Soundarya Kushanapalli

1 of 14

CC 687 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS AT NIZAMABAD

Present:- Ms. Soundarya Kushanapalli I Additional Junior Civil Judge – cum I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad.

Dated this the 27th day of April, 2023

C.C. NO.687 of 2017

Between:

The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, Women police station, Nizamabad. Represented by Assistant Public Prosecutor. …Complainant AND

1. Bende Vishwanath S/o Bende Amarendhar, Aged: 31 years, Caste: Vanjari, Occ: Civil contracor, R/o H.No.1-1-245, Opp Venkateshwara Telmple Chikkadapally, Hyderabad.

2. Bende Laxmi W/o Bende Amarendhar, Aged: 60years, Caste: Vanjari, Occ: Housewife, R/o H.No.1-1-215, Opp Venkateshwara Temple, Chikkadapally, Hyderabad.

3. Bende Amarendhar S/o Late Bende Ganesh, Aged: 65years, Caste: Vanjara, Occ: Civil Contractor, R/o H.No.1-1-245, Opp. Venkateshwara Temple, Chikkadapally, Hyderabad. …Accused Nos.1 to 3

This case was came up before me for final hearing on 27-04-2023 in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor representing for the State/Complainant and of Sri B. Ganesh, learned counsel for accused persons, upon perusal of record and upon hearing both sides and having stood over the matter to this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

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

1The State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Women police station, Nizamabad had filed charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 3 in

Crime No.7/2017 for an offence punishable under Section 498-A Indian Penal

Code [for short IPC] and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act [D.P Act].

2 of 14

CC 687 of 2017

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

[a] On 03.03.2017 at about 1300 hours, the complainant/Smt. Bende

Saritha lodged a complaint before the Women police station, Nizamabad in which she alleged that her marriage was performed with accused No.1 on 08.12.2013 in Ashish Gardens at New Boinpally before the elders as per

Hindu customs. At the time of marriage, her parents presented cash of

Rs.16 lakhs, One tula gold, one Kg silver towards and beside Rs.50,000/- cash on demand of accused. After their marriage they led happy marital life for a period of Six months and since then accused Nos.1 to 3 started harassing her for an additional dowry of Rs.4 lakhs and they used to abuse her and her parents and accused Nos.2 and 3 used to beat her. Adding to it, accused was a regular alcoholic and he used to chew gutka and come to home late night with an unbearable smell but still she bore their ill-treatment and during their wedlock she was blessed with a baby boy on 18.11.2014 and later also accused persons continued subjecting her to cruelty for an

additional dowry and threatened to kill her if she did not meet their demand.

Thereafter one day accused persons made a phone call to her father and demanded to bring Rs.4 lakhs but he refused, upon which accused Nos.1 to 3 beat her and locked her in a room. Further on 15.07.2016 morning onwards accused Nos.1 to 3 abused her and her parents and tortured her mentally and physically, and at about 5.30 pm accused Nos.2 and 3 threatened her to kill her and her child. Later on apprehending danger to their life, she called police by dialing 100 where police came and dropped her in her brother’s house. Later on she went to the Women police station CCS Hyderabad and in 3 of 14

CC 687 of 2017

the mean time accused Nos.1 to 3 stopped attending counseling and they had also retained her 20 tulas gold with them forcefully. And even when her father went to their house and begged to take her back to marital life, they refused to do that unless an additional dowry of Rs.4 lakh is fulfilled and threatened her if she goes there without money and they would kill her and her child. Since then she is staying with her parents.

[c] On receipt of above complaint from PW1, LW8/PW8 had registered a case in Crime No.7/2017 for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and

Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and took up the investigation into the case. During the course of investigation, he had examined and recorded the statements of complainant. Later on he collected the marriage card, photos and further he served notice to accused Nos.1 to 3 who complied by giving an undertaking to appear whenever they are summoned by the Honorable court. Later on PW7 had visited the Chikkadpally where the victim lived with accused and prepared crime details form and took the photographs of the scene. After completion of entire investigation the charge sheet was filed against accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence under Section 498-A Indian Penal

Code and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

3This Court has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under

Section 498-A Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the accused Nos.1 to 3. On appearance of accused persons, case copies were furnished to them under Section 207 Criminal Procedure Code.

4 of 14

CC 687 of 2017

4The accused Nos.1 to 3 were examined under Section 239 Criminal

Procedure Code. Charges for the offence under Section 498-A Indian Penal

Code and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is framed, read over and explained to them in vernacular language, for which they did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried.

5To prove the guilt of accused Nos.1 to 3, prosecution has examined

PW1 to PW8 and exhibits marked as Exs.P1 to P6. LW1/Smt. Bende Saritha who is a defacto complainant was examined as PW1, through her Ex.P1 marked. LW3/Koda Krishna Kumari and LW4/Smt. Madhasu Uma who are the nighbours were examined as PW2 and PW4 respectively, through them their respective statements marked as Exs.P2 and P3. LW2/Smt. Ganikadi

Vijayalaxmi who is one of the panchayat elder was examined as PW3.

LW5/Sama Satish goud and LW6/Yennu Srinivas who are the panch witnesses for scene of offence panchanama were examined as PW5 and PW6 respectively, through them respective signatures marked as Exs.P4 and P5.

Investigating officers i.e., LW7/A. Srinivas Reddy and LW8/G. Nagaraju were examined as PW7 and PW8 respectively, through PW7 Ex.P6 marked.

6After closure of prosecution evidence, accused Nos.1 to 3 were examined under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, incriminating evidence found against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses was read over and explained to them in vernacular language, for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

5 of 14

CC 687 of 2017

7Heard both sides.

8Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proves that the accused Nos.1 to 3 are guilty for an offence under Section 498-A Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act, beyond reasonable doubt ?

Point :- 9In Order to establish the guilt of the accused persons under Section 498-A IPC the prosecution shall establish that accused No.1 is being the husband of PW.1 committed cruelty against her by demanding additional dowry.

10PW1 who is a defacto complainant has deposed that her marriage took place with accused No.1 on 08.12.2013 at Ashish Garden, Bowenpally,

Hyderabad where they have given a dowry of Rs.16,00,000/- cash, One tula gold, One kg silver, Rs.50,000/- for “Sarey” and at the same time her in-laws had given 10 tulas of gold in exchange as customary ritual where they had again taken back 20 tulas out of those 40 tulas gold for their personal expenses and the remaining 20 tulas is sill with her. Thereafter she was residing in the house of accused persons and after 15 days of their marriage accused came in a drunken condition to house and fought with her and also abused her parents and pinched her all over her body. Later on the accused

Nos.1 to 3 started harassing her every now and then and accused used to drink everyday and also used to eat tobacco. Thereafter in the year 2014 6 of 14

CC 687 of 2017

she gave birth to baby boy and later on her accused Nos.2 and 3 started harassing her for additional dowry of Rs.4 lakhs, otherwise accused No.1 threatened to give divorce to her. Later on in month of March, 2015 accused

No.1 made a phone call to her father and asked him for the above said amount for which her father replied that he could not give such amount as he is retired principal. Thereafter accused Nos.2 and 3 again started harassing her for additional dowry of Rs.4 lakhs and after 3 moths of the birth of her child, she has took back to her the house of accused upon condition to pay additional dowry. Thereafter accused persons started harassing her for additional dowry and they again created nuisance on May, 2015 for additional dowry and accused No.1 continued to come home drunken state. On 15.07.2016 was locked inside the room along with her child and thus demanded for additional dowry and later on she dialed 100 where police have arrived and asked her to file a complaint by coming to the police station and later on the next day she went to the women police station

Basheerbagh along with her brother to filed report and where the police called them for counseling twice where accused No.1 stated that she is not mentally stable and later on they were again called for counseling at Tilak

Garden, Nizamabad but still the efforts went in vain and likewise they sat several times for settlement but still accued No.1 was adamant to take

additional dowry from her. Thereafter on 06.10.2017 she filed a report before

Women police station, Nizamabad.

11 PW2 and PW4 who are said to be the neighbours to PW1 have resiled 7 of 14

CC 687 of 2017

from their earlier statements made to the police and thus they were treated hostile by the learned prosecution and later in their deposition they stated that they do not know anything about this case and they never witnessed any dispute between PW1 and accused persons at any time.

12PW3 who is one of the panchayat elder had deposed that about five years ago, PW1 came to them and informed that they are having disputes between accused and PW1. Adding to it, at the time of marriage she has given cash of Rs.16 lakhs and 16 tulas of gold as dowry and she took her to her house at Hyderabad and upon questioning her in-laws they stated that

PW1 never does any household work but PW1 did all her household work infront of them. PW1 further informed that accused No.1 does not work and always take money from his parents. She further stated that accused No.1 informed her father prior to marriage he is into some business. Accused No.1 and his family also stated that they does not like PW1 and they do not want to keep PW1 with them and they demanded additional dowry of Rs.4 lakhs to take her back home. Later after one month, accused No.1 came to

Nizamabad along with accused Nos.2 and 3 to settle the matter and in view of settlement they requested accused Nos.1 to 3 to return back the dowry amount for which they refused to give back the said amount and asked them to do whatever they can. Out of depression within one month PW1’s father died and later on PW1 filed this case.

13 PW5 and PW6 who are the panch witnesses for scene of offence 8 of 14

CC 687 of 2017

panchanama have treated hostile by the learned prosecution and in their deposition they stated that they do not know anything about this case and police did not conducted any panchanama before him and police obtained their respective signatures on some blank papers.

14 PW7 who is an investigating officer had deposed that on 03.03.2017 at about 13:00 hours LW8/PW8 had received a written report from PW1 and he registered a case in Crime No.7/2017 for the offence under Section 498-A IPC

Section 4 of D.P Act and issued first information report and later on he handed over the CD file to him. Thereafter during the course of investigation on 04.03.2017 he visited Chikadpally Hyderabad and recorded the statements of PW2 and PW4 and conducted scene of offence panchanama

before PW5 and PW6 and later entrusted the CD file to PW8. Thereafter PW8

took up the investigation and during the course of his investigation he had examined and recorded the statement of PW1 and collected the marriage certificates, photos. Later on 07.03.2017 he served 41-A Cr.P.C notice to accused Nos.1 to 3 and after completion of entire investigation he had filed charge sheet before this court.

Appreciation of evidence:

15In Order to establish the guilt of the accused under Section 498-A IPC the prosecution shall establish that accused being the husband of PW1 committed cruelty against her by his willful conduct or by demanding

additional dowry either cash or property or otherwise and the said cruelty is

9 of 14

CC 687 of 2017

of such a nature that drives the women to commit suicide or grave injury to her body or limb.

16 On perusal of record with regard to marital status there is no dispute that accused is husband of PW1 and their marriage was performed on 08.02.2013 at Bowempally, Hyderabad and out of wedlock they were blessed with one son.

17 The allegation of PW1 is that her husband used to come drunk to the house and fight with her and abused her and her parents in a filthy language and pinched her all over her body and accused No.1 also used to chew tobacco. Further accused Nos.1 to 3 harassed her for an additional dowry of

Rs.4,00,000/- failing which they would give divorce to her.

18 The accused is charged with offence under section 498-A IPC and in the light of the language used in the section, the provision would be applicable only to such a case where the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman subjects the said woman to cruelty. The said section 498-A IPC contains an explanation, which defines “Cruelty” as envisaged under the said section, there must be such a conduct on the part of the husband or relatives of the husband of a woman which is of such a nature as to cause the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health whether mental or physical of the woman. Therefore, the allegation of the prosecution made against the accused would fall under any 10 of 14

CC 687 of 2017

of the above ingredients, is to be found. Honourable Supreme Court opined in case between Gurnaib Singh Vs. State of Punjab that clause (a) of the

Explanation to section 498-A IPC defines cruelty to mean any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide.

And clause (b) of the Explanation pertains to unlawful demand and clause (a) can take in its ambit mental cruelty.

19 Therefore in view of provision we have to see whether the alleged harassment of PW1 by the accused No.1 as deposed by the prosecution witnesses, would fall within the ambit of section 498-A IPC.

20 To substantiate her case, PW1 testified that at the time of her marriage they have given dowry of Rs.16,00,000/-, 1 tula gold, 1 kg silver, Rs.50,000/- for sarey. And further her in laws had given 40 tulas of gold in exchange as customary ritual where they has again taken back 20 tulas out of those 40 tulas gold for their personal expenses and the remaining 20 tulas is still with her.

21 According to recent December 2021 ruling by honorable High Court of

Kerala, the gifts given to the bride at the time of her marriage for her welfare and benefit shall not be considered as dowry under dowry prohibition Act 1961. So, if the parents of the bride give her cash, jewelry or any other valuables without any demand having been made by the grooms side, these shall not be considered as dowry. Adding to it, in an Indian culture, we have 11 of 14

CC 687 of 2017

many festivities during the marriage and after the marriage. Now, gifts are exchanged in all these festivities and sometimes they are termed as dowry or dowry articles as per the complaint files by the wife.

22 In the recent judgment of Satvir singh Vs. State of Punjab and

Anr, some customary payments in connection with birth of a child or other ceremonies are prevalent in different societies and such payments are not enveloped within the ambit of Dowry.

23 PW1 further alleged that on 15-07-2016, PW1 was locked inside a room along with her child for want of an additional dowry for which she dialed 100 and called for the police wherein they arrived and took her back to her mothers house. Here there is no mention about the particulars of the police officers who alleged to have rescued PW1 on that day and even if that is the case, none of them were cited as witness. At this juncture, the contention of the learned counsel that PW1 locked herself in the bathroom and stayed inside along with her son due to which her in laws had to call the police and rescue her cannot be brushed aside. And further no family members of PW1 were cited as witness in this case to prove the said version.

24 It is the version of PW3 that PW1 took her to her house where her in laws complained that she does not do any house hold work but PW1 said to have done all the house hold work before her and further accused Nos.1 to 3 said to have demanded an additional dowry of Rs.4,00,000/- to take her back 12 of 14

CC 687 of 2017

home but the said facts were filed to mention by her in her statement before police. As per her 161 Cr.P.C statement, PW3 said to have called accused

Nos.1 to 3 to Tilak gardens to for counseling which is quite different to her version stated before this court. Here, it is an admitted fact that PW3 is the mediator in many family cases and she actively participates in the processions against the government and she is involved in 15 to 20 cases and she herself went along with PW1 to file this case.

25 Furthermore, PW1 testified that she left from the society of her husband by taking assistance from PW3 wherein she said to have executed a promissory agreement on 1-10-2016 for full and final settlement but no such fact was elicited from the mouth of PW3. Moreover, PW1 adds that her signature on the agreement was forcefully taken by PW4. In view of the above made discussion, it goes to show that there are many variations in the version cited by PW1 and PW3 and thus this court feels that it is not safe to rely on them to convict the accused.

26 PW2 and PW4 who are cited as witness to this case resiled from their earlier statement made before police and were thus treated hostile by the learned prosecution.

27 PW5 and PW6 who are the panchas for the scene of offence panchanama also were treated hostile by the learned prosecution as they testified that no panchanama was conducted before them.

13 of 14

CC 687 of 2017

28 PW7 and PW8 who are the investigating officers in that case deposed their version in the lines of the charge sheet and nothing material could be elicited from their mount against the accused.

29 From the evidences cited above, it goes to show that except PW3 there is no corroborating evidence to that of PW1 and as discussed earlier, the evidence of PW3 also could not be relied upon to prove the case against accused Nos.1 to 3.

30 Due to the above mentioned discrepancies, this court feels that the prosecution fails to prove the case against accused Nos.1 to 3 beyond reasonable doubt making accused Nos.1 to 3 entitled to be acquitted on benefit of doubt.

31In the result, this court found that accused Nos.1 to 3 are not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A of Indian Penal Code and

Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Accordingly accused Nos.1 to 3 are acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused Nos.1 to 3 shall stand cancelled after lapse of appeal time. There is no property in this case.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 27th day of April, 2023.

archana

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Nizamabad.

14 of 14

CC 687 of 2017

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution :

PW1/LW1: Smt. B. Saritha/ complainant PW2/LW3: Smt. Koda Krishan Kumari/ Neighbor PW3/LW2: Smt. G. Vijaya Laxmi/ Panchayath elder (Circumstantial witness) PW4/LW4: Smt. Madhasu Uma/ Neighbor PW5/LW5: Satish Goud / Punch for CDF PW6/LW6: Y. Srinivas/ Punch for CDF PW7/LW7: A. Srinivas Reddy/ Investigation Officer PW8/LW6: G. Nagaraju/ Investigation Officer and Laid Charge sheet.

For Defence:

- None -

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution :-

Ex.P1: Report lodged by PW1, dated 05.09.2016 Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2 Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4 Ex.P4: Signature of PW5 on Crime Detail Form Ex.P5: Signature of PW6 on crime details form Ex.P6: First information report.

For Defence :- - NIL -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- NIL –

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Nizamabad.

1 of 12

CC 1429 of 2018

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS AT NIZAMABAD

Present:- Ms. Soundarya Kushanapalli I Addl. Junior Civil Judge – cum I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad.

Dated this the 27th day of April, 2023

C.C. NO.1429 OF 2018

Between:

The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, Town-III police station, Nizamabad. Represented by the Assistant Public Prosecutor. …Complainant AND

A4: Smt. Rajni Kour W/o Nithin Singh, Aged: 35 years, Caste: Sikh, Occ: Caste profession, R/o H.No.Pamulabasthi, Nizambabad.

A5:Smt. Sajini Kour W/o Ragbeer Singh, Aged: 30 years, Caste: Sikh, Occ: Caste Profession R/o. Pamulabasthi, Nizamabad.

A6:Mithin Singh S/o Shair Singh, Aged: 38 years, Caste: Sikh, Occ: Caste Profession R/o. Pamulabasthi, Nizamabad – 8096696037.

...Accused Nos.4 to 6

(The case against Accused No.6 abated) The case against A1 to A3 were not charge sheeted as they were absconded.

This case was came before me for final hearing on 27-04-2023 in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor representing the State/Complainant and Legal Aid counsel for accused persons, upon perusal of record and upon hearing both sides and having stood over the matter to this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

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

1The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Town-III police station, Nizamabad had filed charge sheet against accused Nos.4 to 6 in crime No.233 of 2016 for an offence punishable under Section 353 R/w 34 of

Indian Penal Code [for short IPC].

2 of 12

CC 1429 of 2018

2The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:- [a] On 23.11.2016 at 1300 hours, LW5/PW3/T. Sreehari along with his staff i.e., PW1 and LW2/Mende Pedda Sudeshan went to Pamulabasthi

Nizamabad to apprehend the warrantee Jagadish Singh Bavri on whom two

NBWs are pending before the Honorable Court and while they are trying to apprehend him by entering into the house, the accused Nos.1 to 6 picked up a quarrel with them and obstructed them while discharging their lawful duties and did not accept them to apprehend the said Jagadish. Later on with a great difficult they took the said Jagadish into custody and brought him to police station and produced him before the honorable court.

Thereafter he had registered it sue motto case in crime No.233/2016 under

Section 353 IPC against the accused persons.

[b] During the course of investigation he had examined and recorded the statements of Lws.1 and 2. Later on he visited the scene of crime situated at Pamulabasthi Nizamabad where he secured the presence of two mediators i.e., PW2 and LW3/Syed Azeem conducted scene of offence panchanama and preserved the scene by means of rough sketch in crime details form. During the course of further investigation, on 02.08.2018 at 2.00 pm, accused Nos.4 to 6 came to police station and surrendered themselves before him and voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence. Later he had issued 41-A Cr.P.C notice to them and released them by instructing to cooperate the investigation by appearing whenever required by the police or by the honorable court and after completion of 3 of 12

CC 1429 of 2018

entire investigation charge sheet was filed under Section 353 R/w 34 IPC against the accused Nos.4 to 6.

3This Court has taken cognizance for an offence punishable under

Section 353 R/w 34 of Indian Penal Code against the accused Nos.4 to 6. On appearance of the accused persons, copies of documents were furnished to them in compliance with the provisions of Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

4Prosecution has field report stating that accused No.6/Mithin singh has died, hence the case against accused No.6 is abated.

5The accused Nos.4 and 5 were examined under Section 251 of

Criminal Procedure Code and the accusation under Section 353 R/w 34 of

Indian Penal Code is read over and explained to them in vernacular language for which they did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried.

6During the course of trial, prosecution has examined PW.1 to PW.3 and got marked exhibits P1 and P2. LW1/Telu Ramulu who assisted to PW3 was examined as PW1. LW2/Shaik Chand Pasha who is one of the panch witness for scene of offence panchanama was examined as PW2, through him his signature marked as Ex.P1. LW5/T.Sreehari who is an investigating officer was examined as PW3 through him Ex.P2 marked. Further the prosecution has given up the remaining witnesses i.e., LW2/Mende Pedda Sudershan,

LW3/Syed Azeem and LW6/R.Krishna.

4 of 12

CC 1429 of 2018

7After closure of prosecution evidence, accused Nos.4 and 5 were examined under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code where all the incriminating evidence found against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses was read over and explained to them in vernacular language, for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8Heard both sides.

9Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused Nos.4 and 5 are guilty for an offense under Section 353 R/w 34 of Indian Penal Code?

Point:

10 PW1 who assisted to the investigating officer had deposed that on 23.11.2016 as NBW was pending against one Jagdish Singh Bahuri, upon which he along with LW2 and PW3 went to the house of said Jagdish to execute the NBW, where they found him in his house and they tried to execute the NBW, accused Nos.4 and 5 and four others were obstructed them to enable Jagdish escape from the said place and they manage to execute the warrant against Jagdish as they were obstructed by A4 and A5, filed a sue motto case against them.

11 PW2 who is one of the panch witness for scene of offence panchanama has treated hostile by the learned prosecution and he simply stated in his deposition that he do not know anything about this case and 5 of 12

CC 1429 of 2018

police did not conducted any panchanama before him at any time and police have obtained his signature on some blank papers.

12 PW3 who is an investigating officer had deposed that on 23.11.2016 at about 1.00 pm he along with PW1 and LW2/M. Pedda Sudershan went to

Pamulabasti to execute an NBW against one Jagadish Singh Bavri where accused Nos.1 to 6 were obstructed them. Later on they executed the NBW and brought said Jagdish Singh Bavri to the police station and filed a sue motto case against accused Nos.1 to 6 and registered in Crime No.233/2016 for the offence under Section 353 R/w 34 IPC and issued first information report. Thereafter on the same day he had examined and recorded the statement of PW1 and LW2 at police station and later at about 13:40 hours he went to the scene of offence at Pamulabasti where conducted scene of offence panchanama before PW2 and LW3/Syed Azeem. Thereafter on 02.08.2017 accused Nos.4 to 6 were came to the police station and surrendered themselves before him. Later on he had issued 41-A Cr.P.C to them and later he handed over the CD file to LW6/R.Krishna and after completion of entire investigation LW6 had filed charge sheet before this court.

Appreciation of evidence :

13 Before embarking upon the appreciation of evidences, it

would be apposite to reproduce the provisions for which the

accused has faced trial:

6 of 12

CC 1429 of 2018

“353. Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty.—Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both”.

14In the instant case, the court is posed with following questions for determination to Adjudge the veracity of prosecution case:

(a) whether the complainant namely PW1 was public servant at the time of alleged commission of offences in question?

(b) whether the said persons were acting in discharge of their public functions assigned to them?

(c) whether the accused had assaulted or used any criminal force to the said persons during the execution of their duties?

15It is a paramount tenet of criminal law that every accused is presumed to be innocent and cannot be convicted unless the prosecution is able to discharge the initial onus rested upon it beyond all reasonable doubts. Thus, the prosecution is under a bounden duty to prove all these points on the aforesaid standard to drive home the guilt of accused.

16As regards the first point, there is ample evidence on record to prove that the PW1 was public servant at the time when the acts allegedly constituting the offences in question were committed by the accused on 02.08.2018.

7 of 12

CC 1429 of 2018

17Section 21 IPC defines as to who is a public servant. The clauses relevant to this case are: Eighth. — Every officer of [the Government] whose duty it is, as such officer, to prevent offences, to give information of offences, to bring offenders to justice, or to protect the public health, safety or convenience; Twelfth —Every person— (a) in the service or pay of the

Government or remunerated by fees or commission for the performance of any public duty by the Government; 18It has come in evidence of PW1 that he was a police constable at III town police station and he was on duty as on the said date. At no point in time during the trial, the accused raised any dispute regarding the fact that they were public servants as not even a single suggestion to that effect was put in cross examination of either of the witnesses.

19The designations of both PW1 is squarely covered within the above stated clauses of Section 21 IPC. He was the police official and he was performing the public duty and were the persons in the service or pay of the

Government. Undoubtedly, he also had a duty to prevent offences, give information of offences and protect the safety or convenience of public within the confines of the III town area. Hence, it is proved that he was public servant as on 16.05.2017 at traffic area when the incident in question took place.

8 of 12

CC 1429 of 2018

20Proceeding to the second issue, he has deposed about the acts committed by the accused in their presence at that time while they performing their respective duties. PW1 deposed that he was obstructed by accused Nos.4 and 5 when he went to execute an NBW to the house of

Jagadish Singh Bahuri. Here, It is reflected that he was performing his duty when the scuffle with accused Nos.4 and 5 occurred. Therefore, it is proved without any doubt that PW1 was acting in discharge of his official duty when the incident in question happened.

21Onto the third issue of whether the conduct of accused was such as to lead obstruction in the duties of concerned police officials, the testimonies of the complainant PW1 yet again, assume significance. As noted herein above, he stated that the accused persons obstructed PW1 from executing

NBW. In this manner, they have categorically stated, the accused created obstruction in their duties.

22During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for accused has waxed eloquent about the fact that there is no such obstruction as the accused persons did not prevent the police officials from stopping or holding him. The court does not countenance with either of the limbs of contention of learned counsel.

23Quite significantly, it is not the case where the accused persons had voluntarily stopped when his conduct was protested by the police officials 9 of 12

CC 1429 of 2018

from behind. The accused had misconducted himself at the very area where the execution of NBW was going on. This would have raised even more apprehension in the mind of complainant who were on duty, and rightly so.

Thus, the very act of accused in failing to fall in line with the directions of complainant amounts to creation of voluntary deterrence in the discharge of his duties. The fact that the accused was agitated due to personal reasons serves as no lawful excuse to obstruct lawful exercise of powers in public safety.

24Similarly, the fact that after having been caught hold of, the accused did not protest or prevent the official from holding him, does not wipe away the effect of his preceding conduct which itself constituted ‘obstruction’, as discussed herein above. Had the accused done that as well, his act would have qualified to be an ‘assault’, but at this stage it would be safe to say that the misconduct of accused just fell short of an ‘assault’, which will be elaborated in the later part of this judgment. As far as abusing the public servants on duty is concerned, the court is of the firm opinion that same is clearly unwarranted and the civilians ought to consider treating them with due respect particularly when no blame can be imputed on their part while discharging their duties.

25Coming to the last leg of our discussion, it has now to be seen if the accused had assaulted or used any criminal force to the victim during the execution of his duty so as to bring his act under the purview of Sec.353 IPC.

10 of 12

CC 1429 of 2018

26Criminal force is defined under Section 350 IPC so as to mean intentional using of force to a person in order to commit offence or intending or knowing that by use of such force, injury, fear or annoyance would be caused to such person.

27Section 351 defines assault as making gesture or preparation intending or knowing it to be likely that such gesture or preparation will cause the other person apprehend that criminal force is about to be used.

The explanation to this provision clarifies that mere words do not amount to assault unless such words give his gesture or preparation such a meaning as to amount assault.

28In the case at hand, the conjoint reading of all the oral evidence particularly of PW1 shows that none of the acts could be approximated as being criminal force. According to this provision, force must be physical and caused to another person by own bodily power, by any substance or through ananimal. The accused persons did not cause any force to victim through any of these modes. The said act of accused persons was certainly a mark of protest of the directions of the complainant but not criminal force. The same also did not amount to assault since it cannot be said that this gesture or preparation made any one present at the spot apprehend that the accused would use criminal force to any person.

29Adding to it, there was no corroboration to the version cited by PW1 except for PW3 who is an investigation officer in this case.

11 of 12

CC 1429 of 2018

30PW2 who is one of the panch for the scene of offence panchanama also were treated hostile by the learned prosecution as they stated that no panchanama was conduced before them.

31PW3 who is an investigating officer in this case had deposed his version in the lines of charge sheet and he himself agreed that there is no mention of the descriptive particulars of the accused person and no independent witness were examined in this case and further no details of the crime wherein the said Jagadish Singh Bauri was alleged to be involved and further there was no allegation of an assault by accused persons either in

Ex.P1 or in his 161 Cr.P.C statement.

32Furthermore, the court agrees with the submission of learned counsel

for accused that use of abusive language against the victims also do not

attract the offence of assault. Such a language would have been assault if it were coupled with such gesture or preparation as would make the victims apprehend that he was about to use criminal force to them. Even if taken to be unrebutted, the prosecution story falls short of satisfying the elements of assault or criminal force under Section 353 IPC. The accused deserves to be acquitted of the said offence as well.

33In the result, this court found that accused Nos.4 and 5 are not guilty for the offences punishable under Section 353 R/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

Accordingly the accused Nos.4 and 5 are acquitted under Section 255(1) of 12 of 12

CC 1429 of 2018

Criminal Procedure Code for the said offence. The bail bonds of accused

Nos.4 and 5 shall be in force for a period of Six months from the date of this

Judgment as contemplated under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. No property in this case as no order has to be passed.

Typed to my dictation, after correction and pronounced by me in open court on this the 27th day of April, 2023.

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Nizamabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution :

PW1/LW1: Telu Ramulu / complainant PW2/LW2: Shaik Chand Pasha/ Panch for scene of crime PW3/LW5: T. Srihari/ Investigation officer.

For Defence: - NIL -

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution :

Ex.P1: Signature of PW2 on crime detail Form Ex.P2: First information report.

For Defence: - NIL -

Material Objects

- NIL -

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Nizamabad.

1 of 12

CC 1785 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS AT NIZAMABAD

Present:- Ms. Soundarya Kushanapalli I Addl. Junior Civil Judge – cum I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad.

Dated this the 26th day of April, 2023

C.C NO.1785 OF 2022

Between:

The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, Town-I Police Station, Nizamabad. Represented by the Assistant Public Prosecutor. …Complainant AND

A1:Kuntur Sai kumar S/o Jallaiah, Aged: 42 years, Caste: Medari, Occ: Caste: Profession, R/o Kallur village, Kuntala mandal, Nirmal District.

A2:Gangeddula Ravi S/o Gangaram, Aged: 22 years, Caste: Gangireddula, Occ: Coolie, R/o Edibidi village, Mudhole mandal.

...Accused Nos.1 and 2

This case was came up before me for final hearing on 25-04-2023 in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor representing for the State/Complainant and Sri R.Ganga Prasad, counsel for accused No.1 and Smt. K.Suphana, Legal aid counsel

for accused No.2, upon perusal of record and upon hearing both sides and having

stood over the matter to this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

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

1.The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Town-I police station, Nizamabad had filed charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 and 2 in crime No.396/2022 for an offence punishable under Section 379 of Indian

Penal Code [for short IPC].

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:- [a] The Defacto complainant/LW1/Shaik Amjad had lodged a complaint 2 of 12

CC 1785 of 2022

before Town-I police station, Nizamabad in which he stated that on

20.10.2022 at about 18.00 hours, he along with his father/PW1 went to

Government hospital, Nizamabad on his TVS XL bike bearing No.TS 16 EF 1645 for health check up and he parked his bike at parking place at

Government hospital, Nizamabad and on the next day i.e., 21.10.2022 when he returned to his bike and found his bike missing. Thereafter he searched for his bike in the surrounding places but his efforts went in vain.

[b] Basing on the report given by LW1, LW8/D. Vijay Babu/ Inspector of police had registered a case in Crime No.396/2022 for an offence under

Section 379 IPC and entrusted to LW9/PW5 for further investigation. During the course of investigation, he had examined and recorded the statement of complainant and PW1. Later on he visited the scene of offence situated at

Government hospital, Nizamabad where he secured the presence of two mediators i.e., PW2 and LW4/Shaik Akeen conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn the rough sketch of the scene in Crime Details

Form.

[c] During the course of further investigation, on 29.10.2022 he had received information from LW7/PW4 that he arrested the accused Nos.1 and 2 in crime No.249/2022 under Section 379 IPC of P.S Navipet from the possession of accused Nos.1 and 2 and remanded them to Judicial custody.

After completion of entire investigation charge sheet was filed against the accused Nos.1 and 2 for an offence punishable under Section 379 of Indian

Penal Code.

3 of 12

CC 1785 of 2022

3.This Court has taken cognizance for an offence punishable under

Section 379 of Indian Penal Code against the accused Nos.1 and 2. On appearance of accused Nos.1 and 2, copies of documents were furnished to them in compliance with the provisions of Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

4.The accused Nos.1 and 2, they were examined under Section 239 of

Criminal Procedure Code. Charge for an offence under Section 379 of Indian

Penal Code is framed, read over and explained to them in vernacular language, for which they did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, prosecution had examined PW.1 to PW.5 and got marked exhibits P1 to P4 and material object MO.1 marked. The father of complainant/LW2/Shaik Moulana was examined as PW1, through him Ex.P1/report and MO.1 marked. LW3/Shaik Delavar who is one of the panch witness for scene of offence panchanama was examined as PW2, through him Ex.P2/CDF marked. LW5/Mesineni Anvesh Rao who is one of the panch witness for confession and recovery panchanama of accused was examined as PW3, through him Ex.P3 marked. LW7/D. Raja Reddy and

LW9/H. Dattadri who are the investigating officers were examined as PW4 and PW5 respectively, through PW5 Ex.P4 marked. Prosecution has given up the rest of the witnesses i.e., LW1/Shaik Amjad, LW4/Shaik Akeen,

LW6/Nyamthebad Saikumar and LW8/D. Vijay Babu.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused Nos.1 and 2 were examined under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code where all the 4 of 12

CC 1785 of 2022

incriminating raised by the prosecution read over and explained to them in vernacular language, for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard both sides.

8.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution proves that the accused Nos.1 and 2 are guilty for an offence punishable under Section 379 of Indian Penal

Code, beyond reasonable doubt ?

Point:

9. In order to prove the case of prosecution it has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the concerned bike belonging to LW1 was stolen by the accused persons from the possession of LW1.

10. PW1 who is father of complainant had deposed that at about four months ago, he along with LW1/Shaik Amjad went to the Government hospital, Nizamabad and parked their TVS XL bike in the parking of said hospital and when they returned back to their bike and found their bike missing. Immediately LW1 informed the same to the hospital hospital authorities to check for CCTV footage. Later on 28.10.2022 LW1 went to the police station and lodged a report before Town-I police station, Nizamabad.

Later they were informed by the police about the recovery of their bike and and the same was deposited in the Court and later he received the same from the Honorable Court towards interim custody.

5 of 12

CC 1785 of 2022

11.PW2 who is one of the panch witness for the scene of offence panchanama had deposed that on 29.10.2022 police have conducted scene of offence panchanama regarding the theft of bike of PW1 at Government hospital, Nizamabad and drawn the rough sketch of the scene in Crime

Details Form before him and LW4/Shaik Akhil and obtained his signature on the same.

12.PW3 who is one of the panch witness for the confession and seizure panchanama of accused had deposed that on 28.10.2022 at about 18.00 hours, while he was proceeding from Renal to Navipet on the way near

Renjal Chowrastha police stopped him and asked him to act as panchas. He had seen two persons along with the police and upon inquiry the said persons confessed to have committed theft of bike at Government hospital,

Nizamabad and at Bheemgal and at Jannepally. Further they also confessed that they kept all the bikes at Sarangapoor at their house and later the police have recovered one Passion Pro vehicle black colour before him and

LW6/N. Saikumar and later on the accused persons led them to

Sanrangapoor where the police have recovered four bikes before them.

Thereafter police have drafted the confession and recovery panchanama

before them and obtained their signatures on the same.

13.PW4 who is an investigating officer had deposed that on 28.10.2022 at about 16.00 hours, while they were conducting vehicle checking at Renjal X road and they found two persons coming from Sarangapoor to Jannepally on a bike and upon suspicious circumstances they stopped them and caught 6 of 12

CC 1785 of 2022

hold them and upon inquiry they revealed their names as G. Saikumar and

G. Ravinder respectively. Further upon interrogation they confessed to have committed theft of Passion Pro bike bearing No.TS 16 EU 4301 which pertains to crime No.249/2022 under Section 379 IPC of P.S Navipet. Later on they conducted confession and seizure panchanama before PW3 and

LW6/N. Saikumar and they also confessed that they have committed several bike thefts at different places in the jurisdiction of Navipet, Bheemgal,

Government hospital, Nizamabad. Thereafter they along with accused persons proceeded to Sarangapoor where recovered three bikes from the house of accused. Later on he conducted seizure panchanama at the house of accused in the presence of PW3 and LW6/N. Saikumar and intimated the same to the SHOs of all the concerned police stations about the recovery of the stolen property.

14. PW5 who is another investigating officer had deposed that on 28.10.2022 at about 17.00 hours, LW8/D. Vijay Babu had received report from PW1, registered a case in crime No.396/2022 for an offence under

Section 379 IPC and issued First information report and later received the CD file from LW8. Thereafter he had examined and recorded the statement of

PW1 at police station and later on the next day he visited the scene of offence situated at Government hospital, Nizamabad where he conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of PW2 and LW4/Shaik Akeem and drawn the rough sketch of the scene in crime details form. Thereafter on 29.10.2022 he received information from PW4 about the arrest of 7 of 12

CC 1785 of 2022

accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.249/2022 of P.S Navipet and recovery of theft of vehicle bearing No.TS XL bearing No.TS 16 EF 1645 and later he had obtained P.T warrant from the honorable court and he had ddepostied the above said case property before this court. Later after completion of entire investigation he had filed charge sheet before this honorable court.

Appreciation of evidence:

15.As per the depositions of PW1 and PW2, some unknown person had committed theft of a motorcycle. The factum of such theft has been established through Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 respectively. Upon perusal of the sketch map, it goes to show that accused persons had committed theft of the bike and thus the statement of PW1 got independently corroborated by the sketch map prepared by PW5.

16.In view of the foregoing discussion, the prosecution is successful in establishing that some unknown offender had committed theft of the bike.

17.So far as the identity of the person who committed the theft of the bike is concerned, prosecution has examined PW3 who is one of the panch for the confession and recovery panchanama who deposed that the accused persons confessed to have committed the theft of a bike before him and he does not have prior acquaintance with the accused persons. Moreover, upon the cross examination of PW3, PW4 and PW5, I do not find anything substantial which can create any reasonable doubt as regards the veracity of the statement made by the informant in his chief examination to the effect 8 of 12

CC 1785 of 2022

that the accused persons have stolen the bike from the possession of PW1.

The defence during the cross examination of PW3 and PW4 have basically put a few suggestions (adverse to the case of prosecution) which were denied by the witnesses. Hence it is evident that the versions of PW3 to PW5 is very much consistent with the versions stated by PW1 and PW2.

18.The admission by the accused persons coupled with overwhelming evidence as indicated above clearly goes to show that the accused persons have committed theft of the bike as the same was recovered by police after being led by the accused persons themselves.

19.Though the above mentioned confession by the accused persons are said to be made before the police, the same confession led to the fact of the identification of stolen property at the instance of the accused at

Sarangapoor and such confession is admissible as per Section 27 of Indian

Evidence Act.

20.Such discovery of the bike was on the basis of disclosure of the accused persons and the truth of the statements made by the accused persons were guaranteed by the discovery of the fact in consequence of the information given by the accused persons. Moreover, there was nothing in the statement of the accused, while under examination under Section 313

Cr.P.C, that the statement which particularly led to the discovery of the stolen property hidden by him was extracted from him by compulsion so as to be hit by under Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution.

9 of 12

CC 1785 of 2022

21.In view of the law laid down in State of Bombay Vs. Kathi Kolu

Oghad reported in AIR 1961 SC 1808, also, the mere fact that the accused No.1 while making the statements was in police custody will not attract the provision under Article 20 of the Indian Constitution. It has to be decided whether or not the accused persons have been compelled to make the statements.

22.There is nothing to show in this case that the accused persons were compelled to make the statements which led to the discovery of the stolen property. The accused persons made the disclosure and prosecution witnesses had stood the test of cross examination as to the recovery also as the same facts were corroborated by PW1 as well as PW3. Therefore, the recovery could not be doubted.

23.Therefore, considering the entire discussion made above, I find that the witness examined by the prosecution have proved beyond reasonable doubts that the motorcycle belonging to the PW1 was recovered from the possession of accused persons and subsequently seized by the police.

24.Moreover, though the accused persons specifically denied the allegation towards them in their 313 Cr.P.C examination, but the said accused persons have not adduced any evidence to prove such allegation that the bike recovered from their possession belongs to them. Hence the recovery of the said motorcycle from the possession of accused clearly 10 of 12

CC 1785 of 2022

shows that the accused persons kept the said motorcycle in their possession and the same is a stolen property.

25.Therefore, considering the entire discussion made above, I find that the materials available in the case record proves beyond reasonable doubts that the accused Nos.1 and 2 have committed theft of the bike and thus the accused Nos.1 and 2 are held guilty for the commission of the offence under

Section 379 of Indian Penal Code.

26.In the result, this court found that the accused Nos.1 and 2 are guilty for an offence punishable under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code.

Accordingly the accused Nos.1 and 2 are convicted under Section 248(2) of

Criminal Procedure Code for the said offence.

Typed to my dictation by the stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 26th day of April, 2023.

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Nizamabad.

27. Accused No.1 is questioned with regard to quantum of sentence, he submitted that he is the sole bread winner of his family. Hence, prayed to take lenient view with regard to quantum of sentence.

28. Accused No.2 is questioned with regard to quantum of sentence, he submitted that he is having family who depended on his earnings, if he was 11 of 12

CC 1785 of 2022

put in jail his family members would suffer immensely. Hence, prayed to take lenient view with regard to quantum of sentence.

29.It is not a fit case to invoke the provisions of Probation of Offenders

Act. Further accused Nos.1 and 2 were involved in several property offences so it is not fit case to take lenient view. The property was recovered and seized, handed over to owner, so imposing the period of sentence is sufficient.

30. Accordingly, accused Nos.1 and 2 are sentenced to undergo Simple

Imprisonment for a period of One year for an offence punishable under

Section 379 of Indian Penal Code.

31.The period of detention was already undergone by the accused No.1 from 14.11.2022 to 07.01.2023 and the accused No.2 from 14.11.2022 to till today i.e., on 26.04.2023 shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.

Accused Nos.1 and 2 shall be set at liberty after completion of above sentence period, if he is not required in any other case.

32.The convicted was informed about their right to prefer appeal against this Judgment to Honorable District and Sessions Court, Nizamabad. They are also informed about their right to free legal aid to prefer appeal. Office is directed to supply the free copy to prefer appeal of judgment to the convicted forthwith.

33.The case property i.e., MO.1 was already given to its owner/PW1 12 of 12

CC 1785 of 2022

towards interim custody vide orders dated 08.12.2022 in Crl.M.P.No.1126 of 2022 and same shall be made absolute after lapse of appeal time.

Dictated to stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 26th day of April, 2023.

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Nizamabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution : PW1/LW2: Shaik Moulana / complainant PW2/LW3: Shaik Delavar / panch witness for scene of offence PW3/LW5: Mesineni Anvesh Rao / panch witness for confession and recovery panchanama PW4/LW7: D. Raja Reddy / Investigating officer PW5/LW9: H. Dattadri / Investigating officer.

For Defence: – None –

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution :

Ex.P1: Report lodged by PW1 dated 28.10.2022 Ex.P2: Crime details form dated 28.10.2022 Ex.P3: Certified copy of confessional and seizure panchanama of accused Ex.P4: First Information Report dated 27.06.2022.

For Defence: - NIL -

Material Objects

MO.1: TVS XL bearing No.TS 16 EF 1645.

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Nizamabad.

1 of 11

CC 1963 of 2019

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS AT NIZAMABAD

Present:- Ms. Soundarya Kushanapalli, I Addl. Junior Civil Judge – cum - I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad.

Dated on this the 26th day April, 2023.

C.C. NO.1963 of 2019

Between: The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, Town-II police station Nizamabad. Represented by Assistant Public Prosecutor.

...Complainant

AND

1. Ravu Ravinder Singh S/o Ravu Jagmohan Singh, Aged: 44 years, Caste: Bondili/ Rajput, Occ: Agril, R/o H.No. 8-7-49, Gajulpet, Nizamabad.

2. Rautla Jagannath Singh S/o Rajendhar Singh, Aged: 25 years, Caste: Bondili/ Rajput, Occ: Student, R/o H.No.9-5-93/1, Gajulpet, Nizamabad.

3. Rautla Deeraj S/o Rautla Dayanand Singh, Aged: 21 years, Caste: Bondili/Rajput, Occ: Business, R/o H. No.9-5-93, Gajulpet, Nizamabad.

4. Rautla Keshav S/o Rautla Dayanand Singh, Aged: 26 years, Caste: Bondili/ Rajput, Occ: Business, R/o H.No.9-5-93, Gajulpet, Nizamabad.

...Accused Nos.1 to 4

This case was came up before me on 26-04-2023 for final hearing in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor representing the State/Complainant and of Sri B.Punyaraj, learned counsel for Accused persons, upon perusal of record and upon hearing both sides and having stood over the matter to this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

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

1.The State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Town-II police station, Nizamabad had filed charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 4 in

Crime No.128/2019 for the offence punishable under Section 324 R/w 34 of

Indian Penal Code (IPC).

2 of 11

CC 1963 of 2019

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

On 04.05.2020 at 1900 hours, the complainant/LW1/Sar Rabin Singh had filed a report before Town-II police station, Nizamabad in which he alleged that on 23.10.2019 at about 7.50 pm, he along with his friends i.e.,

Lws.2 to 5 were chit chating in front of his house, in the mean time accused

Nos.1 to 4 came there and accused No.1 beat him with a small knife, resulting which he received bleeding injuries to his left hand fingers and when his friends i.e., LWs.2 and 3 interfered to rescue them, the accused

No.1 also beat Lw3/Vishal with knife, due to which LW3 also received bleeding injuries to his left hand. Further accused Nos.2 to 4 abused them in a filthy language and beat them with sticks. Hence this case.

[b] On receipt of the report from LW1, LW7/PW8 had registered a case in Crime No.128/2019 for the offences under Sections 324, 290 R/w 34 IPC and issued First Information Report and took up the investigation into the case. During the course of investigation he had examined and recorded the statement of complainant and later on he visited the Government hospital,

Nizamabad where examined the injured persons and recorded their statements. Thereafter on the next day he visited the scene of offence situated at Gajulpet Nizamabad where he secured the presence of two mediators i.e., PW6 and LW7/Pawar Shankar conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch of the scene in crime details form.

Later on he had seized two sticks and one mini knife from the scene of offence which are used in the commission of offence by the accused persons.

3 of 11

CC 1963 of 2019

Thereafter on 14.11.2019 he served 41-A Cr.P.C notice to the accused Nos.1 to 4 and later they appeared before him and voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence. Later on he released them with instructions to appear before the Honorable court on receipt of summons. Thereafter he collected the medical certificates of injured persons i.e., Lws.1 to 3 from

LW8/Dr. Alexendar in which opined that the injuries of the injured are Simple in nature and after completion of entire investigation charge sheet was filed against the accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offences under Sections 324, 290 R/w 34 IPC.

3.This Court has taken cognizance for the offences under Section 324

R/w 34 of Indian Penal Code against the accused Nos.1 to 4. On appearance of accused persons, copies of documents were furnished to them in compliance with the provisions of Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

4.The accused Nos.1 to 4 were examined under Section 239 of Criminal

Procedure Code. A charge for the offence punishable under Section 324 R/w 34 of Indian Penal Code was framed, read over and explained to them in vernacular language, for which they did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trail, prosecution has examined PW.1 to PW.8 and exhibits P1 to P6 marked. LW1/Sardar Rabin Singh who is a complainant and injured to the incident was examined as PW1, through him Ex.P1 marked.

4 of 11

CC 1963 of 2019

LW2/Sardar Sadbeer singh and LW3/Sunkati Vishal who are eye witnesses and injured persons were examined as PW2 and PW3 respectively.

LW4/Sardar Amith Singh who is an another eye witness to the incident was examined as PW4. LW5/Narala Srikanth who is the circumstantial witness to this case was examined as PW5, through him Ex.P2 marked. LW6/Jangam

Nandi kumar who is one of the scene of offence panchanama was examined as PW6, through him Ex.P3 and Mos.1 and 2 marked. Dr.Sanjana who appeared instead of LW7/Dr.Alexender was examined as PW7, through her

Exs.P4 to 6 marked. LW9/Md.Thalali Khan who is an investigating officer was examined as PW8, through him Ex.P7 marked. The prosecution has given up the remaining witnesses i.e., LW7/Pawar Shankar.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused Nos.1 to 4 were examined under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code incriminating evidence found against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses was read over and explained to them in vernacular language, for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard both sides and perused entire record.

8.Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the prosecution proves the charge for the offences under

Section 324 R/w 34 of Indian Penal Code against the accused Nos.1 to 4, beyond reasonable doubt?

5 of 11

CC 1963 of 2019

Point :

9.PW1 who is a defacto complainant and injured had deposed that on 23.10.2019 while he was sat along with PW2 and PW3 at the outside his house near their gate and in the mean time accused Nos.1 to 4 started abusing them in a filthy language for which he resisted the same. In the mean time accused No.1 brought a stick and attacked on him with it, due to which he sustained injury on his left hand. Adding to it, when PW2 and PW3 tried to rescue him, the accused No.2 attacked on them, due to which PW2 received injury on his left hand however PW3 had sustained bleeding injury and he had to undergone 14 stitches on his right hand. Thereafter accused

Nos.3 and 4 also came with the sticks and started attacking on them. Later while PW4 and PW5 were proceeding towards their house they tried to stop them, for which the accused Nos.1 to 4 ran away from the said place.

Thereafter he along with PW2 to PW5 went to the police station Town-II

Nizamabad and lodged a report.

10. PW2 who is an injured to this case had deposed that on 23.10.2019 while he sat along with PW1 and PW3 at outside his house near their gate and in the mean time accused Nos.1 to 4 started abusing them in vulgar language, for which PW1 resisted the same and then accused No.1 brought a stick and attacked on him with it, resulting which PW1 sustained injury to his left hand and when he along with PW3 tried to rescue the PW1 then accused

No.2 attacked on them, due to which he sustained bleeding injury to his right hand and PW3 sustained bleeding injury and he had to undergone 14 6 of 11

CC 1963 of 2019

stitches to his left hand. Thereafter accused Nos.3 and 4 also came with sticks and started attacking them, while PW4 and PW5 came to rescue them and on seeing them accused Nos.1 to 4 ran away from the spot. Thereafter they went to the police station Town-II Nizamabad and lodged a report

11. PW3 who is another eye witness and injured to the incident had reiterated the contents as that of PW1 and PW2.

12. PW4 who is an eye witness to this case had deposed that on 23.10.2019 while he was proceeding by infront of the house of PW1 and he observed accused Nos.1 to 4 were beating PW1 to PW3, upon which he along with PW5 tried to stop the said galata. Upon which PW1 had sustained injury to left hand, PW2 had sustained injury to his right hand whereas PW3 had sustained injury on his left hand. By the time they reached to rescue them accused Nos.1 to 4 left from the place. Thereafter he along with PW1 and

PW2 went to the police station II-Town and lodged a report.

13. PW5 who is an circumstantial witness to this case had deposed that on 23.10.2019 at around 8:00 to 8:10 pm while he was proceeding to home from work, he observed accused Nos.1 to 4 beating PW1 to PW3 with sticks and the accused Nos.1 to 4 were holding sticks and A2 was holding a knife and when he along with PW4 were tried to stop the said galata but their efforts went in vain and after 5 to 10 minutes accused Nos.1 to 4 ran away from the said place. Thereafter himself and PW4 took the PW1 to PW3 to the 7 of 11

CC 1963 of 2019

police station. In the said galata, PW1 had sustained injury to left hand, PW2 had sustained injury to his right hand and PW3 had sustained injury to his left hand and had to undergo 18 stitches. Thereafter he along with PW1 to

PW4 went to the police station II-Town and as PW1 sustained injuries on his hand he himself drafted the report upon his instruction.

14. PW6 who is one of the panch witness for scene of offence panchanama had deposed that on 24.10.2019 at about 8.00 a.m police have conducted scene of offence panchanama with regard to galata took place between PW1 and accused persons and drawn rough sketch of the scene in crime details form before him and LW7/P.Shankar and obtained his signature on the same.

Later police have seized one knife and two sticks from the scene of offence.

15. PW7 who is an medical officer had deposed that on 23.10.2018

LW8/Dr.Alaxender had examined PW1 to PW3 and found injuries i.e.,

Laceration on left palm 4x5x2, abrasion over left toe on PW1. Laceration of 6x1x3 left fore arm, swelling over left wrist on PW2. PW3 had received laceration of 10x6x2 left forearm. All the injuries received by PW1 to PW3 are simple in nature. Accordingly LW8 had issued medical certificates to that effect.

16. PW8 who is an investigating officer had deposed that on 23.10.2019 at about 21:00 hours he received a written report from PW1 and he registered a case in Cr. No. 128/2019 for the offence under Sections 324, 290 R/w 34 IPC 8 of 11

CC 1963 of 2019

and issued First Information Report. Thereafter he recorded the statement of

PW1 at police station and later he visited the Government Hospital,

Nizamabad and recorded the statements of PW2 and PW3. Later on the next day he visited the scene situated at Gajulpet, Nizamabad where he conducted scene of offence panchanama before PW6 and LW7. Thereafter on 14.11.2018 he had issued 41-A Cr.P.C notice to the accused Nos.1 to 4 and later he collected the medical certificates from LW8/Dr. Alexander and after completion of entire investigation he had filed charge sheet before this court.

Appreciation of evidence:

17.It is the version of PW1 to PW3 that while they were sitting along outside their house near their gate, accused Nos.1 to 4 started using vulgar language and thereafter accused No.1 brought one stick and attacked PW1 resulting which PW1 sustained injury on his left hand and accused No.2 said to have attacked PW2 with a knife resulting which he sustained injury on his left hand and accused No.2 also said to have attacked PW3 with a knife resulting which PW3 sustained injury on his right hand and thereafter accused Nos.3 and 4 also started attacking them with sticks. They all were said to have been rescued by PW4 and PW5.

18. On perusal of their 161 Cr.P.C statements, it is an admitted fact that they have previous disputes between themselves. Further, on perusal of

Exs.P3 to P5, PW3 said to have received laceration injury on his left forearm but per contra, as per his version, PW3 sustained injury on his right hand.

9 of 11

CC 1963 of 2019

Furthermore, PW1 to PW3 testified that they received abrasions on their back but no such abrasions were depicted either in Exs.P3 to P5. Adding to it,

PW7 herself agreed that such injuries are possible by falling over a hard surface. At this juncture, the contention of the learned counsel that Exs.P3 to

P5 were issued upon the instigation of police and the same are false and fabricated cannot be brushed aside.

19. PW4 and PW5 said to have witnessed that accused Nos.1 to 4 beating

PW1 to PW3 but as per their version PW2 sustained injury on his right hand and PW3 sustained injury on his left hand. Per contra, as per the respective versions of PW2 and PW3, they said to have received injury on his left hand and PW3 on his right hand. Furthermore, PW4 and PW5 being the prime witnesses to the incident who accompanied PW1 to PW3 to the police station, none of them could mention the reason for the dispute which alleged to have taken place.

20.Even if the contention of PW1 to PW5 is taken for the sake of an argument, as per their version blood started oozing out from their bodies and it has fallen on mud. on perusal of Ex.P2 and the testimony of PW7 who is an investigating officer in this case, no such blood stained mud was collected from the scene of crime and to the utter surprise, as per the version of PW6 and PW7 although the knife and two sticks were said to have seized from the scene of offence but no blood stains were found on the knife. The same was confirmed by PW7.

10 of 11

CC 1963 of 2019

21.Furthermore, no neighbouring witnesses from the nearby locality were examined in this case to prove the version of PW1 to PW3.

22. From the discussions made above, there are certain variations found from the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. And they are not safe to be relied upon the convict the accused persons. Hence this court feels that the prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused Nos.1 to 4 beyond reasonable doubt due to the presence of the above mentioned discrepancies making the accused Nos.1 to 4 are entitled to be acquitted on benefit of doubt.

23.In the result, this Court found that accused Nos.1 to 4 are not guilty for the offences under Section 324 R/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly accused Nos.1 to 4 are acquitted under Section 248(1) Criminal Procedure

Code for the above said offence. The bail bonds of accused Nos.1 to 4 shall be in force for a period of six months as per Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

The case property i.e., Mos.1 and 2 shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 26th day of April, 2023.

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Nizamabad.

11 of 11

CC 1963 of 2019

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution :

PW1/LW1: Sardar Rabin Singh / complainant and injured PW2/LW2: Sardar Sadbeer Singh / injured and eye witness PW3/LW3: Sunkati Vishal / injured and eye witness PW4/LW4: Sardar Amith Singh / eye witness PW5/LW5: Narala Srikanth Yadav / circumstantial witness PW6/LW6: Jangam Nandi Kumar/ panch witness for scene PW7/LW8: Dr. Sanjana / medical officer PW8/LW9: Md. Thalali Khan / investigating officer.

For Defence : - None -

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution :

Ex.P1: Report lodged by PW1 dated 23.10.2019 Ex.P2: Signature of PW1 on Ex.P1 Ex.P3: Crime details form dated 23.10.2019 Ex.P4: Medical certificate of PW1 Ex.P5: Medical certificate of PW2 Ex.P6: Medical certificate of PW3 Ex.P7: First Information Report dated 23.10.2019

For Defence : - - NIL -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO.1: Knife MO.2: Two sticks.

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Nizamabad.

1 of 9 CC 527 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS AT NIZAMABAD

Present: Ms. Soundarya Kushanapalli I Addl. Junior Civil Judge – cum - I Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nizamabad.

Dated this the 28th day of April, 2023

C.C.No.527 OF 2017

Between :- The State through Sub-Inspector of police, Women Police Station, Nizamabad. Represented by Assistant Public Prosecutor.

...Complainant

AND

A1:Karremolla Suresh S/o Karremolla Oddenna, Aged: 27 years, Caste: Yadav, Occ: Railway employee, R/o H.No.3-94, Ramadugu village of Dharpally mandal, now present at H.No.146/2, Railway Quarters, Nizamabad. A2:Karremolla Oddenna S/o Ushanna, Aged: 62 years, Caste: Yadav, Occ: Agril., R/o H.No.3-94, Ramadugu village of Dharpally mandal, Nizamabad District. A3:Smt. Karremolla Savithri W/o Oddenna, Aged: 54 years, Caste: Yadav, Occ: House wife, R/o H.No.3-94, Ramadugu village of Dharpally mandal, Nizamabad District. A4:Karremolla Sailoo S/o Oddenna, Aged: 38 years, Caste: Yadav Occ: Agril., R/o H.No.3-94, Ramadugu village of Dharpally mandal, Nizamabad District. A5:Karremolla Srinivas S/o Oddenna, Aged: 36 years, Caste: Yadav, Occ: Agril., R/o H.No.3-94, Ramadugu village of Dharpally mandal, Nizamabad District. A6:Karremolla Ramesh S/o Oddenna, Aged: 34 years, Caste: Yadav, Occ: Agril., R/o H.No.3-94, Ramadugu village of Dharpally mandal, Nizamabad District. A7:Smt. Karremolla Mamatha W/o Sailoo, Aged: 30 years, Caste: Yadav, Occ: Beedi roller, R/o H.No.3-94, Ramadugu village of Dharpally mandal, Nizamabad District. A8:Smt. Karremolla Laxmi W/o Srinivas, Aged: 26 years, Caste: Yadav, Occ: Beedi roller, R/o H.No.3-94, Ramadugu village of Dharpally mandal, Nizamabad District.

2 of 9 CC 527 of 2017

A9:Smt. Karremolla Meghana W/o Ramesh, Aged: 24 years, Caste: Yadav, Occ: Beediroller, R/o H.No.3-94, Ramadugu villageof Dharpally mandal, Nizamabad District.

...Accused Nos.1 to 9

This case was came before me on 25-04-2023 for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and Sri M. Shankar, learned counsel for accused persons and having stood over till this day for consideration this court delivered the following :-

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

1.The State through represented by the Sub-Inspector of police,

Women Police Station, Nizamabad had filed charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 9 in Crime No.30/2017 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act (D.P Act).

2.Brief averments of the facts are that :

[a]The marriage of complainant/LW1/Smt. Karremolla

Tejasri was performed with accused No.1 on 27.08.2016 as per

Hindu customs before the elders in Ramadugu village. After marriage she went to her in-laws house and led happy conjugal life in Ramadugu for a period of One week and after few days the accused No.1 started harassing her for dowry and they subjected her to physical harassment to give divorce to accused No.1 and threatened to kill her and he beat her for her gold ornaments and took them and gave to it A1’s brother’s wife Mamatha. Adding to it, all the accused persons harassed her with unutterable words for 3 of 9 CC 527 of 2017 dowry and when she got conceived, they all together beat her for not having children and her brother-in-law caused abortion to her by asking her not to consult any doctor and all the accused persons tortured her and instigated accused No. to give divorce to her and marry his sister-in-law Akhila. Later on the accused No.1 abused her physically very often and took away her Mangala suthra and went to his parents home at Ramadugu. Adding to it, accused persons insist her to do some job and for earn and accused No.1 also used to chat with other women indecently and threatened her for divorce. Hence the complaint.

[b]Basing on the report lodged by PW1, PW6 had registered a case in crime No.30 of 2017 for the offence under Section 498-A

IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, issued first information report and took up investigation into the case. During the course of investigation, he had examined and recorded the statements of witnesses and later on he visited Railway Quarters Nizamabad where he secured the presence of LW8 and LW9 conducted scene of offence panchanama and took the photographs of the scene.

Later on he had served notices to the accused Nos.1 to 9 with instructions to appear before the Honorable court whenever they are summoned. After completion of entire investigation he had filed charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 9 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act.

4 of 9 CC 527 of 2017

3.This Court took cognizance of the offence punishable under

Section 498-A Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act against the accused Nos.1 to 6. On appearance of accused Nos.1 to 9 copies of case documents were furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

4.Accused Nos.1 to 9 were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C.

Charges for the offence under Section 498-A Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is framed, read over and explained to them in vernacular language, for which they did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to prove the guilt of accused Nos.1 to 9, prosecution has examined PW1 to PW6 and exhibits marked as P1 to P6.

LW4/Pasula Vijaya, LW5/Smt. Ch.Chandrakala and LW7/Bondla

Srinivas who are the witnesses to this case were examined as PW1 to PW3 respectively, through them their respective statements marked as Exs.P1 to P3. LW9/Powali Subam and LW10/Busa Murali who are the panch witnesses for scene of offence panchanama were examined as PW4 and PW5 respectively, through them their respective signatures marked as Exs.P4 and P5. LW12/G. Nagaraju who is an investigating officer was examined as PW6, through him

Ex.P6 marked. Prosecution filed report and reported that

LW6/Karrolla Narsaiah and LW11/Dommati Narsa goud has died, to that effect their respective death certificate filed. The learned 5 of 9 CC 527 of 2017

Assistant public prosecutor has given up the evidence of remaining witnesses i.e., LW1/Smt. Karremolla Tejasri, LW2/Godugu Shoba,

LW3/Godugu Supraja, LW8/Pasula Pentaiah.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused Nos.1 to 9 were examined under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, incriminating evidence found against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses was read over and explained to them in vernacular language, for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard both sides.

8.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proves that the accused Nos.1 to 9 are guilty for an offence under Section 498-A Indian Penal

Code and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, beyond reasonable doubt ?

POINT :

9. On careful perusal of the record, the LW1/Smt. Karremolla

Tejasri who is the defacto complainant; LW2/Smt. Godugu Shoba and LW3/Godugu Supraja who are the mother and sister of complainant respectively have not appeared to adduce their evidence before this court and this court has also given ample opportunities. Hence this court has closed their evidence to the save the time of the Court.

6 of 9 CC 527 of 2017

10. In the present case on hand, PW1 to PW3 are the witnesses to this case have resiled from their earlier statements made to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C and thus they were treated hostile by the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and they were cross examined but nothing was elicited from the mouth of PW1 to PW3 to support the prosecution case. In their deposition they simply stated that they do not know accused persons. Adding to it, they do not know anything about this case.

11. PW4 and PW5 who are the panch witnesses for scene of offence panchanama have also resiled from their earlier statement given to the Police under Section 161 Cr.P.C and therefore they were also treated as hostile by learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

They were cross examined but nothing was elicited from the mouth of PW5 and PW5 to support the prosecution case and they simply stated that police asked them to affix their respective signatures on some papers and except that they do not know anything about this case.

12.PW6 who is the Investigating Officer to this case has deposed that 18.05.2017 at about 14.00 hours, he received a written report from PW1 and he registered a case in Crime No.30/2017 for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition

Act and issued First Information Report. Adding to it, on the same 7 of 9 CC 527 of 2017 day he had examined and recorded the statements of Lws.1 to 3 and collected the photographs and wedding card copy of LW1 and later he had visited the scene of offence at Railway Quarters

Nizamabad where examined and recorded the statements of PW1 and PW2 and conducted scene of offence panchanama before LW8 and PW5. Thereafter on 20.05.2017 he had served 41-A Cr.P.C notice to the accused Nos.1 to 9 and later on 28.05.2017 he visited

Ramadugu village and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of PW4 and LW11/D. Narsa goud and recorded the statements of PW3 and LW6/K. Narsaiah. Later on 08.06.2017 he arrested the accused No.1 as he was involved in Crime

No.125/2017 under Section 324 R/w 34 IPC of P.S Town-III

Nizamabad under allegations of assault on LW1/K. Tejasri and produced the accused before this honorable court for judicial custody and after completion of entire investigation he had filed charge sheet before this Court.

13.Except the evidence of investigating officer, no witness supported the case of prosecution.

14.On careful scrutinization of evidence on record, it goes to show that PW1 to PW5 have resiled from their earlier statements given to the police only because of compromise entered by them with accused persons. As PW1 to PW5 did not speak anything 8 of 9 CC 527 of 2017 against accused persons. Moreover this court closed the evidence

Lws.1 to 3 as they have not appeared to adduce their evidence

before this court even after giving ample ample opportunities and

the remaining prosecution witnesses i.e., Pws.1 to 5 were turned hostile. Thus, there is no material evidence on behalf of the prosecution to connect the accused persons with the offence under

Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

Therefore, there is no material evidence on record to connect the accused persons with the offence punishable under Section 498-A

IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused Nos.1 to 9 beyond all reasonable doubt for the above said offence.

15. In the result, this court found that accused Nos.1 to 9 are not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of Indian

Penal Code and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Accordingly the accused Nos.1 and 9 are acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C for the above said offences. The bail bonds of accused Nos.1 to 9 shall be in force for a period of six months under Section 437-A of

Cr.P.C.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 28th day of April, 2023.

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Nizamabad.

9 of 9 CC 527 of 2017

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution : For Defence :

PW1/LW4: Pasula Vijaya / witness - None - PW2/LW5: Smt. Ch. Chandrakala / witness PW3/LW7: Bondla Srinivas / witness PW4/LW9: Powali Subam / panch witness for scene PW5/LW10: Busa Murali goud / investigating officer PW6/LW12: G. Nagaraju / investigating officer.

DOCUMENT MARKED

For Prosecution :

Ex.P1: 161 Cr.PC statement of PW1 Ex.P2: 161 Cr.PC statement of PW2 Ex.P3: 161 Cr.PC statement of PW3 Ex.P4: Signature of PW4 on crime details form Ex.P5: Signature of PW5 on crime details form Ex.P6: First information report.

For Defence : - NIL -

Material Objects Marked - NIL -

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Nizamabad.