Syed Zakiyyah Sulthana

CC No.1513 of 2017Pg. No. 1 of 26

II AJFCM, Kodad

THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS: AT KODAD

Thursday, the 07 th day of May, 2026.

Present: Smt. SYED ZAKIYYAH SULTHANA,

II Addl. JFCM, Kodad

CC. No. 1513 of 2017.

(Old CC.No 512 of 2016)

BETWEEN: The State of Telangana through the Sub-Inspector of Police, Munagala Police Station.

….COMPLAINANT

AND

Shaik Abdul khaleel S/o Rahaman, Age 26 years, Occ: Driver of the Tipper bearing No. AP 24 V- 9450, R/o Athmakur village and Mandal of Kurnool District. Andhra Pradesh state.

…ACCUSED

Section of law:304 (A), 337 and 338 IPC

Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the court:Found guilty

Sentence or order:In the result, the accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of One year and to pay a fine Rs.1,000/- (Rupees Thousand only) and in default of payment of fine he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable U/Sec.304-A of IPC. The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of 06 Months and to pay a fine Rs.1,000/- (Rupees Thousand only) and in default of payment of fine he shall undergo simple

CC No.1513 of 2017Pg. No. 2 of 26

II AJFCM, Kodad imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable U/Sec.338 of IPC. The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of 03 Months and to pay a fine Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) and in default of payment of fine he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days for the offence punishable U/Sec.337 of IPC and all convictions sentence run concurrently.

This case came before me for final hearing on 24-04-2026 in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri. S. Naveen Kumar, learnedcounsel for the accused, upon perusing the material papers on record, and on hearing both the sides and the case having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

Brief Averments of the Case:

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Munagala Police Station filed charge sheet against the sole accused in Cr.No.92 of 2016 for the offence punishable under Section 304 (A), 337 and 338 of

IPC.

2. The case of prosecution is about fatal road accident which occurred on 24-05-2016 at about 07.00 hours and was reported on same day at 12:00 hours by the defacto complainant/PW1 before the Station House Officer, Munagala

Police Station. On 24.05.2016 at 07:00 hours, her husband

II Addl. JFCM, Kodad

CC No. 1513 of 2017Pg. No. 3 of 26

II AJFCM, Kodad

Bollikonda Papulu/deceased along with PW3/Nemmadi

Bixam, LW10/Nemmadi Samyelu, LW8/Nemmadi Yesu,

PW5/Mathangi Papaiah, PW6/Bachalakuri Mahesh boarded

Tipper bearing No. AP 24 V-9450 to attend daily wage labour work at Miryalagudem to Khammam road at about 08:00 hours, when they reached out skirts Mukundapuram village of

Munagala Mandal at KM stone 169 on NH-65, the driver of the

Tipper drove it in rash and negligent manner due to which tipper turned turtle and Iron Angulars fall on head of her husband/deceased resulting severe head injury and death. All the others sustained injuries and were shifted to Government

Hospital at Kodad. She requested to take necessary action against the accused.

3. Basing on the report, the LW-17/1st IO/SK. Ahmed Jani, ASI of Police, Munagala P.S. registered a case in Cr. No. 92/2016 for the offence U/s 304(A), and 337 IPC against the accused and took up the investigation by duly dispatching the FIRs to all concerned.

4. During the course of investigation, the LW-17/1st IO examined the PW1/B. Kavitha and recorded her statement at PS in detail

II Addl. JFCM, Kodad

CC No.1513 of 2017Pg. No. 4 of 26

II AJFCM, Kodad in CD part-II. The LW17/1st IO visited scene of offence situated at Mukundapuram village, examined the PW2/K. Sai, PW3/N.

Bixam, PW4/Ch. Veeraiah, PW5/M. Papaiah, LW6/B. Mallaiah and LW7/Ch. Sathish and recorded their statements in part-II

CD in detail. He secured the presence of panchas i.c.,

LW12/B. Balaji and PW7/M.Saidaiah observed the scene of offence minutely and conducted the scene of offence in the presence of panchas and also drew rough sketch map of the scene.

5. The LW17/1st IO got photographed, observed the dead body and conducted the inquest over the corpse of the deceased in the presence of same panchas and made requisition to subject the dead body to PME at CHC Kodad. The duty Medical

Officer/LW-14/Dr. N. Kamala, conducted Autopsy the over the corpse of the deceased. Thereafter the LW17/1st IO again visited the CHC at Kodad, examined the LW8/N. Yesu, PW6/B.

Mahesh and LW10/N. Samyelu and recorded their statement in Part II of CD. After completion of PME the dead body of the deceased was handed over to PW1.

6. On 24.05.2016, the LW-11/B. Balaji came to PS along with the accused and produced the accused and documents before the

II Addl. JFCM, Kodad

CC No. 1513 of 2017Pg. No. 5 of 26

II AJFCM, Kodad

LW17/1st IO. Subsequently The LW17/1st IO examined and recorded the statement of LW11/B. Balaji in detail in part-II

CD, Verified the vehicle documents and license of the accused found valid. Notice U/sec. 41(A)(1) Cr.P.C has been served to the accused to prove his innocence. Later the PW10/2nd IO/G.

Nagesh, SI of Police, P.S. Munagala took up the investigation and verified the investigation done by the LW17/1st IO found on proper lines.

7. The LW14/Dr. N. Kamala, Dy. Civil Surgeon, CHC, Kodad who held autopsy over the corpse of the deceased issued PME of the deceased in which she opined that the "Cause of death is due to Head injury" and also treated the injured and issued

MCs of PW2, PW3 and LW8 in which she opined that the injuries sustained by PW2, PW3 and LW8 are Grievous in nature.

8. The PW8/Dr.SK. Hafeezuddine, CAS, CHC, Kodad who examined the injured i.e., PW4, PW5, PW6 and LW10 and issued MCs in which he opined that the injuries sustained by the injured i.e.. PW4, PW5, PW6 and LW10 are Simple in nature, except the injuries sustained by PW5, which are

II Addl. JFCM, Kodad

CC No.1513 of 2017Pg. No. 6 of 26

II AJFCM, Kodad

Grievous in nature.

9. The PW9/K. Srinivas Reddy/MVI, Kodad who inspected the crime vehicle TATA Motors goods vehicle Open (Tipper) bearing

No. AP 24 V-9450 has opined that "The accident occurred not due to any mechanical defect of the vehicle No. Tata Motors goods open vehicle bearing No. AP 24 V-9450. PW10/2nd

IO/G. Nagesh, Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. Munagala collected all these reports and after completion of investigation he filed the charge sheet against sole accused for offences U/s. 304-A, 338 & 337 of IPC.

10.As per the Orders of Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Nalgonda vide Procs. Dis. No. 438/2017, dt. 24-06-2017, this case previously numbered as CC. No. 512/2016 was received from Prl. Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Kodad and was renumbered as CC. No. 1513 of 2017 by Addl.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kodad. Later this case

was transferred to this Court vide Orders of Hon’ble Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Suryapet vide Procs. Dis. No.

66/2024/A1, dt. 22-02-2024 from I Addl. Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Kodad to this Court.

II Addl. JFCM, Kodad

CC No. 1513 of 2017Pg. No. 7 of 26

II AJFCM, Kodad

11.On perusal of the material placed by the prosecution, this case has taken on file for the offence punishable under

Section U/s 304(A), 337 and 338 of IPC against accused and on appearance of accused copies of documents are furnished to them as required U/sec.207 Cr.P.C. After furnishing copies of documents, on 07-08-2025 the accused were examined U/s 251 Cr.P.C. for the substance of accusation for the offence U/Sec. 304-(A), 337 and 338 of IPC, on which the accused denied the accusation, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the trial against the accused.

12.During the course of trial the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 10 and got marked Exs.P1 to P10. Prosecution examined the

Complainant/B. Kavitha as PW1, Injured/K. Sai as PW2,

Injured/N. Bixam as PW3, Injured/Ch. Veeriah as PW4,

Inuired/M. Papaiah as PW5, Injured/B. Mahesh as PW6,

Punch witness/M. Saidaiah as PW7, Dr.SK. Hafeezudine as

PW8, K. Srinivas Reddy/MVI as PW9 and G. Nagesh/ 2nd IO as PW10.

II Addl. JFCM, Kodad

CC No.1513 of 2017Pg. No. 8 of 26

II AJFCM, Kodad

13. Ex.P1 is the report dated: 24-05-2016 Ex.P2 is the scene of offence panchanama, dated: 24-05-2016; Ex.P3 is rough sketch,

dated:24-05-2016; Ex.P4 is the inquest panchanama of deceased,

dated: 24-05-2016; Ex.P5 is the wound certificate of PW4, dated

14-06-2016; Ex.P6 is the wound certificate of PW5, dated: 14-06- 2016; Ex.P7 is the wound certificate of PW6, dated: 14-06-2016;

Ex.P8 is the wound certificate of LW10, dated: 24-05-2016; Ex.P9 is the MVI report, dated 01-06-2016 and Ex.P10 is the FIR,

dated: 24-05-2016. On 24-02-2026 the Learned APP has given up

the evidences of LW6, LW7, LW11, LW12 and on 02-03-2026 Lr

App given up evidence of LW17. On 28-11-2025 the Learned APP has filed the death certificates of LW8 and LW10 as such their evidence could not be recorded. The evidence of LW14 was closed on the report filed through Lr.App on 02-03-2026 that where about of LW14 are not known.

14. After closure of prosecution evidence the accused was examined

U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating circumstances appeared against him from the evidence of prosecution witnesses for which he denied the truthfulness of the evidence and reported no defense evidence on his side.

II Addl. JFCM, Kodad

CC No. 1513 of 2017Pg. No. 9 of 26

II AJFCM, Kodad

15.Heard, learned A.P.P., and learned counsel for the accused and perused the material available on record.

Now the point for determination is;

“Whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the

accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence

punishable under Sec. 304 (A), 337 and 338 of IPC?

1. Point: The case of the prosecution in an nutshell is that on 24- 05-2016, the deceased along with other daily wage workers PW2 to PW6, LW8 and LW 10 boarded the tipper bearing number AP 24V 9450 driven by the accused to attend their daily wage labour work and on their way at about 08:00 hours at the outskirts of

Mukundapuram Village on NH-65, the accused has driven the tipper in a rash and negligent manner due to which the tipper turned turtle and the iron angulars in the tipper fell on the deceased, resulting his death and also causing injuries to all the remaining daily wage laboures.

2. At this juncture, it is apt to extract Section 304-A and Section 338 of IPC, for ready reference, which reads as follows:

S.304A. Causing death by negligence-

Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of

II Addl. JFCM, Kodad

CC No.1513 of 2017Pg. No. 10 of 26

II AJFCM, Kodad either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

S.338. Causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or

personal safety of others.—

Whoever causes grievous hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

S.337. Causing hurt by act endangeringing life or

personal safety of others.-

Whoever causes hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.

3. The nature and scope of Section 304-A of IPC was discussed in detail by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Naresh

Giri vs State Of M.P 2008 (1) SCC 791 , wherein it was held as follows:

"8. Section 304-A carves out a specific offence where death is caused by doing a rash or negligent act and that act does not amount to culpable homicide under Section 299 or murder under Section 300. If a person willfully drives a motor vehicle into the midst of a crowd and

II Addl. JFCM, Kodad

CC No. 1513 of 2017Pg. No. 11 of 26

II AJFCM, Kodad thereby causes death to some person, it will not be a case of mere rash and negligent driving and the act will amount to culpable homicide. Doing an act with the intent to kill a person or knowledge that doing an act was likely to cause a person's death is culpable homicide. When the intent or knowledge is the direct motivating force of the act, Section 304-A has to make room for the graver and more serious charge of culpable homicide.

The provision of this section is not limited to rash or negligent driving. Any rash or negligent act whereby death of any person is caused becomes punishable. Two elements either of which or both of which may be proved to establish the guilt of an accused are rashness/negligence; a person may cause death by a rash or negligent act which may have nothing to do with driving at all. Negligence and rashness to be punishable in terms of Section 304-A must be attributable to a state of mind wherein the criminality arises because of no error in judgment but of a deliberation in the mind risking the crime as well as the life of the (2008) 1 SCC 791 person who may lose his life as a result of the crime. Section 304- A discloses that criminality may be that apart from any mens rea, there may be no motive or intention still a person may venture or practice such rashness or negligence which may cause the death of other. The death so caused is not the determining factor. In order to establish the guilt against the accused for the offence 4.

punishable U/Sec 304-A of IPC, the prosecution has to establish that i) the death of the deceased must have been

II Addl. JFCM, Kodad

CC No.1513 of 2017Pg. No. 12 of 26

II AJFCM, Kodad caused by the accused, ii) death must be caused by rash and negligent act and iii) rash and negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide

5.In order to establish the guilt against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec. 338 and 337 of IPC the prosecution has to establish that i) grievous injuries were caused to any person ii) The injuries that were caused by doing rash and negligent act, iii) such an act endanger to human life.

6. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW10. Among them, PW1 to PW6 are the main witnesses on whose testimony the entire case of the prosecution relied upon. The direct testimony of PW2 to PW6 and circumstance evidence of PW1 is to be appreciated by this court.

7. The injured cum eye witness are examined as PW2 to PW6. PW2 identified the accused as the driver of the tipper bearing number

AP 24V 9450, which picked him along with PW3 to PW6, LW8 and

Lw10 on 24-05-2016, which is the date of incident and after crossing Mukundapuram Village due to over speed the tipper lost control and turned turtle due to which the deceased died on the spot and others along with PW2 sustained injuries. PW2 further

II Addl. JFCM, Kodad

CC No. 1513 of 2017Pg. No. 13 of 26

II AJFCM, Kodad deposed that the accused comes in the tipper regularly to pick them for work.

8. PW3 deposed that he know the accused, 9 years ago, he along with the deceased, PW2, PW4 to PW6, LW8 and LW10 boarded

DCM to attend coolie work which was driven by the accused on the date of incident and after boarding it, the DCM turned turtle due to over speed resulting the death of the deceased.

9. PW4 identified the accused as the driver of the DCM on the date of incident which he boarded along with the deceased, PW2, PW5,

PW6, LW8 , LW10 and others at about 7 AM and after crossing

Munagala due to over speed, the DCM lost control and turn turtle due to which the deceased died on the spot and all of them sustained injuries.

10. PW5 deposed that nine years ago, he along with deceased, LW8,

LW10, PW2, PW4 and two others boarded a tipper driven by accused for going to work and when they reached near

Akupamula village, the accused drove the tipper in a very speed manner and after crossing Akupamula Village, the tipper turn turtle due to which the deceased died and all others sustained

II Addl. JFCM, Kodad

CC No.1513 of 2017Pg. No. 14 of 26

II AJFCM, Kodad injuries. PW5 further deposed that he know the accused and that the accused used to pick them up regularly.

11. PW6 deposed that on 24-05-2016, in between 7 to 8 AM, the accused was driving tipper bearing number 9450, in which he along with deceased, PW2 to PW4, LW10 and others boarded for going to work. PW6 further deposed that he sat beside the driver in drivers cabin of the tipper while the others sat backside of the tipper. He further deposed that the accused was driving the tipper in a very high speed and near Mukundapuram, accused lost control over the vehicle due to which the tipper turned turtle, resulting the death of the deceased on the spot and injuries to others along with him. PW6 further deposed that they have prior acquaintance with the accused as they work under the same owner.

12. The evidence of PW2 to PW6 is corroborated with the circumstance evidence of PW1 as she identified the accused in her evidence stating that he came to her village and took her husband along with other coolie in the tipper in the morning and on the same day, she was informed that her husband met with an accident, then immediately she went to the scene of offence and found the dead body of her husband, the tipper turned turtle and

II Addl. JFCM, Kodad

CC No. 1513 of 2017Pg. No. 15 of 26

II AJFCM, Kodad that she was informed by the others that the accident occurred due to over speed of the accused.

13. On consolidate reading of the evidence of injured witnesses PW2 to PW6 supported by the evidence of PW1, it is clearly established that on the date of incident the accused picked all the injured along with the deceased to go to work in a Vehicle, that the accused also work under the same owner and all the injured along with the deceased have prior acquaintance with accused as he regularly picked them for work. PW1 to PW6 categorically deposed that deceased along with others traveled in the vehicle driven by the accused on the date of incident.

14. It is argued by the learned counsel for the accused that identification by PW1 to PW6 cannot be taken into consideration as valid identification as they have not given proper description particulars of the driver, either in report ExP1 or in their prior statements recorded under section 161 of Cr.PC.

15. As seen from the evidence of PW1, PW2, PW5 and PW6, the accused regularly pick them up for work and that they work under the same owner. PW1, PW2, PW4 to PW6 identified the accused in the court hall as the person driving the crime vehicle

II Addl. JFCM, Kodad

CC No.1513 of 2017Pg. No. 16 of 26

II AJFCM, Kodad on the date of the incident and nothing was elicited in their cross- examination to disbelieve their evidence. It can be concluded from the evidence of PW1 to PW6 that they were able to identify the accused correctly as they have ample opportunity to see the accused and also enough acquaintance to identify him. Therefore, the version the prosecution about the identification of the accused by PW1, PW2, PW4 to PW6 can be believed. Even though suggestions were made to them that the accused was not driving the crime vehicle at the time of accident, the said suggestion was denied by these witnesses in their cross-examination. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the accused is the driver of the crime vehicle on the date and at the time of accident.

16. In the evidence of PW2 to PW6, the other common point which can be observed is about the speed of the crime vehicle, as unfolded by the testimony of injured witnesses, the vehicle was being driven in over speed manner due to which the driver lost control and the crime vehicle turned turtle. The evidence of PW6 who sat beside the driver in the drivers cabin, clearly narrates that the accused lost control over the crime vehicle due to which the crime vehicle turn turtle. The evidence of PW1 also supports the version of injured witnesses stating that on reaching the scene of offence,

II Addl. JFCM, Kodad

CC No. 1513 of 2017Pg. No. 17 of 26

II AJFCM, Kodad she found the dead body of her husband iron rods fell on him and that the tipper was turned turtle.

17. The question of speed has to be decided and considered after considering of various facts and circumstances. Admittedly, the accident took place on 24-05-2016 in the morning after 8 AM. As per evidence of eyewitnesses -cum- injured/PW2 to PW6, accused drove the crime vehicle in over speed due to which he lost control and the vehicle turned turtle. It is not the case of accused that the vehicle has some technical defect.

18. The very fact that the accused drove the crime vehicle on the date of the incident and at the time of the accident in a over speed, as a result, the crime vehicle turn turtle and the person who were traveling in the crime vehicle, sustained severe injuries and one person by name papulu succumbed to the injuries as the iron rods in the crime vehicle fell on him. The accused merely denied that he never drove the crime vehicle on the date and time of accident.

19. The very fact that the accused has absolutely no control over the crime vehicle at the time of the incident and no proper explanation whatsoever was given by the accused in the course of cross

II Addl. JFCM, Kodad

CC No.1513 of 2017Pg. No. 18 of 26

II AJFCM, Kodad examination of witnesses. It is the duty of the accused to drive the crime vehicle cautiously and carefully at a low speed to avoid accident as the crime vehicle was loaded with some construction material and also the workers. In the given circumstances of accident, the accused cannot be permitted to take the plea that he has not driven the crime vehicle rashly or negligently. The over speed of the accused while transporting public in a goods vehicle along with construction material on the highway, resulting to losing of control over the vehicle and the vehicle turned turtle without any obstacle on the road, shows the negligence by way of speed and the rash driving of the accused. The prosecution hereby brings on record, both rashness and negligence on the part of the accused.

20. The existence of any mechanical defect is also ruled out by the evidence of PW9/MVI and the report/Ex.P9 given by him on inspection of the crime vehicle AP 24V 9450 opining that the accident occurred not due to any mechanical defect.

21. The evidence of PW1 to PW6 supports the allegation of the prosecution as to the death of a person by name Papulu in the accident caused by the accused at the scene of offence. The

Ex.P4/inquest panchanama of deceased supported by the

II Addl. JFCM, Kodad

CC No. 1513 of 2017Pg. No. 19 of 26

II AJFCM, Kodad testimony of punch witness PW7 clearly established the death of the deceased in the accident caused by accused. It is pertinent to note that the death of the deceased is also not questioned by the accused anywhere in the evidence. Hence, the death of deceased is proved by the prosecution.

22. In evidence, PW4 and PW6 deposed that the deceased died in the accident and all others sustained injuries. PW5 deposed that deceased died on spot, all other sustained injuries and he sustained a fracture to his right leg. The version of PW4 to PW6 is supported by the evidence of the Doctor/PW8 who conducted medical examination and issued wound certificates to PW4 to PW6 and LW10. PW8 deposed that on 24-05-2016, that is the date of accident, he received requisition from SHO of PS Munagala to examine PW4 to PW6 & LW10, on the same day, he examined them and found that the injury sustained by all of them are fresh in nature and issued wound certificates Ex.P5 to Ex.P8 opining that injuries sustained by PW4, PW6 & LW10 are simple in nature and the injury sustained by PW5 is a fracture to his right foot, which is grievous in nature. Hence, the prosecution established

II Addl. JFCM, Kodad

CC No.1513 of 2017Pg. No. 20 of 26

II AJFCM, Kodad the simple injury sustained by PW4 & PW6 and also the grievous injury sustained by PW5.

23. The counsel for the accused argued that there is a discrepancy in identification of crime vehicle as evidence of PW1, PW2, PW5 and

PW6 revealed that the crime vehicle is a tipper whereas the evidence of PW3, PW4 and PW9/MVI reveals that the crime vehicle is a DCM. It is further argued that as per case of prosecution the crime vehicle is a tipper and the same is not supported by the

Motor Vehicle Inspector stating the crime vehicle as a DCM van.

From the evidence of the prosecution, it can be seen that PW1 to

PW6 has clear corroboration with regard to the accused driving crime vehicle in which the deceased along with others boarded for work and discrepancy with regard to the description of the crime vehicle, whether a tipper or a DCM is not material as the main ingredients constituting the offence under the alleged sections of law is proved by the prosecution. This court is of opinion that minor discrepancies about the exact description or naming of the crime vehicle is not material, as the witnesses are not expected to be technical experts in identifying the exact name & description of the crime vehicle.

II Addl. JFCM, Kodad

CC No. 1513 of 2017Pg. No. 21 of 26

II AJFCM, Kodad

24. On consolidated reading, it can be seen that the identity of the accused as on the date and time of the incident as the driver of the crime vehicle is established by the prosecution by proving the rash and negligent act on the part of the accused leading to the accident, resulting death of the deceased, simple injuries to PW4 & PW6 and grevious injury to PW5.

25. On closer scrutiny of the evidence on record would certainly establish the case of the prosecution and the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the accused by adducing oral and documentary evidence beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offence U/Sec.304-A, 338 & 337 of IPC. In the result, accused is found guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec. 304-A, 338 & 337 of IPC. The accused is convicted U/Sec. 255(2) Cr.P.C. for offences punishable U/s. 304-

A, 338 & 337 of IPC

Partly Typed by me on my personal laptop and also Partly typed to my dictation on the Computer by my Typist, corrected signed and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 07 th day of May, 2026.

II ADDL. JFCM,

KODAD.

II Addl. JFCM, Kodad

CC No.1513 of 2017Pg. No. 22 of 26

II AJFCM, Kodad

Quantum of Sentence:

Heard accused with regard to the quantum of sentence that 1.

can be imposed for the offence U/Sec. 304-A, 338 & 337 of

IPC. The accused has submitted to take lenient view while imposing the sentence as he is the only bread winner of his family of old aged mother, wife & two daughters. Heard the submission of learned counsel for the accused.

The offence U/Sec.304-A of IPC is punishable with 2.

imprisonment of either description for a term which may extent to 2 years or with fine or with both. The offence

U/Sec.338 of IPC is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. The offence U/Sec. 337 of IPC is punishable with imprisionment which may extend to 6 months or fine extend to Rs.500/- or with both.

When automobiles have become death traps any leniency 3.

shown to drivers who are found guilty of rash driving would be at the risk of further escalation of road accidents. All those who are manning the steering of automobiles, particularly professional drivers, must be kept under constant reminders of their duty to adopt utmost care and also of the consequences befalling them in cases of dereliction. One of the most effective ways of keeping such drivers under mental vigil is to maintain a deterrent element

II Addl. JFCM, Kodad

CC No. 1513 of 2017Pg. No. 23 of 26

II AJFCM, Kodad in the sentencing sphere. Any latitude shown to them in that sphere would tempt them to make driving frivolous and a frolic.

That while considering the quantum of sentence to be 4.

imposed for the offence of causing death or injury by rash and negligent driving of automobiles, one of the prime considerations should be deterrence. The persons driving motor vehicles cannot and should not take a chance thinking that even if he is convicted, he would be dealt with leniently by the Court. For lessening the high rate of motor accidents due to careless and callous driving of vehicles, the courts are expected to consider all relevant facts and circumstances bearing on the question of sentence and proceed to impose a sentence commensurate with the gravity of the offence if the prosecution is able to establish the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

It is a duty of the driver of every vehicle to be vigilant and 5.

cautious while driving. It is settled law that sentencing must have a policy of correction. If anyone has to become a good driver, must have a better training in traffic laws and moral responsibility with special reference to the potential injury to human life and limb. Considering the increased number of road accidents, The Hon’ble apex court, on several occasions, has reminded the criminal courts dealing with the offences relating to motor accidents that they cannot

II Addl. JFCM, Kodad

CC No.1513 of 2017Pg. No. 24 of 26

II AJFCM, Kodad treat the nature of the offence under Section 304A IPC as attracting the benevolent provisions of Section 4 of the

Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

Having considered the nature and circumstances of the case 6.

this court passed the following sentence.

In the result, the accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of One year and to pay a fine Rs.1,000/- (Rupees Thousand only) and in default of payment of fine he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable U/Sec.304-A of IPC. The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of 06 Months and to pay a fine

Rs.1,000/- (Rupees Thousand only) and in default of payment of fine he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable U/Sec.338 of

IPC. The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of 03 Months and to pay a fine

Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) and in default of payment of fine he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days for the offence punishable U/Sec.337 of

IPC and all convictions sentence run concurrently.

The period undergone by the accused during trial shall be 7.

set off as per section 428 of Cr.P.C.

The accused is informed about the free legal aid and the 8.

right of appeal. A free copy of the judgment shall be

II Addl. JFCM, Kodad

CC No. 1513 of 2017Pg. No. 25 of 26

II AJFCM, Kodad furnished to the accused U/Sec.363 Cr.P.C. Since no property is deposited there is no order with regard to property.

Partly Typed by me on my personal laptop and also Partly typed to my dictation on the Computer by my Typist, corrected signed and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 07 h day of May, 2026.

Sd/-

II ADDL. JFCM,

KODAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION :

PW-1.B. KavithaDefacto Complainant & Wife of the deceased

PW-2.K. SaiInjured

PW-3.N. BikshamInjured

PW-4.Ch. VeeraiahInjured

PW-5.M. PapaiahInjured

PW-6.B. MaheshInjured

PW-7.M. SaidaiahPanch witness for scene of offence and Inquest

PW-8.Sk.Ameenulla Issued MCs PW4,PW5,PW6 Ahafeezuddinand LW10

PW-9.K. Srinivas ReddyIssued MVI report

PW-10.G. Nagesh2nd IO

II Addl. JFCM, Kodad

CC No.1513 of 2017Pg. No. 26 of 26

II AJFCM, Kodad

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION :

Ex.P-1.Report dt: 24-05-2016

Ex.P-2.Scene of Offence panchanama dt: 24-05-2016

Ex.P-3.Rough Sketch dt: 24-05-2016

Ex.P-4.Inquest panchanama 24-05-2016

Ex.P-5.Wound certificate of PW4, dt: 14-06-2016

Ex.P-6.Wound certificate of PW5, dt: 14-06-2016

Ex.P-7.Wound certificate of PW6, dt: 14-05-2016

Ex.P-8.Wound certificate of LW10, dt: 24-05-2016

Ex.P-9.MVI report Dt: 01-06-2016

Ex.P-10.FIR Dt: 24-05-2016

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED: -NIL- MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED : -NIL-

Sd/-

II ADDL. JFCM,

KODAD.

II Addl. JFCM, Kodad

CC No.826 of 2017Pg. No. 1 of 19

II AJFCM, Kodad

THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS: AT KODAD

Thursday, the 30 th day of April, 2026.

Present: Smt. SYED ZAKIYYAH SULTHANA,

II Addl. JFCM, Kodad

CC. No. 826 of 2017.

(Old CC.No.237 of 2016)

BETWEEN: The State of Telangana through the Sub-Inspector of Police, Munagala Police Station.

….COMPLAINANT

AND

1. A1: Yelamanchi Venkanna S/o Tirpaiah, Age 42 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Konaigudem village, Garidepally Mandal, Nalgonda district.

2. A2: Yelamanchi Sathyavathi W/o. Venkanna, Age: 30 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Konaigudem village, Garidepally Mandal, Nalgonda district.

3. A3: Amati Venkat Reddy S/o. Surender Reddy, Age: 28 years, Occ: Sales Manager, Nagarjuna Agro Agencies, Huzurnagar, R/o. Teachers Colony, Huzurnagar.

…ACCUSED

Section of law:202, 420, 304 (A) of IPC and Sec.196, 177, 184 of MV Act Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the court:Found not guilty

Sentence or order:In the result, the A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offence U/Sec. 202, 420, 304 (A) of IPC and Sec.196, 177, 184 of MV Act and accordingly A1 to A3 are acquitted U/s 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of 06 months for preferring an appeal to the higher Court by the prosecution. As no property deposited no order as to property is made.

CC No. 826 of 2017Pg. No. 2 of 19

II AJFCM, Kodad

This case came before me for final hearing on 28-04-2026 in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri. K. Sharath Kumar, learnedcounsel for A1 and A2 and Sri U. Narsaiah, learned counsel for A3, upon perusing the material papers on record, and on hearing both the sides and the case having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

Brief Averments of the Case:

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Munagala Police Station filed charge sheet against A1 to A3 in Cr.No.190 of 2014 for the offence under Section 202, 420, 304 (A) IPC and Sec.177, 184, 196 of MV Act.

2. The case of prosecution is about fatal road accident, which occurred on 06-12-2014 at about 18.15 hours, the PW10/1st

IO/S.Ramesh, SI of Police, PS Munagala received an information about the occurrence of accident at the outskirts of Akupamula village between a car and a tractor, on which the PW10/IO rushed to the spot at the outskirts of Akupamula village along with his staff, where he found the Tata Safari in damaged condition and trailer of a tractor near to it with a tractor engine at little distance and the injured was already shifted to hospital in 108 ambulance.

3. He/PW10 received the report from the defacto

II ADDL. JFCM

CC No. 826 of 2017Pg. No. 3 of 19

II AJFCM, Kodad complainant/PW1/C V. Rami Reddy on the spot at 18:45 hours, in which the PW1 stated that when he was at his agriculture field, he heard a huge sound from NHW-65 side immediately he rushed to the scene and found that one TATA

SAFARI bearing No.AP-29-BD-2323 met with an accident and one person sustained severe bleeding injuries in it and on observing there one cell phone was ringing Janakiram and his father name was Nandamuri Hari Krishna, Telugu Desham party leader. Later on observing the scene he also found a tractor with its trolley No. AP 24-H-9962 and it was found that the driver of the above tractor drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner in wrong route and gave dash to the said

Tata Safari Car. Later the injured was shifted to the Tirumala

Hospital at Kodad for treatment through 108 Ambulance, where he came to know that he was declared died. Hence he requested for necessary action against the driver of the tractor.

4. Basing on the report, the PW9/G. China Malsoor, HC 744 of

PS Munagala upon instructions of PW10/IO registered a case in Cr.No.190/2014 for the offence U/sec. 202, 420, 304 (A)

IPC against driver of tractor & trolley No. AP 24 H 9962. and sent the CD file to the PW10/1st IO for further investigation.

Meanwhile the PW9/HC also informed the case facts to the

II ADDL. JFCM

CC No. 826 of 2017Pg. No. 4 of 19

II AJFCM, Kodad superior officers concerned including the PW11/2nd IO/P.

Madhu Sudhan Reddy, CI of Police, Kodad.

5. During the course of investigation, PW10/1st IO after receiving the CD file through PC. 2026, examined the PW1 and recorded his statement and also examined the circumstantial witness

LW2/L. Nageswar Rao, who is resident of Akupamula village and was present there at scene of offence, and recorded his statement in part-II CD. Further the PW10 secured the panch witnesses LW13/B. Brahmam and PW5/P. Babu conducted the panchanama of scene of offence and seized the tractor from the scene which is not having the registration number on it and having the engine No. 331008SSL3582A, Chassis

No.WRTL24418130882 and also seized the trailer having the display of No. AP 24-H-9962 on it under the cover of panchanama in the presence of the same punch witnesses by affixing the punch chits besides drafting rough sketch of the scene of offence.

6. Further the PW10/1st IO visited Tirumala Hospital, Kodad, confirmed the death of deceased/Janakiran by the

LW-7/Dr.K.Suresh, examined him and LW5/E. Ravi Chandra and recorded their detail statement in part-II CD. On receiving the information about the offence, the PW11/2nd IO visited

II ADDL. JFCM

CC No. 826 of 2017Pg. No. 5 of 19

II AJFCM, Kodad

Tirumala Hospital, Kodad and took up case file from PW10/1st

IO and perused the CD file of this case. On the requisition of

PW11/2nd IO, the Hon'ble District Collector permitted to shift the dead body to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad vide proceedings C.No. C2/3847/2014 for conducting the Post

Mortem in the night to prevent law and order problem as huge gathering to see the corpse.

7. Subsequently, shifted to the corpse of the deceased to

Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad and death intimation of deceased/Nandamuri Janakiram has been passed to his blood relatives. After reaching the mortuary of OGH, Hyderabad, the

LW3/Nandamuri Kalyan Ram and LW4/Nandamuri Rama

Krishna have visited OGH Hyderabad and identified the dead body of the deceased as Nandamuri Janakiram as such, the

PW11/2nd IO examined and recorded their statements in part-

II CDs. Later the pw11/2nd IO conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased by securing the panch witnesses

LW15/Singi Reddy Srinivas Reddy and LW16/Shaik Subhan

Pasha in their presence and he/IO made requisition to conduct Post Mortem Examination. The Medical Officer/LW-21 has conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased.

8. On 07.12.2014, the PW11/2nd IO summoned LW6/B. Ravi

II ADDL. JFCM

CC No. 826 of 2017Pg. No. 6 of 19

II AJFCM, Kodad

Kumar, PW2/D. Nagaraju and LW11/T. Babu to the PS, who are circumstantial and eye-witness to the incident, examined and recorded their detail statements in part-II CDs. Further the PW11/2nd IO visited the agricultural fields located beside,

Raja Agrovet Farms, Akupamula village, examined the witnesses PW4/G. Anjaiah and LW9/T. Susheelamma and recorded their detail statements in part-II CDs.

9. On 08.12.2014, the accused A-1 was arrested and recorded his confessional statement in the presence of mediators

PW6/V. Saida Rao and LW18/Shaik Dastagir and seized the

R.C of the tractor bearing No. AP-24-AV-8762 from the possession of the A-1 under a cover of panchanama in presence of the same panchas. The Pw11/2nd IO examined and recorded the statement of eyewitness PW3/S. Narsi Reddy in part-II CD. Thereafter, the accused was produced before the

Hon'ble Court for Judicial remand on the same day.

10.On perusal of the documents, the R.C of the Tractor Engine bearing number is AP-24-AV-8762 having Engine number 331008SSL3582A and Chassis number WFTL24418130882, as well as the Trailer R.C bearing No.AP-24-AV-8760, it containsChassisnumber

K201302211PPEWNLG001400502TT and they are on the

II ADDL. JFCM

CC No. 826 of 2017Pg. No. 7 of 19

II AJFCM, Kodad name of A-2. The number displayed to the Trailer of the tractor at the time of offence was AP-24-H-9962 in his confession A1 disclosed that, previously the A1 owned a tractor bearing No

AP-24-11-9961 and the trailer No.AP-24-H-9962, he sold away the said tractor Engine at Huzurnagar Swaraj Show room for

Rs.1,70,000/- through A-3 and the trailer R.C. paper for Rs 10,000/- by retaining the trailer with him, Later he purchased the new tractor in the same show room and registered the same at RTA authorities bearing Engine No.AP-24-AV-8762 on the name of A-2. He further disclosed that he obtained the new

RC number AP-24-AV- 8760 for the old trailer retained by him but continued to display the old Trailer bearing no AP-24-H- 9962 and running the new tractor along with old trailer there by cheating. The accused A2 & A3 were added as accused as they were aware of facts section of law U/s.420 IPC added to the section 304(A) IPC.

11.While the investigation was were in progress, on 31.03.2015 at 15.00 hours the accused A-2 came to Circle Office Kodad

Rural along with A-1 and surrendered before PW11/2nd IO by admitting her quilt, as such PW11/2nd IO secured the presence of panchas LW19/J. Saidamma and PW7/B. Sundaraiah and recorded her confession statement under a cover of

II ADDL. JFCM

CC No. 826 of 2017Pg. No. 8 of 19

II AJFCM, Kodad panchanama. Later effected her arrest and issued arrest memos against her, duly complying the directions of the Apex court with regard to arrest of accused persons and sent her to judicial remand on the same day.

12.The Medical Officer/LW-21/Dr.M. Taqiuddin Khan, who held autopsy over the corpse, has opined that the cause of the death was due to "BLUNT INJURY CHEST". PW8/MVI/K.

Srinivas Reddy who inspected the crime vehicle i.e. Tractor and also victim vehicle ie. Tata Safari, has opined that "IN MY

OPINION THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED NOT DUE TO ANY

MECHANICAL DEFECTS", On the requisition filed by the

PW11/2nd IO, the LW23-Smt. N. Hemalatha Hon’ble JMFC,

Huzurnagar has recorded the statements of witnesses PW2/D.

Nagaraju and PW3/S. Narsi Reddy and PW4/G. Anjaiah U/s 164 Cr.P.C.

13.On perusal of the material placed by the prosecution, this case is taken on file for the offence punishable under Section U/s 202, 420, 304 (A) of IPC and Sec.196, 177, 184 of MV Act against A1 to A3 and on appearance of accused copies of documents are furnished to them as required U/sec.207

Cr.P.C.

II ADDL. JFCM

CC No. 826 of 2017Pg. No. 9 of 19

II AJFCM, Kodad 14.After furnishing copies of documents, on 04-11-2025 the accused were examined U/s 239 Cr.P.C. for the substance of accusation for the offence U/Sec. 202, 420, 304 (A) of IPC and

Sec.196, 177, 184 of MV Act on which the accused denied the accusation, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Hence, the trial against A1 to A3.

15.As per the Orders of Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Nalgonda vide Procs. Dis. No. 438/2017, dt. 24-06-2017, this case previously numbered as CC. No. 237/2016 was received from Prl. Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Kodad and was renumbered as CC No. 826 of 2017 by Addl. Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Kodad. Later this case was

transferred to this Court vide Orders of Hon’ble Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Suryapet vide Procs. Dis. No.

66/2024/A1, dt. 22-02-2024 from I Addl. Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Kodad to this Court.

16.During the course of trial the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 11 and got marked Exs.P1 to P14. Prosecution examined the defacto complainant/V. Rami Reddy as PW1; Eye- witness/D. Nagaraju as PW2; Eye witness/S. Narsi Reddy

II ADDL. JFCM

CC No. 826 of 2017Pg. No. 10 of 19

II AJFCM, Kodad as PW3; Cir-witness/G. Anjaiah as PW4; Panch witness for scene of offence/P. Babu as PW5; Panch witness confession cum seizure of A1/V. Saida Rao as PW6; Panch witness for confession of A2/B. Sundariah as PW7; K. Srinivas

Reddy/MVI as PW8; HC/G. Chinna Malsoor issued FIR as

PW9; S. Ramesh/1st IO SI of Police as PW10 and P. Madhu

Sudhan Reddy/2nd IO CI of Police as PW11.

17. Ex.P1 is the report of PW1, dt. 06-12-2014; Ex.P2 is the 161

Cr.PC Statement of PW3; Ex.P3 is the 161 Cr.PC Statement of

PW4; Ex.P4 is the scene of offence panchanama, dt. 06-12-2014;

Ex.P5 is the rough sketch, dt. 06-12-2014; Ex.P6 is the portion of confession panchanama as to seizure of RC, dt. 08-12-2014;

Ex.P7 is the MVI report of Car, victim vehicle dated 09-12-2014;

Ex.P8 is the MVI report of Tractor, Crime Vehicle, dated 09-12- 2014; Ex.P9 is the FIR, dated 06-12-2014; Ex.P10 is the inquest report; Ex.P11 is the PME report; Ex.P12 is the CC of sec.164

Cr.PC statement of LW8/PW4; Ex.P13 is the CC of sec.164 Cr.P.C statement of LW10/PW2 and Ex.P14 is the CC of sec.164 Cr.PC statement of LW12/PW3.

18.On 24-02-2026 the Learned APP has given up the evidences of

LW19. On 23-03-2026 the evidence of LW3, LW4, LW6, LW7,

II ADDL. JFCM

CC No. 826 of 2017Pg. No. 11 of 19

II AJFCM, Kodad

LW9 & LW11 was closed by this Court as the prosecution failed to secure their presence. The evidence of LW3 & LW4 was recalled vide Crl. MP. Dt. 629/2026, dt. 23-04-2026 but again the prosecution failed to secure the presence of LW3 &n LW4. The evidence of LW15 & LW16 was closed on 16-04-2026 & the evidence of LW23 along with LW3 & LW4 was closed on 28-04- 2026 due to failure of prosecution to secure their presence. On 24-02-2026, 09-02-2026, 03-02-2026 and 24-02-2026 the

Learned APP has field the death certificates of LW’s 2, 5, 13 and 18 respectively.

19. After closure of prosecution evidence the accused were examined

U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating circumstances appeared against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses for which they denied the truthfulness of the evidence and reported no defense evidence on his side.

20.Heard, learned A.P.P., and learned counsel for the accused and perused the material available on record.

Now the point for determination is;

“Whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the

accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence

punishable under Sec. 202, 420, 304 (A) of IPC and Sec.196,

177, 184 of MV Act?

Point:

II ADDL. JFCM

CC No. 826 of 2017Pg. No. 12 of 19

II AJFCM, Kodad

21.The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that on 06-12-2014, A1 drove a tractor without registration number along with the trolley bearing number AP 24 H 9962 in a rash and negligent manner, crossed the median opening on National Highway 65 in a high speed and gave dash to the Tata Safari car bearing number AP 29 BD 2323, travelling from Vijayawada towards Hyderabad due to which the driver of the car by name, Nandamuri Janaki Ram sustained severe injuries and succumbed to death. A1 being the driver of tractor has driven tractor

Negligently without having valid insurance policy to it, causing death of a person and by endangering the human life and A2 being the owner of the tractor negligently assigned A1 to drive the tractor without insurance thereby resulting death of the deceased contravening the provisions of MV Act.

22. It is further alleged by the prosecution that A1 sold tractor bearing number AP 24 H 9961 and the RC papers of trailer number AP 24 H 9962 to the Swaraj showroom through A3 and purchase new tractor bearing number AP 24 AV 8762 in the name of A2 and obtained a new

RC number AP 24 AV 8760 for the old trailer but still continued to display the old trailer number AP 24 H 9962 on it there by A1 to A3 committed cheating, and also they intentionally omitted to give the information of offence to the person bound to be informed.

23. In order to prove these allegations, the prosecution examine PW1 to

PW 11. The defecto complainant is examined as PW1, he deposed that

II ADDL. JFCM

CC No. 826 of 2017Pg. No. 13 of 19

II AJFCM, Kodad there was an accident on NH 65 involving a car and a tractor, in which the driver of the car sustained injuries, but there was no person in the tractor. PW2 is the eye witness examined by the prosecution, he deposed in the same line that there was an accident on the highway involving a car and tractor and that the driver of the car sustained injuries, shifted to the hospital and died later. From the evidence of

PW1 and PW2, the accident between the car and the tractor is only elicited by the prosecution. The details regarding the vehicle numbers or about the driver of the tractor could not be brought on record through the evidence of PW1 and PW2.

24. Another eye witness PW3 and the circumstance witness PW4 did not support the case of prosecution and were declared hostel by learned

APP. Nothing could be elicited from them in favour of prosecution during the examination in the nature of cross by learned APP.

25. The Panch witness for the scene of of Panchanama is examined as

PW5, he deposed in corraboration with the evidence of PW1 and PW2 about the presence of a Safari car and tractor near the U-turn on the

National Highway and got marked Ex.P4 & Ex.P5.

26. The panch witness for the confession panchanama of A1 is examined as PW6 and panch witness for confession & panchanama of A2 is examined as PW7. PW6 deposed that A1 confessed in his presence that he committed the accident on 06-12-2014 and that A3 was also present along with him. PW6 further deposed that A1 confessed before

II ADDL. JFCM

CC No. 826 of 2017Pg. No. 14 of 19

II AJFCM, Kodad him that after the accident A1 left the scene of offence by walking and police seized the registration certificate in his presence. PW7 deposed that A2 confessed before him that the accident occurred due to their tractor. As per evidence of PW6 a RC seized from the possession of A1 and the said portion in the Panchanama is marked as Ex.P6 but they said RC is not produced before the court by the prosecution. It is pertinent to note that the confession of A1 & A2 are extrajudicial and are recorded in the police station. It is a settled law under section 26 of Indian Evidence Act that the confession made by the accused while, in the custody of the police cannot be proved against him subject to section 27 of Indian Evidence Act, but in this case, there is no information received from the accused falling under section 27 of

Indian Evidence Act. Hence, the confession of A1 and A2 cannot be proved against them.

27. The motor vehicle inspector who examined both car bearing number

AP 29 BD 2323, and tractor AP 24 AV 8762, along with the trailer, AP 24 H 9962 opined that the accident occurred not due to any mechanical defect of any of the vehicle. The investigating officers are examined as PW9 to PW 11. The 2nd investigating officer/PW 10 deposed that he seized a tractor AP 24 H 9962 from the scene of offence and 3rd Investigating officer/PW 11 deposed that he seized RC from the custody of A1 under the cover of Confession Panchama, neither the tractor nor RC is deposited in the court as per the record.

II ADDL. JFCM

CC No. 826 of 2017Pg. No. 15 of 19

II AJFCM, Kodad

28. On verification of record, it is found that this court has given the interim custody of tractor bearing number AP 24 AV 8762 to A2 vide

Crmp no: 5840/2014 dated: 18-12-2014 and interim custody of trailor bearing number AP 24 H 9962 to A1 vide Crmp No: 5839/2014 dated 18-12-2014. It is further found that there is no mention about the deposit of the tractor along with the trailer in the court by the prosecution in the chargesheet or in the record and there is no case property register number allotted to it. However, as there are interim custody orders given by this court they stands good and shall be made absolute after expiry of appeal period in this case.

29. In the evidence of PW 11, it is admitted by the investigating officer to the suggestions given by the counsel for the A3 that no document is submitted in this court to show the purchase or sale of any tractor or trolley from the Swaraj showroom, and that A3 is not concerned with the accident in this case. As found from the record, there is no document brought by the prosecution to show the ownership or the possession of the alleged tractor or trolley involved in this case and as admitted by PW 11, there is no document on record to show the purchase or sale of any tractor or trolley from Swaraj showroom in which A3 is working.

30. On consolidated reading of the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, it can be seen that the main witnesses PW1 to PW4 did not identify any of the accused as a driver of the tractor involved in the

II ADDL. JFCM

CC No. 826 of 2017Pg. No. 16 of 19

II AJFCM, Kodad crime and there is no evidence on record to show at least the presence of any of the accused at the scence of offence as alleged by the prosecution.

31. The prosecution is only relying upon the confession of A1 & A2 which cannot be proved against them as it is an extra judicial confession recorded in the police custody as such barred under section 26 of

Indian Evidence Act from proof against the accused. Other than the confessions there is no evidence on record to relate A1 to A3 with the accident or the accident vehicle.

32. The prosecution failed to prove A1 was the driver of the crime vehicle as on the date and time of accident, as such the question of applicability of section 304A of IPC and section184 & 196 of Motor

Vehicle Act does not apply. There is no evidence on record that A2 is the owner of the tractor and A1 is the owner of the trailer involved in the crime, but-for the confessions of A1 & A2 which cannot be proved against them. Hence offences under section 177 of Motor Vehicle Act cannot be said to be proved against A1 & A2 and offence under section 304A of IPC is not proved against A2.

33. There is also no evidence on record to prove the allegation of the prosecution about selling of RC papers of the trolley bearing number

AP 24 H9962 to the Swaraj showroom through A3 by retaining the same and registering it with a new RC number AP 24 AV 8760 and continuing to use it with the old bearing number AP 24 H 9962 by

II ADDL. JFCM

CC No. 826 of 2017Pg. No. 17 of 19

II AJFCM, Kodad committing cheating. No single document is brought on record by the prosecution to prove that transactions alleged by them between the

A1, A2 and Swaraj showroom through A3. Hence, the cheating cannot be attracted against A1 to A3. As the prosecution could not prove any of the offence, section 202 of IPC alleging intentional omission to give information of offence by A1 to A3 does not come into the scene.

34. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, and upon careful scrutiny and evaluation of evidence on record, this Court is of opinion that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of any of accused by relating him to crime vehicle. Therefore, prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, accused are entitled for acquittal.

35.In the result, the A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offence

U/Sec. 202, 420, 304 (A) of IPC and Sec.196, 177, 184 of MV Act and accordingly A1 to A3 are acquitted U/s 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of 06 months for preferring an appeal to the higher Court by the prosecution. As no property deposited no order as to property is made.

Partly Typed by me on my personal laptop and also Partly typed to my dictation on the Computer by my Typist,

II ADDL. JFCM

CC No. 826 of 2017Pg. No. 18 of 19

II AJFCM, Kodad corrected signed and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 30 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-

II ADDL. JFCM,

KODAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION :

PW-1.V. Rami ReddyComplainant

PW-2.D. Nagaraju Eye witness

PW-3.S. Narsi Reddy Eye witness

PW-4.G. Anjaiah Cir-Witness

PW-5.P, BabuPunch for the scene of offence and seizure panchanama

PW-6.V. SaidaraoPunch for confession and seizure panchanama

PW-7.B. SundaraiahPunchforconfession panchanama

PW-8.K. Srinivas ReddyIssued MVI report

PW-9.G. Chinna MalsoorIssued FIR

PW-10. S. Ramesh1st IO

PW-11. P. Madhusudhan Reddy2nd IO

II ADDL. JFCM

CC No. 826 of 2017Pg. No. 19 of 19

II AJFCM, Kodad

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION :

Ex.P-1.Report of PW1 dt: 06-12-2014

Ex.P-2. Sec.161 Cr. Pc. Statement of PW3

Ex.P-3.Sec.161 Cr. Pc. Statement of PW4

Ex.P-4.Scene of offence panchanama dt: 06-12-2014

Ex.P-5.Rough sketch dt: 06-12-2014

Ex.P-6.The Portion of confession-cum seizure panchanama of A1, dated 08-12-2014.

Ex.P-7.MVI Report of Car/Victim Vehicle, dt: 09-12-2014

Ex.P-8.MVI Report of Tractor, dt: 09-12-2014

Ex.P-9.FIR dt: 06-12-2014

Ex.P-10.Inquest panchanama, dt: 06-12-2014

Ex.P-11.PME Report, dt: 06-12-2014

Ex.P-12.CC of sec. 164 Cr.PC. statement of LW8/PW4

Ex.P-13.CC of sec. 164 Cr.PC. statement of LW10/PW2

Ex.P-14.CC of sec. 164 Cr.PC. statement of LW12/PW3

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED: -NIL- MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED : -NIL-

Sd/-

II ADDL. JFCM,

KODAD.

II ADDL. JFCM

Page 1 of 17

CC No.480 of 2017

II AJFCM, Kodad

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF FIRST CLASS: AT KODAD

Tuesday the 30 th day of April, 2026.

Present: Smt. SYED ZAKIYYAH SULTHANA,

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kodad

CC.No.480 of 2017

(Old C.C.No: 661/2014)

BETWEEN: The State of Telangana through the Sub-Inspector of Police, Chilukur Police Station.

….COMPLAINANT

AND

A-1 Yarramshetti Laxmaiah S/o. Ramaiah, Age : 55 Years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Bethavole Village of Chilkur mandal. A-2 Yarrashetti Ramesh S/o. Laxmaiah, Age: 35 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Bethavole Village of Chilkur mandal …ACCUSED

Section of law:406, 420, 506 r/w 34 of IPC

Plea of the Pleaded not guilty accused: Finding of the Found not guilty court: Sentence or order: In the result, A1 & A2 accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec. 406, 420, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted U/s 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remained in force for a period of 6 months as per Sec. 437-A Cr.P.C., for preferring appeal to the higher Court from the Judgment of this Court by the Prosecution. Since no property is deposited there is no order with regard to the property.

This case came before me for final hearing on 24-04-2026 in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri. S.R.K. Murthy, learned counsel for the accused, upon perusing the material papers on record, hearing both the sides and the case having

Page 2 of 17

CC No.480 of 2017

II AJFCM, Kodad stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

Brief Averments of the Case:

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Chilukur Police Station filed a

Charge sheet against the Accused No.1 & 2 in Crime No. 165 of 2013 for the offence under Section 406, 420, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the

PW1/complainant filed private complaint before the Hon’ble

Court on 22-10-2013 which was referred to SHO of PS Chilukur

U/s. 156 (3) Cr.PC. PW1 alleged that the accused No. 1 & 2 are father and son, belong to same village and well acquaintance with PW1. The PW1 had intention to purchase some properties at

Bethavole village knowing the same, the A1 and A2 approached the PW1 and stated that they are the owners and possessors of 1)

RG residential House bearing H.No. 10-78 consisting of (7) rooms within the area of 150 sq yds, approximately bounded by North house of Yaggadi Lingaiah, South house of Jilloju Brhammam,

East: Gramapanchayath Bazar, West: west House of Jilloju

Brhammam shown under item No. l of the schedule of agreement and 2. A.C.C. roofed shed bearing H.No. 10-65 and site

II ADDL. JFCM

Page 3 of 17

CC No.480 of 2017

II AJFCM, Kodad admeasuring an extent of 150 sq.yds approximately bounded by

North: house of Gundu Veeraswamy, south House of Akkinapally

Krishna Murthy, East Fort wall, west: Gramapanchayath Bazar, shown under item No.2 of the schedule of agreement situated at situated at Bethavole Gramapanchayath and Revenue village limits, Chilkur Mandal, Nalgonda dist.

3. It is further alleged that A1 stated that he purchased the said property from Sri Yaggadi Kannaiah through Regd. Sale Deed

No.1383/1993 on the file of Sub-Registrar, Kodad. After mutual bargaining the PW1 agreed to purchase the said property dt.

12.02.2007 at the price of Rs. 3,30,000/-(Rs. Three lakhs and thirty thousand only) for entire schedule to the property and an agreement of sale was reduced into writing on the same day

Bethavole village. Accordingly the PW1 paid an amount of Rs.

30,000/-(Rs. Thirty thousand only) to the A1 on 12.02.2007 towards advance sale consideration at Bethavole village, Chilkur

Mandal. It is agreed that the balance sale consideration of

Rs.1,70,000/-will be paid on or before dt. 11.03.2007 and

Rs.1,30,000/-will be paid on or before dt.10.01.2008.

II ADDL. JFCM

Page 4 of 17

CC No.480 of 2017

II AJFCM, Kodad

4. It is further alleged that the A1 received (Rs. Thirty thousand only) on 12.02.2007 and the A1 and A2 received Rs.1,70,000/- (Rs. one lakh seventy thousand only) on 10.08.2007 from the

PW1 at Bethavole village, Chilkur Mandal in the presence of elders and listed witnesses. In evidence of the said transaction the A1 executed a sale agreement, dt.12.07.2007 in favour of the

PW1 and the A1 and A2 made part payment endorsement dt.

10.08.2007 on the said document in the presence of elders and listed witnesses coupled with delivery of possession.

5. It is further alleged that A1 agreed that he will execute a Regd.

sale deed in respect of the said property in favor of the PW1 at his cost after receipt of balance of sale consideration. The accused delivered possession the said property in favour of the

PW1 on the same day itself and since then the PW1 has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property. At the time of execution of sale agreement, the A1 and A2 made believe the

PW1 that there are no disputes in respect of the said property and agreed that if any dispute, litigation arises and any loans exists, they will solve the same with their own consent and will execute a regular Regd. Sale deed in favour of the PW1. The PW1

II ADDL. JFCM

Page 5 of 17

CC No.480 of 2017

II AJFCM, Kodad has been always ready and willing to perform his part of contract of sale, but the A1 and A2 are otherwise.

6. In the meanwhile the Dy.Commercial Tax Officer, Kodad issued a notice, dt. 24-05-2007 to the Sarpanch/secretary,

Gramapanchayath, Bethavole village stating that the A1 run a business under the name and style of M/s Sairam Traders,

Bethavole and fell due of sales tax and R.D. of Rs.7,72,973/- to the Govt. Authorities and stated that while obtaining the license the A1 put the said property as surety to the Govt, towards tax due and affixed the said copy in the Grmapanchayath office of

Bethavole village.

7. It is further alleged that the A1 and A2 made believe the complainant there are no mortgages, sureties, disputes in respect of the under the agreement of sale dt.12.02.2007 and the said property free from all kind of encumbrances and received Rs.

2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) from the PW1, but the said property is under surety to Govt. of A.P towards the tax due for the business run by the A1 and A2. Subsequently, before the due date dt.10.01.2008 the PW1 approached the A1 and A2 along with elders/listed witnesses and questioned them

II ADDL. JFCM

Page 6 of 17

CC No.480 of 2017

II AJFCM, Kodad regarding the cheating the committed by them and on which the

A1 and A2 admitted their guilt before the listed elders/witnesses.

As such the PW1 requested the A1 and A2 to solve the problem with the Govt. Authorities and receive the balance of sale consideration amount and execute a regular Regd. Sale deed in his favour at his cost in respect of the above said property or else demanded for return of the amount of Rs.2,00,000/-received by them with interest, but the A1 and A2 refused to do so.

8. It is further alleges that when the PW1 questioned the illegal act of the A1 and A2, they threatened the PW1 with dire consequences by stating that if he demanded for return of money, he will do away the life of the PW1. The A1 and A2 are influenced persons and backed-up by political parties in the village. As such the PW1 prayed the Hon ble court to punish the

A1 and A2.

9. Based on the above complaint, and as per the directions of the

Hon'ble JFCM. Kodad, LW-7/1st IO the then Sl of Police (C.

Purendhar Bhatt) registered a case in Cr.No. 165/2013 for offences U/S 403, 406, 417, 418, 420, 423, 506 r/w 34 of IPC &

Sec 156 (3) Cr.P.C, issued FIR and took up the investigation.

II ADDL. JFCM

Page 7 of 17

CC No.480 of 2017

II AJFCM, Kodad

10.During the course of investigation, LW-7/1st IO the then SI of Police examined the PW1 and other witnesses as PW2/K.

Mattiah, PW3/B. Venkataiah, PW4/Y. Saidaiah, PW5/V. Nagaiah and PW6/D. Narasimha Rao and recorded their 161 (3) Cr.P.C statements in detail in part-II CD. The LW7/1st IO visited

Bethavole village, caused discreet and detailed enquiries about the occurrence of offence.

11. Subsequently, the PW7/2nd IO/M.Ramanjaneyulu, SI of

Police, Chilkur P.S took up further investigation of this case, gone through the lines of investigation done by LW7/1st IO. As per the evidence collected during the course of investigation, no offence is made out against accused persons for the offences punishable U/s 403, 417, 418, 423 IPC as such the same sections are deleted from this case, by the Investigating Officer.

On 04-08-2014 the A-1 surrendered before this Hon'ble court vide Cri.M.P.No.3470/2014 & on 28-08-2014 the A-2 surrenderedbeforethisHon'blecourtvide

Cri.M.P.No.4074/2014. After the completion of Investigation

PW7/2nd IO filed the Chargesheet.

II ADDL. JFCM

Page 8 of 17

CC No.480 of 2017

II AJFCM, Kodad

12. On perusal of the material placed by the prosecution, the Court has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Section

U/s 406, 420 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC against A1 and A2 and on appearance of accused copies of documents were furnished to them as required U/sec.207 Cr.P.C.

13. On 01-08-2017 A1 and A2 were examined U/s 239 Cr.P.C. for the substance of accusation for the offence U/Sec. 406, 420 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC for which the accused denied the accusation for the offence punishable U/Sec. 406, 420 and 506 r/w 34 of

IPC were framed read over and explained to A1 and A2 in vernacular language, for which A1 and A2 denied and on question of plea of guilt, A1 and A2 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the trial against A1 and A2.

14.As per the Orders of Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Nalgonda vide Procs. Dis. No. 438/2017, dt. 24-06-2017, this case previously numbered as CC. No.661/2014 was received from Prl. Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Kodad and was renumbered as CC. No. 480 of 2017 by Addl. Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Kodad. Later this case was

transferred to this Court vide Orders of Hon’ble Chief

II ADDL. JFCM

Page 9 of 17

CC No.480 of 2017

II AJFCM, Kodad

Judicial Magistrate, Suryapet vide Procs. Dis. No.

66/2024/A1,dt. 22-02-2024 from I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Kodad to this Court.

15. During the course of trial the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P1 to P7. Prosecution examined the complainant/U.Narsimha Rao as PW1; Cir-witness/K. Mattaiah as PW2; Cir-witness as PW3; Cir-witness/Y. Saidaiah as PW4;

Cir-witness/V. Nagaiah as PW5; Cir-witness/D. Narasimha Rao as PW6; IO/M. Ramanjaneyulu as PW7 and Asst. Director at

TGFSL/N. Krishna Prasad as PW8.

16. Ex.P1 is the private complaint, dt.22-10-2013; Ex.P2 is the sale agreement, dt.12-02-2007; Ex.P3 is the payment endorsement, dt.10-03-2007; Ex.P4 is the attested copy of Sales Tax department, dt.24-05-2007 regarding tax dues; Ex.P5 is the

Sec.161 Cr.PC statement of PW6; Ex.P6 is the FIR, dt.14-12- 2013 and Ex.P7 is the TGFSL report, dt.06-12-2025.

17. After closure of prosecution evidence the accused No.1 and 2 were examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating circumstances appeared against them in the evidence of

II ADDL. JFCM

Page 10 of 17

CC No.480 of 2017

II AJFCM, Kodad prosecution witnesses for which they denied the truthfulness of the evidence and reported no defense evidence on their side.

18. During the course of trial the defense examined the DW1 and got marked Exs.D1 to D4. Defense examined the A1/Y.Laxmaiah as

DW1. Ex.D1 is the CC of decree; Ex.D2 is the CC of Judgment;

Ex.D3 is the CC of Vakalath; Ex.D4 is the CC of docket proceedings in OS 116 of 2016 and Ex.D5 is the CC of petition in

EP No.7/19.

19. At the stage of arguments petitions to analyse signature of A1 &

A2 by sending to FSL were allowed vide CrMP 2629 & 26230 of 2019 dated 30-01-2020 and received FSL report issued by

PW8/Asst. Director/TGFSL opining that there are similarities in the signature vide Ex.P7, dated. 06-12-2025. Heard arguments of the both sides.

Now the point for determination is; “Whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence

punishable under Sec. 406, 420 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC?

Point:

20. The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that accused committed breach of trust and also cheated complainant/PW1 by

II ADDL. JFCM

Page 11 of 17

CC No.480 of 2017

II AJFCM, Kodad not registering the sale of property for which agreement of sale is executed by them on 12-02-2007 and also not returning

Rs.2,00,000/- received by them under the said sale agreement and by concealing the fact that there is tax due on the property involved in the said sale agreement. It is further alleged that the accused threatened PW1 on request to execute registration or repay the advance amount.

21. The prosecution examined the complainant as PW1, he deposed that he agreed to purchase house from A1 located in Bethavole

Village to extent of 150 Sq yards for a sale consideration of

Rs.3,30,000/- by paying an advance of Rs.30,000/- and paying

Rs.1,70,000/- on 10-03-2007. It is further deposed that the remaining amount of Rs. 1,30,000/- scheduled for payment on 10-01-2008, meanwhile, on 24-05-2007 he received a notice from the department of sales tax disclosing that the accused were due to pay Rs.7,72,000/- on the mortgage of the sale property.

Further deposed that on 10-01-2008, he went and demanded A1 & A2 to register the house as per the sale agreement by taking the balance amount of Rs. 1,30,000/- but they did not do so,

II ADDL. JFCM

Page 12 of 17

CC No.480 of 2017

II AJFCM, Kodad and also not paid the amount received by them. Prosecution got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 through PW1.

22. At this juncture, it is apt to extract Section 406, 420, 506 of IPC, for ready reference, which reads as follows:

S. 406 of IPC – Punishment for criminal breach of trust

Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both

S. 420 of IPC – Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property

Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

S.506 of IPC – Punishment for criminal intimidation

Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both;

If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc — and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, of with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute

II ADDL. JFCM

Page 13 of 17

CC No.480 of 2017

II AJFCM, Kodad unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.

23. It is mentioned in complaint filed by the PW1 in the court marked as Ex.P1, that A1 & A2 threatened PW1 with dire consequences, but the evidence of PW1 does not disclose about any threatening by any of accused and evidence of PW2 to 6 also do not support the allegation of threatening by any of the accused as alleged by the prosecution and mentioned in the complaint of PW1. There is no evidence on record to prove the allegation under section 506 of IPC against A1 & A2.

24. The prosecution examined PW2 to PW6, to support its case of cheating and breach of trust. In order to establish breach of trust under section 406 of IPC there must be initial lawful entrustment of property. In the evidence, PW2 to PW5 travelled in the same lines as deposed by PW1 stating that an agreement of sale is executed by A1 & A2 in favour of PW1 and received an amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- from PW1 and only an amount of Rs.1,30,000/- was balance as per the sale agreement. PW6 did not support the case of prosecution and was declared hostile. Nothing could be listed from the evidence of PW6 in favour of the prosecution

II ADDL. JFCM

Page 14 of 17

CC No.480 of 2017

II AJFCM, Kodad during the examination in the nature of cross by learned APP. As per evidence of PW1 to PW5 and also the prosecution, the agreement of sale is in favour of PW1. As per the complaint/Ex.P1 given by PW1, the property in the sale agreement is already delivered to him and that he is in the possession of the same from the date of agreement of sale and also as on the date of filing complaint/Ex.P1. Hence no initial lawful entrustment in favour of accused given by PW1 is proved by the prosecution.

25. The allegation of prosecution regarding cheating against the accused by not registering the property in Ex.P2 in favour of

PW1, not disclosing about the tax due over the said property and also refusing to return amount of Rs.2,00,000/- in case of non- registration of sale. The defence of the accused is that the property involved in Ex.P2 is under the civil dispute between the parties. In order to establish the claim A1 examined himself as

DW1 and got marked Ex.D1 to Ex.D5. The prosecution also examined IO/PW7 to affirm the contents of chargesheet and FSL expert/PW8 who issued Ex.P7 stating that the signature of A1 &

A2 are similar to that in Ex.P2 & Ex.P3

II ADDL. JFCM

Page 15 of 17

CC No.480 of 2017

II AJFCM, Kodad

26. It is pertinent to note that PW1 admitted it to be true, to the suggestion given by the counsel for the accused that the accused filed an Eviction suit against the mother of PW1 and the said suit is decreed in favour of the accused. It is further admitted by PW1 during the cross-examination to the suggestion given by the counsel for the accused that execution petition is pending against the property mentioned in Ex.P2. Consolidate reading of the evidence of prosecution and the evidence brought on record by the accused, it is clear that there is a civil litigation with regard to the property mentioned in Ex.P2 between the same parties and that said civil suit is already decided in favour of accused herein. This court is of opinion that there exist admitted disputes with regard to the civil rights over the property between accused and PW1, in such case allegation of PW1 solely basing on sale agreement to invoke property offences U/s. 406 & 420 of

IPC cannot be sustained.

27. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, and upon careful scrutiny and evaluation of evidence on record this

Court is of opinion that there is clear existence of dispute with regard to civil rights over the property involved in this case

II ADDL. JFCM

Page 16 of 17

CC No.480 of 2017

II AJFCM, Kodad between the accused and complainant/PW1 forming a cloud of doubt in property offences alleged and no evidence is brought on record to prove threatening by accused or criminal intimidation in any matter. Therefore, prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt and A1 and A2 are entitled for acquittal.

28. In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec. 406, 420 and 506, r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted U/s 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remained in force for a period of (6) months from the date of this Judgment for preferring appeal. As no property is deposited no order as to property made.

Partly Typed by me on my personal laptop and also Partly typed to my dictation on the Computer by my Typist, corrected signed and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 30 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-

II ADDL. JMFC,

KODAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION :

PW-1V. Narasimha RaoComplainant

PW-2K. MattaiahCir-Witness

PW-3B. VenkataiahCir-Witness

PW-4Y. SaidaiahCir-Witness

II ADDL. JFCM

Page 17 of 17

CC No.480 of 2017

II AJFCM, Kodad

PW-5V. NagaiahCir-Witness

PW-6D. Narasimha RaoCir-Witness

PW-7M. RamanjaneyuluI.O.

PW-8N. Krishna PrasadAsst. Director at TGFSL

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED: DW-1Y. LaxmaiahA1

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION :

Ex.P-1Private complaint, dt.22-10-2013;

Ex.P-2Sale agreement, dt.12-02-2007

Ex.P-3Payment, dt.10-03-2007

Ex.P-4Attested copy of Sales Tax department, dt.24-05-2007 regarding tax dues;

Ex.P-5Sec.161 Cr.PC statement of PW6

Ex.P-6FIR, dt.14-12-2013

Ex.P-7TGFSL report, dt.06-12-2025.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED:

Ex.D-1CC of decree, dt. 27-12-2016

Ex.D-2CC of Judgment, dt. 27-12-2016

Ex.D-3CC of Vakalath, dt. 27-09-2016

Ex.D-4CC of docket proceedings in OS 116/16

Ex.D-5CC of petition in EP No.7/19

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED : -NIL-

Sd/-

II ADDL. JMFC,

KODAD.

II ADDL. JFCM

CC No. 1475 of 2017 Pg. No. 1 of 12

II AJFCM, Kodad

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS: AT KODAD

Thursday, the 30 th day of April, 2026.

Present: Smt. SYED ZAKIYYAH SULTHANA,

II Addl. JFCM, Kodad

CC. No. 1475 of 2017.

(Old CC.No.293 of 2016)

BETWEEN: The State of Telangana through the Sub-Inspector of Police, Munagala Police Station. ….COMPLAINANT

AND

A1: Nagireddy Manga Reddy, S/o. Veera Reddy, age: 68 yrs, Occ: Agriculture,

A2: Nagireddy Vijayamma, W/o. Manga Reddy, age: 48 yrs, Occ: Social worker,

Both are R/o. Mukundapuram village of Munagala Mandal.

…ACCUSED

Section of law:447,427,186,504 R/w. 34 of IPC

Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the court:Found not guilty

Sentence or order:In the result, the A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec. 447,427,186,504 R/w. 34 of IPCand accordingly the accused are acquitted U/s 255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall remain in force for a period of 06 months for preferring an appeal by the prosecution. As no property is deposited no order as to property.

This case came before me for final hearing on 28-04-2026 in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri. Ch. Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the accused, upon perusing the material papers on record, hearing both the sides and the case having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

II ADDL. JFCM

CC No. 1475 of 2017 Pg. No. 2 of 12

II AJFCM, Kodad

J U D G M E N T

Brief Averments of the Case:

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Munagala Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 and 2 in Cr.No.24 of 2016 for the offence under Section 447, 427, 186, 504 R/w. 34 IPC.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 08.02.2016 at 17:00 hours, received typed report from the defacto- complainant/PW1/Tahsildar/K. Anjaneyulu, in which he stated that an extent of Ac.3.00 Patta land in Sy.No.371 of

Mukundpuram H/o Akupamula village was acquired for formation of 4/6 lane National Highway, it belongs to NHAI, A1 and A2 are trying to construct permanent structure on the government acquired land. On noticing the encroachment, on 08-02-2016 at 14:00 hours, the PW1 along with PW2/Bojja

Swapna, Revenue Inspector, PW3/A. Sathyam/VRO, LW4/T.

Saidulu/VRA and representatives of GMR NHAI/PW4 proceeded to the spot and trying to remove the encroachment on acquired land for which the both A1 and A2 obstructed the Govt.

Employees by using filthy language besides quarreled on the officials. In view of the behavior of A1 and A2 it was requested to initiate a criminal action against them for encroaching the NHAI land in Sy.No.371 of Mukundapuram village, obstructing the

II ADDL. JFCM

CC No. 1475 of 2017 Pg. No. 3 of 12

II AJFCM, Kodad

Govt. Employees from discharging their duties. Finally he requested to take necessary action against A1 and A2 and do justice as per law.

3. Based on the report, the PW7/G. Nagesh/I.O registered a case in

Cr.No.24 of 2016 for offences U/sec. 447,427,186,504 R/w. 34 of IPC against A1 and A2, issued FIR and took up investigation.

4. During the course of investigation, PW7/IO examined the PW1 and recorded his detail statement in part-II C.D. Immediately the

PW7/IO visited the Tahsildar office, Munagala examined the

PW2/B. Swapna, PW3/A. Sathyam, LW4/T. Saidulu and

PW4/G. Dinesh and recorded their statements in part-II CDs.

5. On 09-02-2016 the PW7/IO visited the scene of offence situated at outskirts of Mukundapuram village secured the presence of panchas PW5/N. Ashok and PW6/N. Nagesh, conducted scene of offence panchanama in their presence and also drew rough sketch map to the scene. On 12.02.2016 notice U/s 41 (A) (1)

Cr.P.C to the accused persons to prove their innocence and after completion of investigation he filed the charge sheet.

6. On perusal of the material placed by the prosecution, the Court has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Section

U/s 447,427,186,504 R/w. 34 of IPC against A1 and A2. On

II ADDL. JFCM

CC No. 1475 of 2017 Pg. No. 4 of 12

II AJFCM, Kodad appearance of accused No.1 and 2, copies of documents were furnished to them as required U/sec.207 Cr.P.C.

7. As per the Orders of Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalgonda vide Procs. Dis. No. 438/2017, dt. 24-06-2017, this case previously numbered as CC. No. 293 of 2016 was received from

Prl. Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Kodad and was renumbered as

CC. No. 1475 of 2017 by Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kodad. Later this case was transferred to this Court vide Orders of Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Suryapet vide Procs. Dis.

No. 66/2024/A1, dt. 22-02-2024 from I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kodad to this Court.

8. On 20-12-2024 accused were examined U/s 251 Cr.P.C. for the substance of accusation for the offence U/Sec. 447,427,186,504

R/w. 34 of IPC for which the accused denied the accusation and on question of plea of guilt, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the trial against the A1 and A2.

9.During the course of trial the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 7 and got marked Ex.P1 to P6. Prosecution examined the defacto- complainant/K.AnjaneyuluasPW1;Eyewitness/B.

Swapna/RevenueinspectorasPW2;Eyewitness/A.

Sathyam/VRO as PW3; Eyewitness/G. Dinesh as PW4; Panch witness for scene of offence/N. Ashok as PW5; Panch witness for

II ADDL. JFCM

CC No. 1475 of 2017 Pg. No. 5 of 12

II AJFCM, Kodad scene of offence/N. Nagesh as PW6 and Investigation officer/G.

Nagesh as PW7. On 26.02.2026 the lerned APP has given up the evidence of LW4.

10. Ex. P1 is the report of PW1, dated 08-02-2016; Ex. P2 is the signature of PW6 on scene of offence panchanama; Ex.P3 is the signature of PW6 on rough sketch; Ex.P4 is the FIR, dated:

08.02.2016, Ex.P5 is the scene of offence panchanama, dt. 09- 02-2026; Ex.P6 is the rough sketch, dated: 09.02.2026.

11. On 07-04-2026 the accused were examined U/s. 313 Cr.PC. by reading over and explaining the incriminating evidence on record, for which they denied truthfulness and on enquiry reported no defense evidence. Hence, proceeded for Arguments.

12. Later on 23.04.2026 Crl.M.P.No.1613/2026 and Crl.M.P.No.

614/2026 were allowed by reopening and recalling the defence evidence. Counsel for the accused examined A2/N. Vijayamma as DW1 and got marked Ex.D1 to Ex.D6. Ex.D1 is the Original pattadar passbook in the name of A1 vide No.269278; Ex.D2 is the Original Society Registration certificate, dated 03-12-2010;

Ex.D3 is the Certificate of registration, dated 01-10-2024; Ex.D4 is the Certificate of registration, dated 20-01-2025 for the year 2025-26; Ex.D5 is the Certificate of registration, dated 22-01-

II ADDL. JFCM

CC No. 1475 of 2017 Pg. No. 6 of 12

II AJFCM, Kodad 2025 for the year 2026-2027 and Ex.D6 is the 20 photographs along with CD.

13. Heard arguments on both sides.

Now the point for determination is;

“Whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the

accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence

punishable under Sec. 447,427,186,504 R/w. 34 of IPC?

Point:

14. The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that government acquired land to an extent of 3 acres in survey number 371 of

Mukunda Puram Village from the A1 for laying of National

Highway and later A1 & A2 raised permanent structures in the land acquired by the government and on 08-02-2016 at about 14:00 hours when the defacto complainant/PW1/Tahsildar, revenue inspector/PW2, VRO/PW3, VRA/LW4 and a representative/PW4 of GMR on behalf of National highways authorities tried to remove the structures, A1 & A2, abuse them in filthy language and obstructed them from discharging their duties.

15. At this juncture, it is apt to extract Section 447, 427, 186, 504 r/w 34 of IPC, for ready reference, which reads as follows:

Sec.447 punishment for criminal trespass

II ADDL. JFCM

CC No. 1475 of 2017 Pg. No. 7 of 12

II AJFCM, Kodad

Whoever commits criminal trespass shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.

Sec.427 mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees

Whoever commits mischief and thereby causes loss or damage to the amount of fifty rupees or upwards, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

Sec.186 obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions

Whoever voluntarily obstructs any public servant in the discharge of his public functions, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both. Sec.504 intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace

Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

16. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examine PW1 to

PW7. The Tahsildar/PW1/Defacto Complainant deposed that the government acquired land from A1 on payment of compensation

II ADDL. JFCM

CC No. 1475 of 2017 Pg. No. 8 of 12

II AJFCM, Kodad and that both A1 and A2 encroached the land acquired from them and installed pillars with an intention to raise permanent structures. He further deposed that when they tried to remove the pillars both A1 & A2 obstructed them from entering into the land by closing the gates and abuse them in filthy the language.

17. The revenue inspector is examined as PW2, the VRO is examined as PW3 and the representative of GMR is examined as PW4, who, according to the prosecution accompanied PW1 to the scene of offence. PW2 deposed that accused installed pillars in the government land, abstracted them and abuse them in filthy language when they tried to remove the pillars. Whereas PW3 deposed about only installation of pillars in the land of National

Highway and the accused did not listen to their advise to stop construction. Obstruction of duties and abuse in filthy language could not be listed from the evidence of PW3. PW4 deposed that he received information from patrolling team, then he informed the Tahsildar about the same in writing, but he has not seen the persons who occupied the land of National Highway and also there is no mention about any visit to scene of offence by PW4.

18. The panch witnesses for the scene of panchanama and rough sketch are examined as PW5 and PW6, they did not support the case of prosecution and were declared hostile. Nothing could be

II ADDL. JFCM

CC No. 1475 of 2017 Pg. No. 9 of 12

II AJFCM, Kodad elicited in favour of the prosecution during examination in the nature of cross by learned APP. The investigating officer examined as PW7 deposed the contents of the chargesheet in a chronological order, which are not reiterated to avoid reputation.

19. On consolidated reading of the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, it can be seen that only the evidence of

Tahsildar/PW1, revenue inspector/PW2 and VRO/PW3 support the case of prosecution. All the three witnesses are official witnesses and there is no independent evidence brought on record to support their evidence. The allegation of prosecution is about trespassing the land acquired by the government for construction of National Highway. Nothing much could be elicited from the evidence of representative of National Highway

Authority examined as PW4, as according to him, he was informed about the trespass and he never visited the scene of offence or has seen the persons who are alleged to have been occupying the National Highway Authority land.

20. Accused no.2 is examined as DW1 and got marked Ex.D1 to

Ex.D6. It is admitted by the accused that the government acquired land from them for purpose of construction of National

Highway. It is elicited from the evidence of DW1 that even after acquisition of land by the government, they have some portion of

II ADDL. JFCM

CC No. 1475 of 2017 Pg. No. 10 of 12

II AJFCM, Kodad the remaining land left in the same survey number with a construction in it. Ex.D1 is the pattadar passbook of A1 clearly showing the legal right of the accused over the land in survey number 371/1.

21. In this case, it is to the prosecution to prove that the accused trespassed and raised pillars in the land which was already acquired by the government from them for construction of

National Highway, but the evidence brought on record by the prosecution is not supported by the evidence of any independent witness and also there is no single document filed in favour of the prosecution to show that the portion of land in which accused raised pillars, according to them, is acquired by the government for construction of National highway. The independent panch witnesses also did not support the case of prosecution regarding the presence of pillars at the scene of offence or conducting of any panchanama in scene of offence.

The version of PW1 and PW2 about the obstruction of their official duties by the accused or using of filthy the language by them to abuse or insult is also not supported by the evidence of any independent witness.

22. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, upon careful scrutiny and evolution of the evidence on record, this

II ADDL. JFCM

CC No. 1475 of 2017 Pg. No. 11 of 12

II AJFCM, Kodad court is of opinion that it is not proper to convict the accused persons in case basing on testimony of official witnesses without corroboration by independent ocular and documentary evidence.

Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused are entitled for acquittal.

23.In the result, the A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.447,427,186,504 R/w. 34 of IPC and accordingly the accused are acquitted U/s 255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall remain in force for a period of 06 months for preferring an appeal by the prosecution. As no property is deposited no order as to property

Partly Typed by me on my personal laptop and also Partly typed to my dictation on the Computer by my Typist, corrected signed and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 30 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-

II ADDL. JMFC,

KODAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION :

PW-1K. AnjaneyuluDefacto-Complainant/Tahsildar

PW-2B. SwapnaEye witness/Revenue Inspector

PW-3A.SathyamEye witness/VRA

PW-4G. DineshEye witness/Representative of NHA

PW-5N. AshokPanch for scene of offence panchanama

II ADDL. JFCM

CC No. 1475 of 2017 Pg. No. 12 of 12

II AJFCM, Kodad

PW-6N. NageshPanch for scene of offence panchanama

PW-7G. NageshI.O.

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED:

DW-1N. VijayammaAccused No.2

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION :

Ex.P-1Report, dt.08-02-2016

Ex.P-2Signature of PW6 on scene of offence panchanama,dt.09-02-2016

Ex.P-3Signature of PW6 on rough sketch, dt.09-02-2016

Ex.P-4FIR, dt.08-02-2016

Ex.P-5Scene of offence panchanama, dt.09-02-2016

Ex.P-6Rough sketch, dt.09-02-2016

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED:

Ex.D-1Original pattadar passbook in the name of A1 vide No.269278

Ex.D-2Original Society Registration certificate, dated 03-12-2010

Ex.D-3Certificate of registration, dated 01-10-2024

Ex.D-4Certificate of registration, dated 20-01-2025 for the year 2025-26

Ex.D-5Certificate of registration, dated 22-01-2025 for the year 2026-2027

Ex.D-620 photographs along with CD.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED : -NIL-

Sd/-

II ADDL. JMFC,

KODAD.

II ADDL. JFCM

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS: AT KODAD

Friday the 08 th day of May, 2026.

Present: Smt. SYED ZAKIYYAH SULTHANA,

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kodad

CC. No. 222 of 2019.

BETWEEN: The State of Telangana through the Sub-Inspector of Police, Munagala Police Station. ….COMPLAINANT

AND

Kinnera Madhu, S/o. Veeraiah, Age: 29 years, Occ: Auto Driver, R/o. SC Colony, Chilukur Village & Mandal.

…ACCUSED

Section of law:454, 380 of IPC

Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the Found not guilty court: Sentence or order:In the result, sole accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec. 454, 380 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted U/s 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of 06 months as per Sec. 437- A Cr.P.C., for preferring appeal to the higher Court from the Judgment of this Court by the Prosecution. The unmarked valuable property deposited vide CP. No. 29/2019 in the Court of Prl. JMFC Kodad as per form 60 available in record belongs to PW1 as per prosecution., property identification panchanama & evidence of PW4. Hence property i.e., Gold ring of 5 grams deposited vide CP. No. 29 of 2019 in

CC No.222 of 2019Page No.2 of 13

II AJFCM, Kodad

Prl. JMFC, Kodad shall be returned to PW1 under proper acknowledgment and after expiry of appeal period.

This case came before me for final hearing on 30-04-2026 in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri. Sk. Nagul Pasha, counsel for the accused, upon perusing the material papers on record, hearing both the sides and the case having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

Brief Averments of the Case:

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Chilukur Police Station filed charge sheet against the sole accused in Crime No.87 of 2018 for the offence under Section 454, 380 of IPC.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that, on 03-09- 2017, at 11:00 hrs the complainant/LW-1 – Sabbu Srinivas

Reddy came to the PS. Chilukur and lodged a complaint stating that, on 02-09-2017 at about 09:00 am, LW1/Sabbu

Srinivasa Reddy/defacto complainant and his wife locked their house and went to Kodad to attend a function and returned home at about 10:00 PM, they found the lock of their house broken open and that unknown persons trespassed into their house and committed theft of one gold

II ADDL. JFCM

CC No.222 of 2019Page No.3 of 13

II AJFCM, Kodad ring weighing about 5 grams and cash of Rs.2,000/- from the almirah in the house.

3. As per the contents of the report of Defacto

Complainant/PW1, LW-12 / B. Sudheer Kumar/PW7, SI of

Police P.S. Chilukur / IO, registered a case in Cr. No.

87/2018 for offences under Sections 454, 380 of IPC, issued

FIR and took up investigation.

4. During the course of investigation, LW-12 / B. Sudheer

Kumar / IO examined and recorded the statement of the defacto complainant / LW1/Sabbu Srinivasa Reddy at the police station and recorded his detailed statement in Part-II

C.D. Thereafter, he visited the scene of offence i.e., the house of LW1 / Sabbu Srinivasa Reddy/ defacto complainant situated at Sabbavarigudem Hamlet of

Bethavole Village and observed the scene of offence. LW- 12 / B. Sudheer Kumar / IO, examined LW2 / Sabbu

Ramanarsamma and LW3 / Sabbu Krishna Reddy and recorded their statements in Part-II C.D. He/IO conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of mediators

LW4/Sabbu Venkat Reddy and LW5/Ramreddy Narsi Reddy

II ADDL. JFCM

CC No.222 of 2019Page No.4 of 13

II AJFCM, Kodad and also prepared rough sketch of the scene and also conducted detailed and discreet enquiries regarding the occurrence.

5. Further, on 05-09-2018, LW11 / D. Mahipal Reddy, Sub-

Inspector of Police, Kodad Town Police Station, apprehended accused Kinnera Madhu and another person at RTC Bus

Stand, Kodad Town in connection with Cr. No. 230 of 2018 of PS Kodad Town for offences U/s 454 and 380 IPC of

Kodad Town Police Station. During interrogation, the accused allegedly confessed to the commission of the present offence along with other offences. The accused further confessed that he had spent the stolen cash amount of Rs.2,000/- for his personal expenses.

6. LW11/ D. Mahipal Reddy / IO, recorded the confessional statement of the accused in the presence of mediators

LW6/Gunja Anji and LW7/Shaik Shafi. The accused also allegedly confessed his involvement in Cr. Nos. 230/2018 of

Kodad Town P.S., 173/2018 and 58/2018 of Kodad Rural

P.S., 87/2018 of Chilukur P.S. and 149/2018 of Kodad

Rural P.S., all registered for offences punishable U/s 454

II ADDL. JFCM

CC No.222 of 2019Page No.5 of 13

II AJFCM, Kodad and 380 IPC. Pursuant to the said confession, police allegedly recovered one gold ring weighing about 05 grams under cover of panchanama in connection with the present case. Thereafter, the accused was remanded to Judicial custody. Subsequently, on requisition, the Hon’ble Court issued P.T. warrant against the accused and he was produced before the Court and remanded to judicial custody in the present case as well.

7. Subsequently, LW13/V. Narayana Reddy, Sub-Inspector of

Police / IO, took up further investigation, verified the investigation conducted by LW12/B. Sudheer Kumar/ IO and found the same to be in proper order. After completion of investigation LW13/IO filed chargesheet.

8.On perusal of the material placed by the prosecution, the

JFCM, Kodad Court has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Section U/s 454, 380 of IPC against sole accused and on appearance of accused copies of documents were furnished to them as required U/sec.207 Cr.P.C.

9.As per the Orders of Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Nalgonda vide Procs. Dis. No. 66/2024/A1, dt. 22-02-2024,

II ADDL. JFCM

CC No.222 of 2019Page No.6 of 13

II AJFCM, Kodad this case is received from I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Kodad to this Court.

10. On 27-04-2023 accused was examined U/s 239 Cr.P.C. by

Addl. JFCM, Kodad for the substance of accusation for the offence U/Sec. 454, 380 of IPC for which the accused denied the accusation. Charges as per Sec.240 Cr.P.C for the offence punishable U/Sec. 454, 380 of IPC were framed readover and explained to him in vernacular language, for which he denied and on question of plea of guilt, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the trial against the accused.

11. During the course of trial the prosecution examined Pws 1 to 7 and got marked Ex.P1 to P8.Prosecution examined the

LW1/defacto complainant as PW1; LW4 Panch for Scene of

Offence by name S. Venkat Reddy as PW2; LW6/Panch for confession and recover by name G. Anji as PW3; LW10 who held property identification panchanama by name Pandu

Naik as PW4; LW8/Panch witness for property identification by name P. Prabhakar as PW5; LW9/Panch for proeprty

II ADDL. JFCM

CC No.222 of 2019Page No.7 of 13

II AJFCM, Kodad identification by name B. Thirapaiah as PW6; Investigating officer – B. Sudheer Kumar as PW7.

12. Ex. P1 is the report given to Police by PW-1, dated 03-09- 2018; Ex.P2 is the Scene of Offence panchanama; Ex.P3 is

Rough Sketch; Ex.P-4 is the signature of PW-3 on confession and recovery panchanama; Ex.P-5 is the property identification panchanama; Ex.P-6 & Ex.P-7 are signatures of PW-5 & PW-6 on the property identification panchanama respectively; Ex.P-8 is the FIR, dt. 03-09- 2018.

13. The learned APP has given up the evidence of LW2, LW3,

LW5 & on 04-07-2025 and evidence of LW7, LW11 & LW13 on 05-08-2025.

14. After closure of prosecution evidence, on 05-08-2025 the accused was examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating circumstances appeared against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses for which he denied the truthfulness of the evidence and reported no defense evidence on his side. Hence, proceeded for Arguments.

15. Heard argument on both sides.

II ADDL. JFCM

CC No.222 of 2019Page No.8 of 13

II AJFCM, Kodad

Now the point for determination is; “ Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed lurking house trespass in house of defacto complainant and

committed theft punishable U/s 454 and 380 IPC?

16. Point:The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 02-09- 2017 the accused trespassed into the house of defacto complainant by breaking open the lock and committed theft of one gold ring weighing about 5 grams and cash of

Rs.2,000/- from the almirah in the house of the defacto complainant. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW7 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P8.

17. The defacto complainant is examined as PW1, he deposed as in his report stating that on 02-09-2018 at about 9 PM, he found the lock of his house was broke open and verification of almarah a gold ring of 5 grams and cash of 2000/- was₹ missing as such he gave report on the next day. The punch witness for the scene of offence and rough sketch examined as PW2 supported the evidence of PW1 by stating that

Panchama was conducted in his presence at the house of

PW1 and got marked Ex.P2 & Ex.P3.

II ADDL. JFCM

CC No.222 of 2019Page No.9 of 13

II AJFCM, Kodad

18. The panch witness for the confession, Panchanama of the accused examined as PW3 deposed that the accused confessed about commission of theft in his presence at PS

Kodad, Town, but he could not specify the the particulars of the crime. As seen from the confession, Panchanama of accused, the accused admitted the commission of many theft and also a gold ring of 5 grams recovered from his procession under the cover of Panchanama, but from the evidence of PW3, the prosecution could not establish the seizure of property from the possession of accused and PW3 was declared hostile. The Punch witnesses for the property identification Panchama conducted by PW4 are examined as

PW5 and PW6, they also did not support the case of the prosecution and declared hostile. Nothing could be elicited from the examination of PW3, PW5 and PW6 during the examination in the nature of cross by learned APP in favour of the prosecution.

19. PW4, who conducted the property identification

Panchanama deposed that he secured the presence of PW1 and that PW1 identified the property which is a gold ring,

II ADDL. JFCM

CC No.222 of 2019Page No.10 of 13

II AJFCM, Kodad weighing about 5 grams in presence of PW5 and PW6. The identification of property by PW1 is not supported by PW5 and PW6 and also there is no mention about such property identification, panchanama in the evidence of PW1. Then investigating officer examined as PW7 deposed the contents of the chargesheet in a chronological order as such they are not repeated.

20. On consolidated reading of the evidence brought on record by the prosecution. It can be seen that only PW1 and PW2 being circumstance witness and panch witness for Scene of

Offence panchanama supported the case of prosecution. It is clear that the seizure of the property from the possession of accused as alleged by the prosecution is not established.

There is no evidence on record to relate the sole accused to the crime in the hand, as there is no direct or indirect evidence brought on record.

21. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, and upon careful scrutiny and evaluation of evidence on record this Court is of opinion that the evidence on record

II ADDL. JFCM

CC No.222 of 2019Page No.11 of 13

II AJFCM, Kodad brought by the prosecution is not proper to convict the accused as there no potent evidence to relate accused with crime. Therefore, prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, accused is entitled for acquittal.

22. In the result, sole accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec. 454, 380 of IPC and accordingly he is acquitted U/s 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remained in force for a period of 06 months as per Sec.

437-A Cr.P.C., for preferring appeal to the higher Court from the Judgment of this Court by the Prosecution. The property deposited vide CP. No. 29/2019 in the Court of Prl. JFCM,

Kodad as per form 60 available in the record belongs to PW1 as per prosectuion, property identification panchanama & evidence of PW4. Hence property i.e., 05 grams of Gold ring deposed vide CP. No. 29 of 2019 in Prl. JFCM, Kodad shall returned to PW1 under proper acknowledgment and after expiry of appeal period.

Typed by me on my personal laptop and also typed to my dictation on the Computer by my Typist, pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 08 th day of May, 2026.

II ADDL. JFCM

CC No.222 of 2019Page No.12 of 13

II AJFCM, Kodad

Sd/-

II ADDL. JMFC,

KODAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

PW-1S. Srinivas ReddyDefacto complainant

PW-2S. Venkat ReddyPanch for Scene of Offence

PW-3G. AnjiPanch for confession of accused and recovery

PW-4E. Pandu NaikHeldpropertyidentification panchanama

PW-5P. PrabhakarPanch for Property identification panchanama

PW-6B. ThirapaiahPanch for Property Identification panchanama

PW-7B. Sudheer KumarInvestigating Officer

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED: -NIL-

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION :

Ex.P-1.report given to Police by PW-1, dt. 03-08-2018

Ex.P-2.Scene of Offence panchanama, dt. 03-09-2018

Ex.P-3.Rough Sketch, dt. 03-09-2018

Ex.P-4.Signature of PW-3 on confession and recovery panchanama, dated 05-09-2018

Ex.P-5.Property Identification Panchanama, dated 06-10-2018

II ADDL. JFCM

CC No.222 of 2019Page No.13 of 13

II AJFCM, Kodad

Ex.P-6.Signature of PW-5 on Property Identification panchanama, dated 06-10-2018

Ex.P-7.Signature of PW-6 on Property Identification panchanama, dated 06-10-2018

Ex.P-8.FIR, dt. 03-09-2018

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED: -NIL-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED : -NIL-

Sd/-

II ADDL. JMFC,

KODAD.

II ADDL. JFCM