Smt T. Suhasini

Page No.1 of 10

SC No.55 of 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

AT MEDAK

PRESENT: SMT. T.SUHASINI.

Asst. Sessions Judge, Medak.

Friday, 13 th day of August, 2021.

SC No. 55 OF 2019

P.R.C. No., Cr.No. and P.S. :: PRC No.02 of 2019. Cr.No. 42 of 2018 of P.S. Yeldurthy.

Case committed by :: Judicial Magistrate of First Class Medak.

Names of the accused ::

A1 Kurma Srisailam S/o Lamaiah, Aged 28 yrs., Kurma caste, Occupation Auto Driver, R/o Hasthalpur Village of Yeldurthy Mandal, Medak District.

A2 Kurma Lasmaiah S/o Buchaiah, Aged 50 yrs., Kurma caste, Occupation Agriculture, R/o Hasthalpur Village of Yeldurthy Mandal, Medak District.

A3 Kurma Shankaramma W/o Lasmaiah, Aged 45 yrs., Kurma caste, Occupation Agriculture, R/o Hasthalpur Village of Yeldurthy Mandal, Medak District. …. Accused No. 1 to 3

Offence of Charge :: U/Ss 307, 324, 506 of Indian Penal Code.

Plea of accused :: Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of court:: Accused No. 1 to 3 are found NOT GUILTY.

Sentence or Order :: Accused No. 1 to 3 are acquitted U/s 235(1) Cr.P.C., for the offence U/Ss 307, 324, 506 of Indian Penal Code.

Prosecution conducted by :: S. Chandra Reddy

Additional Public Prosecutor.

Accused defended by :: Sri D. Durga Reddy, Advocate for Accused No.1 to 3.

Page No.2 of 10

SC No.55 of 2019

This case is coming before me on this day for final hearing in the presence of Sri S. Chandra Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State and of Sri D. Durga Reddy, Advocate for Accused No. 1 to 3, upon perusing material papers on record, upon hearing arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Yeldurthy has filed the charge sheet in Crime No.42 of 2018 for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 324, 506 of Indian Penal Code against Accused No. 1 and 2.

2.The grave-men charge leveled against the accused No.1 to 3 and the case of the prosecution against them, in brief, is that on 20-6-2018 at 09:00 hours the de facto-complainant/LW1/Kurma Srinivas S/o buchaiah came to Police Station and lodged a complaint stating that he belongs to

Hastalpur village and living by doing agriculture. On 18-6-2018 at 07:00 hours his wife namely Kumar Rukkavva at their home, due to the dispute over the agriculture land, his brother namely Kurma Laxmaiah and his brother's wife Kurma Shankaravva both came to his home, abused him in filthy language and beat with stick to him and his wife, later he went out of his house and his brother's son namely Kurma Srisailam came to by Auto with manner of rash and negligence bearing No.AP 23 X 2641 and dashed to him due to which he fell down and receiving bleeding injuries,

Srisailam leave the Auto and again beat him with hands. Hence, he requested to take necessary legal action.

Basing on the said complaint, S.I. of Police registered this case in

Crime No. 42 of 2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 324, 506 of Indian Penal Code and issued First Information Report and investigated into.

Page No.3 of 10

SC No.55 of 2019

During the course of investigation, he examined LW1/Kurma

Srinivas and LW2/Kurma Rukkavva and recorded their statements, visited the scene of offence, conducted scene of offence panchanama, drawn rough sketch and seized thecrime vehicle Auto bearing No.AP 23 X 2641 in the presence of panch witnesses LWs 6 and 7 Pochaiah and

Nagabhushnam respectively, later examined and recorded the statements of LWs 3 to 5/Witnesses. On 17-7-2018 apprehended the accused No.1 and on interrogation he confessed the offence. On 29-7-2018 Served

Notice to the A2 and A3, LW-8/Medical Officer who treated the injured issued certificate stating that the injuries are "Grievous in nature".

LW9/MVI who inspected the crime vehicle issued opinion that "the incident occurred not due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle". After completion of investigation, the charge sheet has been filed against A1 to

A3 for the offence under Sections 307, 324, 506 of Indian Penal Code.

Hence, the charge.

3.The case was taken on file as PRC No. 2 of 2019 by the learned

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medak for the offence under Sections

307, 324, 506 of Indian Penal Code against Accused No. 1 to 3. The copies of relevant documents were furnished to the said accused as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate having found prima facie case against Accused No. 1 to 3 for the offence under

Sections 307, 324, 506 of Indian Penal Code. As the offence under

Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is exclusively triable by Court of

Sessions, committed the case to the Hon’ble Principal District and

Sessions Judge’s Court, Medak at Sangareddy under Section 209 Cr.P.C.

Page No.4 of 10

SC No.55 of 2019

4.The Hon’ble Principal District and Sessions Judge, Medak at

Sangareddy, has taken the case on file as SC No. 55 of 2019 and made over the same to this Court for disposal according to Law.

5.On appearance of the Accused No. 1 to 3 before this Court, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, and the Learned Defence Counsel were heard under Section 226 of Cr.P.C., and considering the material on record and as per Section 228 Cr.P.C., charge under Sections 307, 324, 506 of Indian Penal Code against Accused No. 1 to 3 was framed and the same has been read over and explained to them in their vernacular language, for which, they pleaded not guilty for the said charge and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PW1 to

PW8 and got marked documents Ex.P1 to P16, and M0-1 (Auto), M0-2 (Stick) and M0-3 (Plank of Auto) are marked.

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, Accused No. 1 to 3 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., on the incriminating evidence available against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which, they denied and reported no defence on their behalf.

8.Heard the arguments of Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, and also the Learned Defence Counsel for Accused No. 1 to 3.

9.The point that arises for determination is:

Whether the prosecution had made out the guilt of the Accused No. 1 to 3 for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 324, 506 of Indian Penal Code, beyond all reasonable doubt?

Page No.5 of 10

SC No.55 of 2019

10.POINT: To establish the charge for the offences punishable under

Sections 307, 324, 506 of Indian Penal Code against the above accused, the prosecution has to prove that the accused No.1 to 3 beat the injured persons by name Kurma Srinivas with stick, and caused grievous injuries to him. Thus, Accused No.1 to 3 have committed the above offences.

11.To establish the above charges against Accused No. 1 to 3, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW8, wherein PW1 is the de facto- complainant/injured, PW2 to PW4 are the witnesses, PW5 and PW6 are the panch witnesses for scene of offence and seizure panchanama, PW7 is eye-witness/wife of the defacto-complainant, PW8 is Investigating

Officer.

12.As could be seen from the evidence of the PW1 who is the defacto- complainant who lodged complaint with the Police deposed that about three years ago on one day one spade accidentally fallen on his fore head and he sustained injuries. Police came to hospital and obtained his signature on white blank paper, Police not examined him, his signature is marked as Ex.P1.

The Additional Public Prosecutor sought permission to declare the witness as hostile and to cross-examine him. During the cross- examination by the learned Public Prosecutor nothing could be elicited in support of prosecution case. He denied the suggestions put to him.

During the cross-examination Ex.P2 contents of complaint, Ex.P3 161

Cr.P.C. statement of PW1 marked.

Page No.6 of 10

SC No.55 of 2019

13. As could be seen from the evidence of PW2 to PW4 and PW7 who cited as witnesses, they too resiled from their earlier stand and stated that at the time of alleged incident they were not at the scene of offence and Police not examined them nor recorded their statements.

Their 161 Cr.P.C. statements are got marked as Ex.P4 to Ex.P6 and

Ex.P11 respectively.

Additional Public Prosecutor sought permission to declare these

witnesses as hostile and to cross-examine them. During the cross- examination by the learned Public Prosecutor nothing could be elicited in support of prosecution case. They denied the suggestions put to them.

14.PW5 andPW6 who acted as independent panch witnesses for scene of offence and seizure panchanamas and rough sketch not supported the case of the prosecution, they deposed they don't know anything about this case, about 2 or 3 three years ago on one day Poilce came to them and obtained their signatures on white blank papers. They further deposed that Police not conducted any panchanama nor drafted any rough sketch in their presence and not seized anything in their presence. They admitted their signatures which were marked as Ex.P7 to

P10. During the cross-examination by the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor nothing could be elicited in support of prosecution case.

15.As could be seen from the evidence of the PW8 who is the

Investigation Officer (V.Ganga Raju) deposed about the investigation done by him in chronological events about receiving of the complaint registering of the case as Cr.No.42/2018 for the offences punishable

Page No.7 of 10

SC No.55 of 2019

U.Secs. 307, 324 I.P.C. issued FIR Ex.P12 and examination of the witnesses PW1 to 4 and 7 and recorded their statements. He further deposed that he visited the scene of offence, conducting of scene of offence panchanama and drafted scene of offence-cum-seizure panchanama in the presence of panchas. He seized Stick, Auto and its

Plank under cover of panchanama. Apprehended the accused and on interrogation the accused have admitted their guilty and produced the accused before the court for judicial remand and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against the accused.

During the cross-examination by the learned defence counsel he denied all the suggestions put to him.

Reasons:-

16.As could be seen from the evidence of the PW.1, who is the de facto-complainant and victim though he lodged a complaint with the

Police when it comes to his evidence he retracted from his earlier stand and he clearly stated that Police obtained his signature on white blank papers. He clearly stated police did not examine him nor recorded his statement. The PW1 who lodged the compliant with the police not supported the case of prosecution and resiled from his earlier stand and denied of stating before the police as in Ex.P2 and Ex.P3. When it comes to the evidence of PW2 to PW4 and PW7 who are cited as witnesses also not supported the case of the prosecution, they clearly stated that Police taken their signatures on white blank papers and not examined and recorded their statements. They denied their 161 Cr.P.C.

statements marked as Ex.P4 to P6 and Ex.P11.

Page No.8 of 10

SC No.55 of 2019

17.As could be seen from the evidence of the PW5 and PW6 who are alleged to have been acted as the panch witnesses, both deposed that the police obtained their signatures on white papers without conducting panchanama and not drafted rough sketch in their presence and seized anything in their presence. When it comes to the evidence of

Investigating Officer who deposed he has visited the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama and drafted rough sketch and seized material objects No.1 to 3 in the presence of panch witnesses. But the panch witnesses PWs 5 and 6 denied the said fact. There is variation in the evidence of the Investigating Officer with regard to conducting scene of offence cum seizure panchanamas and drafting the rough sketch.

18. From the ocular evidence of PW1 to PW8 coupled with documentary evidence Ex.P1 to Ex.P16,there is no iota of evidence to connect the Accused No.1 to 3 with the alleged crime for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 324 and 506 of I.P.C. After careful scanning of both oral and documentary evidence the prosecution has utterly failed to bring the guilt of the Accused No.1 to 3 beyond all reasonable doubt.

19.For the reasons set forth in the preceding paragraphs, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the charges for the offences under Sections 307, 324 and 506 of I.P.C.

against the A-1 to A-3 beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore, the benefit of doubt can be given to them. The point is answered accordingly.

Page No.9 of 10

SC No.55 of 2019

20.IN THE RESULT: The Accused No. 1 to 3 are found NOT GUILTY for the offences under Sections 307, 324 and 506 of the Indian Penal

Code and accordingly; they are acquitted under Section 235(1) of the

Code of Criminal Procedure for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand canceled. M0-1 Auto bearing No.AP 23 X 2641 which is given for safe custody is holds good after appeal time is over, and M0-2 (Stick) and M0-3 (Plank of Auto) shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-I, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 13 th day of August, 2021.

ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE

MEDAK

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

PW1 Kurma Srinivas - NONE -

PW2 Kurma Lingam

PW3 Kurma Narsimlu

PW4 Allam Ramesh

PW5 Aera Pochaiah

PW6 Kaduluri Lavanya

PW7 Kurma Rukkavva

PW8 V. Ganga Raju, SIP., I.O.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

Ex.P1 – signature of the PW1 on the complaint

Ex.P2 – contents of the complaint

Ex.P3 – Sec. 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW1

Ex.P4 – Sec. 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW2

Ex.P5 – Sec. 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW3

Ex.P6 – Sec. 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW4

Page No.10 of 10

SC No.55 of 2019

Ex.P7 – signature of PW5 on scene of offence cum seizure panchanama

Ex.P8 – signature of PW5 on the Rough sketch

Ex.P9 – signature of PW6 on scene of offence cum seizure panchanama

Ex.P10 – signature of PW6 on the Rough sketch

Ex.P11 – Sec. 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW7

Ex.P12 - First Information Report

Ex.P13 - scene of offence cum seizure panchanama

Ex.P14 - Rough sketch

Ex.P15 - Wound Certificate

Ex.P16 - MVI report

ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

-NIL-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

M0-1 is Auto bearing No. AP 23 X 2641

M0-2 is Stick

M0-3 is Plank of Auto

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

-NIL-

ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE

MEDAK

Page No.1 of 10

SC No. 242 of 2015

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE :: AT MEDAK

PRESENT: SMT. T. SUHASINI.

Asst. Sessions Judge, Medak.

Friday, this the 13 th day of March, 2021.

SC No. 242 OF 2015

P.R.C. No., Cr.No. and P.S. :: PRC No. 17 of 2015. Cr.No. 134 of 2014 of P.S. Narsapur.

Case committed by :: Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narsapur.

Name of the accused

Mohd. Aleem S/o Saleem, Aged 22 years, Muslim, Occupation Salesman & Driver, R/o H.No.16-206/1, Quba Colony, Shahin Nagar, Pahadishareef, Hyderabad. ….Accused

Offence of Charge :: U/Sections 366(A) & 498-A of the Indian Penal Code

Plea of accused :: Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of court:: Accused is found NOT GUILTY.

Sentence or Order :: Accused is acquitted U/S 235(1) Cr.P.C., for the offences punishable under Sections 366(A) & 498-A of the Indian Penal Code

Prosecution conducted by :: Sri S. Chandra Reddy,

Additional Public Prosecutor

Accused defended by :: Sri Shaik Fazal Ahmed, Advocate for the Accused.

This Case is coming before me on this day for final hearing in the presence of Sri S. Chandra Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri Shaik Fazal Ahmed, Advocate for the Accused, upon perusing material papers on record, upon hearing arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following :-

Page No.2 of 10

SC No. 242 of 2015

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Narsapur Police Station has filed the charge sheet in Crime No.134 of 2014 for the offences punishable under

Sections under Sections 366(A) & 498-A of the Indian Penal Code against the sole Accused.

2.The grave-men charge leveled against the Accused and the case of the prosecution against him, in brief, is that on 08-8-2014 at 12:30 hours the defacto complainant/LW1/Md.Afzal Khan came to Police Station and lodged a Telugu written complaint in which he stated that his daughter namely; Md.Amreen Fathima studying 9th class English

Medium in Govt.ZPHS Girls School, located at in front of

Grampanchayath Narsapur. On 28-7-2014 his daughter went to school but not returned so far. They have searched for their daughter at their relatives houses but in vain. His daughter classmate namely Yasmin house was found locked since the time of his daughter missing. They have found the phone numbers 1) Ali-8801022305 and 2) Musthak- 7893267477. They have enquired in the school and came to know taht the address of Musthak and Yasmin in Rodamisthrinagar, Shapurnagar.

As such he requested to enquire into the matter and find out the whereabouts of his daughter Amrin Fathima. Basing on his complaint a case in crime No.134 of 2014 under girl Missing registered and investigated into.

During the course of investigation LW13/SI of Police issued First

Information Report and disbursed to all concerned, examined and recorded statements of LWs 1 and 2 who are the defacto-complainant

Page No.3 of 10

SC No. 242 of 2015

father and mother of the victim girl. On 14-8-2014 the Investigating Officer applied for age certificate of missing girl Amrina Fathima/LW3.

Subsequently LW14/SI of Police took up further investigation. on 19-1- 2015 LWs 1 and 2 parents of the victim girl along with the victim came to

Police Station, and stated that the victim girl ell in love with accused

Aleem and decided to marry. As her parents are not agreed for their marriage they both decided to marry by elope. On 28-7-2014 at 8.00 A.M.

they left house went to Khartabad, Hyderabad. After few days the parents of Aleem have talked with her parents. After that on 10-12-2014 they have performed the marriage with her consent before her parents as per

Muslim Law. After marriage her husband Aleem has kept her family at

Pahadi Shareef area and started abusing her by suspecting her fidelity and used to beat her, she waited for some days and that he not changed his attitude and used to abusing and beat her, for which on 19-1-2015 she informed to her parents and her parents have came to Narsapur and took her to parental house. Basing on the said statement of LW3/victim the section of law was altered from U/s Girl missing to Sec.366-A, 498-A

I.P.C. later reexamined the LWs 1 and 2, secured mediators LWs 11 and 12/Kondi Srinivas and Lavudya Babya conducted scene of offence panchanama and drafted rough sketch, examined and recorded the statement of LW5/ guduru Saroja and LW6/Smt.Azram Bee and

LW7/Smt.Md.Bhanu Bee and on 30-1-2015 examined the LWs 8 and 9 who are the parents of accused. On 23-1-2015 interrogated the accused and the accused admitted his guilty of offence, effected his arrest and sent him to the Court for judicial remand.

Page No.4 of 10

SC No. 242 of 2015

After collecting age certificate and after completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences under

Sections 366-A and 498-A I.P.C. Hence, the charge.

3.The case was taken on file as PRC No. 17 of 2015 by the learned

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narsapur for the offences under

Sections 366-A and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code against the Accused.

The copies of relevant documents were furnished to the accused as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate having found prima facie case against the accused for the offences under Sections 366-A and 498-A of I.P.C. and as the offence under Section 366-A of

I.P.C. is exclusively triable by Court of Sessions, committed the case to the Hon’ble Principal District and Sessions Judge’s Court, Medak at

Sangareddy under Section 209 Cr.P.C.

4.The Hon’ble Principal District and Sessions Judge, Medak at

Sangareddy, has taken the case on file as SC No. 242 of 2015 and made over the same to this Court for disposal according to Law.

5.On appearance of the Accused before this Court, the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor Grade-II and the learned Defence Counsel

for the Accused were heard under Sec. 226 of Cr.P.C., and considering

the material on record and as per Sec. 228 Cr.P.C., Charge U/s 366-A, 498-A I.P.C. against the Accused was framed and the same has been read over and explained to him in his vernacular language, for which, he pleaded not guilty for the said charge and claimed to be tried.

Page No.5 of 10

SC No. 242 of 2015

6.During the course of trial, prosecution has examined PW1 to PW5 and got marked documents Ex.P1 to P12.

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the Accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., on the incriminating evidence available against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which, he denied and reported no defence on his behalf.

8.Heard the arguments of Learned Additional Public Prosecutor and also the Learned Defence Counsel for the Accused.

9.The point that arises for determination is:

Whether the prosecution had made out the guilt of the Accused for the offences punishable under Sections 366-A and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, beyond all reasonable doubt?

10.POINT: To establish the charges for the offences punishable under

Sections 366-A and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code against the Accused, the prosecution has to prove that on 28-7-2014 the accused eloped the victim minor girl and married her and later harassed her mentally and physically. Hence, the accused has committed the offences under

Sections 366-A and 498-A of I.P.C.

11.To establish the above charges against the Accused, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW5. PW1 is the defacto- complainant/father of the victim girl, PW2 is the mother of the victim girl,

PW3 is father of the accused, PW4 is mother of the accused and PW5 is the Investigating Officer who did investigation and filed charge sheet.

Page No.6 of 10

SC No. 242 of 2015

12.As could be seen from the evidence of PW1, he deposed that

Md.Amreen Fatima LW-3 victim girl is his daughter, he do not know the accused and LWs 5 to 7. His daughter was studying 9th class in

Government ZPHS Narsapur. On 28-7-2014 his daughter went to school but not returned, as such he lodged complaint before Police. After Four days his daughter returned home and informed that she went to her brother-in-law's house at Shahin Nagar. After two years of the incident he performed her marriage with a resident of Dubai. PW1 further deposed that one neighbour obtained his signature on white paper. He don't know reading and writing Telugu.

During the cross-examination by the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor nothing could be elicited in support of prosecution case. PW1 stated that Police did not examine him nor recorded his statement and he admitted his signature on the complaint which is Ex.P1 and denied of stating before the police as in Ex.P3 and clearly stated he doesn’t know the contents of the complaint Ex.P2.

13.PW2 (mother) of the victim girl also parroted in the same line what

PW1 deposed. During the cross-examination by the learned Additional

Public Prosecutor PW2 denied of stating before the police as in Ex.P4.

14.As could be seen from the evidence of PW3 and 3 who are the parents of the Accused they too not supported the case of the prosecution stating that they do not know anything about the case. Police not examined them nor recorded their statements. During the cross-

Page No.7 of 10

SC No. 242 of 2015

examination by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor their statements are marked as in Ex.P5 and Ex.P6.

15.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor given up the evidence of other listed witnesses including the victim girl, as the parents of the victim and parents of the accused not supported the case of the prosecution.

16As could be seen from the evidence of Instigating Officer (PW5) who deposed the investigation done by him in chronological event and receiving of the complaint registering of the case, issuing of FIR i.e.,

Ex.P7 and deposed he examined and recorded the statement of witnesses conducted scene of offence panchanama Ex.P11 and rough sketch Ex.P12 in presence of panch witnesses, and after completion of investigation he filed the charge sheet before the court.

REASONS:-

17.As seen from the evidence of the Pw.1 who is the father of the victim girl/defacto-complainant lodged complaint with the police and PW2 who is mother of the victim girl denied that the accused kidnapped their daughter. Police not examined them, nor recorded their statements. PWs 3 and 4 who are parents of the accused cited as witnesses also not supported the case of prosecution and they clearly stated that they do not know anything about this case. The learned additional Public Prosecutor given up the remaining witnesses including the victim girl/LW3. From the evidence of PW1 to PW4 there is no allegations against the accused.

Page No.8 of 10

SC No. 242 of 2015

18.As could be seen from the evidence of the PW.5 who is the investigation officer deposed about the investigation done by him about registering of the case and conducting of panchanama from his evidence also it is not established that the accused kidnapped the victim girl and harassed her. The PW1 to PW4 resiled from the earlier stand and denied of the stating before the police as per their 161 Cr.P.C. statement Ex.P3 to Ex.P6. As per the evidence of Investigating Officer there is no incriminating material to connect with the accused crime there is no iota evidence to connect the accused with the offence. None of the witnesses deposed against the accused.

19. From the ocular evidence of Pw-1 to Pw-5 coupled with documentary evidenceEx.P.1 to P.12there is no iota of evidence to connect the accused with the alleged crime. After careful scanning of both oral and documentary evidence the prosecution has utterly failed to bring the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

20.For the reasons set forth in the preceding paragraphs, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the charges for the offences U/Sections 366-A and 498-A of I.P.C. against the Accused, beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore, the benefit of doubt can be given to him. The point is answered accordingly.

Page No.9 of 10

SC No. 242 of 2015

21.After careful scanning of both oral and documentary evidence on record, the prosecution has utterly failed to bring home the guilt of the

Accused beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly, he is entitled for benefit of doubt. Thus, the point is answered accordingly.

22.IN THE RESULT: The Accused is found not guilty for the offences under Sections 366-A and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly; he is acquitted under Section 235(1) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure for the said offences. The bail bond of the accused shall stand canceled and the sureties are hereby discharged.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-I, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 13 th day of August, 2021.

ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE

MEDAK

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

PW1 Md. Afzal Khan - NONE -

PW2 Smt.Haseena Begum

PW3 Mohd.Saleem

PW4 Smt.Fathima Sulthana

PW5 S. Koteshwar Rao, SIP I.O.

EXHIBITS MARKED

ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

Ex.P1 – Signature of PW1 on the complaint

Ex.P2 – Contents of complaint.

Ex.P3 – Sec. 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW1.

Ex.P4 – Sec. 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW2.

Page No.10 of 10

SC No. 242 of 2015

Ex.P5 – Sec. 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW3.

Ex.P6 – Sec. 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW4.

Ex.P7 – First information report.

Ex.P8 – Bonafide Certificate

Ex.P9 - Statement of LW3/Victim

Ex,P10- Section Alteration Memo

Ex.P11 Scene of offence panchanama

Ex.P12 – Rough sketch

ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE:

-NIL-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR

ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

- NIL -

ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE:

-NIL-

ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE

MEDAK