Smt.Shraddha Sehgal

O.S No. 488 of 2018

1 of 14

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS-CUM-VI ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT LB NAGAR, R.R.DISTRICT

Present:Ms. Shraddha Sehgal, VI Addl. Junior Civil Judge-Cum VI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class at L.B. Nagar

MONDAY, THIS THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 488 of 2018

Between:-

Sama Ganesh Reddy S/o. Narsimha Reddy, Aged about 62 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Plot No. 21 & 22, Tirumala Hills, Asmanghad, Malakpet, Hyderabad. …Plaintiff

A N D

R. Sudershanamma W/o. Pandurangam, Aged about 59 years, Occ: Household, R/o. H.No. 15-5-500, Osman Shahi, Hyderabad. … Defendant

This suit is coming before this Court on 09.09.2024 for final hearing in the presence of Sri B. Vijaya Simha Reddy, Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff, M/s Mirza Safiull Baig, Sir N. Chandra Sekhar Goud,Learned Counsel for the De- fendant and having been heard and having stood over for consideration this court delivered the following:-

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

1.This suit is filed by the Plaintiff praying this Court to direct the Defendant to execute a Registered Sale Deed in respect of Plot bearing No. 150, 151, 152 and 153 admeasuring 800 Square yards in Survey Nos. 520, 521 and 522 of

Nadergul Village, erstwhile Saroornagar Mandal, now comes under Balapur

Mandal, Ranga Reddy District bounded by North: 25’ wide road, South: Plot

No. 149, East: 30’ wide road and West: Plot No. 154, 155, 156 & 157 (here- inafter referred to as ‘Suit Schedule Property’) in favour of the Plaintiff con-

O.S No. 488 of 2018

2 of 14 veying clear and marketable title to the Plaintiff and in default thereof, to exe- cute the Registered Sale Deed in favor of the Plaintiff through Court in view of the alleged Agreement of Sale dated 15.12.2003.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that:

(i) It is submitted that the Defendant purchased the Suit Schedule Property under a Registered Sale Deed bearing Document No. 713/1997 dated 15.02.1997 from its original owners M. Srisaila Mallikarjuna Reddy and oth- ers through their GPA holder S. Ganesh Reddy i.e., the Plaintiff herein. It is further submitted that the Defendant offered to alienate the Suit Schedule

Property for a total sale consideration of Rs. 84,000/-, for which the Plaintiff agreed to purchase. Further, the Defendant, by receiving the entire sale con- sideration from the Plaintiff had entered into an Agreement of Sale dated 15.12.2003 with the Plaintiff. It is further submitted in the said Agreement of

Sale, the Defendant acknowledged the receipt of entire sale consideration, handed over the original documents pertaining to the Suit Schedule Property to the Plaintiff and also delivered the peaceful possession to the Plaintiff with an assurance to execute the sale deed in favour of the Plaintiff as and when requested by the Plaintiff. That, till then, the Defendant created a charge over the Suit Schedule Property in favor of the Plaintiff.

(ii) It is further submitted that after execution of said Agreement of Sale, the

Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to execute the Sale Deed in favor of the

Plaintiff with respect to Suit Schedule Property, but the Defendant had been dodging the matter on one pretext or another. It is further submitted that as per the terms of Agreement of Sale, the Defendant is under alegal obligation to execute the sale deed in favor of the Plaintiff as and when demanded by the Plaintiff, but the Defendant is intentionally dodging the same. It is further submitted that the Plaintiff learnt that the Defendant was trying to sell the

O.S No. 488 of 2018

3 of 14

Suit Schedule Property to third parties by suppressing the real facts and as such, the Plaintiff got issued a legal notice dated 24.11.2017 demanding her to execute the Registered Sale Deed in his favour in respect of theSuit

Schedule Property and that the said legal notice was served upon the De- fendant, but she did not choose to reply. It is further submitted that the Plain- tiff complied withhis part of the obligation and demanded the Defendant to execute the Registered Sale Deed in his favor with respect to theSuit

Schedule Property, but the Defendant has been dodging the matter and also trying to escape from her liabilities in performing her part of obligation in con- sequence to the said Agreement of Sale, having no other alternative, the

Plaintiff was constrained to file the present suit for specific performance.

Hence, this suit.

3.Summons were served to the Defendant personally. The Defendant filed her written statement denying the allegations leveled upon her. The Defendant admitted that she purchased the Suit Schedule Property vide a Registered

Sale Deed bearing Document No. 713/1997 dated 15.02.1997 from M. Sri- saila Mallikarjuna Reddy and others through their GPA holder, S. Ganesh

Reddy i.e., the Plaintiff, however, the Defendant denied that she agreed to sell the Suit Schedule Property to the Plaintiff and denied having entered into an Agreement of Sale or handing over possession of the Suit Schedule

Property or the original documents pertaining to the Suit Schedule Property to the Plaintiff. It is further submitted that in the year 2003, the husband of the Defendant took the signature of the Defendant on a blank stamp and other papers for the purpose of taking loan for an amount of Rs. 10,000/- from financiers and also took original documents pertaining to the Suit

Schedule Property to keep the same as security to the financiers whom the

Defendant does not know. That, after perusing the contents of the plaint, the

O.S No. 488 of 2018

4 of 14

Defendant came to know that the said documents are with the Plaintiff herein who misused the blank signed document of the Defendant and cre- ated a forged Agreement of Sale with respect to the Suit Schedule Property in his favor and that the Defendant never executed the alleged Agreement of

Sale in favour of the Plaintiff. It is further submitted that the husband of the

Defendant died on 22.09.2015. It is further submitted that the said Agree- ment of Sale dated 15.12.2003 is an unregistered agreement of sale which is hit by Section 17 of Registration Act and also not properly stamped in ac- cordance with Stamps Act as such the same is a void document and not ad- missible in evidence. It is further submitted that the Defendant never exe- cuted any agreement sale with respect to theSuit Schedule Property in favor of the Plaintiff and as such, the Defendant has no obligation to execute any

Sale Deed in favor of the Plaintiff. It is further submitted that the Defendant never received any legal notice from the Plaintiff. It is further submitted that the Agreement of Sale is dated 15.12.2003 and the notice is dated 24.11.2017 wherein the Plaintiff had asked the Defendant to execute the

Sale Deed within 7 days of the receipt of the notice, however, the present suit is filed on 09.08.2017 i.e., more than nine (9) months after the date of is- suing legal notice dated 24.11.2017, when it is the specific case of the Plain- tiff that Defendant was trying to alienate the Suit Schedule Property. That, the chronology of events mentioned in the plaint clinchingly demonstrates that the Plaintiff had created the Agreement of Sale with an evil intention to grab the Suit Schedule Property from the Defendant. It is further submitted that there is a general ban of registration in Survey No. 520, 521 and 522 of

Nadergul Village erstwhile Saroornagar Mandal, including the Suit Schedule

Property as a hard ware park was proposed in the said area and that the same was shown as Government Property since 19.04.2004 vide notification

O.S No. 488 of 2018

5 of 14

No. G2/3130/2004 and that the same is reflected in the list of prohibited properties on the official website of Registration and Stamps Department,

Government of Telangana. It is further submitted that the Plaintiff being the

GPA holder of the original owners of the Suit Schedule Property sold the same to the Defendant and others and that now as the market value of the properties sold by the Plaintiff has been rising, the Plaintiff with an evil inten- tion to grab the properties sold by him, has been filing false cases against the purchasers including the Plaintiff in OS Nos. 489/2018, 490/2018, 571 to 593 of 2018 pending before the 1st Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy

District at L.B.Nagar. It is further submitted that the alleged Agreement of

Sale is dated 15.12.2003 and the limitation to seek specific performance is within three years from the date of Agreement of Sale and the remedy to seek specific performance has lapsed by efflux of time and that the Plaintiff issued the alleged legal notice on 24.11.2017 i.e., after 14 years from the date of agreement of sale and hence, the suit is barred by limitation. The De- fendant prayed this Court to dismiss this suit with exemplary costs.

4.Basing on the above rival pleadings, this Court has framed the following is- sues:

(i) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for directing the Defendant to execute a Registered Sale Deed with respect to Suit Schedule

Property in favor of the Plaintiff, as prayed for?

(ii) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for directing the Defendant to deliver the vacant possession of the Suit Schedule Property to the Plaintiff?

(iii) Whether the suit is liable to be decreed as prayed for?

(v) To what relief?

5.To prove the case of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff got himself examined as PW-1 and Ex.A-1 to A-6 are marked. Exhibit A1 is the Original Agreement of Sale

dated 15.12.2003. Exhibit A2 is the Receipt dated 15.12.2003. Exhibit A3

O.S No. 488 of 2018

6 of 14 is the Office Copy of Legal Notice dated 24.11.2017. Exhibit A4 is the Postal receipt (1) dated 24.11.2017. Exhibit A5 is the signed Acknowledgment

Card dated 25.11.2017. Exhibit A6 is the Encumbrance Certificates (2). The

Defendant got herself examined as DW1. However, no documents have been marked by the Defendant.

6.Heard both sides. Perused the record.

ISSUES NO. 1 to 3:

7.The entire suit of PW1 is based upon Exhibit A1 and Exhibit A2. As per

PW1, DW1 executed Exhibit A1 in favour of PW1 i.e. DW1 agreed to sell the

Suit Schedule Property to PW1 for a sale consideration of Rs. 84,000/-. Ex- hibit A2 is the Receipt according to which PW1 transferred Rs. 84,000/- to

DW1 towards payment of entiresale consideration of the Suit Schedule

Property. It is not disputed that DW1 is the owner of the Suit Schedule Prop- erty. In fact, DW1 had purchased the Suit Schedule Property from her ven- dors through the Plaintiff who was the GPA Holder for the said transaction.

The said fact is reflected in Exhibit A6. It is the case of DW1 that she never executed Exhibit A1 and never received any money as reflected under Ex- hibit A2 and also that she did not receive any legal notice as under Exhibit

A3 and that Exhibit A5 i.e. the acknowledgment card does not bear her sig- nature.

8.As per PW1, on the date of execution of Exhibit A1 and A2, the possession of the Suit Schedule Property had been delivered to PW1. In the cross ex- amination of PW1, he stated that he cannot say the boundaries of the Suit

Schedule Property. Any person who is actually in possession of a property would normally be able to atleast roughly state the boundaries of his/her property. With respect to execution of Exhibit A1 and A2, PW1 deposes that

Exhibit A1 and A2 were executed on the same day. He does not remember

O.S No. 488 of 2018

7 of 14 who all were present at the time of execution of Exhibits A1 and A2. Upon perusal of Exhibits A1 and A2, it can be noticed that two witnesses have signed under Exhibit A1. However, there is only one witness who has signed on Exhibit A3. Interestingly, the signature of the witness on Exhibit A3 is en- tirely different from the two signatures of witnesses appearing on Exhibit A1, when allegedly both the documents had been executed on the same day.

Assuming for a moment that some third person did actually sign as a witness to Exhibit A2, it is important to note that neither of the witnesses have been brought into the witness box by PW1 in support of his case. When the exe- cution of Exhibit A1 and A2 is being denied by the Defendant, it is upon the

Plaintiff to prove that the document was executed by the Defendant, since it is the Plaintiff who has knocked the doors of this Court and prayed for a dis- cretionary relief. With respect to the receipt of Exhibit A3 i.e. the legal notice,

Learned Counsel for the Defendant elicited from PW1 that the signatures of the Defendant appearing on Exhibit A1 and A2 and on Exhibit A5 i.e. the ac- knowledgment card are different and that the signature on Exhibit A5 is not of the Defendant, which raises a doubt whether Exhibit A3 had been actually received by the Defendant. However, Exhibit A3 to A5 show that the Legal

Notice had been addressed to the Defendant on her address which is men- tioned in the plaint as well and which is not disputed. Only because the sig- nature on Exhibit A5 is different, it cannot be held that the legal notice was not received by the Defendant. Dispatch of notice by registered post is not under challenge and, therefore, is a relevant fact and the presumption that the notice has reached and was delivered to the addressee can be raised under Section 16 of the Indian Evidence Act and much significance cannot be placed on the signature on Exhibit A5 being different, specially since the

Defendant has not placed any evidence on record to show that she did not

O.S No. 488 of 2018

8 of 14 receive the legal notice and when in her cross examination, DW1 has admit- ted that she has been residing in the address mentioned in the plaint and in her chief evidence affidavit (which is the address on which the notice was sent) since 45 years.

9.Further in the cross examination of PW1, he deposed that he does not have and has not filed the original Sale Deed of the Suit Schedule Property. He vaguely deposed that his advocate has the same. It is the case of the Plain- tiff that alongwith the possession of the suit schedule property, all the original documents pertaining to the Suit Schedule Property had also been handed over to him. Why then is the Sale Deed not produced in evidence by PW1 is beyond the understanding of this Court. The production of the Sale Deed from the custody of the Plaintiff would strengthen the case of the Plaintiff.

10. PW1 admitted in his cross examination that some survey numbers in the vil- lage i.e. 520 and 521 had been prohibited by the government for registration as the government had proposed to create a hardware park at Nadergul.

The suit schedule property is in Survey No. 520, 521 and 522. Although no document has been brought on record by either side to show as to in which survey numbers, registration had been prohibited and when, nonetheless, it is admitted by PW1 that registration had been prohibited in Survey Nos. 520 and 521 i.e. in two out of three Survey Numbers. In view of the same, when the Plaintiff himself is admitting that registration had been prohibited in two out of three Survey Numbers where the suit schedule property is situated, the Plaintiff cannot now insist on executing registered Sale Deed in his favour with respect to prohibited lands.

11. PW1 admitted in his cross examination that the suit schedule property is in the name of the Defendant. Learned Counsel for the Defendant suggested to PW1 that the suit schedule property is not in the name of the Defendant

O.S No. 488 of 2018

9 of 14 and that the Defendant is not the owner of the suit schedule property and was not entitled to sell the suit schedule property. This is an entirely contrary stand taken by Learned Counsel for the Defendant. The Defendant never disputed the ownership of the suit schedule property but only that she did not execute Exhibit A1 and A2. Hence, not much reliance is being placed on the said suggestions, which appear to have been inadvertently given. The entire defence of the Defendant cannot be thrown out by solely considering these suggestions.

12. It is the case of the Defendant that the husband of the Defendant had taken blank signatures of the Defendant for the purpose of a loan and the same had been misused by the Plaintiff to create Exhibits A1 and A2. No evidence at all was brought on record by the Defendant to prove this contention. It is the contention of the Defendant that Exhibits A1 and A2 have been forged.

No action has been taken by the Defendant against the Plaintiff for forging the said Agreement of Sale and Receipt. It is also the case of the Defendant that she never handed over the original Sale Deed to the Plaintiff. However, the Sale Deed has alsonot been filed by the Defendant in Court. In her cross examination, DW1 admitted her signature on Exhibit A1. However, she still denies the execution of Exhibit A1. Surprisingly in her cross examination,

DW1 deposed that she does not have the original Sale Deed pertaining to the suit schedule property and that the same in with the Plaintiff. Even if the same is considered to be true, it was for the Plaintiff to adduce the said Sale

Deed in his evidence to show that the same had actually been handed over to the Plaintiff. DW1 also could not depose the Survey Numbers of her plots and the boundaries of the Plots, but it has to be kept in mind that as per Sec- tion 101 of Indian Evidence Act, whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he

O.S No. 488 of 2018

10 of 14 asserts, must prove that those facts exist. Hence, the burden of proving the case of the Plaintiff is on the Plaintiff.

13. Coming to the documents on record, Exhibit A1 does not stipulate any time frame in which the Sale Deed has to be executed by the Defendant. It also does not stipulate that the Sale Deed shall be executed by the Defendant as and when demanded by the Plaintiff. In the legal notice sent by the Plaintiff to the Defendant, the Plaintiff writes that the Defendant assured to execute the Sale Deed in favour of the Plaintiff as and when demanded by the Plain- tiff. No such recital can be found in Exhibit A1. Further, in the legal notice, the Plaintiff writes that the Defendant agreed to deliver the possession of the said plots to the Plaintiff. However, as per the plaint averments, the posses- sion of the suit schedule property had already been handed over to the

Plaintiff. Hence, the two stands are contrary to each other. However, the

Plaintiff stuck with the stand that the possession had been delivered to him, but could not show the same by any iota of evidence. In view of the sur- rounding circumstances, a doubt has crept up in the mind of this Court with respect to the delivery of documents andpossession to the Plaintiff.

14. To answer the first contention of the Defendant that Exhibit A1 is not regis- tered, Hon’ble Supreme Court in R. Hemalatha versus Kasthuri in 2023

LiveLaw (SC) 304 held that an unregistered Agreement to Sell, which is oth- erwise required to be compulsorily registered, shall be admissible in evi- dence in a suit for specific performance in terms of Proviso to Section 49 of

Registration Act. The only exception to the Proviso of Section 49 would be documents mentioned in Section 17(1A) of Registration Act. Section 17(1A) requires compulsory registration of documents executed on or after 2001, which contain contract to transfer for consideration any immovable property for the purpose of Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act. The effect of non-

O.S No. 488 of 2018

11 of 14 registration of such documents shall have no effect for the purposes of said

Section 53A. A contract accompanied by delivery of possession or executed in favour of a person in possession, is compulsorily registrable under Section 17(1A) of the Registration Act, 1908, but the failure to register such a con- tract would only deprive the person in possession of any benefit conferred by

Section 53A of the 1882 Act. The proviso to section 49 of the Indian Regis- tration Act clearly postulates that non-registration of such a contract would not prohibit the filing of a suit for specific performance based upon such an agreement or the leading of such an unregistered agreement into evidence.

Hence, this contention of the Defendant is not tenable as it is settled law that an unregistered Agreement of Sale can form a basis for a suit for specific performance and a suit for specific performance cannot be dismissed only on the ground of non registration of the said Agreement of Sale. With respect to Ex.A1 being insufficiently stamped, it had been impounded by the Court and was taken into evidence only after payment of sufficient stamp duty.

15. PW1 admitted in his cross examination that he sent the legal notice 14 years after the execution of Exhibit A1 and filed the suit 15 years after the execu- tion of Exhibit A1, however, he volunteered that the Defendant had promised to do the registration, hence, the delay.Coming to the aspect of limitation, limitation period in a suit for specific relief with respect to a sale deed, where no time is mentioned for its execution, would commence from the date it comes to the notice of the Plaintiff that specific performance is being refused to him by the Defendant. Exhibit A1 does not specify any time limit for execu- tion of Sale Deed. Hence, the limitation should commence from the date of the refusal by the Defendant to execute the Sale Deed. Exhibit A1 is exe- cuted in the year 2003. It is the case of the Plaintiff that the Defendant did not come forward to execute the Sale Deed despite repeated requests.

O.S No. 488 of 2018

12 of 14

Hence, it is deemed that the Defendant refused to execute the Sale Deed.

Even if the said fact is admitted to be true, Exhibit A3 i.e. the legal notice was sent to the Plaintiff in the year 2017 i.e. after a lapse of 14 years. No ex- planation has come forth by the Plaintiff as to why there had been such a de- lay in pressing his rights for the execution of the Sale Deed, when Defendant had been refusing to execute the Sale Deed many times. No evidence is placed on record to show that at any point in time, the Plaintiff within this span of 14 years, requested the Defendant to execute the registered Sale

Deed in his favour and refusal by the Defendant.

16. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumar versus Anand Kumar & Ors.

2024 LiveLaw (SC) 407 held that a plaintiff would not be entitled the discre- tionary relief of the specific performance of the suit due to his conduct for not preferring the suit within the reasonable time despite knowing the fact of the breach of the contract well before the filing of the suit. In the present case, when the Plaintiff had allegedly already paid the entire sale consideration and also taken delivery of possession of the suit schedule property and the title documents, what made the Plaintiff wait for a period of 14 long years to send a legal notice to the Defendant asking for execution of the Sale Deed.

17. In Major Gen. Darshan Singh (D) By Lrs. & Anr. v. Brij Bhushan Chaud- hary (D) by Lrs., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 182, Hon’ble Apex Court held that the plaintiff made incorrect/false statements, including on the matter of being put in possession of the property, and refused specific performance stating that the relief of specific performance is equitable and discretionary. In the present case also, in the legal notice, the Plaintiff stated that the Defendant had promised to deliver possession of the Suit Schedule Property to him on demand. However, in the Agreement of Sale and at other instances during the suit, the Plaintiff maintained that the possession had been delivered to

O.S No. 488 of 2018

13 of 14 the Plaintiff. However, the Plaintiff could not prove delivery of possession of the property to him. Further, the Plaintiff did not examine any other witness in order to prove Exhibit A1 and A2. The Plaintiff also did not file the Original

Sale Deed in Court to show delivery of original documents to the Plaintiff which was the contention of the Plaintiff. Although the Defendant also did not adduce evidence to support her version, the burden of proof still lay on the

Plaintiff to prove the execution of Exhibit A1 and A2 by the Defendant. For the reasons stated above, this Court is of the opinion that the Plaintiff could not prove execution of Exhibit A1 and A2 by the Defendant. Further the con- duct of the Plaintiff in approaching the Court 15 years after the alleged exe- cution of Exhibit A1 and A2, without any cogent explanation, in the consid- ered opinion of this Court, disentitles the Plaintiff to the discretionary and eq- uitable relief that is specific performance.

18. IN THE RESULT, the suit of the Plaintiff is dismissed. No costs.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 30 th day of September, 2024.

VI Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate-Cum- VI Addl. Junior Civil Judge at LB Nagar, Ranga Reddy District

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR THE PLAINTIFF: FOR THE DEFENDANT:

P.W.1Sri S. Ganesh Reddy- None -

O.S No. 488 of 2018

14 of 14

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1Original Agreement of Sale dated 15.12.2003

Ex.A2Receipt dated 15.12.2003

Ex.A3Office Copy of Legal Notice dated 24.11.2017

Ex.A4Postal receipt (1) dated 24.11.2017

Ex.A5Acknowledgment Card signed 25.11.2017

Ex.A6Encumbrance Certificates (2).

FOR THE DEFENDANT:

D.W.1R. Sudershanamma

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE DEFENDANT:

-NIL-

VI Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate-Cum- VI Addl. Junior Civil Judge at LB Nagar, Ranga Reddy District

CC No. 1133/2013

in Crime No. 357/2012 PS Meerpet 1 of 11

IN THE COURT OF VI ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

VI ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT L.B. NAGAR

Present:Ms. Shraddha Sehgal, VI Addl. Junior Civil Judge-Cum VI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class at L.B. Nagar

MONDAY, THIS THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

CALENDAR CASE No. 1133 of 2013

Between:

Sri Y. Nageswara Rao S/o. Suryanarayana, Aged about 48 years, Occ: Doctor, R/o. Plot No. 56, new Sarvodaya Colony, Meerpet, Saroor Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. …Defacto-Complainant

A N D

D. Sathish Kumar S/o. D. Laxmaiah, Aged about 32 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No. 2-87/1, Dynamic Colony, Meerpet, Saroor Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. … Accused

OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 415, 418, 420 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE

This case is coming before me on 12.09.2024 for final hearing in the presence of Sri K. Ramesh Kumar, Sri K. Panduranga Rao, Learned Counsel for the Defacto Complainant and Sri E. Sreenivas Reddy, Learned Counsel for the Accused and having heard and having been stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

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

1. This is a private complaint filed by the Defacto Complainant against the

Accused under Sections 415, 418, 420 of IPC.

2. The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:

The Complainant first filed a private complaint under Section 200 of CrPC praying this Court to refer the matter to PS Meerpet under Section 156(3) of

CrPC with the following averments:

CC No. 1133/2013

in Crime No. 357/2012 PS Meerpet 2 of 11

It was submitted that the Complainant got acquainted with the Accused about 7 years back, through a common friend Dr. Ashok. That, the

Accused was running a medical shop in the name and style of Srinivas

Medical and General Stores at Meerpet ‘X’ Road till mid January, 2012.

It is further submitted that due to the close acquaintance with the

Complainant, in February, 2011, the Accused requested the

Complainant for a hand loan of Rs. 3 lakhs to improve his business and also brought house documents of his father in law, the house being located in Nalgonda District. Further, in February, 2011, the

Complainant gave Rs. 3 lakhs to the Accused and the Accused paid interest on the said amount till December, 2011. It is further submitted that the Accused approached the Complainant in the month of January, 2012 two to three times asking the Complainant to return the house documents of his father-in-law as his father-in-law had sold the property and that the purchaser of the said property was asking for original documents. Since there was no security for the hand loan, the

Complainant told the Accused to pay the hand loan. Further, the

Accused brought his brother-in-law, one Sandeep to make the

Complainant believe the version of the Accused. Further, the Accused promised that he would repay the amounts, once sale proceedings of the said property is complete. On the demand made by the

Complainant, the Accused issued two cheques i.e., one cheque bearing

No. 718735 dated 30.01.2012 for Rs. 2 lakhs and another cheque bearing No. 700829 dated 30.01.2012 for Rs. 1 lakh drawn on Karur

Vysya Bank, Meerpet Branch, in favor of the Complainant. Further that on receipt of the cheques, the Complainant returned the house

CC No. 1133/2013

in Crime No. 357/2012 PS Meerpet 3 of 11 documents to the Accused. It is further submitted that on 30.01.2012, on the assurance of the Accused that there were sufficient funds in his account, the Complainant presented the said two cheques on 30.01.2012, but the same were dishonored with an endorsement ‘insufficient funds’. It is further submitted that the Complainant came to know that the Accused who is a resident of Meerpet, filed I.P No.

5/2012 on the file of II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, at LB.Nagar to declare him as insolvent and that the petition shows that the Accused borrowed loans to a tune of Rs. 92,25,000/- from 46 respondents and among them, 44 members were residents of Meerpet, who all had no knowledge of the loan amounts obtained by the Accused, which shows the malafide intention of the Accused. Further that the Accused also obtained loans from financial institutions and had also subscribed to various chits. It is further submitted that Section 420 of IPC when read with Section 415 of IPC makes it clear that the Accused played havoc on the mind, body and reputation of the Complainant and resorted to cheating of various sorts and rendered himself liable for the maximum punishment provided under the Statute. It is further submitted that the

Accused owns a very small medical store which cannot be worth more than Rs. 1-1.5 lakhs, however, in the IP the Accused pleaded that he borrowed huge money for development of his business. It is further submitted that there is a gap of only five days in filing the said I.P and in execution of the subject two cheques, which shows the meticulous planning of the Accused. It is further submitted that this case was registered by PS Meerpet under Crime No. 357/2012, but the police has not filed any final report even after a lapse of five months. Hence, the

CC No. 1133/2013

in Crime No. 357/2012 PS Meerpet 4 of 11

Complainant filed the present complaint praying this Court to permit him to bring the witnesses on record and to to take cognizance against

Accused.

3.The Court referred the private complaint to SHO PS Meerpet under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C to investigate the case and to file a report. Further, the SHO

PS Meerpet filed a Final Result stating that:

“as an abundant precaution, the opinion of Sri RD Venkat Rao, Legal Adviser, Cyberabad Police Commissionerate was obtained in his case and after going through the entire facts and circumstances related to this case, the P.P., fled that the Investigation Officer may exercise his discretionary power to refer this case as ‘Civil Nature’ after obtaining prior permission from the superior officers.”

4.Thereafter, after recording the sworn statement of the Complainant, vide

Order dated 27.07.2013, the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad,

L.B.Nagar allowed the said private complaint and took the cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 415, 418, 420 of IPC against the

Accused.

5.In order to prove its case, the Complainant got himself examined PW1 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P7. Exhibit P1 is the Complaint. Exhibit P2 is the

Order dated 27.05.2015. Exhibit P3 is the original cheque bearing No.

718735 of Rs. 2 lakhs. Exhibit P4 is the cheque return memo dated 24.09.2018. Exhibit P5 is the original cheque bearing No. 700829 of Rs. 1 lakh dated 30.01.2012. Exhibit P6 is the cheque return memo dated 31.10.2018. Exhibit P7 is the summons in IP No. 5/2012 on the file of II

Addl. Senior Civil Judge, R.R. District, L.B.Nagar. Further, one N. Prabhaker

Rao got himself examined as PW2, one Kiran Jyothi got herself examined as

CC No. 1133/2013

in Crime No. 357/2012 PS Meerpet 5 of 11

PW3 and one Satya Mitra got himself examined as PW4. No defence evidence was reported. Hence, defence evidence was closed.

6.The Accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and the incriminating material appearing against the Accused in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was put to him, which were completely denied by him.

7.Heard both sides. Perused the entire record.

8.Now the point that arises for determination is:

Whether the Defacto Complainant could prove that the Accused committed the offences punishable under Sections 415, 418, 420 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

9.PW1, who is the Complainant deposed in his examination in chief that due to acquaintance, PW1 gave a loan of Rs. 3 lakhs to the Accused in February 2011 for which the Accused kept his uncle’s house papers as security and paid interest till December 2021. Thereafter, the Accused asked him to return the house papers and gave him two cheques as security and as such

PW1 returned the house papers. Further that later the Accused filed an

Insolvency Petition and the cheques of Rs. 2 lakhs and Rs. 1 lakh were dishonoured with the endorsement “Funds Insufficient”. Further that PW1 came to know that there were 46 Respondents in the IP filed by the Accused including the Complainant. The IP shows that the Accused borrowed Rs.

92,22,000/- and also took many loans and also took chit amounts from chit fund companies. In his cross examination, PW1 deposed that the Accused did not give any receipt or promissory note for the loan of Rs. 3 lakhs to

PW1. Further that he gave Rs. 3 lakhs to the Accused in cash out of his savings. He further deposed that he did not file any case against the

Accused under Section 138 of NI Act for dishonour of cheque. Further that

CC No. 1133/2013

in Crime No. 357/2012 PS Meerpet 6 of 11

PW1 did not file any civil suit for recovery of money against the Accused, he admitted that the Accused had filed the Insolvency Petition before filing of this case. Apart from this, general suggestions were put to PW1 which were denied by him.

10. PW2 deposed in his examination in chief that he knew PW1 since 38 years and that in 2011, February, he along with Ramapathi Reddy were present when PW1 gave Rs. 3 lakhs to the Accused. He further deposed that the Accused paid interest for 9 months and that in February, 2012, when they asked the Accused to return the money, the Accused got his father in law’s house document and kept the same as security with PW1. He further deposed that the Accused wanted the said house document back, so he gave 2 or 3 cheques to PW1 as security, but he does not remember if the cheques were blank or filled. That, PW1 asked the Accused for repayment of money, but the Accused postponed the same for one pretext or another and that thereafter, PW1 deposited the cheques in his bank, but the same got dishonored. He further deposed that after the cheques got dishonored, PW1 told him that the Accused filed an insolvency petition and in the same, the

Accused mentioned 46 otherpersons’ names from whom he took money including PW1. In his cross-examination, PW2 deposed that PW1 gave the money to the Accused at the house of the Accused i.e. at Sarvodaya Nagar.

He further stated that he cannot say the exact date of payment but it was in second week of February, 2011 and that no document was executed by the

Accused when the amount was given. He further deposed that he did not witness PW1 asking for repayment of money from the Accused. Also that he cannot say the date when the Accused gave the house documents of his father-in-law to PW1. He does not know the date of issuance of the cheques.

CC No. 1133/2013

in Crime No. 357/2012 PS Meerpet 7 of 11

He stated that PW1 had filed a case against the Accused under Section 138 of NI Act but that he cannot say the case number. He further stated that he is not a party to the IP filed by the Accused.

11. PW3, who is the Branch Manager at SBI, Jillelaguda Branch, deposed in her examination in chief that the Complainant/PW1 who is an account holder in their bank bearing Account No. 62177199353 deposited two cheques pertaining to Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., bearing No. 718735 and 700829 of Rs.

2 lakhs and 1 lakh respectively on 30.01.2012. That, they sent the said two cheques for clearing on 02.02.2012, the two cheques were returned with the reason ‘insufficient funds’. In her cross-examination, PW3 deposed that she has not submitted any letter received from Karur Vysya Bank for return of cheques in the Court. She further admitted that she does not personally know as to who issued the cheques to the Complainant. She further admitted that she has given the evidence in the Court basing on the documents given to her by the Complainant/PW1.

12. PW4, who is the Bank Manager, Karur Vysya Bank, deposed in his examination in chief that the bank account No. 1481115000000221 in the name of Srinivasa Medical and General Stores firm, the proprietor being

Satish Kumar/Accused was in Karur Vysya Bank, Meerpet. He further deposed that on 31.01.2012, two cheques were presented in clearing, one for 2 lakhs bearing No. 718735 and the other for Rs. 1 lakhs was cheque bearing No. 700829 and that both the cheques got dishonored for the reason insufficient funds. He further deposed that another cheque bearing No.

700815 for Rs. 1 lakh was also returned on 31.01.2012 pertaining to

Nageswar Rao/Complainant. In his cross-examination, PW4 admitted that he has not filed any document to show that the said account number

CC No. 1133/2013

in Crime No. 357/2012 PS Meerpet 8 of 11 belongs to the Accused. He further admitted that he has not filed any account opening information form and any dishonor cheque memo. He further deposed that does not know personally who issued the cheques to the Complainant and that he deposed basing on the documents given to him by the Complainant/PW1. He further deposed that he does not have any personal knowledge about this case as at that time he was not the manager of the branch.

13. Section 415 of IPC is reproduced herein for better appreciation of facts:

“Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to “cheat”.”

Section 418 of IPC defines as follows:

“Whoever cheats with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause wrongful loss to a person whose interest in the transaction to which the cheating relates, he was bound either by law, or by legal contract, to protect, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both”

Section 420 of IPC defines as follows:

“420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.— Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

To attract the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC, the Accused must have cheated a person i.e. deceived any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induced the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to

CC No. 1133/2013

in Crime No. 357/2012 PS Meerpet 9 of 11 consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induced the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived. Further, there must be inducement to the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security.

14. In the present case, the allegation against the Accused is that he had obtained a hand loan of Rs. 3 lakhs from the Complainant by keeping the house documents of his father-in-law as security. Further, the Accused had taken back the said house documents and given two cheques i.e., one cheque bearing No. 718735 dated 30.01.2012 for Rs. 2 lakhs and another cheque bearing No. 700829 dated 30.01.2012 for Rs. 1 lakh drawn on Karur

Vysya Bank, Meerpet Branch, in favor of the Complainant and when the

Complainant presented the same in his bank, both the cheques got dishonored. Further, the Complainant got to know that the Accused filed an

I.P No. 5/2012 against 46 respondents which includes the Complainant/PW1 herein and hence, the Accused committed offences under Sections 415, 418 and 420 IPC. PW2 deposed that PW1 lent money to the Accused in his presence and in the presence of one Ramapathi Reddy. However, PW1 did not depose that any one was present when the amounts were lent. Further, no evidence has been lead by PW1 to show that that IP was filed by the

Accused to deceive PW1 and others. Malafide intention cannot be presumed but has to be proved.

15. The evidence on record establishes that the Accused had issued two cheques in favour of the Complainant and that the same got dishonoured for

CC No. 1133/2013

in Crime No. 357/2012 PS Meerpet 10 of 11 the reasons “Funds Insufficient”. However, from the evidence on record, it can be seen that there is not a single allegation against the Accused stating that the Accused intended to deceive the Complainant from the very beginning. To prove an offence of cheating, it is apposite that the Accused had a guilty intention from the start and he intended to deceive the

Complainant. No iota of evidence has been brought on record to show the same. Mere issuance and dishonour of cheque in the present circumstances does not go on to show that the Accused had an intention of cheating the

Complainant. Admittedly, no proceeding under Section 138 of NI Act had been initiated against the Accused. Upon perusal of the evidence as a whole, the present case appears to be a purely civil dispute which has been given criminal color, which has been highly discouraged by the Hon’ble Apex

Court time and again. In the considered opinion of this Court, no evidence has been brought on record to prove the alleged offences to have been committed by the Accused.

16. Hence, upon perusal of the evidence on record, this Court is of the view that the Complainant has not been able to prove the guilt of the Accused beyond all reasonable doubt under Sections 415, 418 and 420of IPC. For the reasons stated above, this Court finds that the Accused is not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 415, 418 and 420of IPC .

17. In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 415, 418 and 420 of IPC and hence, the Accused is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C for the offence under Sections 415, 418 and 420 of IPC. The Accused is set at liberty and his bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of 6 months as per Section 437A of Cr.P.C.

CC No. 1133/2013

in Crime No. 357/2012 PS Meerpet 11 of 11

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 30 th day of September , 202 4.

VI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class -Cum- VI Addl. Junior Civil Judge at L.B. Nagar , Ranga Reddy District.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR COMPLAINANT: FOR DEFENCE:

P.W.1Sri Y. Nageshwar RaoNone

P.W.2Sri N. Prabhaker Rao

P.W.3Smt. Kiran Jyothi

P.W.4Sri Satya Mitra

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR COMPLAINANT:

Ex.P1Complaint.

Ex.P2Order dated 27.05.2015.

Ex.P3Original cheque bearing No. 718735 of Rs. 2 lakhs.

Ex.P4Cheque return memo dated 24.09.2018.

Ex.P5Original cheque bearing No. 700829 of Rs. 1 lakh dated 30.01.2012.

Ex.P6Cheque return memo dated 31.10.2018.

Ex.P7Summons in IP No. 5/2012 on the file of II Addl. Senior Civil

Judge, R.R. District, L.B.Nagar

FOR DEFENCE:

- Nil -

VI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class -Cum- VI Addl. Junior Civil Judge at L.B. Nagar , Ranga Reddy District.

CC No. 328/2023

in Crime No. 927/2022 PS Chaitanyapuri 1 of 13

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

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

AT LB NAGAR

Present: Smt. Shraddha Sehgal, IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge-Cum IV Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District, at LB Nagar

WEDNESDAY, THIS THE 26th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

CALENDAR CASE No.328 of 2023

Between:

The State, through The Sub Inspector of Police, PS Chaitanyapuri, Rachakonda (Cr. No.927 of 2022) …Prosecution A N D

Danthuri Venkatesh, S/o. Late Yadagiri, Age: 39 years, Occ: Driver, R/o. H.No.3-37, Bacharam Village, Abdullapurment, Ranga Reddy District. … Accused

OFFENCE UNDER SECTIONS 304-A, 337 OF THE INDIAN PENAL

CODE

This case is coming before me on 13.11.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri Venkateswar Rao Pujari, Learned Counsel for the Accused, having heard and having been stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station, Chaitanyapuri filed charge-sheet against the Accused in Crime No.927 of 2022 of

Chaitanyapuri Police Station for the offence under Sections 304-A, 337 of Indian Penal Code (For short “IPC”).

CC No. 328/2023

in Crime No. 927/2022 PS Chaitanyapuri 2 of 13

2. The case of prosecution, in brief, is as follows:

(i) On 15.12.2022 at 0915 hours received a complaint from Sri

Gaddam Ganga Reddy S/o. Narayana Reddy, wherein he stated that his brother-in-law i.e., Madagari Saikrishna S/o. Rajender (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) was studying degree second year at Noble

Degree College, Dilsukhnagar and he is residing at Dilsukhnagar along with his friends. That, on 15.12.2022 at 04.15 hours, the deceased along with his friend, Rahul, left from Dilshuknagar on their friend’s bike bearing Registration No.TS-16-FC-9533 and when they were coming from Amberpet towards L.B.Nagar, when they reached near Durgamatha Temple, Metro Pillar No.1536, the Accused, who was the driver of lorry, drover his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit the bike of the deceased from back side and the back tires of the lorry ran over the head of the deceased, due to which the deceased died on the spot and Rahul received injures. Hence, the complainant requested for necessary action.

(ii) During the course of the investigation, LW13/Sri S. Madhu Sudhan,

Inspector of Police, PS Chaitanyapuri, registered a case in Crime

No.927/2022 under Sections 304-A, 337 of IPC and the investigation was entrusted to LW14/PW9/Sri P. Ranga Reddy, Asst. Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Chaitanyapuri. During the course of investigation, PW9 examined LW1 to LW5. LW1/PW1/Sri Gaddam Ganga Reddy is the

CC No. 328/2023

in Crime No. 927/2022 PS Chaitanyapuri 3 of 13

Complainant. LW2/Smt. Gaddam Pavithra, LW3/PW2/Sri Maddagari

Rajender and LW4/PW3/Sri Maddagari Varalaxmi are the circumstantial witnesses. LW5/PW11/Sri Rajputh Rahul is the eyewitness/injured. Further, PW9 visited the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of

LW6/PW4/Sri Karaka Santhosh and LW7/Sri Mothe Mohan Reddy.

Further, PW9 conducted inquest panchanama over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of LW8/PW7/Sri Minicuri Anil Kumar and

LW9/PW6/Sri Gujjala Vital Reddy. LW10/PW5/Dr. Sudhakar Suresh conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued

PME Report opining that the deceased died due to “head injury”.

LW11/PW8/Dr. Venkataraman treated LW5 and issued MLCs opining that the injuries were simple in nature. LW12/PW10/Sri K. Vasudeva

Rao inspected the crime vehicle and issued Motor Vehicle Inspection

Report opining that “the accident did not occur due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle”. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the Accused for the offence under Sections 304-A, 337 of IPC.

3.This Court took cognizance of the offence under Sections 304-A, 337 of IPC against the Accused.

4.On appearance of the Accused before the Court, copies of documents were furnished to him in accordance with Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

CC No. 328/2023

in Crime No. 927/2022 PS Chaitanyapuri 4 of 13

5.The Accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C. and substance of allegations against the Accused were put to him which were denied by the Accused. The Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to prove its case, the prosecution got examined PW1 to PW11 and Exhibits P1 to P7 are marked. Exhibit P1 is the Complaint.

Exhibit P2 is the Scene of offence panchanama drafted in CDF along with rough sketch. Exhibit P3 is Postmortem Examination Report.

Exhibit P4 is the Inquest panchanama of the deceased. Exhibit P5 is the Medico-Legal Certificate. Exhibit P6 is the FIR. Exhibit P7 is the

Motor Vehicle Inspection Report.

7.The Accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and the incriminating material appearing against the Accused in the evidence of the prosecution witness was put to the Accused, which was completely denied by him.

8.Heard both sides. Perused the entire record.

9.Now the point that arises for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the Accused for the

offence punishable under Sections 304-A, 337 of IPC beyond all

reasonable doubt?

POINT:

10. PW1 who is the Complainant deposed in his examination in chief that the deceased was his brother in law and that on 15.12.2022, LW2

CC No. 328/2023

in Crime No. 927/2022 PS Chaitanyapuri 5 of 13 received a phone call from a friend of the deceased, who stated that the deceased had met with an accident near Dilsukhnagar while he was going on a two wheeler bearing Registration No.TS-16-FC-9533 as lorry bearing Registration No.TS-07-UK-6571 came in a speedy manner and dashed the vehicle of the deceased from behind and the head of the deceased was crushed under lorry tire and he died on spot. PW1 further deposed that LW5/PW11 who was the pillion rider also fell down and he also received injures. In his cross-examination,

PW1 admitted that the bike on which the deceased was traveling does not belong to the deceased and the deceased does not have a driving license. He further deposed that the alleged accident occurred at 04.30 am.

11. PW2, who is circumstantial witness deposed in his examination in chief that on 15-12-2022 at 4.15 am while the deceased was returning from

Malakpet on bike, while he was taking U turn, one cement mixing truck came in a speedy manner and hit the bike of the deceased from behind and the tire of said truck ran over deceased’s head and he died on spot. He further deposed that at the time of the accident, PW2 was in Mailaram Village Sirikonda Mandal and PW1 informed him about the accident and he immediately went to Osmania hospital. In his cross- examination, PW2 deposed that at the time of the alleged incident, the deceased was aged about 19 years and he did not have a driving

CC No. 328/2023

in Crime No. 927/2022 PS Chaitanyapuri 6 of 13 license. He further deposed that he does not know as to whom the said bike belonged.

12. PW3, who is the circumstantial witness deposed in her examination in chief and cross on the same lines as that of PW2.

13. PW4 who is the panch witness for scene of offence panchanama deposed in his examination in chief that on 15-12-2022 at around 09.30AM, he received a call from SI of Police, PS. Chaitanyapuri that the deceased had met with an accident and asked him to come to police station. That, from the police station, he went to scene offence, where the deceased and PW11 were lying on the road. Further, SI of

Police explained how the alleged accident occurred i.e. while the deceased and PW11 were going from Malakpet towards Vijayawada near Durgamata temple near Pillar No. 1536, from behind Lorry driver/D. Venkatesh/Accused drove his lorry in high speed manner and dashed the bike of deceased. In his cross-examination, PW4 deposed that he was informed by the police about the accident and that both the injured and deceased do not have driving license. He further deposed that he did not witness any accident and signed on the panchanama at police station.

14. Further, PW5, the doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased issued Ex.P3 opining that the deceased died 6 to 12 hours prior to conducting the post-mortem examination and the cause

CC No. 328/2023

in Crime No. 927/2022 PS Chaitanyapuri 7 of 13 of death of the deceased was due to head injury. In his cross- examination, Learned Counsel for the Accused put some general suggestion to PW5, which were denied by him.

15. PW6 and PW7 who are the panch witnesses for inquest panchanama deposed in their examination in chief that they got to know that the deceased had met with an accident, so they went to the police station and later to Osmania Hospital and identified the body of the deceased.

In their cross-examination, PW6 and PW7 admitted that they do not know if the deceased had a driving license and if the bike driven by the deceased belongs to him. They deposed that they signed on Ex.P4 i.e., inquest panchanama at the police station.

16. Further, PW8, who treated LW5/PW11/injured deposed that PW11 met with an accident and he observed that PW11 had abrasions on right elbow, right knee and right ankle. In his cross-examination, PW8 admitted that the alleged accident had occurred on 15.12.2022 and

PW11 approached him on 19.12.2022 and the injures were written as fresh injuries. PW8 also admitted that the alleged injury caused to

PW8 could have been caused if a person fell from a vehicle driven in speed.

17. PW9, who is the Investigating Officer for the present case deposed in his examination in chief on the same lines as that of the charge-sheet.

In cross-examination, he admitted that he did not cite the owner of the

CC No. 328/2023

in Crime No. 927/2022 PS Chaitanyapuri 8 of 13 vehicle as a witness and the deceased did not have a driving license.

He further admitted that the incident occurred at 04.15 am and the complaint was given at 09.15 am and he does not know if they got any information about the alleged accident in between the said timings. He further admits that LW1 to LW4 are the relatives of the deceased and there are no eyewitnesses and independent witnesses in the present case. Further, some general suggestions were put to PW9, which were denied by him.

18. PW10, who inspected the crime vehicle deposed in his examination in chief that as per the requisition of SHO PS Chaitanyapuri, he issued

Ex.P7 opining that the accident did not occur due to any mechanical defects of the crime vehicle. In his cross-examination, PW10 admitted that the distance between the police station and RTA office is nearly 15 kms and he inspected the crime vehicle at the RTA office and not at the scene of the offence.

19. PW11, who is the injured and who is the only eyewitness deposed in his examination in chief that on 15.12.2022, when the deceased and himself were going on bike at 04.00 am, when they reached

Dilsukhnagar, the Accused, who was the driver of lorry dashed the bike of the deceased from behind, due to which they both fell down and the deceased died on the spot as lorry tire had ran over the head of the deceased. That, PW11 sustained injures in the said accident.

CC No. 328/2023

in Crime No. 927/2022 PS Chaitanyapuri 9 of 13

Despite repeated conditional orders, PW11 did not appear before the

Court to subject himself for cross-examination, hence, his chief evidence had been eschewed.

20. Coming to the law at hand, Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code defines causing death by negligence as follows:

“Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”

Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code defines Causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others as follows:

“Whoever causes hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.”

21. In the present case, it is the case of the prosecution that the Accused, who is the driver of crime vehicle drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit the bike of the deceased and PW11 from behind, due to which the deceased died on spot and PW11 sustained injuries. PW1 to PW4 are the relatives of the deceased and they got to know about the incident from third party, hence, they are only hearsay witnesses. Further, PW4 i.e., the panch witness for scene of offence panchanama and PW6 and PW7, who are the panch witnesses for inquest panchanama deposed that they signed on the panchanamas

CC No. 328/2023

in Crime No. 927/2022 PS Chaitanyapuri 10 of 13 at the police station, hence, the conduct of scene of panchanama and inquest panchanama is doubtful. Further, PW11, who is the only eyewitness and who also got injured in the alleged accident, did not subject himself for cross examination, hence, his chief evidence was eschewed. Hence, the veracity of chief examination of PW11 could not be tested by cross examination. Further, the authenticity of Ex.P5 is also doubtful as PW8 deposed that the accident occurred on 15.12.2022, but PW11 approached him on 19.12.2022 and PW8 mentions in Ex.P5 that the injures are fresh. There is not a single witness who has deposed that the Accused is responsible for the death of the deceased. No independent eyewitness has been examined in order to show that it was because of the negligence of the

Accused that the deceased had died. From the evidence on record, it can be concluded that there is no evidence to show that the Accused caused the said accident and no witness has testified that the deceased died in an accident caused by negligent driving of the

Accused. Further, no CCTV footage has been collected during the process of investigation. Hence, the most important requirement to pin the crime on the Accused i.e. the rashness or negligence of the

Accused in driving the crime vehicle is not established by the prosecution. Although, it is proved that the deceased had died due to head injury, but the evidence lead by the prosecution could not go to

CC No. 328/2023

in Crime No. 927/2022 PS Chaitanyapuri 11 of 13 prove that the deceased died in an accident caused by the Accused due to his negligent driving.

22. Hence, from the material on record, it is opined that the evidence is not sufficient to prove that the Accused committed offences under

Sections 304-A or 337 of IPC. As such, there exists nothing on record to hold the Accused guilty for the offences u/s 304-A and 337 of IPC.

23. In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A, 337 of IPC and the Accused is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The Accused is set at liberty and his bail bonds shall be in force for a period of 6 months as per

Section 437A of CrPC.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 26 th day of November, 2025.

IV Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class-Cum-IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

P.W.1:Sri Gaddam Ganga ReddyNone

P.W.2:Sri Maddagari Rajender

P.W.3:Sri Maddagari Varalaxmi

CC No. 328/2023

in Crime No. 927/2022 PS Chaitanyapuri 12 of 13

P.W.4:Sri Karaka Santhosh

P.W.5:Dr. Sudhakar Suresh

P.W.6:Sri Gujjal Vital Reddy

P.W.7:Sri Minicuri Anil Kumar

P.W.8:Dr. Venkataraman

P.W.9:Sri P. Ranga Reddy

P.W.10: Sri K. Vasudeva Rao

P.W.11: Sri Rajputh Rahul

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1:Complaint.

Ex.P2:Scene of offence panchanama drafted in CDF along with rough sketch.

Ex.P3:Postmortem Examination Report.

Ex.P4:Inquest panchanama of the deceased.

Ex.P5:Medico-Legal Certificate.

Ex.P6:FIR.

Ex.P7:Motor Vehicle Inspection Report.

FOR DEFENCE:

- Nil -

CC No. 328/2023

in Crime No. 927/2022 PS Chaitanyapuri 13 of 13

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil -

IV Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class-Cum-IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar

CC No. 6538/2021

in Crime No. 416/2021 PS Chaitanyapuri 1 of 12

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

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

AT LB NAGAR

Present: Smt. Shraddha Sehgal, IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge-Cum IV Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District, at LB Nagar

THURSDAY, THIS THE 27th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

CALENDAR CASE No.6538 of 2021

Between:

The State, through The Sub Inspector of Police, PS Chaitanyapuri, Rachakonda (Cr. No.416 of 2021) …Prosecution A N D

Kuntluru Prasad, S/o. Mallesh @ Mallaiah, Age: 21 years, Occ: Driver, R/o. H.No.6-108, Raipole, Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District. … Accused

OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 304-A OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE

This case is coming before me on 20.11.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri V. Anjaiah, Learned Counsel for the Accused, having heard and having been stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station, Chaitanyapuri filed charge-sheet against the Accused in Crime No.416 of 2021 of

Chaitanyapuri Police Station for the offence under Section 304-A of

Indian Penal Code (For short “IPC”).

CC No. 6538/2021

in Crime No. 416/2021 PS Chaitanyapuri 2 of 12

2. The case of prosecution, in brief, is as follows:

(i) On 21.07.2021 at 1600 hours received a complaint from Sri Vengari

Venkatesh Venugopal S/o. Dashrath, wherein he stated that on 21.07.2021 at 1330 hours, while his maternal uncle i.e., Ganji

Mallikarjun Rao S/o. Sambha Shiva Rao (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) was crossing the road for cigarette, the Accused, who was driving Tata Intra Vehicle bearing Registration No.TS-08-UG-1918, proceeding from Omni Hospital towards Nagole, drover his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased, due to which the deceased received head injury. That, the deceased was immediately shifted to Omni Hospital, Kothapet for treatment, but the duty doctor examined the deceased and declared that the deceased was brought dead. Hence, the complainant requested for necessary action.

(ii) During the course of the investigation, LW14/Sri B. Ravi Kumar,

Inspector of Police, PS Chaitanyapuri, registered a case in Crime

No.416/2021 under Section 304-A of IPC and the investigation was entrusted to LW15/PW11/Sri A. Krishna, Sub-Inspector of Police, PS

Chaitanyapuri. During the course of investigation, PW11 examined

LW1 to LW7. LW1/PW1/Sri Vangari Venkatesh Venugopal is the

Complainant. LW2/Sri Damarla Ramu and LW3/PW2/Sri Budati

Seetharam are the circumstantial witnesses. LW4/PW3/Sri Rapelli

Srinivas,LW5/PW4/Sri Sri Kamaraju Gedda Gnaneshwar and

CC No. 6538/2021

in Crime No. 416/2021 PS Chaitanyapuri 3 of 12

LW6/PW5/Sri Vanmare Amith S/o. Laxman are the eyewitnesses.

LW7/PW6/Sri Boga Shanker is the owner of the crime vehicle.

Further, PW11 visited the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of LW8/PW8/Sri Javaji Ramesh and LW9/PW9/Sri Kotte Sreenu. Further, PW11 conducted inquest panchanama over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of

LW10/Sri Nakirikanti Vijay Kumar and LW11/PW7/Sri Kacchi Venkata

Prasad. LW12/PW10/Sri K. Vasudeva inspected the crime vehicle and opined that the accident did not occur due to any mechanical defects of the crime vehicle. LW13/Dr. Abhijith Subhedar conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued PME Report opining that the deceased died due to “multiple injuries”. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the Accused for the offence under

Section 304-A of IPC.

3.This Court took cognizance of the offence under Section 304-A of IPC against the Accused.

4.On appearance of the Accused before the Court, copies of documents were furnished to him in accordance with Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5.The Accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C. and substance of allegations against the Accused were put to him which were denied by the Accused. The Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

CC No. 6538/2021

in Crime No. 416/2021 PS Chaitanyapuri 4 of 12

6.In order to prove its case, the prosecution got examined PW1 to PW11 and Exhibits P1 to P7 are marked. Exhibit P1 is the Complaint.

Exhibit P2 is the Inquest panchanama. Exhibit P3 is the scene of offence panchanama. Exhibit P4 is the signature of PW9 on the scene of offence panchanama. Exhibit P5 is the Motor Vehicle Inspection

Report dated 31.07.2021. Exhibit P6 is the FIR dated 21.07.2021.

Exhibit P7 is the Postmortem Examination Report dated 22.07.2021.

7.The Accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and the incriminating material appearing against the Accused in the evidence of the prosecution witness was put to the Accused, which was completely denied by him.

8.Heard both sides. Perused the entire record.

9.Now the point that arises for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the Accused for the

offence punishable under Sections 304-A, 337 of IPC beyond all

reasonable doubt?

POINT:

10. PW1 who is the Complainant deposed in his examination in chief that the deceased was his maternal uncle and that on 21.07.2021, the deceased and PW1 went to Darshini Hotel, near Omni Hospital and after having breakfast, the deceased was crossing road for having tea and in the meantime, one TATA Intra vehicle bearing No.TS-07-UG- 1918 dashed the deceased from side, due to which the deceased fell

CC No. 6538/2021

in Crime No. 416/2021 PS Chaitanyapuri 5 of 12 down. He further deposed that the driver of the said vehicle got down and PW1 took the deceased to the hospital, where the doctor declared the deceased as brought dead. PW1 identified the Accused in the open Court. In his cross-examination, PW1 deposed that beside the said Darshini hotel, there is tea shop and pan shop and the road near the said hotel is in a light curve. PW1 further deposed that he does not know the name of the Accused and the vehicle which dashed the deceased. PW1 admitted that the said road is a busy road and at the time of the accident, it was raining. He further deposed that on the next day of the said accident, he gave complaint in the police station and on the day of the alleged incident, a police constable came to the hospital.

He further deposed that as per the complaint and his Section 161

Cr.P.C statement, the deceased was crossing the road for the purpose of cigarette, but PW1 added that the deceased was crossing for having tea. PW1 further admitted that he did not mention in his Section 161

Cr.P.C statement that the Accused got down from the vehicle after the alleged incident. He further admits that he does not have any acquaintance with the Accused before, after and during the alleged accident. He further admitted that no test identification parade was conducted by the police.

11. PW2, who is the friend of the deceased and circumstantial witness deposed in his examination in chief that about two years back, the

CC No. 6538/2021

in Crime No. 416/2021 PS Chaitanyapuri 6 of 12 deceased had met with an accident near Nagole and he was taken to the hospital, after 30 minutes of treatment, the deceased had died. In his cross-examination, PW2 admitted that he got to know about the accident through PW1 and he is a hearsay witness. Further, some general suggestions were put to PW2, which were denied by him.

12. PW3 and PW4 who are the eyewitnesses deposed in their examination in chief that in the year 2021, when a person was crossing the road near Nagole, one truck dashed him, due to which he fell down and sustained injuries. After sometime, they got to know that the person had died. In their cross-examination, PW3 and PW4 admitted that they did not directly witness the alleged accident.

13. PW5, who is another eyewitness also deposed in his examination in chief on the same lines as that of PW3 and PW4, but he did not subject himself for the purpose of cross-examination and hence, his chief evidence was eschewed.

14. PW6, who is the owner of the crime vehicle deposed in his evidence that he was called to the police as his vehicle was involved in an accident, he does not know what the police recorded in his statement and also deposed that he does not know the Accused.

15. PW7, who is the panch witness for inquest panchanama deposed in his examination in chief that on 22.07.2021, he went to Osmania

CC No. 6538/2021

in Crime No. 416/2021 PS Chaitanyapuri 7 of 12

General Hospital as his friend’s wife was not well and in the meantime, police asked him to act as a witness and conducted inquest panchanama over the dead body of the deceased. In his cross- examination, PW7 deposed that he had seen a minor injury on the face of the deceased.

16. PW8, who is the panch witness for scene of offence panchanama deposed in his examination in chief that he works as a watchman at the house of PW1 and he got to know that a relative of PW1 had died.

Further, police Chaitanyapuri called him and conducted panchanama in his presence and in the presence of LW9 near Nagole. In his cross- examination, PW8 admitted that he signed on the panchanama at the instance of police and he could not say the directions of the scene of the offence. Further, PW9, who is another panch witness for scene of offence panchanama has turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution.

17. PW10, who inspected the crime vehicle deposed in his examination in chief that on 31.07.2021, as per the requisition of SHO PS

Chaitanyapuri, PW10 inspected the crime vehicle and opined that the accident did not occur due to any mechanic defects of the crime vehicle and also stated that the front glass and front cowl of the crime vehicle was damaged. In his cross-examination, PW10 admitted that after 10 days from the date of the accident, he issued Ex.P5.

CC No. 6538/2021

in Crime No. 416/2021 PS Chaitanyapuri 8 of 12

18. PW11, who is the Investigating Officer for the present case deposed in his examination in chief on the same lines as that of the charge-sheet.

In cross-examination, he deposed that PW1 lodged the complaint on the day of the incident and he visited the scene of the offence on the same day. He further deposed that he found blood stains and broken glass on the place of incident, but he did not mention the same in the panchanama. He further admitted that he sent the crime vehicle for inspection after 10 days from the date of incident. He further deposed that he did not get TIP of the Accused conducted and he also did not inspect the driving license, RC and insurance of the crime vehicle during the course of his investigation.

19. Coming to the law at hand, Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code defines causing death by negligence as follows:

“Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”

20. In the present case, it is the case of prosecution that the Accused, who was driving the crime vehicle drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased who was crossing the road by foot near

Nagole, due to which the deceased received injuries and succumbed to the injuries. PW1 deposed that the vehicle of the Accused hit the deceased when the deceased was crossing the road. However, PW1 did not depose that the Accused was driving his vehicle in a rash and

CC No. 6538/2021

in Crime No. 416/2021 PS Chaitanyapuri 9 of 12 negligent manner. He never stated that the Accused came in high speed and hit the deceased. He also did not depose the manner in which the Accused was driving the crime vehicle so as to come to the conclusion tht it was due to the negligence of the Accused that the deceased died. It is also not deposed that the deceased was crossing the road from pedestrian crossing where no traffic is expected on the road. PW2 is the relative of the deceased and he got to know about the accident from third party, hence, he is only a hearsay witness.

Further, PW3 and PW4, who are the eyewitnesses, deposed in their evidence that they did not witness the accident directly and they vaguely deposed that an accident had occurred about two years back near Nagole. No reliable information has been deposed by PW3 and

PW4 in support of the case of the prosecution. Further, the chief evidence of PW5 i.e., another eyewitness has been eschewed due to his non-appearance for cross-examination. Therefore, no eyewitnesses in the present case have aided the case of prosecution in order to prove that the Accused caused the alleged accident due to his rashness and negligence. Now, coming to the panch witnesses,

PW7 i.e., the panch witness for inquest panchanama has supported the case of prosecution, however, PW8 i.e., the panch witness for scene of offence panchanama deposed that he signed on Ex.P3 at the instance of police. Further, PW9 who is another panch witness for

CC No. 6538/2021

in Crime No. 416/2021 PS Chaitanyapuri 10 of 12 scene offence panchanama has turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. Hence, the conduct of scene of panchanama is doubtful. There is not a single witness who has deposed that the

Accused is responsible for the death of the deceased. No independent eyewitness has been examined in order to show that it was because of the negligence of the Accused that the deceased had died. From the evidence on record, it can be concluded that there is no evidence to show that the Accused caused the said accident due to his rash and negligent act and no witness has testified that the deceased died in an accident caused by negligent driving of the Accused. Further, no

CCTV footage has been collected during the process of investigation.

Hence, the most important requirement to pin the crime on the

Accused i.e. the rashness or negligence of the Accused in driving the crime vehicle is not established by the prosecution. Although, it is proved that the deceased had died due to multiple injures and that the

Accused was driving the crime vehicle, the evidence lead by the prosecution could not go on to prove that the deceased died in an accident caused by the Accused due to his negligent driving.

21. Hence, from the material on record, it is opined that the evidence is not sufficient to prove that the Accused committed offence under Section 304-A of IPC. As such, there exists nothing on record to hold the

Accused guilty for the offence u/s 304-A of IPC.

CC No. 6538/2021

in Crime No. 416/2021 PS Chaitanyapuri 11 of 12

22. In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC and the Accused is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The Accused is set at liberty and his bail bonds shall be in force for a period of 6 months as per Section 437A of CrPC.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 27 th day of November, 2025.

IV Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class-Cum-IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

P.W.1:Sri Vangari Venkatesh VenugopalNone

P.W.2:Sri Budati Seetharam

P.W.3:Sri Rapelli Srinivas

P.W.4:Sri Kamaraju Gedda Gnaneshwar

P.W.5:Sri Vanmare Amith

P.W.6:Sri Boga Shanker

P.W.7:Sri Kacchi Venkata Prasad

P.W.8:Sri Javaji Ramesh

P.W.9:Sri Kotte Sreenu

P.W.10: Sri K. Vasudeva

CC No. 6538/2021

in Crime No. 416/2021 PS Chaitanyapuri 12 of 12

P.W.11: Sri A. Krishnaiah

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1:Complaint.

Ex.P2:Inquest panchanama.

Ex.P3:Scene of offence panchanama.

Ex.P4:Signature of PW9 on the scene of offence panchanama.

Ex.P5:Motor Vehicle Inspection Report dated 31.07.2021.

Ex.P6:FIR dated 21.07.2021.

Ex.P7:Postmortem Examination Report dated 22.07.2021.

FOR DEFENCE:

- Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil -

IV Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class-Cum-IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar

CC No. 1420/2022

in Crime No. 38/2022 PS Chaitanyapuri 1 of 10

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

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

AT LB NAGAR

Present: Smt. Shraddha Sehgal, IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge-Cum IV Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District, at LB Nagar

THURSDAY, THIS THE 27th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

CALENDAR CASE No.1420 of 2022

Between:

The State, through The Sub Inspector of Police, PS Chaitanyapuri, Rachakonda (Cr. No.38 of 2022) …Prosecution A N D

A1.Vishnu Dutt Sharma, S/o. Ram Swaroop Sharma, Age: 43 years, Occ: Tata Trally Driver, R/o. H.No.3-7-530, Mudhura Nagar, Mansoorabad, Hyderabad District, N/o. Dadafathepura, Zunjunjun District, Rajasthan State.

A2.Munnale Sandeep, S/o. M. Shivanand, Age: 27 years, Occ: Driver, R/o. Plot No.43, Road No.1, Himapuri Colony, D.P. Nagar, Mansoorabad, Ranga Reddy District. … Accused

OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 304-A OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE AND

SECTION 196 of MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988

This case is coming before me on 20.11.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and M/s. M. Vijayakanth, Learned Counsel for Accused, No.1, Sri M. Muralidhar, Learned Counsel for Accused No.2,having heard and having been stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

CC No. 1420/2022

in Crime No. 38/2022 PS Chaitanyapuri 2 of 10

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station, Chaitanyapuri filed charge-sheet against Accused No.1 and 2 in Crime No.38 of 2022 of

Chaitanyapuri Police Station for the offence under Section 304-A of

Indian Penal Code (For short “IPC”) and Section 196 of Motor Vehicle

Act (For short “M.V. Act).

2. The case of prosecution, in brief, is as follows:

(i) On 21.01.2022 at 0030 hours received a complaint from Sri Uppula

Srinivas Reddy S/o. Late Yadagiri Reddy, wherein he stated that his brother i.e., Uppula Narsi Reddy S/o. Late Yadagiri Reddy, (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) was working at Dakshina Egg Center in

Rock Town Colony. That, while the deceased was proceeding to Rajiv

Gandhi Nagar from Rock Town Colony by walk, when he reached Hari

Harsha Marbles Shop, Rajiv Gandhi Nagar at about 1800 hours, the

Accused who was the drive of Tata trolley bearing Registration No.TS- 07-UG-8193, drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased, due to which the deceased sustained injuries on his head, nose and hand. That, by the time they reached Osmania

General Hospital, the duty doctor declared the deceased was brought dead. Hence, the complainant requested for necessary action.

(ii) During the course of the investigation, LW12/Sri B. Ravi Kumar,

Inspector of Police, PS Chaitanyapuri, registered a case in Crime

CC No. 1420/2022

in Crime No. 38/2022 PS Chaitanyapuri 3 of 10

No.38/2022 under Section 304-A of IPC and the investigation was entrusted to LW13/PW5/Sri G. Ravi, Sub-Inspector of Police, PS

Chaitanyapuri. During the course of investigation, PW5 examined LW1 to LW5. LW1/PW1/Sri Uppula Srinivas Reddy is the

Complainant/brother of the deceased. LW2/PW2/Sri Joolakanti

Srinivas Reddy is the brother of the deceased. LW3/PW3/Smt.

Joolakanti Andalu and LW4/Sri Aluguveli Indrasena Reddy are the circumstantial witnesses. LW5/Sri Nithish Kumar Sahu is the eyewitness. Further, PW5 visited the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of LW6/Vaddeshiva and LW7/Govind Bishnoy. Further, PW5 conducted inquest panchanama over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of

LW8/Sri Y. Narender Reddy and LW9/Sri Yata Raghavender Reddy.

LW10/Dr. Sudhakar Suresh conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued PME opining that the deceased died due to “blunt injury on chest”. LW11/PW4/Sri K. Vasudeva inspected the crime vehicle and issued Motor Vehicle Inspection Report opining that “the accident did not occur due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle”. Since the owner of the crime vehicle i.e., Accused No.2 did not have valid insurance, PW5 added Section 196 of MV Act against

Accused No.2 and served Section 41A Cr.P.C notice to Accused No.2.

After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against Accused No.1 for

CC No. 1420/2022

in Crime No. 38/2022 PS Chaitanyapuri 4 of 10 the offence under Section 304-A of IPC and against Accused No.2 for the offence under Section 196 of M.V. Act.

3.This Court took cognizance of the offence under Section 304-A of IPC against Accused No.1 and Section 196 of M.V. Act against Accused

No.2.

4.On appearance of Accused No.1 and 2 before the Court, copies of documents were furnished to them in accordance with Section 207 of

Cr.P.C.

5.Accused No.1 and 2 were examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C. and substance of allegations against Accused No.1 and 2 were put to them which were denied by Accused No.1 and 2. Accused No.1 and 2 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to prove its case, the prosecution got examined PW1 to PW5 and Exhibits P1 to P6 are marked. Exhibit P1 is the Complaint.

Exhibit P2 is the Motor Vehicle Inspection Report dated 25.01.2022.

Exhibit P3 is F.I.R. dated 21.01.2022. Exhibit P4 is the Scene of offence panchanama dated 21.01.2022. Exhibit P5 is the Inquest panchanama. Exhibit P6 is the Postmortem Examination Report dated 21.01.2022.

7.Accused No.1 and 2 were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and the incriminating material appearing against Accused No.1 and 2 in the

CC No. 1420/2022

in Crime No. 38/2022 PS Chaitanyapuri 5 of 10 evidence of the prosecution witness was put to Accused No.1 and 2, which was completely denied by them.

8.Heard both sides. Perused the entire record.

9.Now the point that arises for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of Accused No.1 and 2

for the offences punishable under Section 304-A of IPC and

Section 196 of M.V. Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

10. PW1 who is the Complainant deposed in his examination in chief that the deceased was his brother and on 21.01.2022, he got to know from his sister that the deceased had met with an accident while he was going from L.B.Nagar to Alkapuri by walk as a TATA ACE vehicle dashed him and the deceased had sustained head injury and he was taken to Osmania General Hospital, but the doctor stated that the deceased had died. In his cross-examination, PW1 deposed that first he went to the police station along with his brother in law and he came to know about the accident through police. He further deposed that his sister called him at 08.00 pm and he reached the police station at 11.30 pm.

11. PW2, who is the brother of the deceased and PW3, who is the circumstantial witness, deposed in their examination in chief that they got to know that the deceased had met with an accident on 21.01.2022

CC No. 1420/2022

in Crime No. 38/2022 PS Chaitanyapuri 6 of 10 at Alkapuri while he was crossing the road and the deceased had died in the said accident. In their cross-examination, Learned Counsel for the Accused had put some general suggestion to PW2 and PW3, which were denied by them.

12. PW4, who inspected the crime vehicle and issued Ex.P2 deposed in his examination in chief that as per the requisition of SHO, PS

Chaitanyapuri, he inspected the crime vehicle bearing Registration

No.TS-07-UG-8193 and found damage to the front glass and he also opined that the accident did not occur due to any mechanical defects of the crime vehicle. In his cross-examination, PW4 deposed that as per his report, there was no damage to the front and side body of the vehicle. PW4 admitted that a car glass can be damaged due to sudden break if the glass of the car was already cracked.

13. PW5, who is the Investigating Officer for the present case deposed in his examination in chief on the same lines as that of the charge-sheet.

In cross-examination, PW5 could not say as to who wrote the complaint and where the complaint was written. He further admitted that no eyewitness is examined in the present case. Further, some general suggestions were put to PW5, which were denied by him.

Apart from this, there is nothing in the cross-examination of PW5 to dilute the case of the prosecution.

CC No. 1420/2022

in Crime No. 38/2022 PS Chaitanyapuri 7 of 10

14. Coming to the law at hand, Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code defines causing death by negligence as follows:

“Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”

15. In the present case, it is the case of the prosecution that Accused

No.1, who is the driver of crime vehicle drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased who was crossing the road by foot near Alkapuri, due to which the deceased received injuries on his body and succumbed to the injuries. PW1 to PW3 are the relatives of the deceased and they got to know about the accident from third party, hence, they are only hearsay witnesses. Further, LW6 and LW7 i.e., the panch witnesses for scene of offence panchanama and LW8 and

LW9, who are the panch witnesses for inquest panchanama have not been examined by the prosecution, hence, the conduct of scene of panchanama and inquest panchanama is also doubtful. Further, LW5, who is the only eyewitness for the present case has also not been examined by the prosecution. Hence, there is not a single witness who has deposed that Accused No.1 is responsible for the death of the deceased. No independent eyewitness has been examined in order to show that it was because of the negligence of Accused No.1 that the deceased had died. From the evidence on record, it can be concluded

CC No. 1420/2022

in Crime No. 38/2022 PS Chaitanyapuri 8 of 10 that there is no evidence to show that Accused No.1 caused the said accident and no witness has testified that the deceased died in an accident caused by negligent driving of Accused No.1. Further, no

CCTV footage has been collected during the process of investigation.

Hence, the most important requirement to pin the crime on Accused

No.1 i.e. the rashness or negligence of Accused No.1 in driving the crime vehicle is not established by the prosecution. Although, it is proved that the deceased had died due to blunt injuries on his chest, but the evidence lead by the prosecution could not go to prove that the deceased died in an accident caused by Accused No.1 due to his negligent driving. Further, no documentary evidence has been filed on record to prove the offence under Section 196 of MV Act against

Accused No.2.

16. Hence, from the material on record, it is opined that the evidence is not sufficient to prove that Accused No.1 committed offence under Section 304-A of IPC or Accused No.2 committed offence under Section 196 of

MV Act. As such, there exists nothing on record to hold Accused No.1 and 2 guilty for the offences u/s 304-A of IPC and Section 196 of MV

Act.

17. In the result, Accused No.1 is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC and Accused No.2 is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 196 of MV Act.

CC No. 1420/2022

in Crime No. 38/2022 PS Chaitanyapuri 9 of 10

Accordingly, Accused No.1 and 2 are acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. Accused No.1 and 2 are set at liberty and their bail bonds shall be in force for a period of 6 months as per Section 437A of CrPC.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 27 th day of November, 2025.

IV Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class-Cum-IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

P.W.1:Sri Uppula Srinivas ReddyNone

P.W.2:Sri Joolakanti Srinivas Reddy

P.W.3:Smt. Joolakanti Andalu

P.W.4:Sri K. Vasudeva

P.W.5:Sri G. Ravi

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1:Complaint.

Ex.P2:Motor Vehicle Inspection Report dated 25.01.2022.

Ex.P3:F.I.R. dated 21.01.2022.

CC No. 1420/2022

in Crime No. 38/2022 PS Chaitanyapuri 10 of 10

Ex.P4:Scene of offence panchanama.

Ex.P5:Inquest panchanama.

Ex.P6:Postmortem Examination Report dated 21.01.2022.

FOR DEFENCE:

- Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil -

IV Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class-Cum-IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar