Smt. Sura Sumalatha

1 C.C.NO.149 OF 2014

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

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, THORRUR

Tuesday, this the 31st day of December, 2019

PRESENT:Smt.Sura Sumalatha,

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Mahabubabad. FAC Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Thorrur.

CALENDER CASE NO.149 OF 2014

BETWEEN:

The State of Telangana represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Thorrur PS.…Complainant AND

A1.Muthineni Raja Mallaiah, s/o Somaiah, Aged: 47years, Peruka, Occu: Business,

A2.Kalluri Eshwara Chary, s/o Somanarsaiah, Aged: 47 years, Kanchari,

A3.Kalluri Naganna, s/o Soma Narsaiah, Aged: 45 years, Kanchari,

A4.Kalluri Laxadhikari @ Laxmana Chary, s/o Soma Narsaiah, Aged: 53 years, Kanchari,

A5.Kalluri Raju, s/o Soma Narsaiah, Aged: 35 years, Kanchari,

A6.Kalluri Somaiah, s/o Soma Narsaiah, Aged: 55 years, Kanchari, all are R/o Thorrur.…Accused

This case having come before me for final hearing on 18.12.2019 in the presence of Sri B.Kishore, learned APPO on behalf of prosecution and of Sri P.Yakambaram, Advocate for the accused, upon perusing the entire material on record, upon hearing the arguments on either side and after having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court delivers the following:

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Thorrur has laid charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 6 for the offence punishable under Sections 290, 323, 506, 147 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code.

2 C.C.NO.149 OF 2014

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

i)That PW1 and his brothers having land to an extent of three acres at the outskirts of Thorrur village in Sy.No.50k. That on 24.2.2014 at 08.00 hours the accused Nos.1 to 6 formed into an unlawful assembly and criminally entered into the said land and tried to dig bore in the said land.

Immediately, PW1 tried to stop them and they started abusing in filthy language and beat with hands and threatened him with dire consequences to kill him. Hence, PW1 set the criminal law into motion by the above report.

ii)On receipt of the report of PW1, PW3 registered a case in

Cr.No.42/2014 under Sections 290, 323, 447, 147 r/w 149 of Indian Penal

Code and issued FIR. That he examined and recorded the statement of PW1, later visited scene of offence, conducted crime details form in the presence of

PW5 and LW7-Rapolu Bixapathi and recorded the statements of other witnesses. He asked PW1 about the land documents in Sy.No.50, but he failed to produce the same. That there is no evidence to show that A1 to A6 were criminally trespassed into the land. On completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 6.

3.This Court took cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 290, 323, 506, 147 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code.

4.On appearance of the accused Nos.1 to 6, copies of the documents were furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 of The Code of

Criminal Procedure.

5.The accused Nos.1 to 6 are examined under Section 251 of The Code of Criminal Procedure and the substance of accusation against the accused under Sections 290, 323, 506, 147 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code are read 3 C.C.NO.149 OF 2014 over and explained to them in Telugu, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.On behalf of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 7 and got marked Exs-P1 to P4. On behalf of the defence, no evidence is adduced, but got marked Ex-D1.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused Nos.1 to 6 have been examined under Section 313 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, for which they denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against them through the evidence on record and pleaded false implication and on their behalf reported no defence evidence.

8.Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved that A1 to A6 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and threatened and beat PW1 with dire consequences on 24.2.2014 at 8.00 a.m., and thereby committed the offence punishable under Sections 290, 323, 506, 147 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code?”

9.POINT:PW1 who is the de-facto complainant in the present case has deposed that he has land to an extent of three acres in Sy.No.50 situated at Thorrur village and he obtained the above said land according to the Order of the Delhi Court and one day about five years ago, during morning hours,

A1 to A4 and A6 criminally trespassed into his land and tried to dig bore-well with bore-well machine, then he along with one Shankaraiah and Ramulu went there and stopped them, due to which a quarrel took place, among them and they scolded him and among them one person beat him with hands and he cannot say the name of the accused, who beat him. Later, he went to police station and gave report i.e. Ex-P1. He further deposed that this was witnessed by PWs 2, 5 and 6. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he does not know whether A1 purchased the land to an extent of 251 square 4 C.C.NO.149 OF 2014 yards in Sy.No.50 through registered document bearing No.2645/1996, dated 12.12.1996 from R.Narsimha Swamy. He further deposed that he does not know whether A3 purchased the land to an extent of 484 square yards in

Sy.No.50 through registered document No.1952/1993 on 1.10.1993 from

R.Somaiah and R.Narsimha Swamy. He further admitted that there are civil cases pending among R.Somaiah and R.Narsimha Swamy and his father since 1966. He further admitted that one EP No.153/2014 is pending on the file Senior Civil Judge, Warangal in respect of land in Sy.No.50 and in the said

EP, claim petition E.A.No.176/2017 and E.A.No.188/2017 are pending. He further deposed that he does not know who were parties in the case decided by the Delhi Court. He further admitted that PW2 is his sister and PW6 is his son-in-law in relation.

10.PW2 who is eye witness to the incident has deposed that about five years ago at 8.00 a.m., while she was present in her house, she heard noise beside her house and she saw galata taking place between PW1 and A2, then she went there and stopped A2 from digging bore-well, on that A1 to A3 and A6 pushed PW1, on seeing them they raised hue and cries, then neighbours came and pacified the matter. She further deposed that the police did not examine her and did not record her statement. In her cross- examination, she admitted that A3 is running saw-mill since long time and A2 to A6 are own brother. She further deposed that she does not know whether

A1 is having land besides the saw-mill of A2 to A6. She further admitted that

A1 filed civil suits against PW1 and his brothers, since long time they are pending.

5 C.C.NO.149 OF 2014

11.PW4 who is another eye witness to the incident, he turned hostile and nothing has elicited by the learned APPO except marking his 161 Cr.PC statement as Ex-P4.

12.PW6 who is another eye witness to the incident has deposed that in the year 2014 in the month of February, while he was going to his home after work at Teachers Colony, he saw galata took place between PW1 and the accused and he came to know that galata took place for digging of well by the accused in the land of PW1. PW2 was also present there. There are so many people gathered. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he was going on the road at Teachers Colony at about 1.00 p.m. He does not know what happened there and he further admitted that PW1 is his father-in-law and also admitted that where he saw galata took place, there A2 is also having saw-mill.

13.PW7 who is another eye witness to the incident has deposed that about five years back, while he was coming from thanda to Thorrur at

Teachers Colony, he saw galata took place between PW1 and the accused and he does not know for which the galata took place. In his cross- examination, he admitted that he does not know what happened there and further admitted that he is cultivating the land of PW1 on share basis. He further admitted that where he saw galata took place, there A2 is also having saw-mill.

14.PW5 who is panch witness for crime details form has deposed that in the year 2014 police came to Teachers Colony as galata took place there and drafted panchanama/Ex-P3 and after knowing the contents, he put his signature along with Biksahapthi. He admitted in his cross-examination that

A3 filed civil case against him and also against PW1.

6 C.C.NO.149 OF 2014

15.PW3 who is Investigating Officer in the present case has deposed that on 24.2.2014 he received Ex-P1 from PW1, basing on it, he issued FIR under

Ex-P2 and examined and recorded the statement of PW1 on the same day and on the same day, he went to the scene of offence and secured the presence of PWs 2, 4, 6 and 7 and examined and recorded their statements and thereafter he conducted crime details form in the presence of PW5 and

LW7 i.e. Ex-P3 by observing scene of offence. He further deposed that on 3.3.2014 he apprehended A1 to A6 at the house of A1 and produced them

before the Court for remand and after completion of investigation, he filed

charge sheet. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he did not collect any documents where incident occurred belongs to PW1. He further admitted that the scene of offence is situated at saw-mill and he does not know whether A2 is running said saw-mill. He further admitted that he did not collect any documents pertaining to criminal appeal mentioned in 161 Cr.PC statements of the witnesses and also he did not cite the neighbours shown in

Ex-P3 as witnesses.

16.Heard both sides oral arguments.

17.The learned APPO has argued that A1 to A6 with common object formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and entered into the land of

PW1 and tried to dig bore-well, when PW1 obstructed A1 to A6 threatened

PW1 with dire consequences to kill him and also beat with hands, due to which PW1 sustained simple injury. He further argued that the evidence of

PW1 is very much corroborated with the evidence of PWs 2, 6 and 7. Though,

PW4 turned hostile, it is not fatal to the prosecution. He further argued that nothing has elicited to disprove the evidence of PWs 2, 6 and 7. The panch 7 C.C.NO.149 OF 2014 witness for crime details form i.e. PW5, he also supported the case of the prosecution. Hence pleads for stringent conviction.

18.On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the accused has argued that there is civil dispute pending between PW1 and the accused, due to which a false case has been foisted against the accused. He further argued that PW1 himself admitted in his cross-examination that there are civil disputes pending between R.Somaiah and R.Narsimha Swamy and his father since 1966 and there is EP pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge,

Warangal in respect of same survey number which was stated by PW1 in his chief-examination. He further argued that PW2 is none other than the sister to PW1, as such she deposed in support of PW1. He further argued that

PWs 2 and 7 are interested witnesses, as PW7 also having relation with

PW1, as he is cultivating the land of PW1 on share basis and the same was admitted by PW1. PW6 is also son-in-law of PW1 which is admitted by PW6.

Hence except the evidence of PWs 6 and 7, who are interested witnesses, the independent eye witness i.e. PW4, he turned hostile. Admittedly, the prosecution has failed to prove or collect any documents as mentioned in

Ex-P1 i.e. pertaining to criminal appeal number as stated by PW1 with regard to Sy.No.50. He further argued that the prosecution has also did not examine the neighbours shown in crime details form. He further argued that where as alleged incident accident occurred, there A2 and A3 are running saw-mill which is admitted by all the prosecution witnesses which clearly shows that the accused never entered into the land of PW1 and there is dispute with regard to survey number as stated by PW1, due to which only civil cases are pending regarding same survey number between the accused and PW1.

Hence, pleads for benefit of doubt.

8 C.C.NO.149 OF 2014

19.After hearing both at length, the charges against the accused are under Sections 290, 323, 506, 147 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code.

20.Upon perusing the evidence of PW1, it clearly shows that there are civil cases pending between the accused family and PW1. As per the version of PW1, he has acquired the land in Sy.No.50 according to the Order of the

Delhi Court. But in his cross-examination, he deposed that he does not know who are parties to the case decided by Delhi Court which shows improper and inconsistent evidence of PW1. Furthermore, PW1 himself admitted that civil disputes are pending among R.Somaiah and R.Narsimha Swamy and his father since 1966.

21.As pointed out by the learned Counsel for the accused that A1 has purchased some extent of the land from R.Narsimha Swamy and A3 has purchased some extent of land from R.Somaiah and R.Narsimha Swamy.

Though PW1 stated that he does not know whether A1 and A3 purchased the land from R.Somaiah and R.Narsimha Swamy. But it shows that civil disputes pending between the accused and father of PW1. He further deposed in his chief-examination that A1 to A4 and A6 tried to dig bore-well with machine in his land by criminally trespassing. Then he along with one Shankaraiah and

Ramulu stopped them. But the prosecution has failed to examine

Shankaraiah and Ramulu. Moreover, PW1 also deposed that only one person beat with hands among all the persons and he cannot say the name who beat him, which also shows inconsistent evidence of PW1 with Ex-P1 given by him. The prosecution has failed to seize any bore-well machine at the scene of offence nor any other material object in the present case as alleged by PW1.

9 C.C.NO.149 OF 2014

22.Upon perusing the evidence of PW2, as admitted by PW1, PWs 2 and 6 are sister and son-in-law in relation to him. PW7 is cultivating the land of

PW1 on share basis. Hence their evidence is interested witnesses. Though the evidence in nature of interested witnesses, on perusing the evidence of

PWs 2, 6 and 7, they stated that some galata took place between PW1 and accused. But nowhere mentioned that the accused threatened PW1 or any of the accused beat PW1 in the evidence given by PWs 2, 6 and 7. All the three witnesses stated that the galata took place between PW1 and the accused.

There are civil cases pending since long time. She also admitted that A3 is running saw-mill. PWs 6 and 7 stated that A2 is running saw-mill which shows that A2 is having saw-mill at the place of incident where the alleged incident occurred as per the version of PW1. As such, there is no clarify with regard to in whose land the alleged incident occurred. Furthermore, PW7 deposed that he does not know for which galata took place.

23.PW4 who is another eye witness, he turned hostile.

24.PW5 who is panch witness for crime details form, though he supported the case of the prosecution in his chief-examination, but in his cross- examination, he admitted that A1 filed civil case against him and also against

PW1 which shows as there is civil case filed against him and PW1, his evidence cannot be taken into consideration, as he may be interested witness to PW1.

25. On perusing the evidence of PW3, he himself admitted that he did not collect any documents from PW1 where the incident occurred belongs to

PW1, as such the prosecution has failed to prove the trespass as alleged by

PW1. Moreover, PW3 also admitted that at the scene of offence, saw-mill is there which shows that where the alleged incident occurred, there saw-mill is 10 C.C.NO.149 OF 2014 existing. He further admitted that he did not collect any documents pertaining to criminal appeal mentioned in 161 Cr.PC statements of the witnesses which also shows lacunaes as the prosecution did not collect any documents to prove the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and he did not examine the neighbours shown in Ex-P3.

26.Hence due to inconsistent evidence of PW1 and admissions made by

PWs 2, 6 and 7, it clearly shows that there are civil cases pending between

PW1 and the accused and A2 to A6 are own brother as admitted by PW2 and running saw-mill at the scene of offence as alleged by PWs 2, 6 and 7 and the independent eye witness i.e. PW4 turned hostile. As such the prosecution has failed to prove the case against A1 to A6 beyond all reasonable doubt.

Accordingly, the point is answered.

27.IN THE RESULT, the accused Nos.1 to 6 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 290, 323, 506, 147 r/w 149 of Indian Penal

Code and accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 255(1) of The Code of Criminal Procedure. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after appeal time is over. The unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

(Typed to my dictation, after correction, pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 31st day of December, 2019).

Sd/- Smt.Sura Sumalatha

FAC JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

THORRUR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE:

PW1-M.Rajaiah/de-facto complainantNone PW2-G.Rajamma/eye witness PW3-Ch.Karunakar Rao/Investigating Officer 11 C.C.NO.149 OF 2014

PW4-N.Shekar/eye witness PW5-R.Sreenu/panch witness for CDF PW6-K.Venkateshwarlu/eye witness PW7-J.Bonda Naik/eye witness

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex-P1 is the report given by PW1. Ex-P2 is the FIR. Ex-P3 is the crime details form. Ex-P4 is the 161 Cr.PC statement of PW4.

FOR DEFENCE:

Ex-D1 is the photograph.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

- Nil -

Sd/- Smt.Sura Sumalatha

FAC JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

THORRUR

1 OF 10 C.C.NO.134 OF 2015

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

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, MAHABUBABAD

Wednesday, this the 8th day of September, 2021

PRESENT:Smt.Sura Sumalatha,

Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Mahabubabad.

CALENDER CASE NO.134 OF 2015

BETWEEN:

The State of Telangana represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Seerole.…Complainant

AND

Kuthati Muthaiah, s/o Uppalaiah, Aged: 47 years, Erukala, Occu: Coolie, R/o Thirlapuram village, Kuravi Mandal.…Accused

This case having come before me for final hearing on 3.9.2021 in the presence of Sri D.Ganesh Anand, the learned APPO on behalf of prosecution and of Sri D.Nageshwar Rao, Advocate for the accused, upon perusing the entire material on record, upon hearing the arguments on either side and after having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court delivers the following:

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Seerole has laid charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of Indian

Penal Code.

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

i)That on 29.6.2014 at 17.00 hours PW1 lodged a report stating that on 20.6.2014 she locked her house and went to her son Karthik at Hyderabad.

That on 28.6.2014 evening she returned to her house and found lock of front door intact and she opened the lock, found rear side door was lifted with a rod 2 OF 10 C.C.NO.134 OF 2015 and iron almirah was found opened and found missing of gold ring weighing about one gram and gold gundlu weighing about three grams all worth of

Rs.10,000/-. That some unknown offenders entered into her house and committed theft of above said property and she can identify the stolen property if seen.

ii)On receipt of the report from PW1, LW9-V.Venkata Narsaiah, Sub-

Inspector of Police, PS Seerole, registered a case in Cr.No.87/2014 under

Sections 457 and 380 of Indian Penal Code and issued FIR. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of the witnesses, later visited scene of offence, conducted crime details form in the presence of PW2 and LW3-Pendoju Srinivas Chary. That on 15.7.2014 LW8-

Y.Sathish, Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Mahabubabad Town arrested one

Kuthati Paramesh @ Parameshwar in Cr.No.161/2014 under Sections 457, 380 of IPC of PS Mahabubabad Town and other cases. On interrogation, he confessed that the accused is his associate and he informed to him that he alone committed this offence and other offences and he recorded the confessional statement of Kuthati Paramesh in the presence of mediators and produced him before the Court for judicial remand. Subsequently, PW4 took up further investigation and verified the investigation done by LW9. On information, he collected Xerox copies of all relevant documents in

Cr.No.161/2014 of PS Mahabubabad Town. Later, the police Kuravi took the accused in C.C.No.329/2013 and produced him before the Court for judicial remand. On requisition, the Hon’ble Court issued PT warrant and was produced before this Court on 1.10.2014 for judicial remand. Later, on requisition, this Court given the accused-Kuthati Muthaiah for police custody and recorded his confessional statement at PS Seerole and recovered three gold gundlu each weighing about one gram total three grams, one gold small 3 OF 10 C.C.NO.134 OF 2015 ring weighing about one gram from his house in the presence of PW3 and

LW7-Hanumanthula Venkanna under cover of seizure panchanama and produced him before the Court for judicial remand. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused under Sections 457 and 380 of Indian Penal Code.

3.This Court took cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of the documents were furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 of The Code of Criminal

Procedure.

5.The accused is examined under Section 239 of The Code of Criminal

Procedure and a charge under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code has been framed against the accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.On behalf of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 4 and got marked Exs-P1 to P5 and MO1. On behalf of the defence, no evidence is adduced and no documents are marked.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused has been examined under Section 313 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, for which he denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against him through the evidence on record and pleaded false implication and on his behalf reported no defence evidence.

8.Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the accused has entered into the house of PW1 from rear side doors and committed theft of MO1 during night time between 20.6.2014 to 27.6.2014 at 4 OF 10 C.C.NO.134 OF 2015

Chinthapally or whether accused has received the stolen property from accused in Cr.No.161/2014 of Mahabubabad Town”?

9.POINT:PW1 who is de-facto complainant in the present case has deposed that about five years back, when she went to Hyderabad by locking the house and after coming from Hyderbad, found lock was broke open and found missing of one gold ring and three gold gundlu, all worth of Rs.10,000/-.

She further deposed that on the same day, she gave report under Ex-P1 to the police. She further deposed that after some day, she received gold ring and three gold gundlu from the Court towards interim custody. The witness brought the said gold ornaments vide CPR No.92/2014 and the same is marked as MO1.

10.PW2 who is panch witness for crime details form has deposed that about four years back, police came to the house of PW1 and drafted panchanama in his presence and in the presence of LW2, as theft was occurred in the house of PW1. He further deposed that he knows the contents of the same and he identified his signature on crime details form, marked as Ex-P2. He further deposed that LW3 also present at the time of drafting scene of offence panchanama by the police. During cross- examination, he stated that he cannot remember the date on which police came to the house of PW1.

11.PW3 who is start witness i.e. panch witness for confession and seizure panchanamas has deposed that on 12.10.2014 he has seen the accused at

Seerole police station. He further deposed that he along with LW7 was present and in their presence, the accused has confessed that he committed theft at different places in Mahabubabad and police drafted confession panchanama under Ex-P3 and obtained their signatures. He further deposed 5 OF 10 C.C.NO.134 OF 2015 that basing on the confession made by the accused, he along with police and accused proceeded to his house at Thirlapuram near Kuravi, there the police seized three gold gundlu and one gold ring from the possession of the accused and also drafted seizure panchanama under Ex-P4 and obtained their signatures. In his cross-examination, he deposed that total four grams of gold was seized from the accused by the police. He admitted that at that time, he was Sarpanch. He further deposed that at about 11.20 a.m., police took them to the house of accused at Thirlapuram village and he could not remember the name of the accused due to lapse of years.

12.PW4 who is Investigating Officer in the present case has deposed that he knows LW9, who was the then SI of Police, PS Seerole, who received

Ex-P1 from PW1 on 28.6.2014, basing on it, LW9 registered FIR under Ex-

P5and also recorded the statement of PW1, went to the scene of offence on the next day and conducted crime details form i.e. Ex-P2. He further deposed that later, he took CD file from LW9, verified his investigation. During the course of investigation, he came to know about the confession panchanama conducted by Mahabubabad Town police in Cr.No.161/2014, wherein, one

Kuthati Parameshwar has been confessed that he along with present accused has committed several thefts along with theft in this case. He further deposed that basing on the said confession recorded by Town police, he made requisition for PT warrant before this Court and produced him on 1.10.2014 and also made requisition for police custody of the accused and took the custody on 12.10.2014. He further deposed that on interrogation, he confessed about commission ofoffence and in the presence of PW3 and LW7, he drafted confession panchanama i.e. Ex-P3 and basing on which, he went to the house of the accused at Thirlapuram along with accused, there he produced gold ornaments which was committed theft by him. He further 6 OF 10 C.C.NO.134 OF 2015 deposed that immediately he seized the same by drafting seizure panchanama i.e. Ex-P4 in the presence of PW3 and LW7 and also produced the same property before the Court by way of Form-60 and the same is marked as MO1 and on completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

During his cross-examination, he stated that he did not obtain any purchased receipt from PW1 about the gold ornaments and the distance between

Seerole police station to Thirlapuram village is about 15 kilometers.

13.Heard both sides oral arguments and perused the material available on record.

14.The learned APPO has argued that the evidence of PW1 is supported the case of the prosecution. He further deposed that PW2 who is the panch witnesses for crime details form, he also supported the case of the prosecution. He further deposed that the evidence of PW3 who is panch witness for confession and seizure panchanamas is also corroborated with the evidence of PW4, who is Investigating Officer in the present case. He further argued that the prosecution has proved the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence pleads for conviction.

15.On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the accused argued that there are no eye witnesses to the incident. He further argued that PWs 2 and 3 are interested witnesses, as such their evidence cannot be taken into consideration. He further argued that the prosecution did not conduct test identification parade of the accused in the present case. Hence pleads for benefit of doubt.

16.After hearing both at length, the charge against the accused is under

Section 411 of Indian Penal Code.

7 OF 10 C.C.NO.134 OF 2015

17.On perusal of the evidence of PW1, the prosecution has proved the factum of theft occurred in the house of PW1 and PW1 is not eye witness to the incident. It is a fact that Ex-P1 is given stating that as theft committed by unknown offender.

18.On perusing the evidence of PW2, who is panch witness for crime details form, he categorically corroborated with the version of prosecution which proved that crime details form i.e. Ex-P2 conducted by PW4 and also theft occurred in the house of PW1.

19.PW3 who is main witness in the present case, who is none other than the panch witness for confession and seizure panchanamas conducted by

PW4, basing on which, the prosecution has charged the accused in the present case, he categorically deposed and also identified the accused who is present in the Court hall that he has seen the accused on 12.10.2014 at

Seerole police station and he along with LW7 were very much present on that day and in their presence, the accused has confessed that he committed theft at different places in Mahabubabad. Basing on the confession made by the accused, the police have drafted confession panchanama of the accused in his presence and LW7 presence and obtained their signatures on the confession panchanama i.e. Ex-P3. He further deposed that basing on the confession made by the accused, he along with LW7 and police went to the house of the accused at Thirlapuram village near Kuravi and from the house of the accused, the police has seized three gold gundlu and one gold ring from the possession of the accused and also drafted seizure panchanama i.e.

Ex-P4 and obtained his signature and LW7 signature on Ex-P4. In the cross- examination of PW3, his evidence is unshaken, as he deposed in the cross- examination that there is about four grams of gold seized from the accused by 8 OF 10 C.C.NO.134 OF 2015 the police in his presence and he was Sarpanch at the time of the said incident and he also mentioned exact time of the seizure panchanama i.e.

11.20 a.m., when police took him to the house of the accused, though he mentioned that he could not remember the name of the accused due to lapse of years, but he identified him in the Court hall, as the person, who he has seen on 12.10.2014, as such the evidence of PW3 is very much corroborated, trust-worthy and consistent with the version of prosecution case and recovery also proved from the evidence of PW3.

20.On perusing the evidence of PW4, who is Investigating Officer in the present case, who investigated entire case, who took police custody of the accused and also interrogated him and drafted confession panchanama i.e.

Ex-P3 and recovered MO1 from the possession of the accused at the house of the accused and drafted seizure panchanama i.e. Ex-P4 in the presence of

PW3 and LW7 has categorically deposed all these averments in his chief- examination, which is corroborated with the evidence of PW3.

21.Hence, basing on the evidence of PWs 1 to 4, the prosecution has proved the factum of theft at the house of PW1 and also factum of possession of stolen property by the accused and same is recovered by PW4 at the house of accused, though there are no eye witnesses direct to the commission of offence, but all the circumstantial witnesses i.e. PWs 2 and 3 are very much corroborated with each other, which indicates and proves that the accused has involved in the commission of offence directly or indirectly.

Moreover, the recovery of MO1 from the house and possession of the accused is very much proved by the evidence of PW3, as such, this Court finds the accused guilty for the offence under Section 411 of Indian Penal

Code. Accordingly, the point is answered.

9 OF 10 C.C.NO.134 OF 2015

22.IN THE RESULT, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code and, accordingly, he is convicted under Section 248(2) of The Code of Criminal Procedure.

(Partly typed to my dictation and partly dictated to the Stenographer, after his transcription, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 8th day of September, 2021).

Sd/- Smt.Sura Sumalatha

ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS, MAHABUBABAD

On questioning about the quantum of sentence, the accused stated that he is having wife and small children and pleaded to take lenient view, as he is sole breadwinner of his family and also suffering from ill-health.

Considering the same, the accused is sentenced to undergo Simple

Imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under

Section 411 of Indian Penal Code. The remand period already undergone by the accused from 1.10.2014 to 3.1.2015, 16.8.2018 to 14.2.2019 and 16.6.2021 to 8.9.2021 shall be set-off under Section 428 of Cr.PC. MO1 which was already given to PW1 towards interim custody shall be made absolute after appeal time is over.

The accused is informed that he is entitled to prefer an appeal against this judgment.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, after his transcription, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 8th day of September, 2021).

Sd/- Smt.Sura Sumalatha

ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS, MAHABUBABAD

10 OF 10 C.C.NO.134 OF 2015

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE:

PW1-G.Narayanamma/de-facto complainantNone PW2-C.Venu/panch witness for CDF PW3-T.Ramchandru Naik/panch witness for confession and seizure panchanama PW4-P.Praveen Kumar/Investigating Officer

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex-P1 is the report given by PW1. Ex-P2 is the crime details form. Ex-P3 is the confession panchanama of the accused. Ex-P4 is the seizure panchanama. Ex-P5 is the FIR.

FOR DEFENCE:

- NIL -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

MO1 are gold ring and three gold gundlu

Sd/- Smt.Sura Sumalatha

ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS, MAHABUBABAD

1 C.C.NO.244 OF 2014

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

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, THORRUR

Tuesday, this the 31st day of December, 2019

PRESENT:Smt.Sura Sumalatha,

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Mahabubabad. FAC Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Thorrur.

CALENDER CASE NO.244 OF 2014

BETWEEN:

The State of Telangana represented by the Investigating Officer, Nellikudur PS.…Complainant AND

A1.Cheekati Venkanna, s/o Sriramulu, Aged: 52 years, Gouda, Occu: RTC driver,

A2.Cheekati Yadamma, w/o Venkanna, Aged: 45 years, Gouda, Occu: Coolie, both are R/o Alair village.…Accused

This case having come before me for final hearing on 19.12.2019 in the presence of Sri B.Kishore, the learned APPO on behalf of prosecution and of Sri N.Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate for the accused, upon perusing the entire material on record, upon hearing the arguments on either side and after having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court delivers the following:

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

1.The Investigating Officer, PS Nellikudur has laid charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

2.The case of the prosecution is as follows:

i)That PW1’s family and accused family are having well acquaintance.

That A1 and A2 borrowed some amount from PW2 with a promise that they will return within stipulated time, but they failed to repay the amount and postponing the same on one pretext or the other. That on 8.6.2014 at 09.00 2 C.C.NO.244 OF 2014 hours PWs 1 and 2 went to the house of the accused and asked about the amount, due to which A1 and A2 became wild, abused PWs 1 and 2 in filthy language and beat with stones and hands stating that they are not due any amount to them, when PW1 interfered to rescue PW2, she also beaten by them with hands and stones, resulting they sustained injuries. The same was witnessed by PWs 3, 5 and LW4-Chenna Krishna Reddy. Hence, PW1 set the criminal law into motion by lodging the report.

ii)On receipt of the report from PW1, PW8 registered a case in

Cr.No.86/2014 under Section 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and issued

FIR. That he examined and recorded the statement of PW1. Later, he visited scene of offence and conducted crime details form in the presence of PWs 4 and 6 and recorded the statements of other witnesses. That on 10.6.2014 he arrested A1 and A2 at their house at Alair village and produced them before the Court for remand. PW7 who treated the injured/PWs 1 and 2 opined that

PW1 sustained simple injuries, whereas PW2 sustained no external injuries.

On completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused

Nos.1 and 2.

3.This Court took the Cognizance for the offence punishable under section 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

4.On appearance of the accused Nos.1 and 2, copies of the documents were furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 of The Code of

Criminal Procedure.

5.The accused Nos.1 and 2 are examined under Section 239 of The

Code of Criminal Procedure and a charge under Section 324 r/w 34 of Indian 3 C.C.NO.244 OF 2014

Penal Code have been framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 8 and got marked Ex-P1 to P8. On behalf of defence, no evidence is adduced and no documents are marked.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, on 17.12.2019 and 19.12.2019 the accused Nos.1 and 2 have been examined under Section 313 of The

Code of Criminal Procedure, for which they denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against them through the evidence on record and pleaded false implication and on their behalf reported no defence evidence.

8.Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved that the accused Nos.1 and 2 beat PWs 1 and 2 with hands and stones on 8.6.2014 at 9.00 a.m., and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code?”

9.POINT:PW1 who is the de-facto complainant and injured in the present case has deposed that A1 is her brother and A2 is her sister-in-law.

One day about five years ago at about 09.00 hours, she along with her husband went to the house of the accused to ask hand loan amount, at that time both the accused together came and beat them with stones and hands, due to which she sustained injury on her backside of the head and her husband/PW2 sustained injury to his stomach. She further deposed that this was witnessed by PWs 3, 5 and LW4. She further deposed that immediately they went to Area Hospital, Mahabubabad for treatment and after that they went to police station Nellikudur and gave report i.e. Ex-P1. In her cross- examination, she admitted that A1 is her own brother and A2 is his wife. She further admitted that she went to the house of A1 to collect amount which was 4 C.C.NO.244 OF 2014 due to her, in proof of the same, she did not file any document before the police nor before the Court. She further deposed that A1 is her brother, as such she gave hand loan to him and she did not obtain any proof with regard to that. She further admitted that she gave amount to A1 for partnership in granite quarry. She does not know where granite quarry is situated and how many partners are there in the said granite quarry. She further deposed that she cannot say date, time and year of the complaint given by her to the police.

10.PW2 who is husband of PW1 and injured in the present case has deposed that one day about five years ago at about 09.00 hours, PW1 along with his son/Kishore went to the house of A1 to ask money and they did not return to his house. Immediately he went to the house of A1 and found both the accused attacked him and also PW1 and his son/Kishore and beat them with stone, due to which his wife/PW1, sustained severe injury to her head and A1 fisted on his stomach and both the accused beat his son with hands, due to which, he sustained injury. Later, they went to police station and lodged report to the police and the police referred them to PHC Hospital,

Thorrur for treatment and this was witnessed by PWs 3, 5 and LW4. In his cross-examination, he admitted that his wife and son went to the house of A1 and he stood out side of the house on the day of incident. He further admitted that he did not obtain any receipt from A1 to show that A1 borrowed amount from him. As such he did not file any proof before the Court. She further admitted that he did not file any civil suit before the Court against the accused. He further admitted that the accused also filed a complaint before the police Nellikudur against them.

5 C.C.NO.244 OF 2014

11.PWs 3 and 5 who are eye witnesses as per the version of PWs 1 and 2, they turned hostile and nothing has elicited by the learned APPO in their cross-examination except marking their 161 Cr.PC statements as Ex-P2 and

Ex-P4 respectively.

12.PW7 who treated the injured in the present case has deposed that on 8.6.2014 patients namely G.Kalamma and G.Gopal came to Area Hospital with injuries. Accordingly, he treated them and found injury on

G.Kalamma/PW1 i.e. laceration over right temporal parietal region, caused with blunt object, simple in nature. He further deposed that no external injuries are found on G.Gopal/PW2. Accordingly, he issued medical certificates of the injured i.e. Ex-P5 and Ex-P6. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he received requisition from police on 18.6.2014. He further admitted that he did not mention date and time of examination of the injured in Ex-P5 and Ex-P6 and did not give any documents to the police that he examined the injured on 8.6.2014. He further admitted that the injuries in Ex-

P5 can be caused due to fell down on hard surface.

13.PW8 who is Investigating Officer in the present case has deposed that on 9.6.2014 he received Ex-P1 from PW1 and issued FIR under Ex-P7, recorded the statement of PW1. He further deposed that on the same day, he proceeded to the scene of offence, conducted crime details form under Ex-P8 in the presence of PWs 4 and 6. He further deposed that on 10.6.2014 he arrested A1 and A2 at their house at Aleru village and produced them before the Court for remand. He further deposed that later he collected Ex-P5 and

Ex-P6 from PW7 and on completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

He further deposed that PWs 3 and 5 stated before him as in Ex-P2 and

Ex-P4. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he did not file any 6 C.C.NO.244 OF 2014 documents as stated by PW1 with regard to amount in Ex-P1 and also admitted that there is no date on Ex-P5 and Ex-P6 when he issued requisition and when he collected the same.

14.Heard both sides oral arguments.

15.The learned APPO has argued that due to money disputes i.e. hand loan took by A1, when asked by PWs 1 and 2, the accused beat PWs 1 and 2, due to which only they sustained injuries and the injury sustained by PW1 as stated by PW1 is also tallying with Ex-P5 issued by PW7. Hence, pleads for stringent conviction.

16.On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the accused argued that due to family disputes between PW1 and A1, who are none other than own sister and brother, PW1 foisted this false case against A1 and his wife/A2. He further argued that the accused never beat PWs 1 and 2 and no injuries are found as per Ex-P6 issued by PW7 on PW2, whereas PW2 deposed that he sustained injury on his stomach. He further argued that the eye witnesses i.e.

PWs 3 and 5, they turned hostile. PWs 4 and 6, who are panch witnesses for crime details form, they too did not support the case of the prosecution. He further argued that as per the version of PW1, the injury sustained by her is backside of the head, whereas in Ex-P5 issued by PW7, it shows that the injury is on right eye brow which is not tallying with the version of PW1.

Hence pleads for benefit of doubt.

17.After hearing both at length, the charges against the accused are under Section 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

18.Upon perusing the evidence of PWs 1 and 2, it is an admitted fact that

A1 is none other than the own brother of PW1. PW1 herself admitted that 7 C.C.NO.244 OF 2014 she gave amount to A1 for partnership in granite quarry. But upon perusing the admission made by PW1, she clearly stated that she does not know where granite quarry is situated and how many partners are there in the granite quarry, which shows that without knowing about the granite quarry, how she gave amount to A1.

19.Moreover, upon perusing the evidence of PW2, he deposed that PW1 i.e. his wife along with his son/Kishore went to the house of A1. But the prosecution has failed to examine the son of PWs 1 and 2. As per the version of PW2, he also admitted that he stood outside of the house on the day of incident and his wife and son went into the house of A1. As such, there is no question of sustaining injury by PW2 in the hands of the accused. Moreover,

PW2 also admitted that he did not file any civil case before the Court against

A1. If at all, A1 is due any hand loan amount to PWs 1 and 2, but as admitted by PW2, he did not follow the legal procedure and moreover PW2 also admitted that the accused also filed a complaint before the police Nellikudur against them. But the prosecution has failed to prove or establish any case pending against PWs 1 and 2.

20.Moreover, PW1 deposed that immediately after the accident, they went to Area Hospital, Mahabubabad for treatment. Whereas, PW2 deposed that the police referred them to PHC Hospital, Thorrur for treatment. Hence there is a major contradiction in the evidence of PWs 1 and 2.

21.As per the version of PWs 1and 2, PWs 3 and 5 are the eye witnesses to the incident, but they turned hostile and LW4 was not examined by prosecution for reason best known to them.

8 C.C.NO.244 OF 2014

22.PWs 4 and 6 who are panch witnesses for crime details form, they too did not support the case of the prosecution.

23.Upon perusing Ex-P5 and Ex-P6 and the evidence of PW7, who issued injury certificates, the injury sustained as per the version of PW1 is not tallying with Ex-P5 issued by PW7. However, there is no date and time of examination of the injured in Ex-P5 and Ex-P6. As per Ex-P5 and Ex-P6, when it was issued or examined, there is no clarity on 18.6.2014 as admitted by PW7. As per Ex-P6, no external injuries are found on PW2.

24.PW8 who is Investigating Officer in the present case has admitted that he did not collect any documents as stated by PW1 with regard to amount in

Ex-P1.

25.Hence due to major contradictions in the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and hostile of PWs 3 to 6, the prosecution has failed to prove the case against A1 and A2 beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, they are entitled for benefit of doubt.

Accordingly, the point is answered.

26.IN THE RESULT, the accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 248(1) of The Code of Criminal

Procedure. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after appeal time is over. The unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

(Partly typed to my dictation and partly dictated to the Stenographer, after his transcription, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 31st day of December, 2019).

FAC JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

THORRUR

9 C.C.NO.244 OF 2014

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE:

PW1-G.Kalamma/de-facto complainant /injuredNone PW2-G.Gopal/injured PW3-M.Ramulu/eye witness PW4-Ch.Prabhakar/panch witness for CDF PW5-Soma Ramulu/eye witness PW6-A.Narsaiah/panch witness for CDF PW7-Dr.P.Vineel Reddy/who treated PWs 1 and 2 PW8-K.Rajender/Investigating Officer

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex-P1 is the report given by PW1. Ex-P2 is the 161 Cr.PC statement of PW3. Ex-P3 is the signature of PW4 on Ex-P8. Ex-P4 is the 161 Cr.PC statement of PW5. Ex-P5 and Ex-P6 are the medical certificates of PWs 1 and 2. Ex-P7 is the FIR. Ex-P8 is the crime details form.

FOR DEFENCE:

- NIL -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

- NIL -

FAC JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

THORRUR

1 C.C.NO.581 OF 2012

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

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, THORRUR

Tuesday, this the 31st day of December, 2019

PRESENT:Smt.Sura Sumalatha,

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Mahabubabad. FAC Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Thorrur.

CALENDER CASE NO.581 OF 2012

BETWEEN:

The State of Telangana represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Nellikudur PS.…Complainant

AND

A1.Banoth Ravi, s/o Bavusing, Aged: 32 years, Lambada, Occu: Tractor driver, R/o Komatipally village, Man: Kesamudram.

A2.Bathula Venkateswar Rao, s/o Hanumantha Rao, Aged: 32 years, Vaddera, Occu: Tractor driver, R/o Nellikudur.

A3.Mangalapally Balakrishna, s/o Chandraiah, Aged: 45 years, Madiga, Occu: Tractor driver, R/o Thorrur.

A4.Kadari Iylaiah, s/o Bakkaiah, Aged: 57 years, Madiga, Occu: Tractor driver-cum-owner, R/o Ravirala village, Man: Nellikudur.…Accused

This case having come before me for final hearing on 19.12.2019 in the presence of Sri B.Kishore, the learned APPO on behalf of prosecution and of Sri K.Venkateshwarlu, Advocate for the accused No.1 and of Sri

P.Yakambaram, Advocate for the accused Nos.2 to 4, upon perusing the entire material on record, upon hearing the arguments on either side and after having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court delivers the following:

2 C.C.NO.581 OF 2012

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Nellikudur has laid charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offence punishable under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code and Section 21(1) of Mines and Minerals Act.

2.The case of the prosecution is as follows:

i)That on 15.9.2012 PW1 along with other staff went for patrolling and when they reached at the outskirts of Nellikudur, found four tractors coming from Akeruvagu, Nellikudur with sand load i.e. bearing Nos.AP36Q 2878,

AP36 V1419, AP21 V3028 and one tractor is not having number. Then he stopped the said tractors and asked about the permission to transport the sand, but they did not shown any documents. On enquiry they disclosed their names as A1 to A4 and they are transporting the sand from Akeruvagu and they have no permission to transport the sand. Immediately, he secured the presence of PWs 2 and 3 and conducted confession-cum-seizure panchanama and seized four tractors. Later, he returned to police station along with seized property and accused and lodged a report with the SHO.

ii)On receipt of the report from PW1, PW4 registered a case in

Cr.No.119/2012 under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code and Section 21(1) of

Mines and Minerals Act and issued FIR. That he examined and recorded the statements of the witnesses and took A1 to A4 into custody and on interrogation they voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence, affected their arrest and produced them before the Court for remand and deposed the seized property before this Court. On completion of investigation, he laid the charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 4.

3 C.C.NO.581 OF 2012

3.This Court took the Cognizance for the offence punishable under

Section 379 of Indian Penal Code and Section 21(1) of Mines and Minerals

Act.

4.On appearance of the accused Nos.1 to 4, copies of the documents were furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 of The Code of

Criminal Procedure.

5.The accused Nos.1 to 4 are examined under Section 239 of The Code of Criminal Procedure and the charges under Section 379 of Indian Penal

Code and Section 21(1) of Mines and Minerals Act have been framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 4 and got marked Ex-P1 to P9 and MOs 1 to 3. On behalf of defence, no evidence is adduced and no documents are marked.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused Nos.1 to 4 have been examined under Section 313 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, for which they denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against them through the evidence on record and pleaded false implication and on their behalf reported no defence evidence.

8.Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved that the accused Nos.1 to 4 have committed the offence punishable under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code and Section 21(1) of Mines and Minerals Act?”

9.POINT:PW1 who is the de-facto complainant, who conducted panchanama has deposed that on 15.9.2012 he along with PC Nos.3391 and 4 C.C.NO.581 OF 2012 2073 went for patrolling to the outskirts of Nellikudur, at that time, they found four tractors coming from Akeruvagu towards Nellikudur loaded with sand near Model Public School, then he stopped the said tractors and enquired about the permission to transport the sand and they disclosed that they do not have any permission for transportation of sand. He further deposed that they disclosed their names as Banoth Ravi/A1, Bathula Venkateshwar Rao/A2,

Mangalapally Balakrishna/A3 and Kadari Iylaiah/A4. He further deposed that immediately he secured the presence of PWs 2 and 3 and prepared confession and seizure panchanama under Ex-P2 and seized four tractors.

Later, he took A1 to A4 along with seized property to the police station and lodged report under Ex-P1 to the SI of Police. PW1 identified A1 to A4 present in the Court hall to be the persons who he has taken into custody on 15.9.2012. During the cross-examination, he stated that there is no tractor number for the tractor driven by A1. He admitted that basing on the record only, he is able to depose the tractor numbers seized from A1 to A4. He further admitted that LWs 4 and 5 belong to Rajulakothapally village. He further stated that there are no residential houses in and around Model Public

School. He further stated that he has not informed the concerned MRO about seizure of sand and tractors by him.

10.PWs 2 and 3 who are panch witnesses for confession-cum-seizure panchanama and also crime details form, they turned hostile and nothing has elicited by the learned APPO in their cross-examination except marking their signatures on the confession-cum-seizure panchanama and crime details form i.e. Exs-P3 to P6.

11.PW4 who is Investigating Officer in the present case has deposed that on 15.9.2012 PW1 came to PS and presented Ex-P1 along with Ex-P2, four 5 C.C.NO.581 OF 2012 tractors and A1 to A4, basing on it, he issued FIR under Ex-P7. He further deposed that he examined and recorded the statements of PW1, LW2-

A.Suresh and LW3-S.Srinivas and interrogated A1 to A4. He further deposed that on interrogation, they disclosed their names and identify particulars and further confessed that they have committed this offence, affected their arrest and produced them before the Court for remand. He further deposed that later he visited scene of offence and secured the presence of PWs 2 and 3 and prepared crime details form under Ex-P8. Ex-P9 is the petition filed by

Guguloth Bicha vide Crl.M.P.No.4337/2012 along with order in

Crl.M.P.No.4337/2012. On completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet

against A1 to A4 by deposing four tractors along with sand vide CPR

No.168/2012. MO1 is the tractor bearing No.AP36 V1419, trailer bearing

No.AP36 AV1420. MO2 is the tractor bearing No.AP21 V3028. MO3 is the tractor bearing No.AP36 TA5102/5103. In the cross-examination by the learned Counsel for A1, he admitted that he did not take the signature of complainant in Col.No.14 of Ex-P7. He further admitted that he did not mention the date of dispatch of FIR. He further admitted that in Col.No.6 of

Ex-P8, he kept blank without mentioning the motive of crime. He stated that except PWs 2 and 3, no other independent witnesses were cited as witnesses. During the cross-examination by the learned Counsel for A2 to

A4, he admitted that he stated in his chief-examination that he proceeded to the scene of offence, conducted Ex-P8 in the presence of PWs 2 and 3, but he further admitted that he did not proceed to the scene of offence, conducted

Ex-P8 in the presence of PWs 2 and 3 as stated in his chief-examination.

12.Heard both sides oral arguments.

6 C.C.NO.581 OF 2012

13.The learned APPO has argued that PWs 1 and 4 have categorically deposed about the commission of offence and seizure of tractors from A1 to

A4 along with sand load by PW1 in the presence of PWs 2 and 3 and without permission the accused were transporting the sand from Akeruvagu illegally.

As such the accused have committed the offence punishable under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code and Section 21(1) of Mines and Minerals Act.

Hence pleads for stringent conviction.

14.On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the accused argued that except the evidence of PWs 1 and 4, there is no other independent evidence to support the case of the prosecution. He further argued that PWs 2 and 3 who are star witnesses in the present case, who are panch witnesses for confession-cum-seizure panchanama conducted by PW1 and also panch witnesses for crime details form conducted by PW4, they turned hostile and nothing has elicited by the learned APPO to disprove their evidence.

He further argued that PWs 1 and 4 are none other than the officials witnesses and their evidence cannot be taken into consideration without corroboration with the independent eye witnesses and without corroboration with the panch witnesses. Hence pleads for benefit of doubt.

15.After hearing both at length, the charges against the accused Nos.1 to 4 are under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code and Section 21(1) of Mines and

Minerals Act.

16.Upon perusing the evidence of PW1, it discloses that the accused have been charged for the offence of illegal transportation of sand from

Akeruvagu. But upon perusing the evidence of PW1, it clearly shows that

PW1 found four tractors along with sand while he along with other staff were 7 C.C.NO.581 OF 2012 conducting patrolling duty and he conducted confession-cum-seizure panchanama in the presence of PWs 2 and 3. But PWs 2 and 3 who are panch witnesses for confession-cum-seizure panchanama, they turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. Furthermore, upon perusing the evidence of PW1, there is no connection to show that the said sand was loaded in the tractors by the accused and was transporting illegally.

17.PWs 2 and 3 who are panch witnesses for confession-cum-seizure panchanama and crime details form, they turned hostile and nothing has elicited by the learned APPO to disprove their evidence. Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove the confession-cum-seizure conducted by

PW1 and crime details form conducted by PW4.

18.PW4 who is Investigating Officer in the present case, he himself admitted that he did not take the signature of complainant in Col.No.14 of

Ex-P7 which clearly shows lacunaes in the investigation. He further admitted that he did not mention the date of dispatch in FIR. He further stated that except PWs 2 and 3, no other independent witnesses were cited as witnesses. He further admitted in his cross-examination that he stated in his chief-examination that he proceeded to the scene of offence and conducted

Ex-P8 in the presence of PWs 2 and 3, but he further admitted that he did not proceed to the scene of offence and did not conduct Ex-P8 in the presence of

PWs 2 and 3. Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove Ex-P8 conducted by PW4. Except the evidence of official witnesses i.e. PWs 1 and 4, there are no independent witnesses to support the case of the prosecution. Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove the connection between the transportation of the sand by the accused illegally.

8 C.C.NO.581 OF 2012

19.Hence, from the above discussion, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the accused Nos.1 to 4 beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, they are entitled for benefit of doubt.

Accordingly, the point is answered.

20.IN THE RESULT, the accused Nos.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code and Section 21(1) of Mines and Minerals Act and accordingly, they are acquitted under

Section 248(1) of The Code of Criminal Procedure. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after appeal time is over. MO1/Tractor bearing

No.AP36 V1419 and Trailer bearing No.AP36 V1420 which was already given to its owner/V.Mahesh towards interim custody shall be made absolute after appeal time is over. MO2/Tractor bearing No.AP21 V3028 which was already given to its owner/Smt.Kadari Ellamma towards interim custody shall be made absolute after appeal time is over. MO3/Tractor bearing No.AP36

TA5102/5103 which was already given to its owner/Banoth Srinivas towards interim custody shall be made absolute after appeal time is over. The unmarked property i.e. Tractor bearing No.AP36 Q2878 and Trailer bearing

No.AP36 Q2880 which was already given to its owner/Guguloch Bicha towards interim custody shall be made absolute after appeal time is over.

(Typed to my dictation, after correction, pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 31st day of December, 2019).

FAC JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

THORRUR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE:

PW1-K.Rajender/de-facto complainantNone PW2-Y.Ramchandra Reddy/panch witness for confession-cum-seizure panchanama and crime details form 9 C.C.NO.581 OF 2012

PW3-V.Mallaiah/panch witness for confession- cum-seizure panchanama and crime details form PW4-J.Venkatrathnam/Investigating Officer

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex-P1 is the report given by PW1. Ex-P2 is the confession and seizure panchanama. Ex-P3 and Ex-P4 are the signatures of PW2 on CDF and confession panchanama. Ex-P5 and Ex-P6 are the signatures of PW3 on CDF and confession panchanama. Ex-P7 is the FIR. Ex-P8 is the crime details form. Ex-P9 is the petition filed by Guguloth Bicha vide Crl.M.P.No.4337/2012 along with order in Crl.M.P.No.4337/2012.

FOR DEFENCE:

- NIL -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

MO1 is the tractor bearing No.AP36 V1419, trailer bearing No.AP36 AV1420. MO2 is the tractor bearing No.AP21 V3028. MO3 is the tractor bearing No.AP36 TA5102/5103.

FAC JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

THORRUR

1 OF 8 C.C.NO.337 OF 2015

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

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, MAHABUBABAD

Wednesday, this the 8th day of September, 2021

PRESENT:Smt.Sura Sumalatha,

Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Mahabubabad.

CALENDER CASE NO.337 OF 2015

BETWEEN:

The State of Telangana represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Dornakal.…Complainant AND

A1:Banoth Shankar, s/o Saria, Aged: 37 years, Lambada, Occu: Coolie, R/o Dubba thanda H/o Gollacherla village, Dornakal Mandal.

A2:Banoth Nagamani, w/o Shanker, Aged: 32 years, Lambada, Occu: Agriculture, R/o Danyathanda H/o Uyyalawada village, Dornakal Mandal.

A3:Dharavath Kaika, w/o Chinna, Aged: 35 years, Lambada, Occu: Coolie,

A4:Dharavath Chinna, w/o Chandrya, Aged: 42 years, Lambada, Occu: Coolie, A3 and A4 are R/o Dharvath thanda H/o Uyyalawada village, Man: Dornakal.…Accused

This case having come before me for final hearing on 3.9.2021 in the presence of Sri D.Ganesh Anand, the learned APPO on behalf of prosecution and of Sri B.Chakravarthy, Advocate for the accused, upon perusing the entire material on record, upon hearing the arguments on either side and after having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court delivers the following:

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Dornakal has laid charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

2 OF 8 C.C.NO.337 OF 2015

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

i)That about 12 years back the marriage of PW1-Banoth Saroja was performed with A1 and they lead conjugal life for sometime and A1 sent to her parents house. Since then she is residing at her parents house. That on 14.5.2014 PWs 1 and 2 (Banoth Saroja and Guguloth Dwali) went to Patha

Dubba thanda to attend PW1’s aunt daughter marriage and on 15.5.2014 morning while they were returning to their thanda on foot, at about 07.00 hours A1 to A4 met them at Dubba thanda school, picked-up a quarrel with them by abusing in filthy language and questioned PW1 as to why filed case against A1, attacked and started beating PWs 1 and 2 with hands indiscriminately and caused injuries to PW2. The same was witnessed by

PWs 3, 5 and 6. Immediately PW2 was shifted to Area Hospital,

Mahabubabad for treatment in 108 Ambulance. Hence, PW1 set the criminal law into motion by lodging the report.

ii)On receipt of the above report from PW1, LW9-Sd.Khader Baba, Sub-

Inspector of Police, PS Dornakal, (died) registered a case in Cr.No.130/2014 under Section 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and issued FIR. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of PWs 1 and 2, sent PW2 to Area Hospital, Mahabubabad, for treatment, later he visited scene of offence and conducted crime details form in the presence of

PWs 4 and 7 and recorded the statements of other witnesses. That on 29.5.2014 at 09.30 hours he arrested A1 to A3 at Dubba thanda H/o

Gollacherla village and produced them before the Court for remand. Later, he served notice to A4. PW8 who treated the injured/PW2 opined that the injured sustained injuries which are simple in nature. On completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused.

3 OF 8 C.C.NO.337 OF 2015

3.This Court took cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

4.On appearance of the accused Nos.1 to 4, copies of the documents were furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 of The Code of

Criminal Procedure.

5.The accused Nos.1 to 4 are examined under Section 239 of The Code of Criminal Procedure and a charge under Section 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal

Code has been framed against the accused, read over and explained to them in Telugu, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.On behalf of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 8 and got marked Exs-P1 to P6. On behalf of the defence, no evidence is adduced, but got marked Ex-D1.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused Nos.1 to 4 have been examined under Section 313 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, for which they denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against them through the evidence on record and pleaded false implication and on their behalf reported no defence evidence.

8.Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved that the accused Nos.1 to 4 have committed the offence punishable

under Section 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code”?

9.POINT:PW1 who is the de-facto complainant and daughter of

PW2/injured in the present case has deposed that A1 is her husband, A2 is the 2nd wife of her husband, A3 is the sister-in-law and A4 is the husband of

A3. She further deposed that about five years back, she along with her mother/PW2 went to Dubba thanda to attend marriage of their relatives, while 4 OF 8 C.C.NO.337 OF 2015 returning, they reached at school of Dubba thanda, at about 7.00 a.m., A1 along with other accused beat her and also her mother/PW2 with sticks. The same was witnessed by PWs 3, 5 and 6, who rescued them and shifted her and her mother to the hospital in auto. She further deposed that her mother asked A1 to take her into matrimonial life along with the accused, but he refused to take as he is living with A2. Later, she gave report under Ex-P1 to the police. In her cross-examination, he deposed that by the time of giving report, it was nine years of her marriage, now it is seven more years. She admitted that A1 is the son of her maternal uncle. She further deposed that she along with A1 lived together for about ten years. She further deposed that after four days of the incident, she gave report to the police due to treatment. She further deposed that after one month of giving Ex-P1, police examined her. She denied the suggestion that she did not state before the police as in Ex-D1.

10.PW2 who is injured in the present case and mother of PW1 deposed in the similar lines of PW1. In her cross-examination, she deposed that after four days of giving Ex-P1, police examined her. She further deposed that

before filing of this case i.e. about ten days her daughter was staying with her.

She further deposed that her daughter lived with A1 for about ten years happily without any disputes. She admitted that A1 is the son of her own brother.

11.PWs 3, 5 and 6 who are eye witnesses to the incident, they turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The learned APPO declared them as hostile and cross-examined, but nothing has been elicited except marking their 161 Cr.PC statements as Exs-P2, P3 and P4.

5 OF 8 C.C.NO.337 OF 2015

12.PWs 4 and 7 are the panch witnesses for crime details form. PW4 denies his signature on crime details form, dated 18.5.2014. PW7 deposed that in the year 2014, at the instance of police constable, he put his signature on some papers and he does not know the contents of the same. Both the witnesses turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case and the signature of PW7 on crime details form is marked as Ex-P5.

13.PW8 who worked as Civil Assistant Surgeon at Area Hospital,

Mahabubabad, has deposed that on 15.5.2014 the injured/Guguloth Dwali came to the hospital and she treated her and found no external injuries and as per her version, she wrote as simple injury and basing on the requisition made by the concerned police, she issued medical certificate under Ex-P6. In her cross-examination, she admitted that though there is no injuries found, she mentioned as simple injury only basing on the version of injured.

14.In the case on hand, the police filed a report along with death certificate stating that LW9-Sd.Khader Baba, the then SI of Police, PS

Dornakal, who is Investigating Officer in the present case died on 13.9.2020, as such this Court closed his evidence. Thereafter, the police filed

Crl.M.P.No.255/2021 praying this Court to issue summons to Md.Hannan, the

then SI of Police, PS Dornakal, who can identify the signature of Sd.Khadar

Baba, who was the then SI of Police, PS Dornakal and this Court allowed the said petition on 15.2.2021 and issued summons to the above said witness, but the concerned police has failed to produce the above said witness in-spite of giving so many adjournments and it seems that the concerned police has no interest in producing the official witness, as such this Court closed his evidence.

6 OF 8 C.C.NO.337 OF 2015

15.Heard both sides oral arguments and perused the entire material available on record.

16.The learned APPO has argued that the evidence of PW2 is consistent and corroborated with the evidence of the doctor/PW8, though the other witnesses turned hostile, it is not fatal to the prosecution case, as the injured/PW2 herself has deposed before the Court and her evidence itself is sufficient to prove the case against the accused. Hence pleads for stringent conviction.

17.On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the accused argued that the eye witnesses to the incident i.e. PWs 3, 5 and 6 turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. He further argued that the panch witnesses for crime details form i.e. PWs 4 and 7, they too turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. He further argued that the prosecution has failed to examine Investigating Officer in the present case, which is fatal to the prosecution case. Hence pleads for benefit doubt.

18.After hearing both at length, a charge against the accused Nos.1 to 4 is under Section 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

19.On perusal of the evidence of PW1, it is an admitted fact that A1 is the husband of PW1 and as per the allegations made by PW1, the accused No.2 is the second wife of A1. A3 is the sister-in-law of PW1 and A4 is the husband of A3. On perusal of the evidence of PW1, it shows that the accused beat her and her mother/PW2 with sticks and she sustained injury and she along with her mother shifted to hospital in auto. But as per the medical certificate issued by PW8, who treated PW2, who is mother of PW1 categorically mentioned that she did not found any external injuries and she 7 OF 8 C.C.NO.337 OF 2015 wrote as simple injury, as mentioned by the injured, which clearly shows that there was no injuries sustained by PW2/mother of PW1.

20.On perusal of the medical certificate i.e. Ex-P6, it discloses as no external injuries seen.

21.Hence, to attract the offence under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code, as per the allegations made by PW1, there are no injuries sustained by the injured/PW2. Admittedly, there is no medical certificate of PW1, though she stated that the accused beat her also in her chief-examination. Further no material object was seized or produced by prosecution. Moreover, the eye witnesses as per the version of PW1 i.e. PWs 3, 5 and 6, all of them turned hostile and did not support the version of PWs 1 and 2 and the panch witnesses for crime details form i.e. PWs 4 and 7, both of them did not support the case of the prosecution. PW4 denied his signature on crime details form and PW7 has turned hostile.

22.Hence basing on the medical certificate issued by PW8 and due to hostile of PWs 3, 5 and 7, the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence under

Section 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, as such the accused are entitled for acquittal.

Accordingly, the point is answered.

23.IN THE RESULT, the accused Nos.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 248(1) of The Code of Criminal

Procedure. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after appeal 8 OF 8 C.C.NO.337 OF 2015 time is over. The unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

(Partly typed to my dictation and partly dictated to the Stenographer, after his transcription, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 8th day of September, 2021).

Sd/- Smt.Sura Sumalatha

ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS, MAHABUBABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE:

PW1-B.Saroja/de-facto complainantNone PW2-G.Dwali/injured PW3-B.Ammi/eye witness PW4-S.Hussain/panch witness for CDF PW5-S.Balu/eye witness PW6-G.Mangthya/eye witness PW7-S.Srinu/panch witness for CDF PW8-Dr.S.Vasantha Kumari/who treated PW2

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex-P1 is the report given by PW1. Ex-P2 is the 161 Cr.PC statement of PW3. Ex-P3 is the 161 Cr.PC statement of PW5. Ex-P4 is the 161 Cr.PC statement of PW6. Ex-P5 is the signature of PW7 on crime details form. Ex-P6 is medical certificate issued by PW8.

FOR DEFENCE:

Ex-D1 is the portion of 161 Cr.PC statement of PW1.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

- NIL -

Sd/- Smt.Sura Sumalatha

ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS, MAHABUBABAD