Sri T. Jithendar

Fair 1 C.C.No.27 of 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

JAGTIAL

Wednesday, the 16th day of April, 2025

Present: T.Jithender, I Addl.JFCM, Jagtial.

C.C.No.27 of 2023

Between:

The State represented through Sub-Inspector of Police, Jagtial Town.

...Complainant

A n d

1.Konderi Kalyan, S/o. Gangadhar, 29 years, R/o. Gunj Road, Jagtial Town

2. Konderi Ramulu, S/o. Arjun, 51 years, R/o. Gunj Area of Jagtial Town

3.Konderi Bhargav, S/o. Ramulu, 24 years, R/o. Gunj Road, Jagtial Town

...Accused No.1 to 3

Section of law: 354(B), 354(D), 323,506 R/W.Sec.34 IPC. Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the court : Found not guilty Sentence or order :

In the result, the Accused No.1 to 3 found not guilty for the offences u/s. 354(B), 354(D), 323,506 R/W.Sec.34 IPC, hence they are acquitted for the said offences u/s 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused No.1 to 3 shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of Judgment as per Sec 437-A of

Fair 2 C.C.No.27 of 2023

Cr.P.C. Since no property is deposited before this Court, hence no order as to property.

* * *

This case is coming before me for disposal in the presence of learned Asst., Public Prosecutor on behalf of prosecution and of Sri.

B.Ramana Kumar, Advocate for the Accused No.1 to 3 and having stood over for determination, this day the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The State being represented through the Sub-Inspector of

Police, Jagtial Town, laid charge sheet against the Accused No.1 to 3 in Cr.No.482/2022 for the offences punishable

U/Sec.354(B), 354(D), 323,506 R/W.Sec.34 IPC.

2.The case of the prosecution is nutshell is that:-

(i)On 11-12-2022 at about 17:30 hours, informant/LW1 came to

PS Jagtial town and gave a telugu written report in which stated that she belongs to Gunj Road of Jagtial. About 5 years back one Konderi Kalyan who belongs to same locality, got acquainted with the victim, fell in love with each other. On that, the victim along with Konderi Kalyan decided to get married, the matter came to known by both parties parents and refuse their marriage. Later, the victim asked him about their marriage, but the Accused postponed it time to time on the

Fair 3 C.C.No.27 of 2023 pretext with the one or other reasons as he didnot got job and not settled his life yet to be and stay still then. Even his parents searched for her life partner, if not interested told her. After that the complainant’s parents searching life partner with one

Raghu, the complainant heed the words of her parents and agreed to marry with him. About 2 years back she and Konderi

Kalyan are break up their relationship and divided them self.

(ii)On 18-11-2022 at 20.00 hrs the victim and along with her engagement person named Raghu are going to vegetable market, Konderi Kalyan meet on the midway, said as once talk with him, on that Raghu told as you told with parents of Ravali, on that Kalyan beat with his hands to Raghu and Konderi

Kalyan kept his hands on victim’s shoulders, says “she is my lover” in public place, intention to insult her modesty. Later,

Kalyan telephoned to his relatives and called there. Later,

Accused No.2/Ramu and A3/Badri came to spot, after that A1 to

A3 beat Raghu with hands, Accused No.1 threatened with dire consequences to kill them and also they kept her photos in this regard, Raghu told as he did not interested to marry her.

Further the complainant requested to take necessary action against accused as per law. Basing on the above report, LW10 registered a case vide Cr.No.482/2022 U/sec. 354 (D), 354(B), 323,506 R/w 34 IPC and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation LW10 examined, recorded the

Fair 4 C.C.No.27 of 2023 statement of victim by directing the WPC-492/LW5 of PS Jagtial

Town under videography with help of private photographer/LW6. Later LW10 secured the presence of LW6, examined, recorded his statement.

(iii)Subsequently, LW10 proceeded to vegetable market of Jagtial, secured the presence of two panch witness i.e., Lws7&8, obseved the scene of offence minutely, incorporated the crime particulars in the crime details form, drawn a rough sketch of the scene of offence before said panch witnesses. Later LW10 secured the presence of the witnesses i.e., Lws2 to 4, examined, recorded their statements. On 14-12-2022 LW10 enquired about the offence, they voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence, also admitted their guilt. Later LW10 filed a requisition before the Hon’ble Magistrate at JFCM

Jagtial/LW9 for recording the statement of LW1 U/sec. 164

Cr.PC. Subsequently on 30-12-2022 LW9 recorded the statement of LW1. Thus the Police, Jagtial Town after completion of the investigation filed charge sheet against the

Accused No.1 to 3 for the offences punishable U/s.354(B), 354(D), 323,506 R/W.Sec.34 IPC .

3.Upon consideration of the material placed before the Court the cognizance as per Sec.190(1)(b) Cr.P.C., for the offences punishable U/Sec.448,354, 354-A, 323 of IPC taken against and issued summons as per the Sec.204 Cr.P.C., to A1 to A3.

Fair 5 C.C.No.27 of 2023

4.On appearance of the Accused No.1 to 3 copies of documents were furnished to them as per Sec.207 Cr.P.C. Later, on furnishing the copies of documents the Accused No.1 to 3 examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable

U/Sec.354(B), 354(D), 323,506 R/W.Sec.34 IPC by notifying the substance of accusation for which the Accused No.1 to 3 denied the accusation and on question of plea of guilt the Accused

No.1 to 3 pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried. Hence, the trial against the Accused No.1 to 3.

5.For bringing home the guilt of the Accused No.1 to 3 by proving the substance of accusation for the offences beyond reasonable doubt, the prosecution examined PWs1 to 8 out of (10) cited witnesses and exhibited Ex-P1 to Ex-P6. The learned APP given up LW9. That being the oral evidence adduced by the prosecution, the case of the Accused No.1 to 3 on the other hand, as can be seen from the tenor of cross examination, is total denial on the ground of falsification.

6.The list of witnesses examined by the prosecution are as follows:- PW1- K. Bhaskar- father of LW1/victim

PW2- Ch. Bheemaiah- Panch witness for crime detail form

PW3- Ravula Narsinga Rao- videographer

PW4- S. Lalitha- Woman Police Officer

PW5- K. Laxmi- mother of LW1/victim

Fair 6 C.C.No.27 of 2023

PW6- U. Raghu- eye witness

PW7- M. Gangarajam- panch witness for crime detail form

PW8- B. Sanjeev- Investigation Officer

7.The list of documents exhibited by the prosecution are as follows:-

Ex.P1 is the signature of PW2 on crime detail form

Ex.P2 is the photos along with CD

Ex.P3 is the signature of PW7 on crime detail form

Ex.P4 is the report

Ex.P5 is the First information report

Ex.P6 is the crime detail form

8.Material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution are: Nil.

9.After closure of the prosecution evidence the Accused No.1 to 3 was examined U/Sec.313 r/w 281 of Cr.P.C., enabling them to explain personally the incriminating circumstances appeared against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses for which the Accused No.1 to 3 denied the truthfulness of the evidence testified by the prosecution witnesses for which the

Accused No.1 to 3 denied as false and reported no defence evidence.

10.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the Accused No.1 to 3.

11. Now the point for determination is :-

Fair 7 C.C.No.27 of 2023

Whether the prosecution could successfully bring home the guilt of the Accused No.1 to 3 by proving the charges for the offences u/Sec.354(B), 354(D), 323,506 R/W.Sec.34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

POINT:

12. To prove offence u/sec.354-B IPC the essential ingredients are: (1) there must be assault or use of criminal force to woman with intent to disrobe. Or (2) Any man who assaults or uses criminal force to any woman or abets such act with the intention of disrobing or compelling her to be naked.

13. To prove offence u/sec.354-D IPC the essential ingredients are: In order to prove an offence under Section 354-D of IPC, a man has to follow a woman or makes an attempt for personal interaction despite of clear indication of disinterest or contact or attempts to contact her through telecommunication said to commit offence of stalking. Nothing shortfall of that will suffice the conviction.

14. Having considered the legal position coupled with the facts germane to the case of the prosecution now let us see whether the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the Accused No.1 to 3 beyond reasonable doubt for the charged offences.

15. As per the case of prosecution Pws1&5 are the parents of the victim,

PW6 is the eye witness, Pw4 is the Woman Police Officer, Pw3 is the videographer, Pws2&7 are the Panch witness for crime detail form,

Pw8 is the Investigation Officer. LW1/informant and Victim not

Fair 8 C.C.No.27 of 2023 examined by the prosecution as the Police filed the report along with the certificate submitted through the learned APP stating that the

LW1 left from her house even without intimating to her parents, hence her evidence closed.

16.On careful scrutinization of the material evidence on record the PW1 stated that Lw1 and A1 are in love with each other, on knowing the same he approached the parents of A1 for performing the marriage of LW1 and A1, for which they expressed their unwillingness for the marriage, thereby he asked the A1 for the marriage, he replied that he needs the willingness of his parents for marriage, thereby he asked him to obtain the willingness of his parents which not happened, later themselves and A1 decided not to interfere into the lives of each other by A1 and LW1, subsequently LW4 came forward to marry LW1 knowing all the issues, in the month of December, 2022 when LW1 and Lw4 went to Market, in the meantime A1 came there and questioned Lw4 stating that LW1 is his lover, and taken

LW1 into his folds, hugged her, thereby scuffle tookplace in between

Lw4 and A1, on information A2 and A3 came there and beat LW4 thereby they made report to the Police. The above the said testimony is not in conformity with the report made by LW1 to the

Police. On the other hand, PW1 fairly admitted in his cross examination that he came to know the incident through LW1, he also admitted that since LW1 disturbed mentally thereby she left after the incident to some where, and accordingly he filed a missing

Fair 9 C.C.No.27 of 2023 case in Police Station, Jagtial Town. He also admitted that Lw1 is missing and her whereabouts are not known to him, however he added that the Police traced the LW1 and she refused to come to his house to Jagtial, he talked with LW1, she refused to come and she stated that she will live by doing job. PW5 mother of victim stated that previously A1 and LW1 are in love with each other for about 5 years, when Lw1 asked for marriage, then A1 escaped accordingly panchayaths were held and A1 revealed that he is not interested to marry LW1, thereby LW1 slapped A1. Later, the marriage of Lw1 settled with LW4, later A1 picked up quarrel with Lw1 when LW1 and

Lw4 went to vegetable market and galatta tookplace thereat by A1 that Lw1 is his lover, A1 to A3 also beat Lw4. The above said testimony of PW5 is not consonance with the testimony of PW1 and report made by Lw1 to Police. On the other hand, PW5 also fairly admitted in his cross examination that she came to know the alleged incident through LW1 and Lw4, she also admitted that since the date of lodging the complaint by LW1, she do not know where Lw1 is living, she is not visiting the home, accordingly PW1 gave a report in

PS, Jagtial Rural stating that LW1 is missing. Adding to the above, the independent witnesses for crime detail form i.e., PW2&7 are antagonistic to the case of prosecution, as they stated that the

Police called and obtained their signatures on some written papers, but do not know the contents of that papers, no panchanama was conducted in their presence. Nothing favourable elicited from their

Fair 10 C.C.No.27 of 2023 cross examination. Besides that PW4 stated that she recorded the statement of the victim. According to Pw4 , LW1 stated replicating the report lodged by her to the Police. On perusal of the record, the 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the victim recorded by the Magistrate, in which LW1 stated that she lodge the case against the Accused with angry on her, she is not interested to proceed further, she is intending to go for abroad for her career if she goes abroad, she cannot attend the court, thereby she wants to withdraw the case.

Keeping in view of the aforesaid attending circumstances, in absence of the evidence of LW1, the evidence of remaining PWs is not inspiring confidence. Pw7 Investigation Officer testified in relation to the investigation conducted by the Police. Thus except the evidence of PWs1& uncorroborated testimonies of remaining prosecution witnesses, there is no other supporting evidence. As a matter of fact, the said evidence of Pws.1 to 8 doesn’t establish sufficiently the ingredients of Section 354(B), 354(D), 323,506

R/W.Sec.34 of IPC.

17.A plain reading of the evidence of prosecution witnesses referred as above, made it clear that the evidence on record is inconsistent. It generates a reasonable doubt on the very case of prosecution, the evidence on record is relatively weak, inconclusive and generated a reasonable doubt. There is no amount of doubt and suspicion regarding truth and creations on the evidence of prosecution and its witnesses and it is loaded with prejudice, suffers from inherent

Fair 11 C.C.No.27 of 2023 impossibilities. Hence, this court is of the opinion that in the absence of the evidence of any independent witness to corroborate the evidence of PW1&5, it is not safe to base conviction upon the

Accused No.1 to 3 in the present case. For the foregoing reasons, absolutely there is no sufficient material against the Accused No.1 to 3 in proving the ingredients of section 354(B), 354(D), 323,506

R/W.Sec.34 IPC. Hence, it can be said that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of Accused No.1 to 3 for the offences punishable

U/sec.354(B),354(D),323,506 R/W.Sec.34 IPC beyond any reasonable doubt and therefore, the Accused No.1 to 3 can be entitled to extent benefit doubt. The Accused No.1 to 3, therefore are entitled to be acquitted for the offences punishable U/sec.354(B), 354(D), 323,506

R/W.Sec.34 IPC.

18.In the result, the Accused No.1 to 3 found not guilty for the offences u/s. 354(B), 354(D), 323,506 R/W.Sec.34 IPC, hence they are acquitted for the said offences u/s 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused No.1 to 3 shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of Judgment as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. Since no property is deposited before this court, hence no order as to property.

Typed to my dictation by the typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this 16th day of April, 2025.

I Addl.Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jagtial.

Fair 12 C.C.No.27 of 2023

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW1- K. Bhaskar- father of LW1/victim

PW2- Ch. Bheemaiah- Panch witness for crime detail form

PW3- Ravula Narsinga Rao- videographer

PW4- S. Lalitha- Woman Police Officer

PW5- K. Laxmi- mother of LW1/victim

PW6- U. Raghu- eye witness

PW7- M. Gangarajam- panch witness for crime detail form

PW8- B. Sanjeev- Investigation Officer

FOR DEFENCE: -None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 is the signature of PW2 on crime detail form

Ex.P2 is the photos along with CD

Ex.P3 is the signature of PW7 on crime detail form

Ex.P4 is the report

Ex.P5 is the First information report

Ex.P6 is the crime detail form

FOR DEFENCE: NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: Nil

I Addl.Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Jagtial

Fair 1 of 10 C.C.No.818 of 2020

Dt: 15-4-2025

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS, AT JAGTIAL

PRESENT: Sri T.Jithender, I Addl.Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Jagtial.

Tuesday, the 15th of April, 2025

CC.No.818 of 2020

Between :

The State through, Sub-Inspector of Police, Jagtial Town P.S

...Complainant

AND

Chinthala Harish, S/o.Rajanna, Age: 30 years, R/o. Anantharam Village, Jagtial Mandal & District.

...Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of learned APP for the State and Sri.G.Rajender, learned Counsel for

Accused and after perusing the case records, upon hearing the arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court has delivered the following:

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

1.The Charge Sheet is laid by the Sub-Inspector of Police, PS

Jagtial Town in Crime No.93 of 2020 for the offence under

Section 420 of Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”).

2.The case of prosecution is nutshell is that:

Fair 2 of 10 C.C.No.818 of 2020

Dt: 15-4-2025

On 24-2-2020 at about 11.30 hrs, the complainant Veerla

Kumari, D/o. Veerla Ramu, 26 years, R/o. Vidhyanagar, Jagtial came to PS Jagtial town and submitted a telugu written report stating that she is resident of Vidhyanagar and rolling beedies for her livelihood. Since 5 years one Chinthala Harish, s/o.

Rajanna, 30 years, R/o. Anantharam village of Jagtial mandal moved behind her as fell love with her, wants to marry her, closely moved with her and both were moving as they want.

She asked him to fix her marriage and to do, but he postponed time to time after he managed to his parents to agree about their marriage. She frequently asked to perform marriage, but he time to time postponed it, moved closely with her. In this regard about one year back the elders convened panchayath and decided to pay an amount of Rs.40,000/- to her, but Harish did not pay amout decided by the elders. Further he again followed her to marry. But she refused him after their marriage they will be move freely, on that he used deceitful words as he will marry her, otherwise he will be dead. Believing his verison she again moved freely with him. When she went to his house, asked him about marriage, as such he told her if she again came to his house he will be dead. But he refused to marry her, cheated her. Finally she requested to take necessary action. On receipt of the above report LW5 registered a case in Cr.No.

93/2020 U/sec. 420 IPC, issued FIR, took up the investigation.

Fair 3 of 10 C.C.No.818 of 2020

Dt: 15-4-2025

During the course of investigation examined, recorded the statement of LW1 at PS. Later, LW5 visited the scene of offence i.e., at the hosue of LW1 at Vidhyanagar, Jagtial, caused thoroughly and discreet enquiries, secured the presence of LW2, examined her, recorded her statement. Later, drew a rough sketch of the scene of offence, noted the details and incorporated the same in crime detail form before the panchas

Lws3&4. Subsequently LW6 took up the further investigation in this case, verified the investigation done by LW5, found it on proper lines, LW6 secured the presence of Accused. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused U/s.420 IPC.

3.The case was taken on file for the offence U/s.420 of IPC against the Accused by this Court.

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

5.The accused was examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C and framed charge U/s.420 of IPC, explained to him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution Pws.1 to 3 were examined and got marked Ex.P1 to P5. No oral or documentary evidence was marked on behalf of the accused.

The Police filed the report along with the certificates stating that

Fair 4 of 10 C.C.No.818 of 2020

Dt: 15-4-2025

LWs1&4 are not residing in the village submitted through their village. Later, ample time given to prosecution to procure the attendant of the said witnesses, but the prosecution failed to do so, hence finally on 8-4-2025 the evidence of LWs1&4 closed.

The learned APP givenup LW5.

7. The list of witnesses examined by the prosecution are as follows:-

PW1- S. Sujatha- Circumstantial witness

PW2- T. Devarajam- Panch witness for crime detail form

PW3- P. Kiran Kumar- Investigation Officer

8.The list of documents exhibited by the prosecution are as follows:-

Ex.P1 is the 161 Cr.PC statement of PW1

Ex.P2 is the signature of PW2 on crime detail form

Ex.P3 is the report given by LW1

Ex.P4 is the First information report

Ex.P5 is the Crime detail form

9.Material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution are:

Nil.

10.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C with regard to the incriminating material found against him, explained to him, to which he denied and reported no defence evidence.

11. Heard both sides.

Fair 5 of 10 C.C.No.818 of 2020

Dt: 15-4-2025

12.Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence under sections 420 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt ?

13 . POINT:

It is the case of the prosecution that Accused cheated the

LW1/victim with deceitful words to marry her and moved free with her, but he refused to marry and cheated her.

14.Before embarking on the pivot of the case, it would be in the fitness of thinks to discuss the provisions of law under which the accused charged.

Section 420 IPC reads as follows:

“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 liable to fine.”

(i) In order to attract the offence of cheating under section 420 of IPC, it is for the prosecution to establish that there was dishonest intention to deceive the informant/LW-1; that in pursuance of such dishonest intention, the accused induced

Fair 6 of 10 C.C.No.818 of 2020

Dt: 15-4-2025

the informant/ LW-1 to deliver some valuable security or property; that upon such inducement or deception, the informant/LW-1 parted with the property in favour of the accused. It is also relevant to have a look at the defense put forth by the accused. According to the learned counsel for the accused a false case is come to be foisted against the accused and to harass him. Keeping in mind the afore referred legal aspect and the defense put forth by the accused, the evidence on record has to be scrutinized before coming to a conclusion.

(ii).Mens rea is an indispensable component of the offence of cheating u/sec.420 IPC. To hold a person guilty of offence of cheating it has to be shown that his intention was dishonest at the time of making the promise. It is necessary for the prosecution to show that the accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise. A bear reading of the provision of sec.415 r/w sec.420 IPC would clearly lead to a conclusion that fraudulent or dishonest inducement on the part of the accused must be at the inception and not at a subsequent stage and it is obligatory on the part of the prosecution to project that the accused at the time of making the promise or representation entertained fraudulent or dishonest intention in his mind. Fraudulent

Fair 7 of 10 C.C.No.818 of 2020

Dt: 15-4-2025

intent is absolutely essential to warrant a conviction of the offender for the offence u/s.420 IPC.

15.Having considered the legal position coupled with the facts germane to the case of the prosecution now let us see whether the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the Accused beyond reasonable doubt for the charged offence.

16.As per the case of prosecution, LW1 is the informant and victim, PW1 is the circumstantial witness, PW2 is the panch witness for crime detail form, LW3 is the Investigation Officer, filed charge sheet against the Accused. The crucial witness i.e., LW1/victim not examined by the prosecution, which appears to be serious infirmity in the case of prosecution.

On the other hand, the remaining material witnesses PWs1&2 are antagonistic to the case of prosecution as they resiled from their earlier versions. Nothing elicited from their cross examination infavour of prosecution. More particularly, PW1 stated that she know LW1 and Accused, she do not know anything about the case, police not examined her, nor recorded her statement. PW2 stated that about 4 years back when he was at his home police called him and obtained his signature on some written papers, but he do not know the contents of that papers, no panchanama was conducted in his presence. PW3 though stated in his chief examination

Fair 8 of 10 C.C.No.818 of 2020

Dt: 15-4-2025

reiterating almost all the averments but he fairly admitted in his cross examination that LW5 done major part of the investigation and he verified the investigation done by him.

More particularly, the non examination of the victim is serious infirmity in the case of prosecution.

17.A plain reading of the evidence of prosecution witnesses referred as above, it may be stated that, once the testimony of

PW-3 is omitted from consideration, absolutely there is no other evidence on record to hold that the accused cheated Lw1.

From the entire evidence of prosecution it is not revealing that at any point of time either prior to promise or after the promise the accused entertained dishonest intention to cheat the informant. Except that this Court failed to find out any wilful conduct on the part of accused to deceive the informant.

18.On perusal of the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution, made it clear that except filing a formal charge sheet, the investigating officer did not conduct any independent investigation and thus, the prosecution failed to prove the first and foremost requirement of dishonest intention to cheat Lw1.

The prosecution simply washed off its hands by dumping the material submitted by LW1. In the absence of any such material on record, it cannot be said that the accused committed the offense punishable under section 420 of IPC.

Fair 9 of 10 C.C.No.818 of 2020

Dt: 15-4-2025

19.The sum and substance of the discussion made as above is that the evidence on record is ridden with, omissions, repeated variations, infirmities, embellishments and exaggerations. Thus, the evidence on record is relatively weak, vague, inconclusive and generated a reasonable doubt. There is no amount of doubt and suspicion regarding truth and creations on the evidence of prosecution and its witnesses and it is loaded with prejudice, suffers from inherent impossibilities. Eventually, it is to be held that the prosecution failed to establish the allegations levelled against accused for the offence punishable U/sec.420 of IPC.

20.In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/Sec.420 of IPC and consequently he is acquitted

U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused shall remain in force for a period of 6 months from the date of judgment as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C for preferring appeal to the higher Court, from this judgment by prosecution or by the defacto complainant. Since no property is deposited there is no order with regard to property.

Typed to my dictation by typist, after corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this 15th day of April, 2025.

I Addl.Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Jagtial

Fair 10 of 10 C.C.No.818 of 2020

Dt: 15-4-2025

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW1- S. Sujatha- Circumstantial witness

PW2- T. Devarajam- Panch witness for crime detail form

PW3- P. Kiran Kumar- Investigation Officer FOR DEFENCE: -None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 is the 161 Cr.PC statement of PW1

Ex.P2 is the signature of PW2 on crime detail form

Ex.P3 is the report given by LW1

Ex.P4 is the First information report

Ex.P5 is the Crime detail form

FOR DEFENCE: NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: Nil

I Addl.Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Jagtial

FairPage 1 of 9 C.C.No.548 of 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

JAGTIAL.

Monday, the 21st day of April, 2025.

Present: T.Jithender, I Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Jagtial

C.C.No. 548 of 2025

Between:-

The State represented through the Sub Inspector of Prohibition & Excise, Jagtial P.S.

.... Complainant

And

Pittala Venkati, S/o. Narsaiah, 75 years, R/o. Oddera colony, Raikal village and Mandal.

...Accused

Section of law:U/Sec.7(A) R/w.Section 8(e) of TS Prohibition Act.

Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the court:Found not guilty

Sentence or order:Accused is found not guilty for theoffencepunishable

U/Sec.7(A) R/w. Section 8(e) of

TSProhibitionActand accordingly he is acquitted for the said offence u/s. 248(1)

Cr.P.C. Since no property is deposited before this Court, hence no order as to property.

@ @ @

This case came up before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor, on behalf of prosecution and

Sri.R.Vijay Krishna, Asst. Legal Aid Counsel for Accused and having

FairPage 2 of 9 C.C.No.548 of 2025 stood over for determination till this day the court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The State represented through the Sub-Inspector of Prohibition &

Excise, Jagtial laid charge sheet against the Accused in COR.No. 315 of 2024 for the offence punishable u/Secs. 7(A) R/w.Section 8(e) of TS

Prohibition Act.

2.The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that:

(i)On reliable information that some persons ere indulging in illegal possession and sale of I.D. Liquor, LW3 secured the presence of

LW1&2 to act as panchs and explained the purpose and rushed to the scene of offence. The raid party consisting of LW3 along with their staff rushed to the said place, searched the suspected houses to detect Prohibition cases. During the search of the suspicious houses, (01) bag containing (06) packets 0.5 liters each with some liquid was found and taken over, it was total (03)ltrs in size. LW3 in the presence of LW1&2, opened the packets containing liquid and smelled it, recorgnised it as I.D. Liquor. Totally found (03) liters of I.D. Liquor.

(ii)On enquiry the accused person voluntarily confessed about the commission of offence and accused person further confessed that he produced and sold I.D. Liquor to unknown persons. LW3 asked accused about his details, then accused said his name as Pittala Venkati, S/o.

Narsaiah, 76 years, R/o. Oddera colony, Raikal village and Mandal.

FairPage 3 of 9 C.C.No.548 of 2025

Illegal production and sale of ID liquor without a valid license is an offence under the provisions of T.S. Prohibition Act, 1995. The officers have seized the property by drawing two samples (180)ml each for chemical analysis purpose under a cover of panchanama. The identity slips duly signes by the panchas and LW3 were affixed on the samples.

Seized and recovered the entire property along with samples under cover of panchanama. The accused was arrested on 5-8-2024 at the scene of offence. Further LW3 handed over accused, seized property along with the (02) samples in the Prohibition & Excise station, Jagtial.

Basing on the strength of the panchanama the Prohibition & Excise

Sub-Inspector, Jagtial LW4 registered a case against the accused

U/sec. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of T.S. Prohibition Act, 1995 in COR No.315/2024,

dt: 5-8-2024 and issued COR to all concerned and took up the

investigation. The samples drawn at the time of seizure were send to the chemical examiner, Warangal for chemical analysis.

(iii) The chemical examiner after analysing the sample, opined that the samples contained illicitly distilled liquor vide in report C.E.

No.1890/2024, dt: 16-8-2024 in Sl.No.32519. The seized property involved in the case has been produced before the confiscating authority i.e., the Dy.Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Karimnagar who confiscated the property to the state, which has been destroyed as per the Dy.Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Karimnagar

Division vide Cr.No.334/2024 P&Ex/A5, dt: 14-10-2024. After completion of investigation, the excise official filed charge sheet

FairPage 4 of 9 C.C.No.548 of 2025 against the Accused for the offence punishable U/s.7(A) R/w.Section 8(e) of TS Prohibition Act.

3.Upon consideration of the material placed before the Court as per

Sec.190(1)(b) Cr.P.C., for the offence U/Secs. 7(A) R/w.Section 8(e) of

TS Prohibition Act was taken against Accused and issued summons to the Accused as per Sec.204 Cr.P.C.

4.On appearance of the Accused copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated u/Sec.207 r/w Sec.238 Cr.P.C. The Accused examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C., for the offence u/Sec. 7(A) R/w.Section 8(e) of TS Prohibition Act and this court heard the prosecution and

Accused, upon considering the submissions made and also the denial by the Accused about the accusation, charges as per

Sec.240(1) Cr.P.C., for the offence U/Sec.7(A) R/w.Section 8(e) of TS

Prohibition Act framed and explained to Accused in telugu as per

Sec.240(2) Cr.P.C., having understood the charges framed against him, he denied the charges and on question of plea of guilt, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, commenced the trial against the accused.

5.For proving it’s case, prosecution examined Pws.1 to 4 out of (4) cited witnesses and Ex.P1 to P6 were marked. That being the oral evidence adduced by the prosecution, the case of the Accused on the other hand, as can be seen from the tenor of cross examination, is total denial on the ground of falsification.

FairPage 5 of 9 C.C.No.548 of 2025

6. The list of witnesses examined by the prosecution are as follows:- PW1- A. Laxman- Panch witness for search and seizure

PW2- P. Rajesh- Panch witness for search and seizure

PW3- MA Majid- recorded the panchanama

PW4- P. Meghamala- Investigation Officer

7. The list of documents exhibited by the prosecution are as follows:- Ex.P1 is the Signature of PW1 on Panchanama Ex.P2 is the Signature of PW2 on Panchanama Ex.P3 is the attested copy of Panchanama dt:5-8-2024 Ex.P4 is the original COR No. 315 of 2024 Ex.P5 is the attested copy of Laboratory analysis report Ex.P6 is the attested copy of destruction of seized liquor panchanama

Material Objects :- Nil

8. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the Accused examined

U/Sec.313 R/w.Sec.281 Cr.P.C., for the incriminating circumstances appeared against them in the evidence of PW.1 to 4 for which he denied the truthfulness of the evidence and reported no defence evidence on his side.

9.Heard learned Asst.Public Prosecutor, and learned counsel for the

Accused. The learned APP submitted that the prosecution proved it’s case beyond all reasonable doubts. I have given my considerable thought to the respectivesubmissions made by the learned APP & counsel for the Accused and I have perused the record.

10.Now the point for determination is:-

FairPage 6 of 9 C.C.No.548 of 2025

Whether the prosecution could successfully bring home the guilt of the Accused by proving the charges for the offence u/Sec.7(A)

R/w.Section 8(e) of TS Prohibition Act beyond reasonable doubt?

11. Having considered the legal position coupled with the facts germane to the case of the prosecution now let us see whether the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the Accused beyond reasonable doubt for the charged offence.

12.It is settled law that if the same investigation officer who detects the offence is a complainant, seizes the contraband and who conducts the investigation and files the charge sheet, it would result in causing prejudice to the accused and therefore it cannot be said that the accused has been provided with fair trial. Thus, in the light of the judicial indicia postulated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the catena of decisions, the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution has to be analysed to ascertain whether it has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence alleged against him.

13.PW-1 & PW-2 who are shown as panch witnesses for the confession cum seizure panchanama have turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution but, have only admitted their signatures on the seizure panchanama which are marked as Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2 respectively. They have stated in their chief examination that no panchanama was conducted in their presence. Though PW-1 and PW- 2 are cross examined after they are declared as hostile by the learned

Asst.Public Prosecutor, but, they have denied a suggestion that on

Pw4 the Excise Police called him to scene of offence and on the

FairPage 7 of 9 C.C.No.548 of 2025 instructions of the Excise officials when he enquired with the person who is in their possession revealed his identity and further confessed to have committed the alleged offence, accordingly the excise officials seized the illicit liquor and prepared panchanama and that he is deposing falsehood. The evidence of PW3 is relevant to the extent of recording panchanama, but not supported by Pws1&2.

14.PW-4 testified that on 5-8-2024 reliable information that some persons were indulging in illegal possession of ID liquor for the purpose of sale by Accused in her house premises, Oddera colony of Raikal, then Lw.3 along with staff secured the presence of Lw.1&2 to act as panchas, rushed to the scene of offence, searched the suspected houses and found 1 bag containing 6 white packets 0.5 liters each with white liquid. Further Lw.3 interrrogated with the Accused and he confessed that his name is Pittala Venkati. Then they seized the property by drawing two samples of ID liquor which containing of 180ml and sealed under panchanama. Later send for chemical analysis purpose in the recovery of panchanama. Basing on the strength of panchanama I registered a case against the Accused in COR

No.315/2024, dt:5-8-2024 U/sec. 7(A) r/w8(e) of TS Prohibition Act and issue COR to all the concerned and took up the investigation. During the course of invesigation Lw.3 arrested the accused and issued 41-A

Cr.PC. The samples drawn at the time of seizure were sent to chemical examiner Warangal for chemical analysis, after analysing the sample the chemical examiner opined that the samples contained illicit distilled liquor vide report CE.No.1890/2024 dt:16-08-2024 in

FairPage 8 of 9 C.C.No.548 of 2025

Sl.No.32519. Subsequently on production of the seized property the

Deputy commissioner of prohibition and Excise Karimnagar confiscated the property to the state as per the proceedings CR

No.334/2024, P&E/A5 dt:14-10-2024. After completion of investigation

I filed charge-sheet against the Accused. Therefore, PW-4 being the complainant and investigating officer who filed the charge sheet is naturally interested in the fruits of his investigation and it cannot be said that he is unbiased in conducting investigation in this case.

Moreover, Ex.P-4 has not been supported by the independent panch witnesses who are examined as PW-1 and PW-2. There is no corrobaration for the evidence of PW4. PW4 is involved in conduting investigation of the case, hence his testimony requisting corrobation.

Therefore, for the above reasons, this Court holds that the case of the prosecution against the accused appears to be doubtful and cannot be believed as such Accused is entitled for acquittal on the ground of benefit of doubt. The point is answered accordingly.

15.In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.7(A) R/w.Section 8(e) of TS Prohibition Act and accordingly he is acquitted for the said offence u/s. 248(1) Cr.P.C.

Since no property is deposited before this Court, hence no order as to property.

Typed to my dictation by typist, after corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this 21st day of April, 2025.

I Addl.Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Jagtial.

FairPage 9 of 9 C.C.No.548 of 2025

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW1- A. Laxman- Panch witness for search and seizure

PW2- P. Rajesh- Panch witness for search and seizure

PW3- MA Majid- recorded the panchanama

PW4- P. Meghamala- Investigation Officer

FOR DEFENCE:

-None-

Exhibits Marked

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 is the Signature of PW1 on Panchanama Ex.P2 is the Signature of PW2 on Panchanama Ex.P3 is the attested copy of Panchanama dt:5-8-2024 Ex.P4 is the original COR No. 315 of 2024 Ex.P5 is the attested copy of Laboratory analysis report Ex.P6 is the attested copy of destruction of seized liquor panchanama FOR DEFENCE:

-Nil-

Material Objects Marked: Nil

I Addl.Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Jagtial.

Fair Page 1 of 9 C.C.No.550 of 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

JAGTIAL.

Monday, the 21st day of April, 2025.

Present: T.Jithender, I Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Jagtial

C.C.No. 550 of 2025

Between:-

The State represented through the Sub Inspector of Prohibition & Excise, Jagtial P.S.

.... Complainant

And

Gandikota Shekar, S/o. Rajam, 43 years, R/o. Oddera colony, Raikal village and Mandal.

...Accused

Section of law:U/Sec.7(A) R/w.Section 8(e) of TS Prohibition Act.

Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the court:Found not guilty

Sentence or order:Accused is found not guilty for theoffencepunishable

U/Sec.7(A) R/w. Section 8(e) of

TSProhibitionActand accordingly he is acquitted for the said offence u/s. 248(1)

Cr.P.C. Since no property is deposited before this Court, hence no order as to property.

@ @ @

This case came up before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor, on behalf of prosecution and

Fair Page 2 of 9 C.C.No.550 of 2025

Sri.R.Vijay Krishna, Asst. Legal Aid Counsel for Accused and having stood over for determination till this day the court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The State represented through the Sub-Inspector of Prohibition &

Excise, Jagtial laid charge sheet against the Accused in COR.No. 314 of 2024 for the offence punishable u/Secs. 7(A) R/w.Section 8(e) of TS

Prohibition Act.

2.The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that:

On reliable information that some persons are indulging in illegal possession and sale of I.D. Liquor, LW3 secured the presence of

LW1&2 to act as panchs and explained the purpose and rushed to the scene of offence. The raid party consisting of LW3 along with their staff rushed to the said place, searched the suspected houses to detect Prohibition cases. During the search of the suspicious houses, (01) bag containing (06) packets 0.5 liters each with some liquid was found and taken over, it was total (03)ltrs in size. LW3 in the presence of LW1&2, opened the packets containing liquid and smelled it, recognized it as I.D. Liquor. Totally found (03) liters of I.D. Liquor. On enquiry the accused person voluntarily confessed about the commission of offence and accused person further confessed that he produced and sold I.D. Liquor to unknown persons. LW3 asked accused about his details, then accused said his name as Gandikota

Fair Page 3 of 9 C.C.No.550 of 2025

Shekar, S/o. Rajam, 43 years, R/o. Oddera colony, Raikal village and

Mandal. Illegal production and sale of ID liquor without a valid license is an offence under the provisions of T.S. Prohibition Act, 1995. The officers seized the property by drawing two samples (180)ml each for chemical analysis purpose under a cover of panchanama. The identity slips duly signed by the panchas and LW3 were affixed on the samples. Seized and recovered the entire property along with samples under cover of panchanama. The accused was arrested on 5-8-2024 at the scene of offence. Further LW3 handed over accused, seized property along with the (02) samples in the Prohibition & Excise station, Jagtial. Basing on the strength of the panchanama the

Prohibition & Excise Sub-Inspector, Jagtial LW4 registered a case against the accused U/sec. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of T.S. Prohibition Act, 1995 in

COR No.314/2024, dt:5-8-2024 and issued COR to all concerned and took up the investigation. The samples drawn at the time of seizure were send to the chemical examiner, Warangal for chemical analysis.

The chemical examiner after analysing the sample, opined that the samples contained illicitly distilled liquor vide in report C.E.

No.1890/2024, dt: 16-8-2024 in Sl.No.32518. The seized property involved in the case has been produced before the confiscating authority i.e., the Dy.Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise,

Karimnagar who confiscated the property to the state, which has been destroyed as per the Dy.Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise,

Karimnagar Division vide Cr.No.334/2024 P&Ex/A5, dt:14-10-2024.

Fair Page 4 of 9 C.C.No.550 of 2025

After completion of investigation, the excise official filed charge sheet against the Accused for the offence punishable U/s.7(A) R/w.Section 8(e) of TS Prohibition Act.

3.Upon consideration of the material placed before the Court as per

Sec.190(1)(b) Cr.P.C., for the offence U/Secs. 7(A) R/w.Section 8(e) of

TS Prohibition Act was taken against Accused and issued summons to the Accused as per Sec.204 Cr.P.C.

4.On appearance of the Accused copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated u/Sec.207 r/w Sec.238 Cr.P.C. The Accused examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C., for the offence u/Sec. 7(A) R/w.Section 8(e) of TS Prohibition Act and this court heard the prosecution and

Accused, upon considering the submissions made and also the denial by the Accused about the accusation, charges as per

Sec.240(1) Cr.P.C., for the offence U/Sec.7(A) R/w.Section 8(e) of TS

Prohibition Act framed and explained to Accused in telugu as per

Sec.240(2) Cr.P.C., having understood the charges framed against him, he denied the charges and on question of plea of guilt, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, commenced the trial against the accused.

5.For proving it’s case, prosecution examined Pws.1 to 4 out of (4) cited witnesses and Ex.P1 to P6 were marked. That being the oral evidence adduced by the prosecution, the case of the Accused on the

Fair Page 5 of 9 C.C.No.550 of 2025 other hand, as can be seen from the tenor of cross examination, is total denial on the ground of falsification.

6. The list of witnesses examined by the prosecution are as follows:- PW1- A. Laxman- Panch witness for search and seizure

PW2- P. Rajesh- Panch witness for search and seizure

PW3- MA Majid- recorded the panchanama

PW4- P. Meghamala- Investigation Officer

7. The list of documents exhibited by the prosecution are as follows:- Ex.P1 is the Signature of PW1 on Panchanama Ex.P2 is the Signature of PW2 on Panchanama Ex.P3 is the attested copy of Panchanama dt:5-8-2024 Ex.P4 is the original COR No. 314 of 2024 Ex.P5 is the attested copy of Laboratory analysis report Ex.P6 is the attested copy of destruction of seized liquor panchanama

Material Objects :- Nil

8. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the Accused examined

U/Sec.313 R/w.Sec.281 Cr.P.C., for the incriminating circumstances appeared against them in the evidence of PW.1 to 4 for which he denied the truthfulness of the evidence and reported no defence evidence on his side.

9.Heard learned Asst.Public Prosecutor, and learned counsel for the

Accused. The learned APP submitted that the prosecution proved it’s case beyond all reasonable doubts. I have given my considerable thought to the respectivesubmissions made by the learned APP & counsel for the Accused and I have perused the record.

10.Now the point for determination is:-

Fair Page 6 of 9 C.C.No.550 of 2025

Whether the prosecution could successfully bring home the guilt of the Accused by proving the charges for the offence u/Sec.7(A)

R/w.Section 8(e) of TS Prohibition Act beyond reasonable doubt?

11. Having considered the legal position coupled with the facts germane to the case of the prosecution now let us see whether the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the Accused beyond reasonable doubt for the charged offence.

12.It is settled law that if the same investigation officer who detects the offence is a complainant, seizes the contraband and who conducts the investigation and files the charge sheet, it would result in causing prejudice to the accused and therefore it cannot be said that the accused has been provided with fair trial. Thus, in the light of the judicial indicia postulated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the catena of decisions, the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution has to be analysed to ascertain whether it has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence alleged against him.

13.PW-1 & PW-2 who are shown as panch witnesses for the confession cum seizure panchanama have turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution but, have only admitted their signatures on the seizure panchanama which are marked as Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2 respectively. They have stated in their chief examination that no panchanama was conducted in their presence. Though PW-1 and PW- 2 are cross examined after they are declared as hostile by the learned

Asst.Public Prosecutor, but, they have denied a suggestion that on

Fair Page 7 of 9 C.C.No.550 of 2025

Pw4 the Excise Police called him to scene of offence and on the instructions of the Excise officials when he enquired with the person who is in their possession revealed his identity and further confessed to have committed the alleged offence, accordingly the excise officials seized the illicit liquor and prepared panchanama and that he is deposing falsehood.

14.PW-4 testified that on 5-8-2024 reliable information that some persons were indulging in illegal possession of ID liquor for the purpose of sale by Accused in her house premises, Oddera colony of Raikal, then Lw.3 along with staff secured the presence of Lw.1&2 to act as panchas, rushed to the scene of offence, searched the suspected houses and found 1 bag containing 6 white packets 0.5 liters each with white liquid. Further Lw.3 interrrogated with the Accused and he confessed that his name is Gandikota Shekar. Then they seized the property by drawing two samples of ID liquor which containing of 180ml and sealed under panchanama. Later send for chemical analysis purpose in the recovery of panchanama. Basing on the strength of panchanama I registered a case against the Accused in COR

No.314/2024, dt:5-8-2024 U/sec.7(A) r/w8(e) of TS Prohibition Act and issue COR to all the concerned, took up the investigation. During the course of invesigation Lw.3 arrested the accused and issued 41-A

Cr.PC. The samples drawn at the time of seizure were sent to chemical examiner Warangal for chemical analysis, after analysing the sample the chemical examiner opined that the samples contained illicit distilled liquor vide report CE.No.1890/2024 dt:16-08-2024 in

Fair Page 8 of 9 C.C.No.550 of 2025

Sl.No.32518. Subsequently on production of the seized property the

Deputy commissioner of prohibition & Excise Karimnagar confiscated the property to the state as per the proceedings CR No.334/2024,

P&E/A5 dt:16-08-2024. After completion of investigation I filed charge- sheet against the Accused. Therefore, PW-4 being the complainant and investigating officer who filed the charge sheet is naturally interested in the fruits of his investigation and it cannot be said that he is unbiased in conducting investigation in this case. Moreover,

Ex.P-4 has not been supported by the independent panch witnesses who are examined as PW-1 and PW-2. There is no corrobaration for the evidence of PW4. PW4 is involved in conduting investigation of the case, hence his testimony requisting corrobation. Therefore, for the above reasons, this Court holds that the case of the prosecution against the accused appears to be doubtful and cannot be believed as such Accused is entitled for acquittal on the ground of benefit of doubt. The point is answered accordingly.

15.In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.7(A) R/w.Section 8(e) of TS Prohibition Act and accordingly he is acquitted for the said offence u/s. 248(1) Cr.P.C.

Since no property is deposited before this Court, hence no order as to property.

Typed to my dictation by typist, after corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this 21st day of April, 2025.

I Addl.Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Jagtial.

Fair Page 9 of 9 C.C.No.550 of 2025

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW1- A. Laxman- Panch witness for search and seizure

PW2- P. Rajesh- Panch witness for search and seizure

PW3- MA Majid- recorded the panchanama

PW4- P. Meghamala- Investigation Officer

FOR DEFENCE:

-None-

Exhibits Marked

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 is the Signature of PW1 on Panchanama Ex.P2 is the Signature of PW2 on Panchanama Ex.P3 is the attested copy of Panchanama dt:5-8-2024 Ex.P4 is the original COR No. 314 of 2024 Ex.P5 is the attested copy of Laboratory analysis report Ex.P6 is the attested copy of destruction of seized liquor panchanama FOR DEFENCE:

-Nil-

Material Objects Marked: Nil

I Addl.Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Jagtial.

Fair 1 of 7 M.C.No.12 of 2024

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS: JAGTIAL

Present: T.Jithender, I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,Jagtial.

Thursday, this 03rd day of April 2025

M.C.No. 12 of 2024

Between:

1.Musthyala @ Rajeshuni Ravalika, W/o. Venkatesh, 27 years, Occ: Household, R/o. Dharmapuri at present residing at Vani Nagar locality of Jagtial proper and District.

2.Musthyala Vishwa Sakhi, D/o. Venkatesh, 1 ½ years, R/o. Dharmapuri at present residing at Vani Nagar locality of Jagtial proper and District.

...Petitioners.

AND Musthyala Venkatesh, S/o. Sattaiah, 32 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No. 14-118, Dharmapuri proper of mandal of Jagtial District.

... Respondent.

This petition is coming up before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.B.Omprakash, Counsel for Petitioners and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this date, and this court made the following:

O R D E R

1.This petition filed u/s.125 Cr.P.C. by the Petitioners praying the court to grant maintenance @ Rs.40,000/- per month to the Petitioner No.1,

Rs.10,000/- per month to the Petitioner No.2 from the date of filing of

M.C. against the Respondent.

Fair 2 of 7 M.C.No.12 of 2024

2.The brief averments of the petition are that:-

(i)The Petitioner No.1 is legally wedded wife, Petitioner No.2 is the daughter of Respondent respectively. On 13-05-2021at Virupakshi

Garden, Jagtial proper and mandal, as per the caste and custom prevailing in their Arya Vyasha community of Hindu religion the marriage of petitioner No.1 and respondent solemnized. The petitioner No.1 parents paid Rs.1,00,000/- net cash towards dowry, gave gold, silver articles and presented Rs.10,00,000/- on the request of mother and other relatives of the Respondent. After marriage the petitioner No.1 and respondent lived together for five months happily at Dharmapuri, they blessed with one daughter namely Vishwa Sakhi (petitioner no.2).

(ii)Since the date of marriage the Respondent has habituated drinks and without working any job. Subsequently on the request of the

Respondent No.1, the petitioner No.1 obtained loan from her relative

Rs. 5,00,000/- for that the Respondent No.1executed promissory note in favour of petitioner No.1’s relatives and the same the Respondent

No.1 invested in business at Dharmapuri. But the Respondent No.1 did not properly manage his business, due to that he incurred loss, as such the above said business terminated. The Respondent No.1 harassed the petitioner No.1 for more dowry and started abusing and beating the petitioner No.1. But the petitioner No.1 being house hold lady, well educated lady and in the interest of petitioner No.2, waited and tolerated harassment of the Respondent no.1. The Respondent

Fair 3 of 7 M.C.No.12 of 2024

No.1 with malicious design continued harassment by one way and other. The petitioner No.1 waited long time vexed with harassment of

Respondent No.1 and threatened the petitioner No.1. Since

December 2021 the petitioner No.1 living at her parent’s house at

Jagtail proper and mandal. Subsequently the Respondent and his parents and relatives came to house of the house petitioner No.1 and requested the petitioner No.1 stating that the Respondent promised that he will stop harassment and lives amicably in future without harassment.

(iii) The petitioner No.1 is being, house hold lady and in view of future of her and her child on the request of the Respondent and advise of elders of the community with intention to that the Respondent will look after amicably and stop the drinks of liquor and not threatening petitioner No.1 and on the request of the Respondent, the petitioner

No.1 joined along with petitioner No.2 society of the Respondent, one week after Respondent continued above said attitude with petitioner No.1, the life of the petitioner No.1 having danger in the hands of Respondent and the Respondent daily in the evening time after consuming liquor visiting the petitioner No.1 house with knife with intention to kill her, due to unbearable condition the petitioner filed complaint before SHO, PS, Jagtial town U/s.498-A IPC, Sec.4 of

DP Act. Upon which the SHO, PS, Jagtial town registered criminal case vide crime number 195 of 2023 and same is pending. The petitioner

No.1 unable to continue matrimonial life with Respondent in future,

Fair 4 of 7 M.C.No.12 of 2024 since December 2021 the petitioners No.1&2 are residing at Vani nagar locality of Jagtial. The petitioner No.1 life is in danger in the hands of the Respondent. She will not continue in the society of

Respondent in future, due to life threatens. In these circumstances several panchyats were held, and elders advised the Respondent to have cordial relation with the petitioner, but the Respondent will fully denied, upon which the petitioner No.1 filed petition filed for dissolution of marriage of petitioner No.1 with Respondent vide

H.M.O.P No.116 of 2023 on the file of Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge at

Jagtial, wherein the Respondent set exparte, subsequently filed set-a- side petition therein. Later the Respondent admonished before the elders that he will never give divorce, going to torture the petitioner

No.1.

(iv) Subsequently the petitioner No.1 parents brought to the notice of the

Respondent mother and their relatives, but they are also abused most filthy language the parent of the petitioner No.1 stating that

Respondent is male person and he can do whatever he want to do and the petitioner No.1 should keep herself quiet and being lady the petitioner ought have to bear the torture of the Respondent and further the relatives and mother of the Respondent encourages the

Respondent that he is male person and whatever he want to do and he should not care the petitioner No.1 and her parents, if the petitioner No.1 want to stay in the in-laws house, the petitioner No.1 bound to bear all the consequences therein, as such all the

Fair 5 of 7 M.C.No.12 of 2024

Respondent used to tortures in the domestic life of the petitioner

No.1 in the laws house. Due to life threat is not living with

Respondent in future. The petitioner requested the Respondent to give divorce at Jagtial. But the respondent bluntly refused demand of petitioner and he threaten that he will commit suicide by giving the names of the petitioner and parents of the petitioner, due to that cause of action arose. The Respondent is doing Business and the petitioner No.1&2 are in need of monetary fund for rehabilitation and therefore in term an exparte order may be passed payment of rents etc., The respondent earns from Rs. 1,00,000/- per month as he working businessman, also having house at Dharmapuri and other immovable properties. The Petitioner No.1&2 are unable to maintain themselves. The Respondent can easily provide of Rs. 40,000/- per month to petitioner No.1, Rs.10,000/- per month to the petitioner

No.2.

3.Despite sufficient service of notice the Respondent called absent, no representation, hence Respondent set exparte.

4.Heard the counsel for petitioners. No one appeared on behalf of respondent and submitted arguments on his behalf.

5.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the Petitioners are entitled for the relief as

prayed for?

6.It is the evidence of PW1 that, she is the legally wedded wife of the

Respondent, their marriage was performed on 13-05-2021 at

Fair 6 of 7 M.C.No.12 of 2024

Virupakshi Garden, Jagtial proper as per the caste and custom prevailing in their Arya Vyasha Commumity of Hindu religion and she reiterated all the contents mentioned in her petition, which will not serve any useful purposes.

7.From the above evidence of PW1 it is clear that she is legally wedded wife of Respondent and at present Petitioners are living away from the Respondent. Since the respondent failed to cross-examine PW1 and adduce his evidence, the evidence of PW1 remains unchallenged.

Since the Petitioners are residing away from the Respondent, it can be said that they were neglected by the Respondent. As such there is sufficient reason for PW1 to reside separately from her husband.

Therefore the Petitioners are entitled to get maintenance from the respondent.

8.There is no circumstances placed before the court by the respondent to deny maintenance to the Petitioners. As per PW1 the respondent is doing business, but except the oral evidence of Pw.1 there is no evidence submitted in support of the income of the Respondent, and on the other hand the evidence of Pw.1 remained unchallenged, unshaken. Therefore, taking this considering facts, circumstances in total, this court felt it just and appropriate to grant a sum of

Rs.3,000/- towards maintenance to the petitioners No.1&2 per month., from the date of filing M.C., the respondent shall pay the maintenance amount on or before 10th day of every succeeding month.

Fair 7 of 7 M.C.No.12 of 2024

9. In the result, the petition is partly allowed by granting maintenance of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) p.m., to the Petitioners

No.1&2 each from the date of this petition, the respondent shall pay the same on or before 10th day of every succeeding month, Rs.

1,000/- towards costs of the M.C.

(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 03rd day of April, 2025).

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jagtial

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONER: FOR RESPONDENT:

PW1 – M. Ravalika- NONE -

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER:

Ex.A1 is the original wedding invitation card

Ex.A2 is the photos.

FOR RESPONDENT: NIL.

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jagtial