Smt. Suman Grewal

Page 1 of 15 Judgment in CC.No.28 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS (EXCISE)

AT MANCHERIAL

PRESENT: SMT. SUMAN GREWAL

SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS (EXCISE) COURT

MANCHERIAL

WEDNESDAY, THIS THE 12 th DAY OF APRIL, 2023

CALENDAR CASE No. 28 OF 2017

(old CC No.134 of 2016)

BETWEEN:

The State of Telangana, rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, WPS Srirampur at Mancherial. …PROSECUTION; // AND //

1) Unukonda Devendar S/o. Late Mallaiah, Age: 29 years, Occ: Farmer, R/o. H.No.4-5-31, Subhash Nagar, Peddapalli of Karimnagar Dist.

2) Unukonda Radhamma W/o. Late Mallaiah, Age: 70 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.No.4-5-31, Subhash Nagar, Peddapalli of Karimnagar Dist.

3) Solluri Sharadha @ Lavanya W/o. Rajender, Age: 30 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.No.5-79, Subhashnagar, Peddapalli of Karimnagar Dist.

4) Solluri Rajendar @ Raji Reddy S/o. Late Dharmaiah, Age: 42 years, Occ: Agril, R/o. H.No.5-79, Subhashnagar, Peddapalli of Karimnagar Dist.

5) Unukonda Bhagya D/o. Late Mallaiah, Age: 26 years, Occ: Student, R/o. H.No.4-5-31, Subhash Nagar, Peddapalli of Karimnagar Dist. …ACCUSED.

This case is coming on 31.03.2023 before me for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State; and of Sri S. Sathaiah, Counsel for accused, upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This case emerges out of a Police Report filed by the Sub-Inspector of

Police, WPS Srirampur at Mancherial in Cr.No.05/2016 for the offence under

Sections 498-A, 290 of Indian Penal Code (Herein after referred as IPC for sake of brevity) and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (Herein after referred as DP

Act for sake of brevity).

2.THE CASE OF THE PROSECUTION IS AS FOLLOWS:-

The marriage of LW-1/Unukonda Soujanya was performed with A-1 on 29.11.2013. At the time of marriage on the demand of A-1 to A-5, parents of LW-1

Page 2 of 15 Judgment in CC.No.28 of 2017 gave Rs.8,00,000/- net cash, (17) tulas of Gold and other household articles to A-1 towards dowry. After marriage LW-1 and A-1 lead their matrimonial life happily for a period of one month, thereafter A-1 on the instigation of A-2 to A-5 started harassing LW-1 physically and mentally by demanding to bring additional dowry of

Rs.7,00,000/-, but LW-1 replied A-1 that her father cannot provide the said amount, on that A-1 beat LW-1 by consuming alcohol and A-2 to A-5 stated A-1 that to leave

LW-1 and get another marriage who would give more dowry amount. Later LW-1 got pregnancy, while LW-1 was carrying (3) months pregnancy, she went to the house of her parents. On 17.02.2015 LW-1 blessed with a female child, immediately she informed the same to her family members but nobody came there.

Later LW-1 invited A-1 to A-5 to come on 09.03.2015 for the 21st day celebration of her child. Thus A-1 to A-5 came to the house of LW-1's parents situated at RK-8

Colony, Bhagathsinghnagar, Srirampur, and said that LW-1 blessed with a female child and if the parents of LW-1 give an additional dowry of Rs.7,00,000/-, then only they will allow LW-1 to matrimonial life and left from there by beating LW-1 and her parents and also abused them in filthy language. Thereafter, LW-1 made a phone calls to A-1 several times to take her to matrimonial house but A-1 did not come to her and stated that if she bring additional dowry then only they will allow LW-1 to matrimonial home.

Basing on the report given by the LW-1/Unukonda Soujanya, LW-9/

Sub-Inspector of Police, WPS Srirampur at Mancherial, has registered a case in

Crime No.5/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 290 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of DP Act and took up investigation.

During the course of investigation LW-9 has examined and recorded the statements of LW-1/Unukonda Soujanya, LW-2/Manikyam Bharathi, LW- 3/Manikyam Bapu, LW-4/Marupaka Komoraiah and LW-5/Munjapalli Venkati and collected marriage photos of LW-1. Later, LW-9 visited the scene of offence situated at Bhagathsingh Nagar, Srirampur, and caused enquiry, there LW-9 examined and recorded the statement of LW-6/Velpula Ravindar. Thereafter, LW-9

Page 3 of 15 Judgment in CC.No.28 of 2017 secured the presence of two mediators i.e., LW-7/Jamalpur Ravi and LW- 8/Pandrala Ramulu and in there presence LW-9 conducted the scene of offence panchanama noted the crime details in CDF and drawn rough sketch of scene of offence.

On 13.03.2016 LW-9 served notice under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. to A- 1 to A-5. Accordingly, on 15.03.2016 at about 16:00 hours A-1 to A-5 came to WPS

Srirampur at Mancherial and appeared before LW-9 by admitting their guilt, therefore LW-9 interrogated them thoroughly. On interrogation A-1 to A-5 voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence. Consequently, LW-9 effected the arrest of A-1 to A-5. On furnishing sufficient sureties LW-9 released A-1 to A-5 on station bail.

After completion of entire investigation LW-9 has filed charge sheet against A-1 to A-5 for the offence under Sections 498-A and 290 of IPC, and

Section 3 and 4 of D.P. Act.

3.The I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mancherial, has taken cognizance for the offences under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of

D.P. Act against A-1 to A-5. Thereafter issued summons to A-1 to A-5.

4.After serving of summons A-1 to A-5 have appeared before the court.

On appearance of A-1 to A-5 before the court, copies of case documents were furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code (Herein after referred to as CrPC for brevity).

5.When the case is coming up for examination, at this stage, as per the order of the Hon'ble Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad, this case has been transferred from I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mancherial, to this court, vide Proc.Dis.No. 5234/2017/Admn, dated 27.07.2017 and re-numbered as

CC No. 28 of 2017.

Page 4 of 15 Judgment in CC.No.28 of 2017

6.A-1 to A-5 were examined under Section 239 of CrPC. The contents of the charges framed for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and

Section 3 and 4 of DP Act against A-1 to A-5 were read over and explained to them in their vernacular language, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.During course of trial, the prosecution has examined PW-1 to PW-7 and got exhibited Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-4 i.e., Ex.P-1 is complaint; Ex.P-2 is CDF including rough sketch; Ex.P-3 is FIR; Ex.P-4 is (3) marriage photographs on its behalf.

According to the case of prosecution, PW-1 is defacto-complainant and victim; PW-2 is father of the defacto-complainant; PW-3 is mother of the defacto-complainant; PW-4 is co-worker of the PW-2; PW-5 is neighbour of PW-2;

PW-6 is panch witness for CDF; PW-7 is investigation officer. The learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of LW-5/Munjapalli Venkati. The police reported LW-8/Pandrala Ramulu died, hence the evidence of LW-8 was closed.

8.After closure of prosecution evidence, A-1 to A-5 were examined under Section 313 of CrPC by explaining the incriminating material appearing against them in the testimony of prosecution witnesses, for which they denied the same, reported being false and further reported no evidence on their behalf.

9.Heard the oral argument of the Learned APP and Counsel for the accused persons and perused the material on record.

10.Having heard both sides and on perusal of material on record the following points arose for my determination.

1) Whether the prosecution has proved its case against A-1 to A-5 for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of DP Act beyond reasonable doubt ?

Page 5 of 15 Judgment in CC.No.28 of 2017

2) As to what result ?

POINT NO.1:-

11.It is a case of subjecting a married woman i.e., LW-1/Unukonda

Soujanya to cruelty and physical and mental harassment for additional dowry of

Rs.7,00,000/- by A-1 to A-5.

PROSECUTION EVIDENCES:-

12.PW-1 is defacto-complainant and victim. She deposed that, her marriage was performed on 29.11.2013 with A-1. On demand of the family of A-1, her parents gave Rs.7,00,000/- of net cash and (7) tulas of Gold to A-1 as dowry.

They lead happy marital life for one month, thereafter A-1 to A-5 harassed her mentally and physically by demanding additional dowry of Rs.7,00,000/-.

Meanwhile, she got pregnant, while she was carrying (03) months pregnancy, her parents took her to the hospital. Then she informed on phone to the family of A-1 about her pregnancy, but accused persons demanded additional dowry of

Rs.7,00,000/- and abused her. Later she went to her parent's house directly from the hospital. Thereafter she delivered female child on 17.02.2015. She informed to her husband/A-1 and her husband's family members about the birth of female child, but they did not visit to hospital to meet them. She further deposed that, on 09.03.2015 on the 21st day ceremony of her child, her husband/A-1 and his family members came to home and had lunch with them, thereafter the accused persons demanded them additional dowry of Rs.7,00,000/-, as she delivered female child and also stated that they will not take her back with them and also beaten her father, later the accused persons left from there by leaving her at her parent's house. They informed the said matter to village elders and caste elders. Then infront of village elders also A-1 to A-5 stated that they will not take her back to their home. Later on 05.03.2016 she went to Police Station and lodged a complaint against A-1 to A-5. Ex.P-1 is the complaint given by her. She further stated that A- 1 got second marriage with another lady. Her life is wasted now. She, her father,

Page 6 of 15 Judgment in CC.No.28 of 2017 her mother along with her female child went to A-1's house for compromise, but the accused persons had beat her, her mother and her father. Her father got several injuries on his head. On the same day they all went to Peddapalli Police Station and lodged a complaint.

13.PW-2 is father of the defacto-complainant/PW-1. He deposed that, on 29.11.2013 at the time of marriage he presented Rs.8,00,000/- cash and (17) tulas of Gold and other house hold articles to A-1 as dowry. Till one month his daughter/PW-1 and A-1 lived happily. On one day on the instigation of A-2 to A-5,

A-1 started harassing his daughter and beat her for additional dowry. Then her daughter called him and informed him that A-1 had beat her and abused her, then he stated to her to live there for a month. Meanwhile PW-1 got pregnant and in third month of her pregnancy he went to the house of A-1 and brought PW-1 to his house. Thereafter, they took PW-1 to the Mancherial hospital, there doctor stated her to take bed rest. Thereafter she delivered a baby girl. He further deposed that, on 15.02.2015 when his daughter/PW-1 gave birth to a female child, the same was informed to A-1 and A-1's family members, but no one came to see the baby girl.

On 09.03.2015 they performed 21st day ceremony of his grand daughter, they invited A-1 and A-1's family members, on that A-1 to A-5 attended the function and had lunch with them. Thereafter, they demanded additional dowry of Rs.7,00,000/- from them and stated that they will take his daughter back only after fulfilling their demands and accused persons also abused them. Finally A-1 to A-5 did not take her daughter along with them. On 03.05.2016 they reported the matter to WPS.

Police examined him and recorded his statement.

14.PW-3 is mother of the defacto-complainant/PW-1. She deposed that, she blessed with one daughter and two sons. PW-2 worked as SCCL employee.

PW-1's marriage was performed at about 9 years back with A-1. At the time of marriage the accused persons demanded Rs.15,00,000/- but they gave an amount of Rs.8,00,000/-, (17) tulas of gold and other household articles to accused

Page 7 of 15 Judgment in CC.No.28 of 2017 persons. After marriage PW-1 joined the conjugal society with A-1 at her in law's house and they lived happily for about one month, thereafter accused persons started harassing PW-1 for additional dowry of Rs.7,00,000/-. Then on one day herself and PW-2 went to see PW-1 as she was not feeling fell, they brought PW-1 to their home and shown her at hospital, there doctors told that PW-1 conceived and advised to take rest. So they kept PW-1 at their home. Then PW-1 blessed with a baby girl, the same was informed to accused persons but they did not turn to come to their home and see their baby. They performed 21st day ceremony of baby, there accused persons demanded them to perform this function as big but they denied the same as they were not in a position to do so. A-1 to A-5 attended the 21st day ceremony. On that day Accused persons again demanded additional dowry of Rs.7,00,000/- by stating that PW-1 blessed with a baby girl and created galata and left PW-1 at their home and went away, till now they did not come to see PW-1 and her daughter. About 6 years back PW-1 lodged a report in WPS Mancherial.

Police examined her and recorded her statement.

15. PW-4 is co-worker of the PW-2. He deposed that, about 9 years back

PW-1's marriage was performed with A-1 at Srirampur. A-1 belongs to Peddapalli.

PW-2 is his colleague in SCCL company. At the time of marriage parents of PW-1 presented Rs.8,00,000/-, (17) tulas of gold and other household articles as dowry to accused persons. After marriage PW-1 joined the conjugal society with A-1 at her in law's house and they lived happily for about one year. PW-1 conceived.

Thereafter, accused persons started harassing PW-1 for additional dowry of

Rs.7,00,000/-. PW-1 blessed with a baby girl, PW-1 parents performed 21st day ceremony of baby girl, there accused persons demanded them additional dowry, upon which a galata took place them. He also attended the function and he pacified the matter but the accused persons did not hear to him. Then he left from there.

Police examined him and recorded his statement.

Page 8 of 15 Judgment in CC.No.28 of 2017

16. PW-5 is neighbour of PW-2. He deposed that, in the year 2013 PW- 1's marriage was performed with A-1 at Srirampur. After the marriage the disputes arose between A-1 and PW-1. At the time of marriage parents of PW-1 presented

Rs.8,00,000/-, (17) tulas of gold and other household articles as dowry to accused persons. In the year 2015 PW-1 conceived and blessed with a baby girl, from then she has been with her parents. PW-1's parents performed 21st day ceremony of baby girl, there the accused persons also attended the function but in that function the accused persons started galata by saying that as PW-1 blessed with a baby girl they demanded additional dowry of Rs.7,00,000/- and made galata. Accused persons also stated that if they give Rs.7,00,000/- only they will take PW-1 to house otherwise they will not take PW-1 and baby along with them. He also attended the function. In this regard PW-1 lodged report. Police examined him and recorded his statement.

17.PW-6 is panch witness for CDF. He deposed that on 06.03.2016 at about 11.00 a.m., Police WPS Srirampur called him to RK-8 colony, to the house of

PW-2 and conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch with regard to demand of dowry a galata took place between accused and PW-1. Police conducted scene of offence panchanama, along with him LW-8 also signed on it.

Ex.P-2 is CDF including rough sketch.

18.PW-7 is investigation officer. She deposed that, on 05.03.2016 she received a report from PW-1, basing on the report she registered a case in

Cr.No.5/2016 under Sections 498-A and 290 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of D.P. Act and issued the FIR and took up the investigation. During the investigation, she examined PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and recorded their statements and collected marriage photographs of PW-1. Later, she examined PW-4, LW-5 and recorded their statements. Subsequently, she visited the scene of offence, conducted C.D.F.

along with rough sketch in the presence of PW-6 and LW-8. Then on 13.03.2016 she served notices under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. on A-1 to A-5 with an instructions

Page 9 of 15 Judgment in CC.No.28 of 2017 to appear before her at WPS Srirampur within 3 days. On 15.03.2016 at 1600 hours A-1 to A-5 came to WPS Srirampur admitted their guilt and confessed to have committed this offence, then she affected their arrest by issuing arrest memo and complying with Section 50 and 50-A of Cr.P.C. Thereafter the accused persons filed sufficient sureties, accordingly they were released on bail. After completion of entire investigation, she filed charge sheet against the accused persons for the offence under Sections 498-A and 290 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of D.P. Act.

Ex.P-3 is FIR. Ex.P-4 is (3) marriage photographs.

19.At this juncture, before proceeding further, I deem it fit to go through the ingredients of the offence under Section 498-A of IPC. In order to secure a conviction under Section 498-A of IPC the following ingredients have to be proved by the prosecution of the said section which reads as:

“Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of women, subjects such women to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also liable to be fine.

For the purpose of this section, “cruelty means‟

(a)Any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive, the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (Whether mental or Physical) of the woman; or

(b)Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand” Coming to essential ingredients of section 4 of dowry prohibition Act: “If any person demands, directly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be, any dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may be extent to two years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees:

Page 10 of 15 Judgment in CC.No.28 of 2017

Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for term less than six months.

In order to fasten the liability for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC against A1 to 5 prosecution must prove the following essential elements.

1. The woman must be married;

2. She must be subjected to cruelty or harassment; and

3. Such cruelty or harassment must have been shown either by the husband of the woman or by the relative of her husband.

20.In case at hand, PW-1’s marriage was performed with A-1 in the year 2013. The marriage has been not disputed by either of the parties of the case, thus proving the first requisite element as mentioned. Further, PW-1 who sets the criminal law into the motion by lodging Ex.P-1/report stated that at the time of marriage her parents gave an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- net cash, seven (07) Tulas of Gold to A-1's family. She lead happy married life for a period of one month and thereafter accused persons started harassing her mentally and physically for want of additional dowry of Rs.7,00,000/-. In support of this no documentary evidence was produced with regard to the presentation of said amount. Further, it can be seen from the evidences of PW-1 to PW-5 that their evidence is not consistent and in corroboration with each other on material particulars. For instance PW-1 deposed that her parents gave Rs.7,00,000/- cash and (07) tulas of Gold, whereas

PW-2 father of PW-1 deposed that he presented Rs.8,00,000/- cash and (17) tulas of Gold and other house hold articles to A-1 as dowry. Further, PW-3 mother of PW- 1 deposed that, at the time of marriage the accused persons demanded

Rs.15,00,000/- but they gave an amount of Rs.8,00,000/-, (17) tulas of gold and other household articles to accused persons.

21.Further PW-1 deposed in her chief examination that on 21st day ceremony of her child, all accused persons attended the ceremony and demanded

additional dowry of Rs.7,00,000/- and also beat her father. However, she admitted

Page 11 of 15 Judgment in CC.No.28 of 2017 in her cross examination that on 21st day ceremony of her child accused persons did not beat her father. She further deposed that, she along with PW-2 and PW-3 went to accused house for compromise, there the accused persons beat her, PW-2 and PW-3, due to which her father got several injuries on his head. It is pertinent to note that she admitted in her cross examination that after 21st day ceremony of her child she and her parents never visited accused persons house. Even though PW-2 father of PW-1 did not whisper about the said incident in his evidence, he also admitted in his cross-examination that he never visited A-1’s house and requested them to take his daughter back. Moreover, PW-1 deposed that they informed the matter to village and caste elders. But, PW-2 and PW-3 deposed in their cross- examination that they never negotiated with A-1, infront of elders about his relationship with PW-1.

22.In addition to this, PW-2 categorically deposed in his cross- examination that PW-2 never told him about the harassments, but she told the same to PW-3.

23.With regard to A-3 and A-4, PW-1 admitted in her cross-examination that they live separately. Therefore it can be concluded that there are several improvements, inconsistencies in the testimonies of PW-1 to PW-3 which does not inspire the confidence of this court to believe their versions. Moreover, no particular instance was deposed by PW-1 to PW-3 regarding the harassment done by A-1 to

A-5. Therefore, it is evident that there is no whisper of overt acts of accused persons of harassment of PW-1 at their hand with a view to meet any unlawful demand made by them so as to attract the provisions of Section 498-A of IPC read with Explanation.

24.Coming to PW-4 who cited as co worker of PW-2 deposed that at the time of marriage parents of PW-1 presented Rs.8,00,000/-, (17) tulas of gold and other household articles as dowry to accused persons. After marriage PW-1 joined the conjugal society with A-1 at her in-law's house and they lived happily for about

Page 12 of 15 Judgment in CC.No.28 of 2017 one year. In his cross-examination he admitted that he did not witness the giving and taking of dowry at the time of marriage and he got to know about the harassments through PW-2. Further, he deposed that he also attended the function of 21st day ceremony of PW-1’s daughter and about 150 people were present at the function. Here, it is pertinent to note that, PW-3 admitted in her cross-examination that except family relatives of both family none others were present at the function.

25.Subsequently, PW-5 who is neighbour of PW-2 deposed that at the time of marriage parents of PW-1 presented Rs.8,00,000/-, (17) tulas of gold and other household articles as dowry to accused persons. But, in his cross- examination he admitted that he was not present at the time of giving the above said amount to accused persons. Moreover, he also admitted that he did not state in his 161 Cr.P.C. statement that PW-1 blessed with a baby girl, and demanded

additional dowry of Rs7.00,000/ and also made galata, denied to take PW-1 back

to their home. He further admitted in his cross-examination that in 21st day of ceremony about 50 persons were present along with him.

26.After careful perusal of testimonies of PW-4 and PW-5 discussed above, it can be concluded that the testimonies of PW-4 and PW-5 are not in consonance with the material witnesses and does not inspire the confidence of the court to believe their version. In addition to this, PW-4, PW-5 are circumstantial witness and not being a family members of PW-1, their testimonies cannot be relied upon in absence of any cogent, corroborating evidence regarding harassments made by accused persons. Moreover, the court find several inconsistencies, contradictions in their testimonies which are not in consonance with each other and also with other prosecution witnesses on material particulars which creates doubt on the prosecution story.

27.PW-9 who is investigation officer in this case has not collected any documentary proof for giving dowry and household articles and also deposed that

Page 13 of 15 Judgment in CC.No.28 of 2017 she scribed statement of PW-1 and in his cross examination he admitted that PW-1 did not depose in her 161 Cr.P.C. statement that A-1 beat her and her father on 21st day ceremony of her child, due to which her father received injuries.

28.The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Raj Rani V/s. State (Delhi

Administration)., (2000) 10 SCC 662 held that while considering the case of cruelty in the context of the provisions of Sec.498-A IPC, evidence to show that Any willful conduct or act of Accused persons which is of such a nature as is likely to drive, the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health and the Court must examine that allegations/accusations must be of a very grave nature and should be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

The instant case required to be examined taking into consideration the aforesaid settled legal provisions and the testimonies of prosecution witnesses. No doubt there is no evidence on the record to show that the accused persons committed harassment on PW-1 with a view to force her to commit suicide or to fulfil illegal demands of them and the prosecution did not adduced any convincing evidence to show that by the acts of accused persons, caused danger to the life, limb or the victim.

Moreover, after perusal of the above evidence on record this court finds there are major discrepancies, contradiction and exaggerations in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses with regard to the harassment by Accused persons towards PW-1. Except making bear allegations against the accused persons for demanding additional dowry, no other allegations were made even for proving such demand. There is no cogent evidence brought on record by the prosecution even to prove that the accused persons took dowry and harassed PW- 1 by demanding additional dowry, no evidence was led except making sweeping remarks even the evidence of other witnesses is not cogent enough in establishing the imputed crime against the accused.

Therefore, the evidence lead by prosecution falls short of proving the case under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of D.P. Act.

Page 14 of 15 Judgment in CC.No.28 of 2017

29.Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case and upon careful scrutiny and evaluation of the evidence on record. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. For all these reasons, the evidence produced by the prosecution is not sufficient to connect the accused persons with the offence. The burden of proving the charge in criminal trial is always on the shoulders of the prosecution and the standard of proof required in proving the charge against the accused is proof beyond reasonable doubt. If there is any reasonable doubt, the accused is always entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt. The golden rule that runs through the web of civilized criminal jurisprudence is that an accused is presumed to be innocent unless he is found guilty of the charged offence or offences.

30.Hence, the Court is of the view that the evidence of PW-1 and PW-7 are doubtful with regard to the allegation of harassment and cruelty meted out by the accused persons. Even otherwise the said allegations are not sufficient to constitute the offence under Section 498-A of IPC. For the above stated reasons it is not safe to record the guilt of the accused No.1 to 5 and they are entitled for benefit of doubt. The point is answered against the prosecution and in favour of the accused No.1 to 5. The point is answered accordingly.

POINT NO.2:-

31. IN THE RESULT, A-1 to A-5 are found not guilty for the offence under

Section 498-A of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of D.P. Act. Accordingly, A-1 to A-5 are acquitted under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. for the above said offences. The bail bonds of accused persons shall be in force for a period of six months from today as contemplated under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. No property is deposited, hence there is no order with regard to property.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, after correction pronounced by me in the open court on this the 12 th day of April, 2023.

Sd/-

SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(EXCISE) MANCHERIAL

Page 15 of 15 Judgment in CC.No.28 of 2017

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR ACCUSED

PW-1Unukonda Soujanya

PW-2Manikyam Bapu

PW-3Manikyam Bharathi-NONE-

PW-4Marupaka Komoraiah

PW-5Velpula Ravindar

PW-6Jamalpur Ravi

PW-7S. Suman

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P-1Complaint.

Ex.P-2CDF including rough sketch.

Ex.P-3FIR

Ex.P-4(3) marriage photographs

FOR ACCUSED

:: NIL ::

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

NIL

Sd/-

SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(EXCISE) MANCHERIAL

// TRUE COPY //

SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(EXCISE) MANCHERIAL

C.C.No. 50 of 2017 Dated : 13.09.2022

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE­CUM­

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, LUXETTIPET

 AT :: LUXETTIPET

PRESENT: P. SUMAN GREWAL

SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS (EXCISE) 

MANCHERIAL

FAC: Junior Civil Judge­cum­Judicial Magistrate of First Class Luxettipet

Tuesday, this the 13th day of September, 2022

CC No.50 of 2017

BETWEEN:

The State of Telangana through Sub­Inspector of Police, PS Luxettipet. …Complainant AND

Penchala Ramesh, S/o: Late Komuraiah, Aged about: 53 years, Occ: Business, R/o: Masthanguda, Luxettipet.

… Accused 

This case is coming on 06.09.2022 before me for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri Akkala Sridhar, Counsel for accused, upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court delivered the following:­

Page 1 of 20

C.C.No. 50 of 2017 Dated : 13.09.2022

:: J U D G M E N T :: 

1.This case arises out of charge sheet filed by Station House Officer,

Luxettipet Police Station against accused in Cr.No.232/2016, for the offence punishable under Section 304­A of Indian Penal Code and Sec.

196 of Motor Vehicle Act (herein after called as IPC and M.V. Act).

2.Brief facts of prosecution case as set out in the charge sheet are that, on 29.12.2016 at 0710 hours defacto­complainant/LW­1/Shabber

Khan came to police station and lodged a report stating that, on 28.12.2016 while his elder brother by name Ahmed Khan Mohammad along with his friend Munwar shah Khan were proceeding to home after attending work at Gurunanak Function Hall at Uthkur village by foot when they reached near Bhagavathi Degree college on the main road of

NH­63 at about 0640 hours in the meantime accused being the rider of motorcycle bearing no.AP01K­4393 proceeding to Luxettipet from

Mancherial drove the same in rash and negligent manner and dashed to his elder brother from back side, as a result his elder brother fell down on the road and sustained injuries on back side of head, waist and nose, his elder brother was shifted to Government hospital, Luxettipet by his

Page 2 of 20

C.C.No. 50 of 2017 Dated : 13.09.2022

friend Munwar Shah khan, he came to know the same through friend of his brother Munwar Shah khan through phone, immediately he rushed to the hospital and found his elder brother was Un­conscious state, doctors referred his elder brother to Karimnagar for better treatment, while they were shifting his elder brother to Karimnagar his elder brother was succumbed at 8.40 am near Rukmapur village. As such he requested to take necessary action.

On the strength of report lodged by LW1, LW11/B. Sammaiah,

Sub Inspector of Police, PS Luxettipet, registered a case in Cr.No.

232/2016, issued FIR. During the course of investigation he examined and recorded statement of LW1, rushed to Government hospital,

Luxettipet, observed the dead body of deceased, got photographed dead body of deceased, conducted inquest over the dead body of deceased in the presence of LW7/Mohammad Vaivaiah and LW8/Mustafa Akbar, subjected the dead body for PME, during the inquest LW11 examined and recorded the statements of LW2/Javeriya Khanam, LW3/Munswar

Shah Khan, LW4/Mohammad Munna, LW5/Shalam Khan and

LW6/Veeramalla Raja Gopal Rao. Later LW11 visited scene of offence situated near Bhagavath Degree College, Uthkur village on the main road

Page 3 of 20

C.C.No. 50 of 2017 Dated : 13.09.2022

of NH­63, observed the scene, prepared crime detail form, drafted rough sketch in the presence of Lws.7 and 8. On 20.01.2017 accused came to police station, surrendered before LW11, LW11 verified driving license of accused, registration certificate, insurance of vehicle, RC and driving license found correct, found vehicle was not insured. As such LW121 added Section of Law U/Sec.196 of MV Act, after completion of legal formalities, on furnishing sufficient sureties LW11 released the accused on bail. LW9/N. Prathyusha, Asst. Motor Vehicle Inspector, Mancherial inspected the crime vehicle and gave report opining that that the accident was occurred not due to mechanical defects of the crime vehicle. the LW10/Dr. E. Shekhar, Civil Asst. Surgeon, Government hospital, Luxettipet who conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased issued PME report opining that the cause of death of deceased is due to cardio­respiratory arrest primary due to head injury. After completion of entire investigation, he laid charge sheet. 

3.Cognizance was taken for the offences punishable U/Secs. 304­A of IPC and Sec.196 of MV Act against the accused and issued summons.

4. On appearance of the accused copies of case documents furnished to him in­compliance of Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C.

Page 4 of 20

C.C.No. 50 of 2017 Dated : 13.09.2022

5. The accused was examined U/Sec.251 of Cr.P.C for the offence punishable U/Secs.304­A of IPC and Sec.196 of MV Act. The substance of accusation leveled against him, read over and explained to him, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, hence summons issued to the witnesses.

6.At the trial, in order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined Pws.1 to 9 and got marked Ex.P1 to P11. The description of the witnesses and documents will be discussed hereinafter.

7.On completion of evidence of the prosecution, accused was examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., where all the incriminating material available in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, read over and explained to him, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf. Hence defence evidence also closed and posted the matter for arguments.

8.Head the arguments on both sides and perused the record.

9.Now the points germane for determination are :

i) Whether the prosecution established and proved the

guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the

offences punishable U/Secs.304­A of IPC and Sec.196 of MV

Act?

ii) As to What results?

Page 5 of 20

C.C.No. 50 of 2017 Dated : 13.09.2022

10.P O I N T NO.1 :

The prosecution in support of the case examined as many as nine witnesses, amongst them PW1/Shabber Khan is defacto­complainant and younger brother of deceased, PW2/Javeriya Khanam is wife of deceased, PW3/Munswar Shah Khan is eye witness, PW4/Veeramalla

Raja Gopal is photographer, PW5/Mohammad Munna is circumstantial witness, PW6/Mohammad Vaiavath is mediator for inquest and CDF,

PW7/N. Prathyusha is Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, PW8/Dr. E.

Shekar is Medical Officer and PW9/B. Sammaiah is the investigation officer. Ex.P1 is the report, Ex.P2 to P5 are four photographs, Ex.P6 is the CD, Ex.P7 is the inquest panchanama, Ex.P8 is CDF along with rough sketch, Ex.P9 is MVI report, Ex.P10 is PME report and Ex.P11 is the First Information Report.

11. In order to appreciate the rival contentions on both sides, it will be appropriate at this stage to read section 304­A of IPC.

Sec.304­A IPC ­ Causing Death By Negligence: Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

Page 6 of 20

C.C.No. 50 of 2017 Dated : 13.09.2022

12. So, the essential ingredients need to be proved, to convict the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.304­A of IPC are:

 i) Accused is the driver of the Crime vehicle bearing No. AP01K4393.

ii) He drove the crime vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed deceased/Ahmed Khan.

iii) Thereby accused caused the death of deceased Ahmed Khan which is not amounting to culpable homicide;

13.PW1 is defacto­complainant and younger brother of deceased who set the criminal law into motion by giving report under Ex.P­1 deposed that on 28.12.2016 in the evening hours after completion of their work while his deceased brother/Ahmed Khan and PW3/Munswar Shah

Khan coming on foot from Bhagavathi degree college to Luxettipet, after crossing the road, in the meantime accused being the driver of motorcycle bearing No.AP1KY 4393 came behind and dashed to his brother/deceased, due to which his brother fell down on the ground and sustained severe injury on back side of his head and other parts of the body, immediately PW3 shifted his injured brother to the Government hospital Luxettipet, from there while shifting to Karimnagar, on the way his injured brother was succumbed to injuries at Rukmapur village, PW3

Page 7 of 20

C.C.No. 50 of 2017 Dated : 13.09.2022

witnessed the accident and informed him about the accident, his deceased brother died due to dashing of motorcycle on back side by the accused with high speed, he came to know the name of the driver of motorcycle as Penchala Ramesh. He further deposed that he went to police station and lodged a report under Ex.P1. 

14.PW.2 is wife of deceased deposed that on 28.12.2016 in the evening hours after completion of their electrical work in the Gurunanak function hall, while her deceased husband along with PW3 coming on foot from Bhagavathi degree college to Luxettipet, after crossing the road, in the meantime accused being the driver of motorcycle came behind and dashed to her deceased husband, due to which her husband fell down on the ground and sustained severe injury on back side of his head and other parts of the body, immediately PW3 shifted her injured husband to the Government hospital Luxettipet, from there while shifting again to

Karimnagar, on the way her injured husband was succumbed to injuries at Rukmapur village. She further deposed that PW3 witnessed the accident and informed about the accident to PW1, in turn who informed the same to her, she came to know that her deceased husband died due to dashing of motorcycle on back side by accused with high speed,she

Page 8 of 20

C.C.No. 50 of 2017 Dated : 13.09.2022

came to know the name of the driver of motorcycle as Penchala Ramesh, later PW1 went to police station and lodged a report.

15.PW3 is eye witness to the incident deposed that on 28.12.2016 in the evening hours, after completion of their electrical work in the

Gurunanak function hall, while he along with deceased coming back to their houses on foot, after crossing the road and infront of Bhagavathi degree college, in the meantime accused being the driver of motorcycle bearing No.AP1K 4393 came behind them and dashed to deceased, due to which deceased fell down on the ground and sustained severe injury on back side of his head and other parts ofthe body, immediately he shifted the injured to the Government hospital Luxettipet, then he made a phone call to PW1 and informed about the accident, on knowing about the accident, Pws.1 and 2 along with their family members came to hospital, from Luxettipet hospital while shifting the injured to

Karimnagar, on the way deceased was succumbed to injuries at

Rukmapur village. He further deposed that he witnessed the accident, accused came on his motorcycle on complete left side of the road and dashed to the deceased with high speed, due to which the deceased died,

Page 9 of 20

C.C.No. 50 of 2017 Dated : 13.09.2022

he witnessed the accused at the spot who is none other than the accused/Penchala Ramesh present in the court hall. 

16.PW4 being the Photographer deposed that on 29.12.2016, as per the instructions of police Luxettipet, he went to Government hospital

Luxettipet and taken photographs of dead body of a male person by name Ahmed Khan Mohammad in his digital camera and handed over the same to the police Luxettipet. He further deposed that he came to know that the deceased died in an accident.

17.PW5 is circumstantial witness deposed that on 28.12.2016 in the evening hours at about 6.30 pm, he came to know about the accident occurred to deceased/Md.Ahmed khan, on knowing about the accident, he went to Government hospital, Luxettipet to see MD. Ahmed khan, he along with LW5/Shalam Khan shifted the deceased to Prathima hospital,

Karimnagar in a private ambulance, where the doctors declared him brought to dead, later they brought the deceased to Government hospital Luxettipet. He further deposed that he came to know that the deceased met with an accident. 

Page 10 of 20

C.C.No. 50 of 2017 Dated : 13.09.2022

18.PW6 being the mediator for inquest and scene of offence panchanama deposed that on 29.12.2016 at about 8.00 am at

Government hospital, Luxettipet police Luxettipet prepared inquest panchanama over the dead body of the deceased in his presence and in the presence of LW8/Mustafa Akbar and obtained his signature and signature of LW8 on it. He further deposed that during the inquest panchanama, he found severe bleeding injuries on the back side of head, on the waist and on left leg. He further deposed that later police took him and LW8 to the scene of offence situated near Bhagavathi

Degree college on NH­63 road Uthkur chowrastha, there police prepared scene of offence panchanama by incorporating crime details in CDF and rough sketch in his presence and in the presence of LW8/Mustafa Akbar and obtained his signature and signature of LW8 on CDF and rough sketch, it is with regard to an accident occurred to deceased. 

19.PW7 is Motor Vehicle Inspector who inspected the crime vehicle deposed that on 27­01­2017 on receipt of requisition from SI of Police,

PS Luxettipet he inspected the crime vehicle i.e., CT 100 bearing

No.AP01K 4393 at Luxettipet police station, during the course of her inspection, she found the scratches on left side bumper, issued

Page 11 of 20

C.C.No. 50 of 2017 Dated : 13.09.2022

inspection report opining that the accident occurred was not due to any mechanical defects of the crime vehicle i.e., AP01K 4393. 

20.PW8 who being the Medical Officer issued PME report deposed that on 29­12­2016 at about 10.15 a.m. on receipt of requisition from SI of Police, PS Luxettipet, he conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased Ahmed Khan Mohammadh, during the course of his postmortem examination, he found the following external injuries:

1. Abrasion over left leg 5x0.5 cm

2. Abrasion over left knee 2x0.5 cm

3. Abrasion over right gluteal region 3x3 cm

4. Swelling over left wrist 3x3 cm

5. Abrasion over lumbar region on right side 2x2 cm

Internal injuries:

1. Fracture over left wrist

2. Fracture over occiput of skull after completion of postmortem examination, he issued PME report opining that the cause of death of deceased is “Cardio respiratory arrest primarily due to head injury”. 

Page 12 of 20

C.C.No. 50 of 2017 Dated : 13.09.2022

21. PW9 being the Investigation Officer deposed that on 28­12­2016 on receipt of report from PW1 he registered as case in Cr.No.232/2016 for the offence punishable U/Sec.304 of IPC, issued FIR and took up investigation, during the course of investigation, he got examined and recorded the statement of PW1, he proceeded to Government Hospital,

Luxettipet, observed the dead body of deceased, got photographed the same through PW4, conducted inquest over the dead body of deceased in the presence of PW6 and LW8, there he examined and recorded the statements of PW2 to PW5 and LW5/Salam Khan. He further deposed that later with the same mediators i.e., PW6 and LW8, he proceeded to the scene of offence situated near Bhagavathi Degree College, Uthkur village and prepared scene of offence panchanama by incorporating the crime details in CDF including rough sketch in their presence. He further deposed that on 20­01­2017 at about 1100 hours, accused wen to PS and surrendered before him by admitting his guilt, took him into custody and effected his arrest, during the course of verification of documents, he found the crime vehicle was not insured, on production of sureties, he released the accused on station bail. After collecting MVI and PME reports and after completion of investigation, he laid charge

Page 13 of 20

C.C.No. 50 of 2017 Dated : 13.09.2022

sheet for the offence punishable U/Sec.304­A of IPC and U/Sec.196 of

MV Act against accused. 

(b).To prove charge u/sec. 196 of MV Act the prosecution must establish that the accused driven an uninsured crime vehicle.

22. Identity of Accused:­

Coming to the first and necessary elements with regard to the identity of the accused, whether the accused is the driver of the crime vehicle bearing No. AP01K4393 at the time of the incident, admittedly no document is adduced by the prosecution to show that accused is the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of incident. In order to prove the identity of the accused, prosecution relied on the evidence of Pws.1 to 3.

PW1 who was the complainant and brother of the deceased deposed that

PW3 informed him about the incident and he got to know the name of the driver. Further in his cross examination, he deposed that he is not the eye witness to the incident and PW3 is also not an eye witness to the incident. PW2 also deposed that she came to know about the incident from PW3 and about the driver of the crime vehicle. In her cross examination, she admitted that she is not an eye witness to the incident.

Page 14 of 20

C.C.No. 50 of 2017 Dated : 13.09.2022

PW3 who is the eye witness to the incident, deposed in his chief examination is that he witnessed the accused at the spot and also identified him. But in his cross examination when he re­called for further cross examination, he resiled from his earlier statement and deposed that I was not present at Uthkoor village of Luxettipet and he got know the about the accident after 2 days. Therefore, it can be concluded that there are several inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses which does not inspires the confidence of the court. Moreover, none of the prosecution witnesses identified the accused as the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of incident. There is no material is produced before this court that whether accused is the driver of the crime vehicle or whether the driver of the crime vehicle is the different person. When there is no specific evidence against the accused in this regard, benefit of doubt shall goes to the accused.

Though PW9 Investigating Officer arrested the accused but he failed to secure any evidence to connect the accused with case. No test identification parade was conducted, nor any document was seized to prove the identity of the accused.

From the above discussion, it is clear that there is no iota of evi­ dence with regard to the identity of the accused. Hence prosecution

Page 15 of 20

C.C.No. 50 of 2017 Dated : 13.09.2022

failed to prove the first and foremost ingredient which is required to prove this case.

23. Come to the rash and negligence on the part of driver of the crime vehicle and with regard to death of the deceased. Although there is no doubt that the deceased died in the road traffic accident. Post morterm examination report marked as Ex.P10 by PW8 reveals that de­ ceased died due to cardio respiratory arrest primarily due to head injury.

Further, Ex.P9 i.e. MVI report reveals that the accident is not due to any mechanical defect of the crime vehicle. Now the only question before this court is whether any rashness or negligence on the part of driver of the crime vehicle at the time of incident. Though Pws.1 to 3 stated that the crime vehicle was being driving in a high speed and dashed the deceased from the back side. PW3 also stated the same. But in his cross examina­ tion, he deposed that the place of incident is a national highway and it is heavy traffic place. Though Pws.1 and 3 stated that the crime vehicle was been driven in a high speed but they could not narrate the exact speed of the crime vehicle and there is no mentioned in their version showing that the crime vehicle was been driven in a rash and negligent manner. In his specific statement to show that there was an act of rash­ ness and negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle, the

Page 16 of 20

C.C.No. 50 of 2017 Dated : 13.09.2022

mere “high speed” as stated by Pws.1 and 3 cannot be ascertained.

Moreover, PW3 clearly admitted in his cross examination that, there was heavy traffic at the place of incident. When there is heavy traffic on the road, it may not be possible to driver of the crime vehicle to drive the ve­ hicle in high speed. Therefore, the prosecution failed to establish that there was any rashness or negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle resulting the accident.

24. Causing death of the deceased:­

Though the evidence of medical officer examined as PW8 and the post morterm report marked as Ex.P10, it showing about the causing death of the deceased. The court is of the view that unless there is evidence to show that the accused is the driver of the crime vehicle and he drove the same in rash and negligent manner at the time of accident and such rashness and negligent act caused the accident, resulting into the death of the deceased, the evidence of medical officer cannot be acted upon. Though PW5 supported the recording of inquest panchanama under Ex.P7, it is settled law that the evidence of inquest mediator is to be relied only to know the cause of the death, but not to fix the liability on the accused, unless such mediator happens to be an eye witness to

Page 17 of 20

C.C.No. 50 of 2017 Dated : 13.09.2022

the accident. When indentity of the accused as the driver of the crime vehicle is not made out and no evidence is shown of his rash and negligent act resulting to the accident. The court holds that the evidence of police officer PW8 cannot be relied upon.

25. The accused is charged for the offence U/Sec. 196 of M.V. Act on the allegation that as on the date of the incident, he was not driving the insured vehicle. There is no evidence adduced by the prosecution in this regard, therefore, there is no material at all on the prosecution evidence to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence U/Sec. 196 of M.V. Act.

26.Having regard to above observations, it is found that the evidence of Pws.1 to 3 and 9 is unworthy of credence to clearly establish the identify of the accused as the driver of crime vehicle and there is no convencing evidence to show any rashness and negligence act of the accused resulting into the death of the deceased. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences

U/Sec. 304­A IPC and Sec. 196 of M.V. Act beyond all reasonable doubt and thus the accused is entitled for acquittal. 

Page 18 of 20

C.C.No. 50 of 2017 Dated : 13.09.2022

POINT NO.2:­

27.IN THE RESULT, Accused found not guilty for the offences punishable U/sec. 304­A of IPC, Sec. 3/181 of MV Act, and accordingly, he is acquitted under Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C., for the said offences. The bail bonds of accused shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated under Sec.437­A Cr.P.C. 

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 13 th day of September, 2022.

Sd/­

SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS 

(EXCISE) MANCHERIAL

FAC: JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE­CUM­JUDICIAL 

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, 

LUXETTIPET

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR ACCUSED

PW­1B. Srujala

PW­2M. Sai Goutham:: NONE ::

PW­3Shaik Taj

PW­4O. Ramesh

PW­5T. Jagan

Page 19 of 20

C.C.No. 50 of 2017 Dated : 13.09.2022

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION 

Ex.P­1Signature of complainant/PW­1

Ex.P­2Contents of report

Ex.P­3161 CrP.C. statement of PW­1

Ex.P­4161 CrP.C. statement of PW­2

Ex.P­5161 CrP.C. statement of PW­3

Ex.P­6161 CrP.C. statement of PW­4

Ex.P­7161 CrP.C. statement of PW­5

FOR ACCUSED

:: NIL ::

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

:: NIL ::

Sd/­

SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS 

(EXCISE) MANCHERIAL

FAC: JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE­CUM­JUDICIAL 

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, 

LUXETTIPET

Page 20 of 20

Page 1 of 7 C.C.No. 49 of 2023

IN THE COURT OF SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS (EXCISE)

AT MANCHERIAL

PRESENT: SMT. SUMAN GREWAL

SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS (EXCISE) COURT

MANCHERIAL

FRIDAY, THIS THE 31 st DAY OF MARCH, 2023

C.C. No. 49 of 2023

BETWEEN:

State through the Station House Officer, Prohibition and Excise Station, Bellampally.

…COMPLAINANT; // AND //

Maloth Mothilal S/o. Gajya Nayak, Age: 35 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o. Chamanpally village of Nennel (M). …ACCUSED.

This case is coming on today i.e., 31.03.2023 before me for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State; and of Sri Ch. Ramesh and Sri D. Kishan, Counsels for accused, upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Station House Officer, Prohibition and Excise Station, Bellampally, has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under

Section 7(A) r/w. 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995, in C.O.R. No. 69/2022 of

Prohibition and Excise Station, Bellampally.

2.The case of prosecution in brief is that, on 21.07.2022 at about 04:30 p.m., on reliable information regarding transporting of I.D. Liquor, PW-4/

T. Mahender Singh, P & E Inspector DTF Station, Mancherial, along with his staff proceeded to outskirts of Adilpet village and conducted route watch.

During the route watch while they were checking suspected vehicles, on seeing them the accused stopped his Hero Splendor Plus motorcycle bearing

No.AP01K5370 at some distance in suspicious manner along with one carry bag.

The route watch party moved towards the accused, on that the accused escaped from the scene of offence by leaving his motorcycle, later they checked the carry

Page 2 of 7 C.C.No. 49 of 2023 bag, on search they found (06) liters of I.D. liquor in (01) polythene cover.

Thereafter, PW-4 summoned two panchas/mediators i.e., PW-1 and PW-2 and in their presence PW-4 opened the bag and noticed as I.D,. liquor by virtue of smell.

Later PW-4 enquired about the absconded accused with the surrounding people, on enquiry the came to know the particulars of absconded accused as Maloth

Mothilal S/o. Gajya Nayak. Later, PW-4 and route watch party conducted panchanama in the presence of above said two panchas/mediators, seized the vehicle and I.D. Liquor and drawn two samples of I.D. Liquor in 180 ml bottles for chemical analysis under cover of panchanama and brought the seized property to the Proh. & Excise Station, Bellampally.

Basing on the panchanama PW-3 registered a case in COR No.

69/2022 for the offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition

Act, 1995, against the Accused. Later, served notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C on accused and released him on station bail.

During the course of investigation PW-3 forwarded the seized samples to the Government Chemical Examiner, Nizamabad, for analysis and report. After due analysis the Chemical Examiner, Nizamabad, had issued a report vide CE No.

594/2022.07, dated 04.08.2022 and opined that the sample is illicit distilled liquor, unfit for human consumption and injurious to health.

The remaining property of I.D. Liquor was produced before the Dy.

Commissioner of Proh. & Excise, Adilabad, for confiscation. Accordingly the Dy.

Commissioner Proh. & Excise, Adilabad, issued confiscation orders vide

Proc.No.B2/303/DCA/2022, dated 09.11.2022, as per the confiscation orders the

I.D. liquor was destroyed and the vehicle was confiscated.

After completion of entire investigation PW-3 filed the charge sheet.

3.This case is taken on file on 14.03.2023 by this Court for the offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995, against the

Page 3 of 7 C.C.No. 49 of 2023 accused and issued summons. On appearance of the accused, the copies of case documents were furnished to him in compliance of Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

4.Accused was examined under Section 239 of CrPC. The contents of the charges framed for the offence punishable under Sections 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.

Prohibition Act, 1995, against Accused was read over and explained to him in his vernacular language, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During trial, in order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PW-1 to PW-4 and got marked Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-7 and MO-1.

6.On completion of evidence of the prosecution, the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., for which he denied the incriminating material appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and reported no defence evidence on his behalf. Hence defence evidence closed and posted the matter for arguments.

7.Heard the arguments on both sides.

8.The point for determination is :

“Whether the prosecution established and proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act?”

POINT :-

9.PW-1 and PW-2 who are panch witnesses for seizure panchanama, they deposed that, they do not know anything about this case, no seizure panchanama was conducted and nothing was seized in their presence, but the concerned police obtained their signatures on some white papers. Through PW-1 and PW-2 their signatures were marked as Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2 respectively on seizure panchanama. During their cross examination, they denied the other suggestions put to them with regard to conducting of seizure panchanama in their

Page 4 of 7 C.C.No. 49 of 2023 presence. At this stage the Learned APP declared PW-1 and PW-2 hostile and nothing incriminating material is elicited from their mouth during cross examination by learned APP and they did not support the case of prosecution.

10.PW-3 who is investigation officer and filed charge sheet has deposed that, he took up the further investigation from PW-4. Basing on the investigation he registered the case in COR.No.69/2022, dated 21.07.2022 for the offences under

Section 7 (A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Act., 1995. On the same day he issued notice U/Sec. 41-A Cr.P.C. and on furnishing personal bond he released the accused on station bail. Further, he forwarded the samples which were taken by PW-4 at the scene of offence to the Chemical Examiner for analysis and report and received report vide CE No. 594/2022.07, dated 04.08.2022 and opined that it contains the sample is un fit for human consumption and injurious to health. The remaining property was confiscated as per orders vide Proc. B2/303/DCA/2022, dated 09.11.2022 and same was destroyed. Thereafter, after investigation he filed the charge sheet.

11.PW-4 who conducted panchanama and seized the property deposed that, on 21.07.2022 at 04.30 p.m., he along with staff proceeded to outskirts of Adilpet village of Mandamarry Mandal by securing the panchas PW-1 and PW-2 and conducted route watch and checked the suspected vehicles, meantime found accused in suspicious manner on a Hero Splendor Plus bike bearing No.AP01K5370 along with one carry bag, on seeing them the accused fled away from the scene of offence, but he and route watch party tried to apprehend the accused but result in vain. On checking the vehicle they found one carry bag containing (06) liters of I. D. liquor in (01) polythene cover, later he conducted seizure panchanama in the presence of PW-1 and PW-2. On enquiry they came to know the descriptive particulars of absconding accused as Maloth Mothilal S/o. Gajya Nayak. Thereafter, he seized the property and motorcycle and drawn samples and further handed over the investigation to PW-3.

Page 5 of 7 C.C.No. 49 of 2023

12.The evidence connecting accused with crime is the seizure of case property from accused. Admittedly as per the version of prosecution seizure is made by investigating officer i.e., PW-4 in the presence of PW-1 and PW-2. It is the version of PW-4 that they have conducted seizure panchanama in the presence of

PW-1 and PW-2, but the version of PW-1 and PW-2 is that no such panchanama was conducted in their presence. Hence it is clear that the evidence of PW-1 and

PW-2 who are panch witnesses for seizure panchanama is contradicting with the evidence of investigating officer i.e., PW-4 about conducting of seizure panchanama. Further it is settled law that the presence of mediators is the mandatory requirement to conduct seizure as contemplated under Section 100 (4) of Cr.P.C. Thus witness dealing with the presence of panchas/mediator becomes material to prove search and seizure since the version of PW-4 and the panchas/mediators are contradicting the presence of panchas/mediators during search and seizure. Therefore, Ex.P-7seizure panchanama remains unestablished for turning hostile of PW-1 and PW-2 panch witnesses. Moreover, confession to the police officer is totally inadmissible as per Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act.

Further PW-3 and PW-4 being Investigating Officers reiterated the contents of the

Charge Sheet. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that reliance cannot be placed upon the testimonies of PW-3 and PW-4.

It is true that this Court cannot discard the evidence of the

Investigating Officers stating that the panch witnesses i.e., PW-1 and PW-2 are interested witnesses. But when there is no evidence to prove the accusation against accused and only relying on the evidence of the investigating officers is unsafe to convict the accused. Due to the above reasons this Court is of the opinion that it is unsafe to rely upon sole testimonies of PW-3 and PW-4. Except the evidence of PW-3 and PW-4, who are Excise Officials, there is no other independent evidence adduced by the prosecution. It is true that the Court cannot reject the evidence of PW-3 and PW-4 at a threshold on the ground that they are excise officials, however evidence of PW-3 and PW-4 have to be appreciated with

Page 6 of 7 C.C.No. 49 of 2023 great care and caution. Further being part and parcel of investigation agency, there is every possibility for Proh. & Excise Officials to speak in favour of prosecution by supporting investigation.

Hence under these circumstances and due to the above reasons it is cumulatively concluded that it is unsafe to rely upon testimony of Proh. & Excise

Officers in the absence of supporting evidence of panchas/mediators, thereby it is concluded that the accused is entitled for the benefit of doubt for the offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995.

13.Having considered the evidence on record and in view of the reasons stated supra, this Court is of the opinion that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not at all sufficient to prove the allegations made against the accused for the charges of offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.

Prohibition Act, 1995, and accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the accused.

14. IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the charges of offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995, and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of six months as contemplated under

Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

The case property vide CP No. 19/2023 i.e., MO.1 - 180 ML of empty sample bottle shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 31 st day of March, 2023.

Sd/-

SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(EXCISE) MANCHERIAL

Page 7 of 7 C.C.No. 49 of 2023

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For ProsecutionFor defence

PW-1Gopishetty Suresh

PW-2Nitari Prashanth NONE PW-3D. Deepak

PW-4T. Mahender Singh

EXHIBITS MARKED

Ex.P-1 Signature of PW-1 on seizure Panchanama

Ex.P-2 Signature of PW-2 on seizure Panchanama

Ex.P-3 C.O.R. NIL. Ex.P-4 C.E. Report.

Ex.P-5 Attested copy of Confiscation Order

Ex.P-6 Attested copy of Destruction Panchanama

Ex.P-7 Seizure panchanama

MATERIAL OBJECTS

MO-1 is 180 ML of empty sample bottle vide CP No. 19/2023

Sd/-

SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(EXCISE) MANCHERIAL

// TRUE COPY //

SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(EXCISE) MANCHERIAL

CC No. 832 of 2020 Page 1 of 7

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

II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

MANCHERIAL

Present: Smt. Suman Grewal, Spl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class(Excise), Mancherial. FAC: II Addl.Junior Civil Judge-Cum-II Addl.JFCM, Mancherial

Thursday, this the 6th day of January, 2022

CC No.832 of 2020

Between:

The State of Telangana through Sub Inspector of Police, PS Mancherial . . .Complainant //And//

A1. Gurulala Singh @ Jaggu, S/o Keval Singh, Age: 32yrs, Occ: Lorry Driver/Lorry Owner Vijayawada, Lorry B.No. TS22 3476, R/o Nathupur Police Station, Harike Pathan Police Station, Karunayala Singh (Taluq), Punjab State

A2. Jaspal Singh, S/o Sukhya Singh, Age: 31yrs, Occ: Lorry Cleaner R/o Sabeera Police Station, Patti District, Tharuaran Tharuan, Punjab State

A3. Dhune Narendar Singh, S/o Bhuta Singh, Age: 26yrs, R/o Paneka Rajnandgaon of Chattisgadh State now at Mandamarri.

A4. Eatankari Purushotham, S/o Govindu, Age: 35yrs, Occ: Agriculture, R/o H.No. 3-37, Shivalayama Colony, Wankidi Village and Mandal, District Asifabad. ( Split Up vide CC No. 10 of 2022 ) . . . Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Learned APP for the State and in the presence of A 1 to A3 and having been heard and stood over for consideration till today, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The then Sub-Inspector of Police, Mancherial Police Station filed charge- sheet against the accused no.1 to 4 ( the case against A4 is Split up vide CC.No. 10 of 2022) in Cr.No 458 of 2020 for the offence punishable Under Sections 379 r/w 411 of IPC.

2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:-

On 23-11-2020 at 1800 hours, the complainant/Lw1/Babbera Shekar went to

Police Station and lodged a report alleging that on 10.11.2020 at about 21.00 hours

CC No. 832 of 2020 Page 2 of 7

he parked his Pulsar Motor Cycle bearing No TS 19 2846 in front of his house and went for bed. On the next day early hours i.e., on 11.11.2020 at about 0700 hours he woke from sleep and found that his motor cycle was stolen away by some unknown offenders and worth of Rs. 90,000/-. Hence he lodged the report.

Basing on the report given by the complainant, LW8/M.Maruthi,Sub

Inspector of Police Mancherial registered a case in Crime No.458 of 2020 for the offence punishable U/Sec. 379 of IPC and took up investigation. During the course of investigation Lw8 has examined the complainant/Lw1 and recorded the statement of LW1/Babbera Shekar and Lw2/MD.Amar. Lw8 visited the scene of offence situated at Gouthaminagar, Mancherial and prepared CDF and drew rough sketch in the presence of Lw3/Kovilla Saiprasad and Lw4/MD Parvez. While the investigation is in progress on 25.11.2020 the LW7/K.Bhaskar Rao, Sub Inspector of Police Bellampalli-II Town has arrested the A1 to A3 in their case vide Cr.No.

197/2020 for the offence U/Sec 379 of IPC of PS Bellampalli-II Town. During the course of interrogation the A1 to A3 confessed their case along with other offence including this offence vide Cr.No.458/2020 U/Sec 379 of IPC of PS Mancherial

Town. Further the A1 to A3 confessed that they kept the stolen motor cycle of this instance case i.e., Pulsar motor cycle bearing no TS 19 2846 at the house of A4.

Accordingly the Lw7/K.Bhaskar Rao, Sub Inspector of Police Bellampalli-II Town conducted the confession Panchanama of A1 to A3 and recovered Pulsar Motor

Cycle Bearing No TS 19 2846 from the possession of A4 in the presence of mediators and remanded the Accused no.1 to 3 to judicial custody. The

LW8/M.Maruthi, Sub Inspector of Police Mancherial Town filed requisition before this court obtained PT warrants against the A1 to A3 and produced them before this court on 09.12.2020. Later the Lw8/ M.Maruthi, Sub Inspector of Police

Mancherial Town served notice to the A4 on 12.12.2020 with direction to appear

CC No. 832 of 2020 Page 3 of 7

before him on or before at 09.30 hours. Accordingly, the accused no.4 appeared

before the LW8/ M.Maruthi, Sub Inspector of Police Mancherial Town by

voluntarily admitting his guilt and he given his undertaking that he will appear

before this court. After completion of investigation Lw8/ M.Maruthi, Sub Inspector

of Police Mancherial Town has filed a charge sheet against the accused persons.

3. On perusal of the charge sheet and other documents filed by the Police, the cognizance is taken for the offence under section 379 of IPC against the accused no.1 to 4 (A4 is Split up vide CC.No.10 of 2022).

4. Accused no.1 and A2 are produced from Central Prisoner, Hyderabad and

Accused No.3 is produced from District Jail, Adilabad. Copies of this case were furnished to the accused no.1 to 3 as contemplated under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5. Accused no.1 to 3 are examined under section 239 Cr.P.C and charges under section 379 of IPC are framed against accused no.1 to 3. The substance of accusation is read over and explained to the accused no.1 to 3 in Telugu. Accused no.1 to 3 pleaded guilty stating that they have committed the offence. The accused no.1 to 3 are warned as to the proposed punishment which they are going to receive from this Court. Accused no.1 to 3 voluntarily admitted the guilt. Hence, this

Court is of the considered view that the admission of the accused no.1 to 3 are voluntary and without any coercion or pressure.

6. The L e a r n e d APP for the State submitted that since the accused no.1 to 3 have themselves admitted the guilt. So there is no need for further evidence or argument. Hence, the case proved beyond all reasonabledoubt .

CC No. 832 of 2020 Page 4 of 7

7. Heard and perused the material on record.

8. Now point for consideration before this Court is:

i). Whether the accused no.1 to 3 are guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.379 of IPC?

ii. As to what result?

9.REASONS:

POINT NO.l

10. This case came for hearing for examination of accusedU/Sec.239 of

Cr.P.C. today. The accused no.1 and 2 are produced from Central

Prison, Hyderabad and A3 is produced from District Jail

Adilabad. T he y filled with remorse and shame, and they expressed their willingness to admit their guilt. They were wamed by the Court about theconsequences of the admission. Even thereafter, they voluntarily admitted the offence. They stated that on that fateful day. They were in search of any article for theft and suddenly t he y saw a motorcycle i . e . , P u l s a r

M o t o r C y c l e b e a r i n g N o T S 1 9 2 8 4 6 of Lw1which was lonely parked in front of his house at Gouthaminagar, Mancherial. they took the advantage and hadstolen away the motorcycle i.e., Pulsar Motor Cycle bearing No TS 19 2846. T h e y further stated that now, their i nner conscience has deep regret over their act and hence pleaded guilty.

11. On considering the same the accused no.1 to 3 were examined

U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C.. explaining the allegations against them for the offence punishable U/Sec.379 of l.P.C. for which they voluntarily pleaded guilty without any condition. Now it is clear, that accused no.1 to 3 admitted all the factsof the offence and guilt without any inducement, threat for promise.

CC No. 832 of 2020 Page 5 of 7

ThisCourt feels that the plea of guilt made by the accused no.1 to 3 voluntarily.

12. On considering the voluntarily submission made by theaccused no.1 to 3 and all the facts and circumstances. This Court finds thataccused no.1 to 3 had voluntarily pleaded guilty without any threat pressure andcoercion and they voluntarily entered an unconditional plea of guilt. Now,there is nothing left to prove in this case. In view of voluntarily submissionof plea guilty and above mentioned facts and circumstances this Court proceed to pass the following:

13. In the result: accused no.1 to 3 found guilty for the offence punishableU/Sec. 379 of l.P.C and convicted under Section 241 of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, after correction pronounced by me on this the 6 th day of January, 2022.

Spl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Excise) Mancherial FAC: II Addl.Junior Civil Judge-Cum- II Judl.Magistrate of First Class Mancherial

Point No .2:

14. Accused no.1 to 3 are explained about the punishment provided

U/Sec.379 of I.P.C. and also question about the Quantum of Sentence to be imposed on them.

15. The accused no.1 to 3 when questioned, they submitted that they are solebread winner for their family. They have old aged parents and no one is there intheir family for taking their care. Hence, a lenient view may please be takenagainst the accused no.1 to 3.

CC No. 832 of 2020 Page 6 of 7

16. Heard, both sides and perused the material on record.

17. Considering the records of the case and all the facts and circumstances, this Court finds that this case is not fit to Invoke beneficial provision of probation of offender act in favour of accused no.1 to 3.

18. This Court has considered all the mitigating as well as the aggravating circumstances that arise in this case and after weighing the consideration as discussed here in above and keeping in view. The factsthat have pleaded guilty without any threat, pressure or coercion andconvict A1 to A3 are in judicial custody since 09.12.2020. Thus keeping In view the above facts and circumstance, this Court proceed to pass the following:

19.. In the result,the accused no.1 to 3 are hereby directed to undergosimple

Imprisonment for a term of One (1) Year and One (1) Month. The A1 to A3 are entitled for set off under section 428 of Cr.PC from 09.12.2020. The sentence of accused no.1 to 3 in the present case and sentence of accused no.1 to 3 in other cases i.e., CC.No. 139 of 2021 and CC.No. 14 of 2021 shall run concurrently.

The stolen property i.e., P u l s a r M o t o r C y c l e b e a r i n g N o T S 1 9 2 8 4 6 which was already returned to informant vide Crl.MP.No. 339 of 2020,

dated: 24.12.2020 on the file of this Court, towards interim custody is made

absolute after expire of appeal period. Bail bonds of A1 to A3 if stands canceled subject to 437-A of CrPC the Office is Directed to Preserve the Case Record till disposal of split-up case i.e.,. CC No. 10 of 2022.

20. The accused no.1 to 3 /convict no.1 to 3 are explained about t h e i r right of A ppeal and free Legal Aid through M a n d a l Legal Service

CC No. 832 of 2020 Page 7 of 7

Authority, M a nc h e r ia l . The Office is directed to supply the copy of the

Judgment to the accused n o 1 t o 3 immediatelyon free of cost.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, after correction pronounced by me on this the 6 th day of January, 2022.

Spl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Excise) Mancherial FAC:II Addl.Junior Civil Judge-Cum- II Judl.Magistrate of First Class Mancherial

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE: - None - - None -

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE: -Nil- -Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-Nil-

Spl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Excise) Mancherial FAC: II Addl.Junior Civil Judge-Cum- II Judl.Magistrate of First Class Mancherial

Page 1 of 7 C.C.No. 02 of 2023

IN THE COURT OF SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS (EXCISE)

AT MANCHERIAL

PRESENT: SMT. SUMAN GREWAL

SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS (EXCISE) COURT

MANCHERIAL

FRIDAY, THIS THE 31 st DAY OF MARCH, 2023

C.C. No. 02 of 2023

BETWEEN:

State through the Station House Officer, Prohibition and Excise Station, Bellampally.

…COMPLAINANT; // AND //

Bandi Laxmi W/o. Banaiah, Age: 74 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o. Abrahamnagar, RKP village of Mandamarry (M). …ACCUSED.

This case is coming on today i.e., 31.03.2023 before me for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State; and of Sri Ch. Ramesh and Sri D. Kishan, Counsels for accused, upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Station House Officer, Prohibition and Excise Station, Bellampally, has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under

Section 7(A) r/w. 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995, in C.O.R. No. 58/2022 of

Prohibition and Excise Station, Bellampally.

2.The case of prosecution in brief is that, on 24.06.2022 at about 04:30 p.m., on reliable information regarding transporting and selling of I.D. Liquor, PW- 2/T. Mahender Singh, P & E Inspector DTF, Mancherial, along with his staff proceeded to Abrahamnagar, RKP village of Mandamarry (M) and conducted raids.

During raids they checked suspected places and persons, meanwhile they found accused in a suspicious manner by carrying one hand bag beside of her house, on observing the raid party, accused tried to escape from the scene of offence, immediately PW-2 and raid party apprehend the accused and checked the bag, on search they found (02) liters of I.D. liquor in (01) plastic cover. Thereafter,

Page 2 of 7 C.C.No. 02 of 2023

PW-2 summoned two panchas/mediators i.e., PW-1 and PW-4 and in their presence PW-2 interrogated the accused, on interrogation the accused disclosed her identity as Bandi Laxmi W/o. Banaiah and also confessed to have committed this offence. Later, PW-2 and raid party conducted panchanama in the presence of above said two panchas/mediators, seized the I.D. Liquor and drawn one sample of

I.D. Liquor in 180 ml bottle for chemical analysis under cover of panchanama and brought the seized property to the Proh. & Excise Station, Bellampally, and handed over the seized contraband and accused to PW-3 for further investigation.

Basing on the panchanama PW-3 registered a case in COR No.

58/2022 for the offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition

Act, 1995, against the Accused. Later, served notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C on accused and released her on station bail.

During the course of investigation PW-3 forwarded the seized samples to the Government Chemical Examiner, Nizamabad, for analysis and report. After due analysis the Chemical Examiner, Nizamabad, had issued a report vide CE No.

555/2022.08, dated 19.07.2022 and opined that the serial No.3200 sample is illicit distilled liquor, unfit for human consumption and injurious to health.

The remaining property of I.D. Liquor was produced before the Dy.

Commissioner of Proh. & Excise, Adilabad, for confiscation. Accordingly the Dy.

Commissioner Proh. & Excise, Adilabad, issued confiscation orders vide

Proc.Cr.No.B2/93/DCA/2021, dated 15.08.2022, as per the confiscation orders the

I.D. liquor was destroyed.

After completion of entire investigation PW-3 filed the charge sheet.

3.This case is taken on file on 05.01.2023 by this Court for the offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995, against the accused and issued summons. On appearance of the accused, the copies of case documents were furnished to her in compliance of Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

Page 3 of 7 C.C.No. 02 of 2023

4.Accused was examined under Section 239 of CrPC. The contents of the charges framed for the offence punishable under Sections 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.

Prohibition Act, 1995, against Accused was read over and explained to her in her vernacular language, for which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During trial, in order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PW-1 to PW-4 and got marked Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-7 and MO-1.

6.On completion of evidence of the prosecution, the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., for which she denied the incriminating material appearing against her in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and reported no defence evidence on her behalf. Hence defence evidence closed and posted the matter for arguments.

7.Heard the arguments on both sides.

8.The point for determination is :

“Whether the prosecution established and proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act?”

POINT :-

9.PW-1 and PW-4 who are panch witnesses for confession and seizure panchanama, they deposed that, they do not know anything about this case, no confession and seizure panchanama was conducted and nothing was seized in their presence, but the concerned police obtained their signatures on some white papers. Through PW-1 and PW-4 their signatures were marked as Ex.P-1 and

Ex.P-7 respectively on confession-cum-seizure panchanama. During their cross examination, they denied the other suggestions put to them with regard to conducting of confession-cum-seizure panchanama in their presence. At this stage the Learned APP declared PW-1 and PW-4 hostile and nothing incriminating

Page 4 of 7 C.C.No. 02 of 2023 material is elicited from their mouth during cross examination by learned APP and they did not support the case of prosecution.

10.PW-2 who conducted panchanama and seized the property deposed that, on 24.06.2022 at 04.30 p.m., he along with staff proceeded to Abrahim Nagar of Mandamarry by securing the panchas PW-1 and PW-4. He conducted raid and checked the suspected places and found the accused in suspicious manner along with one hand bag, on seeing them the accused tried to ran away but he and raid party apprehended the accused, on search they found (02) liters of I.D. liquor in (01) plastic cover. On interrogation the accused voluntarily confessed her guilt and disclosed her identity as Bandi Laxmi W/o. Banaiah and he conducted confession- cum-seizure panchanama in the presence of PW-1 and PW-4. Thereafter, he arrested the accused and drawn samples from the seized property and further handed over the investigation to PW-3.

11.PW-3 who is investigation officer and filed charge sheet has deposed that, he took up further investigation from PW-2. He registered the case in

COR.No.58/2022 for the offences under Section 7 (A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Act., 1995. On the same day he issued notice U/Sec. 41-A Cr.P.C. and on furnishing personal bond he released her on station bail. Further, he forwarded the samples which were taken by PW-2 at the scene of offence to the Chemical Examiner for analysis and report and received report vide CE No. 555/2022.08, dated 19.07.2022 vide Sl.No.3200 and opined that it contains the sample is un fit for human consumption and injurious to health. The remaining property was confiscated as per orders vide

Proc. B2/93/DCA/2021, dated 15.08.2022 and same was destroyed. Thereafter, after investigation he filed the charge sheet.

12.The evidence connecting accused with crime is the seizure of case property from accused. Admittedly as per the version of prosecution seizure is made by investigating officer i.e., PW-2 in the presence of PW-1 and PW-4. It is the

Page 5 of 7 C.C.No. 02 of 2023 version of PW-2 that they have conducted seizure panchanama in the presence of

PW-1 and PW-4, but the version of PW-1 and PW-4 is that no such panchanama was conducted in their presence. Hence it is clear that the evidence of PW-1 and

PW-4 who are panch witnesses for confession-cum-seizure panchanama is contradicting with the evidence of investigating officer i.e., PW-2 about conducting of confession-cum-seizure panchanama. Further it is settled law that the presence of mediators is the mandatory requirement to conduct seizure as contemplated under Section 100 (4) of Cr.P.C. Thus witness dealing with the presence of panchas/mediator becomes material to prove search and seizure since the version of PW-2 and the panchas/mediators are contradicting the presence of panchas/mediators during search and seizure. Therefore, Ex.P-2confession cum seizure panchanama remains unestablished for turning hostile of PW-1 and PW-4 panch witnesses. Moreover, confession to the police officer is totally inadmissible as per Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act. Further PW-2 and PW-3 being

Investigating Officers reiterated the contents of the Charge Sheet. Hence, this

Court is of the opinion that reliance cannot be placed upon the testimonies of PW-2 and PW-3.

It is true that this Court cannot discard the evidence of the

Investigating Officers stating that the panch witnesses i.e., PW-1 and PW-4 are interested witnesses. But when there is no evidence to prove the accusation against accused and only relying on the evidence of the investigating officers is unsafe to convict the accused. Due to the above reasons this Court is of the opinion that it is unsafe to rely upon sole testimonies of PW-2 and PW-3. Except the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3, who are Excise Officials, there is no other independent evidence adduced by the prosecution. It is true that the Court cannot reject the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 at a threshold on the ground that they are excise officials, however evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 have to be appreciated with great care and caution. Further being part and parcel of investigation agency, there is every possibility for Proh. & Excise Officials to speak in favour of prosecution by

Page 6 of 7 C.C.No. 02 of 2023 supporting investigation.

Hence under these circumstances and due to the above reasons it is cumulatively concluded that it is unsafe to rely upon testimony of Proh. & Excise

Officers in the absence of supporting evidence of panchas/mediators, thereby it is concluded that the accused is entitled for the benefit of doubt for the offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995.

13.Having considered the evidence on record and in view of the reasons stated supra, this Court is of the opinion that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not at all sufficient to prove the allegations made against the accused for the charges of offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.

Prohibition Act, 1995, and accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the accused.

14. IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the charges of offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995, and accordingly she is acquitted under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of six months as contemplated under

Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

The case property vide CP No. 97/2022 i.e., MO.1 - 180 ML of empty sample bottle shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 31 st day of March, 2023.

Sd/-

SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(EXCISE) MANCHERIAL

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For ProsecutionFor defence

PW-1Ambati Satheesh

Page 7 of 7 C.C.No. 02 of 2023

PW-2T. Mahender Singh

PW-3D. Deepak NONE

PW-4Bachchu Sudarshan

EXHIBITS MARKED

Ex.P-1 Signature of PW-1 on confession cum seizure Panchanama

Ex.P-2 Confession-cum-Seizure panchanama

Ex.P-3 C.O.R.

Ex.P-4 C.E. Report.

Ex.P-5 Attested copy of Confiscation Order.NIL.

Ex.P-6 Attested copy of Destruction Panchanama.

Ex.P-7 Signature of PW-4 on confession cum seizure Panchanama

MATERIAL OBJECTS

MO-1 is 180 ML of empty sample bottle vide CP No. 97/2022

Sd/-

SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(EXCISE) MANCHERIAL

// TRUE COPY //

SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(EXCISE) MANCHERIAL