Ms.Swathi Murari

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

VIKARABAD:: RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

PRESENT: SMT. KAVITHA KAMALAPURAM, Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Vikarabad, R.R. District.

DATED, THIS THE 10 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2018

C.C. No. 201 OF 2018

Between: The State of Telangana through Prohibition and Excise Station, Marpally. …Complainant

1. A N D Palthya Prabhu S/o. Mitya Naik, Aged about 33 Years, Occ: ID Liquor Seller, R/o. H.No.NIL, Shapur Thanda Village, Marpally Mandal, Vikarabad District. … Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of APP for the State and of Sri A. Nagaraj, Advocate for the Accused, upon perusing the material papers on record, on hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following.

J U D G M E N T

1. The accused is indicted for an offence U/Sec.7(a) R/w.8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition

Amendment Act, 1997 by Sub-Inspector, P.S. Prohibition and Excise, Marpally, in

Cr. No. 253 of 2015-16 with following allegations:

2. That on 30-07-2015, on reliable information by SHO Marpally staff about illegal sale of I.D. liquor at open hut in agriculture fields, Eastern side of Shapur

Thanda, Marpally Mandal, Vikarabad District, PW3/Srinivasulu, Prohb.& E.S.I., along with his staff went to the said place and secured panchas PW1 and PW2 at about 5-30 PM and found one person present and on seeing them the said person ran away from the spot by leaving one plastic can. They tried to catch the person but in vain due to long distance from the accused. On search of the above said place they found one plastic can filled with about 5 liters of ID liquor in it. On local enquiry it was found that the person who ran away was Palthya

Prabhu i.e. the accused herein. PW3 had drawn samples and conducted scene of offence cum seizure Panchanama and seized the samples and remaining contraband under cover of panchanama in the presence of 2 mediators. The seized property, case papers along with samples were brought to the Excise

Station and that crime was registered by PW3 and after investigation and collection of CE Report, PW3 filed the charge sheet.On 09-02-2016 the accused surrendered before the Hon’ble Court .

3. The case was taken into cognizance for the offence under Section 7 (a) R/w 8 (e) of AP Prohibition Amendment Act, 1997 against the accused.

2

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished as required

U/Sec. 207 Cr.P.C.

5. The accused was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. for the offence under

Section 7(a) R/w 8 (e) of A.P Prohibition Amendment Act, 1997, by explaining the contents of accusation, which he denied.

6. To prove the charges, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW3 and Ex.P-1 to

Ex.P-3 documents are marked. On behalf of the accused, no evidence is adduced.

7. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under

Section 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against him for which he denied the same.

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

9. Now, the point for consideration is:

Whether the Prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under 7(A) R/w 8 (e) of A.P Prohibition Amendment Act, 1997 ?

10. It is the case of the prosecution that on 30-07-2015, on reliable information by

SHO Marpally staff about illegal sale of I.D. liquor at open hut in agriculture fields,

Eastern side of Shapur Thanda, Marpally Mandal, Vikarabad District,

PW3/Srinivasulu, Prohb.& E.S.I., along with his staff went to the said place and secured panchas PW1 and PW2 at about 5-30 PM and found one person present and on seeing them the said person ran away from the spot by leaving one plastic can. They tried to catch the person but in vain due to long distance from the accused. On search of the above said place they found one plastic can filled with about 5 liters of ID liquor in it. On local enquiry it was found that the person who ran away was Palthya Prabhu, i.e. the accused herein. PW3 had drawn samples and conducted scene of offence cum seizure Panchanama and seized the samples and remaining contraband under cover of panchanama in the presence of 2 mediators. The seized property, case papers along with samples were brought to the Excise Station and that crime was registered by PW3 and after investigation and collection of CE Report, PW3 filed the charge sheet.

11. PW-1 and PW2 who are the mediators for Scene of offence cum seizure panchanama, Ex.P1, turned hostile and have stated that no panchanama was conducted in their presence and stated that police obtained the thumb impression of PW2 on some white papers. PW1 denied the signature on Ex.P1 to be of his own. Though, the PW1 and PW2 were cross examined by A.P.P, no useful material could be elicited to throw light on the prosecution case.

3

12. PW3/Srinivasulu, Prohb.& E.S.I, has stated that on 30-7-2015 at about 5.30

PM he received credible information about illegal sale of ID liquor at open hut in agricultural fields, Eastern side of Shapur Thanda. He along with the staff proceeded to Shapur tanda and on seeing them the accused fled away from the spot. On search they found one plastic can filled with 5 liters of ID liquor and on enquiry it was found that the person who absconded was P. Prabhu i.e. the accused herein. He seized contraband and drawn two samples each containing 400 ml. of

ID liquor and remaining contraband was seized under the cover of panchanama under Ex.P1 in the presence of PW1 and PW2. Basing on Ex.P1 he registered a case in COR.No. 253/2015-16 U/s. 7 (a) r/w 8 e) of A.P. Proh. & Ex. Act and issued

COR under Ex.P2. The accused surrendered before the Court on 9-2-2016. He deposited remaining contraband seized before the Deputy Commissioner, Ranga

Reddy. The samples were sent for Chemical examination. After receipt of C.E.

Report under Ex.P3, he filed the Charge Sheet. During his cross-examination he stated that he cannot say how many villages he raided on the date of the offence and the panchas were secured from the same village and the survey number of the agricultural fields is not mentioned in Ex.P1 and he did not verify any record with regard to the ownership of the agricultural fields. That no independent witnesses were examined from the vicinity and he did not draw any rough sketch. Further, he denied all the suggestions put to him by the defence counsel.

13. The said evidence of PW3 is not corroborated by PW1 and PW2 who are the mediators for Ex.P1 Panchanama. Since Ex.P1 Panchanama is not proved by the mediators it is difficult to place reliance on the sole testimony of PW3, who is a

Police official. No independent witness from the vicinity could be examined to prove that the accused was selling ID liquor. The other evidence of PW3 is only to the effect of registration of the crime and filing charge sheet. Ex.P3, report issued by

Chemical Examiner, Hyderabad shows that the sample was analyzed and was opined as illicitly distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health.

But, in view of the failure of the prosecution to prove the seizure from the accused,

Ex.P1 is of no help to the prosecution.

14. Furthermore, it is clear that PW3 did not draw the rough sketch and also failed to examine the neighbours at the scene, Sarpanch or V.R.O of said village and also failed to secure any document to show that the place where the ID liquor was being sold illegally belongs to the accused. Therefore, this Court hold that the prosecution failed to connect the accused with premises, where the alleged offence is said to have been committed. The Hon’ble High Court at Hyderabad in the decision reported in 2003(1) ALD Criminal 805 (A.P) between T.Subbanna V/s. State of

Andhra Pradesh held that where the ownership or possession of the accused is not 4 established over the place of offence and where independent mediators have turned hostile, no conviction can be recorded in an excise offence on the version of official witness.

15. In view of the above discussion it is held that the prosecution failed to prove the charge against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and so the accused is entitled for acquittal.

16. In the result, the accused is found not guilty and acquitted U/s 248 (1) Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable U/s 7(a) R/w 8 (e) of A.P Prohibition Amendment Act, 1997. Bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal period and the accused is set at liberty. Unmarked property vide CPR No. 162 of 2018, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 10th Day of September, 2018.

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

VIKARABAD.

APENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW1 is B. Dharmya Naik -None- PW2 is B. Ramulu PW3 is Srinivasulu, Prob. & Excise Sub.Inspector of Police

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P1 is Confession cum Seizure Panchanama Ex.P2 is Crime Occurrence Report Ex.P3 is Chemichal Analysis Report

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

VIKARABAD.

5

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

VIKARABAD, R.R.DIST.

CALENDER CASE NO. 201 OF 2018

1. Date Of Offence : 30.07.2015 1.

2.Date of Complaint : 30.07.2015 2.

3.Date of Apprehension : Surrendered on 09.2.2016 3.

4.Commencement of Trail : 16-8-2018 4.

5.Closure of Trial on : 31-8-2018 5.

6.Date of Judgment : 10-9-2018. 6.

7.Complainant : The State of Telangana 7. through S.H.O. of P.S.Excise Marpally. 8.

8. Name of the accused : Palthya Prabhu S/o. Mitya Naik, Aged about 33 Years, Occ: ID Liquor Seller, R/o. H.No.NIL, Shapur Thanda Village, Marpally Mandal, Vikarabad District..

9. Offence : U/s. 7(a) R/w 8 (e) of A.P Prohibition

Amendment Act, 1997 .

10. Finding of the Court : Found not guilty

11. Result : In the result, the accused is found not guilty and acquitted U/s 248(1) Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable U/s 7(a) R/w 8 (e) of

A.P Prohibition Amendment Act, 1997. Bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal period and the accused set at liberty. Unmarked property vide CPR No. 162 of 2018, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

JUDL.FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

VIKARABAD.

Lr.Dis.No. /2018, dated:

6

Copy Submitted to:

The Hon’ble I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, At L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad.

Judgment pronounced in open Court. (V.S.J.).

In the result, the accused is found not guilty and acquitted U/s 248 (1) Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable U/s 7(a) R/w 8 (e) of A.P Prohibition Amendment Act, 1997. Bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal period and the accused 7 is set at liberty. Unmarked property vide CPR No. 162 of 2018, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

.

In the result, the accused is found not guilty and acquitted U/s 248(1) Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable U/s 7(A) R/w 8 (e) of A.P Prohibition Amendment Act, 1997. Bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal period and the accused set at liberty. Unmarked property vide CPR No. 261 of 2017, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 19th Day of January, 2018.

8 9

Petitioner counsel present. Respondent and their counsel called absent, call on 26-4- 2018.

sed No1 and 2 present. Judgment

pronounced in open court. (V.S.J.).

In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s. 9 (B) (b) Explosive Act, 1884 and they are acquitted U/s 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The Unmarked property, deposited in to this Court vide CPR No. 125 of 2015 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled.

10

JFCM 11

Complainant present. At request of complainant counsel issue fresh summons to accused on payment of process through Court and RPAD, call n 28-9-2018.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

VIKARABAD:: RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

PRESENT: SMT. KAVITHA KAMALAPURAM, Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Vikarabad, R.R. District.

DATED, THIS THE 27 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2018

C.C. No. 26 OF 2018

Between: The State of Telangana through Prohibition and Excise Station, Marpally. …Complainant

1. A N D

Phakeera S/o. Rupla, Aged about 50 Years, Occ: ID Liquor Seller, R/o. Lachanaik Thanda, Mominpet Mandal, Vikarabad District. … Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of APP for the State and of Sri G. Lava Kumar, Advocate for the Accused, upon perusing the material papers on record, on hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following.

J U D G M E N T

1. The accused is indicted for an offence U/Sec.7(A) R/w.8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition

Amendment Act, 1997 by Sub-Inspector, P. S. Prohibition and Excise, Marpally, in

Cr. No. 181 of 2015-16 with following allegations:

2. That on 22-06-2015, on reliable information by SHO, Marpally Team about illegal sale of I.D. liquor at accused’s house, Lachanaik Thanda of Mominpet Mandal,

Ranga Reddy District, PW2/Srinivasulu, Prohb.& E.S.I, along with his staff went to the said place and secured panchas PW1 and LW1/Megavath Ramsingh at about 3-45PM and found one person present at the above place who on seeing them ran away. They tried to catch him but in vain. On search of the said place they found one plastic can containing 4 liters of ID liquor. On local enquiry it was found that the person who ran away was Phakeera i.e. the accused herein.

PW2/Srinivasulu, Prohb.& E.S.I conducted scene of offence and seizure

Panchanama and seized the same under cover of panchanama in the presence of 2 mediators and the samples and the contraband were brought to the Excise

Station and that a crime was registered by PW2/Srinivasulu, Prohb.&.E.S.I and after investigation and collection of CE Report, he filed the charge sheet.On 16- 6-2016 the accused surrendered before the Hon’ble court.

3. The case was taken into cognizance for the offence under Section 7 (A) R/w 8

(e) of AP Prohibition Amendment Act, 1997 against the accused.

2

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished as required u/Sec. 207 Cr.P.C.

5. The accused was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. for the offence under

Section 7(A) R/w 8 (e) of A.P Prohibition Amendment Act, 1997, by explaining the contents of accusation, which he denied.

6. To prove the charges, the prosecution has examined PW1 and PW2 and Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-4 documents are marked. On behalf of the accused, no evidence is adduced. Learned APPO has given up the evidence of LW1/Megavath

Ramsingh. PW1 is the panch witness and PW2 is the Investigating Officer.

7. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under

Section 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against him for which he has denied the same.

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

9. Now, the point for consideration is:

Whether the Prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under 7(A) R/w 8 (e) of A.P Prohibition Amendment Act, 1997 ?

10. It is the case of the prosecution that on 22-06-2015, on reliable information by

SHO, Marpally Team about illegal sale of I.D. liquor at accused’s house,

Lachanaik Thanda of Mominpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, PW2/Srinivasulu,

Prohb.& E.S.I, along with his staff went to the said place and secured panchas

PW1 and LW1/Megavath Ramsingh at about 1-30PM and found one person present at the above place and on seeing them the said person ran away. They tried to catch him but in vain. On search of the said place they found one plastic can containing 5 liters of ID liquor. On local enquiry it was found that the person who ran away was Meghavath Prabhu i.e. the accused herein.

PW2/Srinivasulu, Prohb.& E.S.I conducted scene of offence and seizure

Panchanama and seized the same under cover of panchanama in the presence of 2 mediators and the samples and the contraband were brought to the Excise

Station and that a crime was registered by PW2/Srinivasulu, Prohb.&.E.S.I.

11. PW-1 who is the mediator for Scene of offence cum seizure panchanama, Ex.P2, turned hostile and has stated that no panchanama was conducted in his presence and stated that the police obtained his signature on some white papers.

PW1 identified his signature i.e. Ex.P1. Though, the PW1 was cross examined by

A.P.P, no useful material could be elicited to throw light on the prosecution case.

3

12. PW2/Srinivasulu, Prohb.& E.S.I, has stated that on 22-06-2015 he received information about illegal sale of I.D. liquor at the house of the accused at

Lachanaik thanda. He along with his staff went to the scene and found one person present at the spot. On seeing them the said person ran away from the scene leaving a plastic can containing 4 liters of ID liquor. They tried to catch the said person but in vain. On search of the said place they found one plastic can containing (4) liters of ID liquor. On enquiry the details of the accused were revealed. He secured the panchas and seized the can and drawn samples in the presence of PW1 and LW1/M. Ramsingh under the cover of panchanama i.e.

Ex.P2 and seized the remaining I.D. liquor. The case papers along with the contraband and the samples were brought to the Excise Station and he registered a case in COR.No. 181/2015-16 U/s. 7 (A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Act and issued F.I.R. under Ex.P3. The drawn samples were sent to the F.S.L. for chemical examination. The accused surrendered on 16-06-2016 before the

Hon’ble Court and after receipt of C.E. Report under Ex.P4, he filed the Charge

Sheet. During his cross examination he stated that he did not file any document pertaining to grampanchayath record with respect to the house of the accused and he did not examine any independent witnesses from the vicinity. Further, he denied all the suggestions put to him by the defence counsel.

13. The said evidence of PW2 is not corroborated by PW1 who is the mediator for Ex.P2 Panchanama. Since Ex.P2 Panchanama is not proved by the mediator it is difficult to place reliance on the sole testimony of PW2, who is a police official.

No independent witness from the vicinity was examined to prove that the accused was selling ID liquor. The other evidence of PW2 is only to the effect of registration of the crime and filing charge sheet. Ex.P4, report issued by Chemical

Examiner, Hyderabad shows that the sample was analyzed and was opined as illicitly distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health. But in view of the failure of the prosecution to prove the seizure from the accused, Ex.P4 is of no help to the prosecution.

14. Furthermore, it is clear that the PW2 did not draw the rough sketch and also failed to examine the neighbours at the scene, Sarpanch or V.R.O of said village and also failed to secure any document to show that the place where the ID liquor was being sold illegally belongs to the accused. Therefore, I hold that the prosecution failed to connect the accused with premises, where the alleged offence is said to have been committed. The Hon’ble High Court at Hyderabad in the decision reported in 2003(1) ALD Criminal 805 (A.P) between T.Subbanna V/s.

State of Andhra Pradesh held that where the ownership or possession of the accused is not established over the place of offence and where independent mediators have turned hostile, no conviction can be recorded in an excise offence on the version of official witness.

4

15. In view of the above discussion it is held that the prosecution failed to prove the charge against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and so the accused is entitled for acquittal.

16. In the result, the accused is found not guilty and acquitted U/s 248(1) Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable U/s 7(A) R/w 8 (e) of A.P Prohibition Amendment Act, 1997. Bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal period and the accused is set at liberty. Unmarked property vide CPR No. 31 of 2018, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 27th Day of March, 2018.

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

VIKARABAD.

APENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW1 is V. Balakishan -None- PW2 is Srinivasulu, Prob. & Excise Sub.Inspector of Police

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P1 is Signature of PW1 on Scene of offence cum Seizure Panchanama Ex.P2 is Scene of offence cum Seizure Panchanama Ex.P3 is Crime Occurrence Report Ex.P4 is Chemichal Analysis Report

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

VIKARABAD.

5

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

VIKARABAD, R.R.DIST.

CALENDER CASE NO. 26 OF 2018

1. Date Of Offence : 22.06.2015 1.

2.Date of Complaint : 22.06.2015 2.

3.Date of Apprehension : Surrendered on 16.6.2016 3.

4.Commencement of Trail : 21-02-2018 4.

5.Closure of Trial on : 26-02-2018 5.

6.Date of Judgment : 21-03-2018. 6.

7.Complainant : The State of Telangana 7. through S.H.O. of P.S.Excise Marpally. 8.

8. Name of the accused : Phakeera S/o.Rupla, Aged about 50 Years, Occ: ID Liquor Seller, R/o. Lachanaik Thanda, Mominpet Mandal, Vikarabad District.

9. Offence : U/s. 7(A) R/w 8 (e) of A.P Prohibition

Amendment Act, 1997 .

10. Finding of the Court : Found not guilty

11. Result : In the result, the accused is found not guilty and acquitted U/s 248(1) Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable U/s 7(A) R/w 8 (e) of

A.P Prohibition Amendment Act, 1997. Bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal period and the accused set at liberty. Unmarked property vide CPR No.31 of 2018, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

JUDL.FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

6

VIKARABAD.

Lr.Dis.No. /2018, dated:

Copy Submitted to:

The Hon’ble I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, At L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad.

Accused present. Judgment

pronounced in open Court. (V.S.J.).

In the result, the accused is found not guilty and acquitted U/s 248(1) Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable U/s 7(A) R/w 8 (e) of A.P 7

Prohibition Amendment Act, 1997. Bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal period and the accused set at liberty. Unmarked property vide CPR No.31 of 2018, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

In the result, the accused is found not guilty and acquitted U/s 248(1) Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable U/s 7(A) R/w 8 (e) of A.P Prohibition Amendment Act, 1997. Bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal period and the accused set at liberty. Unmarked property vide CPR No. 261 of 2017, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 19th Day of January, 2018.

8 9

Accused No1 and 2 present. Judgment pronounced in open court. (V.S.J.).

In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s. 9 (B) (b) Explosive Act, 1884 and they are acquitted U/s 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The Unmarked property, deposited in to this Court vide CPR No. 125 of 2015 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled.

JFCM

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

VIKARABAD:: RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

PRESENT: SMT. KAVITHA KAMALAPURAM, Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Vikarabad, R.R. District.

DATED, THIS THE 10 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2018

C.C. No. 125 OF 2018

Between: The State of Telangana through S.H.O. of P. S. Proh. & Excise Vikarabad. … Complainant

1. A N D

Kurma Bandaiah S/o. Adivaiah, Aged about 49 Years, Occ: Toddy Seller, R/o.H.No.1-21/4, Peerampally Village, Vikarabad Mandal. … Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of APP for the State and of Sri P. Janardhan, Advocate for the Accused, upon perusing the material papers on record, on hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following.

J U D G M E N T

The Prohibition and Excise Sub.Inspector of Excise Station, Vikarabad, filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No. 1057 of 2013-14 for the offence punishable Under Section 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968.

2. On 6-3-2014 on reliable information about illegal sale of toddy at open place, in front of the house of Kurma Bandaiah, Peerampally Village, PW2/G.Prabhakar, Proh. &

E.S.I. along with staff proceeded to the scene and at about 4.45 PM found the accused at the said place conducting sale of toddy and on seeing them, the accused ran away.

On search they found 16 plastic crates each crate containing 12 bottles, each bottles filled with 650 ml. of toddy. On local enquiry it revealed that the person who ran away was Kurma Bandaiah i.e. the accused herein. The samples were drawn from there in the presence of 2 mediators destroyed the remaining toddy and seized the samples, under the cover of panchanama. The case papers along with samples were brought to the Excise station. Basing on the panchanama a case was registered by PW2 and after collection of C.E. Report and completing the investigation, charge sheet has been laid by PW2. On 15.2.2018 the accused was arrested and produced before the Hon’ble

Court for Judicial Remand.

2

3. Cognizance was taken for the offence punishable U/s. 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 against the accused.

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as required u/s 207 of Cr.P.C. The Accused was examined U/s. 239 of Cr.P.C. He denied the allegations. Charge Under Section 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 was framed against the accused, read over and explained to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PW 1 and PW 2 and got marked Exs P1 to P3. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. and he denied the incriminating material against him. No defence evidence is adduced. The evidence of LW2/E. Krishna Reddy was given up by the Learned APPO.

6. Heard both sides and perused the record.

7. Now the point for consideration is:-

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable

doubt for the offence U/s. 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 ?

8. POINT:

PW1 who is the mediator for seizure panchanama i.e. Ex.P1 turned hostile and had stated that he does not know anything about the case and no panchanama was conducted in his presence. When he was confronted with his signature on Ex.P1 he did not identify his signature. Though, PW1 was cross-examined by APP, no useful material could be elicited to support the prosecution case.

9. It is the evidence of PW2/G.Prabhakar, P&E.S.I. that on 6-3-2014 he received reliable information about illegal sale of toddy in front of the house of accused in open place at Peerampally village. He along with staff proceeded to the said place and secured PW1 and LW2/E. Krishna Reddy to act as panchas. On seeing them the person who was selling toddy illegally fled away from the spot. On enquiry they came to know that the person who ran away was K. Bandaiah i.e. the accused herein. On search they found 16 plastic crates, each crate containing 12 bottles filled with 650 ml each. He tested toddy and found free from chloral Hydrate. He had drawn two samples and destroyed the remaining toddy under the cover of panchanama under Ex.P1 in the 3 presence of PW1 and LW2. The samples and the case papers were brought to the police station and he registered a case in COR.No. 1057/2013-14 U/s. 34 (a) of AP

Excise Act, 1968. Ex.P2 is the C.O.R. The drawn samples were sent to the F.S.L. for chemical examination. The accused was arrested on 15-2-2018 and produced before the Hon’ble Court for Judicial Remand. After receipt of C.E. Report under Ex.P3, he filed the Charge Sheet. During his cross-examination he stated that he did not enquire about the ownership details of the house from the V.R.O and he agreed that there is no rough sketch drawn and also did not mention the boundaries. Further, he denied all the suggestions put to him by the defence counsel.

10. Ex.P3 is the report issued by Telangana State Forensic Science Laboratories,

Hyderabad, but in view of the failure of the prosecution to prove the seizure from the accused, Ex.P3 is of no help to prosecution.

11. The evidence of PW2 is not corroborated by PW1 who is the mediator for Ex.P1 panchanama. Since Ex.P1 panchanama is not proved by the mediator PW1 it is difficult to place reliance on the sole testimony of PW2 who is the police officer.

12. The prosecution failed to prove the seizure of the contraband from the possession of the accused. From the evidence and records, it is clear that the police did not examine any independent witnesses. Hence, the prosecution failed to connect the accused with the alleged toddy that was recovered. It is a settled law that where the independent mediators turned hostile, no conviction can be recorded for the offence on the version of official witness.

13. Further, the case of the prosecution is rested upon the only version of PW2 who is the police official. Since the independent mediator PW1 did not support the prosecution case, the seizure panchanama under Ex.P1 is not proved in accordance with law. When the independent witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution it is highly unsafe to rely upon the version of PW2 who is the police official interested in the outcome of the prosecution. In the light of the above discussion, it is held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence Under Section 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 beyond all reasonable doubt and so the accused is entitled for acquittal.

4

14. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence Under Section 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 and he is acquitted of the same Under Section 248 (1) of

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal period and the accused is set at liberty. Unmarked property, deposited into this court Vide C.P.R.No. 189 of 2014 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

Typed to my dictation to Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the, 10th Day of September, 2018.

JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

VIKARABAD.

APENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW1 is B. Venkataiah -None- PW2 is G. Prabhakar, Prohibition & Excise Sub.inspector of Police.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P1 is Confession cum Seizure panchanama -NIL- Ex.P2 is Crime Occurrence Report Ex.P3 is Chemichal Analysis Report.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL-

JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

VIKARABAD.

5

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, VIKARABAD,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

CALENDER CASE NO. 125 OF 2018

Date Of Offence : 6.3.204 1.

Date of Complaint : 6.3.2014 2.

Date of Apprehension : 15.2.2018 3.

Commencement of Trail : 23.4.2018 4.

Closure of Trial on : 29.8.2018 5.

Date of Judgment : 10.9.2018 6.

Complainant : The State of Telangana through 7. S.H.O. of P.S. Proh. & Excise Vikarabad.

8. Name of the accused : Kurma Bandaiah S/o. Adivaiah, Aged about 49 Years, Occ: Toddy Seller, R/o.H.No.1-21/14, Peerampally Village, Vikarabad Mandal.

9. Offence : U/s. 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968.

10. Finding of the Court : Found not guilty

11. Result : In the result the accused is found not guilty for the offence Under Section 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 and he is acquitted of the same Under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal period and the accused is set at liberty.

Unmarked property, deposited into this court Vide C.P.R.No. 189 of 2014 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

JUDL.FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

VIKARABAD.

Lr.Dis.No. /2018, dated:

Copy Submitted to:

6

The Hon’ble I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, At L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad.

Judgment pronounced in open Court. (V.S.J.).

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence Under Section 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 and he is acquitted of the same Under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal period and the accused is set at liberty. Unmarked property, deposited into this court Vide C.P.R.No. 189 of 2014 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

JFCM 7

Accused absent as NBW pending. Notice to sureties pending. Police present. Call on 02-01-2018.

JFCM 8

Accused present. MOA filed with NOC of previous counsel by Sri P. Mallaiah, Advocate.

9

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

VIKARABAD:: RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

PRESENT: SMT. KAVITHA KAMALAPURAM, Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Vikarabad, R.R. District.

DATED, THIS THE 10 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2018

C.C. No. 161 OF 2016

Between: The State of Telangana through S.H.O. of P. S.Dharur. …Complainant

1. A N D

Mala Venkataiah S/o. Balaiah, Aged about 45 Years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Chinthakunta Village, Dharur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. …Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of APP for the State and of Sri A. Mahipal Reddy, Advocate for the Accused, upon perusing the material papers on record, on hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following.

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub.Inspector of Police, P.S.Dharur, filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No. 30 of 2016 for the offences punishable Under Section 324, 427, 504 of

IPC and Section 3 of PDPP Act, 1984.

2. The brief facts of the case are that, the complainant Mangali Narsimulu came to the police station and lodged a complaint stating that, on 19-03-2016 at 2000 hours he heard some voice beside one Mala Ramulu’s house at CC Road and when the complainant went to that place, the accused Mala Venkataiah was abusing the villagers in filthy language and damaged the public tap by a stone and also abused the complainant in filthy language and bet him with stone due to which he received bleeding injuries on his foot. Immediately his brother Srinivas tried to rescue him but the accused bet his brother Srinivas on his ears due to which Srinivas received bleeding injury.

Basing on the above complaint, the S.I. of police registered a case and issued F.I.R. to the concerned. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of witnesses and visited the scene of offence and referred the injured to

Government Civil Hospital, Vikarabad for treatment. After receipt of Wound Certificate 2 and after completing the investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the accused person.

3. Cognizance was taken for the offences punishable U/s. 427, 324, 504 of IPC and

Section 3 of PDPP Act against the accused.

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as required u/s 207 of Cr.P.C. The Accused was examined U/s. 239 of Cr.P.C. He denied the allegations. Hence, charges U/s. 427, 324, 504 of IPC and Section 3 of PDPP Act are framed, read over and explained to the accused in vernacular. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PW 1 to PW3 and got marked Ex P1 to P5. On behalf of the accused, none were examined, and no documents are marked. PW1 is the complainant cum injured. PW2 is the eye witness and brother of the injured and PW3 is the panch witness for scene of offence panchanama and rough sketch in this case. The other witnesses were given up by the learned APPO as PW1 to PW3 did not support the case of prosecution.

6. Since there is no incriminating evidence appearing against the accused in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the examination of the accused U/s. 313 of Cr.P.C.

is not necessary.

7. Heard both sides and perused the record.

8. Now the point for consideration is:-

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond

reasonable doubt for the offences U/s. 427, 324, 504 of IPC and Section 3 of PDPP Act?

9. POINT:

It is the case of the prosecution that, the accused bet the complainant with stone due to which he received bleeding injuries on his foot and abused him in filthy language and also bet PW2/Srinivas on his ears, due to which PW2 also received bleeding injuries.

3

10. PW1 who is the complainant and injured in this case deposed that he does not know anything about the case and no one bet him. Further stated that he did not give any complaint to the police and that at about 2 years back when he went to police station on his personal work, police obtained his signature on some papers. Ex.P1 is his signature on complaint. Police never examined him nor recorded his statement. Ex.P2 is his 161 Cr.P.C. statement. He further stated that he compromised the matter with the accused.

11. PW2 who is the eye witness and brother of the complainant/injured in this case deposed that he does not know anything about the case and they compromised the matter with the accused. He stated that police never examined him nor recorded his statement. Ex.P3 is his 161 Cr.P.C. statement.

12. PW3 who is the panch witness for scene of offence panchanama and rough sketch stated that he does not know anything about the case. No panchanama was conducted and no rough sketch was drawn in his presence. Further he stated that police obtained his signatures on some white papers around 2 years back. PW3 identified his signatures i.e. Ex.P4 and Ex.P5.

13. Though, PW1 to PW3 were cross-examined by APP no useful material could be elicited to support the prosecution case.

14. In this case PW1 and PW2 who are the complainant/injured and brother of the complainant/injured cum eye witness to the incident themselves stated that they compromised the matter with the accused. Moreover, in this case the other eye witnesses and other witnesses were given up by the learned APP as no useful purpose will be served. Further PW3 who is the panch witness for scene of offence panchanama and rough sketch turned hostile by stating that he does not know anything about the case and no panchanama was conducted and no rough sketch were drawn in his presence. In these circumstances, this court is left with no other option except, to acquit the accused. For the foregoing reasons, the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Thereby, the accused is entitled for an acquittal.

4

15. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/s. 324, 427, 504 of IPC and Section 3 of PDPP Act and he is acquitted U/s 248 (1) of Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time and the accused is set at liberty. Unmarked property, deposited in to this Court vide C.P.R. No.

127 of 2016 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the, 10th Day of September, 2018.

JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

VIKARABAD.

APENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW1 is M. Narsimulu -None- PW2 is M.Srinivas PW3 is V. Nandam

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P1 is Signature of PW1 on Complaint -None- Ex.P2 is 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1 Ex.P3 is 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2 Ex.P4 is Signature of PW3 on Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P5 is Signature of PW3 on Rough Sketch

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NI-

JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

VIKARABAD.

5

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,VIKARABAD,

R.R.DIST.

CALENDER CASE NO. 161 OF 2016

Date Of Offence : 19.03.2016 1.

Date of Complaint : 19.03.2016 2.

Date of Apprehension : 12.04.2016 3.

Commencement of Trail : 30.08.2018 4.

Closure of Trial on : 30.08.2018 5.

Date of Judgment : 10 .09.2018 6.

Complainant : The State of Telangana through S.H.O. of 7. P.S. Dharur.

8. Name of the accused : Mala Venkataiah S/o. Balaiah, Aged about 45 Years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Chinthakunta Village, Dharur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

9. Offence : U/s. 324, 427, 504 of IPC and Section 3 of PDPP Act

10. Finding of the Court : Found not guilty

11. Result : In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/s. 324, 427, 504 of IPC and Section 3 of PDPP Act and he is acquitted U/s 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time and the accused is set at liberty. Unmarked property, deposited in to this Court vide C.P.R. No. 127 of 2016 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

JUDL.FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

VIKARABAD.

Lr.Dis.No. /2018, dated:

6

Copy Submitted to:

The Hon’ble I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, At L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad.

Judgment pronounced in open Court. (V.S.J.).

In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/s. 324, 427, 504 of IPC and Section 3 of PDPP Act and he is acquitted U/s 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time and the accused is set at liberty. Unmarked property, deposited in to this Court vide C.P.R. No. 127 of 2016 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

JFCM 7 8

Accusedpresent.Judgment

pronounced in open court. (V.S.J.).

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/s. 457 and 380 r/w 511 IPC and he is acquitted U/s 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The unmarked property deposited in to this court vide C.P.R.No. 474 of 2014, dt: 11-09- 2014, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after appeal time is over.

JFCM

Orders pronounced in open Court. (V.S.O.).

In the result, Petition is dismissed without costs. Each party to bear their own costs.

P.J.C.J.

9

1 [ CC.No.133/2015 AJFCM,VKB]

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

VIKARABAD RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

Present : T.Lakshmi Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District.

Dated on this the 26th day of July, 2018.

CC No.133 of 2015

Between: The State of Telangana through P.S.Bantwaram,

...Complainant

AND

A1. Kadicherla Babu @ Kistaiah, S/o Ramaiah, Age: 36 Years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Salbathapur village of Bantwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy district.

. ...Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of APP for the State/Complainant and Sri.P. Sampurna Anand, Advocate for the accused, upon perusing the material papers on record upon hearing both sides and having stood over the consideration till this day, this court delivered the following.

JUDGEMENT

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S., Bantwaram filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable Under Section 323, 506 of IPC.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution:

a) On 01.2.2013 a complaint was received from LW1, Nappari Anthaiah stating that he went to the house of LW9, Smt. K. Venkatamma and knocked the door and on seeing him in odd hours she cried to alarm others. By hearing the noise, her elder brother in law accused

A1 and others rushed to the spot and noticed the complainant at the house of LW9, K.

Venkatamma and questioned why the complainant was present and knocked the doors of his sister in law in odd hours but complainant could not gave proper reply as such the accused assaulted the complainant with hands and threatened with dire consequences. However the complainant, LW1 escaped and ran away towards his house then he fell down over the steps infront of his house and sustained bleeding injuries over his mouth, hand and legs. On the next day the LW9, K. Venkatamma lodged a complaint under Crime No.07/2013 for the offence under section 448, 509 of IPC. Then complainant as a counter he lodged a complaint under section 394 of IPC alleging that A1 and A2 attacked him and robbed away net cash of

Rs.51,000/- which was drawn by him from SBH, Nagasamuder on 31.1.2013.

Basing on the complaint a case was registered under section 394 of IPC and after collection of evidence the section was altered to 323, 506 of IPC. During the course of 2 [ CC.No.133/2015 AJFCM,VKB] investigation LW25, D.K. Laxmi Reddy, SI of police examined and recorded the statement of

LW1, N. Ananthaiah and PW1, N. Sathayamma and collected the Medical certificate of LW1 and handed over the CD file to LW26, D. Vijaya lala, Circle Inspector of police. The LW26 took up further investigation visited the scene of offence at Salbathapur village of Bantwaram and condcuted the scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch in the presence of

LW22, C. Hanumanthu and LW23, N. Balaiah and after recorded the statement of LW3 to

LW8. After collecting the evidence since no offence was established against the accused for the offence under section 394 of IPC as alleged by complainant/LW1 thus LW26 further examined LW9 to LW21 and recorded their statements which corroborates with the version of

LW3 to LW8. After collecting the evidence and going through the statement of witnesses no offence was established against the accused as reported in FIR but the acts of A1 constitutes an offence punishable under section 323, 506 of IPC. Thus addressed a letter to Additional

PP who opined that offence under section 394 of IPC was not established and A1 is liable for punishment under section 323, 506 of IPC. Later the investigation was taken by LW27, A.V.

Ranga CI of police in view of transfer of LW26. LW27 sent proposals to Superintendent of

Police, Ranga Reddy District requesting to accord permission to investigate the case under section 323, 506 of IPC. The Superintendent of Police, Ranga Reddy District permitted to investigate the offence under section 323, 506 of IPC vide memo No.598/DCRB/RR/2014

dated 29.10.2014 and LW27 entrusted the case to LW28, P. Ravinder, Sub Inspector of

Police. Thus LW28 took up further investigation and after completion of the investigation the

LW28 filed the charge sheet before the court.

3.The case was taken on file for the offence punishable under section 323, 506 of IPC against the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused before the court he was furnished with copies of relevant documents as contemplated Under section 207 Cr.P.C. The accused was examined

Under section 251Cr.P.C to which he denied the commission of offence and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In support of it case, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW14 and exhibited P1 to P14 since there being no incriminating evidence against the accused there is no necessity to examine the accused U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.

6.Now, the point that arise for determination is

Whether the prosecution proved it case and established the guilt of the accused

for the offence punishable U/sec. 323, 506 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

7.Point:

It is the case of the prosecution that accused assaulted the defacto complainant, LW1, 3 [ CC.No.133/2015 AJFCM,VKB]

Nappari Ananthaiah and also threatened with dire consequences when he went to the house of LW9, Smt. K. Venkatamma who is her sister in law and knocked the door in odd hours.

8.LW1, Nappari Ananthaiah on whose complaint the law was set into motion reported died and PW1 Nappari Sathyamma wife of injured Nappari Ananthaiah deposed that at about four years back on one day while she was at her mother's house at Kulcharam village received a phone call from her neighbours, Ramesh that the accused bet her husband thus immediately proceeded to Salbathapur village along with her brother wherein noticed that her husband was lying on the ground and blood was oozing form his mouth and immediately shifted to PS., Bantwaram who in turn referred to Tandur Government hospital for treatment.

PW2 further deposed that she came to know through her husband that he was beaten by accused and also an amount of Rs 51,000/- (Fifty One Thousand Rupees only) drawn from the bank which was kept at her house was also missing. Later her husband LW1 lodged the complaint before PS., Bantwaram. Ex.P1 is the said complaint. The learned APPO requested the witness as hostile with regard to lodging of complaint by LW1, when permitted by court she cross examined but nothing was elicited in favour of prosecution. In cross examination

PW2 denied the suggestion of counsel for accused that she lodged a false complaint against the accused since LW9, K. Venkatamma filed a case against her husband LW1.

9.PW2, N. Balaiah, PW3, K. Saidamma, PW4, C.Ramaiah, PW5, K. Thippamma, PW6,

K. Venkatamma, PW7, K. Fakeeramma, PW8 PW8: Boini. Veeraiah, PW9: T. Kistamma,

PW10: S. Pullamma, PW11. K. Anjalaiah, PW12: K. Manemma, PW13: E.Chinna Ramaiah,

PW14: K. Sathaiah who are eye witnesses to the alleged incident resiled from their earlier statements and all of them deposed that they do not know any thing about the case. The learned APPO requested to treat the witnesses as hostile after permitting by the court she cross examined but nothing could be elicited in favour of prosecution. Ex.P2 to P14 are the 161 statements of PW2 to PW14. The learned APPO has given up the evidence of LW17 to

LW28 including investigation officer since no purpose will be served even after their examination as rightly in my opinion.

10.On considering the above circumstances it appears that parties have compromised and do not want to produce the witnesses. In the said circumstances one cannot proceed with the trial. Thus absolutely there is no iota of evidence to show that accused assaulted the LW1 with hands and threatened with dire consequences and committed the offence under section 323, 506 of IPC.

11.For the foregoingreasons, this court come to conclusion that prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable Under section 323, 506 IPC.

Accordingly the point is answered.

4 [ CC.No.133/2015 AJFCM,VKB]

12.IN THE RESULT: The accused is not guilty for the offence punishable U/s. 323, 506 of IPC. Accordingly he is acquitted U/s.255(1) of Cr.P.C and he is set at liberty. The bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months as per section 437-A Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist and corrected and pronounced by me the open court on this day 26th July, 2018.

Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED ON BEHALF PROSECUTION

PW1: N.Sathamma PW2: N. Balaiah PW3: K.Sidamma PW4: C.Ramaiah PW5: K. Thippamma PW6: K.Venkatamma PW7: K. Fakeeramma PW8: B. Veeraiah PW9: T. Kistamma PW10: S. Pullamma PW11. K. Anjalaiah PW12: K. Manemma PW13: E.Chinna Ramaiah PW14: K. Sathaiah

WITNESS EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

-NIL-

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

Ex.P1: is the complaint. Ex.P2: is 161 statement of PW2 Ex.P3: is 161 statement of PW3 Ex.P4: is 161 statement of PW4 Ex.P5: is 161 statement of PW5 Ex.P6: is 161 statement of PW6 Ex.P7: is 161 statement of PW7 Ex.P8: is 161 statement of PW8 Ex.P9: is 161 statement of PW9 Ex.P10: is 161 statement of PW10 Ex.P11: is 161 statement of PW11 Ex.P12: is 161 statement of PW12 Ex.P13: is 161 statement of PW13 Ex.P14: is 161 statement of PW14.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

-NIL-

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District 5 [ CC.No.133/2015 AJFCM,VKB] 6 [ CC.No.133/2015 AJFCM,VKB]