC and issued FIRs to all concerned and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of LW1 to LW4 later, he visited the scene of offence wherein he examined and recorded the statement of LW5 and thereafter conducted the scene of offence panchanama in the presence of mediators and drawn rough sketch.

While so on 24.10.2016, LW9 issued 41(A) Cr.P.C. Notice to accused and on 25.10.2016 the accused appeared before him and produced sufficient sureties, upon which he was enlarged on bail. Later,LW10 took up the CD file from LW9 and verified the investigation done by him and found to be the same on proper lines and he also examined other witnesses. After completion of entire investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences u/Secs.

509,506 and 504 of IPC.

4.This court took the cognizance against the accused herein for the offences punishable u/Secs.509, 506 and 504 of IPC.

5. On appearance of the accused the copies of all the documents were furnished to him as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. The accused was examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C and after hearing the both sides the charge u/Secs 509, 506 and 504 of IPC were framed against accused, read over and explained to him in his vernacular language for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

JMFC,Narayankhed 3 C.C.No.496/2016

6.To prove its case, the prosecution examined PW1 to 9 and got marked

Ex.P1 to P9. LW1/de facto complainant was examined as PW1. LW2 to LW6 who are eyewitness were examined as PW2,PW3, PW5, PW4, and PW7. LW7 and

LW8 who are mediators for scene of offence panchanama were examined as PW6 and PW8. LW9/investigation officer was examined as PW9. The evidence of

LW10 was given by the learned APPO. On the other hand, no evidence either oral or documentary was adduced on behalf of defence side.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C, on the lines of incriminating evidence appearing against him in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. Accused denied the prosecution evidence and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard the arguments of Learned APPO and Learned counsel for the accused person.

9.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilty of accused for the

offences punishable u/Secs 509, 506 and 504 of IPC beyond all

reasonable doubt?

POINT:

10.The case of the prosecution is that the accused herein uttered words which will insult the modesty of PW1 and also and gave criminal intimidation to kill her by abusing her in filthy language thereby gave provocation for breach of peace Hence, the charge.

11.To connect the accused persons with the crime the prosecution examined

LW1/complainant / victim who set the criminal law into motion by presenting

Ex.P1 to the police examined as PW1. During the chief examination she reiterated the contents of Ex.P1.

JMFC,Narayankhed 4 C.C.No.496/2016

During the course of cross examination she admitted that she is resident of

Sangareddy and she comes to Narayankhed every month and every year and she is a social worker. She denied that she is in habbit of filing of false cases in collusion with PW2 against the poor people under the guise of social work to extract money and it is her livelihood. She admitted that the father of PW3/LW3 is our guru and she took diksha under the guidance of father of the PW3. She further stated that LW3 is a news reporter and PW5/LW4 is a businessman and disciple of Ahmed Khan the father of PW3. She stated that the incident took place on 16.12.2016 at 5:30 P.M and on the date of incident at 6:00 PM she lodged

Ex. P1 to Manoor police and she filed a copy of complaint before the court, lodged before the SHO Manoor. She also admitted that the incident in this case and in the case pending before the Hon'ble Dist. Court is the same. She also admitted that she was not examined by the police.

12.To prove its case, the prosecution examined PW2,PW3 and PW5 who are eyewitnesses and they both supported the version of PW1. During the cross examination PW2 He denied that PW3 belongs to Yesgi village and also denied that father of PW3 and accused are belongs to same caste and belongs to Yesgi village. He admitted that PW1 lodged report under Ex.P1 on 22.10.2016. He denied that PW1 used to blackmail the persons and extracting money from them with his support. The police delayed in registering case as such said delay occurred.

During the cross examination, PW3 he admitted that he is native Yesgi village. He also stated that on the next of incident PW1, filed Ex.P1 and he was examined on the same day by police, He denied that they used to blackmail the persons and extract money from them with his support.

JMFC,Narayankhed 5 C.C.No.496/2016

During the cross examination, he stated that he does not know whether

PW1 related to PW1 or not. He admitted that PW1 belongs to Christian community. He also admitted that PW3 father of PW3 and accused belongs to same community. He also admitted that he is disciple of father of PW3 and he also admitted that he does not know the contents of his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement

13.To prove its case and to prove the scene of offence panchanama, prosecution also examined two other eyewitnesses as PW4 and PW7 and mediators for scene of offence panchanama as PW6 and PW8. PW4, PW7,PW6 and PW8 did not support the case of prosecution and they deposed that they do not know anything about this case. PW6 and PW8 further deposed that police not conducted any panchanama in their presence and obtained their signatures on blank papers. Due to the hostile attitude of witnesses they were cross examined by learned APPO but nothing material could be elicited from their mouth.

14.In order to prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution examined the investigation officer as a PW9. During the chief examination he deposed about the investigation done by him in chronological manner i.e., registration of crime, issuing of FIR, conducting of scene of offence panchanama, examining witnesses, and also about filing of charge sheet by LW10.

During the cross examination he admitted that PW1 to PW3 used to collect the money by blackmailing the persons on the pretext that they are leaders of various organizations. He also admitted that initially PW1 lodged complaint with an allegation that accused abused her with caste name, but after enquiry as it revealed that there are no grounds such allegations, he registered the case only with present allegations.

JMFC,Narayankhed 6 C.C.No.496/2016

15.On shifting the entire evidence of PW4,PW7, PW6 and PW8 did not support the case of prosecution hence, their evidence is not at all helpful to the case of prosecution.

16.A careful perusal of the evidence of PW1 to PW3 and PW5 there are several contradictions and inconsistencies appearing in their evidence. PW1 deposed that on the date of alleged incident she went to Darga in Yesgi village and offered coconut. But in the cross examination of PW5 he clearly deposed that

PW1 belongs to Christian community. Here a question arises that under which circumstances she went to a Darga is not at all explained by PW1. PW1 in her chief also deposed that accused abused her in filthy language that she belongs to

SC community, but PW9 investigation officer in his cross examination clearly deposed that there is no basis of such allegations made by PW1.Thus, it is clear that there is no basis for the allegations made by PW1 in her evidence.

17.PW1 in her cross examination deposed that on the date of incident itself she lodged report before the police, but a perusal of Ex. P1 it is clear that it was received by police on 22.10,2016 and she again stated that police not examined her. PW1 in her cross examination denied that she is in habbit of filing of false cases in collusion with PW2 under the guise of social welfare against poor persons. But PW9 the investigation officer in his cross examination clearly admitted that PW1 to PW3 used to collect money by blackmailing the persons on the pretext that they are leaders of various organizations which clearly falsifies the version of PW1. PW1 also not specifically stated in her evidence about the abusive words uttered by accused. Thus, from the above discussion, it is crystal clear that there are glaring inconsistencies and contradictions appearing in the evidence of PW1 and it raises a serious doubt about the veracity of testimony of

PW1. PW1 and Hence, the evidence of PW1 cannot be taken into consideration.

JMFC,Narayankhed 7 C.C.No.496/2016

18.The chief examination and cross examination of PW2 and PW3 also goes on the similar lines as that of PW1. In view of the discussion made in the evidence of PW1, there is no necessity to look into the evidence of PW2 and PW3 and their evidence is not at all helpful to the case of prosecution.

19.PW5 in his chief examination and cross examination deposed that that he witnessed the incident and that PW1 and accused abused to each other. But on a careful perusal of his 161 Cr.P.C statement, he nowhere deposed that accused abused PW1 and threatened to kill her. Hence, his evidence is not at all helpful to the case of prosecution.

20.Further the alleged incident occurred on 16.10.2016 and Ex.P1 was received by police on 22.10.2016 and said of 6 days delay is not explained by the prosecution. Moreover, PW1, PW2 and PW5 commonly deposed that they all are followers of father of PW3 i.e. Ahmed Khan but unfortunately said Ahmed

Khan was not examined to elicit the true facts and this is fatal to the case of prosecution.

21From the above discussion, this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution failed to proved its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts for the alleged offences levelled against the accused. The point is answered accordingly.

22.IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/secs 509, 506, 504 of IPC 498-A, 324 506 and 504 of IPC and he is acquitted u/Sec. 248(1) Cr.P.C. The Bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade-II, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 31 st day of December, 2019.

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NARAYANKHED.

JMFC,Narayankhed 8 C.C.No.496/2016

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW1 : B.Adivamma/de facto complainant/victim-None- PW2 : B.Durgaiah /Eyewitness PW3 : Mazhar Khan/Eyewitness PW4 : B.Babu/Eyewitness PW5 : Mahaboob /Eyewitness PW6 : Md. Tajoddin / Mediator PW7 :K.Siddappa /Eyewitness PW8 : W.Easwar/ Mediator PW9 : Md. Rafiuddin/Investigation officer.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P1 :Report lodged by PW1-Nil-

Ex.P2 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4 Ex.P3 : Signature of PW6 on scene of offence panchanama Ex.P4 : Signature of PW6 on rough sketch Ex.P5 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW7 Ex.P6: Signature of PW8 on scene of offence panchanama Ex.P7: FIR Ex.P8: Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P9: Rough sketch

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-Nil-

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NARAYANKHED.

JMFC,Narayankhed

C.C.137 of 2019BY

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

NARAYANKHED

Present :SAMPATH CHALLURI

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Narayankhed.

Monday, the 30* day ofDecember, 2019

C.C. No; 49of 2018

Between;- The state of Telangana through P.S.Kalher

...Complainant.

And

Sangagoni Sathyagoud, S/o Rama Goud, Aged 50 yrs,Occ: Toddy Business, R/o. Kalher village and Manoor.

Accused.

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant PublicProsecutor for the state and of Sri. G.Narsi Reddy, counsel for the accused and having heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

JUDGMENT

LThis case arises out of Cr.N0.03/2017 of PS Kalher registered against Accused for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) r/w. of A.P. Excise Act 1968.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is that:- on 14.04.2017 on credible information about illegal selling of Toddy by the accused in his Toddy shop situated at Kalher village and Mandal, immediately LW-5 along with LW1 to LW-4 conducted raid on the shop of registered a case in Cr..No.03 of 2017 against the accused for the offence Urs 34(a) of AP,

Excise Act, 1968 and took up the investigation and effected the arrest of accused

and

sent him to judicial remand. Later, sent the samples to chemical analysis. After

y - Narayan] 7

€.C.137

o£ 2019 after receipt of CE report, the Sub Inspector of Police, PS. completionof investigation,

eo

Kalher filed charge sheet against the accused.

On receipt of charge sheet, this case was taken on file against the Accused for the 3.

offence under Section 34(a) AP Excise Act.

copies of case documents are furnished to him as On appearance of the Accused, 4.

contemplated under Sec.207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The Accused was examined under Sec.239 of CrP.C., and the Accuseddenied the 5 accusation, A charge under Section 34(a) AP Excise Act. has been framed against him, pleaded not guilty and read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which the Accused claimed to be tried.

During the course of trial, the Prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 4and got 6. examinedLW-1- theProsecution Toitscase ExsP-1toP-8.prove exhibited Mediators as Pws.2 and LW3/G.Naseer, LW4/K.Balaiah P.Narayana/HC 1601 as PW1,

The evidence ofw2

Officer as PW-4. LW-5/K.Yedukondalw/Investigating PW4and was given up by learned APPO.

signatures of PW-2 and PW3on The prosecution got marked EXPL to ExP4 7. Ex-PS is FIR,Ex.P6 is panchanama, scene and seizure panchanama and rough sketch.

Ex.P7isrough sketch, Ex.P is CE report.

After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the Accused was examined under 8. Sec.313 of CrPC., by explaining the incriminating material found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf. Assistantpublic Prosecutor and the learned of learned Heard thearguments 9.

counsel for the Accused.

Perused the record. 10.

C.C.137 of 2019

Ji.Now the point germane for my determination is:

“Whether the Prosecution has proved the guiltof the Accused for the offence

punishable underSection34(a) AP Excise Act beyond all reasonable doubt’?

POINT:

Itsthe case of prosecution on reliable information that accusedhis

inshop 12.

situated at Kalher village and Mandal was selling toddy illegally,immediatelyLW-5 along with his staff and mediators raided on the the shop of accused whereinconducted scene and seizure panchanama,seized this case property from the spot, drawn samples and seized under cover of Ex.P6, registered the case, sent the samples for analysis and filed charge sheet. Hence, the charge.

13.To prove the seizure oftoddy from the shop of accused, the prosecution has examined the independentmediator as PW-2 and PW3and however the evidence of panch witnesses is hostile one, in spite of cross-examination of PW2 and PW3 with the permission of the court by the leamed APPO nothing came on record to help the prosecution case, thus the evidence ofPW2 and PW3 is not at allhelpful to the prosecution case.

14.To prove the seizure of toddy from the shop of accused, the prosecution has examined the police officials as PW1 whoassisted PW4/Investigation Officer and he stated thaton receipt of intimation that accused selling toddy illegally he accompanied

PW4 to the scene and PW4 seized the case ‘property under cover of panchanama. During the cross examination he deposed that he does not know the house number of accused where scene of offence took place and no search memo issued by PW4 and PW4 did not adduced anydocumentaryproof toshow that allegedshop belongstoaccused.

Admittedly, PW1 is police official who assisted the PW, but on careful perusal of PW1 PW2 are clearly admitted that he does not know house number of accused and and no

IFC, Narayankhed=

C.C.137 0 2019

Moreover, his evidence is contradictory to the search memo was issued to accused.

evidence of PW1 and PW2 who are mediators for scene and seizure panchanama who™ from his it isclear that his in their presence, deposed that police did not seize anything.

in order to tie the accused with evidence is not atall helpful to the case of prosecution the crime.

there remains the sole testimony of PW-4 who is investigating officer

15.Therefore, of PW2 and PW3 seized the case property, that he in the presence who testified the evidence of conducted panchanama, drawn rough sketch. Itis already stated supra, is not helpful to the case of prosecution and the mediators i.e. PW-2 and PW3 PW1 have not only denied the case of prosecution but also testified that the concerned police identifying of their officials obtained their signatures on some blank papers. Except not supportedthe case of prosecution. Therefore, signatures, the PW-2 and PW3have is contradicting the evidence of PW-4 in respect of PW2 and PW3 the evidence of searchandseizure of toddy from the scene of offence.

issufficientto of PW-4 that soletestimony APPOsubmitted Theleamed 16. conviction. Per contra, the learned counsel for the accused contended that PW-4 is an interested witness and hence his evidence cannot be relied upon without corroboration with the evidence of independent witness. However, the evidence of PW-4 cannot be thrown away that he is an interested witness, but his evidence can be relied upon if it inspires the confidence of the court. In the present case on hand, it is the evidence of information about the illegal sale of toddyby Investigation officer that on reliable accused in the shop of accused, he along with his staff rushed to the shop of the accused person and seized the contraband.

09-05-2007 by the Police examiner on sent to the chemical contraband

17.The and issued Ex.P8. The officials, the chemical examiner opined that it is not adulterated /drayankhe

C.C.137 of 2019 25 days in sending the samples to the PW4 could not able to explainthe delay of 14 04-2017 to 09-05-2017is chemical examiner and where the sample was kept from

The sole ground of delay in sending the sample to also not explained by the prosecution.

chemical examiner is sufficient to say that the accused is entitled for acquittal, asit raised reasonable doubt about the genuineness of seizure of toddy from theshopof the accused person,

tisadmitted by the PW-4 that toddy is available in the open market and

at the 18.

time of raid no search memo was issued to the accused and also admitted by the PW-4 that he did not file any documentary proof to show that the shop belongs to the accused and search memo was also not issued.

19.The above discussionleads me to conclude that the prosecution has failed to comply the mandatory provisions of the Act and also no reason was explained for the delay of (25) days inforwarding the samples to the chemical examiner, from the uncorroborated sole testimony of investigating officer and non examination of any of the personsin the said village to prove that the accused was selling the toddy as alleged by the prosecution. Therefore, the point is answered against the prosecution and in favor of the accused persons.

20.IN THE RESULT, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and he is acquitted under Sec.248(1) of CrP.C,

The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled and the unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-1I, corrected and

pronounced by

me in the open Court on this the 30*day of December,2019.

JMFC, Narayankhed

C.C.137 0£ 2019

APPENDIX

OF EVIDENCE

(Witnesses Examined on Behalfof)

Tw

DEFENCE

PROSECUTION

None P.Narayana/assisted PW4 PW1: PW2: G.Nascer/ Panch witness PW3: K.Balaial/Panchwitness PW4: K.Yedukondalw/Investigation officer

EXHIBITSMARKED

(On behalf of ) PROSECUTION: is Signature of PW2 on scene and seizure panchanama is Signature of PW2 on rough sketch is Signature of PW3 on scene and seizure panchanama is Signature of PW3 on rough sketch is FIR Scene and seizure panchanama. Rough sketch. CE Report

DEFENCE:

Nil Marked MaterialObjects

ForPROSECUTION:

NIL

OFCLASS,

JUDICIALMAG

NARAYANKHED.

JMEC, Narayankhed

CC No.3of 2016

IN THECOURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

NARAYANKHED

Present:SAMPATH CHALLURI,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Narayankhed.

Thursday, this the 26" Day of December, 2019

C.C.No:63

of 2016

Between:- The State of Telangana, through SHO,PS. Narayankhed

.....Complainant

And

Karra Laxman, S/o.Pomya Nayak, age50 years, Occ: Agriculture, Rio. Kishan Naik Thanda of Venkatapur village of Narayankhed Mandal

«...Accused

an

This case is came before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri E.Maruthi Reddy, learned counsel for the accused, upon perusal of the material available on recordand having heard and stoodoverfor consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Narayankhed Police Station has filed charge sheet in Cr.No. 100 of2015 for the offences punishablewSecs. 448 and 354 of

IPC against the accused herein.

2The case of the prosecution in brief is that, on13.06.2015 at 1100 hours,

LW1/K.Mothi Bai /de facto complaint/victimwent to police station Narayankhed and lodged a Telugu written Report alleging that on12.06.2015 in the night hours at about 11.45 pm, while she along with her son and daughter-in-law i.e, LW3 and

LW4 namely: K.Bheem Singh and K.Anji Bai were sleeping in her house, at that time the accused herein gained entry into her house by holding alcohol bottlein his hands and he caught hold the hand of LW1 demanding his sexual desire, on noticing the same LW3 obstructed the accused and beat the accused with hands,

9

CC No.3of 2016

2 but the accusedmanagedto escape from the hands of LW3 and fled away.

Finally, she requested to take necessary action against the accused persons.

the LW7/Sunil/SI of Police Based on the report of LW1 dated 13.06.2015 3.

registered a case in crime No. 100/2015 wSecs 448 and 354 ofIPCagainst course of investigation, he accused and issued FIRs to all concerned.During the

LW2 namely: K.Moti Bai, recorded the statements of LW1and examinedand he visited the scene of offence at police station, and thereafter K.Manik Naik wherein conducted the scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch in

he presence of mediators and he also examined and recorded statements of LW3

LW7‘made efforts to issue 41(A) CrP.C on and LW4who are eyewitnesses,and the accused, on the transfer of LW7, LW8/P. Nageswar Rao/SI of Police assumed apprehended the on 03.12.2015 he the charge and took up the investigation, the accused admitted the guilt, upon his house and on interrogation accused at which he effected the arrest of accused and sent him to judicial remand.After completion of entire investigation LW filed charge sheet against the accused.

This court took the cognizance wSecs. 448 and 354 of IPCagainst 4.

accused.

the accused, the copies of all the documents were On appearanceof 5.

207 CPC.Theaccused was

underSection furnished to him asrequired examined Us239 Cr.P.C and after hearing both sides the charge w/Secs. 448 and read over and explained to him in his vernacular has been framed, 354 of IPC language for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

To prove its case, the prosecution examined PW1 to 6 and got exhibited 6. Ex.P1 to P6. LW1/de facto complainant/victim was examined as PW1. LW2, LW3 son/(eyewitness) of PW1 were examined as PW2 and who are husband/witness,

PWS. LWS and LW6 who are mediators for scene of offence panchanama were officer was examined examined as PW3 and PW4, LW8 the investigation

CC No63 of2016

@

2sPW6. The evidence of LW4 and LW7 was given up by leamed APPO.On the other hand no evidence either oral or documentary was adduced on behalfon defence side.

closure of prosecution evidence, the accused wasexamined under

7.After section 313 Cr.P.C, on the lines of incriminating evidence appearing against him in

Accused denied the prosecution of the prosecution witnesses. the testimonies evidence and reported no defence evidence.

andLearnedcounselfor the of Learned APPO

8.Heard thearguments accused person.

Now the point for determinationis: 9.

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilty of accused u/Sec. 448 and 354 ofIPCagainst accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

The case of the prosecutionis thataccused herein criminally trespassed 10.

into the house of PW1 in drunken conditionand with alcohol bottle and also behaved indecently with PW1 by catching hold of her hand and demanded his sexual desire and thereby outraged modesty of PW1. Hence, the charge.

|

To connect theaccused with the crime, the prosecution examined PW1 11.

who is de facto complainant/victimwho moved the criminal law into motion by lodging Ex.P1 report. During the chief examination shereiterated the contents of

Ex.P1 and during the cross examinationshe deposed that she does not know the contents Ex.P1and she also deposed that they compromised the matter out of the courtand as such she has no grievance against the accused and she filed this case against the accused at the behest of enimic people against accused.

12.Toconnecttheaccusedwiththe crime,the prosecutionexamined

LW2/husband of PW1 as PW2.During the chief examination he also supported the version of PW1, but he was not cross examined.

yan)

CC No.3 of2016

4

In oder to prove its case the prosecution examined PWS who is son of

13

PW1 and he deposed that he does not know anything about the case and in view of the hostile attitude of witness he was treated as hostile and cross examined by leanedAPPO with the permission of the court wherein nothing could be elicited from his mouth.

examined PW3 In order to prove the scene of offence, the prosecution

14

who also not for scene of offencepanchanama and PW4 who aremediators supported the case of prosecution and deposed that police obtained their signatures on blank papers and due to the hostile attitude of witnesses they were treated as hostile and cross examined by learned APPO with the permission of the court but nothing could be elicited from their mouth.

examined the investigation In order to prove its case the prosecution 15. During the chief examination he deposed about arresting of officer asPWG. During the cross examination, he denied all accused and filing ofcharge sheet.

the suggestions put to him by defence counsel.

On shifting the entire evidence of the prosecution, it is found that PW1, 16. PW3 to PW5 were not supported the case of prosecution, they turned hostile, hence, the evidence of PW1, PW3 to PW5 is not at all helpful to the case of

PW2 examined in chief but he was not cross examined, on careful prosecution. perusal of his evidence in chief before the court is nothing but hearsay evidence, therefore, his evidence also not at all helpful to the case of prosecution.

aboutthe ofPWGwhodeposed evidence Thereremainsonly 17. On careful perusal of the entire evidence of the investigation done by him only.

prosecution, absolutely there is no incriminating evidence available on testimonies of prosecution witnesses against the accused to tie him with the crime.Therefore, except to hold that the prosecution is failed to prove without any other alternative its case beyond all reasonable doubts.

CC No63 of 2016

In the light of the above discussion, this court carefully scrutinized the 18.

Thoidence of he prosecution witnesses and this court is of the considered opinion that the accusedis entitled for acquittal.

From the discussionand reasonsmentioned above the prosecutionis 19.

failed to prove the case for the chargeUsss 448 and354of IPC against the therefore theaccusedisentitled for accusedallreasonabledoubt, beyond

Accordingly the pointis answered against the prosecution in favour of acquittal.

the accused.

is found not guilty for the offence IN THE RESULT,the accused 20.

punishableunder Sections 448 and 354 of IPC, and he is acquitted under Section

The Bail bonds of accused shall stand discharged after expiry of 248(1) CrP.C.

appeal time. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to mydictationbyPersonal Asst, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the26"day of December, 2019.

JUDICIALM.CLASS,

OFFII

JARAYANKHED.

APPENDIX

OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FORPROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE:

PWI1: K.Mothi Bai/victim-None- PW2:K.Manik Naik/ husband of PW1 PW3:K.Mun Singh/Mediator for scene of offence panchanama PW4:K.Hari Singh/ Mediator for scene of offence panchanama PWS:K.Bheem Singh/son of PW1 PW6:P.Nageswhar Rao/Investigation Officer

EXHIBITSMARKED

PROSECUTION:

EOR

Ex.P1: Report of PW1 Ex.P2: Signature of PW3 on panchanama Ex.P3:Signature of PW3 on rough sketch

CC No.3 of 2016

Ex.P4: Signature of PW4 on panchanama Ex.P5: Signature of PW4 on rough sketch Ex.P6: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PWS

DEFENCE:

FOR

NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-Nil-

OFF]

JUDICIALCLASS,

NARAYANKHED.

IMEC, Narayankhed