Ms. Srinija Kohirkar

1 (FAIR)

IN THE COURT OF IV­ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE­CUM­SPECIAL

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS (EXCISE) :: AT :: KARIMNAGAR.

Present: MS. SRINIJA KOHIRKAR, IV­Addl. Junior Civil Judge­cum­ Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Excise), Karimnagar.

Thursday, the 28th day of July, 2022.

CALENDAR CASE NO.281 OF 2017

Between:

The State through Sub­Inspector of Police, Ramadugu Police Station (Cr.No.110/2017)

...Complainant

AND

A1:Jakkula Veeraiah S/o. Rajaiah, Age: 59 years A2:Jakkula Ramesh S/o. Veeraiah, Age:31 years Both are R/o. Dathojipet village of Ramadugu Mandal of Karimnagar District

...Accused

­­­ This case is coming before me on 20.07.2022 for final hearing in the presence of Sri. G. Veera Swamy, Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri. E. Raja Reddy, Advocate for the accused and having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:­

:: J U D G M E N T::

1.The Sub­Inspector of Police, Ramadugu Police Station filed charge­sheet in connection with First Information Report No.110 of 2017 against the accused for the offence under section 447, 324 r/w 34 of IPC.

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

On 16.07.2017 at 1015 hours, Jakkula Bagya, complainant, went to police station and lodged a report, in which she stated that on 16.07.2017 at 0800 hours, her senior brother­in­law by name Jakkula Veeraiah (accused

No.1) and his son Jakkula Ramesh (accused No.2), while she was cultivating

Spl. JMFC (E), KNR 2 her land, accused No.1 and 2 beat her with sticks by abusing in filthy language.

3.On the basis of the complaint lodged by Pw1, K. Ganga Raju, Head

Constable of Police, (Pw7), has registered a case in Crime No.110 of 2017 for the offence punishable under Section 447, 324 r/w 34 of IPC, issued First

Information Report. During the course of investigation, Pw7 examined and recorded the statements of Jakkula Bagya (Pw1), Jakkula Raju (Pw2), Jakkula

Mallaiah (Pw3), Miryala Laxmi (Pw5), Edla Prameela (Lw5), prepared crime details form in the presence of Tangella Malla Reddy (Pw4) and Kosna Mohan

Reddy (Lw6). Later Lw8­N. Naresh Reddy, Sub­Inspector of Police, has took up the case for further investigation, verified the investigation done by Pw7, found it on proper lines and after completion of investigation filed charge­sheet against the accused under section 447, 324 r/w 34 of IPC.

4.Basing on the charge sheet and other material available on record, cognizance was taken against the accused for the offence under section 447, 324 r/w 34 of IPC and registered the case as C.C.No.281 of 2017. 

5.After securing the presence of the accused before this Court, copies of documents were furnished to them as required U/Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C. 

6.On appearance of accused before this Court, accused No.1 and 2 are examined, after careful consideration and upon hearing them, framed charges for the offence punishable under Sections 447, 324 r/w 34 of IPC against them, read over and explained the same to them in Telugu language. Accused pleaded not guilty for the said charge and claimed to be tried.

Spl. JMFC (E), KNR 3

7.After completion of the prosecution evidence, accused No.1 and 2 examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., and they denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

8.To prove its case, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P­1 to P­4.

9.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the prosecution as well as the learned counsel for accused and perused the entire material available on record consisting of both oral and documentary evidence.

10.On perusal of the entire documents filed by the prosecution, the points that arose for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 447, 324 r/w 34 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt ?

POINT:

11. The case of prosecution is that Pw3 and accused No.1 are own brothers and they have land disputes in Sy.No.32/B/2, which is situated near Dathojiet

X road. On 16.07.2017, at 0800 hours, accused No.1 and 2, who are father and son, while cultivating the land, Pw1 questioned them about their cultivation, then accused No.1 and 2 provoked themselves, beat her with sticks and caused bleeding injuries. Hence, the case under section 447, 324 r/w 34 of IPC.

Spl. JMFC (E), KNR 4

12.Now lets consider the evidence brought on record. 

13.Pw1­Jakkula Bagya deposed that on 16.07.2017, at about 08:00 am, she went to her fields, by that time, accused No.1 and 2 were ploughing her land. On that she questioned accused as to why they were ploughing her land, then accused No.1 and 2, abused her by using bad words and beat her with sticks, as a result, she received injuries on her forehead, hands and legs. Pw1 further deposed that due to injuries she was unable to work for four years. 

14.Pw2­Jakkula Raju deposed that on16.07.2017, himself and his mother/Pw1 went to fields at about 08:00 am, by that time, accused No.1 and 2 were ploughing their land, on questioning as to why they were ploughing their land, then accused No.1 and 2, abused Pw1 by using bad words and also beat

Pw1 with sticks, as a result, Pw1 received bleeding injuries. Pw2 further deposed that himself and Pw1 went to their house and informed about the incident to his father and people present there namely Miryala Laxmi, Edla

Prameela and Miryala Shobha. 

15.Pw3­Jakkula Mallaiah deposed that on 16.07.2017, Pw1 and 2 went to their fields in Sy.No.32, by that time, accused No.1 and 2 were ploughing their land, when they questioned as to why they were ploughing their land, accused abused Pw1 by using bad words and beat her with sticks. Pw3 further deposed that Pw1 and 2 came to their house and informed about the incident. 

16.Pw4­Tangella Malla Reddy deposed that on 17.07.2015, at about 11:00 am, police Ramadugu Head Constable conducted crime details form near agriculture land of accused No.1 and 2 in his presence and drawn sketch of

Spl. JMFC (E), KNR 5 scene of offence. Pw4 further deposed that police read over contents of crimed details form to him and he know the contents of it.

17. Pw5­Miryala Laxmi deposed that on 16.07.2015 at about 09:00 am, Pw1 and 2 came crying to road from their fields, on seeing that she asked them what happened, then they replied that accused No.1 and 2 beat them. 

18.Pw6­Dr. K. Sathish Kumar, deposed that on 16.07.2017 at about 12:30 pm, he received a requisition from police Ramadugu. Accordingly, he examined

Pw1 and found the following injuries. 

(i) Abrasion over left hand which is 2X10 cm

(ii) Laceration over right temporal region which is 1X1X1 cm

(iii) Contusion on the right thigh which is 5X5 cm iv) X­ray dt.16.07.2017 and 18.07.2017 no bone injuries

19.Pw7­K. Ganga Raju, Head Constable of Police deposed that on 16.07.2017, at about 1015 hours, he received a complaint from Pw1 and basing on it, he registered a case in Cr.No.110/2017 for the offence under section 447, 324 r/w 34 of IPC. Pw7 further deposed that during the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of Pws1 to 3, Pw5,

Lw5­Edla Prameela, prepared crime details form in the presence of Pw4 and

Lw6­Kosna Mohan reddy.

20.Pw8­N. Naresh Reddy, Sub­Inspector of Police deposed that on 17.07.2017, he took up the case for further investigation, collected medical certificate from Pw6, verified the investigation done by Pw7, found it on proper

Spl. JMFC (E), KNR 6 lines, and after completion of investigation filed charge­sheet against the accused under section 447, 324 r/w 34 of IPC. 

APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE.

21.In the present case the accused has been charged for the offence under section 447, 324 of IPC. The following ingredients must be satisfied by the prosecution to bring the accused guilty. 

(i) Accused must have committed criminal trespass into the property of Pw1 in which she is in possession with an intend to commit the offence or intimidate or annoy her in possession of such property. 

(ii) The accused must have voluntarily caused hurt as defined in section 323 of

IPC, in which hurt caused by dangerous weapon with an common intention.

22.On behalf of prosecution, Pws1 to 8 are examined. Pws1 to 3 are family members. Pw4 is the pancha witness for crime details form. Pw5 is the circumstantial witness. Pw6 is the doctor, who examined Pw1. Pw7 and Pw8 are the investigating officers. Pw2 is the son of Pw1 and Pw3. Pw3 is own brother of accused No.1.

23. Pws1 to 34 categorically deposed in their chief examination that on 16.07.2017, Pw1 and Pw2 went to their fields at 08:00 am, by that time, accused No.1 and 2 were ploughing the said land and when questioned by Pw1, accused No.1 and 2, abused Pw1 using bad words and beat her with sticks, as a result, Pw1 sustained injuries on forehead, hands and legs. Later, Pw3 took

Pw1 to police station and police referred Pw1 to government hospital for treatment. Pw1 gave report to police, which is marked as Ex.P1. 

Spl. JMFC (E), KNR 7

24.On perusal of Ex.P1, Pw1 did not state about the injury which she sustained on her forehead, hands and legs and also the learned counsel for the accused suggested the same by showing Ex.P1 and her 161 Cr.PC statement.

Further the learned counsel for accused also gave the same suggestion to Pw7, where Pw7 admitted that Pw1 did not state in her 161 Cr.PC statement specifically that she received injuries on her forehead and legs. Hence, a contradiction is brought on record by the learned counsel for the accused in the cross examination of Pw1. Further in the chief examination of Pw1, she did not state the motive or intention behind the alleged incident, even though the police mentioned in the charge­sheet about the land disputes between Pws1 to 3 and accused. Simply, Pw1 deposed that accused No.1 and 2 were ploughing their land but she did not bring any record to show that Pws1 to 3 are in the possession of said land, hence the ingredients of section 447 of IPC are not established by the prosecution to prove that accused No.1 and 2 entered into the property of Pw1 with an intention to commit any offence or to annoy, intimidate or to insult Pw1. From the chief examination of Pw1 itself it can be inferred that on Pw1 questioning accused No.1 and 2, they abused Pw1 with bad words as per the allegations of Pw1 but the prosecution did not bring any independent witnesses to prove the said fact. When there is civil dispute between Pw1 and accused, only the evidence of Pws1 and 2 getting to a conclusion that accused beat Pw1 does not surmise to the basic fundamental principle. That the prosecution has to prove the guilt beyond all reasonable doubt but this test is not passed, in the circumstances in which Pw1 and 2 deposed.

Spl. JMFC (E), KNR 8

25.On perusal of evidence of Pw2, Pw2 also deposed in the same lines of Pw1 as he is the son of Pw1. The evidence of some other witnesses is very much required to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Pw3 is hearsay witness and got the knowledge from the information given by Pws1 and 2, hence he is not eye witness to alleged incident and it is very much natural that he would depose the evidence in the same lines of his wife and son. 

26.Pw4 deposed in his chief examination that he know the contents of crime details form and also the scene of offence and contents of crime details form but he did not state in his chief examination about the details of crime details form or about the sketch of scene of offence simply stating that he knows the contents of crime details form or sketch of scene of offence, is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused.

27.Pw5 in his chief examination deposed that on 16.07.2015 at about 09:00 am, Pws1 to 2 came trying to road from their fields, on seeing them, he enquired about what happened, they replied that accused beat them, so as per the evidence of Pw5 also he did not state anything about the accused as a direct witness and also he got the information only through Pw1 and 2. Hence, the evidence of Pw5 also not alone sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused.

For even if it is presumed that he is an circumstantial witness but itself is not sufficient to fill the chain of causation.

28.Pw6 is the doctor, who examined Pw1 on the same day, and deposed about the injuries which are matching with the chief of Pw1 but Pw1 stated in her chief examination for the first time about the injuries hence exclusively basing on the evidence of Pw6, the case of prosecution cannot be decided in

Spl. JMFC (E), KNR 9 their favour. Further in the cross examination, Pw6 also deposed that the said injuries are possible for any person during the course of agricultural works and opined that they are simple in nature.

29.Pw7 and Pw8 are the investigating officers, who reiterated the contents of charge­sheet and the manner of investigation. Pw7 admitted that Pw1 did not state about her injuries in her 161 Cr.PC statement and also admitted that in the sketch map of crime details form land of Pw1 is not shown and also in his cross examination he added that Jakkula Bhagya also known as Gantla Bhagay but did not bring any record to prove the same and he denied the suggestions given by the learned counsel for the accused.

30.Pw8 in his chief examination also reiterated the contents of charge­sheet to some extent and also deposed that the sticks in commission of offence has thrown somewhere as such they could not recovered. Simply by stating the said fact by the investigating officer regard the non­recovery weapon, except this nothing is elicited in favour of prosecution. Hence, marshelling the evidence from Pws1 to 8, the contents of evidence of prosecution witnesses is not sufficient to prove the case of prosecution as ingredients of section 324 of IPC are not satisfied. 

Therefore, in view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients under section 447 and 324 r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt and accused are entitled for benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the point is answered. 

Spl. JMFC (E), KNR 10

31.In the result, accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty and they are acquitted under section 248 (1) of Cr.PC for the offence under section 447, 324 r/w 34 of IPC. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after six months. The un­marked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr­III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 28th day of July, 2022.

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Excise), Karimnagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE: P.W.1: Jakkula Bagya­­NONE­­ P.W.2: Jakkula Raju P.W.3: Jakkula Mallaiah P.W.4: Tangella Malla Reddy P.W.5: Miryala Laxmi P.W.6: Dr. K. Satish Kumar P.W.7: K. Ganga Raju P.W.8: N. Naresh Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: Ex.P.1: is the complaint Ex.P.2: is the crime details form Ex.P3: is the medical certificate of Pw1 Ex.P4: is the FIR

FOR THE DEFENCE: ­­NIL­­

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED : Nil. 

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Excise), Karimnagar.

Spl. JMFC (E), KNR

1C.C.No.291 of 2015 (FAIR)

IN THE COURT OF IV­ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE­CUM­SPECIAL

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS (EXCISE) :: AT :: KARIMNAGAR.

Present: MS. SRINIJA KOHIRKAR, IV­Addl. Junior Civil Judge­cum­ Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Excise), Karimnagar.

Thursday, the 28th day of July, 2022.

CALENDAR CASE NO.291 OF 2015 (NEW)

CALENDAR CASE NO.126 OF 2014 (OLD)

Between: The State through Sub­Inspector of Police, Manakondur, P.S. (Cr.No.155/2013)

...Complainant

AND

A1:Dasari Anjaiah S/o. Ashaiah, Age: 49 years A2:Dasari Hanumamma W/o. Ashaiah, Age: 69 years Both are R/o. Utoor village of Manakondur Mandal. 

..Accused

­­­ This case is coming before me on 20.07.2022 for final hearing in the presence of Sri. G. Veeraswamy, Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri. G. Satyam Reddy, Advocate for the accused, having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:­

:: J U D G M E N T::

1.The Sub­Inspector of Police, Manakondur Police Station, has laid charge sheet in connection with First Information Report No.155 of 2013 against the accused No.1 and 2 for the under section 447, 290, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. 

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

 On 06.09.2013, at 2000 hours, Dayyala Rajaiah, complainant, went to police station and lodged a report stating that he is the resident of Utoor village and living by doing agricultural work. About 30 years back, his father by name,

Dayyala Mondaiah, was purchased Ac.1.00 gts of agricultural land in

Spl.JMFC (E), KNR 2C.C.No.291 of 2015

Sy.No.855 situated at the outskirts of Utoor village from one Late Putta

Kanukamma. At that time, his father got only sale deed and he did not register the land on his name. On 06.09.2013 at 1100hours, accused No.1 and 2, came to his paddy field along with one Kanukuntla Shankar, trespassed into his paddy field, damaged paddy field with their legs. On knowing the same, he rushed to the place of offence and rescued them, then the accused threatened him with dire consequences to kill.

3.Basing on the complaint lodged by Pw1, S. Thirupathi Reddy, Assistant

Sub­Inspector of Police, (Lw9), has registered a case in Cr.No.155/2013 for the offence under section 447, 427, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, Lw9, examined and recorded the statements of Dayyala Rajaiah (Pw1), Jinkiri Rajaiah (Pw2), Kanukuntla madhunaiah (Pw3), Sirishetti Veeraiah (Pw4), Jana Ilaiah (Pw5), got photographed the scene of offence with the help of Lw6­Mula Swami, prepared crime details form in the presence of Enagandula Srinivas (Pw6), Enagandula

Mallesh (Lw8). Later, B. Ramesh, Sub­Inspector of Police (Pw7), took up the case for further investigation, verified the investigation done by Lw9, found it on proper lines and after completion of investigation filed charge­sheet against the accused for the offence under section 447, 427, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

4.Basing on the charge­sheet and other material available on record, cognizance was taken for the offence punishable under section 447, 290, 506 r/w 34 of IPC against the accused and registered the case as C.C.No.126 of 2014 by the Court of I­Additional Judicial Magistrate of F.C. Karimnagar. 

Spl.JMFC (E), KNR 3C.C.No.291 of 2015

5.After securing the presence of the accused before the said Court, copies of documents were furnished to them as required U/Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C. 

6.As per the orders of Hon'ble Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar vide Dis.No.8563 dt.02.12.2014, this case is transferred to this Court and re­ numbered as C.C.No.291 of 2015.

7.Accused persons are examined under Section 251 of Cr.P.C, for the offence under section 447, 290, 506 r/w 34 of IPC, substance of accusation leveled against the accused is read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8.To prove its case prosecution examined Pw1 to 7 and got marked Ex.P1 to P6. 

9.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused persons are examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating material appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence on their behalf. 

10.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel

for the accused.

11.The point that arises for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 447, 290, 506 r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

Spl.JMFC (E), KNR 4C.C.No.291 of 2015

POINT

12.The case of the prosecution is that on 06.09.2013 at 1100 hours, accused trespassed into the paddy fields of Pw1 and damaged the said paddy fields with their legs. On knowing the same Pw1 rushed to the spot, where accused threatened Pw1 that they will kill him, due to the land disputes. Pw2 and Pw4 witnessed the incident. 

As per the charge­sheet prosecution has relied on Pws1 to 6 witnesses.

Pw1 is the defacto complainant against whom the alleged offences are committed by the accused. Pw2 and 4 are eye witnesses as per the charge­ sheet. Pw3 and Pw5 are the independent witnesses. Pw6 is the panch witness for crime details from. Pw7 is the investigating officer. 

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

14. Pw1­Dayyala Rajaiah deposed that about 30 years back, his father purchased land to an extent of Ac.1.01 gts situated at Utoor village and since the date of purchase they are in possession of the land and he inherited the same from his father as such he is cultivating the land. Pw1 further deposed that about 7 years back, at about 11:00 am, accused trespassed into his land, damaged paddy crop. 

15.Pw2­Jinkiri Rajaiah deposed that there was dispute between Pw1 and accused. He was not present at the time of alleged incident but he came to know about the alleged incident. Pw2 further deposed that police did not examine and record his statement. 

Spl.JMFC (E), KNR 5C.C.No.291 of 2015

16.Pw3­Madhunaiah deposed that about 9 to 10 years back, at about 12:00 noon, one one day, when he was ploughing the land of Pw1 with his bulls, accused came to the land of Pw1 and damaged paddy field with their legs.

17.Pw4­Deshini Veeraswamy deposed that about 5 to 6 years back, police

LMD colony conducted crime details form in his presence.

18.Pw5­Ilaiah deposed that about 8 to 9 years back, on one day, at about 12:00 noon, accused entered into the land of Pw1 and damaged paddy fields of

Pw1 with legs. 

19. Pw6­Srinivas deposed that about 8 years back, police Manakondur conducted crime details form in his presence and in the presence of Lw8­

Enagandula Mallesh. 

20.Pw7­B. Anjaiah, Sub­Inspector of Police, second investigating officer deposed about the manner of investigation done by him and Lw9­Thirupathi,

Assistant Sub­Inspector of Police, in the present case which is nothing but reiteration of contents of charge­sheet filed by him.

21.APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE.

22.Pw1 deposed that at about 7 years back, at about 11:00 am, accused trespassed into his land and damaged the paddy. Except this statement, nothing incriminating evidence was deposed by Pw1 against the accused. Pw1 deposed that his father purchased the alleged disputed land about 30 years to an extent of Ac.1.00 gts situated at Utoor village of Manakondur Mandal and

Spl.JMFC (E), KNR 6C.C.No.291 of 2015 since then they are in peaceful possession of the said land. But in the cross examination he admitted that he did not file any sale deed or documents showing that he is in the possession of the said property. He also deposed in his cross examination that he did not know the total extent of land and in survey number. 

23.At this juncture, it is relevant to quote section 447 and section 427 of

IPC. 

(i) Accused must have committed criminal trespass into the property of Pw1 in which he is in possession with an intent to commit the offence or intimidate or annoy her in possession of such property. 

(ii) Accused must have caused mischief causing damage of the amount of

Rs.50/­ or upwards.

24.As per the definition of section 441 of IPC, the accused must have enter into the property of another with an intention to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of property. In this case that the prosecution has to prove that the accused entered into disputed land which is in possession of defacto complainant. Further the prosecution has also prove that accused entered into the property with an intention to commit offence. See for example, mischief as per the allegations of prosecution or the prosecution has to establish that the accused trespassed the property to intimidate, insult or annoy the defacto complainant but in the present case there is no evidence to show that the defacto complainant is in possession of property and accused entered into the possession of defacto complainant's property. Even if it is presumed that the said property is in possession of defacto complainant for awhile still the prosecution has to prove that the

Spl.JMFC (E), KNR 7C.C.No.291 of 2015 accused entered into the property with an intention to commit an offence i.e., mischief or criminal intimidation but as per the definition of mischief the accused with an intention or knowledge shall cause wrongful loss or damage or destruction to any property, person, or change in the property or destroy to diminish the value of property or effect property to injury, but none of the ingredients are proved by the prosecution with the evidence of PW1. There is no quantum of damages ascertained by the investigating agency simply it is alleged that accused trespassed and damage the paddy with their legs but did not bring on record the quality and quantum of damage, hence with the evidence of Pw1 the case of mischief is not proved and as it is not proved, the ingredients of criminal trespass also not satisfied. 

25.Pw2 and Pw4 are eye witnesses as per the case of prosecution but they turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. Pw3 and Pw5 are independent witnesses as per the case of prosecution. Pw3 and Pw5 deposed that at about 9 years ago, on one day, accused No.1 along with others entered into the land of Pw1 and damaged the paddy field of Pw1 with legs. Pw3 deposed that accused No.1 along with others came into the land of Pw1. Pw5 deposed that accused No.1 and his mother entered into the land of Pw1, except this nothing incriminating stated by Pw3 and Pw5. Pw5 deposed that police did not examine him and did not record his statement but supported the case of prosecution to the above said extent. The learned counsel for the defence reported cross examination of Pw5 as nil, hence the evidence of Pw5 can be taken into consideration to the extent that accused No.1 and 2 entered into the land of Pw1 and damaged the paddy of Pw1 with their legs, but as aforesaid discussion the ingredients of section 447 and 427 of IPC are not satisfied.

Spl.JMFC (E), KNR 8C.C.No.291 of 2015

Similarly, Pw3 in his cross examination admitted that Pw1 and accused No.1 had their land abutting to each other, except this nothing is elicited from evidence of Pw3. From the evidence of Pw3 it can be inferred that as the lands of Pw1 and accused No.1 are abutting each other it is very much necessary for the prosecution to prove that the accused trespassed into the land in which defacto complainant is in possession, hence, the possession of defacto complainant is indispensable. In the present case, it is very much natural for the witnesses to get confused to the possession and extent of land as accused

No.1 and Pw1 had lands abutting to each other. 

26.The evidence of Pw6 is regarding the crime details form where he deposed that boundary lines of Pw1 land is Jinkari Rajaiah, Veeraiah, except this nothing substantial was deposed by Pw6. But with this boundary alone the possession of Pw1 cannot be determined. 

27.Pw7 is the investigating officer, who reiterated the contents of charge­ sheet and who admitted that as per Ex.P1, which is report given by defacto complainant where it is alleged that the agricultural land in dispute i.e., to an extent of Ac.1.00 gts in Sy.No.855 was not registered but, Pw7 added that Pw1 is in possession of said agricultural land but he further admitted that Pw1 did not file any pahani copy along with Ex.P1 to show their possession. So, as per the evidence of Pw7, simply Pw7 deposing that Pw1 is in possession of the said agricultural land but did not file any proof or pahani to prove the possession of

Pw1. Further Pw7 did not bring any material to prove that the crop of Pw1 was damaged to bring within the definition of mischief. On perusal of Ex.P2, photographs of agricultural field and it is not sufficient to show that the said crop was damaged in agricultural lands of Pw1. Pw7 also admitted that names

Spl.JMFC (E), KNR 9C.C.No.291 of 2015 of eye witnesses are not mentioned in Ex.P1. Except this nothing is elicited from the cross examination of Pw7 in favour of prosecution. 

Thus from the evidence of Pws1 to 7, prosecution did not prove the ingredients of section 447, 427 and 506 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.

Hence, the accused are entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, the point is answered. 

28.In the result, Accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty and they are acquitted under section 255 (1) of Cr.PC for the offence under section 447, 427 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after six months. The un­marked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer Gr­III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 28th day of July, 2022.

IV­Addl. Junior Civil Judge­cum­ Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Excise), Karimnagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE: P.W.1: Dayyala Rajaiah­­None­­ P.W.2: Jinkiri Rajaiah P.W.3: Kanukuntla Madhunaiah P.W.4: Sirishetti Veeraiah P.W.5: Jana Ilaiah P.W.6: Enagandula Srinivas P.W.7: B. Ramesh

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: Ex.P1: is the complaint Ex.P2: are the photographs (5)

Spl.JMFC (E), KNR 10C.C.No.291 of 2015

Ex.P3: is the 161 Cr.PC statement of Pw2 Ex.P4: is the 161 Cr.PC statement of Pw4 Ex.P5: is the crime details form Ex.P6: is the FIR FOR THE DEFENCE: ­Nil­ MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED : ­­ Nil­­ 

IV­Addl. Junior Civil Judge­cum­ Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Excise), Karimnagar.

Spl.JMFC (E), KNR

1 (FAIR)

IN THE COURT OF IV-JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-SPECIAL JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS (EXCISE) :: AT :: KARIMNAGAR.

Present: MS. SRINIJA KOHIRKAR, Prl.Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Karimnagar. FAC:IV-Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Excise), Karimnagar.

Friday, the 28th day of October, 2022.

CALENDAR CASE NO.2600 OF 2019

Between: The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, LMD Colony P.S. (Cr.No.262/2019)

...Complainant

AND

Mathangi Raghu S/o. Narsaiah, Age: 24 years, R/o. H.No.4-35/1, Thimmapur village and mandal. (Rider of Motor cycle B.No.TS-02- EY-9472).

...Accused

*** This case is coming before me on 19.10.2022 for final hearing in the presence of Sri. G. Veeraswamy, Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri. V. Balakishan Rao, Advocate for the accused, having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, LMD Colony, Police Station, has laid charge sheet in connection with First Information Report No.262 of 2019 2 against the accused for the offence under section 304-A, 337 of IPC,

Section 3 r/w 181 of M.V.Act.

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

(i) On 08.08.2019 at 07.00 hours, Gottiparthi Mallesham (Pw1) went to police station and lodged a complaint, in which he stated that on 07.08.2019 while his son by name Gottiparthi Premkumar was in their house, his villager ie accused person came to his house and taken his son on his Glamour Motor cycle Bearing No.TS-02-EY-9472 at about 15.00 hours. At about 16.30 hours his villager by name Mathangi Rajanikanth came to his house and informed that the accused is want to talk with him over phone and he gave his cell phone to Pw1 on the accused informed him that, he and his son and their friend ie Pw2 were going to Karimnagar on his motor cycle and on the same day at about 15.30 hours, when they reached near Indian Patrol pump at canal, where some ship mob across to the road in front of their motor cycle, due to which he applied front break suddenly, due to which all of them fell down on the road, resulting, he sustained injuries on his right eye, right shoulder, right leg thigh and his son sustained injuries on his head, due to which blood came out from his nose and mouth, immediately, they rushed to to government heard quarters hospital, Karimnagar in an auto and admitted for treatment, while undergoing treatment on 07.08.2019 the son of Pw1 died and his friend ie Pw2 was undergoing treatment and on receipt of information they 3 rushed to government heard quarters hospital, Karimnagar and found his son dead body, Pw2 and accused were undergoing treatment. Delay caused due to night hours. Hence Pw1 requested take necessary action on accused person who drove the motor cycle.

(ii)Basing on the complaint lodged by Pw1, M.Surender Reddy, Head constable of Police, (Pw5), has registered a case in Cr.No.262/2019 for the offence under section 304-A, 337 of IPC and took up the investigation.

During the course of investigation, Pw5, examined and recorded the statements of Pw1. Later, the Pw5 visited the government heard quarters hospital, Karimnagar and found the dead body of deceased and got photographed the dead body with the help of Gaddam Shekar (Lw6) and secured the presence of Pw4 & Lw9 (Macharla Yellaiah) as panchas for inquest and observed dead body of deceased and noted injuries and held inquest before them. During the inquest Pw5 examined and recorded the statements of Lw2 (Gottiparthi Pushpalatha), Lw3 (Gottiparthi Aishwarya),

Lw6 (Gaddam Shekar) and Pw2, Pw3 and subjected corpse for autopsy over the dead body of deceased. Accordingly, Lw13 (Dr.N.Laxmikhantha

Reddy) conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased. After completion of post mortem examination the corpse handed over to the

Pw1. Later, Pw5 visited the scene of offence and secured the presence of

Lw10 (Kolipaka Mahesh) & Lw11 (Daripelli Srinivas) and in their presence 4

Pw5 observed the scene of offence and prepared crime detail form before them. Later, Pw5 shifted crime vehicle to PS for motor vehicle inspection and sent requisition to MVI with a request to inspect the said crime vehicle and issue report. Accordingly, Lw14/B.Rajini Devi has inspected the said crime vehicle. Lw12 (Dr.Shubhani) treated the injured/accused and issued medical report opining that simple injury and Lw13 (Dr.N.Laxmikhantha Redd) held autopsy over the dead body of deceased and issued post mortem examination report, opining that the death of deceased is "Head injury". Pw2 sustained only minor injury. The Lw14 (B.Rajini Devi) inspected the crime vehicle and issued report, in which she opined that "in my opinion the accident occurred was not due to any mechanical defect of the vehicle". During the course of investigation, Pw5 served 41-A Cr.P.C notice upon the accused. Accordingly, on 17.08.2019 the accused along with Lw7 (Mathangi Srujana) attended before the Pw5 and produced all necessary documents upon which the Pw5 interrogated the accused, during the interrogation the accused voluntarily confessed to have committed the offence on that the Pw5 checked driving license and other documents of crime vehicle and found that the accused has no driving license and the remaining documents are genuine and updated.

Later, Pw5 examined and recorded the statement of Lw7 who is owner of crime vehicle. During the examination, the Lw7 stated that the crime vehicle is on her name but the vehicle was used by her husband and her 5 brother in law/accused. After completion of investigation filed charge- sheet against the accused for the offence under section 304-A, 337 of IPC,

Section 3 r/w 181 of M.V. Act.

3.Basing on the charge-sheet and other material available on record, cognizance was taken against the accused for the offence punishable under section 304-A, 337 of IPC, Section 3 r/w 181 of M.V. Act by the this

Hon'ble Court and registered the case as C.C.No.2600 of 2019.

4.After securing the presence of the accused before this Court, copies of documents were furnished to him as required U/Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C.

5.Accused is examined under section 251 of Cr.P.C, for the offence under section 304-A, 337 of IPC, Section 3 r/w 181 of M.V. Act, substance of accusation leveled against the accused is read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.To prove its case prosecution examined Pw1 to 5 and got marked

Ex.P1 to P11.

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused is examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating material appearing 6 against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

8.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused.

9.The point that arises for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 304-A, 337 of IPC, Section 3 r/w 181 of M.V. Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

10.The case of the prosecution is that, the son of Pw1, Pw2 and accused went to Thimmapur side towards to Karimnagar on Glamour Motor cycle

Bearing No. TS-02-EY-9472 of accused and when they reached to near

Indian Patrol pump at canal, accused drove the said vehicle with high speed, in rash and negligent manner, lost control of his motor cycle and due to which the motor cycle fell down on the road. As a result, son of Pw1 sustained severe head injuries and died and Pw2 and accused sustained simple injuries.

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

7

12.Pw1-G.Mallesham deposed that, one person informed him over phone call his son by name Prem Kumar was met with an accident and on the spot his son died and shifted his son in the government civil hospital,

Karimnagar, immediately, he went to the said hospital, the police LMD colony called him and obtained his signature on white paper. He does not know the contents of complaint. He does not know anything about the case. Police did not examine him and never recorded his statement.

13.Pw2-J.Rajanand and Pw3-G.Ravi deposed that they do not know anything about the facts of the case. Police never examined them and recorded their statements.

14.Pw4-V.Mallaiah deposed that at about four years back, police conducted inquest panchanama in his presence over the dead body of

Prem Kumar and he cannot identify any injuries over the dead body. Police read over the contents of inquest panchanama to him.

15.Pw5-M.Surender Reddy, who is the investigating officer deposed about the manner of investigation done by him in the present case.

16.To prove the accusations against the accused for the offence under section 304-A of IPC, prosecution has to establish the following facts beyond all reasonable doubts.

8

(i) The accused must have caused death of deceased, Prem Kumar by driving the crime vehicle in rash and negligent manner.

(ii) There must be an accident at the scene of offence by the alleged crime vehicle.

(iii) Accused was a driver of crime vehicle at the time of alleged accident.

(iv) The accused was driving the vehicle bearing No. TS-02-EY-9472 without any valid driving license.

APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE

17.Pw1 deposed that, one person informed him over phone call that his son by name Prem Kumar was met with an accident and died on the spot and shifted his son in the government civil hospital, Karimnagar. From this statement of Pw1, it can be said that Pw1 is not eye witness to the alleged incident and he is only hearsay witness and he came to know about the alleged accident through phone call. Hence, the evidence of Pw1 is not helpful to the prosecution.

18.Pw2 and Pw3 deposed that they do not know anything about the facts of the case. Police never examined and recorded their statements.

Pw2 who cited as eye witness to the incident but he deposed that he does not know anything about the case. Pw2 and 3 turned hostile and did not 9 support the case of prosecution. In the cross examination of Pw2 and 3 nothing is elicited in favour of prosecution's case. Pw4 who is panch witness for inquest panchanama of deceased also not useful for the case of prosecution. In the cross examination Pw5 denied the suggestion that accused is no way concerned with the alleged offence and he filed charge- sheet without proper investigation.

19.Pw2 being the eye witness to the alleged incident turned hostile.

None of the witnesses supported the version of Pw5. None of the prosecution witnesses testified that the accused drove the crime vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at the time of alleged incident and caused death of deceased. Since the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused drove the crime vehicle at the time of alleged incident, the question that accused was not having valid driving license to his vehicle does not arise.

20.There remains the evidence of Pw5. There is nothing on record to support the case of the prosecution and there is no corroborative evidence from the material witnesses. Therefore, in the absence of corroborative evidence, the sole testimony of the Investigating Officer/Pw5 and Pw4 cannot be taken into consideration, who is always interested person in out 10 come of case of prosecution. In those circumstances, this Court feels that there is no other way except to acquit the accused for the alleged offences.

21.Therefore, in view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has filed to prove the ingredients under section 304-A, 337 of IPC, Section 3 r/w 181 of M.V. Act against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and the accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the accused.

22.In the result, accused is found not guilty and he is acquitted under section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C. for the offence U/Sec. 304-A, 337 of IPC, Section 3 r/w 181 of M.V. Act. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after six months. The un-marked case property, if any, shall be ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 28th day of October, 2022.

Prl.Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Karimnagar FAC: IV-Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Excise), Karimnagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE: P.W.1: G.Mallesham --None-- P.W.2: J.Rajanand P.W.3: G.Ravi P.W.4: V.Mallaiah 11

P.W.5: M.Surender Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: Ex.P.1: is the complaint Ex.P.2: is the 161 Cr.PC statement of Pw1 Ex.P3: is the 161 Cr.PC statement of Pw2 Ex.P4: is the 161 Cr.PC statement of Pw3 Ex.P5: is the inquest panchanama Ex.P6: is the FIR Ex.P7: is the Photographs along with CD Ex.P8: is the Post Mortem Examination Report Ex.P9: is the crime details form Ex.P10: is the MVI Report Ex.P11: is the medical certificate of accused

FOR THE DEFENCE: -Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED : -- Nil--

Prl.Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Karimnagar FAC: IV-Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Excise), Karimnagar.

Page 1 of 9 Prl. JCJ – cum – JMFC, Karimnagar (FAIR)

OS No.368/2016

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM –

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS : AT : KARIMNAGAR

Present:MS. SRINIJA KOHIRKAR,

Principal Junior Civil Judge – cum –

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Karimnagar.

Friday, this the 28 th day of April, 2023.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.368 of 2016

Between:

Narla Narayana S/o. Bheemaiah, Aged: 46 years, Occ: Business, now working as Private Employee, R/o. H.No.5-6-145/1, Housing Board colony, Karimnagar town. ….Plaintif

A N D

R. Rama W/o. R. Srinivas, Aged: 38 years, Occ: House-hold and Business, R/o. H.No.6-6-310, 1st floor, Sainagar, Karimnagar.

...Defendant

This suit is coming on 10.04.2023 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri. V. Anjaiah,Advocate for the plaintif and Sri. T. Venugopal, Advocate for Defendant, having been heard and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

: J U D G M E N T :

This suit is fled by the plaintif for recovery of sum of Rs.2,09,550/- from the defendant together with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of fling the suit till the date of realizaation.

Page 2 of 9 Prl. JCJ – cum – JMFC, Karimnagar (FAIR)

OS No.368/2016

2 (a). The facts as mentioned in plaint, in brief, are as follows:

The plaintif was running Medical and General Store under the name and style of M/s. New Harikrishna Medial and General Store, Shastri Road,

Karimnagar upto the year 2013, thereafter it was closed. Husband of defendant is having medical agency under the name and style of M/s.

Saraswathi Medial Agencies, Karimnagar, under the partnership of defendant, plaintif used to take medicines on credit basis from the shop of husband of defendant and used to pay the costs of medicine to husband of defendant after selling medicines. Husband of defendant singed on blank cheque without mentioning date from the plaintif as security for supplying medicines on credit basis.

2 (b). The plaintif fell due an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- towards costs of medicines taken on credit basis from the shop of defendant and on 26.07.2013, plaintif gave Rs.1,50,000/- to defendant and the defendant has issued receipt for the same. Thereafter, husband of defendant fled a suit with false allegations before the Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge’s Court,

Karimnagar vide O.S.No.243/2013 against the plaintif for recovery of amount of Rs.1,80,000/-. The plaintif, who is the defendant in the said case fled his written statement. The defendant herein who is wife of plaintif in the said suit examined as Pw3 and she denied her signature on the said receipt and also stated that she never issued any receipt to plaintif herein.

Page 3 of 9 Prl. JCJ – cum – JMFC, Karimnagar (FAIR)

OS No.368/2016

2 (c). Plaintif further submits that he fled separate petition in

O.S.No.243/2013 to implead M/s. Saraswathi Medical Agencies, R/by its

Partners and to receive the documents, but both the petitions were dismissed by Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Karimnagar. Aggrieved by the said orders, the plaintif herein has preferred appeal before the Hon’ble

High Court vide Civil Revision Petition No.4324/2015 and

C.R.P.No.4107/2015, and the Hon’ble High Court has passed common order on 10.12.2015 ordering that, if the court is of the opinion that the document is necessary to decide, the trial court can compare the signature on the “receipt” with that of admitted signatures as required under section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, and if the trial court comes to a conclusion that it is necessary to send the document to an expert, it can take necessary steps in this regard, basing on the material available on record and uninfluenced by the observations if any made by this Court.

But the Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Karimnagar, has not taken any steps to follow the directions of Hon’ble High Court and also not discussed the said directions in the Judgment and decree and directed the plaintif herein to pay the suit amount with interest and costs.

2 (d). It is further submitted that aggrieved by the said Judgment and decree, the plaintif herein preferred appeal before the Hon’ble Prl. District and Sessions Judge’s Court, Karimnagar, vide A.S.No.24 of 2016 and the same is pending. Hence, the suit.

Page 4 of 9 Prl. JCJ – cum – JMFC, Karimnagar (FAIR)

OS No.368/2016

3 (a). Defendant in her written statement it is admitted that the plaintif was running medical and general store at Karimnagar upto the year 2013.

It is wrong and denied that the husband of defendant is having M/s.

Saraswathi Medial Agencies, at Karimnagar under the partnership of defendant and the plaintif used to take the medicines on credit basis from the shop of husband of defendant. Defendant further contended that the present suit is fled to defeat the suit of her husband i.e., O.S.No.243 of 2013. The plaintif has fled this suit only to harass the defendant and her husband as he fled the suit and the same was decreed by the Hon’ble

Court. The plaintif to evade the decree, has no other option except to fle a suit against the defendant. Though there was no repayment by the plaintif, he created receipt to defeat the suit and to evade decreetal amount, fle the present suit. The plaintif has created and forged the signature on the suit document and fled the present suit. There is no allege suit transaction in between the plaintif and defendant at any point of time, therefore, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

4.After perusing pleadings and documents on record, the following issues are settled for trial:

(I) Whether the plaintif is entitled for the recovery of money as prayed for?

(ii) To what relief?

Page 5 of 9 Prl. JCJ – cum – JMFC, Karimnagar (FAIR)

OS No.368/2016

5.During the course of trial, plaintif was examined himself as Pw1.

Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 are marked towards documentary evidence on behalf of plaintif. On the other hand, defendant did not choose to examine any of the witness on her behalf and no documentary evidence is marked.

6.Heard learned counsel for plaintif as well as counsel for defendant.

Perused the entire record.

7. The case of the plaintif is that the plaintif was running medical and general store in the name of M/s. Harikrishna medical and general store.

Husband of defendant is also running medical agency by name M/s.

Saraswathi medical agencies. The plaintif used to take medicines from the shop of husband of defendant on credit basis and pay cost of the medicines. In this transaction, husband of defendant got signed blank cheque obtained from plaintif for security. Plaintif submits that he fell due amount of Rs.1,80,000/- to husband of defendant, but on 26.07.2013, plaintif gave an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to defendant. It is further submitted by plaintif that husband of defendant fled suit for recovery of amount against the plaintif herein vide O.S.No.243/2013 on the fle of

Hon’ble Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Karimnagar, and the said suit

was decreed in favour of plaintif (husband of defendant herein). The plaintif herein has preferred appeal before the Hon’ble Prl. District and

Sessions Court, Karimnagar, Karimnagar, vide A.S.No.24 of 2016.

Page 6 of 9 Prl. JCJ – cum – JMFC, Karimnagar (FAIR)

OS No.368/2016

8.Issue No.1 (I) Whether the plaintif is entitled for the recovery of money as prayed for?

9.Pw1 deposed in his chief examination in the similar of plaint averments, hence facts are not repeated. Ex.A1 is the receipt, Ex.A2 is cheque bearing No.338249, Ex.A3 is certifed copy of deposition of

Pw3/defendant herein in O.S.No.243/2013, Ex.A4 and Ex.A5 are the certifed copy of Judgment and decree in O.S.No.243/2013, on the fle of

Hon’ble Addition Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Karimnagar.

10.In the cross examination Pw1 categorically admitted that he preferred appeal challenging decree in O.S.No.243/2013 and the same was dismissed. Pw1 also admits that Ex.A1 does not reveal from whom the amount was received and the particulars shown in Ex.A1 is old particulars.

Pw1 admitted that defendant was not present in the particulars shown in

Ex.A1 in the year 2013. Pw1 also admits that he is indebted to defendant herein to the tune of Rs.30,000/- out of Rs.1,80,000/-.

11.Now the point falls for consideration is, whether plaintif is entitled for relief of recovery of amount of Rs.2,58,000/- i.e., Rs.1,50,000/-,

principal amount + Rs.1,08,000/- interest from defendant?.

Page 7 of 9 Prl. JCJ – cum – JMFC, Karimnagar (FAIR)

OS No.368/2016

12.Plaintif has to stand on his own legs to prove his claim. As per the plaintif he paid an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to defendant out of

Rs.1,80,000/- due amount. Both the plaintif and defendant admitted that they both are running medical store and medical agency on diferent names. The plaintif admitted that he was due an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- to husband of defendant herein. But the plaintif averred that he already paid an amount of RS.1,50,000/- to defendant herein on 26.07.2013. In support of his contention, he has relied on Ex.A1. Ex.A1 is the receipt which shows that “Rs.1,50,000/- only received”, with medical agency stamp and sign. It is admitted by plaintif that the defendant herein was examined as Pw3 in O.S.No.243/2013 on the fle of Hon’ble Additional

Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Karimnagar, in which she denied her signature

on the said receipt and also stated that she never issued any receipt to plaintif. Subsequently, admittedly, the suit No.243/2013 was decreed in favour of husband of defendant and also it is categorically admitted by plaintif herein that appeal fled by him was dismissed, which means that the judgment passed by Hon’ble Additional Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, was confrmed.

13.Ex.A4 and Ex.A5 are the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.243/2013 on the fle of Hon’ble Additional Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, after due trial, the Hon’ble Court passed decree in favour of husband of defendant herein with a verdict that the plaintif herein failed to prove payment of

Rs.1,50,000/- to plaintif therein and therefore liable to pay an amount of

Page 8 of 9 Prl. JCJ – cum – JMFC, Karimnagar (FAIR)

OS No.368/2016

Rs.1,80,000/- to the plaintif therein. Aggrieved by the said Judgment, the plaintif herein preferred appeal and admittedly the same was dismissed by Hon’ble Prl. District and Sessions Court, Karimnagar. It appears that plaint averments in the present case and defence taken by the plaintif herein in O.S.No.243/2013 is same. It is the contention of plaintif that if appeal fled by him is dismissed, then there is every chance for recovery of double amount. The plaintif has cleverly fled the present suit with same averments taken as his defence in O.S.No.243/2013. The Hon’ble

Additional Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, has passed verdict holding that

plaintif herein failed to prove payment of Rs.1,50,000/- to the plaintif and thereby he is liable to pay Rs.1,80,000/-. It is categorically admitted by

Pw1 that appeal preferred by him challenging the judgment in

O.S.No.243/2013 vide O.S.No.24/2016 was dismissed. From which it is

evident that Hon’ble Prl. District and Sessions Court, Karimnagar, confrmed the judgment of Hon’ble Additional Senior Civil Judge,

Karimnagar, as such, there is question of fling of the present suit and this

Court holds that plaintif is not entitled for the relief he claimed and suit itself is not maintainable. Accordingly, issue No.1 is answered.

14.Issue No.2: To what relief.

In the result, the suit is dismissed. There shall be no order to costs.

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

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

Principal Junior Civil Judge – cum –

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Karimnagar.

Page 9 of 9 Prl. JCJ – cum – JMFC, Karimnagar (FAIR)

OS No.368/2016

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR THE PLAINTIFF: FOR THE DEFENDANT: P.W.1:Narla Narayana --None--

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1:Certifed copy of receipt issued by defendant Ex.A2: Original cheque bearing No.338249 Ex.A3:Certifed copy of deposition of Pw3 in O.S.No.243 of 2013 on the fle of Hon’ble Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Karimnagar Ex.A4:Certifed copy of Judgment in O.S.No.243/2013 on the fle of

Hon’ble Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Karimnagar

Ex.A5:Certifed copy of decree in O.S.No.243/2013 on the fle of

Hon’ble Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Karimnagar

FOR THE DEFENDANT:

- Nil -

Principal Junior Civil Judge – cum –

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Karimnagar.

1 of 8 Prl. JCJ – cum – JMFC, Karimnagar (FAIR)

CC No.1740/2020

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT KARIMNAGAR

Present:MS. Srinija Kohirkar,

Principal Junior Civil Judge – cum –

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Karimnagar. FAC: I-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of F.C. Karimnagar. TUESDAY, THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2023

CALENDAR CASE No. 1740 OF 2020

Between: The State, through the Sub Inspector of Police, Kothapalli P.S. (Cr. No.61 of 2020) … Complainant A N D

A1:Thirunahari Prabhakar S/o. Pullaiah, Age: 65 years, R/o. H.No.3- 50/1/5/1, Road No.1, Sammakka Saralamma Colony, Rekurthi village of Kothapalli Mandal of Karimnagar District. A2:Erolla Venugopal S/o. Gangaram, Age: 47 years, R/o. .H.No.6-64/5, BC Colony, Pudur village of Kodimiyala Mandal, now at H.No.3- 50/1/5/3, road No.1, Sammakka Saralamma Colony, Rekurthi village of Kothapalli Mandal of Karimnagar District. A3:Gundelli Venugopal S/o. Anjaiah, Age: 43 years, R/o. H.No.5-23, Rudraram village of Vemulawada Mandal, now at H.No.3-50/1/5/8, road No.1, Sammakka Saralamma Colony, Rekurthi village of Kothapalli Mandal of Karimnagar District. A4:Sankiti Mahipal Reddy S/o. Gopal Reddy, Age: 40 years, R/o. H.No.1-113/7, Dwarakananar colony, Rekurthi village of Kothapalli Mandal of Karimnagar District A5:Thirunahari Prashanth Kumar S/o. Prabhakar, Age: 34 years, R/o. H.No.3-50/1/5, road No.1, Sammakka Saralamma Colony, Rekurthi village of Kothapalli Mandal of Karimnagar District.

...Accused

This case is coming before me on this day i.e., 21.03.2023 for fnal hearing in the presence learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for accused and Sri. E. Madhusudhan Rao, Advocate for Accused and having heard and having been stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

2 of 8 Prl. JCJ – cum – JMFC, Karimnagar (FAIR)

CC No.1740/2020

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

The Sub-Inspector of police, Kothapalli Police Station fled charge sheet against accused persons in connection with crime No.61 of 2020 for offences under Section 188 of IPC, Section 3 and 4 of T.S. Gaming Act,

Section 3 of Epidemic Disease Act, 1897, Section 57 of National Disaster

Management Act-2005.

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

(a). On 19.04.2020, while Pw4-B. Yellaiah, Sub-Inspector of Police,

Kothapalli, performing patrolling duty, received reliable information that gaming was organized at H.No.3-50/1/5/1, Road No.1, Sammakka

Saralamma colony, Rekurthi village by betting money. On that information, Pw4 along with K. Jampanna, P.C.No.3472, G. Ashok,

P.C.No.2335, rushed to Rekurthi village, searched the H.No.3-50/1/5/1, found total 5 persons playing cards, on that they apprehended them. On enquiry, they disclosed their identify. All the accused persons playing 3 cards by betting money by violating the rules of government during lock down period. Thereafter, Pw4 seized 52 playing cards, net cash of

Rs.4,460/- from the possession of accused under cover of panchanama in the presence of mediators. Later, Pw4 brought the accused along with seized property to police station and suo-moto registered a case in

Cr.No.61/2020 for the offence under Section 188 of IPC, Section 3 and 4 of 3 of 8 Prl. JCJ – cum – JMFC, Karimnagar (FAIR)

CC No.1740/2020

T.S. Gaming Act, Section 3 of Epidemic Disease Act, 1897, Section 57 of

National Disaster Management Act-2005.

2 (b). During the course of investigation, Pw4, examined and recorded the statement of K. Jampanna, P.C.No.3472 (Pw3), G. Ashok, P.C.No.2335 (Lw2). On the next day, Pw4 proceeded to scene of offence, prepared crime details form in the presence of Paidipally Rajesh (Pw1), Kanamalla

Sanjeev (Pw2), and after completion of investigation fled charge sheet against the accused persons for the offence under Section 188 of IPC,

Section 3 and 4 of T.S. Gaming Act, Section 3 of Epidemic Disease Act, 1897, Section 57 of National Disaster Management Act-2005.

3.Basing on the charge sheet and other material available on record, cognizance is taken against the accused for the offence under Section 188 of IPC, Section 3 and 4 of T.S. Gaming Act, Section 3 of Epidemic Disease

Act, 1897, Section 57 of National Disaster Management Act-2005 and registered the case as C.C.No.1740 of 2020.

4.On appearance of accused before the Court, copies of documents were furnished to them as required under section 207 of Code of Criminal

Procedure.

4 of 8 Prl. JCJ – cum – JMFC, Karimnagar (FAIR)

CC No.1740/2020

5.The accused persons were examined under Section 251 of Code of

Criminal Procedure by explaining the substance of the accusation levelled against them for the offences under Section 188 of IPC, Section 3 and 4 of

T.S. Gaming Act, Section 3 of Epidemic Disease Act, 1897, Section 57 of

National Disaster Management Act-2005. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried for the said offences.

6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and exhibits P1 to P4 are marked through them.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused were examined under section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure by explaining to them incriminating material appearing against them in prosecution evidence.

They denied it totally and reported no defense evidence.

8.Heard both sides. Perused the entire record.

9.Now the points that arises for determination is:

Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused persons for the offences under Section 188 of IPC, Section 3 and 4 of T.S. Gaming Act, Section 3 of Epidemic Disease Act, 1897, Section 57 of National Disaster Management Act-2005?

POINT:

10.It is the case of the prosecution that on 19.04.2020, at 2030 hours, while Pw4 party conducting patrolling in view of lock down due to spread of Covid-19, found accused persons playing 3 cards by betting money in

H.No.3-50/1/5/1, Road No.1, Sammakka, Saralaxmma Colony, Rekurthi 5 of 8 Prl. JCJ – cum – JMFC, Karimnagar (FAIR)

CC No.1740/2020

village by violating the rules of government during lock down period, as such Pw4 seized 52 playing cards, net cash of Rs.4,460/- from the possession of accused under cover of seizure panchanama and then he registered suo motu case in Cr. No.61 of 2020 for offences under Section 188 of IPC, Section 3 and 4 of T.S. Gaming Act, Section 3 of Epidemic

Disease Act, 1897, Section 57 of National Disaster Management Act-2005.

11.Now lets consider the evidence brought on record.

12.Pw1-Paidipally Rajesh and Pw2-Kunamalla Sanjeev deposed that they do not know anything about the case. In the year, 2020, they went to police station on their personal work. Police obtained their signatures on some white papers.

13.Pw3-K. Jampanna, P.C.No.3472 deposed that on 19.04.2020, while

Pw4 performing village patrolling duty, received reliable information that gaming is organized at H.No.3-50/1/5/1, Road No.1, Sammakka

Saralamma Colony, Rekurthi. On that he along with Pw4 and Lw2-G. Ashok rushed to Rekurthi village, searched the said house, found 5 persons playing cards. On that they apprehended them. On enquiry, they disclosed their names and also confessed that they have playing 3 cards by betting money. Later, Pw4 seized 52 playing cards, net cash of Rs.4,460/- from the possession of accused under seizure of report in the presence of mediators 6 of 8 Prl. JCJ – cum – JMFC, Karimnagar (FAIR)

CC No.1740/2020

i.e., Pw1 and 2, brought the accused along with seized property to police station.

14.Pw4-B. Yellaiah, Sub-Inspector of Police, who is investigation ofcer and who suo moto registered the case against the accused deposed about the manner of investigation done by him in the present case which is nothing but reiteration of contents of charge sheet fled by him.

APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE

15.P.Ws.1 and 2 who are mediators to the seizure panchanama turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution in material particulars. Exs.P1 and P2 their signatures are marked. P.W.3, the Police

Constable of Kothapalli Police Station, who accompanied Sub-Inspector of

Police reiterated the contents of investigation done by Pw4 in his evidence. In his cross-examination, he denied formal suggestions put to him.

16.P.W.4, Sub Inspector of Police, Kothapalli PS who conducted raid and conducted investigation against accused also stated that on dt.19.04.2020 when they conducting village patrolling on reliable information that gaming was organized at H.No.3-50/1/5/1, he obtained permission from

ACP, Karimnagar, he conducted raid in the said house, found accused playing cards and seized cash, cards. His cross-examination went in formal lines. Exs.P5 to P8 are marked through him.

7 of 8 Prl. JCJ – cum – JMFC, Karimnagar (FAIR)

CC No.1740/2020

17.On careful consideration of the above evidence of the prosecution, it is apparent that the mediators to the seizure panchanama turned hostile.

Except the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4, who were said to have conducted and participated in the raid there is no other evidence on record to connect the accused with the alleged offences. The prosecution failed to establish on the aspect of recovery of property from the possession of accused. Therefore, in view of the foregoing reasons, this Court holds that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of accused for offences under

Section 188 of IPC, Section 3 and 4 of T.S. Gaming Act, Section 3 of

Epidemic Disease Act, 1897, Section 57 of National Disaster Management

Act-2005. Accordingly, the point is answered.

18.In the result, the accused No.1 to 5 are found not guilty for offences under Section 188 of IPC, Section 3 and 4 of T.S. Gaming Act,

Section 3 of Epidemic Disease Act, 1897, Section 57 of National Disaster

Management Act-2005. Hence, they are acquitted under Section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand canceled. The unmarked cash property of Rs.4,460/- shall be confscated to State. 52 Playing Cards shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time or appeal is over.

Typed directly to my dictation by Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 21 st day of March, 2023.

Principal Junior Civil Judge – cum –

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Karimnagar. FAC: I-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of F.C. Karimnagar.

8 of 8 Prl. JCJ – cum – JMFC, Karimnagar (FAIR)

CC No.1740/2020

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: P.W.1: Paidipally RajeshNone P.W.2: Kunamalla Sanjeev P.W.3: K. Jampanna P.W.4:B. Yellaiah

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1:Signature of P.W.1 on crime details form Ex.P2:Signature of P.W.1 on confession and recovery panchanama Ex.P3:Signature of P.W.2 on crime details form Ex.P4:Signature of P.W.2 on confession and recovery panchanama Ex.P5:First Information Report Ex.P6:Seizure Panchanama Ex.P7:Crime Details form Ex.P8:Suo Moto Complaint

FOR DEFENCE:

- Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil -

Principal Junior Civil Judge – cum –

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Karimnagar. FAC: I-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of F.C. Karimnagar.