Ms. Shereena Mohd

C.C No.4611/2019 Dated.31.07.2023 Page No. 1 of 12

IN THE COURT OF SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(EXCISE)-CUM-IV-ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KARIMNAGAR.

Present:- Smt. Shereena Mohd,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar. FAC: Spl. Judicial Magistrate of F.C. (Excise), Karimnagar.

Monday, the 31 st day of July, 2023.

C.C. No.4611 of 2019

Between:-

The State of Telangana through Station House Officer, Women Police Station, Karimnagar (Cr.No.83/2019) … Prosecution

// AND //

A1:Kadari Suresh S/o. Jalapathi, Age: 39 years A2:Kadari Jalapathi S/o. Rajaram, Age: 64 years A3:Kadari Padma W/o. Jalapathi, Age: 54 years All are R/o. Bavupet (Asifnagar) village of Kothapally Mandal of Karimnagar District.

... Accused no.1 to 3

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 14.07.2023 in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the prosecution and Sri. R. Kiran Singh, Counsel for accused no.1 to 3, after hearing both sides and having considered the record till date, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G E M E N T

1.The Station House Officer, Women Police Station, Karimnagar, filed charge sheet against accused no.1 to 3 in Cr.No.83 of 2019 for the offence punishable under sections 498-A of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as IPC) and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (hereinafter referred as D.P.

Act).

C.C No.4611/2019 Dated.31.07.2023 Page No. 2 of 12 2 (a). The brief facts of the case are that:

On 03.07.2019, at 1145 hours, complainant/LW1/Varala Sathaiah, went to police station and lodged a report stating that he is resident of

Jyothinagar locality of Karimnagar town and District and accused no.1 in- duced his younger/Mounika on the pretext of love and got married to her on 19.11.2015, in Dasari Vijaya Gardens, Karimnagar. At the time of marriage, his daughter completed M. Tech and the accused no.1 was working in United

States of America and as the marriage of accused no.1 with his younger daughter was love marriage, they did not accept their marriage in the begin- ning, but later they accepted their marriage. After the marriage, accused no.1 and his younger daughter lived at the house of accused no.1 for some time and after one week, accused no.1 left to Pennsylvania, USA and after 10 days his daughter left to USA and stayed with accused no.1 for two years, thereafter accused no.1 and his daughter came to the house of accused no.1 and stayed their and during their stay at the house of accused no.1, accused no.2, who is father of accused no.1 started harassing his daughter to bring

additional dowry of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees fifty lakhs only) as nothing was

given at the time of marriage and if the said amount was not given, they would not send their daughter to their house and the same was informed to them by their daughter when they went to the house of accused no.1 to 3, as such he informed the same to elders, then the elders convinced accused no.2 and he agreed to pay Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) to accused to- wards dowry, but accused no.1 and 2 did not accept the said amount and

C.C No.4611/2019 Dated.31.07.2023 Page No. 3 of 12 started abusing and beating their daughter and warned to prepare for

Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees fifty lakhs only).

2 (b). Further stated that after 20 days stay in India, in the month of March, 2017, accused no.1 and his daughter left to USA, where accused no.1 ha- rassed his daughter and bet her for additional dowry of Rs.50,00,000/- (Ru- pees fifty lakhs only) and accused no.2 used to make phone calls to their daughter and threatened her to give divorce, if the amount was not paid, upon that they requested accused no.1 to 3 not to harass their daughter and to give some time, but the accused no.1 to 3 did not consider the same.

2 (c). Further stated that in the month of June, 2018, their daughter came to

Karimnagar on the occasion of his retirement and informed that accused no.1 tortured her for additional dowry of Rs.50,00,000/- on the instigation of accused no.2 and after some days accused no.1 also came to India, but nei- ther visited their house nor took their daughter, as such they requested to receive Rs.10,00,000/- and give some time to arrange the amount, but ac- cused did not consider their request. Thereafter, in the month of January, 2019, accused no.1 and 2 bet their daughter indiscriminately for additional dowry of Rs.50,00,000/- and after Sankranthi festival without informing to them, accused no.1 left for USA, as such they sent their daughter to USA and on seeing their daughter, accused no.1 got wild and bet her alleging that intentionally he deserted her in India and unnecessarily she came to USA

C.C No.4611/2019 Dated.31.07.2023 Page No. 4 of 12 and the same was informed to them by their daughter over phone, as such they advised her to bear the harassment of accused no.1 for some time.

2 (d). Further stated that from the month of March, 2019, onwards, their daughter was beaten up and assaulted by accused no.1 when they were re- siding at USA, and in those circumstances their daughter filed a report against the accused no.1 before Municipal Court, State of North Dakota

Country of Burleigh, City of Bismarck and on receipt of notice from the

Court, accused no.1 pleaded guilty and was sentenced to pay fee for victim, keeping the same in mind to suffer their daughter, accused no.1 resigned from his job and returned to India in the month of May, 2019 without in- forming to their daughter and when their daughter contacted the accused no.1 and asked the accused no.1 as to why he left her in USA, accused no.1 told her that if she returns to India again, he would go back to USA as he was having H1 VISA and also stated that he would never take her back into his society and will ruin her life. Hence, requested to take necessary action against the accused no.1 to 3.

3.Basing on the report of complainant/LW1, LW10/Inspector of Police,

Women Police Station, Karimnagar, registered a case in Cr.No.83 of 2019, for the offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC, Section 4 of D.P. Act, issued FIR to all concerned and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, LW10 examined and recorded statement of LW1 under sec- tion 161 Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred as Cr.PC), collected

C.C No.4611/2019 Dated.31.07.2023 Page No. 5 of 12 marriage photographs, wedding card, marriage certificate of accused no.1 and LW3, photostat copy of passport of accused no.1 and other documents from the possession of LW1. On 17.07.2019, LW10, issued notice under sec- tion 41-A Cr.PC to accused no.1 to 3 and during the course of interrogation accused no.1 to 3 voluntarily confessed as to commission of offence and after undertaking directed them to appear before the Court after receipt of sum- mons. Subsequently, LW10 examined and recorded the statement of LWs2 to 7 under section 161 Cr.PC on different dates and on 04.11.2019, LW1 came to police station and submitted CD to LW10, hence LW10 seized the C.D. in the presence of LW8 and LW9 and on completion of investigation filed chargesheet against the accused no.1 to 3 for the offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC, Section 4 of D.P. Act.

4.Cognizance was taken for the offence punishable U/Sec.498-A of IPC,

Section 4 of D.P. Act against accused no.1 to 3.

5.On appearance of accused no.1 to 3, copies of all relevant documents furnished to them as contemplated U/Sec. 207 Cr.P.C. On 16.09.2021, accused no.1 to 3 were examined U/Sec. 239 Cr.P.C charges framed for the offencepunishable U/Sec.498-A of IPC, Section 4 of D.P. Act against accused no.1 to 3, contents of charges read over and explained to them in their vernacular language for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

C.C No.4611/2019 Dated.31.07.2023 Page No. 6 of 12

6.During the course of trial to prove its case, the prosecution in all examined PWs.1 to 10 and Exs.P1 to P9 were marked.

The following witnesses were examined by the prosecution in support of its case and nature of witness on appreciation of evidence:-

PW1/LW1: Varala SathaiahComplainant, Ex.P1: Report, marked through him.

PW2/LW4: Enjamuri Circumstantial witness Thirupathaiah PW3/LW5: Madishetti Sanju Circumstantial witness

PW4/LW2: Varala Ramadevi Circumstantial witness

PW5/LW6: Kadari LachaiahCircumstantial witness/who turned hostile, Ex.P2: Sec.161 Cr.PC statement, marked through him. PW6/LW7: Kasarla BhumaiahCircumstantial witness

PW7/LW8: Gunti Panch witness for seizure of C.D. Ex.P3: C.D., VenkateshwarluEx.P4: signature on seizure memo, marked through him. PW8/LW9: Budugu RajuPanch witness for seizure of C.D. Ex.P5: signature on seizure memo, marked through him. PW9/LW3: Varala @ Kadari Victim, Ex.P6: are the photographs, Ex.P7: MounikaMedical Prescription of PW9, Ex.P8: complaint copy in case no.19 5380 in Court no.19.1250, State of North Dakota Country of Burleigh, City of Bismarch, marked through her. PW10/LW10: P. Damodar Investigation Officer, Ex.P9: FIR, marked Reddythorugh him.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused no.1 to 3 were examined

U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating evidence found against them. Accused no.1 to 3 denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

Hence defence evidence closed.

8.Heard Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and Counsel for accused no.1 to 3.

C.C No.4611/2019 Dated.31.07.2023 Page No. 7 of 12

9.POINT:

Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of

accused no.1 to 3 for the offence punishable under section 498-A

of PC, Section 4 of D.P. Act beyond all reasonable doubt ?

10. PW9, who is the victim and wife of accused no.1 categorically deposed that her marriage with accused no.1 was performed in the presence of accused no.2 and 3 and it was a love marriage and her parents/PW1 and

PW4 were against it and after the marriage she went to USA to reside along with accused no.1 and later in the year, 2018, she returned and stayed at her in-laws house, at that time, accused no.1 to 3 harassed her to bring

additional dowry of Rs.1,50,00,000/- (Rupees one crore fifty lakhs only).

Upon that, she made a phone call to her parents and her parents came to the house of accused no.1 to 3 and accused abused her father in filthy language and demanded to give dowry. Further, PW9 deposed that her parents arranged get together party and presented 10 tulas gold and

Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) net cash to the accused family.

Further, she deposed that in the month of march, 2018, she left along with accused no.1 and at that time accused no.1 slapped her in regard to the dowry issue and later in the month of October, 2018, accused no.1 came back to India and in the month of June, 2018, she returned to India and stayed with her parents and that in the month of January, 2019, accused no.1 to 3 bet her for want of additional dowry and abused her as such, she sustained minor fracture on right hand and when her parents came to see her casually to the house of accused no.1 to 3, they witnessed the same.

C.C No.4611/2019 Dated.31.07.2023 Page No. 8 of 12 Further, in USA also a Domestic Violence Case was filed against accused no.1 in regard to the harassment and in the month of July, 2019, without intimation accused no.1 came back to India leaving her in USA as such, she informed the harassment to her father/PW1 who lodged report in the police station.

11.In the cross examination PW9 categorically admitted that she received

E-mail from accused no.1 in regard to his return to India and asked her to confirm so that he can book the ticket for both of them and PW9 categorically admitted that she, herself stated in the reply mail that she cannot travel to India immediately as such, the allegation of accused no.1 leaving PW9 without informing does not arise. More over, the entire evidence of PW9 suffers with material omissions and also contradictions in regard to the alleged amount demanded as dowry. On one pretext it is

Rs.1,50,00,000/- (Rupees one crore fifty lakhs only) and at the other it is

Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees fifty lakhs only).

12.PW1 and PW4, who are parents of PW9 are mere circumstantial witnesses and also to the extent of harassment alleged they are only hearsay witnesses and the entire evidence of both of them is in similar lines. Both

PW1 and PW4 categorically stated that one person informed them about their daughter visiting the hospital of Dr. Sridhar Rao, and upon that they went to the house of accused no.1 and saw that their daughter was having crape bandage on her hand, but PW9 categorically in her chief examination

C.C No.4611/2019 Dated.31.07.2023 Page No. 9 of 12 deposed that her parents as a regular visit came to the house and saw her with bandage and moreover, the visiting of their daughter to the said hospital is a material omission. Neither the police examined the said doctor nor adduced his evidence to establish that PW9 sustained injuries and undergone treatment and at a later stage Ex.P7/Medical prescription was filed, however that does not show that due to the acts of accused no.1 to 3,

PW9 sustained injuries. Apart from PW1 and PW4, the remaining prosecution witnesses did not elicit any alleged acts of harassment of accused no.1 to 3.

13.PW5, who was elder in regard to the disputes between PW9 family and accused family turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution.

As per PW4, the accused no.2 and 3 imposed condition that they would meet her and PW1, if they are accompanied by one Peruka Uma and Narsaiah, as such they went along with them, however the same is not deposed by PW1 and he deposed that one Jagan and Shankar accompanied them to the house of accused no.1 to 3, but none of the above said persons were examined nor the investigation officer investigated in that area which would have elicited the alleged demand of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees fifty lakhs only) by accused no.2 and 3 and which was agreed to be amount of

Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only), as such, the alleged demand of dowry of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees fifty lakhs only) by accused no.2 and 3 is not established. Moreover, the entire evidence of PW1 and PW4 suffers with material omissions and contradictions in regard to the alleged demand of

C.C No.4611/2019 Dated.31.07.2023 Page No. 10 of 12 dowry, and further both of them have admitted that PW9 attempted suicide and PW9 clearly denied her attempt of suicide prior to the marriage which contradicts with PW1 and PW4. The specific alleged acts of accused no.1 to 3 in regard to the demand of dowry and presentation of dowry, gold to PW9 by

PW1 and PW4 is not established neither through any independent witness nor through elders who were present as alleged by the prosecution witnesses.

14.Further, PW9 deposed that the alleged harassment of accused no.1 was recorded by her and the same was submitted to Court which was seized under seizure memo in the presence of PW7. Ex.P3 is the C.D. However, neither the phone of PW9 was seized from which the data was converted into

C.D. nor the C.D. was sent for analysis in regard to the voice sample to confirm that the voice of accused no.1 is in the alleged C.D.

15.PW10, who is the investigation officer in this case neither collected any document pertaining to the alleged case which was registered at U.S.A. by

PW9 to ascertain the material ingredient of harassment by accused no.1, nor collected voice sample of accused no.1 to sent for analysis. Ex.P8 discloses that a complaint was registered by PW9 against accused no.1 at USA, but consequence of said case is not disclosed by prosecution. Moreover, none of the elders in regard to the said disputes were examined and in the chargesheet it was mentioned that accused no.1 bet PW9 with stick, but the entire investigation and evidence does not disclose anything, the non

C.C No.4611/2019 Dated.31.07.2023 Page No. 11 of 12 examination of doctor is also fatal to the case of prosecution as such, it would have established the reason for the injuries sustained by PW9 and moreover the evidence of PW9, who is the victim and PW1 and PW4, who are her parents suffers with material omissions and contradictions and failed to establish the alleged acts of accused no.1 to 3 specifically to attract the ingredients of physical and mental harassment meted out by her.

16.In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion that there is no sufficient evidence adduced by the prosecution to bring home guilt of accused no.1 to 3 beyond all reasonable doubt.

17.IN THE RESULT, accused no.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec. 498-A of IPC, Section 4 of D.P. Act. Accordingly, they are acquitted under Sec. 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused no.1 to 3 shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal period.

As no case property was deposited by the investigation officer, there is no order in respect of the same.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, transcribed by him, after

corrections pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 31 st day of July, 2023.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar. FAC: Spl. Judicial Magistrate of F.C. (Excise), Karimnagar.

C.C No.4611/2019 Dated.31.07.2023 Page No. 12 of 12

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE: P.W.1: Varala Sathaiah--None-- P.W.2: Engamuri Thirupathaiah P.W.3: Madishetti Sanju P.W.4: Varala Ramadevi P.W.5: Kadari Lachaiah P.W.6: Kasarla Bhumaiah P.W.7: Gunti Venkateshwarlu P.W.8: Budugu Raju P.W.9: Varala @ Kadari Mounika P.W.10: P. Damodar Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: Ex.P1: is the Report Ex.P2: is the 161 Cr.PC statement of PW5 Ex.P3: is the crime detail form Ex.P4: is the signature of PW7 on seizure memo Ex.P5: is the signature of PW8 on C.D. Ex.P6: are the photographs (2 in number) Ex.P7: is the medical prescription dt.07.01.2019 of Dr. Sridhar Rao, Orthopedic Specialist, Karimnagar. Ex.P8: is the complaint copy in Case No.19 5380 in Court No.19.1250 State of North Dakota Country of Burleigh, City of Bismarck. Ex.P9: is the FIR FOR THE DEFENCE: --NIL--

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED : --NIL--

Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Karimnagar. FAC: Spl. Judicial Magistrate of F.C. (Excise), Karimnagar.

C.C No.3064/2019 Dated 23.04.2026 Page No. 1 of 10

IN THE COURT OF PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: AT:: KARIMNAGAR

Present:- Smt. Shereena Mohd,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar.

Thursday, the 23 rdday of April,2026

C.C.No. 3064 of 2019

Between:- The State of Telangana through the Station House Officer, CID, Hyderabad (Cr.No.128/2015 of PS Mallial) … Prosecution

// AND //

A1: Bobbala Mohan Reddy S/o. Adi Reddy, Age: 45 years, Occ: Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Choppadandi and attached to CID, RCIU, Karimnagar, R/o. H.no.8-1-99/4/1, Kattarampur, Reddy Colony, Karimnagar town, now Ramchandrapuram village, Koheda Mandal, Siddipet District. A2:Bobbala Adireddy S/o. Malla Reddy, Age: 73 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.no.3-79, Ramchandrapuram village, Koheda Mandal, Siddipet District. A3:Kunta Lalithamma W/o. Bhagavan Reddy (Late), Age: 72 years, R/o. H.no.8-1-99/10, Kattarampur, Reddy Colony, Karimnagar town, now Rephaka village, Ellanthakunta Mandal, Karimnagar District. A4:Sampath Sridhar Reddy S/o. Adi Reddy, Age: 29 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.no.1-93/1, Basvapur village, Koheda Mandal, Siddipet District. A5:Bobbala Mahender Reddy S/o. Adi Reddy, Age: 42 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.no.2-15, Ramchandrapuram village, Koheda Mandal, Siddipet District. A6:Annadi Satyanarayana Reddy S/o. Raghava Reddy, Age: 46 years, R/o. Gagillapur village, Bejjanki Mandal, Karimnagar District, now Vidyanagar, Karimnagar District. A7:Manchala Krishna S/o. Ramesham, Age: 56 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.no.1-4-181, Balajinagar, Jagtial town and District. A8:Joginapalli Satyanarayana Rao S/o. Yeshwanth Rao, Age: 56 years, R/o. Kalleda village, Jagtial Mandal, Karimnagar District. A9:Vooturi Lavakumar S/o. Anjaiah, Age: 56 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.no.2-5-216, Puranipet, Jagtial Mandal and District.

...Accused no.1 to 9.

C.C No.3064/2019 Dated 23.04.2026 Page No. 2 of 10

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 22.04.2026 in the presence of Sri. G. Veera Swamy, Assistant Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and Sri. E. Madhusudhan Rao, Counsel for Accused no.1 to 9, after hearing both sides and having considered the record till date, this court delivered the following:

J U D G E M E N T

1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, GHR, CID, Hyderabad, has filed charge sheet against the accused no.1 to 9 in connection with Cr.No.128 of 2015 of Mallial Police Station for the offence punishable U/Sec. 120-B, 406, 420, 506, 384 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as "IPC") and

Section 3, 5 (a) (b) and 13 of (Telangana Area) AP Money Lenders Act-1349F (hereinafter referred as “ML Act”).

2.The brief facts of the case prosecution, are as follows:

On 13.11.2015 at 08:00 pm, complainant/LW1/Boga Laxmi went to

Mallial Police Station and lodged report alleging that she is the owner of agri- cultural land measuring Ac.15.22 gts situated at the outskirts of Muthyam- pet village of Jagtial District. She approached, accused no.1, with the help of one person namely Sridhar and took hand loan of Rs.25,00,000/- from ac- cused no.1, by pledging her agricultural land Ac.8.16 gts in Sy.no.325, 326 and 327. The pledge was in the shape of GPA, executed by her in favour of accused no.2, who is father of accused no.1, on 19.07.2007. In turn, ac- cused no.2 transferred the above said land in the name of his younger son/ accused no.5. When her husband questioned accused no.1, he stated that due to change of regulations, the transfer has taken place and promised to

C.C No.3064/2019 Dated 23.04.2026 Page No. 3 of 10 give back their property after repayment of loan amount. Later, her husband fell ill and she has to perform the marriage of her daughter. Then she again approached accused no.1 to get additional amount from him, then the ac- cused no.1 insisted her to transfer the remaining property in the name of his benami. Accordingly, she pledged Ac.3.35 gts of agricultural land in

Sy.no.328/A, 328B and 328/C by transfering in the name of accused no.3 and Ac.3.10 gts land in Sy.no.332/A, 332/B by transferring in the name of accused no.4, who are benamies of accused no.1. Then accused no.1 pro- vided Rs.10,00,000/- loan to her. One day, she verified and found that her land was occupied by others. Upon that, she enquired with accused no.1, who produced sale deeds and stated that she sold away entire property to him and demanded her to pay Rs.1.50 crores towards repayment of loan of

Rs.35,00,000/- obtained by her and also threatened her on the point of firearm. Later, her husband died and when she prepared to pay Ac.1.50 crores to accused no.1, he raised the amount payable as Rs.2.00 crores.

Later, accused no.1 sold away her entire land to accused no.6 to 9. Hence, requested to take necessary action against the accused persons.

3.On receipt of report from LW1, LW12/Sub-Inspector of Police, Mallial,

Police Station, registered a case in Cr.no.128/2015 for the offence punish- able under section 120-B, 406, 420, 506 IPC, Section 3, 5 (a) (b) of (Telan- gana Area) AP Money Lenders Act 1349F and Section 27 of Arms Act and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, LW12 examined and recorded section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as

C.C No.3064/2019 Dated 23.04.2026 Page No. 4 of 10 Cr.PC) statement of LW1 to LW6, visited the scene of offence, drafted crime detail form in the presence of LW10 and LW11. Later, LW12 came to know that accused no.1 was arrested in Cr.no.416/2015 of Karimnagar-I Town PS and was in judicial custody, then LW12 filed a requisition before the Court, obtained PT Warrant from the Court, affected his arrest and produced him

before the Court for judicial remand. Subsequently, as per the orders of Su-

perintendent of Police, Karimnagar, the case file was transferred to CID, Hy- derabad, for further investigation. Later, LW13/Inspector of Police, R.O. Cy- berabad, CID, Telgananga, Hyderabad, took up case file from LW12, verified the investigation done by him, found it on proper lines. Further, as per the orders of Additional DGP, CID, Telangana, Hyderabad, LW14/Inspector of Po- lice, GHR, CID, Telangana, Hyderabad, received case file from LW13 for fur- ther investigation, issued notice under section 41-A Cr.PC to accused no.2 and 9. Later, again as per the orders of Additional DGP, CID, Telangana, Hy- derabad, LW15/Deputy Superintendent of Police, GHR, CID, Telangana, Hy- derabad, received case file from LW14, examined and recorded the statement of LW7 to LW9, collected documents. After completion of investigation filed charge-sheet against the accused no.1 to 9 for the offence punishable under section 120-B, 406, 420, 506, 384 IPC, Section 3, 5 (a) (b) and 13 of (Telan- gana Area) Andhra Pradesh Money Lenders Act 1349F.

4. Cognizance was taken for the offence punishable U/Sec.120-B, 406, 420, 384, 506 IPC, Section 3, 5 (a) (b) and 13 of (Telangana Area) Andhra

Pradesh Money Lenders Act 1349F against accused no.1 to 9.

C.C No.3064/2019 Dated 23.04.2026 Page No. 5 of 10

5.On appearance of accused no.1 to 9 copies of all relevant documents furnished to them as contemplated U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C. On 09.03.2026, accused no.1 to 9 were examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C, charge framed for the offence punishable U/Sec.120-B, 406, 420, 384, 506 IPC, Section 3, 5 (a) (b) and 13 of (Telangana Area) Andhra Pradesh Money Lenders Act 1349F against the accused no.1 to 9, contents of charge read over and explained to accused in their vernacular language for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During the course of trial to prove its case, the prosecution in all examined PW1 to PW9 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P21 are marked. Basing on the report filed by concerned police, the evidence of LW1, LW3, LW4 and LW6 was closed. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of LW13 and LW15.

The following witnesses were examined by the prosecution in support of its case and nature of witness on appreciation of evidence:-

PW1/LW2: Cirigi Sridhar Circumstantial witness/who turned hostile, Ex.P1: section 161 Cr.PC statement, marked through him. PW2/LW5: Konu Bakkaiah Circumstantial witness/who turned hostile, Ex.P2: section 161 Cr.PC statement, marked through him. PW3/LW7: Alineni Sagar Rao Circumstantial witness/who turned hostile, Ex.P3: section 161 Cr.PC statement, marked through him. PW4/LW11: Atla Bhuma Reddy Panchwitness for crime detail form/who turned hostile, Ex.P4: signature of PW4 on crime detail form, marked through him. PW5/LW8: Gajula Krishna Mohan Circumstantial witness/who turned hostile, Ex.P5: section 161 Cr.PC statement, marked through him.

C.C No.3064/2019 Dated 23.04.2026 Page No. 6 of 10 PW6/LW9: Vala Sathyanarayana Rao Superintendent, C-Wing, District CollectorOffice,Karimnagar District, Ex.P6: LR no.C4/596/2017 dt.22.07.2017, marked through him. PW7/LW10: Bavu Gangadhar Panchwitness for crime detail form/who turned hostile, Ex.P7: signature of PW7 on crime detail form, marked through him. PW8/LW12: K. Praveen Kumar 1stinvestigation officer, Ex.P8: report, Ex.P9: FIR, Ex.P10: crime detail form, marked through him. PW9/LW14: D. Nageshwar Rao InvestigationOfficer,Ex.P11: attested copy of agreement-cum-GPA document no.1627/2007, Ex.P12: attested copy of registered sale deed document no.877/2008, Ex.P13: attested copy of sale registered sale deed document no.2812/2009, Ex.P14: attested copy of registered sale deed document 2815/2009, Ex.P15: attested copy of registered sale deed document 2816/2009, Ex.P16: attested copy of registered sale deed document 3224/2013, Ex.P17: attested copy of agreement ofsale-cum-GPAdocument no.1861/2008, Ex.P18: attested copy of registereds sale deed document no.2115/2009, Ex.P19: attested copy of registered sale deed document no.4135/2009, Ex.P20: attested copy of agreement of sale- cum-GPA document 1860/2008, Ex.P21: attested copy of registered sale deed document no.2114/2009, marked through him.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused no.1 to 9 were examined

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating evidence found against them. Accused no.1 to 9 denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

Hence, defence evidence closed.

C.C No.3064/2019 Dated 23.04.2026 Page No. 7 of 10

8.Heard Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and Counsel for accused no.1 to 9.

9.Now the point that arises for determination is:-

“Whether the prosecution was able to bring home guilt of accused

no.1 to 9 for the offence punishable U/Sec.120-B, 406, 420, 384, 506

IPC, Section 3, 5 (a) (b) and 13 of (Telangana Area) Andhra Pradesh

Money Lenders Act 1349F, beyond all reasonable doubt” ?

POINT:

10.In the case on hand, except the complainant, all the witnesses cited, are the circumstaintial witnesses. However, basing on the report filed by the concerned police, the complainant died, as such her evidence was closed.

Further, PW1 to PW3, PW5 to PW7, in their chief examination categorically deposed that they do not know anything about the case and police never examined and recorded their statement and turned hostile, as such the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor is permitted to cross examine them, however in their cross examination nothing material is elicited in support of case of prosecution. PW4 and PW7, who are arrayed as panch witnesses for crime detail form also turned hostile.

11.PW6, Superintendent of C-Wing, District Collector Office, Karimnagar

District deposed that basing on the letter issued by LW14, he obtained information from all Tahsildars of Karimnagar District and accordingly issued attested copy of LR no.C4/596/2017 dt.22.07.2017. As per Ex.P6, all

Tahsildars, Karimnagar have submitted report stating that no Money

Lending Licenses have been registered in the name of accused no.1. Hence,

C.C No.3064/2019 Dated 23.04.2026 Page No. 8 of 10 Ex.P6 is noway helpful to the case of prosecution. Though PW8 and PW9, who are investigation officers, supported the case of prosecution, they come within the purview of interested witnesses and their evidence solely cannot be taken into consideration without any support from the independent witnesses.

In view of the above discussion, the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the point is answered.

12.IN THE RESULT, accused no.1 to 9 found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec.120-B, 420, 406, 384, 506 IPC, Section 3, 5 () (b) & 13 of (Telangana Area) Andhra Pradesh Money Lenders Act 1349F. Accordingly, accused no.1 to 9 are acquitted U/Sec. 248 (1) of Cr.P.C for the said offences.

The bail bonds shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal period.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 23 rdday of April, 2026.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Karimnagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE:

PW1: Chigiri Sridhar--NIL--

PW2: Konu Bakkaiah

PW3: Alineni Sagar Rao

PW4: Atla Bhuma Reddy

PW5: Gajula Krishna Mohan

PW6: Vatala Satyanarayana Rao

C.C No.3064/2019 Dated 23.04.2026 Page No. 9 of 10

PW7: Bavu Gangadhar

PW8: K. Praveen Kumar

PW9: D. Nageshwar Rao

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1 is the section 161 Cr.PC statement of PW1

Ex.P.2 is the section 161 Cr.PC statement of PW2

Ex.P.3 is the section 161 Cr.PC statement of PW3

Ex.P.4is the signature of PW4 on crime detail form

Ex.P.5is the section 161 Cr.PC statement of PW15

Ex.P.6is the LR no.C4/596/2017 dt.22.07.2017

Ex.P.7is the signature of PW7 on crime detail form

Ex.P.8is the report

Ex.P.9is the FIR

Ex.P.10is the crime detail form

Ex.P.11is the attested copy agreement of sale-cum-GPA document no.1627/2007

Ex.P.12is the attested copy of registered sale deed document no.877/2008

Ex.P.13is the attested copy of registered sale deed document no.2812/2009

Ex.P.14is the attested copy of registered sale deed document no.2815/2009

Ex.P.15is the attested copy of registered sale deed document no.2816/2009

Ex.P.16is the attested copy of registered sale deed document no.3224/2013

Ex.P.17is the attested copy of agreement of sale-cum-GPA document no.1861/2008

Ex.P.18is the attested copy of registered sale deed document no.2115/2009

Ex.P.19is the attested copy of registered sale deed document no.4135/2009

Ex.P.20is the attested copy of agreement of sale-cum-GPA document no.1860/2008

C.C No.3064/2019 Dated 23.04.2026 Page No. 10 of 10

Ex.P.21is the attested copy of registered sale deed document no.2114/2009

FOR DEFENCE: --NIL-- MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED : -NIL-

Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Karimnagar.

C.C No.1399/2025 Dated 24.04.2026 Page No. 1 of 6

IN THE COURT OF PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: AT:: KARIMNAGAR.

Present:- Smt. Shereena Mohd,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar.

Friday, the 24 thday of April, 2026

C.C.No. 1399 of 2025

Between:- The State of Telangana through Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Choppadandi (Cr.No.41/2025) … Prosecution

// AND //

Teepireddy Harish Reddy S/o. Ravinder Reddy, Age: 28 years, R/o. Vijayanagar colony, Choppadandi village and Mandal.

...Accused.

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 23.04.2026 in the presence of Sri. G. Veera Swamy, Assistant Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and Sri. K. Tejdeep Reddy, Counsel for accused, after hearing both sides and having considered the record till date, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Station House Officer, Choppadandi has filed charge sheet against the sole accused in Cr.No.41 of 2025 for the offence punishable U/Sec.106 of

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (hereinafter referred as "BNS"), Section 146 r/w 196 of Motor Vehicle Act (hereinafter referred as “MV Act”).

2.The brief facts of the case of prosecution, are as follows:

On 24.02.2025 at 08:30 am, complainant/LW1/Erukulla Shankaraiah went to police station and lodged report alleging that his elder sister-in-law namely Vodnala Odamma has two sons namely Vodnala Ramesh and Ajay.

On 23.02.2025 at 10:30 pm, one person made a phone call to him and in-

C.C No.1399/2025 Dated 24.04.2026 Page No. 2 of 6 formed that his elder sister-in-law’s son/Ramesh met with an accident by an unknown car and died infront of Udipi Hotel at Choppadandi. On that he rushed to there, noticed the deceased was lying dead with bleeding injuries on head, legs and hands. Then he informed the matter to his elder sister-in- law over phone. On enquiry, he came to know that on 23.02.2025 at 09:00 pm, deceased came to Choppadandi for coolie work and after completion of work, in between 10:15 pm to 10:30 pm, when the deceased was standing infront of Udipi hostel at Choppadandi, to go to his village, one unknown car driver drove the car in rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed to deceased and went away. At that time, one Yarva Gangaraju, Mul- kala Raju and some others witnessed and shifted the dead body to Govern- ment hospital, Karimnagar.Hence, requested to take necessary action against the driver of crime vehicle.

3.On receipt of report from LW1, LW13/Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Chop- padandi, registered a case in Cr.no.41/2025 for the offence punishable un- der section 106 BNS, issued FIR. During the course of investigation, LW13, examined and recorded section 183 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha (hereinafter referred as “BNSS”) statement of LW1 to LW4, visited the Gov- ernment hospital, Karimnagar, got photographed the dead body with the help of LW4 and held inquest over the dead body of deceased in the presence of LW7 and LW8. Later, LW13 visited scene of offence and drafted crime de- tail form in the presence of LW9 and LW10. Later, LW14/Circle Inspector of

Police, Choppadandi, took up case file from LW13, verified the investigation

C.C No.1399/2025 Dated 24.04.2026 Page No. 3 of 6 done by LW13, found it on proper lines, secured the presence of LW5 and

LW6, who are eye witnesses and identified the crime vehicle car bearing no.TS-21-B-5554 and recorded their statement and as per their statement, accused drove the said car and caused the accident. On 25.03.2025, LW14 issued notice under section 35 (3) BNSS to accused and on interrogation ac- cused voluntarily confessed as to commission of offence and after undertak- ing directed him to appear before the Court on receipt of summons. After completion of investigation, LW14 filed charge-sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under section 106 BNS, section 146 r/w 196 MV act.

4. Cognizance was taken for the offence punishable U/Sec.106 BNS, sec- tion 146 r/w 196 MV Act against the accused.

5.On appearance of accused, copies of all relevant documents were furnished to him as contemplated U/Sec.230 BNSS. On 23.02.2026, accused was examined U/Sec.274 BNSS, for the offence punishable

U/Sec.106 BNS. Substance of accusation read over and explained to accused in his vernacular language for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial to prove its case, the prosecution in all examined PW1 to PW5 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 are marked. The learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of LW4, LW7 to LW14.

C.C No.1399/2025 Dated 24.04.2026 Page No. 4 of 6 The following witnesses were examined by the prosecution in support of its case and nature of witness on appreciation of evidence:- PW1/LW1: Erukulla ShankaraiahComplainant/who turned hostile, Ex.P1: signature on report, Ex.P2: section 161 Cr.PC statement, marked through him. PW2/LW2: Vodnala Odamma Hearsay witness/who turned hostile, Ex.P3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement marked through her. PW3/LW3: Erukulla Arun Hearsay witness/who turned hostile, Ex.P4: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement marked through him. PW4/LW4: Yarva GangurajuEye witness/who turned hostile, Ex.P5: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement marked through him. PW5/6: Mulkala RajuEye witness/who turned hostile, Ex.P6: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement marked through him.

7.After completion of prosecution evidence, the examination of accused

U/Sec. 351 BNSS is dispensed as there is no incriminating material against him. The defence has chosen not to adduce any evidence on his behalf.

Hence defence evidence closed.

8.Heard Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and Counsel for accused.

9.Now the point that arises for determination is:-

“Whether the prosecution was able to bring home guilty of accused

for the offence punishable under section 106 BNS beyond all

reasonable doubt” ?

10.POINT:

PW1, who is the complainant categorically deposed in his chief examination that in the year 2025, deceased met with an accident and he came to know the same through PW2 and at that time police obtained his

C.C No.1399/2025 Dated 24.04.2026 Page No. 5 of 6 signatures on blank papers. PW1 further deposed that he did not know anything about the case and police never examined and recorded his statement. PW1 being the complainant did not support the case of prosecution. As such, PW1 was declared as hostile witness and the learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor is permitted to cross examine him, however in the cross examination of PW1 nothing material is elicited. PW2 and PW3, who is mother and son of deceased respectively categorically deposed that they do not know anything about the case, police never examined and recorded their statements. Further, PW4 and PW5, who are cited as eye witnesses to the alleged incident also turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. All the prosecution witnesses turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. As the material witnesses turned hostile, the evidence of LW4, LW7 to LW14 was given up by learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor.

11.There is no sufficient evidence adduced by the prosecution to bring home the guilt of accused for the alleged offence against him beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the point is answered.

12.IN THE RESULT, accused found not guilty for the offence punishable

U/Sec.106 BNS. Accordingly, accused is acquitted under section 278 (1)

BNSS for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused, if any, shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal period.

C.C No.1399/2025 Dated 24.04.2026 Page No. 6 of 6 As no case property is deposited by the investigation officer, there is no order in respect of the same.

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

pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 24 thday of April, 2026.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Karimnagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE:

PW1: Erukulla Shankaraiah--NIL--

PW2: Vodnala Odamma

PW3: Erukulla Arun

PW4: Yarva Ganguraju

PW5: Mulkala Raju

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1 is the signature of PW1 on report

Ex.P.2 is the section 161 Cr.PC statement of PW1

Ex.P.3 is the section 161 Cr.PC statement of PW2

Ex.P.4 is the section 161 Cr.PC statement of PW3

Ex.P.5 is the section 161 Cr.PC statement of PW4

Ex.P.6 is the section 161 Cr.PC statement of PW5 FOR DEFENCE: --NIL-- MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED : -NIL-

Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Karimnagar.

C.C No.401/2016 (fair) Dated 29.08.2025 Page No. 1 of 7

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

I ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: AT:: HUZURABAD.

Present:- Smt. Shereena Mohd, Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Karimnagar. FAC: I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Huzurabad.

Friday, the 29 thday of August,2025.

C.C.No. 401 of 2016

Between:-

The State through the Station House Officer, Prohibition and Excise Station, Huzurabad PS (COR.No. 99/2016). … Prosecution.

// AND //

Banoth Ravi, S/o. Hatya, Age: 30 years, R/o. Ghanpurthanda h/o. Ghanpur village, Saidapur mandal.

...Accused.

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 22.08.2025 in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and Sri. K. Sammaiah, Counsel for Accused, after hearing both sides and having considered the record till date, this court delivered the following:

J U D G E M E N T

1.The Station House Officer, Prohibition and Excise Station, Huzurabad

Police Station has filed charge sheet against the accused in COR.No. 99 of 2016 for the offence punishable U/Sec. 7-A r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995.

C.C No.401/2016 (fair) Dated 29.08.2025 Page No. 2 of 7

2.The brief facts of the case prosecution are as follows:

On 26.08.2015, at about 11.00 hours, while LW.5 along with PC. 390, 3281 were conducting patrolling at Saidapur bus stand, mean time, one person found under suspicious at Saidapur bus stand with plastic bag and then LW.5 with men apprehended him and searched in his plastic bag and found that he is illegally carrying (8) liters of I.D liquor. Then the LW.5 secured presence of two mediators as panchas and interrogated him in the presence of said mediators, then he disclosed his particulars and further confessed that he made I.D liquor at Ghanpurthanda and sell it on profit at

Saidapur Village. Then, the LW.5 recorded the confession panchanama of the accused and seized I.D liquor about 8 liters each one packet ½ liter, total 16 packets and sell it each one liter per Rs. 50/- and total of worth of Rs.

400/- and later LW.5 informed the grounds of apprehension to the accused and his relatives and brought him along with the case property to the P.S

Saidapur.

3.Basing on confession and recovery panchanama, LW.5 registered a suo- motto case in Cr.No. 113/2015, U/Sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. prohibition Act, 1995 and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, he recorded the statements of Lws.1 and 2 at Police Station and then accused was produced before the Hon’ble Court for judicial remand. During the course of investigation, the collected samples were forwarded to the Andhra

Pradesh Forensic Science Laboratories, Hyderabad for chemical analysis re-

C.C No.401/2016 (fair) Dated 29.08.2025 Page No. 3 of 7 port through a requisition. The Assistant Director, Andhra Pradesh Foren- sic Science Laboratories, Hyderabad after examination sent his report File

No. NAR/3310/2015, dt. 23.01.2016 opined that the sample is illicit distilled liquor which is injurious to health and unfit for human consumption. On 04.03.2016, LW.5 transferred the case file along with property and C.E report vide Cr.No. 113/E3/2016, dt. 10.02.2016 to the

Prohibition and Excise Station, Huzurabad. On receiving the same, LW.6 registered a case vide COR.No. 99/2016, dt. 04.03.2016 against the accused

U/Sec.7(A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P. prohibition Act, 1995 and took up the investigation. During the course of further investigation, the seized property has been produced before the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and

Excise, Karimnagar for confiscation. The Deputy Commissioner of

Prohibition and Excise has passed the orders while confiscating the property vide Proc. Cr.No.56/2011/P&Ex/A2, Dt: 22.04.2016. Accordingly, as per orders, the I.D liquor has been destroyed in the presence of Assistant

Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Karimnagar on 03.05.2016. After completion of the investigation, LW.6 has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P Prohibition

Act, 1995.

4. Cognizance was taken for the offence punishable U/Sec. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P Prohibition Act, 1995 against accused.

C.C No.401/2016 (fair) Dated 29.08.2025 Page No. 4 of 7

5.On appearance of accused, copies of all relevant documents furnished to him as contemplated U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C. On 06.02.2017, accused examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C, charges framed for the offence punishable

U/Sec. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P Prohibition Act, 1995 contents of charge read over and explained to accused in his vernacular language for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial to prove its case, the prosecution in all examined Pws.1 and 2 and Exs.P1 and P2 are marked. The concerned police failed to produce the evidence of Lws.1, 2, 5 and 6 before the Court inspite of giving ample opportunities, hence this Court closed their evidence.

The following witnesses were examined by the prosecution in support of its case and nature of witness on appreciation of evidence:-

PW1/LW1: Gaddam SridharPanch witness who turned hostile, Ex.P1: signature on panchanama, marked through him.

PW2/LW2: Dasari Ravi KumarPanch witness who turned hostile, Ex.P2: signature on panchanama, marked through him.

7.After completion of prosecution evidence, the examination of accused

U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed as there is no incriminating material against him. The defence has chosen not to adduce any evidence on his behalf.

Hence defence evidence closed.

8.Heard Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and Counsel for accused.

C.C No.401/2016 (fair) Dated 29.08.2025 Page No. 5 of 7

9.Now the point that arises for determination is:-

“Whether the prosecution was able to bring home guilt of accused

for the offences punishable under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P

Prohibition Act, 1995 beyond all reasonable doubt” ?

10. It is the case of prosecution that accused is in possession of illicit distilled liquor which is meant for sale for profits which is an offence. Hence, the accused is liable for prosecution. In support of it’s case prosecution has examined two witnesses i.e., PWs.1 and 2 who are the panch witnesses for search and seizure and they did not support the case of prosecution. As per their testimony, in the year 2015 police came to Grampanchayath, Saidapur and obtained their signatures on white papers and stated that no proceedings were conducted in their presence. Hence, Learned Additional

Public Prosecutor declared them as hostile and that with permission of the

Court, the Additional Public Prosecutor have cross-examined them, but nothing significant was elicited in their cross-examination. Further, this

Court closed the evidence of LWs. 1, 2, 5 and 6 as the concerned police failed to produce them before the Court inspite of time extended for production of evidence by allowing recall petition. Absolutely there is no evidence on record to connect the accused with the alleged seizure of I.D liquor from his possession, and therefore this Court finds the accused not guilty and there is no sufficient evidence adduced by the prosecution to bring home the guilt of accused for the offences punishableU/Sec. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P Prohibition

Act, 1995, beyond all reasonable doubt.

C.C No.401/2016 (fair) Dated 29.08.2025 Page No. 6 of 7

11.IN THE RESULT, soleaccused found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P Prohibition Act, 1995. Accordingly, accused is acquitted U/Sec. 255 (1) of Cr.P.C. for the said offence. The bail bonds of accused, if any, shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal period and the unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

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

pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 29 thday of August, 2025.

Sd/-

Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Karimnagar, FAC: I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Huzurabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE:

PW1: Gaddam Sridhar--NIL-- PW2: Dasari Ravi Kumar

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1:is the signature of PW1 on panchanama. Ex.P2:is the signature of PW2 on panchanama.

FOR DEFENCE: --NIL--

C.C No.401/2016 (fair) Dated 29.08.2025 Page No. 7 of 7

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED : -NIL-

Sd/-

Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Karimnagar, FAC: I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Huzurabad.

C.C No.957/2025 Dated 24.04.2026 Page No. 1 of 6

IN THE COURT OF PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: AT:: KARIMNAGAR.

Present:- Smt. Shereena Mohd,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar.

Friday, the 24 thday of April, 2026

C.C.No. 957 of 2025

Between:- The State of Telangana through Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Choppadandi (Cr.No.23/2025) … Prosecution

// AND //

Pasupunuti Chandra Shekar S/o. Dubbaiah, Age: 35 years, R/o. H.no.4- 180, Hanumanwada, Dharmapuri of Jagtial District.

...Accused.

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 23.04.2026 in the presence of Sri. G. Veera Swamy, Assistant Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and Sri. B. Srinivas, Counsel for accused, after hearing both sides and having considered the record till date, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Station House Officer, Choppadandi has filed charge sheet against the sole accused in Cr.No.23 of 2025 for the offence punishable U/Sec.106 of

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (hereinafter referred as "BNS").

2.The brief facts of the case of prosecution, are as follows:

On 31.01.2025 at 03:00 pm, complainant/LW1/Pasupunuti Rajashekar went to police station and lodged report alleging that on 31.01.2025 at 10:30, he along with his younger brother namely Raghuvamshi took their fa- ther namely Pasupunuti Dubbaiah on their motorcycle to Karimnagar to pro- vide medical checkup in Chelmeda Hospital and at about 12:00 pm, his elder

C.C No.957/2025 Dated 24.04.2026 Page No. 2 of 6 brother by name Pasunuti Chandrashekar/accused, took their mother/

Bharathi and followed them on his motorcycle bearing no.TS-21-M-9135 to

Chelmeda Hospital. On the way, at about 01:00 pm, at Jawahar Navodaya

School, Choppadandi village outskirts, his elder accused drove his motorcy- cle in rash and negligent manner and suddenly when a goat came across to the bike, accused applied sudden brake, due to which their mother, who was pillion rider, fell down on road, received severe bleeding injuries on back side of head. Then some people made phone call to 108 ambulance, shifted their mother to Government Hospital, Karimnagar, where the doctor examined their mother and stated that their mother died. Accused informed the same to him over phone, then they rushed to Government hospital, Karimnagar, found their mother lying dead with bleeding injury to her head. Hence, re- quested to take necessary action against the accused.

3.On receipt of report from LW1, LW12/Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Chop- padandi, registered a case in Cr.no.23/2025 for the offence punishable un- der section 106 BNS, issued FIR. During the course of investigation, LW12, examined and recorded section 183 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha (hereinafter referred as “BNSS”) statement of LW1 to LW5, visited the Gov- ernment hospital, Karimnagar, got photographed the dead body with the help of LW5 and held inquest over the dead body of deceased in the presence of LW6 and LW7. Later, LW12 visited scene of offence and drafted crime de- tail form in the presence of LW8 and LW9. Later, LW13/Circle Inspector of

Police, Choppadandi, took up investigation from LW12, verified the investiga-

C.C No.957/2025 Dated 24.04.2026 Page No. 3 of 6 tion done by him, found it on proper lines, issued notice under section 35 (3)

BNSS to accused and on interrogation accused voluntarily confessed as to commission of offence and after undertaking directed him to appear before the Court on receipt of summons. After completion of investigation, LW13 filed charge-sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under sec- tion 106 BNS.

4. Cognizance was taken for the offence punishable U/Sec.106 BNS against the accused.

5.On appearance of accused, copies of all relevant documents were furnished to him as contemplated U/Sec.230 BNSS. On 12.03.2026, accused was examined U/Sec.274 BNSS, for the offence punishable

U/Sec.106 BNS. Substance of accusation read over and explained to accused in his vernacular language for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial to prove its case, the prosecution in all examined PW1 to PW3 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 are marked. The learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of LW3, LW5 to LW13.

The following witnesses were examined by the prosecution in support of its case and nature of witness on appreciation of evidence:- PW1/LW1: Pasupunuti RajashekarComplainant/who turned hostile, Ex.P1: signature on report, Ex.P2: section 161 Cr.PC statement, marked through him. PW2/LW2: Pasupunuti RaghuvamshiHearsay witness/who turned hostile, Ex.P3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement marked through him.

C.C No.957/2025 Dated 24.04.2026 Page No. 4 of 6 PW3/LW4: Veyigandla BheemaiahHearsay witness/who turned hostile, Ex.P4: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement marked through him.

7.After completion of prosecution evidence, the examination of accused

U/Sec. 351 BNSS is dispensed as there is no incriminating material against him. The defence has chosen not to adduce any evidence on his behalf.

Hence defence evidence closed.

8.Heard Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and Counsel for accused.

9.Now the point that arises for determination is:-

“Whether the prosecution was able to bring home guilty of accused

for the offence punishable under section 106 BNS beyond all

reasonable doubt” ?

10.POINT:

PW1, who is the complainant categorically deposed in his chief examination that he did not know anything about the case and he never lodged any report to police and in her year 2025, he went to Choppadandi police station on his personal work, where the police obtained his signature on some white papers. PW1 being the complainant did not support the case of prosecution. As such, PW1 was declared as hostile witness and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor is permitted to cross examine him, however in the cross examination of PW1 nothing material is elicited. PW2 and PW3, who is yonger son and nephew of deceased respectively categorically deposed that they do not know anything about the case, police never examined and recorded their statements. All the prosecution witnesses

C.C No.957/2025 Dated 24.04.2026 Page No. 5 of 6 turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. As the material witnesses turned hostile, the evidence of LW3, LW5 to LW13 was given up by learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

11.There is no sufficient evidence adduced by the prosecution to bring home the guilt of accused for the alleged offence against him beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the point is answered.

12.IN THE RESULT, accused found not guilty for the offence punishable

U/Sec.106 BNS. Accordingly, accused is acquitted under section 278 (1)

BNSS for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused, if any, shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal period.

As no case property is deposited by the investigation officer, there is no order in respect of the same.

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

pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 24 thday of April, 2026.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Karimnagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE:

PW1: Pasupunuti Rajashekar--NIL--

PW2: Pasupunuti Raghuvamshi

PW3: Veyigandla Bheemaiah

C.C No.957/2025 Dated 24.04.2026 Page No. 6 of 6

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1 is the signature of PW1 on report

Ex.P.2 is the section 161 Cr.PC statement of PW1

Ex.P.3 is the section 161 Cr.PC statement of PW2

Ex.P.4 is the section 161 Cr.PC statement of PW3

FOR DEFENCE: --NIL-- MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED : -NIL-

Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Karimnagar.