Smt T Swapna

C.C.No.447/2017

Dt: 19.12.2022

Page | 1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE:

NIDAMANOOR

PRESENT: SMT: T.SWAPNA Judicial First Class Magistrate Nidamanoor

DATED, THIS THE 19th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022

C.C. No. 447 OF 2017

Between: The State of Telangana through S.H.O. of P.S. Vijayapuri (T).

…..Complainant

A N D

1.Ramavath Dhathu, S/o.Laxma, Age:25 years, Caste: ST/Lambada, Occ:Auto driver, R/o.Neemanaik Thanda, H/o.Chalakurthy of Peddavoora Mandal, Nalgonda district.\

2.Ramavath Hariya, S/o.Ramulu, Age:26 years, Occ:Coolie, R/o.Nemanaik Thanda, H/o.Chalakurthy of Peddavoora Mandal, Nalgonda District.

3.Ramavath Muni, S/o.Gangya, Age:23 years, Caste: ST/Lambada, Occ:Auto driver, R/o.Neemanaik Thanda, H/o.Chalakurthy of Peddavoora Mandal, Nalgonda District.

...Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of learned APP for the State and of Sri M.C.Koti Reddy, Advocate for the accused upon perusing the material papers on record, on hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following.

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

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police P.S. Vijayapuri (T) filed charge sheet against A1 to A3 in Crime No.27 of 2016 for the offence punishable Under Section 394 of IPC.

JFCM, Nidamanoor

C.C.No.447/2017

Dt: 19.12.2022

Page | 2

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 12.04.2016 in the afternoon hours at about 1.20 PM LW1 on part of his duty went to pylon colony, SBH on his TVS Xl bearing No.24-K-0432 and withdrawn Rs.2,00,000/- from the bank while returning when he reached near Genco guest house at about 2.00 PM three persons followed him from back on a TVS Apache yellow color bike and sightly dashed to his bike as a result he has fallen down from his vehicle one of them who sat on the back came to him and snatched his money bag LW1 tried to resist but said persons slapped LW1 and snatched away money bag containing Rs,2,00,000/- and escaped on the bike. On this he lodged the complaint. Where police registered a case in Cr.No.27/2016 for the offence under Section 356 and 379 of

IPC and took up the investigation. After completion of investigation the investigation officer filed charge sheet against the accused under

Section 394 of IPC.

3. Cognizance was taken for the offence punishable Under Section 394 of IPC against A1 and A2.

4. On appearance of A1 and A2, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated U/s. 207 of Cr.P.C. A1 and A2 were examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C and a charge for the offence under Section 394 of IPC are framed, read over and explained

JFCM, Nidamanoor

C.C.No.447/2017

Dt: 19.12.2022

Page | 3 to the accused in Telugu, he denied the offence and claimed to be tried.

5. During the course of trial, the prosecution had examined PWs 1 to 9 witnesses and got marked Ex.P1 to P9.

6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, A1 and A2 were examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C and the incriminating evidence is read over and explained to accused in Telugu, for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

7. Both Prosecution and defence counsel submitted their arguments.

8. Now the point for consideration is:-

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of

A1 and A2 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence

under Section 394 of IPC ?

9. POINT:

It is the evidence of PW1 on the alleged date of incident he was working as post man at Hill colony, supposed office Nagarjuna Sagar and he know LW2 and LW3, LW2 is SPF constable, LW3 is resident of hill colony. On 12.04.2016 he went to State Bank of India Pylon colony, Nagarjuna Sagar at 1.20 PM and have with drawn the case from the bank while coming towards GENCO guest house accused

JFCM, Nidamanoor

C.C.No.447/2017

Dt: 19.12.2022

Page | 4 person hit him with a motor bike and he fell down. A2 to A3 were on their motor bike, A1 came to him and forcibly took his cash bag containing Rs.2,00,000/-. He raised hue and cry where LW2 came there upon arrival of LW2 accused No.1 beat him over his face as such he lost control over his cash bag and accused No.1 took away a bag and fled away on his motor bike. Said motor bike is TVS yellow color Apache and it has no number. He informed the same through phone to LW5, he went to police station and lodged the complaint.

Ex.P1 is the complaint lodged by him. He cannot identify them at present as he has seen them only on that day but witness identified

A1 was the person who attacked upon him and A2 and A3 were also present along with A1.

10. During his cross examination he deposed that his duty timings are 9.00 to 5.00 PM and he was examined by police at GENCO guest house. It is CI who recorded his statement and he has no written instructions for bringing the amount from the bank. I have drawn the money as I am sent with voucher to draw the amount from bank.

He further submitted that regularly he used to bring the amounts and he has placed the amount in the bag and have put said bag infront of his bike and holding it and there is a side box to his bike.

He fell from the bike he has not sustained any injury and no

JFCM, Nidamanoor

C.C.No.447/2017

Dt: 19.12.2022

Page | 5 damaged caused to his vehicle. Police came to the scene within 10 to 15 minutes. He denied the suggestion that the scene is a busy road. He further deposed that he stated before police that A2 and A3 were on their motor bike and A1 came to him and forcibly took his cash bag of Rs.2,00,000/-. On hearing his hue and cry SPF constable came there but he denied the suggestion he is deposing so for the first time before this court. He denied the suggestion that he cooked up the story in order to save themselves from misappropriation amounts and got filed false case against the accused.

11. PW2 deposed that in the year 2016 he was consisting a new at

Pylon colony and while he was at said house he heard hue and cry from the road and he heard the voice saying catch him. He found

PW1 and LW2 raising their voices and he has seen three persons going on motor bike with mask. Later PW1 narrated the incident to him.

12. During his cross examination he deposed that whatever he deposed in his chief examination is tutered by police to him.

13. PW3 deposed that in the year 2016 while he was in his duty near AP GENCO workshop near Nagarjuna Sagar dam in the

JFCM, Nidamanoor

C.C.No.447/2017

Dt: 19.12.2022

Page | 6 afternoon hours he heard some noise and went out and saw three person on TVS Apache bike taking away the bag in the hands of the person who was on TVS XL. He immediately chased three persons on Apache bike but they escaped by driving the vehicle at high speed. He deposed that he cannot identify the person on Apache bike and said bike has no number.

14. During his cross examination he deposed that he is security guard in GENCO the distance between where he was standing and the scene is only 75 yards. He admitted that the gate of his office will be closed. Police examined him on the same day at his office.

He was alone examined at his office.

15. PW4 deposed on 12.04.2016 at his instructions postman went to withdraw the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the back later in the afternoon hours he was informed that some unknown persons came on a bike and statched away the bag in which said amounts were placed. He immediately reported the matter to his higher authorities.

16. During his cross examinat6ion he deposed that he has issued a letter addressing a PW1 to draw an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and he was examined by police at his office along with his staff members.

JFCM, Nidamanoor

C.C.No.447/2017

Dt: 19.12.2022

Page | 7

17. PW5 who is scene for panchanama deposed that in the year 2016 police called him near Pylon petrol bunk where he found PW1 and on enquiry with PW1 he came to know that some persons snatched away the bag from him by beating him and Ex.P2 is the panchanama. Ex.P3 is the rough sketch. During his cross examination he admitted that he do not know the contents of the panchanama.

18. PW6 who is circumstantial witness turned hostile to the prosecution case. PW7 is panch for scene and rough sketch turned hostile.

19. PW8 panch for confession panchanama turned hostile to the prosecution case. PW9 investigating officer deposed that on 12.04.2016 at about 14.30 hours he received a complaint and basing on said complaint he issued FIR and he recorded the statement of complainant/PW1 at police station. He immediately went to the scene and conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch and recorded the statement of other witnesses. On 16.04.2016 while he was conducting vehicle cheking at Sammakka

Sarakka temple. He apprehended the accused and seized Apache bike and Rs.2,00,000/- from the possession of the accused and have

JFCM, Nidamanoor

C.C.No.447/2017

Dt: 19.12.2022

Page | 8 conducted confession panchanama as the offence is grave in nature he handed over CD file to LW11. LW11 after verification of the record filed charge sheet for the offence under Section 394 of IPC.

20. During his cross examination he deposed that he has not made any investigation with regard to capacity of sub-post master in withdrawing the amount and permissions required by Head post office for such withdrawal and he has not recorded the statements of bank manager field officer and cashier. Whether PW1 has withdrawn alleged amount and he has not made any enquiry with regard to denominations of said amount. He also stated that PW2 not stated before him that he found PW1 and SPF constable raising voice of catching and he denied all other suggestions put by the counsel.

21. On perusal of the complete evidence available on record it is the evidence of PW1 that he went to withdraw the amount and he has withdrawn Rs.2,00,000/- as per the instructions of PW4 and while returning accused persons committed theft of said amount. It is the evidence of PW4 that he has issued a letter addressing PW1 to draw said amount but no such letter is placed before this court.

JFCM, Nidamanoor

C.C.No.447/2017

Dt: 19.12.2022

Page | 9

22. At first instance PW1 deposed that he cannot identify the accused but later he identified A1 as person who attacked him and two others as the person who were present along with A1. Ex.P1 lodged by PW1 also does not speak anything that he can identify the accused further it is his evidence that he saw the accused for the first and last only on the alleged incident. PW9 investigation officer also deposed that PW1 not stated before him that A1 to A3 came in a motor bike and hit him, A1 forcibly took away his cash back, as such it is found that even in the examination of PW1 before police also he has not stated that he can identify the accused. But for the first time he identified the accused before this court. On the other hand it is the evidence of PW2 that the accused were with mask. Though

PW3 deposed that he witnessed three person on TVS Apache bike taking away the bag in the hands of the person who was on TVS XL but he deposed that he cannot identify said persons. Admittedly no test identification parade is conducted in this case. As such this court finds the omission that PW1 not stated before PW9 with regard to identification and he deposing before this court as he can identify is a material omission as it is touching the main core of this case.

As such this court cannot believe the version of PW1 in this regard.

JFCM, Nidamanoor

C.C.No.447/2017

Dt: 19.12.2022

Page | 10

23. It is also the evidence of PW1 that the accused persons on

Apache bike dashed to his bike and he fell down but no damage to his bike and no injury is caused to him, this part of evidence raises suspicious in the mind of the court as there shall be some injury and some damage when a vehicle hits the other vehicle.

24. It is the evidence of PW1 that he went to withdraw the amounts with vouchers but no such voucher were collected and placed before this court. Further no evidence is placed before this court to prove that PW1 has withdrawn the amount. As investigation officer/PW9 has not examined any of the bank employees to prove that PW1 withdrawn the amount on the alleged date of incident.

25. It is the evidence of PW9 that he caught accused persons while he was doing vehicle checking duty at Sammakka Sarakka temple on 16.04.2016 and he immediately conducted confession panhanama and have seized Rs,200,000/- from the possession of accused person, but no denomination of said amount is mentioned in said panchanama. It is also the evidence of PW9 that he collected CC TV footage but no such evidence is placed before this court.

26. It is for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt by bringing all the facts and circumstances

JFCM, Nidamanoor

C.C.No.447/2017

Dt: 19.12.2022

Page | 11 proving the guilt of the accused for the alleged offences. But here in this case the above material is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

27. IN THE RESULT, accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 394 of Indian Penal Code and he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the

Accused shall remain in force for a period of six months as envisaged under Section 437-A Cr.P.C

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 19th day of December, 2022.

JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

NIDAMANOOR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENSE

PW-1 : M.Rangaiah -None- PW-2 : R.Balaji PW-3 : A.Bhupal Reddy PW-4 : K.Pagadaiah PW-5 : R.Mohan Naik PW-6 : Ayyanna PW-7 : Venkaiah PW-8 : Nalavath Venkat Rao PW-9 : K.Rajanikar

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENSE

Ex.P1 : Report -Nil-

JFCM, Nidamanoor

C.C.No.447/2017

Dt: 19.12.2022

Page | 12

Ex.P2 : Scene of offence panchanam Ex.P3 : Rough sketch Ex.P4 : 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW6 Ex.P5 : Signature of PW7 on scene of offence panchanama Ex.P6 : Signature of PW7 on rough sketch Ex.P7 : Signature of PW8 on confession panchanama Ex.P8 : FIR Ex.P9 : Confession cum seizure panchanama

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- NIL -

JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

NIDAMANOOR

JFCM, Nidamanoor

C.C.No.31/2016

Dt: 19.12.2022

Page | 1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE:

NIDAMANOOR

PRESENT: SMT: T.SWAPNA Judicial First Class Magistrate Nidamanoor

DATED, THIS THE 19th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022

C.C. No. 31 OF 2016

Between: The State of Telangana through S.H.O. of P.S. Haliya.

…..Complainant

A N D

1.Kethavath Pul Singh, S/o.Laxma, Age:65 years, Caste:St Lambada, Occ:Agriculture,

2.Palthi Rama, S/o.Seena, Age:35 years, Caste: ST Lambada, Occ:Agriculture,

3.Palthi Bheemudu, S/o.Bheelya, Age:60 years, Caste: St Lambada, Occ:Agriculture,

4.Palthi Laxma, S/o.Bichya, Age:28 years, Caste: ST Lambada, Occ:Agriculture,

5.Palthi Hari Singh, S/o.Bhagya, Age:40 years, Caste: ST Lambada, Occ:Agriculture,

6.Ramavath Ravindar, S/o.Surya, Age:32 years, Caste: ST Lambada, Occ:Agriculture,

7.Kelavath Thavu, S/o.Laxma, Age:55 years, Caste: ST Lambada, Occ:Agriculture,

8.Kelavath Sukya, S/o.Laxma, Age:42 years, Caste: ST Lambada, Occ:Agriculture,

9.Palthi Dasru, S/o.Kotya, Age:45 years, Caste: ST Lambada, Occ:Agriculture,

10.Palthi Bichya, S/o.Vasya, Age:65 years, Caste: ST Lambada, Occ:Agriculture, (Abated).

11.Ramavath Shankar, S/o.Harjya, Age:60 years, Caste: ST Lambada, Occ:Agriculture,

12.Ramavath Mothi Ram, S/o.Lachi Ram, Age:48 years, Caste: ST Lambada,

13.Palthi Naresh, S/o.Bichya, Age:24 years, Caste: ST Lambada, Occ:Agriculture,

JFCM, Nidamanoor

C.C.No.31/2016

Dt: 19.12.2022

Page | 2

14.Ramavath Ragya, S/o.Kalu, Age:26 years, Caste: ST Lambada, Occ:Agriculture,

15.Ramavath Mangtha, S/o.Sakriya, Age:35 years, Caste: ST Lambada, Occ:Agriculture,

16.Palthi Seva, S/o.Bichya, Age:25 years, Caste: ST Lambada, Occ:Agriculture, All are R/o.Sunkishala Thanda, H/o.Yellapuram village of Anumula Mandal.

...Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of learned APP for the State and of Sri Godala Venkat Reddy, Advocate for the accused upon perusing the material papers on record, on hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following.

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

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police P.S. Haliya filed charge sheet against A1 to A16 in Crime No.144 of 2015 for the offence punishable Under Section 143, 447, 427 r/w.149 of IPC and Sec.3 of

PDPP Act.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 08.08.2015 at about 8.30 hours the villages of Sunkishala i.e., accused persons trespassed into the land where TNRDCL tower is situated and damaged said tower which is 100 meters height wind monitoring station causing a loss of Rs.5015 crores. On that LW1 lodged a complaint. Basing on the above complaint, Sub-Inspector of police,

P.S.Haliya registered a case and after completing investigation, filed the charge sheet against A1 to A16 for the offence u/Sec.143, 447, 427 r/w.149 of IPC and Sec.3 of PDPP Act.

JFCM, Nidamanoor

C.C.No.31/2016

Dt: 19.12.2022

Page | 3

3. Cognizance was taken for the offence punishable Under Section 143, 447, 427 r/w.149 of IPC and Sec.3 of PDPP Act against A1 to

A16.

4. A10 died hence case against A10 abated. On appearance of A1 to A9, A11 to A16, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated U/s. 207 of Cr.P.C. A1 to A9, A11 to A16 were examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C and a charge for the offence under Section 143, 447, 427 r/w.149 of IPC and Sec.3 of PDPP Act are framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu, they denied the offence and claimed to be tried.

5. During the course of trial, the prosecution had examined PWs 1 to 6 witnesses and got marked Ex.P1 to P9.

6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, A1 to A9, A11 to A16 were examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C and the incriminating evidence is read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

7. Both Prosecution and defence counsel submitted their arguments.

8. Now the point for consideration is:-

JFCM, Nidamanoor

C.C.No.31/2016

Dt: 19.12.2022

Page | 4

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of

A1 to A9, A11 to A16 beyond all reasonable doubt for

the offence under Section 143, 447, 427 r/w.149 of IPC

and Sec.3 of PDPP Act ?

9. POINT:

It is the evidence of PW1 that he worked as watchmen for the wind monitoring system and he do not know anything facts of the case. He never witness any incident. During his cross examination by learned APP he deposed he was not present on the alleged day of offence and he came to know about the damage LW3/Loka. During the cross examination by defence counsel deposed that he was having agriculture land of Ac.4-00 gts., he was doing cultivation and his statement was recorded by police at Thanda.

10. PW2 deposed that on 08.08.2015 PW1 informed him that 100 meter tower located at Sunkishala was dismantled, he along with

LW2 went to Sunkishala and found dismantled tower and he lodged complaint Ex.P2 is his complaint. During his cross examination he deposed that he was working as field Asst., in TNRDCL and said organization is the government organization. He deposed that he has not filed any document to show that there is tower existing at

Sunkishala and he is working as field Assistant in TNRDCL. He admitted that the signature on Ex.P2 and FIR copy belongs to him in

FIR copy he attested his signature in English and in Ex.P2 complaint

JFCM, Nidamanoor

C.C.No.31/2016

Dt: 19.12.2022

Page | 5 he signed in Telugu. He admitted that in the rainy season due to heavy rains there is every possibility of collapsing towers he denied other suggestions put by the counsel.

11. PW3 and PW4 who are panchas for scene of panchanama and rough sketch turned hostile to the prosecution case and nothing was elicited during their cross examination by learned APP except suggestion that they are deposing false.

12. PW5 deposed that someone erected tower in his agricultural lands and he do not know who erected it and it was dismantled by

Pulsing, Thagu, Bheemudu, Rama, Shankar and Seva and he is an illiterate.

13. During his cross examination he deposed that he is having

Ac.4-00 gts., of land and he cannot say its survey number his brother PW1 knows about said facts. He admitted that due to heavy rains there is chance of collapsing of towers and denied other suggestions put by counsel.

14. PW6 deposed to the extent of the investigation conducted by him. During his cross examination he deposed that he has not collected any document to show that LW1 is an employee in

TNRDCL. The said association is situated at Nampally, Hyderabad.

JFCM, Nidamanoor

C.C.No.31/2016

Dt: 19.12.2022

Page | 6

He stated that he has reported about the case to his higher officials.

He has not examined any of the independent witnesses i.e., farmers of the adjacent land owners i.e., adjacent to alleged scene of offence and he is not collective any document from TNRDCL to show that

PW1 and PW5 are watchmen in their association and he has not placed any document to show that said tower is erected in the land of PW1 and PW5 by TNRDCL and denied all other suggestions put by the counsel.

15. Here the prosecution has alleged the following offences:-

Section 143 of IPC in which prosecution has to prove unlawful assembly of the accused persons but no evidence is placed before this court to prove that accused persons assembled at any point of time with a view to dismantled the alleged tower Hence prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused under Section 143 of IPC.

16. The other offences alleged are 447, 427 r/w.149 of IPC along with Section 3 of PDPP Act. But here on perusal of the evidence of

PW1 to PW6 no document is placed to show the existing tower in the alleged scene of offence. It is only the evidence of PW5 that in his agriculture lands someone erected tower but no document is placed

before this court that alleged scene of offence is agriculture land

belonging to PW5. Moreover it is not his evidence that he has

JFCM, Nidamanoor

C.C.No.31/2016

Dt: 19.12.2022

Page | 7 witnesses the names mentioned in his chief affidavit dismantling the tower. It is also observed by this court that no authenticate proof is placed before this court that PW2 is the person working as field

Assistant in TNRDCL and it is also surprising that though it is the evidence of PW2 that this TNRDCL is a government organization but no member of such TNRDCL is examined before this court. There is also no evidence that the alleged tower belongs to government property.

17. It is settled law that prosecution has to place before this court all the material facts establishing the guilt of the accused but here no such material is placed before this court to prove the alleged offences against the accused persons as such prosecution failed to prove guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

18. IN THE RESULT, A1 to A9, A11 to A16 is found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 143, 447, 427 r/w.149 of IPC and Sec.3 of PDPP Act and they are acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused shall remain in force for a period of six months as envisaged under Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 19th day of December, 2022.

JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

NIDAMANOOR

JFCM, Nidamanoor

C.C.No.31/2016

Dt: 19.12.2022

Page | 8

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENSE

PW-1 : R.Lalu -None- PW-2 : B.Paripurna Chary PW-3 : P.Srinu PW-4 : K.Dasharath PW-5 : Loka PW-6 : B.Suresh Kumar

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENSE

Ex.P1 : 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW1 -Nil- Ex.P2 : Report Ex.P3 : Signature of PW3 on panchanama Ex.P4 : Signature of PW3 on rough sketch Ex.P5 : Signature of PW4 on panchanama Ex.P6 : Signature of PW4 on rough sketch Ex.P7 : FIR Ex.P8 : Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P9 : Rough sketch

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- NIL -

JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

NIDAMANOOR

JFCM, Nidamanoor

C.C.No.1199/2017 Page | 1

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: AT NIDMANOOR

PRESENT: SMT T. SWAPNA Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Nidmanoor

(Dated, this, the 17th Day of January, 2024)

C.C.No.1199 OF 2017

Between: The State of Telangana through S.H.O. of P.S. Nidmanoor P.S.

…..Complainant

A N D

Pittala Ramulu, S/o.Chinna Ramulu, AGe:50 years, Caste:Mudiraj, Occ:Agriculture, R/o.Bantuvarigudem, H/o.Yerrabelli (V).

…Accused

This case is coming up before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of learned APP for the State and of Sri Valasani Nagaraju, learned counsel for the accused upon perusing the material papers on record, on hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following.

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police P.S. Nidmanoor filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.170 of 2017 for the offences punishable Under Sections 324, 447 of IPC.

JFCM, Nidamanoor

C.C.No.1199/2017 Page | 2

2. The case of the police as in charge sheet is as follows:-

On 19.10.2017 while LW1 was grazing the cattle in the afternoon hours, accused came to him and picked up quarrel with LW1 suspecting that LW1 is supporting one Pittala Ravi who is occupying the land of the accused and beat LW1 with axe base, due to which LW1 sustained injuries. On this LW1 lodged complaint. Basing on the above complaint, S.I. of Police, Nidmanoor, registered a case and after completing investigation filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 324, 447 of IPC.

3. Cognizance was taken for the offences punishable Under

Sections 324, 447 of IPC against the accused.

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated u/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. Accused was examined under Sec.239 of Cr.P.C and charges for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 447 of IPC were framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, he denied the offences and

JFCM, Nidamanoor

C.C.No.1199/2017 Page | 3 claimed to be tried.

5. During the course of trial, the prosecution had examined PWs 1 to 8 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 and MO-1. PW1 is complainant,

PW2 is son of PW1 and circumstantial witness, PW3 to PW5 are eyewitnesses, PW6 is panch for scene of offence and seizure, PW7 is

Doctor, PW8 is investigating officer.

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C and the incriminating evidence is read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

7. Both Prosecution and defence counsel submitted their arguments.

8. Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt

of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the

offences under Sections 324, 447 of IPC”?

JFCM, Nidamanoor

C.C.No.1199/2017 Page | 4

9. POINT:

It is the evidence of PW1 that on 19.10.2017 while he was grazing the cattle in his agriculture land, accused came into his land and beat him on his head with axe stick and also bite him on his right cheek, on suspecting that PW1 is supporting one Pittala Ravi who is against the accused and agnate of accused. Accused and Pittala Ravi are also having land disputes. LW3 and LW4 informed his son LW2 over phone about the incident. His son being an RMP doctor gave first aid and later went to police station and lodged the complaint.

10. PW3 and PW4 deposed in the same lines that on Depawali festival while they along with PW1 were grazing the cattle galata took place between PW1 and accused and accused beat PW1 over his head, right cheek and right shoulder and they informed about the incident to the son of PW1 i.e., PW2.

11. So, from the evidence of PW1, PW3 and PW4 coupled with Ex.P1, it is their version that accused beat PW1 on suspecting that PW1 was supporting his agnate Pittala Ravi and said Pittala Ravi and accused are

JFCM, Nidamanoor

C.C.No.1199/2017 Page | 5 having land disputes. Nothing adverse was elicited during the cross examination of PW1, PW3 and PW4 except suggesting that they are deposing false at the instruction of PW2. The evidence of PW2 is also corroborated with the evidence of above witnesses who deposed that

PW4 informed him about the incident and he treated his father and later went to police station.

12. Here there is no delay in lodging the complaint. It is an admitted fact that there are disputes between Pittala Ravi and accused. The oral evidence of PW1 that he sustained injury over his head is supported by documentary evidence under Ex.P4 medical certificate.

13. PW6 panch witnesses deposed that police conducted scene cum seizure panchanama and also drawn rough sketch and police seized stick from the scene which got marked as MO-1.

14. Here it is the argument of the counsel for accused that police seized axe from the scene and the material object marked before

JFCM, Nidamanoor

C.C.No.1199/2017 Page | 6 this court is also axe. Whereas it is the evidence of PW1 to PW4 that accused beat PW1 with axe stick. Here this court opines that an axe completely is with the stick holding the axe and accused beat with the part of the stick. As such, this court finds no point in the argument of the counsel.

15. PW8 investigation officer deposed to the extent of investigation conducted by him. It is the argument of the counsel that PW2 being RMP got created medical certificate and also filed this false case. However, from the corroborating and consistent evidence of prosecution witnesses this court cannot believe the version of the accused counsel and there is no evidence as to why PW1 and PW2 have to lodged a complaint against accused who have no rivalry with accused.

16. The version of the prosecution that accused beat PW1 suspecting that PW1 is supporting one Pittala Ravi is believable from the evidence of PW1 to PW4. In this circumstances, this court opines prosecution establish that accused voluntarily caused hurt to PW1

JFCM, Nidamanoor

C.C.No.1199/2017 Page | 7 with axe stick and PW1 sustained injury. As such, prosecution proved offence under Section 324 of IPC against the accused.

17. Further the scene of offence is a agriculture land of PW1 and accused caused hurt to PW1 at his agriculture lands and there no specific denial that PW1 has no lands and no incident happened on the alleged date of incident. As such, prosecution establish that accused trespassed into the land of PW1 and beat PW1. So, prosecution establish offence under Section 447 of IPC against the accused.

18. IN THE RESULT, accused is found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 324, 447 of Indian Penal Code and accordingly, he is convicted under Section 248(2) of Cr.P.C.

Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Judicial

Magistrate of First Class,

Nidmanoor

19. When questioned about the quantum of sentence, the accused submitted that he is sole bread winner of the family and also suffering from old aged aliments due to which he is unable to do any

JFCM, Nidamanoor

C.C.No.1199/2017 Page | 8 work, if he is put in jail his wife will put to starvation and prayed court to take lenient view in awarding the sentence.

20. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and nature of the offence and also on observing the age of the accused and he is helpless condition and there is record showing that accused is having any previous cases against him as such, this court inclines to take little lenient view by imposing only fine.

21. This court is of the opinion that instead of sending him to jail, this Court inclines to sentence the accused with fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) for the offence under Section 324 of

Indian Penal Code, in default of payment of fine, the Accused shall undergo a simple imprisonment for a period of one month each.

Further this Court inclines to sentence the accused with fine of

Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred Only) for the offence under

Section 447 of Indian Penal Code, in default of payment of fine, the

JFCM, Nidamanoor

C.C.No.1199/2017 Page | 9

Accused shall undergo a simple imprisonment for a period of one month each.

22. The Accused was informed about his right to prefer an appeal against the sentence of this Court. In this Court, he is being defended by counsel and expressed that he has capacity to engage a counsel in appellate Court.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 17th day of January, 2024.

Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Judicial

Magistrate of First Class,

Nidmanoor

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENSE

PW1 : B.Ramalingaiah -None- PW2 : B.Paramesh PW3 : G.Lingaiah PW4 : K.Shankaraiah PW5 : Budiga Shankar PW6 : G.Shankar PW7 : B.Seshidhar Reddy PW8 : B.Yadaiah

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENSE

Ex.P1 : Complaint -Nil-

JFCM, Nidamanoor

C.C.No.1199/2017 Page | 10

Ex.P2 : Scene cum seizure panchanama Ex.P3 : Rough sketch Ex.P4 : Medical certificate Ex.P5 : FIR

MATERIAL OBJECTS

- MO-1 is stick -

Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Judicial

Magistrate of First Class,

Nidmanoor

JFCM, Nidamanoor

C.C.No.93/2016

Dt: 23.12.2022

Page | 1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE:

NIDAMANOOR

PRESENT: SMT: T.SWAPNA Judicial First Class Magistrate Nidamanoor

DATED, THIS THE 23rd DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022

C.C. No. 93 OF 2016

Between: The State of Telangana through S.H.O. of P.S. Nidmanoor.

…..Complainant

A N D

1.Narsing Seethaiah, S/o.Rajaiah, Age:65 years, Caste:goud, Occ:Agriculture,

2.Narsing Suman, S/o.Seethaiah, Age:30 years, Caste:Goud, Occ:Journalist, Both R/o.Nandikondavarigudem (V) of Nidmanoor (M).

...Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of learned APP for the State and of Sri VC Veeraiah, Advocate for the accused upon perusing the material papers on record, on hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following.

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

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police P.S. Nidmanoor filed charge sheet against A1 and A2 in Crime No.120 of 2015 for the offence punishable

Under Section 509 of IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 12.08.2015 the accused persons abused LW1 and LW2 on questioning regarding the encroachment of their land in Sy.No.142/E, 249, 274, 142 and 266/6.

On this LW1 lodged complaint. Basing on the complaint SI of Police

JFCM, Nidamanoor

C.C.No.93/2016

Dt: 23.12.2022

Page | 2 registered a case, filed the charge sheet against A1 and A2 for the offence u/Sec.509 of IPC.

3. Cognizance was taken for the offence punishable Under Section 509 of IPC against A1 and A2.

4. On appearance of A1 and A2, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated U/s. 207 of Cr.P.C. A1 and A2 were examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C and a charge for the offence under Section 509 of IPC are framed, read over and explained to the accused in

Telugu, they denied the offence and claimed to be tried.

5. During the course of trial, the prosecution had examined PWs 1 to 5 witnesses and got marked Ex.P1 to P9.

6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, A1 and A2 were examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C and the incriminating evidence is read over and explained to accused in Telugu, for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

7. Both Prosecution and defence counsel submitted their arguments.

8. Now the point for consideration is:-

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of A1

and A2 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence under

Section 509 of IPC ?

JFCM, Nidamanoor

C.C.No.93/2016

Dt: 23.12.2022

Page | 3

9. POINT:

PW1 turned hostile to the prosecution case by deposing that he do not know anything facts of the case. PW2 deposed that at about seven years back accused came to her land and plough her land, on questioning him A1 and his son/A2 abused her most filthy language,

A2 came there with beer bottles, they also threatened her that they shall rape her. Accused No.1 tore her blouse. Ex.P2 is the complaint given by her. Panchayath was held but nothing was resolved as such she along with her husband lodged the complaint. During her cross examination she admitted that LW2 leased out entire land of Ac.2-34 gts., to PW1 and no panchayath was held after the incident and denied the suggestion that her husband executed a simple sale deed with regard to Ac.2-34 gts., in favour of accused at about 30 years back.

She denied the suggestion that she has not mentioned that A1 tore her blouse and also A2 came up with beer bottles. She further stated that she has given torn blouse to police and denied other suggestion put by the counsel.

10. PW3 and PW4 who are panchas for scene of offence and rough sketch turned hostile by deposing that they do not know about panchanama.

JFCM, Nidamanoor

C.C.No.93/2016

Dt: 23.12.2022

Page | 4

11. PW5 investigation officer deposed to the extent of the investigation in his chief examination. During his cross he deposed that he has not examined any of the village elders and PW2 has not given any documents pertaining to the alleged subject matter and he has not seized any blouse or beer bottle from the scene. He has not examined any adjacent land owner and he has not collected any lease agreement pertaining to PW2’s land and denied other suggestion put by the counsel.

12. On perusal of complete evidence except PW2 none of the prosecution witnesses supported the prosecution case and it is her evidence that she was abused in most filthy language and A1 tore her blouse and she lodged the complaint after two days of the complaint as she held a panchayath but during her cross she resiled against her own statement by deposing that no panchayath were held.

13. Admittedly in Ex.P2 i.e., complaint she has not mentioned anything with regard to possession of beer bottle by A2, but for the first time before this court she deposed so. Moreover according to her own evidence LW2 husband of PW2 leased out the entire land of Ac.2-34 gts., to PW1, but PW1 turned hostile to the prosecution case and has not spoken anything with regard to such lease of the above land.

JFCM, Nidamanoor

C.C.No.93/2016

Dt: 23.12.2022

Page | 5

14. It is the argument of the counsel for accused that LW2 sold away the entire land to accused but later in order to grab the land PW2 filed this false case and counsel for accused also has given a suggestion in this regard for which PW2 denied.

15. On perusal of contents of complaint under Ex.P2 it is found that the land to an extent of Ac.2-34 gts., was given on lease to the accused who are having land adjacent to the land of LW2, but it is the evidence of PW5 that he has not collected any document pertaining to said land nor made any investigation with any village elders. It is also found that

PW2 made good number of improvements in her evidence which impeaches her evidence and no independent witness is examined in this case to prove the prosecution case. In these circumstances accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

16. It is for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt by bringing all the facts and circumstances proving the guilt of the accused for the alleged offences. But here in this case the above material is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

27. IN THE RESULT, A1 and A2 are found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 509 of Indian Penal Code and they are acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused

JFCM, Nidamanoor

C.C.No.93/2016

Dt: 23.12.2022

Page | 6 shall remain in force for a period of six months as envisaged under

Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 23rd day of December, 2022.

JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

NIDAMANOOR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENSE

PW-1 : Venkanna -None- PW-2 : Saidamma PW-3 : Batini Shankaraiah PW-4 : P.Narsimha Chary PW-5 : T.Narsimha Raju

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENSE

Ex.P1 : 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW1 -Nil- Ex.P2 : Compliant Ex.P3 : Signature of PW3 on scene of offence panchanama Ex.P4 : Signature of PW3 on rough sketch Ex.P5 : Signature of PW4 on scene of offence panchanama Ex.P6 : Signature of PW4 on rough sketch Ex.P7 : FIR Ex.P8 : Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P9 : Rough sketch

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- NIL -

JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

NIDAMANOOR

JFCM, Nidamanoor

Page 1 of 6 Judgment in OS.No.269 of 2025 dt. 15.04.2026

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: AT NIDMANOOR

PRESENT: SMT T. SWAPNA Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Judicial

Magistrate of First Class,

Nidmanoor (Date this the 15th Day of April, 2026)

O.S.No.269 of 2025

Between:- M/s. Shriram Finance Limited (formerly known as "Shriram City Union finance Limited" amalgamated with Shriram Transport Finance limited and converted as Shriram Transport Finance Limited as per the orders of NCLT Bench-II Chennai dated on 09.11.2022) and thereafter obtained the approval to rename as Shriram Finance Ltd (Ministry of Corporate Finance letter dated on 30.11.2022), is a company registered under the Companies Act, 2013 and also registered with RBI to do Non- Banking Finance business having its registered office at Sri Towers, Plot No.14A, South Phase, Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai-60032), Branch Office at and one of Branch Door No. 19-440 First Floor Satyakamala Complex Sagar Road Nalgonda District-508207, which is the "registered address" of the local branch office of the plaintiff Company. Its Authorization Signatory and Power of Attorney Sri Thandu Ramakrishna S/o Veerasomulu, Aged: 40Years, Occ:Business Manager, who is authorized by the plaintiff company. …Plaintiff

AND

1) Patanaboina Mahesh S/O.Patanaboina Shankaraiah Aged About 33 Years Occ:Business-Mahesh Centring Works R/O.Hno:New Kv Colony Anumula Nalgonda District. Pincode:508202. Cell No:9642537305.

2) Patanaboina Laxmamma W/O.Patanaboina Shankaraiah Aged About 64 Years Occ:Housewife R/O.Hno:New Kv Colony Anumula Nalgonda District. Pincode:508202. Cell No:8886826475.

3) Banoju Paripurna Chary S/O.Chandrashekara Chary Aged About 31 Years Occ:Business R/O.Hno:2-195/4 Bc Colony Anumula Haliya Nalgonda District. Pincode:508377. Cell No:9553855403. …Defendants ***

JCJ, Nidamanoor

Page 2 of 6 Judgment in OS.No.269 of 2025 dt. 15.04.2026

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Vunnam Chinna Veeraiah, Counsel for the Plaintiff and Defendants remained ex-parte, upon hearing the learned Counsel for Plaintiff, considering the material available on record and having stood over the matter for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

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

1. This suit is filed by the plaintiff company for recovery of money based on loan transaction and equitable mortgage, seeking a preliminary mortgage decree and, in the alternative, a money decree.

2. Brief facts of the plaint are that:-

(i) That the plaintiff is a Non-Banking Finance Company engaged in providing enterprise/business loans to eligible applicants upon verification of their credentials, with repayment agreed in monthly instalments inclusive of interest.

(ii) The defendant No.1 approached the plaintiff on 28.05.2022 and obtained a business loan of Rs.4,00,000/- by submitting necessary documents, and defendants No.2 and 3 stood as guarantors for due repayment. The defendants also created an equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds vide document No.1783/2022 before the Sub-

Registrar, Nidamanoor.

(iii) The plaintiff submits that the defendant No.1 paid only

Rs.93,582/- towards the loan and thereafter committed default in repayment of instalments. The cheques issued by the defendant were

JCJ, Nidamanoor

Page 3 of 6 Judgment in OS.No.269 of 2025 dt. 15.04.2026 dishonoured due to insufficient funds, rendering the defendants liable for the outstanding amount along with agreed charges.

(iv) Despite repeated demands, the defendants failed to clear the dues. The plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 03.05.2024, which was received by the defendants, but they neither replied nor complied with the demand. Hence, the suit is filed for recovery of the due amount.

3. In spite of receiving summons, defendants are called absent, hence, defendant Nos.1 to 3 were set ex parte by this court on 03.02.2026.

4. In support of the case of the plaintiff company, its Assistant

Executive is examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A7.

5. Heard the Learned Counsel for Plaintiff.

6. Now the point for consideration is:-

1. Whether the defendant No.1 availed loan of Rs.4,00,000/-

from the plaintiff and executed necessary documents?

2. Whether defendants No.2 and 3 stood as guarantors and

created equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds?

3. Whether the defendants committed default and are liable to pay the suit claim amount?

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a preliminary

mortgage decree or, alternatively, a money decree?

5. To what relief?

JCJ, Nidamanoor

Page 4 of 6 Judgment in OS.No.269 of 2025 dt. 15.04.2026

Point Nos.1 to 4:- 7. The Assistant Executive of plaintiff company examined as PW1 and testified that defendant No.1 approached the plaintiff company and obtained a loan of Rs.4,00,000/- by executing a loan agreement. The plaintiff relied upon Ex.A1 to Ex.A7, namely, Ex.A1: Loan Application

dated 28.05.2022, Ex.A2: Loan Agreement dated 28.05.2022, Ex.A3:

Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds (Doc. No.1783/2022), Ex.A4:

Encumbrance Certificate, Ex.A5: Sale Deed (Doc. No.1180/2022), Ex.A6:

Legal Notice dated 03.05.2023, Ex.A7: Statement of Account.

These documents establish that the loan was sanctioned by the plaintiff company and defendant No.1 availed the same. Defendants executed agreement under Ex.A2 and created security and also created mortgage by deposit of title deeds under Ex.A3. Defendants committed default. The legal notice was issued under Ex.A6 but not complied with.

8. The oral and documentary evidence clearly prove that defendant

No.1 borrowed Rs.4,00,000/- and defendants No.2 & 3 stood as guarantors. Mortgage was created through deposit of title deeds.

9. From the document under Ex.A7, Statement of Account, it is evident that only part payment of Rs.93,582/- was made and defendants failed to repay the remaining loan amount and the cheques were dishonoured

JCJ, Nidamanoor

Page 5 of 6 Judgment in OS.No.269 of 2025 dt. 15.04.2026

Therefore, the defendants are liable to pay the outstanding amount.

10. The plaintiff seeks interest at 36% per annum, which appears excessive and penal in nature. Considering judicial principles and reasonableness, this Court deems it appropriate to award interest at 12% per annum. Since the mortgage is proved, the plaintiff is entitled to a preliminary mortgage decree. Accordingly, point Nos.1 to 4are answered in favour of the plaintiff company.

Point No.5:

11. IN THE RESULT, the suit is partly decreed with costs as follows:

a)A preliminary decree is passed directing the defendants jointly and severally to pay an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- to the plaintiff with interest at 12% per annum from the date of suit till realization.

b)The defendants are directed to pay the decretal amount within three (3) months from the date of this judgment.

c)In default of payment, the plaintiff is entitled to apply for a final decree for sale of the mortgaged property, and the sale proceeds shall be appropriated towards the decretal amount.

d)If the sale proceeds are insufficient, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the balance amount from the defendants personally and jointly & severally.

JCJ, Nidamanoor

Page 6 of 6 Judgment in OS.No.269 of 2025 dt. 15.04.2026

e)In view of granting mortgage decree, alternative relief for money decree does not survive.

f)Plaintiff is entitled to costs of the suit.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade II, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 15th Day of April, 2026.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NIDMANOOR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANT

PW-1: Yalaganaboina Naresh (Assistant Executive) :: NONE ::

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF

Ex.A1: Loan Application dated 28.05.2022 Ex.A2: Loan Agreement dated 28.05.2022 Ex.A3: Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds (Doc. No.1783/2022) Ex.A4: Encumbrance Certificate Ex.A5: Sale Deed (Doc. No.1180/2022) Ex.A6: Legal Notice dated 03.05.2023 Ex.A7: Statement of Account

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANTS

:: NIL ::

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

NIDMANOOR

JCJ, Nidamanoor