Ms. Srinija Kohirkar

Fair 1 of 11 CC.No.761 of 2020

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

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, AT JAGTIAL

PRESENT:- Smt. Srinija Kohirkar, Prl. Junior Civil Judge cum Judl.Magistrate of F.C., Jagtial.

Thursday, the 24th day of April, 2025

CC.No. 761 of 2020

(Cr.No. 214 of 2020 of PS.Jagtial Rural)

Between:-

State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, PS., Jagtial Rural.

...Complainant.

AND

A1.Kolipaka Ranjith, S/o: Bheemaiah, Age: 24 years, R/o: Tarakarama nagar. A2.Kolipaka Vaishnavi @ Yerram Rushali, W/o: Ranjith, Age: 22 years, R/o: Tarakaram nagar.

...Accused Nos. 1 & 2

This case coming before me on.15.04.2025 for final hearing in the presence of the learned Smt.M.Rajani Asst.Public Prosecutor for the Complainant/State and Sri.Md. Saleem advocate for the accused Nos. 1 & 2; and upon hearing their arguments and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S., Jagtial Rural has filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.214 of 2020 for the offences punishable U/secs.354, 323, 506 of

Indian Penal Code (in short “the IPC”).

2.The prosecution case in brief is that on 04.06.2020 at 10:00 hours, the complainant/Alishetti Rajeshwari went to the PS and lodged a Telugu Written complaint stating that she is resident of Tarakarama nagar and eking her livelihood by rolling beedies. On 29.05.2020 at about 07:00 PM, she admonished her villager

Fair 2 of 11 CC.No.761 of 2020

Vaishnavi/Accused No.2 as “Why taking your daughter in heat weather/summer”, on that Accused No.2 beat her with hands and tried to beat her with stone, but the stone touched to her daughter, thereafter, she went to her village auto stand and told about the incident to Ranjith/Accused No.1, and Accused No.1 caught hold her hair, beat her with hands, kicked on her stomach and tried to beat her with stone and threatened her to kill, if they come again towards them. Meantime her villagers Suresh, Sairam,

Naresh who were present at there were eye witnessed the incident and Sairam rescues her from A.1. Finally, she requested to take necessary action.

3.On receipt of the above complaint, LW.10/Ch. Sateesh has registered a case in

Cr.No.214/2020 u/secs.354, 323 and 506 of IPC issued FIR and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, the Lw.10 has examined and recorded the statement of Lw.1/Alishetti Rajeshwari and Lw.2/Alishetti Balakrishna at

PS. Later, Lw.10 visited the scene of place and secured the presence of Lw.3/A.

Gangaram, Lw.4/A. Ramakrishna, Lw.5/P.Sairam, Lw.6/P. Suresh and Lw.7/V.

Naresh, examined and recorded their statements, observed the scene of offence incorporated the details in Crime Detail Form, drew a rough sketch in the presence of

Lw.8/K. Veeresham and Lw.9/P. Rajam. On 15.07.2020 the Lw.10 served the notice u/sec.41-A Cr.P.C., to the accused with directions to appear before the court. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against accused persons.

4.The I-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jagtial has taken cognizance for the offences under section. 354, 323, 506 of IPC against Accused persons, vide

Cr..No.214/2020 and on appearance of the Accused and later this case is transferred to this court for disposal according to law as per the Orders of the Hon’ble Prl.District

Fair 3 of 11 CC.No.761 of 2020 and Sessions Judge, Jagtial.

5.On appearance of accused Nos.1 & 2, the copies of documents relating to the case were furnished to them, as required U/s.207 Cr.P.C. The accused No.1 & 2 were examined U/s.239 of Cr.P.C. and charges were framed against them for the offences punishable U/s. 354, 323, 506 of IPC against accused . The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PW1 to

PW.7 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P5.

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused persons are examined

U/s.313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating material appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Accused No.1 and 2 denied the same and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

8.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned defence counsel

for the accused.

9.Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution has established

the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable U/s. 354, 323, 506 of IPC

against accused beyond reasonable doubt?

POINT:-

10.The gravamen of the charge against the accused is that while Accused No.2 taking her daughter in heat weather, in this regard at about 07:00 PM, the Pw.1 admonished the A.2 as why taking your daughter in heat weather, on that A.2 beat the

Pw.1 with hands and tried to beat with stone, but the stone hit to her daughter, on that

Pw.1 went to their village Auto stand and told the same to A.1, but the A.1 caught hold the Pw.1 hairs, beat her with hands, kicked on her stomach and tried to beat her with

Fair 4 of 11 CC.No.761 of 2020 stone, behaved indecently with her and threatened her to kill and and as such the accused Nos. 1 & 2 are liable to be punished for the offences under Sections354, 323, 506 of IPC.

11.Out of 7 witnesses examined by the prosecution, Pw.1 is the complainant and victim, Pws. 2 & 4 are the sons of Pw.1, Pws.3 & 5 are the eye witness to the incident,

Pw.6 is the panch for crime Detail Form and Pw.7 is the investigating officer who investigate the case and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against the accused.

Now lets consider the evidence brought on record in this case:

12.PW1- A. Rajeshwari has deposed that at about 4 years ago, at 3:00 PM, he know A2 was passing in front of their house with her daughter in summer then seeing her, she admonished her why was she taking her daughter in the scotching heat then she grew wild and beat her with hands and she also thrown stone on her which hit her daughter. In the evening hour, at 7 pm, when she was going to house of his son to inform him about the said incident. On which A1 caught hold of her hair and beat her with hands and also kicked her in her stomach, Lw.5 to Lw.7 intervened and rescued him from the hands of A1. Then they informed the same to the elders as accused did not turn up after 4 days they lodged report in police station.

13. PW2-A. Balakrishna has deposed that A2 was passing in front of their house with her daughter in summer on seeing the same Pw.1 asked A2 as to why she was taking her daughter in such heat atmosphere on which A2 grew wild and abused Pw.1 in most filthy language and beat her with hands and also pelted stone on Pw.1 but it hit to the daughter of A2. On the same day In the evening hours at 7 pm when Pw.1 was

Fair 5 of 11 CC.No.761 of 2020 when he was going to house of Lw.4/Ramakrishna and while passing the auto stand on seeing A1 at auto stand she informed about above said incident to a1, on which A1 grew wild and caught hold of hair of Pw.1 and beat her with hands and also kicked her in stomach on seeing the same Lw.5 to 7 intervened and rescued her from the clutches of A1. Then they informed about this incident to elders as accused did not turn up after four days Pw.1 gave police complaint.

14.PW3-P. Suresh has deposed that he does not know Pws.1 & 2 and accused, he does not know anything about facts of this case, he did not witness anything. Police neither examined him nor recorded his statement.

15.Pw.4-A. Ramakrishna has deposed that on 29.05.2020 in the afternoon hrs accused no.2 was passing in front of their house with her daughter in hot summer, on seeing the same Pw.1 asked A2 as to why she was taking he daughter in such heat atmosphere on which A2 grew wild and abused Pw.1, beat her with hands and also pelted stone on Pw.1 but it was hit to the daughter of A2 on the same day in the evening hours at 07:00 pm when Pw.1 was coming to their house and while passing the auto stand on seeing A1 at auto stand she informed about above said incident to

A1, on which A1 grew wild and caught hold of hair of Pw.1 and beat her with hands and also kicked her in stomach on seeing the same Lw.5 to Lw.7 intervened and rescued her from the clutches of A1. Later Pw.1 gave police complaint. He came to know about this incident through Pw.1.

16.Pw.5-P. Sairam has deposed that he does not know anything about facts of this case, he did not witness anything. Police neither examined him nor recorded his statement.

Fair 6 of 11 CC.No.761 of 2020

17.Pw6-K. Veeresham has deposed that about 4 years back one day when he was present at TR Nagar police came there and conducted panchanama in his presence and in the presence of Lw.9 with regard to the case lodged by Pw.1. Witness identified his signature

18.Pw.7-Ch. Sathish has deposed that on 04.06.2020 at 10:00 hrs. He received x.P1 from Pw.1 Basing on the said report he registered a case in Cr.No.214/2020 for the offence punishable u/sec.354, 323 and 506 of IPC and issued FIR to all concerned.

During the course of investigation he examined and recorded the statements of Lw.1,

LW.2 at police station. Therefore he visited scene of offence i.e. TR nagar secured the presence of Lw.3 to Lw.7, examined and recorded their statements. He also secured the presence of Lw.8 and Lw.9 conducted scene observation panchanama in their presence. On 15.07.2020 he served 41-a Cr.P.c. notice to accused with a direction to appear before Hon’ble court on receipt of summons. After competition of investigation he field charge sheet against accused no.1 for the offence punishable u/sec.354, 323 and 506 of IPC and against accused no.2 for the offence punishable u.sec.323 of IPC.

APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE:

19.It is the case of the prosecution is that on 29.05.2020 while Accused No.2 was taking her daughter in heat weather, the Pw.1 admonished her, on which A.2 beat the

Pw.1 with hands and tried to beat her with stone, but the stone hit to the daughter of

A.2, on the same day Pw.1 was waiting at village auto stand, on seeing A.1 when she narrated about this incident, then, A.1 caught hold the Pw.1 hairs, beat her with hands, kicked on her stomach and tried to beat her with stone, further threatened her to kill.

Fair 7 of 11 CC.No.761 of 2020

The charges that are levelled against the A.1 is for offence u/sec. 354, 323 and 506 of

IPC, whereas the A.2 charged with offence u/sec.323 of IPC.

20.In its support prosecution examined Pw.1 who is the complainant/victim, Pws.

2 & 4 who are the sons of Pw.1, Pw.3 and Pw.5 are the eye witness, Pw.6 is the mediator for crime detail form and Pw.7 is the investigation officer.

This is the case of outrage modesty of a women, beating her with hands and criminal intimidation.

In order to prove the charges for the offences u/secs.354, 323, 506 of IPC, the prosecution has established the following ingredients:-

1. Accused No.1 used criminal force on Pw.1, intending thereby to outrage her modesty,

2. Accused Nos. 1 & 2 voluntarily caused hurt to Pw.1,

3. Both accused criminally intimidated Pw.1 threatening her with dire consequences to kill.

21.As seen from the testimony of Pw.1, she testifies that in the afternoon she admonished the accused No.2 about taking her daughter in heat weather, on which

Accused No.2 beat her with hands and also thrown stone on Pw.1 which hit to the daughter of A.2 on the same date in the evening hours at 07:00 PM., on seeing

Accused No.1 at auto stand, when she narrated about this incident then A.1 caught hold of her hair and beat her with hand and also kicked her in stomach. As per the version of Pw.1, Lw. 5 to Lw.7 intervened and rescued her from the clutches of A.1. it is evident that as per the testimony of Pw.1, Lw. 5 to Lw.7 are the eye witnesses to the incident.

22.Nextly, coming to the evidence of Pws. 2 & 4 who are the sons of Pw.1, Pw.1

Fair 8 of 11 CC.No.761 of 2020 testifies in similar lines of Pw.1. In cross-examination it was elicited that Accused and

Pw.2 are having their houses adjacent to each other. Both Pws. 1 & 2 denied during their cross-examination that due to previous disputes a false case filed against the accused. Pw.4 testifies in similar lines of testimonies of Pw.1, Pw.2, but however, he deposed that he came to know about the incident through Pw.1. From this, it is evident that Pw.4 is not an eye witness to the incident, but he is hearsay witness and at the time of incident he was not present at scene of offence. Pw.6 is mediator for Crime

Detail Form testified that police conducted panchanama in his presence at TR Nagar and he signed on it. Ex.P.4 is Crime Detail Form, which reflects the scene of offence.

Pw.7 is the investigating officer who testifies manner of his investigation.

Section 354 of IPC deals with criminal force against a woman with the

intention to outrage her modesty.

23.As stated above, prosecution to establish that accused used criminal force against Pw.1 with the intention to outrage modesty of Pw.1. In the instant case on hand, Pw.1 is the victim, she testifies about the incident, but as seen from Ex.P.1 the incident occurred on 29.05.2020, and report was lodged on 04.06.2020 at 10:00 hours in the morning.

24.In order to rely upon the evidence of Pw.1, the evidence of Pw.1 must be credible, apart from establishing the ingredients for the charges levelled against accused, it is also important to prove that the testimonies of prosecution can be relied upon and acted upon to connect the case with accused. Further, the testimony of Pw.2 is silent, whether, he witnessed the incident or if at all he came to about the incident through his mother. Admittedly, on the same day incident occurred for twice. When

Fair 9 of 11 CC.No.761 of 2020 the first incident occurred alleging that the accused No.2 beat Pw.1 with hands and she pelted stones on Pw.1, at this time Pw.1 did not give any police complaint. The next sequence of incident was occurred at 07:00 PM, when she narrated about the first incident to Accused No.1, then A.1 caught hold her hair and beat her with hands and also threatened to kill her. It is seen from testimonies of Pws. 1, 2 and Pw.4 and

Ex.P.4 that alleged incident occurred at TR Nagar Auto stand, where there would be presence of independent persons. As per their version Lw.5 to Lw.7 intervened and rescued the Pw.1 from the clutches of A.1, but Pws. 3 & 5 who are eye witnesses testifies that they did not witness any incident. The learned APP declared them as hostile and when cross-examination nothing is elicited.

25.Apart from all these testimonies there are no direct witnesses to the incident except Pw.1. Interestingly, she testifies that she had informed this incident to their elders as accused Nos.1 & 2 did not turn up, she lodged report in Police Station. It is evident from Ex.P.1 that she lodged a report on 04.06.2020 and there is delay of 4 to 5 days in lodging report before Police Station. According to Ex.P.1 the delay was due to the discussion between family members, but as per the testimonies of Pws. 1 & 2, the delay was due to informing about the incident to the village elders. Pw.1 never stated in Ex.P.1 about informing about this incident to their village elders. Further, the Pws.

1 & 2 did not state the names of elders before whom they have placed this alleged incident. Furthermore, it is seen from Ex.P.5 that the reason was mentioned as due to discussion with family members and that Pw.7 was cross examined, he had also categorically admits that there is delay. Pws. 1 & 2 failed to explain the reasons for delay properly and in this regard their statements vary when compared to Ex.P.1, there

Fair 10 of 11 CC.No.761 of 2020 are also no independent witnesses examined. When Pw.1 failed to give proper reasons for delay in lodging Ex.P.1, it is definitely fatal to the case of prosecution and makes that entire case of prosecution doubtful. All these facts leads a reasonable doubt in the case of prosecution and it is unsafe to relay upon the testimony of Pw.1 to connect the case with accused.

In regard to the Sec.506 of IPC there must be an intention to cause alaram to the persons or it must be to do any act, which is not bound to do or omit to do an act which leads really to do.

26.In this regard, there is no piece of evidence brought on record from the testimonies of Pws.1, 2, 4, in order to establish the offences u/secs.506 of IPC.

Therefore, in view of the aforesaid reasons, the case of the prosecution is not proved beyond all reasonable doubt, enabling accused for acquittal for the charges levelled against them.

27.In the result, the accused Nos. 1& 2 are acquitted u/sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C., for the offence U/secs.354, 323 and 506 of IPC against Accused No.1 and for the offence u/sec.323 of IPC against Accused No.2. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled subject to u/sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

Partly typed to my dictation and partly dictated to Stenographer Grade-III, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24 th day of April, 2025.

PRL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF F.C.,

JAGTIAL.

Fair 11 of 11 CC.No.761 of 2020

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:- P.W.1: A. Rajeshwari. P.W.2: A. Balakrishna. P.W.3: P. Suresh. P.W.4: A. Ramakrishna. P.W.5: P. Sairam. P.W.6: K. Veeresham. P.W.7: Ch. Sateesh. FOR THE DEFENCE:- -None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:- Ex.P.1: Report. Ex.P.2: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3. Ex.P.3: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW5. Ex.P.4: Crime Details Form. Ex.P.5: First information report.

FOR THE DEFENCE:- -Nil- MATERIAL OBJECTS:- -Nil-

PRL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF F.C.,

JAGTIAL.

Fair 1 of 10 CC.No.1808 of 2021

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

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, AT JAGTIAL

PRESENT:- Smt. Srinija Kohirkar, Prl. Junior Civil Judge cum Judl.Magistrate of F.C., Jagtial.

Tuesday, the 29th day of April, 2025

CC.No. 1808 of 2021

(Cr.No. 58of 2021 of PS. Beerpur)

Between:- State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, PS., Beerpur.

...Complainant.

AND

A.1:Puduri Sudhakar, S/o: Narsaiah, Age: 32 years, A.2:Puduri Laxman, S/o: Narsaiah, Age: 43 years, A.3:Puduri Rajesham, S/o: Narsaiah, Age:40 years, A4:Puduri Ramesh, S/o:Narsaiah, Age: 45 years, A.5Puduri Thirupathi, S/o: Dubbalingam, Age: 40 years, A.6:Puduri Vishnuvardhan, S/o: Ramesh, Age: 20 years, A.7:Puduri Renuka, W/o: Laxman, Age: 41 years, A.8:Dasari Lalitha, D/o: Narsaiah, Age; 41 years, A.9:Dasari Narsaiah @ Narsayya, S/o: Poshamallu, Age: 71 years, A.10: Dasari Sunil, S/o: Narsaiah, Age: 45 years, (Abated) A.11: Puduri Laxmi @ Dasari Laxmi, D/o: Dubbalingaiah @ Narsaiah, Age: 40 years, A.12: Dasari Sona, W/o: Sunil, Age: 38 years, A.13: Puduri Sunith, W/o: Shekar, Age: 43 years, All are R/o: Beerpur village and mandal.

...Accused Nos. 1 to 13.

This case coming before me on 16.04.2025 for final hearing in the presence of the learned Smt.M.Rajani Asst.Public Prosecutor for the Complainant/State and Sri. R. Sriramulu advocate for the accused persons/; and upon hearing their arguments an having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S., Beerpur has filed charge sheet against the accused persons in Cr.No. 58 of 2021 for the offences punishable U/s. 290, 323, 324,

Fair 2 of 10 CC.No.1808 of 2021 506 r/w 149 of IPC.

2.The prosecution case in brief is that the complainant submits that on 20.05.2021 at 10:00 hrs the the complainant/Puduri Rajesham went to the PS and submitted a complaint stating that, he is resident of Beerpur village and eking his livelihood by doing Agriculture, at the outskirts of Beerpur village, he along with his brother is having the land by the side of road each Ac.0-02 gts, total Ac.0-04 gts, since he was cultivated his land, adjacent to his land his villagers A.1/Puduri Sudhakar,

A.2/Puduri Laxman, A.3/Puduri Rajesham, A4/PuduriRamesh,A.5/Puduri

Thirupathi, A.6/Puduri Vishnuvardhan, A.7/Puduri Renuka, A.8/Dasari Lalitha,

A.9/Dasari Narsaiah @ Narsayya, A.10/Dasari Sunil, A.11/Puduri Laxmi @ Dasari

Laxmi, A.12/Dasari Sona and A.13/Puduri Sunith criminally entered into his land and erected shed illegally and on 12.05.2021 in the night hours at about 10:00 PM, they wants to put a grass in remaining place and entered in to their land, on seeing them, he has questioned them why they put the grass in his land, on that A.1 to A.13 abused him in most filthy language and beat with hands, sticks and iron rods, due to which he has received bleeding injuries under his eye, nose, right cheek, chest, left leg and right shoulder and took his VIVO cell phone from his hands they have also threatened to

Jingala Chandraiah Goud and driver Thirupathi and other laborers. Finally, he requested to take necessary action.

3.On receipt of the above complaint, the LW-09/A. Ravinder has registered a case in Cr. No. 58/2021 U/Sec 290,323, 324,506 r/w 149 IPC, issued FIR and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, he has examined and recorded the statement of LW.1/P. Rajesham, referred him to the Govt Hospital Jagtial for his

Fair 3 of 10 CC.No.1808 of 2021 treatment under a requisition. During the course of investigation, the LW-09 along with men visited the scene of offence and secured the presence of the LW.2/P.

Narsaiah, Lw.3/A. Thirupathi, Lw.4/A. Nagesh and Lw.5/Ch. Ankumar examined them and recorded their detailed statements. Later, observed the scene of offence and incorporated the details of the scene of offence under crime detail form.

Subsequently, the LW-10/A. Anil took up further investigation, visited the scene of offence, where he re-examined the LWs 1 to 5. The LW-10 has collected the MC from

LW.8/Dr. Harikrishna has opined that the injury is simple in nature caused with blunt object. On 02-06-2021, the Lw.10 issued notice U/Sec 41-A Cr.P.C to accused persons and on interrogation they have voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence. Later, served the notices against them with a instructions to appear before the court. On 11-10-2021 at 10:00 hrs the LW-10 issued U/Sec 41-A Cr. PC-II notices and same was served against the accused persons with a instructions to appear before the court. After completion of investigating he filed charge sheet against the accused persons.

4.This court took cognizance for the offences punishable U/s. 290, 323, 324, 506 r/w 149 of IPC.

5.On appearance of accused persons, the copies of documents relating to the case were furnished to them, as required U/s.207 Cr.P.C. The accused persons were examined U/s.239 of Cr.P.C. and charges were framed against them for the offences punishable U/s. 290, 323, 324, 506 r/w 149 of IPC against accused persons. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PW1 to

Fair 4 of 10 CC.No.1808 of 2021

PW.7 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P5.

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused persons are examined

U/s.313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating material appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Accused persons denied the same and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

8.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned defence counsel

for the accused.

9.Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused persons for the offences punishable U/s. 290, 323, 324, 506 r/w 149 of IPC against accused beyond reasonable doubt?

POINT:-

10.The prosecution cited ten witnesses and out of them, it examined seven witnesses. PW1 is complainant/injured PW2 is the brother of Pw.1, Pws. 3 & 4 are the eye witnesses, Pw.5 is the doctor who treated Pw.1, Pw.6 is the panch for crime detail form and Pw.7 is the investigating officer and filed charge sheet.

Now lets consider the evidence brought on record in this case.

11.PW1- P. Rajesham has deposed that one Inogeti Narayana is the obtaining permission from said Narayana storing grass and dung. In the original owner of 4 gts of land situated at Beerpur village since 20 years by year 2021, on one day, when we were trying to erect in shed in the said 12.05.2021 when we trying to unload grass which was brought in tractor in land, all the accused trespassed into the said land and obstructed us on the said land all accused criminally trespassed into the said land and threatened by stating that not to unload the said grass and also abused me in most filthy language and all accused who are armed with sticks and iron rod pushed me and

Fair 5 of 10 CC.No.1808 of 2021 beat me with said weapons indiscriminately as a result, I received injuries on my left cheek and other parts of body. I went to police station on 16.05.2021 and lodged report, the delay was due to sustaining of severe injuries, police referred me to the hospital for treatment.

12. PW2 -P.Narsaiah deposed that one Thogeti Narayana is the original owner of 4 gts of land situated at Beerpur village. In the year 2021, on one day, at around 10:00 pm, when PW1 with the help of LW3 and two labours of LW3 were trying to unload grass which was brought in tractor, all accused criminally trespassed and threatened

PW1 by stating that not to unload the said grass and also abused him in most filthy language, on hearing noises I went to the spot and noticed all accused who are armed with sticks and iron rod pushed PW1 and beat PW1 with said weapons indiscriminately as a result, PW1 received injuries on his left cheek and other parts of body.

13.PW3 - A. Thirupathi deposed that about 3 ½ vears ago on one day he went to the land of PW1 to unload grass from his tractor in the night hours at about 10.00 pm at that time all accused persons came and obstructed him from unloading grass and also beat PW1 with sticks as a result

14.Pw.4-A. Nagesh has deposed that about 3 years ago on one day they went to the land of PWl to unload grass in the night hours at about 10.00 pm at that time all accused persons came and obstructed us from unloading grass and also beat PW1 with sticks and hands as a result he received injuries and also threatened us to burn tractor then we left the place.

15.PW5 - Dr.Harikrishna deposed that on 16.05.2021 he received requisition from

Fair 6 of 10 CC.No.1808 of 2021

SHO Police, Beerpur to examine an injured by name Rajesham/PW1 son of Mallaiah.

Accordingly he examined him and found following injury. 1. Contusion measuring 2x2 cms over left cheek which is simple in nature and caused by blunt object.

Accordingly he issued wound certificate of PW1.

16.PW7 - A.Anil, SI of police deposed that he received CD file from LW9/G.

Manohar Rao for further investigation he verified the investigation done by him and found it on correct lines he visited scene of offence at out skirts of Mothi nagar, secured the presence of LW1 to 5 examined them but did not re-record their statements as they reiterated earlier version he also collected medical certificate of

PW1 from PW4 on 15.04.2021 he apprehended Al to A4 and issued 41-A Cr.PC notice and instructed them to appear before Hon'ble court on receipt of summons after competition of investigation I filed charge sheet against all accused for the offence punishable U/s. 447, 427, 323, 324, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE:

17.At the outset, it is pertinent to mention that accused persons have been charged for the commission of offence u/sec. 290, 323, 324, 506 r/w 149 of IPC. It is the case of prosecution that on 12.05.2021 at 10:00 PM all the accused criminally trespassed into the land of Pw.1, Pw.2, when Pw.1 questioned accused about unloading grass in their land all the accused abused Pw.1 in most filthy language and beat him with sticks and iron rods, due to which Pw.1 received bleeding injuries. It is imperative to analysis the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.

18.In its supports, prosecution examined Pw.1/complainant/injured, Pw.2 is the brother of Pw.1, Pws. 3 & 4 are the eye witnesses, Pw.5 is the doctor who treated

Fair 7 of 10 CC.No.1808 of 2021

Pw.1, Pw.6 is the panch for crime detail form and Pw.7 is the investigating officer and filed charge sheet.

In order to prove its case, the prosecution has to establish the following ingredients for the offences U/secs. 290, 323, 324, 506 r/w 149 of IPC.

i. All accused formed unlawful assemply criminally trespassed and voluntarily caused hurt to Pw.1, ii. such hurt must be caused by using dangerous weapon, iii. All the accused persons further threatened Pw.1 putting him under the fear of threat to his life.

19.As seen from the records, Pw.1 is the star witness and injured himself, he categorically testifies that on a fateful day 12.05.2021 at 10:00 PM, when he along with Pw.3, Pw.4 and Lw.5/Ch. Ankumar was trying to unload grass from their tractor, all accused criminally trespassed into their land and threatened him by stating not to unload the grass, abused him in most filthy language. Pw.1 further stated that all the accused armed with sticks, iron rods pushed him and beat him indiscriminately with the said weapons. As a result he received injuries over his left cheek and other parts of the body. As per the version of Pw.1, they had obtained oral permission from one

Narayana for storage of their grass and dung in 4 gts of land of the said Narayana, which means that, according to Pw.1 he is using the 4 gts of land from 20 years.

20.During his cross-examination, he states that he had shown ownership documents of said Narayana to police. Admittedly, there is no exhibiting of land related documents or ownership document or any possession related document of

Narayana. Pw.2 who is none other than brother of Pw.1 also testifies that all accused

Fair 8 of 10 CC.No.1808 of 2021 criminally trespassed into the land of Narayana, who is the original owner of 4 gts of land. Pw.7 investigating officer did not examine Narayana. According to the testimonies of Pws. 1, 2 all the accused criminally trespassed into the 4 gts of land which originally belongs to Narayana, while this is the case which is their version that they have obtained oral permission from Narayana to store with grass and dumb in said place, when this is the case in order to prove the criminal trespass of the accused persons the said Narayana ought to have been examined by the prosecution or at least it has to be proved that accused are in possession of 4 gts of land. But in the instant case, there is no such evidence available on record to establish the criminal trespass of the accused into the 4 gts land of Narayana. Therefore, the ingredients of offence

U/secs. 447 of IPC is not proved.

21.Nextly, coming to the offences u/sec. 290, 323, 324, 506 of IPC, it is to be established by the prosecution that all the accused formed unlawful assembly, voluntarily caused hurt to Pw.1 with the help of dangerous weapons, which is likely to cause death harm etc., It could seen from the testimonies of Pw.1 that on 12.05.2021 all the accused persons were armed sticks, iron rods push him and beat him with the weapons indiscriminately. Pw.2 also testifies into similar lines of version of Pw.1.

Further, it is seen that Pw.1 lodged report Ex.P.1 on 16.05.2021, it is kept in mind that the incident occurred on 12.05.2021 which means that there is 4 days delay in lodging report. Pws . 3 & 4 are eye witnesses to the incident testifies that all the accused obstructed Pw.1 from unloading grass beat him with sticks. When Pw.2 was cross- examined, it is categorically admitted by the Pw.3 that he did not witness specifically who beat Pw.1. This admission made by Pw.3 is contrary to what he had stated in his

Fair 9 of 10 CC.No.1808 of 2021 examination in chief. When Pw.4 was cross-examined he states that he does not know what are the disputes between accused and Pw.1.As per the version of Pw.1, accused were armed with sticks, iron rods and he was assaulted by the accused with the help of those weapons, whereas Pws. 3 & 4 testifies that accused beat Pw.1 with sticks and hands.

22.In regard to the weapons used by the accused, definitely the version of prosecution witness is inconsistent. Admittedly, the incident occurred in night hours. It is also pertinent to note that as per the Ex.P.1, Pw.1 specifically stated that all the parts of the body where he had received injuries due to the assault in the hands of accused, and he also states that he received bleeding injuries, but when the evidence of Pw.5 is examined, doctor testifies that on examination of Pw.1 he found contusion measuring 2x2 cms over left cheek of Pw.1. The testimony of Pw.1 shows that he has failed to depose material facts in regard to the alleged assault by accused. The chief examination of Pw.1 contrary to the Ex.P.1. Furthermore, it is categorically admitted by Pw.1 that he was treated on 16.05.2021, if really the incident had occurred on 12.05.2021 what stopped Pw.1 to give police complaint on the same day, why he had waited for four days to lodge report before police is no where explained by Pw.1.

Even for a while it is presume that Pw.1 could not approach police on the same day what stopped Pw.1 for taking treatment in hospital.

23.Most importantly, as per testimonies of Pws. 1 & 2, accused assaulted Pw.1 with the help of sticks, iron rods indiscriminately, but the wound certificate of Pw.1 which is exhibited vide Ex.P.2 reflects that only simple injury on the left cheek of

Pw.1, which again creates a doubt in the testimonies of Pws. 1 & 2. Pw.6 is the

Fair 10 of 10 CC.No.1808 of 2021 mediator for CDF who turns hostile, Pw.7 is the investigating officer, he testifies chronological events of his investigation. Admittedly, there is no recovery of crime weapons in the instant case.

24.Beyond all these factors, the 4 days delay in lodging of FIR not explained satisfactory reasons for delay, inconsistent testimonies of prosecution witnesses gives reasonable doubt in the case of prosecution. There is no explanation at all justifying delay of 4 days in lodging FIR. The evidence of Pw.1 is self contradictory, this court considered that the testimonies of Pws. 1 to 4 is highly doubtful and cannot be based to convict the accused. Therefore, in view of the above discussions and for the reasons stated above, this court hold that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused for the offence U/secs.290, 323, 324, 506 r/w 149 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.

Point is answered accordingly.

26.In the result, the accused are acquitted U/s.248(1) Cr.P.C for the offences U/s.

290, 323, 324, 506 r/w 149 of IPC. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled subject to

U/s.437-A of Cr.PC.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer grade-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 29 th day of April, 2025.

PRL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF F.C.,

JAGTIAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: P.W.1: P. Rajesham. P.W.2: P. Narsaiah. P.W.3: A. Thirupathi. P.W.4: A. Nagesh.

Fair 11 of 10 CC.No.1808 of 2021

P.W.5: Dr. Harikrishna. P.W.6: E. Harish. P.W.7: A. Anil. FOR THE DEFENCE:- -None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: Ex.P.1: Report Ex.P.2: Wound Certificate. Ex.P.3: signature on crime detail form Ex.P.4: First information report Ex.P.5: Crime details form

FOR THE DEFENCE:- -Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-Nil-

PRL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF F.C.,

JAGTIAL.

fair 1 of 10 CC.No.1564 of 2021

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

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, AT JAGTIAL

PRESENT:- Smt. Srinija Kohirkar, I-Addl. Junior Civil Judge cum Judl.Magistrate of F.C., Jagtial.

Friday, the 24th day of April, 2026

CC.No. 1564 of 2021

(Cr.No. 183 of 2021 of PS.Jagtial town)

Between:- State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, PS., Jagtial town.

...Complainant.

AND

A1.Chandrakala, W/o.Narender, age:42 years, Caste:Mera, R/o.Thatipalli village of Jagtial mandal. A2.Gatla Laxmi, W/o.Ramesh, age:41 years, Caste:Mera, R/o.Krishna nagar, Jagtial town. A3.Sai Nitheen, S/o.Narender, age:49 years, Caste:Mera, R/o.Thatipalli village of Jagtial mandal (now residing at Chowrastha,Jagtial town)

...Accused no.1 to 3

This case coming before me on 13.04.2026 for final hearing in the presence of the learned Sri.B.Rajesh, Asst.Public Prosecutor for the Complainant/State and Sri.P.Venkteshwar Rao learnedcounsel for the accused no.1 to 3; and upon hearing their arguments and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S., Jagtial town has filed charge sheet against the accused no.1 to 3 in Cr.No.183 of 2021 for the offences punishable U/sec.290, 323, 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (in short “the IPC”).

2.The prosecution case in brief is that on 14-04-2021 at 10:30 hrs, complainant/LW-1/Ragilla Munimma has went to Jagtial town P'S and gave a telugu fair 2 of 10 CC.No.1564 of 2021 written report stated that, she is residing at Sriram nagar, Jagtial and living by doing rolling beedies. She has three daughters, all of them are married, but her two daughters are staying at Jagtial. However, her daughter frequently quarrel led with her for partition of properties. In this connection, the complainant, her daughters and her grandson raised quarreled to her. However On 13-04-2021 at 06:00PM, her eldest daughter Gatla Chandra Kala and midlist daughter Gatla Laxmi, also her eldest daughter's son Sai Nitheen and Vamshikrishna were came to house the complainant and raised quarrel the property matter there, they abused mostly vulgar filthy language of the complainant and they beaten with stick and their hand to LW1/Ragilla

Munimma var and head at the time LW-2/Ragilla Gangadhar have intervention to rescue her. They also beaten to him. They caused by received simple bleeding injuries his car and head. Therefore LW-1/Ragilla Munimma requested to take necessary action.

3.On receipt of the above petition, LW 10/M.Mahender has registered a case in

Cr. No. 3/2021 U/s 290, 323, 324 r/w 34-IPC and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, LW-10/M.Mahender has communicated the original FIR to the Hon'ble Court as well as copies of FIRs to all the concerned and examined

LWs1/Ragilla Munimma, Lw.2/Ragilla Gangadhar, Lw.3/Ankam Rani, Lw.4/Bonuka

Krishna, Lw.5/Gatla Thirupathi and recorded their statements in the CD in detail.

Later LW10/M.Mahender has visited the scene of offence and secured the presence of

Lws-7/Chatla Sai Prabha and Lw.8/Samba Mahesh and prepared the crime detail form in their presence. After completion of investigation Lw.11/K.Narayan Babu filed charge sheet against accused no.1 to 3 for offence U/sec.290, 323, 324 r/w 34 of fair 3 of 10 CC.No.1564 of 2021

Indian Penal Code

4.This court took cognizance for the offences punishable U/sec.290, 323, 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

5.On appearance of accused no.1 to 3, the copies of documents relating to the case were furnished to them, as required U/sec.207 Cr.P.C. The accused no.1 to 3 were examined U/sec.239 of Cr.P.C. and charges were framed against them for the offences punishable U/sec.290, 323, 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code against accused no.1 to 3. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PW1 to

PW8 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P8.

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused persons are examined

U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating material appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Accused no.1 to 3 denied the same and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

8.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned defence counsel

for the accused.

9.Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused persons for the offences punishable U/sec.290, 323, 324 r/w

34 of Indian Penal Code against accused no.1 to 3 beyond reasonable doubt?

POINT:-

10.The prosecution cited nine witnesses and out of them, it examined eight witnesses. PW1 is wife of LW.1/Ragilla Munimma. PW2 , Pw.4 are the eye witnesses,

Pw.3 is the younger daughter of Lw.1/Ragilla Munimma. Pw.5 is duty medical officer, Pw.6, Pw.7 are the panch witnesses for crime detail form. Pw.8 is the fair 4 of 10 CC.No.1564 of 2021 investigating officer. Learned prosecution given up evidence of other witnesses.

Now lets consider the evidence brought on record in this case.

11.PW1-R.Gangadhar has deposed that about 3 years ago accused no.l to 3 along with CCL, went to their house, abused them in filthy language demanding to transfer his property in their name, further they beat him with stick on him chest, they pulled car of Lw1/Ragilla Munimma as a result there was cut injury to her right eat. Accused no.1 to 3 and CCL also threatened to kill him, Lw1/Ragilla Munimma and Lw3. This incident was witnessed by Lw.3/Ankam Rani, Lw.4/Bonuka Krishna, Lw.5/Gatla

Thirupathi. Thereafter they went to police-station and Lw.l/Ragilla Munimma lodged report.

12. PW2-B.Krishna has deposed that he did not witness any incident. He does not know any facts of this case.

13.PW3-A.Rani has deposed that about 3 years ago accused no.1 to 3 along with

CCL went to their house, abused them in filthy language demanding to transfer her property in their name, further they beat Pw.1 with stick on his chest, they pulled ear of Lw.1/Ragilla Munimma as a result there was cut injury to her right ear. Accused no.1 to 3 and CCL also threatened to kill her, Lw.1/Ragilla Munimma and Pw.1. This incident was witnessed by Lw.3/Ankam Rani, Lw.4/Bonuka Krishna, Lw.5/Gatla

Thirupathi. Thereafter we went to police-station and Lw.1 lodged report.

14.Pw.4-G.Thirupathi has deposed that he does not know any facts of this case.

He did not witness any incident. Police neither examined him nor recorded his statement.

15.Pw.5-Dr.P.Rajendra Prasad had deposed that on 13-04-2021 he received a fair 5 of 10 CC.No.1564 of 2021 requisition from SHO of police jagtial town to examine an injured by name Ragilla

Munamma came to our hospital with alleged history of assault and on examination of her i found the following injuries. 1) Laceration over right ear lobule measuring 5 X 3

X 3 cms. The said injuiry is caused by blunt object and is simple in nature.

Accordingly he issued MC of Lw1/Ragilla Munimma. On the same day he also examined Ragilla Gangadhar/Pw1 he found the following injuries. 1) Laceration over nose measuring 7 x 5 x 3 cms. The said injury is caused by blunt object and is simple in nature. Accordingly he issued MC of pw1.

16.Pw.6-S.Mahesh had deposed that about 4 years ago on one day police came to drafted panchanama with regard to case filed by Pw.1 in their presence in police- station and obtained his signature.

17.Pw.7-Ch.Sai had deposed that about 4 years ago on one day police came to the house of Lw.1/Ragilla Munimma, conducted enquiry, drafted panchanama in his presence and in the presence of Pw.6 with the regard to the case lodged by

Lw.1/Ragilla Munimma. Witness identified his signature.

18.Pw.8-M.Mahender had deposed that on 14-04-2021, at about 10:30 hours

LW.1/Ragilla Munimma went to the police station and lodged report before him in crime No.183/2021 for the offence U/sec. 290, 323, 324 r/w 34 of IPC and took up the investigation and he communicated FIRs to Honourable court as well as copies of

FIRs to all concerned. During the course of investigation he examined and recorded the statements of Lw1/Ragilla Munimma, Lw.2/Ragilla Gangadhar, Lw.3/Ankam

Rani, Lw.4/Bonuka Krishna, Lw.5/Gatla Thirupathi. Later he visited the scene of offence and secured the presence of two mediators Lws-7/Chatla Sai Prabha and fair 6 of 10 CC.No.1564 of 2021

Lw.8/Samba Mahesh and prepared the crime detail form in their presence.

Consequently Lw11/K.Narayan Babu has took up investigation in this case he re- examined the witnesses who reiterated the same as recorded by me therefore,

Lw11/K.Narayan Babu did not re-record of Lwl/Ragilla Munimma, Lw.2/Ragilla

Gangadhar, Lw.3/Ankam Rani, Lw.4/Bonuka Krishna, Lw.5/Gatla Thirupathi,

Lw6/Harikrishna Rao of statements, Lw11/K.Narayan Babu verified investigation done by him found it on correct proper lines. Later he issued 41-A CrPC notice to accused with a direction to appear before court of law. later he secured the presence of accused on interrogation accused no.1 to 3 have voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence and further the sticks was thrown away somewhere and not possible to recover. Later Lw11/K.Narayan Babu has collected the CCL study certificate from Lw6/Harikrishna Rao and also Lw11/K.Narayan Babu examined and recorded the statements of Lw6/head master//Harikrishna Rao. Later Lw11/K.Narayan

Babu collected MC of Lw1/Ragilla Munimma and Lw2/Ragilla Gangadhar from government hospital jagtial in which medical officer/Lw9/Dr.P.Rajendra Prasad has stated that the injury is simple in nature. After completion of investigation

Lw11/K.Narayan Babu filed charge-sheet against accused for the offences U/sec.290, 323, 324 r/w 34 of IPC.

APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE:

19.The specific case of the prosecution is that on 13.04.2021 at about 06:00 pm, accused no.1 to 3 along with Juvenile came to the house of defacto-complainant, raised the property dispute, then accused no.1 to 3 along with Juvenile abused defacto- complainant in filthy language and had beaten him with stick and hands to the fair 7 of 10 CC.No.1564 of 2021 defacto-complainant and also on her head, when Lw.2/Ragilla Gangadhar intervened to rescue they had also beaten him.

In its support prosecution examined Pw.1 husband of defacto-complainant,

Pw.2 and Pw.4 are eye witnesses, Pw.3 is the yonger daughter of Pw.1 and also eye witness to incident, Pw.6 and Pw.7 are the mediators for crime detail form, Pw.5 is the doctor who treated defacto-complainant and Pw.1, Pw.8 is the investigating officer.

20.To prove the offence u/sec.290, 323, 324 r/w 34 of IPC when the prosecution has to establish the following ingredients.

1).Accused no.1 to 3 with common intention voluntarily caused hurt to Pw.1 and defacto-complainant using dangerous weapon which is likely to cause death etc.

21.The prosecution did not examine defacto-complainant in view of her death.

Lw.1/Defacto-complainant is also victim in the instant case, to support the version of defacto-complainant as stated in Ex.P1, prosecution examined Pw.1 who is non-other than husband of defacto-complainant, he testifies that accused no.1 to 3 along with

CCL came to their house demanded to transfer property in their name, further beat him with stick of his chest and they also pulled the ear of defacto-complainant which resulted in cut injury to her right ear. Further accused also threatened them. The cross- examination of Pw.1 shows that there were questions asked with regard to the family matters of defacto-complainant and other questions are mere suggestions which are not helpful to the defence. Pw.3 is the family member of Pw.1 ie., she is the daughter of Pw.1 and Lw.1/Ragilla Munimma. Admittedly accused no.1 and 2 are also daughters of PW.1 and defacto-complainant where as accused no.3 is the son of accused no.1. She/Pw.3 testifies that accused no.1 to 3 with CCL beat Pw.1 with stick fair 8 of 10 CC.No.1564 of 2021 on his chest and also pulled ear of Lw.1/Ragilla Munimma resulting in cut injury to her right ear. During the cross-examination of Pw.3 there is also not much elicited, which is helpful to the defence. The version of Pw.1 and Pw.3 is corroborating and as per their testimonies Lw.4/Bonuka Krishna and Lw.5/Gatla Thirupathi are eye witnesses to the incident. Both these eye witnesses examined as Pw.2 and Pw.4 testified that they did not witness any incident and they do not know any facts of this case. When they were cross-examined nothing is elicited in favour of prosecution.

One of the mediator to the crime detail form examined as Pw.6 turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution where as PW7 another mediator for Ex.P7 testifies about police drafting panchanama in his presence. The evidence of PW.7 is helpful to prove the scene of offence. Pw.8 is the investigating officer who testifies the manner of his investigation and investigation done by Lw.11/K.Narayan Babu. During his cross-examination he admits there is 16 hours delay in lodging report and he did not examine neighbors to the alleged scene of offence. There is also no recovery of any crime weapon made in the present offence. The record shows that their remains only evidence of Pw.1, Pw.3, Pw.5 and investigating officer who supported the case of prosecution. Pw.1 and Pw.3 are non other than father and daughter, as said accused no.1 and 2 are also daughters of Pw.1. Pw.5 doctor testifies that when she examined

Lw.1/defacto-complainant she found laceration injury over the right ear lobule. She opines the said injury to be simple in nature and issued Ex.P4. She further testifies she also examined Pw.1 and found laceration injury over the nose of Pw.1 Ex.P5 is the medical certificate of Pw.1 issued by Pw.4. During her cross-examination she admits that she did not mention the age of injury and also date of issuance of medical fair 9 of 10 CC.No.1564 of 2021 certificates on Ex.P4 and Ex.P5. The version of Pw.1 shows that the accused no.1 to 3 assaulted him with stick on his chest but whereas Ex.P5 medical certificate of Pw.1 reflects that Pw.1 sustained laceration injury over nose which undoubtedly means that the injury sustained by Pw.1 is not corroborating with the medical evidence. It is admitted that there are property disputes between both the parties and the motive appears to be same. Pw.1 and Pw.3 are interested witnesses and their presence is found to be doughtful and when the injuries testified by Pw.1 do not corroborate with the injury report and evidences itself creates doubt whether actually the alleged incident occurred as testified by Pw.1. The medical evidence and the evidences of prosecution witnesses are not corroborative, there is major contradictions between the medical report and the evidence of injured witness/Pw.1, the Pw.5 doctor who examined injured did not mention the age of injury on the medical certificates. Therefore the injuries of the Pw.1 could not be proved by the prosecution. Therefore in view of above given reasons the case of prosecution is not established beyond all reasonable doubt extending benefit of doubt to the accused which leads to acquittal.

22.In the result, accused no.1 to 3 are found not guilty and accordingly they are acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable u/sec.290, 323, 324 r/w 34 of IPC. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled subject to u/sec.437-A of

Cr.P.C. No property deposited as such no order is passed.

Partly Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III transcribed by her, partly typed directly on computer by Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this 24 th day of April, 2026.

I-Addl. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF F.C.,

JAGTIAL.

fair 10 of 10 CC.No.1564 of 2021

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: P.W.1: R.Gangadhar P.W.2: B.Krishna P.W.3: A.Rani P.W.4: G.Thirupathi P.W.5: Dr.P.Rajendra Prasad P.W.6: S.Mahesh P.W.7: Ch.Sai P.W.8: M.Mahender

FOR THE DEFENCE:- -None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: Ex.P.1: Report Ex.P.2: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.2 Ex.P.3:161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.4 Ex.P.4:Medical Certificate of Lw.1 Ex.P.5:Medical Certificate of Pw.1 Ex.P.6:Signature on Crime Details Form Ex.P.7:Crime Details Form Ex.P.8:First Information Report

FOR THE DEFENCE:- -Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-Nil-

I-ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF F.C.,

JAGTIAL.

Fair 1 of 10 CC.No. 848 of 2021

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

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, AT JAGTIAL

PRESENT:- Smt. Srinija Kohirkar, Prl. Junior Civil Judge cum Judl.Magistrate of F.C., Jagtial.

Tuesday, the 29th day of April, 2025

CC.No. 848 of 2021

(Cr.No. 54 of 2021 of PS. Beerpur)

Between:- State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, PS., Beerpur.

...Complainant.

AND

A.1:Puduri Rajesham, S/o: Mallaiah @ Chinnanna, Age: 36 years, A.2:Puduri Narsaiah, S/o: Mallaiah, Age: 40 years, A.3:Puduri Mallaiah, S/o: Boddaiah, Age: 60 years, All are R/o: Beerpur village and mandal.

...Accused Nos. 1 to 3.

This case coming before me on 16.04.2025 for final hearing in the presence of the learned Smt.M.Rajani Asst.Public Prosecutor for the Complainant/State and Sri. B. Ramesh and Sri. K. Gangarajam advocates for the accused persons; and upon hearing their arguments an having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S., Beerpur has filed charge sheet against the accused persons in Cr.No. 54 of 2021 for the offences punishable U/s. 290, 324, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

2.The prosecution case in brief is that the complainant submits that on 13.05.2021 at 08:00 hours, the the complainant/Puduri Sudhakar went to the PS and submitted a complaint stating that, he is resident of Beerpur village. On 12.05.2021 in the night hours at about 09:00 PM, while he was present at his house, his villagers

Fair 2 of 10 CC.No. 848 of 2021

A.1/Puduri Rajesham, A.2/Puduri Narsaiah and A.3/Puduri Mallaiah while they grass kept in his tin shed, on that he went there and asked them why they are kept the grass in his tine shed, but they are claiming them as the tin shed belongs to them and abused him in most filthy language and beat him with stick over his head and caused bleeding injury and further they have threatened to kill him, what they wants to do against them. Finally, he requested to take necessary action.

3.On receipt of the above complaint, the LW-09/A. Ravinder has registered a case in Cr. No. 54/2021 U/Sec 290, 324, 506 r/w 34 IPC, issued FIR and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, he has examined and recorded the statement of LW.1/P.Sudhakar, referred him to the Govt Hospital Jagtial for his treatment. During the course of investigation, the LW-08 along with men visited the scene of offence and secured the presence of the LW.2/A. Narsaiah, Lw.3/P. Ganga

Ravi, Lw.4/Narapaka Rajaiah examined them and recorded their detailed statements.

Later, observed the scene of offence and incorporated the details of the scene of offence under crime detail form. Subsequently, the LW-9/A. Anil took up further investigation, visited the scene of offence, where he re-examined the LWs 1 to 4. On 27.05.2021, the Lw.09 served notice U/Sec 41-A Cr.P.C to accused persons and on interrogation they have voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence. Later, served the notices against them with a instructions to appear before the court. The

Lw.9 has collected the Medical certificate form Lw.7 in which he opined that the injury is simple in nature caused with blunt object.

4.This court took cognizance for the offences punishable U/s. 290, 324, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

Fair 3 of 10 CC.No. 848 of 2021

5.On appearance of accused persons, the copies of documents relating to the case were furnished to them, as required U/s.207 Cr.P.C. The accused persons were examined U/s.239 of Cr.P.C. and charges were framed against them for the offences punishable U/s. 290, 324, 506 r/w 34 of IPC against accused persons. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PW1 to

PW.6 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P5.

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused persons are examined

U/s.313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating material appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Accused persons denied the same and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

8.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned defence counsel

for the accused.

9.Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused persons for the offences punishable U/s.U/s. 290, 324, 506 r/w 34 of IPC against accused beyond reasonable doubt?

POINT:-

10.The prosecution cited ten witnesses and out of them, it examined seven witnesses. PW1 is complainant/injured PW2 is the eye witnesses, Pw.3 is the mediator for CDF, Pw.4 is the 1st investigating officer, Pw.5 is the second investigating officer who filed charge sheet and Pw.6 is the doctor who treated Pw.1.

Now lets consider the evidence brought on record in this case.

11.PW1- Puduri Sudhakar has deposed that on 12.05.2021, in the night 9 hrs, A1 to A3 were dumping grass in his shed on coming to know the same immediately, he

Fair 4 of 10 CC.No. 848 of 2021 went to his shed and questioned them as to why they are dumping grass in his shed then, A1 to A3 grew wild abused him in most filthy language and A1 beat him on his head with stick while A2 and a3 caught hold his hands he received bleeding injury.

Lw.2 to 4 witnessed this incident. He went to police station to give complaint and police referred him to hospital for treatment on the next day he lodged report.

12. PW2 -Narsaiah has deposed that in the month of May 2021, in the night hrs, at 9 pm, A1 to A3 dumped grass in the shed of Pw.1 when Pw.1 questioned as to why they are dumping grass in his shed, then A1 beat Pw.1 on his head with stick while A2 and A3 caught hold of hands of Pw.1 and he received bleeding injury. Himself, Lw.3 and 4 witnessed this incident.

13.PW4 by name A.Ravinder has deposed that on 13.05.2021 at 08:00 hrs he received Ex.P1 from Pw.1. Basing on the said report he registered a case in

Cr.No.54/2021 for the offence punishable under sections 290, 324, 506 r/w 34 of Ipc and issued Fir to all concerned. During the course of investigation he got examined and recorded statements of PW.1 at police station and referred him to hospital for treatment. Later he proceeded to scene of offence secured the presence of Lw.5 and 6 and conducted scene observation panchanama in their presence and he also examined and recorded the statements of Lw.2 to 4.

14.PW5 by name A.anil has deposed that he received CD file from Pw.4 and found it to be in correct lines. On 27.05.2021 he served 41-a Cr.P.C. notice to accused with a direction to appear before him accordingly accused appeared before him and he directed them to appear before the Hon’ble court on receipt of summons. He have collected medical certificates of PW.1 from Lw.7. after completion of investigation he

Fair 5 of 10 CC.No. 848 of 2021 filed charge sheet against accused for offence under section 290, 324, 506 r/w 34 of

IPC.

15.PW6-Dr.Prathima has deposed that on 13.05.02021, he received requisition form SHO police, Beerpur to examine an injured by name P.Sudhakar/Pw.1.

accordingly he examined him and found following injury. 1.Laceration over scalp measuring 2x2x1 cms which is simple in nature and caused by blunt object.

Accordingly, he issued wound certificate of Pw.1. Witness identified her signature on ex.P5 which was issued by her.

APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE:

16.The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that on 12.05.2021 at about 09:00 hours accused persons went to the tin shed of Pw.1 and stored their grass, on noticing the same Pw.1 questioned accused about this, then they have abused Pw.1 in filthy language, kicked up with stick, beat over head of Pw.1, resulting bleeding injury.

Further, accused threatened Pw.1 with dire consequences. The accused persons have been charged offences u/sec.290, 324, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

17.In its support prosecution examined PW1 is complainant/injured PW2 is the eye witnesses, Pw.3 is the mediator for CDF, Pw.6 is the doctor who treated Pw.1.

Pws.4 & 5 are the investigating officers.

18.In order to establish the offences U/sec.290, 324, 506 r/w 34 of IPC, the prosecution has established the following ingredients.

i. Accused Nos.1 to 3 with common intention voluntarily caused hurt to Pw.1, ii. such hurt must be caused using dangerous weapons, iii. Accused Nos. 1 to 3 criminally intimated Pw.1.

Fair 6 of 10 CC.No. 848 of 2021

19.Pw.1/injured testifies that on 12.05.2021 in the night hours A.1 to A.3 while dumping grass in tin shed, Pw.1 questioned them, then accused abused him, accused

No.1 beat the Pw.1 with stick on his head whereas, the A.2 & A.3 caught hold hand of

Pw.1. Pw.2 also testifies in the supporting lines of Pw.1. Pw.2 is the ocular witness.

Pw.3 is the mediator for crime details form who turned hostile by testifies that police did not conduct any panchanama in his presence. Pws. 4 & 5 are the Investigating officers who testifies the chronological evens of their investigation. Pw.6 is the doctor who treated Pw.1, she testifies that on 13.05.2021 he examined Pw.1 and found laceration injury over scalp measuring 2x2x1 cms. Pw.6 opined the injury to be simple injury. Ex.P.5 is the injury certificate of Pw.1. Admittedly, as per the investigating officers there are land disputes between accused and complainant.

20.During the course of cross-examination of Pw.1, he states that police station is only half kilometer away from the place of incident, he also admits that there is 12 hours delay in lodging report. In incident occurred on 12.05.2021 and Ex.P.1 lodged on 13.05.2021, as per the version of Pw.1, the delay was due to Pw.1 visiting hospital to get treatment of his injuries. It is argued by the learned councel for accused that the present case is filed falsely as the counter blast to the case filed by the accused vide

CC No.1808 of 2021 against the complainant herein. It is further argued that there is a

case on counter case and only to harass the accused they are falsely implicated in the present case.

The Hon’ble Apex Court in NATHI LAL and others Vs STATE OF UTTAR

PRADESH (1990) (SUP) SCC 145 has explained the procedure to be followed in the cross cases, and in said decision it was held that;

Fair 7 of 10 CC.No. 848 of 2021 “We think that the fair procedure to adopt in a matter like the present where there are cross cases, is to direct that the same learned Judge must try both the cross cases one after the other. After the recording of evidence in one case is completed, he must hear the arguments but he must reserve the judgment. Thereafter he must proceed to hear the cross case and after recording all the evidence he must hear the arguments but reserve the judgment in that case. The same learned Judge must thereafter dispose of the matters by two separate judgments. In deciding each of the cases, he can rely only on the evidence recorded in that particular case. The evidence recorded in the cross case cannot be looked into. Nor can the judge be influenced by whatever is argued in the cross case. Each case must be decided on the basis of the evidence which has been placed on record in that particular case without being influenced in any manner by the evidence or arguments urged in the cross case. But both the judgments must be pronounced by the same learned Judge one after the other.”

21.Therefore, from the ration laid by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the said decisions, it is clear that each case has to be decided on the basis which have been placed on record in that particular case without being any influence of the cross case. It is also argued by the learned counsel for accused that there is 13 hours delay in lodging report and police station only half kilometer away from the scene of offence. It is further argued that prosecution also did not filed any land related documents and there is dispute of Ac.0-05 gts of land between accused and complainant. Moreover, Pws. 1 & 2 were also cross-examined with regard to the counter case, but as already discussed each case has to be decided. From the basis of the evidences which is placed without being influenced by the counter case arguments. Now it is question whether the testimonies of Pws. 1 & 2 suffers from any infirmities to connect the case with the accused. Pw.4 is the first investigate officer also admitted that there is 13 hours delay in lodging report. As per the version of Pw.1 delay was due to going to hospital for treatment. Whereas, in FIR Ex.P.3 shows as the delay was due to night hours. Pw.1 failed to explain satisfactory reasons in delay in lodging report and also failed to give

Fair 8 of 10 CC.No. 848 of 2021 any plausible explanation. Further more, inconsistent reasons given by him in Ex.P.3, when Pw.2 was cross examined he was suggested by the learned counsel for accused that Pw.2 is arrayed as an accused in CC No.1808 of 2021, but he answers in negative.

But as seen from the record, Pw.2 is an accused in said another crime, which would definitely gives a reason for Pw.2 to depose against accused. Hence Pw.2 cannot be said to be reliable witness. When Pw.1 failed to give plausible explanation for delay lodging report, it is definitely fatal to the case of prosecution, which would give Pw.1 a chance for explanation of his case. Even for a while, it is presumed that due to night hours Pw.1 could not go to Police Station, but Pw.1 gave different reasons in his evidence for delay in lodging Ex.P.1. Moreover, Pw.1 states that he went to hospital on the same day of incident, where as per the evidence of doctor/Pw.6 Pw.1 was treated on 13.05.2021 but not on the same date of alleged incident, age of the injury also not mentioned on Ex.P.5. All these factors shows that it is unsafe to rely upon the testimonies of Pws.1 & 2 to hold that accused convicted in the above offences. With these all above discussed factors and reasons gives reasonable doubt in the case of prosecution and benefit of doubt shall goes to accused. Point is answered accordingly.

23.In the result, the accused are acquitted U/s.248(1) Cr.P.C for the offences U/s.

290, 324, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled subject to

U/s.437-A of Cr.PC.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer grade-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 29 th day of April, 2025.

PRL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF F.C.,

JAGTIAL.

Fair 9 of 10 CC.No. 848 of 2021

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: P.W.1: P. Sudhakar. P.W.2: D. Narsaiah. P.W.3: M. Chandra Shakar. P.W.4: A. Ravinder. P.W.5: A. Anil. P.W.6: Dr. Prathima.

FOR THE DEFENCE:- -None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: Ex.P.1: Report. Ex.P.2: signature on crime detail form. Ex.P.3: First information report. Ex.P.4: Crime details form. Ex.P.5: Medical certificate.

FOR THE DEFENCE:- -Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-Nil-

PRL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF F.C.,

JAGTIAL.

fair 1 of 10 CC.No.368 of 2019

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

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS : AT : JAGTIAL

Present: Smt. SRINIJA KOHIRKAR, I-Addl. Junior Civil Judge – cum –

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

JAGTIAL

Monday, the 17th day of April, 2026

CALENDAR CASE NO.368 OF 2019

Between: The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, Jagtial town, (Cr.No.32/2019)

...Complainant

AND

A1.Banala Shravan, S/o.Rajaiah, age:26 years, Dakkali, R/o.H.No.3-21, Veldi village of Manakondur mandal. A2.Kanakanti Naresh @ Nagaraju, S/o.Erraiah, age:23 years, Dakkali, R/o.Thirumalapur village of Ramadugu mandal.

…..Accused no.1 and 2

****

This case coming before me on 02-04-2026 for final hearing in the presence of the learned Sri.B.Rajesh, Asst.Public Prosecutor for the Complainant/State and Sri.K.Narsaiah, Advocate for accused no.1 and Sri.R.Vijayakrishna learned legal aid counsel for accused no.2; and upon hearing his arguments and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS.Jagtial town, has laid charge sheet in connection with First Information Report No.32 of 2019 for the offence under section 420 of IPC against the accused no.1 and 2.

fair 2 of 10 CC.No.368 of 2019

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

On 09-02-2019 at 11:30 hrs., the complainant/Thuniki Jagan went to police station Jagtial and lodged a complainant that he is the resident of Sriramnagar, Jagtial.

He lives by doing his caste profession i.e., gold work for his livelihood. He had a bank account in the SBI main branch at Jagtial. On 30th November 2018, he has withdrawn an amount of Rs.10,000/- from Andhra Bank main branch ATM Centre by using his

SBI ATM card, but not received money and message also. Then he again withdrawn of

Rs.10,000/- in another machine in the same ATM centre and received money. But after going few days he checked his balance and found Rs.10,000/- low balance in his account. As such he approached the manager of SBI bank main branch, but they informed his money will be credited to his account soon after 15 or 20-days. But not added his money to his account. Later, he again met with the Manager of Andhra

Bank, as the manager says that he will inform after checking CC Cameras in the ATM

Centre. Today, he again approached the manager of Andhra Bank and the manager informed into him that one un-known offender withdrawn his money from the ATM machine by using pin number and cheated him by collect his money. Finally, the complainant requested for taking necessary action.

3.On receipt of the above complaint, Lw-7/P.Althaf Khan registered a case in Cr.

No.32/2019, U/sec 420 IPC, issued FIR to all the concerned and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, Lw-7/P.Althaf Khan examined and recorded the statement of LW-1/Tuniki Jagan in the police station Jagtial town. Later, fair 3 of 10 CC.No.368 of 2019

Lw-7/P.Althaf Khan visited the scene of offence, secured the presence of two mediators i.e., Lws.2/Manapuri Sharath and Lw.3/Shaik Mujahid, observed the scene minutely and incorporated the same in crime details form. After completion of investigation LW7/P.Althaf Khan filed charge sheet against accused no.1 and 2 for the offences punishable U/sec 420 of IPC.

4. This Court took cognizance for the offences punishable U/sec. 420 of IPC against the accused no.1 and 2.

5.On appearance of accused no.1 and 2, the copies of documents relating to the case were furnished to them, as required U/sec.207 Cr.P.C. The accused no.1 and 2 were examined U/sec.239 of Cr.P.C. and charges were framed against them for the offences punishable U/sec.420 of IPC against accused no.1 and 2. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to establish the guilt of the accused no.1 and 2, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW3 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P5.

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused persons are examined

U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating material appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Accused no.1 and 2 denied the same and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

8.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned defence counsel

for the accused.

9.Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution has established

the guilt of the accused persons for the offences punishable U/sec .420 of IPC

against accused no.1 and 2 beyond reasonable doubt?

fair 4 of 10 CC.No.368 of 2019

POINT:

10.In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to Pw.3. Pw.1 is the panch for crime details form, Pw.2 is the panch for confession and recovery panchanama of accused, Pw.3 is the 1st investigating officer.

Now lets consider the evidence brought on record in this case.

11. PW1-M.Sharath Kumar has deposed that at about 6 years ago on one day police came to Jambigadde Andhra Bank main branch ATM centre Jagtial and conducted panchanama in his presence and in the presence of Lw.3/Shaik Mujahid and obtained their signatures with regard to case lodged by Lw.1/Tuniki Jagan. Witness identified his signature.

12. Pw.2- K.Laxmaiah has deposed that on 11-02-2019 at 03:30 hours on the oral instructions their Tahisidar himself and Lw5/Mittadoddi Srikanth have attended IB chowrastha, mukarampura, karimnagar, wherein there were two persons present with the police, on the instructions of police when he enquired with them they revealed their names as Banala Shravan and Naresh. Banala sravan confessed before him that he was habituated to commit the crimes in various places of karimnagar district along with accused no.2, as such on 10-12-2018 he along with accused no.2 came to jagtial and went to Andhra bank at RDO office, in which there were two ATMs, in the meantime one person came and operated the ATM by pressing his pin number and tried to draw an amount of Rs.10000/- but it was failed as such he tried in the second

ATM, while such persons trying to withdraw the cash in the second ATM the sravan fair 5 of 10 CC.No.368 of 2019 who is standing behind illegally operated the first ATM by using the above said customer pin and drawn the said amount of Rs.10000/-, after he along with accused no.2 have taken Rs.5000/- each, and they came to karimnagar wherein they have utilized Rs.4400/- and Rs.4800/- respectively. They also have confessed that they committed other offences along with this offence. Basing on confession police karimnagar II-town recovered Rs.600/-from accused no.1 and Rs.400/- from accused no.2. this was reduced into writing.

13.PW3-P.Altaf Khan has deposed that on 09-02-2019 LW.1/Tuniki Jagan went to the police station and lodged report before him, basing on the averments he registered a case in Cr.No.32/2019 U/Sec.420, 380 of IPC and issued FIR to all concerned.

During the course of investigation he examined Lw.1/Tuniki Jagan in the police station, recorded his statement. Later he secured the presence of two mediators ie

Lws.2/Manapuri Sharath and Lw.3/Shaik Mujahid and observed the scene minutely and incorporated the same in CDF. On 11-02-2019 S.I of police karimnagar II-town

Lw6/M.Satheesh arrested accused no.l and 2 in Cr.No.60/2019. u/sec.420 and 380 of

IPC and interrogated them before Lw4/Kommu Laxmaiah and Lw.5/Mittadoddi

Srikanth. During the course of interrogation accused voluntarily confessed this offence and other offences. Later Lw6/M.Satheesh handedover all the net cash from the arrested accused no.l and 2 under cover of confession and recovery panchanama before

Lw4/Kommu Laxmaiah and Lw.5/Mittadoddi Srikanth. after completion of arrest

Formalities accused no.l and 2 were produced the honourable JMFC court karimnagar fair 6 of 10 CC.No.368 of 2019 for judicial custody. On 17-02-2019 a requisition filed by me for issuing of PT warrant against accused no.l and 2. Accordingly accused no.l and 2 were produced before this

honoruable court on PT warrant for judicial remand in this case. After completion of

investigation he filed charge-sheet against accused no.1 and 2 for the offences U/sec 457, 380 of IPC.

APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE

14. The brief case of the prosecution is that on 30.11.2018 the complainant had withdrawn an amount of Rs.10,000/- from the ATM, but he did not receive money and he left form the ATM. Later, he approached the Andhra Bank Manager, who informed to Lw.1/Tuniki Jagan that the amount was debited from his account, but not credited.

The accused no.1 and 2 withdrawn the amount of Rs.10,000/- from the account of

Lw.1/Tuniki Jagan. Accused no.1 and 2 committed theft of amount from the account of

Lw.1/Tuniki Jagan cheatingly by withdrawing the amount.

Prosecution in its supports examined PW.1 is the panch witness for crime detail form,

Pw.2 is the panch witnesses for confession and recovery panchanama of accused, Pw.3 is the 1st investigating officer.

15.In order to prove its case the prosecution has to establish the following ingredients for the offences u/sec.420 of IPC.

1). Accused with dishonest intention induced Pw.1 to deliver property.

2). Accused threatened Pw.1 with dire consequences i.e criminal intimidation towards

Pw.1.

fair 7 of 10 CC.No.368 of 2019

16.At the out set, it is noted that the present case was originated with registration of

FIR.No.32/2019, Lw.7/P.Altaf Khan registered First Information Report vide Ex.P3 and examined and recorded the statements of Lws-1/Tuniki Jagan at police station, later he proceeded to the scene of offence and also secured the presence of Lws.2/Manapuri Sharath

Kumar and Lw.3/Shaik Mujahid conducted scene observation panchanama in their presence vide Ex.P1.

17.Pw.3 who was Inspector of police at Jagtial town 09.02.2019 deposes that accused no.1 and 2 were arrested by Lw.6/M.Satheesh in Cr.No.60/2019, u/sec.420, 380 of IPC PS

Karimnagar II-twon, on confession and recovery panchanama of accused Lw.6/M.Satheesh recovered the stolen property in the presence of Lw4/Kommu Laxmaiah and Lw.5/Mittadoddi

Srikanth mediators, Lw.6/M.Satheesh recovered Rs.600/- from accused no.1 and Rs.400/- from accused no.2 under the cover of confession and recovery panchanama vide Ex.P2. Thus basing on the confessional statement of accused no.1 and 2 they are charged with offence u/sec.420 nd 380 IPC in the instant case.

18. Complainant was not examined before this court and police filed death certificate of complainant. Pw.1 in his examination-in-chief testified that about 6 years ago on one day police came to Jambigadde Andhra Bank main branch ATM centre Jagtial and conducted panchanama in his presence and in the presence of Lw.3/Shaik Mujahid and obtained their signatures with regard to case lodged by Lw.1/Tuniki Jagan. Witness identified his signature.

And through the evidence of Pw.1 the scene of offence is proved.

fair 8 of 10 CC.No.368 of 2019

Now the question that falls for consideration is that whether accused no.1 and 2 can be held responsible for the said offence. In order to connect the accused no.1 and 2 with the present, the prosecution has examined Pw.2 is the mediators for confession and recovery panchanama dated 11.02.2019. The evidence of Pw.2 is back bone to the case of prosecution.

According to section 25 of Evidence Act it formulates that the confession made by an accused no.1 and 3 before a police officer cannot be proved against them. Section 26 of the Evidence

Act stipulates that a confession made by an accused no.1 and 2 while in police custody cannot be proved against them. However there is an exception to the rule provided for in by the aforesaid two sections i.e 25 and 26 of Evidence Act u/sec.27 of the Evidence Act, according to which, a confessional statement made before a police officer or while an accused are in police custody, can be proved against them when the same leads to discovery of an unknown fact or a new fact.

19.The confession of accused no.1 and 2 is an extra judicial confession and generally an extra judicial confession is a very weak piece of evidence. As discussed the confession made by accused no.1 and 2 are not admissible unless and until it is made before the presence of Magistrate and this is hit by exception u/sec. 27 of evidence Act. As per the version of Pw.2, Rs.600/- recovered from the possession of accused no.1 and Rs.400/- recovered from the possession of accused no.2 but during the cross-examination Pw.2 categorically admits that the alleged panchanama was conducted on 11.02.2019, he does not know specific details of each offence. It is argued by learned counsel for accused that Ex.P2 is created one. This admission made fair 9 of 10 CC.No.368 of 2019 by Pw.2 creates doubt with regard to the genuinity of Ex.P2 and also recovered amount is minimum amount which can be carried by any one. While this is the case, the credibility of the witness is shaken and it is not safe to rely upon the sole testimony of Pw.2 to connect the case with accused no.1 and 2. The recovery of minimum amount Rs.600/- from accused no.1 and Rs.400/- from accused no.2 is not proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, guilt of the accused no.1 and 2 cannot be believed basing on the doubtful evidence of Pw.2. Therefore, this court is of the opinion that it is un-safe to hold the accused no.1 and 2 liable for the commission of offence extending benefit of doubt. The point is answered against the prosecution.

20.In the result, accused no.1 and 2 are found not guilty and accordingly they are acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable u/sec.420 of IPC.

Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled subject to u/sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. The un-marked case property i.e net cash of Rs.1,000/-(rupees thousand only) already given to its original owner vide Cr.No.32 of 2019 dt:02.04.2019 holds goods after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation directly on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17 th day of April, 2026.

I-Addl. Junior Civil Judge – cum –

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Jagtial.

fair 10 of 10 CC.No.368 of 2019

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: P.W.1: M.Sharath Kumar P.W.2: K.Laxmaiah P.W.3: P.Altaf Khan

FOR THE DEFENCE:- -None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: Ex.P.1: is Crime Detail Form Ex.P.2: is Relevant portion in attested copy of confession and recovery panchanama of accused dt:11.02.2019. Ex.P.3: is First Information Report EX.P.4: is form-60 i.e property deposit form EX.P.5: is Report

FOR THE DEFENCE:- MATERIAL OBJECTS -Nil- -Nil-

I-Addl. Junior Civil Judge cum Judl. Magistrate of First Class., Jagtial.

fair 11 of 10 CC.No.368 of 2019 fair 12 of 10 CC.No.368 of 2019