Sri syed Qayam Hussain

OS.No.173/2011Page No.1

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AT:

MEDCHAL

PRESENT:- Sri G. Venu., B.A., LL.M., PGDCL & IPR, Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Medchal

Original Suit No.173 of 2011

Friday this the 25 th day of November 2016

Between:

1. Boreda Prabhu Lingam, S/o. B. Veeraiah, Aged 42 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Gagilapur Village, Quthbullapur Mandal, R.R. District.

2. Shanigarapu Subhadra, W/o. S. Rajaiah, Aged 55 years, Occ: House wife, R/o. 10-6/1/B/30, Vinayak Complex,Balanagar, Hyderabad. …Plaintiffs

AND

1. A. Satish Kumar, S/o. Arjun Kumar, Aged: 48 years, Occ: Real Estate Business, R/o. H.No.4-5-214/7, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad.

2. T. Shivaiah, S/o. T. Swamy, Aged: 48 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Gagilapur Village, Quthbullapur Mandal, R.R. District.

3. Ghori Bee, W/o. Kaisar, Aged 35 years, Occ: House wife R/o. Gagilapur Village, Quthbullapur Mandal, R.R. District.…Defendants

This suit is coming before me for final hearing and disposal on 25-11-2016 in the absence of Sri. C. Manohar, learned Counsel for the plaintiff and in the presence of Sri. K. Srinivas Reddy learned Counsel for the defendants, having stood over for consideration, the Court delivers the following:

-:JUDGMENT:-

1. This is the suit of perpetual injunction filed by plaintiffs against the defendants to restrain them from interfere with their peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule 'A' & 'B' open residential plots.

Date: 25.11.2016Prl.JCJ, Medchal

OS.No.173/2011Page No.2

2. The case of plaintiffs is that plaintiff No.1 & 2 are the absolute owners and possessors of the suit schedule-A property i.e., residential plot No.11 admeasuring 192 Sq. yards and the suit schedule-B property i.e., residential plot No.10 admeasuring 230 Sq. yards respectively. The vendor of Plaintiff No.1 purchased the suit schedule-A property from one Smt. Khaja Bee and others under the Ex.A.2/registered sale deed. The vendor of Plaintiff No.2 purchased the suit schedule-B property from one Mohd. Hussain and others under the

Ex.A.5/registered sale deed. Originally, Mohd. Hussain and others were the owners of the land in suit Sy.No.128 and they converted the said land into the residential plots after obtaining the due permission from the concerned

Grampanchayat. Thus, ever since the purchase of the suit schedule plots, plaintiffs have been in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same.

While the things thus being stood so, on 17-11-2011, defendants having no right or interest over the suit schedule plots interfered with their possession over it by trying to remove the identification stones with an intention to change the nature and physical features of the suit schedule plots and thereby, grab the same, but the said attempt of the defendants could be resisted by the plaintiffs with the help of their well wishers. At that time, while leaving the suit schedule plots, as the defendants threatened the plaintiffs that they would made similar attempt and also dispossess them from the suit schedule plots, having apprehension of the same, plaintiffs approached the concerned police to take necessary action against the defendants, but as the said police failed to take any action in view of its civil nature, having no efficacious remedy, plaintiffs were

Date: 25.11.2016Prl.JCJ, Medchal

OS.No.173/2011Page No.3

constrained to file the present suit.

3. On the other hand, defendant No.1 by filing his Written statement, apart from denying the whole allegation of the plaintiffs, would contend that the entire land in Sy.No.128 of Gagilapur Village consists of Ac.0.17 guntas only i.e., 2057 Sq.

yards, hence, by any stretch of imagination, the question of having 11 plots each consisting of near about 200 Sq. yards including the roads if the said land is converted into the residential plot under the duly approved layout from the competent authority never arises. He would also contend that non filing of the said alleged approved layout of the land in Sy.No.128 by the plaintiff itself establishes that no such land in the said Sy.No.128 is converted into the residential plots and accordingly, plaintiffs are never in the possession of the same by purchasing the same from their respective vendors. He would also contend that such alleged suit schedule plots are not physically in existence, hence, interference by him and other defendants over the same never arises.

He would also contend that one Kammari Ramaiah was the original owner and possessor of agricultural land admeasuring Ac.0.32 guntas in Sy.No.127 of

Gagilapur Village. Accordingly, his name was mutated in the revenue records for the said land by issuing the pattedar pass book and title deeds. After his death, the names of his family members being his legal heirs were mutated in the revenue records for the said land. Thereafter, as he purchased the said land from them under the Ex.B-1/ registered sale deed, his name is mutated for the said land in the revenue records. Accordingly, pattedar pass book and title

Date: 25.11.2016Prl.JCJ, Medchal

OS.No.173/2011Page No.4

deeds were issued to him. Thus, ever since, he has been in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. He would also contend that some persons claiming to be the owners of the alleged suit schedule plots in

Sy.No.127 of Gagilapur Village have filed the suits against him vide OS.No.389 to 392/2006 on the file of this Hon'ble Court for the declaration and perpetual injunction and the same were dismissed on 8-6-2011 holding that said persons are not having any title over it. The findings in the said judgments also discloses that he is in the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the land in Sy.No.127.

Accordingly, after the disposal of the said suits, he got survey of his land in

Sy.No.127 with the Mandal Surveyor to demarcate the same and accordingly, it was conducted on 15-11-2011 after issuing the notices to all concerned including the plaintiff No.1 and thus a panchanama was prepared by fixing the boundary stones to it. He also got the construction of a compound wall around it and also constructed a room in it after obtaining the necessary permission from the competent authority. Thus, as the plaintiffs under the guise of alleged suit schedule plots are trying to claim right over his own land in Sy.No.127 and thereby, trying to interfere with his possession over it and thus came to the court with unclean hands by suppressing the material facts, they are not entitled for the equitable relief of injunction as prayed by them, hence, the suit filed by them shall be dismissed.

4. In support of the case of plaintiffs and consequently, to decree the suit in their favour, plaintiff No.1 himself alone was got examined as PW-1 and got marked

Date: 25.11.2016Prl.JCJ, Medchal

OS.No.173/2011Page No.5

the Ex.A-1 to A-7. Plaintiff No.2 has not lead his evidence. On the other hand, defendant No.1 himself alone was got examined as Dw.1 and got marked Ex.B.1 to B.8.

5. On the strength of above pleadings, the following issues were framed to determine the suit.

1. Whether the plaintiffs are in the lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit ?

2. Whether the defendants tried to interfere with the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule properties ?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction as prayed for ?.

4. To what relief ?

6. Issue No.1 :-

7. As stated Supra, in order to pass the suit relief in favour of the plaintiffs, plaintiff No.1 alone himself was got examined as Pw.1. He got mark of documents pertaining to his alleged suit schedule plot No.11 in Sy.No.128 and also got mark of documents pertaining to the alleged suit schedule plot No.10 of the plaintiff No.2 in the same Sy.No.128. Accordingly, the perusal of Ex.A.1 goes to show that plaintiff No.1 purchased the suit schedule plot No.11 admeasuring 192 Sq. yards in Sy.No.128 of Gagilapur Village with boundaries

North: Plot No.2, South: Land in Sy.No.129, East: Land in Sy.No.129 and West:

Road leads from Narsapur to Hyderabad under a registered sale deed from one

N. Gopal Reddy, S/o. Narsa Reddy belonging to Gagilapur Village. The perusal of Ex.A.2 goes to show that said M. Gopal Reddy acquired the above suit schedule plot No.11 from one Smt. Khaja Bee, W/o. Late Shaik Mahaboob

Date: 25.11.2016Prl.JCJ, Medchal

OS.No.173/2011Page No.6

Saheb and one Ahmed Miya, Osman Miya, Miya Jani who are the sons of one

Late Pasha Saheb under the registered sale deed. The perusal of

Ex.A.3/Encumbrance certificate obtained on 31-10-2011 for the period from 1- 1-1982 to 30-9-2007 goes to show that the transaction under the Ex.A.1 and

A.2 are reflected in it.

8. The perusal of Ex.A.4 goes to show that plaintiff No.2 purchase suit schedule plot No.10 admeasuring 230 Sq. yards in Sy.No.128 of Gagilapur Village from one Karrola Narayana, S/o. Veeraiah under the registered sale deed. The perusal of Ex.A.5 goes to show that the said Karrola Narayana purchased the above suit schedule plot No.10 from one Mohamad Hussain, Mahaboob Saheb who are the sons of one Kasim Saheb and Kaja Miya, Ahmed Miya, Osman

Miya and Miya Jani who are the sons of one Pasha Saheb. The perusal of

Ex.A.6/Encumbrance certificate obtained on 2-1-2011 for the period from 1-1- 1982 to 30-9-2007 goes to show that the transaction under the Ex.A.4 and A.5 are reflected in it. As stated supra, plaintiff No.2 has not entered into the witness box to believe her contention that defendants interfere with her possession also over the above her suit schedule plot No.10 on 17-11-2011. In these circumstances, it shall be seen that what is the total extent of the land in

Sy.No.128 and that whether the said land is converted into the plots under the approved layout after obtaining due permission from the competent authority.

Admittedly, no such documents are being got marked to ascertain whether the alleged suit schedule plots are physically in existence in the Sy.No.128.

Date: 25.11.2016Prl.JCJ, Medchal

OS.No.173/2011Page No.7

9. On the other hand, to disbelieve the contention of the plaintiffs, defendant No.1 relied upon the cross-examination of the Pw.1 itself and also relied upon the documents of Ex.B.1 to B.8 marked through his evidence as Dw.1. The perusal of cross-examination of Pw.1 goes to show that he deposed that his suit schedule plot No.11 is situated in Sy.No.127. He also deposed that one Khaja

Miya, Osman and 2 others are the original owners of the entire land in

Sy.No.127. He also deposed that he does not aware the total number of plots found available in Sy.No.127. He further deposed that he does not aware whether any approved lay out was issued for the land in Sy.No.127 by the competent authority to convert the same into the residential plots. He admitted that he has not verified any such lay out when he purchased his alleged suit schedule plot No.11. He also admitted that the particulars of the approved lay out and other related proceedings are not mentioned in the Ex.A.2 to ascertain that his vendor purchased the alleged suit schedule plot No.11 from the original owners of the same who alleged to have converted their land into the plots including the suit schedule plots by duly obtaining the approved lay out from the competent authority. He further admitted that as per the Ex.A.1 under which he purchased the suit schedule plot No.11, it is situated in Sy.No.128.

Interestingly, he further deposed that but to his knowledge, it is situated in

Sy.No.127. In these circumstances, for certain questions, he deposed that he does not remember whether he filed any pahanies to show that one Osman and

Khaja Miya were the pattedars and possessors for the land in Sy.No.127. He also deposed that he does not aware whether one Kammari Shankaraiah is the

Date: 25.11.2016Prl.JCJ, Medchal

OS.No.173/2011Page No.8

pattadar of entire land in Sy.No.127. He also deposed that whether he aware that defendant No.1 purchased a land to an extent of Ac.0.32 guntas in

Sy.No.127 from the said Kammari Shankaraiah and his family members in the year 2003. Moreover, he admitted that on 15-11-2011, when the Mandal

Surveyor conducted the survey in the land in Sy.No.127 at the instance of defendant No.1, he was present there till the completion of the said survey and the said Mandal Surveyor in the said survey, demarcated the land in the

Sy.No.127 from the land in Sy.No.128. He also deposed that one Gopal Reddy whose name appears to have been as his vendor under the Ex.A.1 is the

Ex-Sarpanch of Gagilapur Village and he acted as a mediator to purchase the suit schedule plot No.11 by him. Thus, his evidence itself gives rise to draw the attention of this court to believe the contention of the defendant No.1 that plaintiffs under the guise of owners of alleged suit schedule plots are claiming their right over his property in Sy.No.127.

10. On the other hand, as per the evidence of defendant No.1 as Dw.1 he is the absolute owner and possessor of a land to an extent of Ac.0.32 guntas in

Sy.No.127 of Gagilapur Village as he purchased the same from the defendant

No.2 and his family members under the Ex.B.1/registered sale deed. The perusal of Ex.B.1 goes to show that defendant No.1 purchased a land to an extent of Ac.0.32 guntas in Sy.No.127 from one Kammari Shankaraiah and 3 others. The perusal of Ex.B.2 goes to show that his name is mutated in the revenue records for the said purchased land by issuing the ROR proceedings.

Date: 25.11.2016Prl.JCJ, Medchal

OS.No.173/2011Page No.9

The perusal of Ex.B3 & B4 goes to show that in pursuance of the proceedings under Ex.B.2, Pattedar pass book and title deed were issued in favour of the defendant No.1 for the above said land. The perusal of Ex.B.5 to B.7/Pahanies for the year 2010 to 2012 issued for the land in Sy.No.127 & 128 goes to show that defendant No.1 is the pattedar and possessor for the entire land of Ac.0.32 guntas in Sy.No.127, whereas one Osman Miya (Pasha Miya) vide Katha

No.272, Mohd. Mahaboob Hussain vide Katha No.135, Mohd. Hussain vide

Katha No.136, Mohd. Yasin vide Katha No.138, Kaja Miya vide Katha No.275,

Ahmed Miya vide Katha No.29 & one Mohd. Miya Jani vide Katha No.304 are the pattadars of the entire land of Ac.0.17 guntas in Sy.No.128. This clearly goes to show that the evidence of Pw.1 that one Khaja Miya and Osman and two others are the original owners of entire land in Sy.No.127 is a false and farce one. Moreover, though the plaintiffs in their pleadings states that their suit schedule plot No.10 & 11 falls in the Sy.No.128, Pw.1 in his evidence deposed that the said suit schedule plots falls under the Sy.No.127 only. Apart from that, as stated supra, Pw.1 has categorically admitted in his evidence that the

Mandal Surveyor demarcated the land in Sy.No.127 from the land in Sy.No.128 in his presence by conducting the survey on 15-11-2011. This gives rise to draw an inference in favour as defendant No.1 as contended that plaintiffs claiming to be the owners of their alleged suit schedule plot No.10 & 11 are claiming the right in his own land in Sy.No.127 and thereby, they failed to prove the physical existence of their alleged suit schedule plot No.10 & 11 in the

Sy.No.128. Thus, as the inconsistence evidence of Pw.1 itself establishes that

Date: 25.11.2016Prl.JCJ, Medchal

OS.No.173/2011Page No.10

he failed to prove the physical existence of his alleged suit schedule plot No.11 as well as the plot No.10 of plaintiff No.2 in Sy.No.128, I have no hesitation to hold that the documents relied upon by the plaintiffs under the Ex.A.1 to A.7 do not establish their possession over their alleged suit schedule plot No.10 & 11 in

Sy.No.128. Moreover, the unchallenged evidence of Dw.1 coupled with the

Ex.B.1 to B.8 also strengthens that plaintiffs failed to prove their possession on their alleged suit schedule plots. Thus, this issue No.1 is decided against the plaintiffs.

Issue No.2:

11.As per the evidence of Pw.1, he does not remember where he has had been on 17-11-2011 i.e., on the alleged date of cause of action, hence, it itself gives rise to draw an inference as contended by defendant No.1 that the alleged cause of action is a created & imaginary one for the purpose of this suit. In these circumstances, the contention of the defendant No.1 that as the Pw.1 admitted in his evidence that on 15-11-2011, the Mandal Surveyor by conducting the survey demarcated the land of defendant No.1 in Sy.No.127 from the land in

Sy.No.128 in his presence, plaintiffs were constrained to show the 17-11-2011 as the alleged cause of action for filing the present suit only cannot be ruled out. Thus, this issue is also decided against the plaintiffs.

Issue No.3 & 4:

12.As the Issue No.1 & 2 are decided against the plaintiffs, I have no hesitation to hold that plaintiffs failed to prove their possession over the alleged suit

Date: 25.11.2016Prl.JCJ, Medchal

OS.No.173/2011Page No.11

schedule plots No.10 & 11 in Sy.No.128 of Gagilapur Village. Thus, these two issues are also decided against the plaintiffs.

In the result: the suit is dismissed with costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 25th day of November 2016.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Medchal.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined on behalf of

Plaintiff Defendants

Pw.1: Boreda Prabhu Lingam/Plaintiff Dw.1: A. Satish Kumar/Defendant

Exhibits marked

Ex.A-1: C.C of Registered Sale Deed Vide Doc.No.12595/2004, dt. 25-8-2004

Ex.A-2: C.C of Registered Sale Deed Vide Doc.No.1244/2004, dt. 28-1-2004

Ex.A-3: Encumbrance Certificate issued by SRO Medchal dt. 2-11-2011

Ex.A-4: C.C of Sale Deed Vide Doc.No.648/2004,belongs to Plaintiff No.2, registered before SRO Medchal dt. 16-1-2004.

Ex.A-5: C.C of Sale Deed Vide Doc.No.5963/1990, registered before SRO Medchal dt. 25-7- 1990

Ex.A-6: Encumbrance Certificate issued by SRO Medchal dt. 2-11-2011

Ex.A-7: Photos along with CD.

Defendants:

Ex. B - 1 - C.C. of Sale Deed bearing doc. No. 12052/2003, dated 27.09.2003

Ex. B - 2 - C.C. of Order passed in File No. A/11249/2003, dated 28-01.2004

Ex. B – 3 - C.C. of Title Passbook

Ex. B – 4 - C.C. of Pattadar Passbook

Ex. B – 5 - C.C. of Pahani for the year 2010-11

Ex. B – 6 - C.C. of Pahani for the year 2011-12

Ex. B – 7 - C.C. of Pahani for the year 2011-12

Ex. B - 8 - 6 Photographs

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Medchal

Date: 25.11.2016Prl.JCJ, Medchal

OS.No.173/2011Page No.12

Date: 25.11.2016Prl.JCJ, Medchal

1

IN THE COURT OF THE XV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD AT MEDCHAL, RANGA REDDY DIST.,

PRESENT: SRI SYED QAYAM HUSSAIN, B.SC., LL.B.,

XV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT MEDCHAL.

DATED THIS THE 31st DAY OF AUGUST, 2015

C.C. No.291 of 2010

Between:

The state through

P.S. Medchal ……. Complaint

R. Karnakar Reddy ……. Accused

a) Serial Number of the case : CC. No. 291 of 2010

b) Date of commission of offence : 15-6-2010

c) Name of the complainant (if any) : State through P.S. Medchal

d) Name of the accused person : R. Karnakar Reddy S/o. Nagi Reddy

Age: 35 years, Occ: Driver,

R/o. Athvelly village, Medchal Mandal,

Ranga Reddy District.

e) Offence complained of : U/s. 304-A, 337 of IPC

f) Plea of the accused : Not guilty

g) Finding of the court : Acquittal

h) Date of Judgment : 31-08-2015

This case is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State, and of Sri.

C. Hanmanth Reddy, learned counsel for accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

2

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Medchal, Cyberabad has filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr. No.161/2010, for the offence under Sec. U/s. 304-

A and 337 of Indian Penal Code.

2. The brief averments of the Charge sheet are as follows:-

It is alleged that on 15-06-2010 at 2230 hours LW 13 received complaint from V. Sudershan Reddy (LW1) stating that his sister’s son P. Kishore Reddy is working as a driver on DCM MH 01 L 1859 of R. Goverdhan. On 15-6-2010 while he was going to Chegunta along with his cleaner by taking chemical load in the said DCM from Balanagar near Medchal fish centre on NH 7, at about 1830 hours all of a sudden his DCM’s front left wheel got burst. He has taken all precautions and while removing the tyre at about 1900 from behind i.e. from Hyderabad one Medchal depot RTC Bus AP 10 Z 5966 came in rash and negligent speed and dashed to said DCM from its behind and the wheel passed over Kishore Reddy due to which he received severe bleeding injuries and died on the spot. The bus driver and passenger also received injuries.

As per the contents of the above complaint LW 13 registered a case in

Crime no.161/2010 u/secs.304-A and 337 of IPC and entrusted to LW 14 for investigation.

During the course of investigation, LW 14 examined and recorded his statement of LW 1 and visited scene of offence, inspected it and caused enquiries, secured two panchas i.e. 9 and 10 in presence of them examined

LWs 2 to 6 recorded their statements and conducted scene of offence panchanama and drafted the sketch, shifted the dead body to Governement

Civil Hospital, Medchal in presence of said two panchas and examined LWs 7 and 8 and also recorded their statements. Thereafter conducted the inquest over dead body and the dead body has been subjected to PME.

LW 14 collected PME report in which, LW 11 who conducted PME opined that the cause of death was due to “Head Injury” and collected MC of 3 the injured in which LW 11 who treated the injured opined that the nature of injury is “Simple”.

LW 14 collected MVI report in which LW 12 who inspected the crime vehicle opined that “the accident is not occurred due to any mechanical defects of vehicle”.

Thus the acts of the accused constitute of offence punishable u/sec.304-A and 337 of IPC.

On appearance of accused before the court, copies of documents were furnished to him as required under section 207 Cr.P.C. the accused was examined under section 251 Cr.P.C. with the allegations leveled against the accused, read over to him and explained to him in Telugu. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PW1 V. Sudershan

Reddy, who is the complainant, PW 2 S. Sainath, who is the eyewitness, PW3

R. Goverdhan, who is the owner of the crime vehicle; PW 4 is K. Harish

Reddy, who is the Cousin of decease, PW 5 S. Anjaiah, who is the panch witness for scene of offence, PW6 V. Yadagiri Reddy who is the Investigation

Officer and got exhibits marked from P1 to P 10. Ex: P1 is report of PW1, Ex:

P2 is Crime Details form, Ex: P3 is Signatures on crime details form and inquest panchanama, Ex: P4 is Signatures on crime details form and inquest panchanama, Ex: P5 is endorsement of LW 13 on the report, Ex: P6 is FIR,

Ex: P7 is scene of offence panchanama, Ex: P8 is Inquest panchanama, Ex:

P9 is PME report, Ex: P10 is MVI Report, Ex: P11 is Medical certificate of

LW4.

The examination of accused u/sec.313 of Cr.P.C. is dispensed with, as there are no incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in the evidence of PW1.

The point for determination is 4 “whether the prosecution has proved its case against the accused for the offences U/s. 304-A & 337 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 beyond all reasonable doubt?”

Point: The accused stood charged for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A & 337 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, for causing death of one P. Kishore Reddy and ‘Simple’ injuries to LW.4 namely

Md. Kaleem.

To prove the offences under Sections 304-A & 337 of Indian

Penal Code, 1860, the prosecution is required to establish the following essential ingredients :--

(a)Death of the deceased and simple injuries to the person in question in the accident;

(b)That the accused caused such accident due to which the deceased died and the injured sustained simple injuries, and ;

(c)That such act of the accused was rash or negligent, although it did not amount to culpable homicide;

Let us see whether the prosecution could prove the above essential ingredients of Sections 304A and 337 IPC, with which the accused stood charged, beyond all reasonable doubt.

To connect the accused with the crime, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 6 and got marked Exs. P1 to P11. PW-1 is the complainant and maternal uncle of the deceased, PW 2 is the eye witness, PW.3 is the owner of the crime vehicle, PW.4 is cousin of the deceased, PW-5 is panch for

Scene and Inquest, and PW-6 D. Anjaiah who is the Investigating officer.

Ex.P1 is the Report of PW-1, Ex.P2 to P4 are signatures on Crime Details 5

Form and Inquest, Ex.P5 is Endorsement of LW.13 on the Report, Ex.P6 is

First Information Report, Ex.P7 is Scene of offence panchanama/crime details form, Ex.P8 is Inquest Panchanama, Ex.P9 is Post Mortem

Examination Report, Ex.P10 is Motor Vehicle Inspection Report, and Ex.P11 is the Medical certificate of the injured Lw4.

P.Ws.1 to 4 consistently deposed that when the deceased was changing the tyres of DCM by putting indicating lights, one RTC bus proceeding towards Medchal dashed to the deceased due to whom he sustained head injury and succumbed to injuries on the spot. Thus, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 and PW.6, the Investigating Officer, coupled with

Exs.P1 to P11 established that the deceased P. Kishore Reddy died and

LW.4 sustained simple injuries in the accident. Thus, the prosecution proved the first limb of the charges, beyond all reasonable doubt.

Now it has to be seen whether the accused caused the accident and if so, whether he drove the crime vehicle rashly or negligently resulting in the accident and death of the deceased and simple injuries to LW.4.

PW-1 who is the complainant deposed that in the month of June 201- 0, when he was present at his house, he received information that his son in law Kishore Reddy met with an accident on NH No.7 in from of Classic Dhaba and that one RTC bus dashed to him and he immediately rushed to the

Government Hospital, Medchal and found the dead body and he lodged

Ex.P1 report and that the crime vehicle No. is AP 10Z 5966. In the cross examination, he admitted that the scene of offence is an Express High Way and it is frequented with heavy vehicles.

PW-2 who is cited as eye witness and who is the cleaner, deposed that on15-6-2010 when himself and the deceased wire proceeding in DCM van from Balanagar to Chegunta, one of the tyres got burst after passing

Medchal Checkpost and when the deceased was changing the tyres after 6 putting indicating lights, one RTC bus proceeding towards Medchal dashed to the deceased due to which he sustained head injury and other bodily injuries and succumbed to injuries instantaneously. He further deposed that he cannot say the registration number of the RTC bus and at the time of the accident he was fitting the bolts of the wheel. In the cross examination, he admitted that he do not know the contents of his S.161 Cr.P.C. statement, that the DCM was stationed diagonally on the road, it was dark night at the time of accident, that there was heavy traffic at that time, that it was raining and that if any person is present near the DCM and due to the emission of the lights of the vehicle coming from opposite direction, nothing will be visible.

PW.3 who is the owner of the DCM van deposed that the deceased and

P.W.2 worked under him as Driver and Cleaner and on 15-6-2010 he received information from PW.2 about the accident to the deceased and that his vehicle number is MH 01 8159 and he do not know the registration number of the RTC bus. In the cross examination it is elicited through him on admission that the scene of offence is situated on National High Way and it was raining heavily at the time of accident.

PW.4 who is the cousin of the deceased is not the eye witness and he deposed about the accident on getting information from PW.1. He admitted that it was raining heavily at the time of accident.

PW.5 who is panch for scene and inquest deposed that the police not conducted any panchanama in his presence and obtained his signatures on some papers and he does not know the contents of those papers. He identified his signatures on the scene of offence panchanama and inquest panchanama and the same are marked as Exs.P2 to P4. The learned APP declared him hostile and cross examined him at length with the permission of the court but nothing material could be elicited to disbelieve his testimony.

7

PW-6 is the Investigating officer whose evidence in chief is procedural in nature. In the cross examination, he admitted that he has not examined the Depot Manager or anybody concerned with the RTC, that the place of accident is National Highway and there is heavy flow of traffic. He deposed his ignorance whether there heavy rain on the day of alleged accident.

A close scrutiny and appreciation of the above evidence disclose that PWs.1, 3 and 4 are not the eye witnesses to the accident and hence their evidence is not useful to the prosecution to connect the accused with the crime. PWs.1 and 4 went to the sport on coming to know about the accident and their evidence is silent about the driver or about the identity particulars of the driver of the crime vehicle.

PW.2 is the sole eye witness who is the cleaner of the DCM van and who was present at the time accident. Though he deposed about the accident, but his evidence is totally silent about the driver of the crime vehicle i.e., RTC bus and that the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident. He categorically deposed that at the time of accident he was fitting the bolts of the wheel which goes to show that he has not seen the accident and the driver of the crime vehicle. Thus the evidence of PW.2, the sole eye witness, is not helpful to the prosecution to prove the complicity of the accused in the crime. PW.5, who is panch for scene and inquest, has not supported the case of the prosecution. He categorically deposed that no panchanama was conducted in his presence and his signatures are obtained on some papers and he does not know the contents of the said papers. Now we are left with the evidence of Pw.6, who is the Investigating Officer. However, PW.6 has not conducted the investigation as required by him. He has not examined the Depot Manager or anybody concerned with the RTC, to ascertain whether the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident. He has not seized the trip sheet or log sheet and produced before the court.

8

Even if it is believed without admitting that the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of the accident, there is nothing before the court to prove that the accident occurred due to the rashness or negligence on the part of the accused. Admittedly, the place of accident is National

High Way and busy road and it was heavily raining and dark night at the time of accident. There is nothing to prove that the deceased taken all types of precautions while changing the tyres. I, therefore, hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

It is cardinal principle of Criminal Jurisprudence that the prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and if the prosecution failed to prove the same, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt. As discussed above, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and the accused is liable to be acquitted by giving benefit of doubt.

For the foregoing reasons, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused with cogent and convincing evidence and beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident and due to his rashness or negligence the accident occurred and the deceased died and LW.4 sustained simple injuries.

Thus, the prosecution failed to establish the 2nd and 3rd limbs of essential ingredients of Sections 304-A and 337 of IPC and consequently I hold the accused not guilty of the offence with which he stood charged.

In the result, the accused is acquitted under Section 255(1)

Cr.P.C. for the offences under Sections 304-A and 337 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and his bail bonds shall stand cancelled after six months of the date of judgment.

Dictated to the Typist, typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me

in the open Court on the 31st day of August, 2015.

9

XV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD AT MEDCHAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR ACCUSED

PW 1V. Sudershan ReddyNIL PW 2 S. Sainath PW 3 R. Goverdhan PW 4 K. Harish Reddy PW 5 S. Anjaiah PW 6 D. Anjaiah

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR ACCUSED: NIL

Ex: P1 is report of PW1, Ex: P2 is Crime Details form, Ex: P3 is Signatures on crime details form and inquest panchanama, Ex: P4 is Signatures on crime details form and inquest panchanama, Ex: P5 is endorsement of LW 13 on the report, Ex: P6 is FIR, Ex: P7 is scene of offence panchanama, Ex: P8 is Inquest panchanama, Ex: P9 is PME report, Ex: P10 is MVI Report, Ex: P11 is Medical certificate of LW4.

XV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD AT MEDHCAL.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE XV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD AT MEDCHAL, RANGA REDDY DIST.,

PRESENT: SRI SYED QAYAM HUSSAIN, B.SC., LL.B.,

XV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT MEDCHAL.

DATED THIS THE 31st DAY OF AUGUST, 2015

C.C. No.291 of 2010

Between:

The state through

P.S. Medchal ……. Complaint

R. Karnakar Reddy ……. Accused

a) Serial Number of the case : CC. No. 291 of 2010

b) Date of commission of offence : 15-6-2010

c) Name of the complainant (if any) : State through P.S. Medchal

d) Name of the accused person : R. Karnakar Reddy S/o. Nagi Reddy

Age: 35 years, Occ: Driver,

R/o. Athvelly village, Medchal Mandal,

Ranga Reddy District.

e) Offence complained of : U/s. 304-A, 337 of IPC

f) Plea of the accused : Not guilty

g) Finding of the court : Acquittal

h) Date of Judgment : 31-08-2015

This case is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State, and of Sri.

C. Hanmanth Reddy, learned counsel for accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

2

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Medchal, Cyberabad has filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr. No.161/2010, for the offence under Sec. U/s. 304-

A and 337 of Indian Penal Code.

2. The brief averments of the Charge sheet are as follows:-

It is alleged that on 15-06-2010 at 2230 hours LW 13 received complaint from V. Sudershan Reddy (LW1) stating that his sister’s son P. Kishore Reddy is working as a driver on DCM MH 01 L 1859 of R. Goverdhan. On 15-6-2010 while he was going to Chegunta along with his cleaner by taking chemical load in the said DCM from Balanagar near Medchal fish centre on NH 7, at about 1830 hours all of a sudden his DCM’s front left wheel got burst. He has taken all precautions and while removing the tyre at about 1900 from behind i.e. from Hyderabad one Medchal depot RTC Bus AP 10 Z 5966 came in rash and negligent speed and dashed to said DCM from its behind and the wheel passed over Kishore Reddy due to which he received severe bleeding injuries and died on the spot. The bus driver and passenger also received injuries.

As per the contents of the above complaint LW 13 registered a case in

Crime no.161/2010 u/secs.304-A and 337 of IPC and entrusted to LW 14 for investigation.

During the course of investigation, LW 14 examined and recorded his statement of LW 1 and visited scene of offence, inspected it and caused enquiries, secured two panchas i.e. 9 and 10 in presence of them examined

LWs 2 to 6 recorded their statements and conducted scene of offence panchanama and drafted the sketch, shifted the dead body to Governement

Civil Hospital, Medchal in presence of said two panchas and examined LWs 7 and 8 and also recorded their statements. Thereafter conducted the inquest over dead body and the dead body has been subjected to PME.

LW 14 collected PME report in which, LW 11 who conducted PME opined that the cause of death was due to “Head Injury” and collected MC of 3 the injured in which LW 11 who treated the injured opined that the nature of injury is “Simple”.

LW 14 collected MVI report in which LW 12 who inspected the crime vehicle opined that “the accident is not occurred due to any mechanical defects of vehicle”.

Thus the acts of the accused constitute of offence punishable u/sec.304-A and 337 of IPC.

On appearance of accused before the court, copies of documents were furnished to him as required under section 207 Cr.P.C. the accused was examined under section 251 Cr.P.C. with the allegations leveled against the accused, read over to him and explained to him in Telugu. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PW1 V. Sudershan

Reddy, who is the complainant, PW 2 S. Sainath, who is the eyewitness, PW3

R. Goverdhan, who is the owner of the crime vehicle; PW 4 is K. Harish

Reddy, who is the Cousin of decease, PW 5 S. Anjaiah, who is the panch witness for scene of offence, PW6 V. Yadagiri Reddy who is the Investigation

Officer and got exhibits marked from P1 to P 10. Ex: P1 is report of PW1, Ex:

P2 is Crime Details form, Ex: P3 is Signatures on crime details form and inquest panchanama, Ex: P4 is Signatures on crime details form and inquest panchanama, Ex: P5 is endorsement of LW 13 on the report, Ex: P6 is FIR,

Ex: P7 is scene of offence panchanama, Ex: P8 is Inquest panchanama, Ex:

P9 is PME report, Ex: P10 is MVI Report, Ex: P11 is Medical certificate of

LW4.

The examination of accused u/sec.313 of Cr.P.C. is dispensed with, as there are no incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in the evidence of PW1.

The point for determination is 4 “whether the prosecution has proved its case against the accused for the offences U/s. 304-A & 337 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 beyond all reasonable doubt?”

Point: The accused stood charged for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A & 337 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, for causing death of one P. Kishore Reddy and ‘Simple’ injuries to LW.4 namely

Md. Kaleem.

To prove the offences under Sections 304-A & 337 of Indian

Penal Code, 1860, the prosecution is required to establish the following essential ingredients :--

(a)Death of the deceased and simple injuries to the person in question in the accident;

(b)That the accused caused such accident due to which the deceased died and the injured sustained simple injuries, and ;

(c)That such act of the accused was rash or negligent, although it did not amount to culpable homicide;

Let us see whether the prosecution could prove the above essential ingredients of Sections 304A and 337 IPC, with which the accused stood charged, beyond all reasonable doubt.

To connect the accused with the crime, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 6 and got marked Exs. P1 to P11. PW-1 is the complainant and maternal uncle of the deceased, PW 2 is the eye witness, PW.3 is the owner of the crime vehicle, PW.4 is cousin of the deceased, PW-5 is panch for

Scene and Inquest, and PW-6 D. Anjaiah who is the Investigating officer.

Ex.P1 is the Report of PW-1, Ex.P2 to P4 are signatures on Crime Details 5

Form and Inquest, Ex.P5 is Endorsement of LW.13 on the Report, Ex.P6 is

First Information Report, Ex.P7 is Scene of offence panchanama/crime details form, Ex.P8 is Inquest Panchanama, Ex.P9 is Post Mortem

Examination Report, Ex.P10 is Motor Vehicle Inspection Report, and Ex.P11 is the Medical certificate of the injured Lw4.

P.Ws.1 to 4 consistently deposed that when the deceased was changing the tyres of DCM by putting indicating lights, one RTC bus proceeding towards Medchal dashed to the deceased due to whom he sustained head injury and succumbed to injuries on the spot. Thus, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 and PW.6, the Investigating Officer, coupled with

Exs.P1 to P11 established that the deceased P. Kishore Reddy died and

LW.4 sustained simple injuries in the accident. Thus, the prosecution proved the first limb of the charges, beyond all reasonable doubt.

Now it has to be seen whether the accused caused the accident and if so, whether he drove the crime vehicle rashly or negligently resulting in the accident and death of the deceased and simple injuries to LW.4.

PW-1 who is the complainant deposed that in the month of June 201- 0, when he was present at his house, he received information that his son in law Kishore Reddy met with an accident on NH No.7 in from of Classic Dhaba and that one RTC bus dashed to him and he immediately rushed to the

Government Hospital, Medchal and found the dead body and he lodged

Ex.P1 report and that the crime vehicle No. is AP 10Z 5966. In the cross examination, he admitted that the scene of offence is an Express High Way and it is frequented with heavy vehicles.

PW-2 who is cited as eye witness and who is the cleaner, deposed that on15-6-2010 when himself and the deceased wire proceeding in DCM van from Balanagar to Chegunta, one of the tyres got burst after passing

Medchal Checkpost and when the deceased was changing the tyres after 6 putting indicating lights, one RTC bus proceeding towards Medchal dashed to the deceased due to which he sustained head injury and other bodily injuries and succumbed to injuries instantaneously. He further deposed that he cannot say the registration number of the RTC bus and at the time of the accident he was fitting the bolts of the wheel. In the cross examination, he admitted that he do not know the contents of his S.161 Cr.P.C. statement, that the DCM was stationed diagonally on the road, it was dark night at the time of accident, that there was heavy traffic at that time, that it was raining and that if any person is present near the DCM and due to the emission of the lights of the vehicle coming from opposite direction, nothing will be visible.

PW.3 who is the owner of the DCM van deposed that the deceased and

P.W.2 worked under him as Driver and Cleaner and on 15-6-2010 he received information from PW.2 about the accident to the deceased and that his vehicle number is MH 01 8159 and he do not know the registration number of the RTC bus. In the cross examination it is elicited through him on admission that the scene of offence is situated on National High Way and it was raining heavily at the time of accident.

PW.4 who is the cousin of the deceased is not the eye witness and he deposed about the accident on getting information from PW.1. He admitted that it was raining heavily at the time of accident.

PW.5 who is panch for scene and inquest deposed that the police not conducted any panchanama in his presence and obtained his signatures on some papers and he does not know the contents of those papers. He identified his signatures on the scene of offence panchanama and inquest panchanama and the same are marked as Exs.P2 to P4. The learned APP declared him hostile and cross examined him at length with the permission of the court but nothing material could be elicited to disbelieve his testimony.

7

PW-6 is the Investigating officer whose evidence in chief is procedural in nature. In the cross examination, he admitted that he has not examined the Depot Manager or anybody concerned with the RTC, that the place of accident is National Highway and there is heavy flow of traffic. He deposed his ignorance whether there heavy rain on the day of alleged accident.

A close scrutiny and appreciation of the above evidence disclose that PWs.1, 3 and 4 are not the eye witnesses to the accident and hence their evidence is not useful to the prosecution to connect the accused with the crime. PWs.1 and 4 went to the sport on coming to know about the accident and their evidence is silent about the driver or about the identity particulars of the driver of the crime vehicle.

PW.2 is the sole eye witness who is the cleaner of the DCM van and who was present at the time accident. Though he deposed about the accident, but his evidence is totally silent about the driver of the crime vehicle i.e., RTC bus and that the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident. He categorically deposed that at the time of accident he was fitting the bolts of the wheel which goes to show that he has not seen the accident and the driver of the crime vehicle. Thus the evidence of PW.2, the sole eye witness, is not helpful to the prosecution to prove the complicity of the accused in the crime. PW.5, who is panch for scene and inquest, has not supported the case of the prosecution. He categorically deposed that no panchanama was conducted in his presence and his signatures are obtained on some papers and he does not know the contents of the said papers. Now we are left with the evidence of Pw.6, who is the Investigating Officer. However, PW.6 has not conducted the investigation as required by him. He has not examined the Depot Manager or anybody concerned with the RTC, to ascertain whether the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident. He has not seized the trip sheet or log sheet and produced before the court.

8

Even if it is believed without admitting that the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of the accident, there is nothing before the court to prove that the accident occurred due to the rashness or negligence on the part of the accused. Admittedly, the place of accident is National

High Way and busy road and it was heavily raining and dark night at the time of accident. There is nothing to prove that the deceased taken all types of precautions while changing the tyres. I, therefore, hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

It is cardinal principle of Criminal Jurisprudence that the prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and if the prosecution failed to prove the same, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt. As discussed above, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and the accused is liable to be acquitted by giving benefit of doubt.

For the foregoing reasons, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused with cogent and convincing evidence and beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident and due to his rashness or negligence the accident occurred and the deceased died and LW.4 sustained simple injuries.

Thus, the prosecution failed to establish the 2nd and 3rd limbs of essential ingredients of Sections 304-A and 337 of IPC and consequently I hold the accused not guilty of the offence with which he stood charged.

In the result, the accused is acquitted under Section 255(1)

Cr.P.C. for the offences under Sections 304-A and 337 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and his bail bonds shall stand cancelled after six months of the date of judgment.

Dictated to the Typist, typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me

in the open Court on the 31st day of August, 2015.

9

XV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD AT MEDCHAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR ACCUSED

PW 1V. Sudershan ReddyNIL PW 2 S. Sainath PW 3 R. Goverdhan PW 4 K. Harish Reddy PW 5 S. Anjaiah PW 6 D. Anjaiah

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR ACCUSED: NIL

Ex: P1 is report of PW1, Ex: P2 is Crime Details form, Ex: P3 is Signatures on crime details form and inquest panchanama, Ex: P4 is Signatures on crime details form and inquest panchanama, Ex: P5 is endorsement of LW 13 on the report, Ex: P6 is FIR, Ex: P7 is scene of offence panchanama, Ex: P8 is Inquest panchanama, Ex: P9 is PME report, Ex: P10 is MVI Report, Ex: P11 is Medical certificate of LW4.

XV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD AT MEDHCAL.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE XV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD AT MEDCHAL, RANGA REDDY DIST.,

PRESENT: SRI SYED QAYAM HUSSAIN, B.SC., LL.B.,

XV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT MEDCHAL.

DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF AUGUST, 2015

C.C. No. 43 of 2014

Between:

The state through P.S. Prohibition Excise, Medchal

.... Complainant

A N D

B. Parvathi ....Accused

a) Serial Number of the case: CC. No. 43 of 2014

b) Date of commission of offence: 16-08-2013

c) Name of the complainant (if any) : State through P.S. Prohibition and Excise, Medchal

d) Name of the accused person : Banoth Parvathi W/o. Bolu, Age: 36 years, R/o. Plot No.9/P, NGO’s Colony, Medchal.

e) Offence complained of: U/s. 7(A) r/w 8(e) AP Prohibition Act

f) Plea of the accused : Not guilty

g) Finding of the court: Acquittal

h) Date of Judgment: 21-08-2015

This case is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State, and of Sri.

Boyini Venu Raj Yadav, learned counsel for accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Prohibition and Excise Medchal Police station, Cyberabad has filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.

2

No.225/2013-14, for the offence under Sec. U/s. 7(A) r/w 8(e) AP Prohibition Act.

2. The brief averments of the Charge sheet are as follows:-

It is alleged that on 16-08-2013 at about 6.40 P.M. on reliable information about illegal sales of Illicit Distilled Liquor at a house in Plot No.9/P, NGO’s Colony, LW3 along with staff went to the above place and secured two panch witnesses LW1 and 2 called inmates of the house and the accused came out. On enquiry the accused revealed her particulars as Banoth Parvathi. LW3 served recorded search memo and served to her. On search of the house, found one plastic can at a corner and on verification of can found about 5 litres illicit distilled liquor for sale purpose. Upon which LW 3 drawn two samples each about 350 ml., seized the samples and remaining contraband under the cover of panchanama in the presence of LW1 and 2 and brought to the station and registered a case in Cr.

No.225/2013-14 U/sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act, 1995 and produced the accused before the court for judicial remand.

The Government chemical examiner after analyzing the samples issued CE

Report No.5696/2013/2, dated 27-9-2013 and opined that the sample is illicit distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health.

3. The case was taken on file under section U/sec. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of AP

Prohibition Act, 1995.

4. On appearance of the accused before the Court, copies of documents were furnished to her as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5. Accused was examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C. for allegations levelled against her and explained to her in vernacular language. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During the course of Trial, the prosecution examined LW1 J. Raja Lingam as

PW1, LW 2 B. Bipin Kumar Yadav as PW2 and LW3 T. Deepika as PW3 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P4. Ex: P1 and P2 are signatures of PW1 on panchanama and search memo, Ex: P3 and P4 are signatures of PW2 on panchanama and 3 search memo.

7. Prosecution evidence was closed and the accused was examined u/sec.313

Cr.P.C. to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against her, the accused denied the same and reported no defense evidence.

8. Heard both sides.

9. The point that arises for determination is:-

“Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond

all reasonable doubt?”

Point:-- The accused stood charged for the offence punishable U/s 7(A) R/W 8

(e) of AP. Prohibition Act for selling Illicit Distilled Liquor in spite of imposition of

prohibition on possession and sale of the same

In order to connect the accused with the crime the prosecution examined PW’s 1

to 3 and got marked Exs: P1 to P8. PWs.1 and 2 are panch for confession and recovery

and PW 3 is the Investigating Officer..

10.The evidence of PWs 1 and 2 who are panch for confession and recovery is to the effect that about 2 years back the Excise Police, Medchal obtained their signatures on

white papers and no panchanama was conducted and nothing was seized from the

accused in their presence. The learned APP declared them hostile and cross examined

them but nothing material could be elicited to disbelieve their testimony.

11.PW3 who is cited as Investigating Officer and who filed charge sheet deposed that on 16-08-2013 at 6-40 pm on credible information about illegal sale of distilled liquor (IDL) at a House in Plot No.9/T at NGO's colony, Medchal, she along with staff, secured two panchas PWs.1 and 2 and proceeded to the said place where in one person

was found in possession of IDL and selling to the needy persons. On enquiry she

revealed her name as Parvathi (accused) and she served search memo and on search she found 5 litres IDL in a plastic Can, that she drawn two samples each 350ML and seized the samples and remaining contraband under cover of panchanama, in the presence of

PW.1 and PW.2, brought the accused to police station along with seized property and 4 registered a case in crime No 225/13-14 U/s. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act and produced the accused before the court for judicial custody and deposited samples before the court with request to send one of the samples for chemical analysis and during the course of investigation she collected the report from Assistant Director, FSL and after completion of the investigation she filed charge sheet against the accused. In the cross examination, she admitted that she has not recorded the statement of the staff, that she

has not enquired about the ownership of the place of offence.

12.A close scrutiny and appreciation of the above evidence discloses that PWs 1 and 2 who are panch for confession and recovery and who are the material witnesses, have not supported the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. They categorically deposed

that no panchanama was conducted and nothing was seized from anybody in their

presence. Now we are left with the evidence PW 3 who is investigating officer and naturally interested in the success of her investigation. No doubt, the evidence of investigating officers cannot be brushed aside just because they are police officials.

However, their evidence is to be looked into cautiously before placing reliance to base conviction of the accused. It is seen from the evidence of PW 3 that she admitted that she has not enquired about the ownership of the house of the accused and further Pw.3 has not enquired about the source of procuring the seized contraband. Further, Pw.3 has not prepared the list of property seized from the accused and served a copy on the

accused as provided U/s 100(4) Cr.P.C.

13.In view of hostility of PWs.1 and 2, the uncorroborated testimony of Pw.3, and the legal lacuna discussed above, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and consequently I find the accused not guilty

of the offence with which he stood charged.

14. In the result, the accused is acquitted U/s 248 (1) Cr.P.C. for the offence U/s 7(A) r/w 8(e) A.P. Prohibition Act. The bail bond of the accused shall stands cancelled after

six months of the date of judgment.

5

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open

court, on this the 21 st day of August, 2015 . 21 st

XV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD AT MEDCHAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR ACCUSED

PW 1 J. RajalingamNIL PW 2 y. Bipin Yadav

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION

Ex: P1 and P2 are signatures of PW1 on panchanama and search memo,

Ex: P3 and P4 are signatures of PW2 on panchanama and search memo.

FOR ACCUSED

NIL

XV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD AT MEDCHAL.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE XV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD AT MEDCHAL, RANGA REDDY DIST.,

PRESENT: SRI SYED QAYAM HUSSAIN, B.SC., LL.B.,

XV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT MEDCHAL.

DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF AUGUST, 2015

C.C. No. 43 of 2014

Between:

The state through P.S. Prohibition Excise, Medchal

.... Complainant

A N D

B. Parvathi ....Accused

a) Serial Number of the case: CC. No. 43 of 2014

b) Date of commission of offence: 16-08-2013

c) Name of the complainant (if any) : State through P.S. Prohibition and Excise, Medchal

d) Name of the accused person : Banoth Parvathi W/o. Bolu, Age: 36 years, R/o. Plot No.9/P, NGO’s Colony, Medchal.

e) Offence complained of: U/s. 7(A) r/w 8(e) AP Prohibition Act

f) Plea of the accused : Not guilty

g) Finding of the court: Acquittal

h) Date of Judgment: 21-08-2015

This case is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State, and of Sri.

Boyini Venu Raj Yadav, learned counsel for accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Prohibition and Excise Medchal Police station, Cyberabad has filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.

2

No.225/2013-14, for the offence under Sec. U/s. 7(A) r/w 8(e) AP Prohibition Act.

2. The brief averments of the Charge sheet are as follows:-

It is alleged that on 16-08-2013 at about 6.40 P.M. on reliable information about illegal sales of Illicit Distilled Liquor at a house in Plot No.9/P, NGO’s Colony, LW3 along with staff went to the above place and secured two panch witnesses LW1 and 2 called inmates of the house and the accused came out. On enquiry the accused revealed her particulars as Banoth Parvathi. LW3 served recorded search memo and served to her. On search of the house, found one plastic can at a corner and on verification of can found about 5 litres illicit distilled liquor for sale purpose. Upon which LW 3 drawn two samples each about 350 ml., seized the samples and remaining contraband under the cover of panchanama in the presence of LW1 and 2 and brought to the station and registered a case in Cr.

No.225/2013-14 U/sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act, 1995 and produced the accused before the court for judicial remand.

The Government chemical examiner after analyzing the samples issued CE

Report No.5696/2013/2, dated 27-9-2013 and opined that the sample is illicit distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health.

3. The case was taken on file under section U/sec. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of AP

Prohibition Act, 1995.

4. On appearance of the accused before the Court, copies of documents were furnished to her as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5. Accused was examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C. for allegations levelled against her and explained to her in vernacular language. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During the course of Trial, the prosecution examined LW1 J. Raja Lingam as

PW1, LW 2 B. Bipin Kumar Yadav as PW2 and LW3 T. Deepika as PW3 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P4. Ex: P1 and P2 are signatures of PW1 on panchanama and search memo, Ex: P3 and P4 are signatures of PW2 on panchanama and 3 search memo.

7. Prosecution evidence was closed and the accused was examined u/sec.313

Cr.P.C. to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against her, the accused denied the same and reported no defense evidence.

8. Heard both sides.

9. The point that arises for determination is:-

“Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond

all reasonable doubt?”

Point:-- The accused stood charged for the offence punishable U/s 7(A) R/W 8

(e) of AP. Prohibition Act for selling Illicit Distilled Liquor in spite of imposition of

prohibition on possession and sale of the same

In order to connect the accused with the crime the prosecution examined PW’s 1

to 3 and got marked Exs: P1 to P8. PWs.1 and 2 are panch for confession and recovery

and PW 3 is the Investigating Officer..

10.The evidence of PWs 1 and 2 who are panch for confession and recovery is to the effect that about 2 years back the Excise Police, Medchal obtained their signatures on

white papers and no panchanama was conducted and nothing was seized from the

accused in their presence. The learned APP declared them hostile and cross examined

them but nothing material could be elicited to disbelieve their testimony.

11.PW3 who is cited as Investigating Officer and who filed charge sheet deposed that on 16-08-2013 at 6-40 pm on credible information about illegal sale of distilled liquor (IDL) at a House in Plot No.9/T at NGO's colony, Medchal, she along with staff, secured two panchas PWs.1 and 2 and proceeded to the said place where in one person

was found in possession of IDL and selling to the needy persons. On enquiry she

revealed her name as Parvathi (accused) and she served search memo and on search she found 5 litres IDL in a plastic Can, that she drawn two samples each 350ML and seized the samples and remaining contraband under cover of panchanama, in the presence of

PW.1 and PW.2, brought the accused to police station along with seized property and 4 registered a case in crime No 225/13-14 U/s. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act and produced the accused before the court for judicial custody and deposited samples before the court with request to send one of the samples for chemical analysis and during the course of investigation she collected the report from Assistant Director, FSL and after completion of the investigation she filed charge sheet against the accused. In the cross examination, she admitted that she has not recorded the statement of the staff, that she

has not enquired about the ownership of the place of offence.

12.A close scrutiny and appreciation of the above evidence discloses that PWs 1 and 2 who are panch for confession and recovery and who are the material witnesses, have not supported the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. They categorically deposed

that no panchanama was conducted and nothing was seized from anybody in their

presence. Now we are left with the evidence PW 3 who is investigating officer and naturally interested in the success of her investigation. No doubt, the evidence of investigating officers cannot be brushed aside just because they are police officials.

However, their evidence is to be looked into cautiously before placing reliance to base conviction of the accused. It is seen from the evidence of PW 3 that she admitted that she has not enquired about the ownership of the house of the accused and further Pw.3 has not enquired about the source of procuring the seized contraband. Further, Pw.3 has not prepared the list of property seized from the accused and served a copy on the

accused as provided U/s 100(4) Cr.P.C.

13.In view of hostility of PWs.1 and 2, the uncorroborated testimony of Pw.3, and the legal lacuna discussed above, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and consequently I find the accused not guilty

of the offence with which he stood charged.

14. In the result, the accused is acquitted U/s 248 (1) Cr.P.C. for the offence U/s 7(A) r/w 8(e) A.P. Prohibition Act. The bail bond of the accused shall stands cancelled after

six months of the date of judgment.

5

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open

court, on this the 21 st day of August, 2015 . 21 st

XV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD AT MEDCHAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR ACCUSED

PW 1 J. RajalingamNIL PW 2 y. Bipin Yadav

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION

Ex: P1 and P2 are signatures of PW1 on panchanama and search memo,

Ex: P3 and P4 are signatures of PW2 on panchanama and search memo.

FOR ACCUSED

NIL

XV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD AT MEDCHAL.