Syed Zakiyyah Sulthana

Pg.No.1 of 6 C.C.No.622 OF 2019, Dt: 01.06.2022.

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS-cum-III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: KOTHAGUDEM

Wednesday, this the 1st day of June, 2022

Present: Miss Syed Zakiyyah Sulthana,

III Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class -cum- III Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Kothagudem.

C.C. No. 622 OF 2019

Between: The State, Through S.H.O,

P.S.Chunchupally. ... Complainant.

And

A-1. Penugonda Dinesh Kumar, S/o.Narasimha Rao, Age.30 years, Occ.Software Engineer Oracle Salapuria Cyber Park, Hyderabad. A-2. Penugonda Jaya Laxmi, W/o.Narasimha Rao, Age.47 years, Occ.Housewife, A-3. Pengonda Narasimha Rao, S/o.Ranga Rao, Age.51 years, All R/o. Ravikampadu of Chandrugonda Mandal. … Accused. -o0o-

This case came before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Learned A.P.P for the state and Sri G.V. Prasad, Learned Advocate for the accused, upon hearing on both sides, 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.Chunchupalli filed charge sheet against A.1 to A.3 in Cr.No.17/2019. For the offences punishable

U/Secs.498-A of Indian Penal Code & Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition

Act, 1960 (herein referred as D.P.Act) against A.1 and A.2. For the offences punishable U/Secs.498-A, 354, 506 of Indian Penal Code & Section 3 and 4 of D.P.Act against A.3.

Pg.No.2 of 6 C.C.No.622 OF 2019, Dt: 01.06.2022.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is that, on 03.03.2018

LW.1/Tharala Bhavana was married to A-1 as per their caste customs with the consent of their family members. At the time of marriage, her parents gave net cash of Rs.14 lakhs, 2 Kgs of silver ornaments to her husband/A.1 towards dowry and spend an amount of Rs.15 lakhs towards marriage expenses. After marriage they both led their marital life happily for some period. Later A.1 started harassing her both mentally and physically for additional dowry of Rs.10 lakhs. A.2 and A.3, in-laws of

LW.1/complainant, also harassed her for additional dowry of Rs.10 Lakhs.

They harassed her saying that A.1 is software engineer at Hyderabad earning Rs.50,000/- per month and threatened her by saying that they will get A.1 married to another lady for dowry, if she fails to bring the same.

Thereupon LW.1/defacto complainant requested them for more time on the ground that her parents spent huge amount on her marriage and are unable to arrange such huge amount in a short time. They paid deaf ear to her request and continued to harass her. A-1 is doing private job at

Hyderabad, so he left the LW.1/T.Bhavana alone at house. Taking opportunity of the same A-3 focused on the victim with evil eye to enjoy her. A-3 misbehaved with her by sexually harassing her and un- necessarily touched her in the absence of A-1. A-3 also peeped her through window when she was alone in her bedroom. LW.1 noticed his attitude and warned him. Keeping the same in mind A-3 threatened with dire consequence to kill her and bury her deadbody in the underground of their house and that no one can identify it. He also forced her to commit suicide. Due to unbearable harassment of A-1 to A-3, LW.1/defacto complainant narrated the same to her parents. They approached LW.4-

Pg.No.3 of 6 C.C.No.622 OF 2019, Dt: 01.06.2022.

D.Sunil Kumar and LW.5-M.Satyanarayana. They conducted panchayath and advised accused to see her with good manner but A.1 to A.3 did not change their attitude. In the month of May-2018 A-1 shifted his family to

Hyderabad where A-1 harassed her for additional dowry. A-2 and A-3 provoked A-1 in harassing LW.1/defacto complainant. They necked her out from the house. From then she is staying with her parents. On 10.03.2019 elders conducted counseling where Al.1 to A.3 left the panchayath demanding to bring additional dowry. Hence, the charge sheet.

3.Basing on the report filed by Defacto Complainant, L.W.9-

L.Ravinder registered a case in Cr.No.17/2019 against A.1 to A.3 U/Secs.

498-A, 354, 506 IPC & Sec.3 and 4 of D.P.Act and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation he proceeded to the scene of offence situated at N.K Nagar of Chunchupally Mandal. He drafted Crime Detail Form before L.W.6-K.Narasimha Rao and L.W.7-

M.Selvaraj. Later he secured the presence of all witnesses and recorded their statements U/Sec.161 of Cr.P.C. On 15.03.2019 at 11-00 hours A.1 to

A.3 voluntarily surrendered before LW.9 admitting the commission of offence. He served u/Sec.41-A Cr.P.C to A-1 to A-3. After completion of investigation, L.W.9-L.Ravinder filed the Charge sheet.

4.The Court has taken cognizance for the offence U/Secs. 498-A, 354, 506 IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P.Act against A.1 to A.3. On appearance of accused copies of documents were supplied to them as contemplated U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

Pg.No.4 of 6 C.C.No.622 OF 2019, Dt: 01.06.2022.

5.Accused were examined U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C. Charges were framed U/Sec.240 Cr.P.C against A.1 & A.2 for the offences U/Secs.498-A,

IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P. Act and against A.3 for the offences

U/Secs.498-A, 354, 506 IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P. Act. The contents of the charge were read over and explained to the accused in their vernacular language. They denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.The prosecution got examined P.W.1 to P.W.6 and got marked

Ex.P1 to P7.

7.P.W.1 to P.W.6 turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. Since there is no incriminating evidence available against the accused the examination of the accused U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C is not required in this case. There is no defence evidence.

8.Heard arguments on both sides and perused the entire evidence on record.

9.The point that arise for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution proved the guilt

of the accused A.1 & A.2 for the offences

U/Secs.498-A IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P.

Act and against A.3 for the offences

U/Secs.498-A, 354, 506 IPC and Sec.3 and 4

of D.P. Act. , beyond all reasonable

doubts?”

10.The case of the prosecution is that A.1 to A.3 harassed defacto complainant both mentally and physically for additional dowry. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to establish that the accused

Pg.No.5 of 6 C.C.No.622 OF 2019, Dt: 01.06.2022.

has committed offences charged against them beyond all reasonable doubts.

11.To substantiate his case, prosecution examined Six witnesses.

Defacto complainant/L.W.1 is examined as P.W.1. She depose that her marriage was performed with A-1 on 03.03.2018. They got separated due to small disputes between them. She approached elders who in turn conducted panchayath for settling the matter. She admitted that she gave report to the police. She stated that she do not know the contents of it. She admitted only the signature on the report. Her signature on report is marked as Ex.P1. She resiled to her Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement recorded by the police and the same is marked as Ex.P2 by Learned A.P.P. She deposed that the matter was compromised outside the court. She turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution.

12.L.W.2 to LW.4 are the parents and relatives of PW.1. They are examined as P.W.2 to PW.4. LW.5 and LW.6 are circumstantial witnesses.

They are examined as PW.5 and PW.6. All of them turned hostile. They resiled to their Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements recorded by the police. Their

Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements are marked as Ex.P3 to Ex.P7 by Learned A.P.P.

They deposed that the matter was compromised with A.1 outside the court.

13.PW.1 to PW.6 are vital and material witnesses of this case. But, they turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. After recording the evidence of PWs.1 to 6 the Learned A.P.P gave-up the evidence of remaining witnesses. Accordingly, prosecution failed to

Pg.No.6 of 6 C.C.No.622 OF 2019, Dt: 01.06.2022.

establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and this point is answered against the prosecution.

14. IN THE RESULT, the Accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Secs.498-A IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P.Act and A.3 is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Secs.498-A, 354, 506 IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P.Act. They are acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stands cancelled after lapse of appeal period.

Typed to my Dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 1 st day of June, 2022.

III Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class -cum- III Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Kothagudem. Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined: For prosecution: For defence: P.W.1: Tharala Bhavana -None- P.W.2: D.Srinivas P.W.3: D.Nagalaxmi P.W.4: D.Sunil Kumar P.W.5: M.Satyanarayana P.W.6: K.Narasimha Rao Documents marked: For prosecution: For defence: Ex.P.1: Signature of P.W.1 on Report -Nil- Ex.P.2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1. Ex.P.3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2. Ex.P.4: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3. Ex.P.5: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.4. Ex.P.6: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.5. Ex.P.7: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.6.

Material objects marked: -Nil-

III Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class -cum- III Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Kothagudem.

Pg.No.1 of 6 C.C.No.2374 OF 2021, Dt:30.05.2022.

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS-cum-III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: KOTHAGUDEM

Monday, this the 30th day of May, 2022

Present: Miss Syed Zakiyyah Sulthana,

III Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class -cum- III Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Kothagudem.

C.C. No.2374 OF 2021

Between: The State, Through S.H.O,

P.S. Annapureddypally ... Complainant.

And

Konam Ramanjaneyulu, S/o.Surya Chander Rao, Age.33 years, Occ.Tractor driver, R/o.Sarapaka(V), Burgampadu(M), Bhadradri Kothagudem District. … Accused. -o0o-

This case came before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Learned A.P.P for the State and Sri D. Samanth, Advocate for the accused, upon hearing on both sides, 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.Annapureddypally filed charge sheet against the above named accused in Cr.No.71/2021 for the offences punishable U/Secs.304-A, 337 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (herein referred as IPC).

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is that, On 06.10.2021 at 0800 hours the deceased/ Pathuri Maresh along with Lws.4 and 5 and others went to Charlapalli village of Mulakalapalli Mandal by engaging an auto bearing No. AP 16 TF 2370 to cut eucalyptus wood. After completion

Pg.No.2 of 6 C.C.No.2374 OF 2021, Dt:30.05.2022.

of work while they were returning in the same auto, at about 1930 hours, they reached Sathemma Temple, Near Janikipuram (V) of

Annapureddypally (M). At the same time one vehicle tractor bearing No.

TS 28 D 1628 with the wood load came in opposite direction in rash and negligent manner and dashed the auto, due to which the inmates of the auto fell down. The husband of defacto complainant, Lws.4 and 5 received severe injuries. On receipt of information LWs.1 to 3 reached to the scene and found them with bleeding injuries and shifted all of them to

Yerragunta Govt. Hospital. While shifting the husband of defacto complainant to V.M. Banjara Govt. Hospital, on the way he succumbed to death. As such, LW.1/P.Laxmi-wife of deceased lodged a report before the police to take action against the driver of tractor. Hence, the charge sheet.

3.Basing on the report filed by Defacto Complainant, L.W.15-

G.Pullarao, H.C registered a case in Cr.No.71/2021 against accused u/Sec.

337 and 304-A of IPC and took up investigation. During the investigation he prepared an inquest report in presence of LW.8-Amudala Vasantha Rao and LW.9-Nune Laxman Rao. He got photographs of the deadbody of the deceased by LW.6-Ayiluri Krishna Reddy/Photographer. He examined and recorded the statement of LW.1-Pathuri Laxmi. Subsequently on 07.10.2021 LW.15 visited scene of offence, drawn rough sketch and prepared Crime Details Form before LW.10-Challa Rambabu, LW.11-Aluri

Venkateswar Rao. He obtained the PME in respect of the deceased, issued by LW14-Dr.K.Charan. Subsequently LW.16-P.Thirupathi Rao, SI of police, took up further investigation and filed a charge sheet on 29.11.2021.

Pg.No.3 of 6 C.C.No.2374 OF 2021, Dt:30.05.2022.

4.After filing of Charge Sheet the Court has taken cognizance for the offences U/Sec.304-A & 337 of IPC against the accused on 01.12.2021. On appearance copies of case documents were supplied to accused as contemplated U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

5.Accused was examined U/Sec.251 of Cr.P.C. Accusation for the offence U/Sec 304-A & 337 of IPC, was read over and explained to the accused and he denied the same pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.The prosecution got examined P.W.1 to P.W.8 and got marked

Ex.P1 to P10.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined u/Sec.313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating evidence appeared against them in Telugu and he denied the said incriminating evidence appearing against him. Accused reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the entire evidence on record.

9.The point that arise for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution proved the guilt

of the accused for the offence punishable

U/Sec. 304-A & 337 of IPC, beyond all

reasonable doubts?”

10.The case of the prosecution is that, on 06.10.2021 at about 1930 hours, tractor bearing No. TS 28 D 1628 driven by accused came in rash and negligent manner and dashed the auto. Due to which the

Pg.No.4 of 6 C.C.No.2374 OF 2021, Dt:30.05.2022.

inmates of the auto fell down and received severe injuries. Husband of the complainant who was present in the auto was succumbed to death.

11.In order to prove the guilt of the accused the prosecution got examined Pws. 1 to 8 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10.

LW.1/complainant/wife of deceased is examined as PW.1. She admitted only the signature on the report. The signature of PW.1 on the report is marked as Ex.P1. She deposed that she do not know the facts of the case and she resiled her Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement. The same is marked as

Ex.P2 by learned APP. She turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution.

12.PW.2 and PW.3 are circumstantial witnesses. They deposed that they do not know anything about the facts of the case and resiled their 161 Cr.P.C statement recorded by the police. The same are marked as Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 by the learned APP.

13.PW.4 and PW.5 are eye witnesses and injured. PW.7 is the eye witness. They deposed that they do not know anything about the facts of the case and did not witness the incident. They resiled on their Sec.161

Cr.P.C statement recorded by the police and the same are marked as

Ex.P5, Ex.P6 and Ex.P8 by the learned APP. PW.6, who is panch for Crime

Details Form, deposed that the CDF was not prepared before him. He admitted only the signature on CDF. The signature of PW.6 on CDF is marked as Ex.P7.

14. LW.15-G.Pulla Rao/Investigating Officer is examined as PW.8.

He deposed the following, on 6.10.2021 PW.1 came to the P.S

Annapureddypally and lodged a report. Basing on such report he

Pg.No.5 of 6 C.C.No.2374 OF 2021, Dt:30.05.2022.

registered F.I.R. It is marked as Ex.P9. He visited the scene of offence and shifted the injured persons to P.H.C of Yerragunta village. He went to V.M.

Banjara Area Hospital to know the condition of the deceased by that time victim was shifted to V.M. Banjara Hospital and the doctors intimated that his condition is very serious. On the next day I.e, on 7.10.2021 he went to the scene of offence and prepared CDF which is marked as Ex.P10 in the presence of PW.6 and LW.11 A.Venkateswar Rao. On death of the deceased he went to the hospital and conducted inquest.

15. Pws.1 to 7 are vital and material witnesses of this case. They turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. After recording the evidence of Pw.1 to PW.8 the Learned APP given up the evidence of the remaining witnesses. The evidence of Investigating

Officer-PW.8 is not supported with the material witnesses and the mediators. This court cannot convict the accused on the sole testimony of

PW.8-Investigating officer. Accordingly, prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. This point is answered against the prosecution.

16.IN THE RESULT, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304-A, 337 of IPC, and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stands cancelled after lapse of appeal period.

Typed to my Dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 30 th day of May, 2022.

III Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class -cum- III Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Kothagudem.

Pg.No.6 of 6 C.C.No.2374 OF 2021, Dt:30.05.2022.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined:

For prosecution: For defence: P.W.1: P.Laxmi -None- P.W.2: P.Mangamma P.W.3: P.Subbarao P.W.4: K.Venkatramaiah PW.5: L.Venkateshwar Rao PW.6: C.Rambabu PW.7: D.Ashok PW.8: G.Pullarao Documents marked: For prosecution: For defence: Ex.P.1: Signature of P.W.1 on Report -Nil- Ex.P.2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1. Ex.P.3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2. Ex.P.4: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3. Ex.P.5: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.4. Ex.P.6: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.5. Ex.P.7: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.6. Ex.P.8: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.7. Ex.P.9: First Information Report. Ex.P.10: Crime Details Form.

Material objects marked:

-Nil-

III Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class -cum- III Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Kothagudem.

Pg.No.1 of 6 C.C.No.259 OF 2022, Dt: 30.05.2022.

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS-cum-III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: KOTHAGUDEM

Monday, this the 30th day of May, 2022

Present: Miss Syed Zakiyyah Sulthana,

III Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class -cum- III Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Kothagudem.

C.C. No. 259 OF 2022

Between: The State, Through S.H.O,

P.S.Palvoncha Rural. ... Complainant.

And

A-1. Guguloth Bhasker S/o. Linga, Age.19 yrs, Occ.Tractor Driver, A-2. Guguloth Chavali, W/o.Linga, Age.48 yrs, Occ.Coolie, A-3. Guguloth Linga, S/o.Chandu, Age.50 years, Occ.Coolie, All R/o.Jagannadhapuram. … Accused. -o0o-

This case came before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Learned A.P.P for the state and Sri Sk.Mohammad Quasim, Learned Advocate for the accused, upon hearing on both sides, 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. Palvoncha Rural filed the charge sheet against the above named accused in Cr.No.81/2021 for the offences punishable u/Sec.188, 269, 294(b), 324, 326, 506 r/w 34 of IPC, Section 3 of ED Act and Sec.51(b) of National Disaster Management Act.

2.The case of the prosecution as narrated in the charge sheet is that defacto complainant and LW.3- J.Venkatesh are friends. Defacto complainant supported LW.3-J.Venkatesh in joint property issues between

Pg.No.2 of 6 C.C.No.259 OF 2022, Dt: 30.05.2022.

LW.3 and accused persons. On 10.06.2021 at about 6-30 p.m defacto complainant supported LW.3 in that regard. Keeping this in mind A.1 to A.3 and J.C.L. went to the house of defacto complainant while Lws.1 to 4 were chit chatting there. A.1 to A.3 and J.C.L abused them in filthy language, A.1 beat Lw.1/ defacto complainant on his head and right hand causing bleeding injury. When Lw.1/defacto complainant’s wife LW.2-D.Lalitha and his friends intervened, J.C.L beat LW.4-A.Chandra Shekar on his head and caused head injury, A.3 beat LW.3-J.Venkatesh on his right leg and A.2 beat LW.2

D.Lalitha on right side of her neck, causing injuries to all of them.

Meantime villagers Lws.5 to 7 came to the spot and rescued them from the clutches of A.1 to A.3 and Juvenile while leaving the spot they threatened with dire consequences to do away the life’s of Lws.1 to 4 forever.

3.Basing on the report filed by Defacto Complainant, L.W.11-

K.Shyamson Rao, registered a case in Cr.No.81/2020 against A.1 to A.3 and

J.C.L u/Sec.188, 269, 294(b), 324, 326, 506 r/w 34 of IPC, Section 3 of ED

Act and Sec.51(b) of National Disaster Management Act and took up the investigation. On 11.06.2021 during the course of investigation he proceeded to the scene of offence situated at Jagannadhapuram village. He examined the scene and prepared a rough sketch of scene in Crime Details

Form before L.W.8-M.Babu Rao and L.W.9-K.Durga Chary. Later he secured the presence of L.Ws.1 to 7, (LW.1-Dharmasoth Vijay, LW.2-Dharmasoth

Lalitha, LW.3-Jarpula Venkatesh, LW.4-Angoth Chandra Shekar, LW.5-

Dharmasoth Chinna Ramulu, LW.6-Boda Bitcha, LW.7-Bhukya) examined them, recorded their statements U/Sec.161 of Cr.P.C. The accused were arrested and produced before the Magistrate on 17.08.2021 for remand. A separate charge sheet has been filed before Hon’ble I Addl. JFCM for

Pg.No.3 of 6 C.C.No.259 OF 2022, Dt: 30.05.2022.

Juvenile at Khammam against Juvenile in conflict with law. After completion of investigation, L.W.12-K.Sumanth filed the Charge sheet on 01.02.2022.

4.After filing of charge sheet, the Court has taken cognizance for the offences U/Secs.188, 269, 324, 326, 506 r/w 34 of IPC, Section 3 of ED

Act and Sec.51(b) of National Disaster Management Act against A.1 to A.3 on 25.02.2022. On appearance of accused, copies of case documents were supplied to A.1 to A.3 as contemplated U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

5.Accused A.1 to A.3 were examined U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C. Charges were framed U/Sec.240 Cr.P.C against A.1 to A.3 for the offence U/Secs.188, 269, 324, 326, 506 r/w 34 of IPC, Section 3 of ED Act and Sec.51(b) of

National Disaster Management Act. The contents of the charge were read over and explained to the accused A.1 to A.3 in their vernacular language.

They denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.The prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.7 and got marked Ex.P1 to P7.

7.After completion of the evidence of the prosecution, A.1 to A.3 are examined u/Sec.313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating evidence appeared against them in telugu and they denied the said incriminating evidence appearing against them. Accused reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the entire evidence on record.

9.The point that arise for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of

the accused A.1 to A.3 for the offences

punishable U/Secs.188, 269, 324, 326, 506

r/w 34 of IPC, Section 3 of ED Act and

Pg.No.4 of 6 C.C.No.259 OF 2022, Dt: 30.05.2022.

Sec.51(b) of National Disaster Management

Act beyond all reasonable doubt?”

10.The case of the prosecution is that A.1 to A.3 beat PWs.1 to 3 and PW.6 resulting injuries to them.

11.In order to prove the guilt of the accused the prosecution got examined PW.1 to PW.7 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. The defacto complainant is examined as PW.1. He admitted only the signature on report.

The signature of PW.1 on report is marked as Ex.P1. He resiled to his

Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements and the same is marked as Ex.P2 by Learned APP.

He turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution.

12.LW.3 to LW.6 and LW.2 were examined as PW.2 to PW.6. They resiled to their Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement recorded by the police and the same were marked as Exs.P3 to Ex.P7 by Learned A.P.P. They deposed that they did not witness any incident and do not know anything about the facts of the case. All of them turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution.

13.LW.12, Investigating officer, got examined as PW.7. He deposed that he took up investigation from LW.11-K.Shyamson Rao on 12.06.2021.

He received wound certificate from LW.10-T.Naveen. Basing on the wound certificate he altered the section 324 to 326 of IPC. He arrested A.1 to A.3 and J.C.L on 27.12.2021 and produce them before the Magistrate for remand. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

14.P.W.1 to P.W.6 are vital and material witnesses of this case. But, they turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. After recording the evidence of P.W.1 to PW.7 the Learned A.P.P gave-up the

Pg.No.5 of 6 C.C.No.259 OF 2022, Dt: 30.05.2022.

evidence of remaining witnesses. The evidence of Investigating Officer-

PW.7 is not supported with material witnesses and mediators. This court cannot convict the accused on the sole testimony of PW.7 investigating officer. Accordingly, prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and this point is answered against the prosecution.

15. IN THE RESULT, the Accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Secs. 188, 269, 324, 326, 506 r/w 34 of IPC,

Section 3 of ED Act and Sec.51(b) of National Disaster Management Act and they are acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stands cancelled after lapse of appeal period.

Typed to my Dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 30 th day of May, 2022.

III Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class -cum- III Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Kothagudem.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined:

For prosecution: For defence: P.W.1: D.Vijay, -None- P.W.2: J.Venkatesh P.W.3: A. Chandra Shekar P.W.4: D.Chinna Ramulu P.W.5: B.Bitcha P.W.6: D.Lalitha P.W.7: K.Suman, SI of police

Documents marked: For prosecution: For defence: Ex.P.1: Signature of P.W.1 on Report -Nil- Ex.P.2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1. Ex.P.3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2. Ex.P.4: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3. Ex.P.5: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.4. Ex.P.6: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.5. Ex.P.7: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.6.

Pg.No.6 of 6 C.C.No.259 OF 2022, Dt: 30.05.2022.

Material objects marked:

-Nil-

III Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class -cum- III Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Kothagudem.

TSBK020030292022

Presented on : 12-05-2022 Registered on : 12-05-2022 Decided on : 13-08-2022 Duration : 0 years, 3 months, 1 days

IN THE COURT OF

II Additional Junior Civil Judge-Cum- II Additional Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Bhadradri Kothagudem.

(Presided Over by A Sucharitha)

CC/740/2022

STATE OF TELANGANA, PS TRAFFIC

VERSUS Cherukula Sudhakar ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APP for State }: APPO, Advocate for appearing for Cherukula Sudhakar Advocate appearing for , respectively. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Offence punishable under : 249 of INDIAN PENAL CODE,

ORDER

In view of National Lok Adalath, this case is called today. Accused called present and he is identified by the Police Constable concerned. Copies of case documents are furnished to the Accused. He is examined under Sec.251 Cr.P.C., and the substance of accusation leveled against him for the offence under Sec.279 IPC, is read over and explained the accused, for which he pleaded guilty. This Court warned the accused and informed him about the punishment prescribed for the offence committed by him. Even then the Accused admitted the guilt. Hence, this Court feels that the guilt pleaded by the Accused is true and voluntary. Accused is heard with regard to the quantum of sentence to be imposed against him. He prayed the Court to take lenient view as it was first offence. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and voluntary admission of Accused, this Court feels that if fine amount is imposed against the Accused, it would meet the ends of sentence. IN THE RESULT, Accused is found guilty for the offence under Sec.279 IPC and as such, he is convicted under Sec.252 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only), for the offence under Sec. 279 IPC, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of (15) days. Total fine amount comes to Rs.500/-.

Date : 13-08-2022 (A Sucharitha)

II Additional Junior Civil Judge-Cum- II Additional

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhadradri Kothagudem.

TSBK020000022017

Presented on : 03-01-2017 Registered on : 03-01-2017 Decided on : 02-09-2022 Duration : 5 years, 7 months, 30 days

IN THE COURT OF

II Additional Junior Civil Judge-Cum- II Additional Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Bhadradri Kothagudem.

(Presided Over by K Sai Sri)

CC/400001/2017

Sangem Ranjith Kumar Through Police Station Officer VERSUS

Nallabelli Rambabu, ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APP for State }: MOHD. ABDUL MAJID, Advocate for NAGESWARA RAO,P appearing for Nallabelli Rambabu, Advocate appearing for , respectively. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Offence punishable under : 138ofNIAct of NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT,

ORDER

Both parties calld present. Judgment pronounced in the

Open Court (VSO). In the result, the accusedis found guilty for

the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable

Instrument Act, 1881 and accordingly, he is convicted for the

said offence under section 255(2) of the Code of Criminal

procedure. Thus, the accused is sentenced to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of Six(6) Months for the offence

under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Further, the accused shall also

pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs only) as

copensation to the complainant, U/sec.357(3) of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, within two months from today, failing

which he shall undergo Simple imprisonment for a further

period of Three (3) months. The accused is appraised of his right

to prefer appeal against the judgment and sentence passed by

this court. Accused reported means to engage the counsel to

prefer the appeal against the judgment and sentence passed by

this Court. Office is directed to furnish true copy of judgment to

accused forthwith, free of costs.

Date : 02-09-2022

(K Sai Sri)

II Additional Junior Civil Judge-Cum- II Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Bhadradri Kothagudem.