Shaik Rehana

1

CC.No.1443/2021, Dt: 08-05-2026 III AJMFC, Vijayawada

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS :: VIJAYAWADA

Present: Shaik Rehana,

III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Vijayawada.

FRIDAY, this the 08 th day of May, 2026

CALENDAR CASE No.1443/2021

Between:

Eesabathina Sudhakara Rao, S/o. Subrahmanyam aged about 58 years, R/o.D.No.20-4/1-10/1, Subba Raju Nagar, Vijayawada

...Complainant

A N D

Tenali Mary Sucharita, W/o. Pulla Rao aged about 42 years, O/o. SSE Electrical / A. C. Maintenance, Near Railway Junior College, S.C. Railway, Vijayawada – 520 003 …Accused

This case is coming on 24-04-2026before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri A. Naga Raju,learnedcounsel for complainant and Sri P. Y. Kiran Kumar, learned counsel for the accused and upon hearing on both sides and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The complainant filed the complaint under section 190 and 200 of

Cr.P.C., against the accused for the offence punishable under section 138 of

Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (herein after called, in short, the NI Act).

2. The brief facts as alleged by complainant are set out below:

The accused borrowed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- from the complainant on 23-09-2019 for her family expenses and executed demand promissory note in favour of the complainant by agreeing to repay the same

2

CC.No.1443/2021, Dt: 08-05-2026 III AJMFC, Vijayawada

along with interest @ 24% per annum either to the complainant or his order on demand, late inspite of several demands, the accused issued cheque bearing

No.991201, Dt: 11-02-2021 for Rs.5,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of India,

S. C. Railway Branch, Vijayawada towards part payment due under the aforesaid promissory note, on that, the complainant presented the said cheque for collection through his banker viz., State Bank of India, S. C. Railway Branch, but the said cheque was dishonoured along with return Memo, Dt: 11-02-2021 for the reason “FUNDS INSUFFICIENT”, for which, the complainant issued legal notice on 02-03-2021 to the accused by demanding her to pay the amount covered under the cheque, but the accused intentionally refused to receive the legal notice. Hence, the complainant filed this complaint.

3.After filing of sworn affidavit of the complainant, this case was taken on file for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 against the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were furnished to her as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C.,

5. The accused was examined under section 251 of Cr.P.C., for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, explaining the substance of accusation made against her. Her plea is one of total denial and she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3

CC.No.1443/2021, Dt: 08-05-2026 III AJMFC, Vijayawada

6.In order to prove this case, the complainant filed his chief affidavit in view of his chief-examination as PW-1 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 and one

Bandaru Sobhanadri himself examined as PW-2 on behalf of PW-1.

7.After closure of the evidence of the complainant, the accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating material found against her in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Her plea is one of total denial and she reported, she have defence evidence. Accused herself examined as a DW-1 and got marked Ex.D1 on behalf of her.

Contentions:

8.The learned counsel for complainant argued that, on 23-09-2019 the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- and executed Ex.P1 in favour of complainant, later, on 11-02-2021, the accused issued cheque bearing

No.991201 for Rs.5,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, the complainant presented the same and the same is returned on 11-02-2021 with an endorsement “FUNDS INSUFFICIENT”, later he send legal notice to the accused on 02-03-2021, Ex.P6 is returned registered cover on which, it was mentioned information served, as such, notice was served to the accused, even though, the accused not choose to repay the amount. The main contention of the accused is that, the complainant forged the signature of the accused on cheque, but the complainant not take any steps to send the cheque to FSL for determination of signature of the accused, hence, he prays the Court to punish the accused and also order for the payment of the compensation.

4

CC.No.1443/2021, Dt: 08-05-2026 III AJMFC, Vijayawada

9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the accused argued that, the complainant filed civil suit against the accused for recovery of amount in

OS.No.819/2021 and the same is decreed and the complainant filed the EP.,

against accused and accused salary was attached in execution of EP., and he further submitted that, the accused never contribute her signature on cheque and the complainant forged the cheque, the son of the complainant used to run the chit business, at that time, the son of the complainant obtained blank signed pronote and cheque from the accused and the EP., amount is realized, as such, this case is not maintainable.

10. Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

11. Now the broad question that arises for consideration is:

Whether the complainant has proved the guilt of the accused, beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I. Act?

POINT:

12. In order to prove the guilt of the accused for the above said offence the complainant must establish the following points:

i.Drawing of the cheque by drawer/accused on an account maintained by him with a banker; ii. Issuance of the cheque by the complainant for discharge of whole or part of any debt or other liability; iii. Dishonour fo the cheque for insufficient funds in the account of the accused or the amount of the cheque exceeding the arrangement made with the banker;

5

CC.No.1443/2021, Dt: 08-05-2026 III AJMFC, Vijayawada

iv. Issuance of statutory notice within 30 days of receipt of such dishonour to the accused demanding payment the cheque covered by the cheque and; v. failure on the part of drawer to make the payment with in 15 days of the receipt of the notice.

13. At the outset it has to be seen whether the complainant has been able to establish the above said foundational facts.

Point No.i)

14.PW-1 in his chief-examination stated that, the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- on 23-09-2021 for her family expenses and executed

Ex.P1/Promissory note in favour of him. Later, the accused issued Ex.P2/cheque bearing No.991201, Dt: 11-02-2021 for Rs.5,00,000/-. PW-1 presented the same for collection in State Bank of India, S. C. Railway Branch, Vijayawada on 11-02-2021. Hence the accused issued cheque is proved by the evidence of

PW-1. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered.

Point No.iii)

15.To prove the cheque/Ex.P2 issued by the accused was dishonoured and the complainant has filed Ex.P3/cheque return Memo, Dt: 11-02-2021 and issued by State Bank of India, S. C. Railway Branch, Vijayawada, on perusal of

Ex.P2 discloses that cheque was returned due to “FUNDS INSUFFICIENT”.

Therefore it is clear that Ex.P3/cheque return memo returned for the reason “FUNDS INSUFFICIENT” which was informed to the complainant through

6

CC.No.1443/2021, Dt: 08-05-2026 III AJMFC, Vijayawada

Ex.P3/cheque return Memo with the endorsement “FUNDS INSUFFICIENT”.

Hence, this point is answered accordingly.

Point No.iv)

16.After return of cheque, PW-1 got issued Ex.P4/legal notice under section 138 (b) of the Act on 02-03-2021 under registered post with acknowledgment to the accused informing that factum of ‘FUNDS INSUFFICIENT’ and demanding her to pay the cheque amount within the fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of notice. As discussed above, Ex.P2/cheque under Ex.P3 was returned on 11-02-2021 and the complainant got issued legal notice to the accused on 02-03-2021, therefore, it is clear, that the complainant issued notice within the statutory period of 30 days after the dishonour of the cheque to the accused by demanding payment of the amount covered by the cheque. Hence the complainant fulfilled the provision under section 138 (b) of Act. Point No.iv is answered accordingly.

Point No.v)

17.Evidently the complainant followed the condition under section 138

(b) of the Act and accused failed to make payment of cheque within fifteen days of receipt of the legal notice which contemplated under section 138 (c) of

Negotiable Instrument Act, which led to filing of the present complaint. This point is answered accordingly.

7

CC.No.1443/2021, Dt: 08-05-2026 III AJMFC, Vijayawada

Point No.ii)

18.The entire disputed revolves this point whether the cheque under

Ex.P2 issued towards discharge of the legally enforceable debt. The complainant himself examined as PW-1 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. Ex.P1 is certified copy of promissory note for Rs.4,00,000/-, Dt: 23-09-2019, Ex.P2 is Original cheque bearing No.991201 for Rs.5,00,000/-, Dt: 11-02-2021, Ex.P3 is cheque return Memo, Dt: 11-02-2021, Ex.P4 is Office copy of legal notice,

Dt: 02-03-2021, Ex.P5 is Registered postal receipt, Dt: 02-03-2021 and Ex.P6 is

Returned registered cover. As discussed from the point No.i, iii, iv and v, the complainant proved presumption under section 118 of Negotiable Instrument

Act. It is proposition that when the foundational fact or established, the Court is left with no other option except to raise presumptions under section 118 and 139 of the Act. As discussed in earlier points, all the other foundational facts are being answered affirmatively in favour of the complainant. As per section 118 of the Act, it shall be presumed, until contrary is proved, the Negotiable Instrument was drawn for consideration and as per section 139 of the Act, it shall be presumed that unless the contrary is proved, the holder of the cheque received the same, in whole or in part of, or any debt or other liability. Thus it is presumed that the complainant received Ex.P2/cheque for discharge in whole or in part of debt or liability under Ex.P1/promissory note.

19.Further Section 139 of Act introduced as exception to the general rule with regard to the burden of proof in Criminal cases. In Rangappa vs.

8

CC.No.1443/2021, Dt: 08-05-2026 III AJMFC, Vijayawada

Mohan AIR 2010 SC 1898 it is held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that section

138 of the Act is an example of reverse onus clause that has been

included in furtherance of the Legislative Object of improving credibility

of the Negotiable Instruments. In the said judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court also held that the presumption mandated by section 139 of the Act, include the existence of legally enforceable debt. The obligation on the complainant/prosecution may be discharged with the help of presumption of Law or fact, unless, the accused adduces evidence showing the reasonable probability of the non-existence of the presumed facts. Therefore, it is for the accused to prove that the cheque was not issued for any debt or liability and it is for him to rebut such presumptions. It is settled proposition that in case of reverse onus and while rebutting presumptions, the standard of proof required is the preponderance of probabilities.

20. Keeping this in view, it is a settled position that when an accused has to rebut the presumption under section 139, the standard proof for doing so is “preponderance of probabilities.”

21.In cross examination of PW-1 categorically stated that, he obtained voluntary retirement from his service, in his place, his Son E. Vishnu Vardhan working in compassionate grounds. It is the main contention of the accused that, the son of the complainant used to chit business among Railway

Employees, at that, time, his son obtained blank signed pronote and cheque

9

CC.No.1443/2021, Dt: 08-05-2026 III AJMFC, Vijayawada

from the accused regarding the chit business and the same was denied by the

PW-1 in his cross examination. The another contention of the accused is that, the complainant filed civil suit against accused and the same is decreed, later, the complainant filed EP., against accused, in that EP., the salary of the accused was attached and the same fact was admitted by the PW-1 in his cross-examination that, he filed civil suit against the accused and the same is decreed and her salary was attached in EP., the PW-1 further stated that, at the time of execution of pronote, V. Sobhanadri and Lova Raju was present, he sent notice to the office address of the accused, he get amount through his retirement, he can submit his bank statement which shows on that day, he withdrew the amount from the bank.

22. One Bandaru Sobhanadri examined himself as PW-2 who is attestor of the pronote, he stated that, on 23-09-2019, the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- from the complainant, he put his signature on pronote as attestor, in his cross-examination, he categorically stated that, one

Ch. Lova Raju who is scribe of pronote also working in Railway Department and one K. Suresh who is the second attestor of the pronote working in Railway

Department, he stated that, he don’t know whether the son of the complainant obtained empty cheque and pronote from the accused in chit business, he further stated that, on 23-09-2019 the pronote was executed at about 05.00 to 05.30 PM., he further stated that, the salary of the accused was attached.

10

CC.No.1443/2021, Dt: 08-05-2026 III AJMFC, Vijayawada

23. The accused took three defences in this case, the first defence which is taken by the accused is that, the complainant son used to run chit business among Railway Employees, in this regard, the complainant son obtained blank signed pronote and cheque from the accused, but in her cross-examination, DW-1 clearly stated that, she did not submit any proof

before this court for chits, in which she was subscriber which was runned by the

complainant’s son and she never submitted any proof before this Court that the complainant’s son and herself worked together. Hence, by her admissions it is clear that, she did not submit any proofs before this Court that, she is one of the subscriber of the chit which was runned by son of the complainant and at that time, he obtained blank signed pronote and cheque from her. The another defence which was taken by the accused is that, the signature which present on

Ex.P2/cheque does not belong to her, but, to substantiate her evidence, she never took any steps to send the Ex.P2/cheque to FSL for determination of her signature. The last defence which was taken by the accused is that, the complainant filed civil suit against her for recovery of amount and the same is decreed against her and her salary was attached in EP., and amount was recovered by the complainant, hence, this case is not maintainable. But, this case is filed by the complainant for dishonour of the cheque, but not recovery of the amount. Hence, the contentions of the accused cannot be taken into consideration.

11

CC.No.1443/2021, Dt: 08-05-2026 III AJMFC, Vijayawada

24.In view of the above discussion, accused must bring on record something which is probable for getting the benefit of shift on the onus to the complainant. To disclose presumption, the accused has to bring on record such facts and circumstances of the case upon consideration of which, this Court may either believe that the consideration did not exist or its non existence was so probable that prudent man come under the circumstances of the case, act upon the free that it does not exist, for the above reasons, the defence raised by the accused is untenable.

25.Having regard to the above said discussion, this court is of the opinion that the defence raised by the accused does not appear to be probable, therefore, the accused failed to rebut presumptions raised in favour of the complainant. Therefore, the complainant has been able to bring home the guilt of the accused, beyond all reasonable doubts for the offence punishable under section 138 of NI Act and accordingly, accused is entitled for conviction.

26. In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Accordingly she is convicted under section 255 (2) of Cr.P.C.,

Typed to my dictation, by the Stenographer Grade III, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 08 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- Shaik Rehana,

III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada.

12

CC.No.1443/2021, Dt: 08-05-2026 III AJMFC, Vijayawada

Hearing on quantum of sentence:

27.When the accused is question with regard to the quantum of sentence that may be imposed upon her, she stated that she have to look after her family and she is only sole bread winner of her family. Hence prayer to take lenient view.

28.Considering the nature of the offence and the mode in which, it was committed, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to invoke the benevolent provisions of Probation of Offenders Act. Moreover, the Hon’ble Apex

Court in S. Suresh Kumar Vs. Jagadeshan reported in 2002 (1) ALD (Crl.) 417 held that; the sentence imposed for the offence under the Act should be of such a nature, as to give proper effect the object of the legislation. It is further held that the drawer of the cheque cannot be allowed to take the dishonour of the cheque issued by her very lightheartedly and the very object of the enactment would stand defeated, if the sentence is flee-bite in nature.

29.It is the contention of the accused is that, the complainant filed a civil case against her and the same is decreed and her salary was attached in

EP., and amount was recovered by the complainant and the same fact was admitted by PW-1 and PW-2 in their cross-examination that, EP., was filed by

PW-1. In this regard, the accused submitted pay slips of her before this Court which was marked as Ex.D1.

13

CC.No.1443/2021, Dt: 08-05-2026 III AJMFC, Vijayawada

30. In view of the above discussion and having regard to the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met and this Court take lenient view against accused, hence, this Court is directed the accused to pay the compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) as provided under section 357 (3) of Cr.P.C., within the period of two months from the date of this judgment. So far as imposing default sentence for failure to pay compensation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.A. Abbas, H.S.A.,

Vs. Sabu Joseph and Another, (2010) STPL(Web) 384 S.C.(D.B.) arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 334 of 2008, held that default sentence can be imposed for non-payment of compensation. Therefore, as guided by the above said decision, if the accused fails to pay the compensation as ordered, she shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two (2) months.

31.The remand period if any, which was already undergone by the accused shall be given set-off as required under section 428 of Cr.P.C., Accused is informed of her right of appeal, she stated that she is able to engage an advocate to prefer an appeal.

Typed to dictation by the Stenographer Grade III, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 08 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- Shaik Rehana,

III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada.

14

CC.No.1443/2021, Dt: 08-05-2026 III AJMFC, Vijayawada

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant: For Accused:

PW-1: Eeasabathina Sudhakara RaoDW-1: T. Meri Sucharitha PW-2: Bandaru Sobhanadri

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

Ex.P1: Certified copy of promissory note for Rs.4,00,000/-, Dt: 23-09-2019 Ex.P2: Original cheque bearing No.991201 for Rs.5,00,000/-, Dt: 11-02-2021 Ex.P3: Cheque Return Memo, Dt: 11-02-2021 Ex.P4: Office copy of legal notice, Dt: 02-03-2021 Ex.P5: Registered Postal receipt, Dt: 02-03-2021 Ex.P6: Returned Registered cover, Dt: 11-03-2021

For Accused:

Ex.D1: Pay Slips from the Month fo June, 2025 to December 2025 – 7 (seven in number)

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL-

Sd/- Shaik Rehana,

III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, JAGGAIAHPET

PRESENT:­Smt Sk.Rehana., 

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class­cum­Additional Junior Civil Judge

FAC­Principal Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jaggaiahpet Tuesday, this the 18th day of February, 2020

CALENDER CASE NO.326 of 2016

Between:

The State – Represented by Sub­Inspector of Police, Penuganchiprolu Police Station. … Complainant

AND

1. Kasukurthy Srinivasa Rao., S/o.Adinarayana, 28 years.

2. Kasukurthy Parvathy, W/o.Adinarayana, 45 years Both are caste by Kamma, Konakanchi Village, Penuganchiprolu Mandal.….Accused

This case is coming on before me for final hearing on 11.02.2020 in the presence of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for State, and of Sri K.Narasimha Rao., Learned counsel for accused, Upon perusal of record and having stood over the matter to this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub­Inspector of Police, Penuganchiprolu Police station filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.40/2016 for the offence punishable U/Secs.326, 506 r/w.34 IPC.

2. The factual matrix of the case are as follows:­

On 27.03.2016 at 15.15 hours, Pw.1 came to police station and lodged a report stating that, on 27.03.2016 morning at about 10.00 AM after attending the function and Pw.1 returned back on the way when reached near the village center, A1 and A2 beat Pw.1 with a stout pestle (Rokali Banda) and also beat Pw.1 on his left hand and legs causing bleeding injuries and shouted that they would kill him. Later he was shifted to Government hospital,

Jaggaiahpet for treatment. Basing on the report of Pw.1, Pw.8 registered the same as case in Cr.No.40/2016 Under secs.324, 506 r/w.34 IPC. He visited the scene of offence, there he got drafted observation report in the presence of 2

Pw.7 and Lw.8 K.Parvathy. He also prepared rough sketch of scene of offence and seized MOs from the scene of offence under cover of mediators report.

Later he secured the presence of Pws.1 to 5 and Lw.3/K.Gopi Prasanth examined them and recorded their statements. Later Pw.8 send Pw.1 to

Government Hospital, Jaggaiahpet. On 28.03.2016 he secured the presence of

A1 and A2 and served notices U/sec.41­A Cr.P.C. After receipt of wound certificate and after completion of investigation Pw.9 laid charge sheet before this court.

3.This case was taken on file against accused for the offence punishable U/Secs.326, 506 r/w.34 IPC and issued summons upon the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused before the court, copies of case documents were furnished to accused as contemplated U/s. 207 Cr.P.C.

5.Accused Nos.1 and 2 are examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C., explaining the accusation leveled against them, for which they denied the same. Charges

U/Secs.326, 506 r/w.34 IPC was framed against accused, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried..

6.During the course of trial, prosecution examined Pws.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P9 and MO.1.

7.After completion of prosecution side evidence, the accused were examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating evidence leveled in the prosecution witnesses against them in Telugu, for which, they denied the same and reported no defence to adduce on their behalf.

8.Heard arguments of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused. Perused the material available on record.

9. Now the point for determination is, 

Whether prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the 

3 offence punishable U/secs.326, 506 r/w.34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:­

10.In this case, Pw.1 is the defacto complainant. He stated that on 26.03.2016 at abouit 10.00 AM, he went to attend a function in the house of

Nallabothu Appa Rao. When he reached near to the rachabanda, which near to the house of Nallabothu Venkateswara Rao, A1 caught hold his neck, due to previous disputes, while A2 beat him with pestle (rokali banda) on his left hand. He sustained fracture injury to his left hand. A2 also beat him with pestle on his left leg, right leg and on his back. He sustained swelling injuries.

Immediately he proceeded to Lakshmi hospital, Jaggaiahpet. Doctor Sridhar gave the treatment, thereafter he went to his house. On 26­03­2016 he presented the report during the evening hours, but the S.H.O. police made him to mention the date of incident as 27­03­2016. Then the S.H.O also threatened him to mention the date of offence as 27­03­2016 instead of 26­03­2016.

11.Pw.2 is the wife of Pw.1. She stated that when Pw.1 was returning from the function in the house of Nallabothu Appa Rao, when he reached near to the rachabanda, which is near to the house of Nallabothu Venkateswar Rao,

A1 and A2 due to previous disputes, beat Pw.1 with pestle (rokali banda) on his left hand, he sustained fracture injury to his left hand. They also beat Pw.1 with pestle on his left leg, right leg and on his back. He sustained swelling injuries. She was informed about the incident through phone by Pw.5.

Immediately, herself and Lw.3/Prasanth proceeded to the scene. A1 and A2 were present at the scene and that Pw.1 fell down on the ground. She also noticed that pestle in the hand of A1. On seeing them, A1 and A2 skulk away from the scene immediately. She took Pw.1 to Lakshmi hospital, Jaggaiahpet.

Doctor Sridhar gave the treatment, thereafter they proceed to police station and presented the report. On the said day, the S.H.O. did not take the report 4 and on the next day, the SHO insisted her to mention the date of incident as 27­03­2016. Accused also filed a false case against them.

12.Pws.3 to 5 are eye witnesses to the said incident. But they did not support the prosecution case. Pw.6 is working as Orthopedician, Sri Lakshmi

Hospital, Jaggaiahpet. He examined Pw.1 on 26­03­2016 at about 5­10 PM.

Ex.P5 marked through him. Pw.7 is mediator for scene observation report.

Ex.P7 is marked through him. Pw.8 is the investigation officer in this case. He stated that on 27­03­2016 at about 9.00 AM, Pw.1 came to police station and presented a report. Basing on the same, he registered it as a case in

Cr.No.40/2016 U/sec.324, 506 r/w.34 IPC. He forwarded the original F.I.R. to the Hon’ble Court and copies to the concerned officials. On the same day, he visited the scene of offence along with mediators situated at Konakanchi

Village. He prepared the rough sketch of scene of offence. He also secned the presence of Pw.1, Pw.2, Lw.3/K.Gopi Prasanth, Pws.3 to 5 and recorded their statements. He got prepared the scene observation report in the presence of mediators. He seized one one pestle MO.1 under cover of mediators report. On 28­03­2012 he arrested A1 and A2 and issued 41­A Cr.P.C. notices, after obtaining the sufficient solvencies from them, he released them on bail. Later he handed over the C.D file to Lw.11/K.Satish S.I of Police. Lw.11 received the wound certificate from the hospital and he altered the Section of law from 324, 506 r/w.34 IPC to Sec.326, 506 r/w.34 IPC. Pw.9 another investigation officer stated that he received the wound certificate from Sri Lakshmi Hospital,

Jaggaiahpet, thereafter he altered the Section of law and filed a memo before this court. After verification of the investigation conducted by Pw.8, he filed the charge sheet before this court.

13.By going through the evidence, it is clear that in this case, Pw.1 is the injured person. Pw.2 is the wife of Pw.1. As per the version of Pw.1 on 26­03­2016 while he was returning from the function in the house of 5

Nallabothu Appa Rao, A1 and A2 beat pestle, he sustained fracture injury on his left hand. They also beat him with pestle on his left leg, right leg and on his back. The same version supported by Pw.2. But Pw.2 is not a ocular witness to the said incident. She was informed about the incident through phone by

Lw.6/Vanaja. But Lw.6/Vanaja who is examined as Pw.5 not supported the prosecution case. Pws.3 and 4 are eye witnesses to the said incident. They do not supported the prosecution case. The learned A.P.P. declared them as hostile witnesses. In their cross­examination by prosecution, nothing was elicited to inspire the confidence of this court. Pw.6 who is doctor examined

Pw.1 on 26­03­2016 at about 5.10 PM. He found the following the injuries as per the X Ray. Left fore arm shows fracture shaft of ulna distal 3rd. He opined that the injury is grievous in nature. Ex.P5 is marked through him. As per the version of Pw.1, A1 and A2 beat him on his left hand and they also beat with pestle on his left leg, right leg and on his back. But as per the evidence of doctor the left fore arm was fracture. He never say single word about the injury sustained by Pw.1 on his left leg, right leg and on his back. In the cross examination doctor admitted that he did not mention the weapon with which the alleged injury could have been caused, so also the age of injury. He further admitted that one PC 99 of Penuganchiprolu Police accompanied the injured at the time of his examination. In contra, as per the evidence of Pw.1, immediately after A1 and A2 beat him with pestle on his left hand, left leg, right leg and on his back. He proceeded to Lakshmi Hospital,

Jaggaiahpet and then the doctor gave the treatment, thereafter he went to his house. Later he presented the report during the evening hours in the police station. But Pw.8, the investigation officer never stated that after registration of the case he did not refer Pw.1 to the hospital. Hence the medical evidence not corroborated to the evidence of Pws.1 and 2. Pw.1 stated that on 26­03­2016 the said incident was happened. On the same day at evening hours he went to the police station and lodged a report. But the S.H.O.

6 threatened him to mention the date of offence as 27­03­2016. When the same was suggested by learned defence counsel to Pw.8 the investigation officer clearly denied that the portion of evidence of Pw.1 that though the offence took place on 26­03­2016. Moreover, Pw.1 admitted in his cross­examination, he informed to the medical officer about the manner of the incident. He further admitted that C.C.230/2016 is pending on the file of Hon’ble Addl.Junior Civil

Judge’s Court against him which was filed by A2 U/sec.354­A, 447, 323

r/w.34 IPC. He cannot say whether one Govindamma presented a report against Pw.2 under Sec.420 IPC which was registered as a case in

Cr.No.06/2018 of Penuganchiprolu P.S. He further admitted that on 27­03­2016 he presented the report, police referred him to GGH, Jaggaiahpet, since he has already undergone treatment. He was not given any treatment at

GGH, Jaggaiahpet. But as per the doctor evidence he accompanied to hospital by a constable. Pw.2 admitted in her cross­examination she was not examined by the police. She did not present any report against SHO to his higher officials. She did not state before the police that by the time she went to the scene of offence, A1 and A2 were present at the scene and that Pw.1 fell down on the ground and she also noticed pestle in the hand of A1. She did not state

before the police that on seeing her, A1 and A2 skulk away from the scene and

thereafter she took Pw.1 to the hospital. She further admitted that she did not state before the police that after undergoing treatment, they proceeded to police station and presented the report and that the S.H.O did not take the report and on the next day, the SHO insisted and threatened him to mention the date of incident as 27­03­2016. She further admitted a case is pending against her and Pw.1 which was filed by A2 on the file of Hon’ble Addl.Junior

Civil Judge, Jaggaiahpet in C.C.230/2016. One Govindamma presented a

report against him U/sec.420 IPC which was registered as a case in

Cr.No.6/2018. But the same was denied by Pw.1. But the investigation officer also admitted that Ex.P1 report was given on 27­03­2016.. The alleged offence 7 took place on 10.00 A.M. He did not refer Pw.1 to the hospital. A2 presented a report against Pws.1 and 2 on 27­03­2016 which was registered as case in

Cr.No.39/2016 u/sec.447, 354­A, 323 r/w.34 IPC. The said case was pending on the file of Hon’ble Addl.Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Jaggaiahpet. Pw.1 did not specifically stated that A1 caught hold of him while A2 beat him with MO.1 pestle. Pw.1 did not specifically stated before him or mentioned in Ex.P1 report that A2 beat him on his both legs and on his back. Pw.1 did not specifically stated the name of the hospital in which he undergone treatment. Pw.1 did not state before him about the presence of Pw.5. He further admitted that the portion of evidence of Pw.1 that though the offence took place on 26­03­2016, he threated Pw.1 and got it mentioned that the offence took place on 27­03­2016 is false. Pw.9 another investigation officer also admitted that in the charge sheet it was mentioned that police referred the injured to GGH,

Jaggaiahpet. He admitted that he did not obtained any certificate from GGH,

Jaggaiahpet. The investigation officer did not refer to the private hospital. He obtained the certificate from private hospital and filed the charge sheet.

14.Hence by the evidence of above witnesses the prosecution failed to establish Pw.1 gave the report and the incident occurred on 27­03­2016.

Actually the incident was occurred on 26­03­2016. As per the investigation officer Pw.1 came to police station on 27­03­2016 and as per wound certificate the patient was examined by the doctor on 26­03­2016 at about 5.10 PM. Pw.1 stated in his chief examination at about 10.00 AM on 26­03­2016 while he was returning from the function in the house of Nallabothu Appa Rao, A1 and

A2 beat him, then immediately after the said incident he went to Lakshmi

Hospital, Jaggaiahpet. Doctor Sridhar gave the treatment. But as per the wound certificate Ex.P5, the doctor examined him on 26­03­2016 at about 5.10 PM. As per the investigation officer evidence, Pw.1 lodged the report on 27­03­2016 at about 9­00 A.M. Hence the evidence of Pws.1 and 2 and Pws.6 to 9 suffering with so many contradictions, omissions and exaggerations which 8 do not inspires the confidence of this court. Pw.7 who is mediator for scene observation report stated in his chief examination that the S.H.O. forcibly obtained the signature in the mediators report. Later the stated, he went to the house of A1 along with police, at Konakanchi Village on 27­03­2016. Ex.P7 marked through him. He do not remember whether police seized MO.1 are not.

He stated one version in the chief examination and another version in the cross­examination which create doubt the presence of Pw.7 at scene of offence.

Hence his evidence also not inspires the confidence of this court.

15.Bygoing through the evidence on record, this court find that there was admitted enmity between Pw.1 and that of accused. In such a situation when the eye witnesses have not narrated any specific role of accused, it can not be ruled out that the case is filed against accused due to old grudges. As per the evidence of Pw.8, Pw.8 admitted in his cross­examination that A2 presented report against Pws.1 and 2 on 27­03­2016 which was registered as case in Cr.No.39/2016 for the offence U/secs.447, 354­A, 323 r/w.34 IPC the same was admitted by Pw.2 in her cross­examination that one case is pending against her and Pw.1 which was filed by A2 on the file of Hon’ble Addl.Junior

Civil Judge, Jaggaiahpet.

16.Hence whatever oral and documentary evidence, not supported by the prosecution case. Taking the totality of facts and circumstances of the case into consideration, the above evidence casts heavy doubt on the prosecution version and does not inspire any confidence of this court. Thus there is no evidence what so ever on record to establish the complicity of the accused in the offence. Solely relying on the interested testimony of Pw.1 it is not safe to base on conviction against the accused. In this regard this court relied on the following judgment. 

In AIR 2014 UMAKANT AND Anr Vs state of Chhattisgarh

2943, Hon’ble Supreme court held that the prosecution has to prove the

guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and it is also rule of

9

justice in criminal law that if two views are possible on the evidence

adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the

other towards his innocence, the view which is favourable to the

accused should be adopted.

17.In these circumstance, this court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, which is an essential requisite base a conviction against the accused and as such they are entitled for an acquittal on benefit of doubt.

18. In the result, Accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/secs.326 IPC and Sec.506 r/w.34 IPC and accordingly they are acquitted U/sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. for the said offences. The bail bonds of accused shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated

U/sec.437­A Cr.P.C.

MO.1 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr­III, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in open court, this the 18th day of February, 2020. 

 Sd/­Sk.Rehana

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class

FAC­ Principal Junior Civil Judge Cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Jaggaiahpet.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION ACCUSED

Pw.1: K.Veerabhadra Rao ­ None ­

Pw.2: K.Vani

Pw.3: N.Venkateswarlu

Pw.4: K.Venkataravamma

Pw.5: K.Vanaja

Pw.6: Dr.A.Sridhar

Pw.7: P.Srinivasa Rao

Pw.8: T.V.Rajeswara Rao

Pw.9: K.Satish 10

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION ACCUSED

Ex.P1: Report. NIL

Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.3

Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.4

Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.5

Ex.P5: Wound certificate of Pw.1

Ex.P6: Signature of Pw.7 in the mediators report

Ex.P7: Mediators report

Ex.P8: First Information Report

Ex.P9: Rough sketch 

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

MO.1: Pestle (Rokali Banda)

Sd/­Sk.Rehana

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class

FAC­ Principal Junior Civil Judge Cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Jaggaiahpet.

1

CC.No.876/2025, Dt: 06-05-2026 III AJMFC, Vijayawada

IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :: VIJAYAWADA

Present: Shaik Rehana,

III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada.

WEDNESDAY, this the 06 th day of May, 2026

CALENDAR CASE No.876 of 2025

Between:

The State rep., by its Inspector of Police, Satyanarayanapuram Police Station, Vijayawada City …Complainant

A N D

Syed Karimulla, S/o. Chand Basha aged about 50 years, R/o.D.No.18-11-43, 5th Line, Khuddusnagar, Vijayawada …Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 04-05-2026 in the presence of learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State/Complainant and of Sri K. S. Sudhakar Raju, learned counsel for the accused and upon perusal of record and hearing both the learned counsels and having stood over the matter to this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Inspector of Police, S. N. Puram Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime.No.112/2024 for the offence under section 420 of

Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).

2.The factual matrix of the case are as follows:

The defacto complainant/LW-1/Shaik Babu is resident of Pezzonipet,

Vijayawada and he is unmarried and living individually and the defacto complainant

2

CC.No.876/2025, Dt: 06-05-2026 III AJMFC, Vijayawada

runs small businesses and he have four autos, one canteen at I Town, Pan

Business, so also, the defacto complainant decided to run a Mechanic shed at

Sambamurthy Road as his brother died, on that, the accused who is friend of the defacto complainant met him at Shed and accused asked him that how can he manage the entire business, then the defacto complainant/LW-1 asked suggestion to accused, then the accused advises that, previously the accused was worked at

Santosh Honda Showroom, then on believing the words of the accused, he handed over the maintenance of the Mechanic Shed to accused, then both of them started to buy the bikes in exchange scheme which was coming to auction at Sriram

Finance, on that, the defacto complainant/LW-1 without any documents, he paid an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- at first instance that the accused bought eighteen bikes in auction, for which, the documents were coming from Chennai and asked for another amount of Rs.4,00,000/-, and Rs.1,00,000/- and the accused received the same from him, later the defacto complainant handed over his hotel business to accused and his family members, when the defacto complainant/LW-1 asking about the vehicles, the accused replied in negligence manner and quarreled with him and carried out all the equipment worth of Rs.3,50,000/- and also accused threatened him and the accused totally received an amount of Rs.13,50,000/- from him, on that, the defacto complainant presented report against accused on 18-03-2024, basing on the report, the SI of Police registered the same as FIR in

Crime.No.112/2024 for the offence under section 420 of IPC and recorded statements of the witnesses and on 20-03-2023, SI of Police issued notice to the accused under section 41-A of Cr.P.C., Notice, and that, later as per the orders of

3

CC.No.876/2025, Dt: 06-05-2026 III AJMFC, Vijayawada

the Commissioner of Police, NTR Commissionerate, LW-4/SI of Police transferred, for which, LW-5/Md. Shabbir Ahmad/SI of Police received the CD file from his predecessor and continued further investigation in this case and on completion of investigation, SI of Police filed charge sheet against accused.

3.This case was taken on file against the accused for the offence punishable under section 420 of IPC.

4. On appearance of the accused before the Court, copies of documents were furnished to the accused as contemplated under section 207 of Cr.P.C.,

5.Accused was examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C., by explaining the accusations levelled against him, for which, he denied the charges which was framed under section 420 of IPC against accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During the course of trial, prosecution examined PW-1 to PW-4 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P3, so also, in cross-examination of PW-1, Ex.D1 marked.

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating material appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which, he denied the offence and reported no defence evidence.

4

CC.No.876/2025, Dt: 06-05-2026 III AJMFC, Vijayawada

8. Heard arguments of learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and the learned counsel for the accused. Perused the material and evidence available on record carefully.

9. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence under section 420 of IPC? POINT:

10. PW-1 who is defacto complainant deposed that, he knows accused and he used to sale Killi ingredients and his shop is wholesale and he also running four

Autos for running purpose and his brother take one Mechanic shed for lease purpose at Sambamurthy Road, Vijayawada and in the year 2018, his brother demised, then, he take Mechanic shed and running the same, then, accused approached him and stated with him that he will look after the Mechanic shed and he have experience of Mechanic work in selling and purchasing of motor vehicles and the accused also worked at Santosh Showrooms, then, he handed over the

Mechanic shed to accused, for which, accused used to brought second hand vehicles to his shed and sold the same, on that, accused stated with him that, accused knew the persons at Shriram Chit Funds, if he provide amount to accused, accused will brought large number of bikes and also stated that the accused know one Arjun and accused will provide vehicles, then, accused asked an amount of

Rs.5,00,000/- from him for deposit Auction of bikes, then, the accused gave

Rs.5,00,000/- cash to the accused, so also, he running one canteen at one Town, and that, accused asked to handed over the Canteen to him, then, he handed over

5

CC.No.876/2025, Dt: 06-05-2026 III AJMFC, Vijayawada

the canteen to accused, later, accused further asked an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- for the bikes, then, he gave Rs.4,00,000/- to accused, but the accused did not get bikes, whenever he asked about bikes, the accused replied that documents are at

Madras and he will bring the same, later accused further asked an amount of

Rs.1,00,000/-, for which, he replied that, he have no amount along with him, then accused stated with him that apply for loan and accused applied loan from his phone by taking OTPS from his phone, immediately an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- credited in his account, then, he draw an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- amount from his bank and gave the same to accused, later he asked about the bikes, then accused replied rashly to him, later, accused took all the provisions worth of Rs.3,50,000/- from the Canteen, furniture is taken by building owner, then, he went to police station and lodged report as accused cheated him which was marked as Ex.P1, police examined him and recorded his statement.

11. PW-2 who filed charge sheet in this case deposed that,on 28-08-2024, he took up investigation in this case from LW-4/S. Durga Bhavani and he gone through the investigation done by LW-4/S. Durga Bhavani/SI of Police and on completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet before this Court.

12. PW-3 who is brother of P-W-1 turned hostile and he did not support the case of prosecution and his 161 Cr.P.C., Statement marked as Ex.P2.

13. PW-4 who registered the FIRdeposeddeposed that, on 18-03-2024, PW-1 came to police station and lodged report, basing on that, she

6

CC.No.876/2025, Dt: 06-05-2026 III AJMFC, Vijayawada

registered the same as FIR in Crime.No.112/2024 for the offence under section 420 of IPC, and she issued FIR which was marked as Ex.P3 and she sent copies of

Ex.P3 to the concerned and she examined and recorded the statement of PW-1 in the police station, later she went to the scene of offence situated at Pezzonipet, there she secured the presence of PW-3, LW-3/G. Durga Rao examined them and recorded their statements, on 20-03-2023, she issued 41-A of Cr.P.C., Notice to accused, PW-3 stated before her as in Ex.P2 and further investigation was done by

PW-2.

14. In this case, PW-1 is defacto complainant, PW-2 is Investigation

Officer and PW-3 is projected as a eye witness to the prosecution case. PW-4 is

Investigation officer in this case. Except PW-3 no witnesses produced before this

Court by the prosecution to corroborate the evidence of PW-1. PW-3 not supported the case of prosecution and he turned hostile. Even though prosecution cross-examined PW-3, nothing is elicited to inspire the confidence of this court through his evidence.

15. As per the version of PW-1, in the year 2018, accused was approached him, prior to that, his brother was demised who take one Mechanic shed for lease purpose, accused stated with him that, he have experience of mechanic work, as such, he handed over the Mechanic shed to the accused, accused is used to brought second hand vehicles to his shop and sold, later the accused stated with him that, if he provide amount to him, he provide large number of bikes, then, he

7

CC.No.876/2025, Dt: 06-05-2026 III AJMFC, Vijayawada

asked Rs.5,00,000/- from him for deposit auction of bikes, then, he gave

Rs.5,00,000/- cash to the accused, later he handed over one canteen to the accused, then accused asked Rs.4,00,000,/- for the bikes, then he give

Rs.4,00,000/- to the accused, but the accused did not get bikes, later accused further asked Rs.1,00,000/-, then, accused applied loan from his phone taking

OTPs from his phone, immediately Rs.1,00,000/- amount credited to his account, then, he draw Rs.1,00,000/- and the same was gave to the accused, later the accused took all the provisions worth about of Rs.3,50,000/- from the canteen, as such, he filed a report against accused as he cheated him. The PW-1 not clearly stated on which date, he handed over Mechanic shed to the accused and he did not submit any document regarding handing over the Mechanic shed to the accused and PW-1 not submitted any receipt before this Court that he gave Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.4,00,000/- to the accused, the PW-1 not clearly stated that, on which date, he handed over Rs.5,00,000/- cash to the accused and again he handed over

Rs.4,00,000/- to the accused.

16. As per the version of PW-1, he obtained Rs.1,00,000/- loan through his phone, then, he draw Rs.1,00,000/- from his bank and gave the same to the accused. To prove his contention, he did not submit phone transaction before this

Court and he did not submit bank statements which he withdraw the amount from the bank. Moreover, in his cross-examination, he categorically admitted that, he did not submit any proofs before this Court, he handed over that Babu Brothers

Mechanic Shed to the accused and he gave amount to the accused for purchasing

8

CC.No.876/2025, Dt: 06-05-2026 III AJMFC, Vijayawada

of bikes. He further admitted that, on 21-01-2023, the accused sent legal notice to him and in legal notice, it was mentioned that, accused took the shop from him for sub lease and he paid Rs.6,00,000/- to him and he further stated that he was compelling him to vacate the shop and he further admitted that, on 23-01-2023 the accused filed a complaint in Sapdnana against him and II-Town Police called him, Ex.D1 is marked through him which is receipt of Spandana Complaint,

Dt: 23-01-2023, by the admissions of PW-1, it is clearly established that, he did

not submit any proof before this court that he handed over the Mechanic shed to the accused and he gave amount to accused for the purchase of bikes.

17. The Investigation Officer also admitted the same facts in her cross-examination that, she did not secure any document which shows that, PW-1 gave amounts to the accused. The Investigation Officer also admitted that, she did not examine the owner of the Tea shop as a list of witnesses.

18. In Archana Rana Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another – (2021) 3

SCC 751, in para No.5, it was observed that;

The ingredients to constitute an offence under section 420 are as follows:

i) a person must commit the offence of cheating under Section 415;

and

ii) the person cheated must be dishonestly induced to

a) deliver property to any person; or

b) make, alter or destroy valuable security or anything signed or sealed and capable of being converted into valuable security.”

9

CC.No.876/2025, Dt: 06-05-2026 III AJMFC, Vijayawada

Thus, cheating is an essential ingredient for an act to constitute an offence under section 420 of IPC, Cheating is defined under section 415 of the IPC. The ingredients to constitute an offence of cheating are as follows:

i) there should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him; ii) The person who was induced should be intentionally induced to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or

The person who was induced should be intentionally induced to do or to omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived.

Thus, a fraudulent or dishonest inducement is an essential ingredient of the offence under section 415 of IPC, a person who dishonestly induced any person to delivery any property is liable for the offence of cheating.

6. Now, keeping in mind the relevant ingredients for the offences under sections 419 and 420 of IPC,as noted herein above, it is required to be considered whether the averments in the complaint taken on their face do constitute the ingredients necessary for the offences under sections 419 and 420 of IPC, as alleged.

19. In the light of the above citation, the delivery of the property from complainant to accused not proved by the evidence of PW-1 and PW-4. The PW-1 himself stated that, he did not submit any receipt or document before this Court which proves that, he gave amount to the accused. In the cross-examination, PW-1 categorically admitted that, he did not submit any proof before this Court, he handed over the Babu Brothers Mechanic Shed to the accused and he gave amount to the accused for purchasing of bikes, the PW-1 evidence failed to establish why he going on lend the amount to the accused without proper reason and PW-1 did not clearly stated on which dates, PW-1 gave amounts to the accused.

Investigation Officer also failed to seize any documents from the PW-1 which

10

CC.No.876/2025, Dt: 06-05-2026 III AJMFC, Vijayawada

establishes that, the PW-1 gave amounts to the accused. Hence, whatever oral and documentary evidence before this Court not corroborated with each other.

20. Taking the totality of facts and circumstances of the case into consideration, the above evidence casts heavy doubt on the prosecution version and does not inspire any confidence of this Court. Thus there is no evidence what so ever on record to establish the complicity of the accused in the offence. In this regard this court relied on the following judgment.

221.In the State of Goa Vs. Sanjay Thakran – 2017 (3) SCC 755 - this

Court relied on the Judgment in State of Rajasthan Vs. Rajaram – 2003 (8) SCC 180 and observed as under” “Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted.”

22.In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, which is an essential requisite base a conviction against the accused and as such he is entitled for an acquittal on benefit of doubt.

23.In view of the aforesaid reasons, this Court holds that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused for the charges framed under section 420 of IPC

11

CC.No.876/2025, Dt: 06-05-2026 III AJMFC, Vijayawada

beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, accused is entitled for acquittal. The point is answered accordingly.

24.In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 420 of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted for the same under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C., The bail bonds of Accused shall be cancelled after six months under section 437-A of Cr.P.C., No case property, hence, no order.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 06 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- Shaik Rehana,

III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW-1: Shaik Babu -None- PW-2: Md. Shabbir Ahmed PW-3: Abdul Raheem PW-4: S. Durga Bhavani

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution: Ex.P1: Report Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C., Statement of PW-3 Ex.P3: FIR in Crime.No.112/2024 for the offence under section 420 of IPC of S. N. Puram Police Station

For Defence: Ex.D1: Receipt of Spandana Complaint, Dt: 23-01-2023

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-NIL-

Sd/- Shaik Rehana,

III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada.

1

OS.No.577/2022, Dt: 05-05-2026 III ACJ (JD), Vijayawada

IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR

DIVISION) :: VIJAYAWADA

Present: Shaik Rehana,

III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Vijayawada.

TUESDAY, this the 05 th day of May, 2026

OS.No.577 of 2022

Between: State Bank of India rep., by its Branch Manager, Gollapudi Branch, Vijayawada City …Plaintiff

A N D

1.Mallipedhi Swarnalatha, W/o. Mallipedhi Venkata Chandra Bhaskar Rao aged about 48 years, R/o.D.No.5-8,Old Library Road, Opposite Mandal Office, Back side of HDFC Bank, Ibrahimpatnam, Krishna District

2.Mallipedhi Abhishek, S/o. Mallipedhi Venkata Chandra Bhaskar Rao aged about 28 years, R/o.D.No.5-8, Old Library Road, Opposite Mandal Office, Back side of HDFC Bank, Ibrahimpatnam, Krishna District

3.Mallipedhi Amith, S/o. Mallipedhi Venkata Chandra Bhaskar Rao aged about 24 years, R/o.D.No.5-8, Old Library Road, Opposite Mandal Office, Back side of HDFC Bank, Ibrahimpatnam, Krishna District

4.Mallipedhi Sairam, S/o. Mallipedhi Venkata Chandra Bhaskar Rao aged about 22 years, R/o.D.No.5-8, Old Library Road, Opposite Mandal Office, Back side of HDFC Bank, Ibrahimpatnam, Krishna District …Defendants

This suit is coming on 30-04-2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Dhara Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the plaintiff and Sri R. V. L. Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the defendants 1, 3 and 4 and upon perusing the material on record and upon hearing of both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff bank against the defendant directing the defendants to pay the suit amount of Rs.5,21,380/- with subsequent interest @

2

OS.No.577/2022, Dt: 05-05-2026 III ACJ (JD), Vijayawada

12.45% per annum and from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization and for costs of the suit.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that, plaintiff bank sanctioned

Xpress Credit Scheme Loan on 28-06-2019 for an amount of Rs.6,83,000/- to

Mallipedhi Venkata Chandra Bhaskar Rao, for which, Mallipedhi Venkata Chandra

Bhaskar Rao executed all necessary documents in favour of the plaintiff bank by agreeing to repay the same along with interest within fifty four (54) equated monthly installments @ Rs.16,585/- per month and the Mallipedhi Venkata

Chandra Bhaskar Rao availed the loan vide account No.38562197438, later,

Mallipedhi Venkata Chandra Bhaskar Rao discharged some amounts to the credit of the above loan towards part payment and later committed default in paying the monthly installments and Mallipedhi Venkata Chandra Bhaskar Rao has to pay an amount of Rs.5,20,380/- as on 23-02-2022, later, the plaintiff bank came to know that, Mallipedhi Venkata Chandra Bhaskar Rao died on 23-11-2021 by leaving behind the defendants No.1 to 4 as his legal heirs of the legal representatives of the estate of the deceased Mallipedhi Venkata Chandra Bhaskar Rao and the defendants 1 to 4 liable to discharge of the loan amount, later inspite of repeated demands, the defendants did not choose to repay the amount, for which, the plaintiff bank issued demand notice, Dt: 25-02-2022 demanding the defendants to pay the debt amount due under the aforesaid loan along with interest. Hence, the suit.

3

OS.No.577/2022, Dt: 05-05-2026 III ACJ (JD), Vijayawada

3.On institution of the suit, summons have been issued, directing the defendants to attend the Court to answer claim of the plaintiff. In response to the suit summons, the defendants 1, 3 and 4 have attended the Court through their counsel and filed written statement, denied the material allegations in the plaint, resisted the claim of the plaintiff and contested the matter and the D2 is set exparte.

4.The defendant No.1 filed written statement and the defendant No.3 and 4 filed adoption memo of defendant No.1 inter-alia by denying the averments of the plaint and further contended that, the 1st defendant has no knowledge and consent through her husband to pay the above said loan amount and the defendants did not receive any notices from the plaintiff bank and the 1st defendant is the wife of Mallipedhi Venkata Chandra Bhaskar Rao, defendants 3 and 4 are the sons of the their sons and the 2nd defendant is the son of the Mallipedhi Venkata

Chandra Bhaskar Rao and first wife of Mallipedhi Venkata Chandra Bhaskar Rao and the suit is filed by the plaintiff without any notice to the defendants and the alleged demand to have been made by the plaintiff to the defendants are false, the suit promissory note is devoid of consideration and the defendants did not held any estate devolved upon by them from the deceased Mallipedhi Venkata Chandra

Bhaskar Rao and Mallipedhi Venkata Chandra Bhaskar Rao never revealed about the alleged suit transaction to these defendants during his life time at any point of time, this itself shows that the suit transaction is false and no estate of the deceased Mallipedhi Venkata Chandra Bhaskar Rao are in these defendants presently, so also, this suit is frivolous, vexatious and misconceived one and the

4

OS.No.577/2022, Dt: 05-05-2026 III ACJ (JD), Vijayawada

cause of action mentioned in the suit is false, and that, the particulars of the suit claim are false, fabricated and created in collusion with the attestors and scribe to cause pains and dictate terms to the defendants and to cause wrongful loss to the defendants, and that, there are no movable and immovable properties or any estate of the deceased at their hands or at their disposal. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit.

5. Basing on the above pleadings and rival contentions, my predecessor framed the following issues for trial:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree against the defendants No.1 to 4 who are legal heirs of deceased Mallipedhi Venkata Chandra Bhaskar Rao for Rs.5,21,380/- with interest as prayed for?

2. Whether the defendants No.1 to 4 are liable to pay Rs.5,21,380/- as contended by the plaintiff bank under a loan agreement?

3. To what relief?

6. During the course of trial, on behalf of plaintiff PW-1 examined and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 on behalf of plaintiff. The defendant No.1 herself examined as DW-1 and no documents marked through her.

7.Heard both the learned counsel for the plaintiff and the learned counsel for the defendant. Perused the material on record.

8.ISSUES No.1 and 2:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree against the defendants No.1 to 4 who are legal heirs of deceased

5

OS.No.577/2022, Dt: 05-05-2026 III ACJ (JD), Vijayawada

Mallipedhi Venkata Chandra Bhaskar Rao for Rs.5,21,380/- with interest as prayed for?

2. Whether the defendants No.1 to 4 are liable to pay Rs.5,21,380/- as contended by the plaintiff bank under a loan agreement?

9. Since the issues 1 and 2 are inter related, these issues are dealt together to avoid repetition of facts and evidence.

10. Since the defendants are denied the very execution of the

Ex.A3/personal loan agreement. The initial burden lies on the plaintiff to prove the execution of the personal loan agreement, Dt: 28-06-2019 by the Mallipeddi

Venkata Chandra Bhaskar Rao in favour of the plaintiff bank and sanctioning of loan to Mallipeddi Venkata Chandra Bhaskar Rao.

11.To discharge the above initial burden lies on the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as PW-1 by reiterating the contents of the plaint and got marked

Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 on behalf of her. Ex.A1 is loan application executed by the

Mallipeddi Venkata Chandra Bhaskar Rao, Dt: 27-06-2019, Ex.A2 is Sanction letter executed by Mallipeddi Venkata Chandra Bhaskar Rao, Dt: 28-06-2019, Ex.A3 is

Personal Loan agreement executed by Mallipeddi Venkata Chandra Bhaskar Rao,

Dt: 28-06-2019, Ex.A4 is Arrangement letter executed by the Mallipeddi Venkata

Chandra Bhaskar Rao, Dt: 28-06-2019, Ex.A5 is Statement of account copy of

Mallipeddi Venkata Chandra Bhaskar Rao certified as per the Bankers Books

Evidence Act, Dt: 02-03-2022, Ex.A6 is Office copy of legal notice, Dt: 25-02-2022

6

OS.No.577/2022, Dt: 05-05-2026 III ACJ (JD), Vijayawada

and Ex.A7 is Postal receipts – 4 (four in number), Dt: 25-02-2022 and he further contended that, on 28-06-2019, Mallipeddi Venkata Chandra Bhaskar Rao approached the plaintiff bank and plaintiff bank sanctioned an amount of

Rs.6,83,000/- to the Mallipeddi Venkata Chandra Bhaskar Rao. The Mallipeddi

Venkata Chandra Bhaskar Rao had discharged some amounts to the credit of the above loan towards part payment, but it was not enough to cover the dues. The plaintiff's bank recently came to know that Mallipeddi Venkata Chandra Bhaskar

Rao died on 23-11-2021 leaving behind the defendants No. 1 to 4 are the legal heirs and legal representatives of the estate of the deceased Mallipeddi Venkata

Chandra Bhaskar Rao, therefore being the legal heirs of the Mallipeddi Venkata

Chandra Bhaskar Rao, the defendants No. 1 to 4 are held liable to discharge of the loan amount to the plaintiff’s bank, later the plaintiff bank got issued a demand notice dated 25-02-2022 demanding the defendants to pay the debt amount due under the aforesaid loan along with the applicable rate of interest, but the defendants failed to discharge the above loan amount to the plaintiff bank. Hence the plaintiff bank is constrained to file the suit or recovery of the suit amount.

12. It is the contention of the defendant that 1st defendant has no knowledge and consent through her husband to pay the above said loan amount listed in the plaint in serial number 1 to 5 and subsequently the plaintiff bank got issued a legal notice to the defendants and the defendants have not received any notice from the plaintiff bank. The suit promissory note are devoid of consideration.

The defendants do not hold any estate and that devolved upon by them from the

7

OS.No.577/2022, Dt: 05-05-2026 III ACJ (JD), Vijayawada

deceased Mallipeddi Venkata Chandra Bhaskar Rao. Thus it is Mallipeddi Venkata

Chandra Bhaskara Rao never revealed about the alleged suit transaction to these defendants during his lifetime at any point of time. This itself shows that the suit transaction is false. No estate of the deceased Mallipeddi Venkata Chandra Bhaskar

Rao or there are no movable and immovable properties or any estate of the deceased Mallipeddi Venkata Chandra Bhaskar Rao or in these defendants presently. The suit is a frivolous, vexatious and misconceived. The cause of action mentioned in the suit is false, so also the particulars of the suit claim are false, fabricated and created. The suit pronotes are fabricated and created in the collusion with the attestors and scribe therein by the plaintiff to cause pains and dictate terms to the defendants and to cause wrongful loss to the defendants.

There are no movable or immovable properties or any estate of the deceased at their hands or at their disposal.

13. The PW-1 categorically stated in his cross examination that, the predecessor filed this suit and he denied for the suggestion that, he never asked for repayment of loan amount from D1, D3 and D4.

14. It is the main contention of the defendant that, they have no knowledge about the loan amount which was taken by deceased by Mallipeddi

Venkata Chandra Bhaskar Rao and the PW-1 never submitted and never marked promissory note before this Court, but defendant submitted in his written

8

OS.No.577/2022, Dt: 05-05-2026 III ACJ (JD), Vijayawada

statement that the promissory note is fabricated and created, even though the

PW-1 not submitted pronote in this case.

15. Thus, from the above discussion, as per the evidence of PW-1 coupled with Ex.A1 to Ex.A7, the plaintiff discharged his burden that Mallipeddi Venkata

Chandra Bhaskar Rao obtained loan of Rs.6,83,000/-, from the plaintiff bank and

Ex.A1/loan application executed by the Mallipeddi Venkata Chandra Bhaskara Rao proves that, he approached the bank for loan and submitted application before the

Bank for sanction of the loan, Ex.A2/sanction letter which proves that, the bank sanctioned loan to the Mallipeddi Venkata Chandra Bhaskar Rao, Ex.A3/personal loan agreement executed by Mallipeddi Venkata Chandra Bhaskar Rao in favour of plaintiff bank which proves that, he executed loan agreement after obtaining the loan from the plaintiff bank, the Ex.A5/Statement of account copy of Mallipeddi

Venkata Chandra Bhaskara Rao, this Court perused the Ex.A5/bank statement which shows that, closing balance as on 23-02-2022 is Rs.5,20,380/-. As such, the evidence of PW-1 clubbed with Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 proves that, the Mallipeddi Venkata

Chandra Bhaskar Rao obtained loan from the plaintiff bank, even though the defendants contended that, they never received legal notice from the plaintiff bank, but Ex.A6 proves that, the defendants received the legal notices, in her cross-examination, DW-1 stated that, she purchased the own house by applying the loan, they are legal heirs of her husband and she further stated that she don’t know whether her husband executed a loan document to the bank and the bank authorities credited the amount in the account of her husband.

9

OS.No.577/2022, Dt: 05-05-2026 III ACJ (JD), Vijayawada

16. It is the contention of the defendants that, bank authorities forged the signatures of her husband on Ex.A1 to Ex.A4, but she never take any steps to send the same to FSL for determination of her contention, as such, the contentions of the defendants cannot be taken into consideration.

17. Under those circumstances, this Court without any hesitation is of the considered view that the oral testimony fo PW-1 coupled with Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 clinchlingly proved the claim of the plaintiff, thus the issues are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

18. Issue No.3 – To what relief?

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff against the defendants for an amount of Rs.5,21,380/- (Rupees five lakhs twenty one thousand three hundred and eighty only) with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% p.a., from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter with future interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of decree till the date of realization on sanctioned loan amount of Rs.6,83,000/- against the estate of the deceased Mallipeddi Venkata Chandra Bhaskar Rao which is lying the hands of defendants.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 05th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- Shaik Rehana,

III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Vijayawada.

10

OS.No.577/2022, Dt: 05-05-2026 III ACJ (JD), Vijayawada

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendants:

PW-1: G. Surendra KumarDW-1: Mallipeddi Swarnalatha

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1: Loan application executed by the Mallipedhi Venkata Chandra Bhaskar Rao,

Dt: 27-06-2019

Ex.A2: Sanction letter executed by Mallipedhi Venkata Chandra Bhaskar Rao,

Dt: 28-06-2019

Ex.A3: Personal Loan Agreement executed by Mallipedhi Venkata Chandra Bhaskar Rao, Dt: 28-06-2019 Ex.A4: Arrangement letter executed by Mallipedhi Venkata Chandra Bhaskar Rao,

Dt: 28-06-2019

Ex.A5: Statement of Account coy of Mallipedhi Venkata Chandra Bhaskar Rao certified as per the Bankers Books Evidence Act, Dt: 02-03-2022 Ex.A6: Office Copy of legal notice, Dt: 25-02-2022 Ex.A7: Postal receipts – 4 (four in number), Dt: 25-02-2022

For Defendants: -NIL-

Sd/- Shaik Rehana,

III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Vijayawada.

1

CC.No.1033/2025, Dt: 07-05-2026 III AJMFC, Vijayawada

IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :: VIJAYAWADA

Present: Shaik Rehana,

III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada.

THURSDAY, this the 07 th day of May, 2026

CALENDAR CASE No.1033 of 2025

Between:

The State rep., by its Sub Inspector of Police, S. N. Puram Police Station, Vijayawada …Complainant

A N D

Gogula Lakshmi, W/o. Siva Nageswara Rao aged about 36 years, D.No.16-3-7/2, Kowtha Vaari Street, Poornanandapeta, Vijayawada …Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 26-08-2025 in the presence of learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State/Complainant and of Sri S. M. S. Rao Dasari, learned counsel for the accused and upon perusal of record and hearing both the learned counsels and having stood over the matter to this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, S. N. Puram Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime.No.50/2025 for the offences under sections 351 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha (for short ‘BNS’) r/w 174 (3) of Bharatiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita (for short ‘BNSS’).

2.The factual matrix of the case are as follows:

The defacto complainant/LW-1 is resident of Poornanandapeta,

Vijayawada and she is residing there along with her family members in their own

2

CC.No.1033/2025, Dt: 07-05-2026 III AJMFC, Vijayawada

house, and that, on 21-01-2025 when she was washing the stairs of her house, some water passed towards the house portion of the accused who is the sister-in-law of her husband and the accused resided at downstairs of the same house of the defacto complainant/LW-1 along with her family, on that, accused started a quarrel with her about the water and abused her sometimes by using other’s names, so also, accused harassed and verbally abused her and threatened to kill her with the involvement of blade batch, on that, the defacto complainant/LW-1 reported the matter to police, basing on the report, after receiving permission from the Magistrate to register a case as this is a non cognizable report and the same was registered as FIR in Crime.No.50/2025 for the offence under section 351 (2) of BNS and 174 (3) of BNSS and the copies of FIR submitted to all the concerned and took up investigation in this case and secured the presence of defacto complainant/LW-1 and her husband, son as LW-2/Gogula

Siva and LW-3/Gogula Lokesh examined them and recorded their statements, during the course of investigation, LW-4/Shabbir Ahmed/SI of Police inspected the scene of offence, prepared the rough sketch, so also, served notice to the accused under section 35 (3) of BNSS on 25-02-2025 and on completion of investigation,

LW-4/SI of Police filed charge sheet.

3.This case was taken on file against the accused for the offences punishable under sections 351 (2) of BNS r/w 174 (3) of BNSS.

3

CC.No.1033/2025, Dt: 07-05-2026 III AJMFC, Vijayawada

4. On appearance of the accused before the Court, copies of documents was furnished to the accused as contemplated under section 230 of BNSS.,

5.Accused was examined under section 228 of BNSS., by explaining the accusation levelled against her, for which, she denied and charges were framed under section 351 (2) of BNS against accused, read over and explained to her in

Telugu, for which, she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During the course of trial, prosecution examined PW-1 to PW-4 and got marked Ex.P1 and Ex.P2.

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 351 of BNSS., explaining the incriminating material appearing against her in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which, she denied the offence and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard arguments of learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and the learned counsel for the accused. Perused the material and evidence available on record carefully.

9. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence under section 351 (2) of BNS?

4

CC.No.1033/2025, Dt: 07-05-2026 III AJMFC, Vijayawada

POINT:

10. PW-1 who is the defacto complainant deposed that, LW-2/Venkata

Siva Koteswara Rao is her husband and LW-3/Lokesh is her son, and accused is her co-sister and she is residing in upstairs and accused is residing in ground floor, on one day, in the Month of January, 2025, she washed stair case, then, water flow in front of the house of the accused, then, she wiped the water, on that, accused came to her and picked up quarrel with her and accused took XL Blade and cut on her nose and left hand, then, she sustained cut bleeding injuries on her face and hands, so also, accused threatened her that, accused will file cases against her and her family members, then, she went to police station and lodged report which was marked as Ex.P1 and police examined her and recorded her statement.

11. PW-2 who is husband of the defacto complainant deposed that, PW-1 is his wife, LW-3/G. Lokesh is his son and accused is the wife of his brother and his brother and accused was residing in ground floor and on first floor he is residing, on 21-01-2025 at about evening hours, his wife washing the floor and steps, on that, water flew in front of the house of the accused, then, accused came upstairs by using most filthy language against them, then, PW-1 stated with accused that why accused is scolding her, if the accused wants, she clean the water in front of the house of the accused, then the accused and PW-1 pushed each other and accused scolded and threatened his wife that accused will see her end, then, accused went down and brought red chilli powder in one hand and XL blade in another hand, when accused tried to cut his wife’s face, she put her hands on face,

5

CC.No.1033/2025, Dt: 07-05-2026 III AJMFC, Vijayawada

then, PW-1 sustained cut injuries on her hands, then, PW-1 went to police station and lodged report and police examined him and recorded his statement.

12. PW-3 who is the son of the defacto complainantdeposed that, PW-1 and PW-2 are his parents and accused is his Aunt, they are residing in upstairs and accused is residing at ground floor, on 21-01-2025 at about at 08.30 AM., his mother washed the steps, then the water flow in front of the house of the accused, then, accused came to their house by scolding his mother why she pour water in front of her house, then, his mother replied that she will clean the water, then, accused went and again came along with red chilli powder and blade and accused tried to cut his mother, then, himself and his father tried to rescue his mother/PW-1, his mother/PW-1 sustained cut injury on right hand and right side of the neck, police examined him and recorded his statement.

13. PW-4 who is SI of Policedeposed that, on 21-01-2025 while he was present in the police station, PW-1 came to police station and lodged report and he take permission from the Court to register the case, after obtaining permission from the Court, basing on the report, he registered the same as FIR in

Crime.No.50/2025 under sections 351 (2) of BNS r/w 174 (2) of BNSS Act on 17-02-2025, he issued FIR marked as Ex.P2 and sent the copies of Ex.P2 to the concerned, on the same day, he went to the scene of offence, there he secured the presence of PW-1 to PW-3 and examined them and recorded their statements, on

6

CC.No.1033/2025, Dt: 07-05-2026 III AJMFC, Vijayawada

25-02-2025, he served 35 (3) of BNSS notice to accused and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet before this Court.

14. In this case, PW-1 is defacto complainant, PW-2 is husband of PW-1,

PW-3 is son of PW-1. As per version of PW-1 on one day in the Month of January, 2025 she washed stair case, then water flowed in front of the house of the accused, then, she wiped the water, accused came to her and picked up quarrel with her, she took XL blade and cut on her nose and also on her left hand, she sustained cut bleeding injuries on her face and hands. In contra, as per version of

PW-2 when accused tried to cut his wife’s face, she put her hands on face, then, she sustained cut injuries on her hands. PW-2 never stated that the PW-1 sustained bleeding injuries on her face. As per version of PW-3, his mother sustained cut injury on right hand and right side of the neck, but PW-1 never stated that she sustained injury on her neck. As per the version of PW-1, after she wiped the water, accused came to her and picked up quarrel with her, in contra as per the version of PW-2, first accused came upstairs by using most filthy language against them, then, accused and PW-1 pushed each other, accused scolded and threatened his wife and threatened that she will see her end, then, she went down and brought red chilli powder in one hand and XL blade in another hand, PW-1 never stated about chilli powder, PW-3 also stated that, first accused came to their house and scolded his mother, later she went down again along came with red chilli powder and blade. As per version of PW-1, accused came one time to their house, but as per version of PW-2 and PW-3, first accused came to their house, scolded

7

CC.No.1033/2025, Dt: 07-05-2026 III AJMFC, Vijayawada

PW-1, again she went down and brought red chilli powder and blade. In contra,

PW-1 never stated that accused brought red chilli powder. In her cross- examination, PW-1 categorically stated that, she never went to Hospital for treatment and she further admitted that, one criminal case filed against her by accused, PW-2 also admitted that the accused field a criminal case against himself and his family members, PW-4/Investigation Officer admitted that the accused filed a case in Crime.No.23/2025 under section 329 (3), 357 (2) (3) of BNS against

Koteswari, Kotaiah, Lokesh and Malleswara Rao.

15. As per Investigation Officer admissions in his cross-examination, the complainant did not mention the reasons for delay in her report, the Investigation

Officer clearly admitted that, the accused never made attempt to hurt PW-1 with a blade and he further admitted that, he did not examine local inhabitants as a list of witnesses. By his admissions it is clearly established that, the accused never made attempt to hurt PW-1 with a blade. The unexplained delay of lodging FIR is also fatal to the case of prosecution. In this regard, this Court fortified the following

Judgment relied on the Hon'ble Apex Court of India, in state of Andhra Pradesh Vs

M. Madhu Sudhan Rao reported in 2008 (2) ALD (Crl) 917 (SC) observed in paragraph 18 that; “Time and again object and importance of prompt lodging of the First Information Report has been highlighted. Delay in lodging the First information Report, more often than not, results in embellishment and exaggeration, which is a creature of an after thought. A delayed report not only gets benefit of the advantage of spontaneity, the danger of introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account of the incident or a concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation, also creep in casting a serious doubt on its veracity. Therefore, it is

8

CC.No.1033/2025, Dt: 07-05-2026 III AJMFC, Vijayawada

essential that the delay in lodging the report should be satisfactorily explained”

16. As per the evidence of Investigation Officer, the date of occurrence mentioned as 21-01-2025 but the information received to police station on 17-02-2025, there is a twenty eight (28) days of delay in lodging of FIR. The un-explained delay is fatal to the case of prosecution.

17. PW-1 stated that, she sustained cut bleeding injuries on her face and hands, but surprisingly, in her cross-examination she stated that, she never went to Hospital for treatment which did not inspire the confidence of this Court to believe the version of PW-1.

18.Taking the totality of facts and circumstances of the case into consideration, the above evidence casts heavy doubt on the version of prosecution and does not inspire any confidence of this Court. Thus there is no evidence what-so-ever on record to establish the complicity of the accused in the offence.

The prosecution failed to prove all ingredients of cheating beyond reasonable doubt.

19. In this regard this Court relied on the following judgment.

“ In Air 2014 UMAKANT AND Anr Vs state of Chhattisgarh 2943, Hon’ble Suprem court held that the prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and it is also rule of justice in criminal law that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other towards his innocence,

9

CC.No.1033/2025, Dt: 07-05-2026 III AJMFC, Vijayawada

the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted.”

20.In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, which is an essential requisite base a conviction against the accused and as such he is entitled for an acquittal on benefit of doubt.

21.In view of the aforesaid reasons, this Court holds that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused for the charge framed under section 351 (2) of

BNS., beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, accused is entitled for acquittal. The point is answered accordingly.

22.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 351 (2) of BNS and accordingly, she is acquitted for the same under section 271 (1) of BNSS., The bail bonds of the Accused shall be in force for a period of six months under section 437-A of Cr.P.C., No case property, hence no order.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 07 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- Shaik Rehana,

III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada.

10

CC.No.1033/2025, Dt: 07-05-2026 III AJMFC, Vijayawada

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW-1: Gogula Koteswaramma -None- PW-2: Gogula Venkata Siva Koteswara Rao PW-3: Gogula Lokesh PW-4: Md. Shabbir Ahmed

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution: For Defence: Ex.P1: Report -NIL- Ex.P2: FIR in Crime.No.50/2025 for the offence under sections 351 (2) of BNS r/w 174 (2) of BNSS of S. N. Puram Police Station

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-NIL-

Sd/- Shaik Rehana,

III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada.