Smt.T.Swapna

{C.C.No.28 of 2018, JFCM, Tandur}

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, TANDUR,

VIKARABAD DISTRICT.

PRESENT: SMT: T.SWAPNA,

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tandur, Vikarabad District.

DATED, THIS THE 22 ND DAY OF JULY, 2022

C.C. No. 28 OF 2018

Between:

The State of Telangana through S.H.O. of P.S. Basheerabad.

….. Complainant

1. A N D

Vadde Hanmanthu S/o.Giddappa, Aged about 60 Years, Occ: Labour 1. Work, 2.Vadde Swamy S/o Hanmanthu, Aged about 32 Years, Occ: Coolie, 3.Vadde Tuljaram S/o Hanmanthu, Aged about 29 Years, Occ: Coolie, 4.Vadde Mahesh @ Peetla Mahesh S/o Hanmanthu, Abe 26 Years, Occ:Coolie, 5.Vadde Malleh S/o Hanmanthu, aged about 23 Years, Occ: Coolie All R/o. Korviched Village, Basheerabad Mandal, Vikarabad District.

….. Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sr. APP for the State and of Sri Y. Vishwanath, Advocate for the accused persons 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

The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Basheerabad filed charge sheet against the accused persons in Crime No. 98 of 2017 for the offence punishable Under Section 324 r/w 34 of IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that, on 12-10-2017 at 1200 hours while

PW4 was at his house who is son of PW1, accused persons who are relatives of PW1 went to the house of PW1 and beat PW4 with sticks and stones on his head due to which he sustained bleeding injury. On that, PW1 who is a father of PW4 lodged a complaint. Basing on the complaint the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Basheerabad

Page | 1 {C.C.No.28 of 2018, JFCM, Tandur} registered a case for the offence punishable U/s. 324 r/w 34 of IPC and after completing investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the accused persons for the offence punishable U/s. 324 r/w 34 of IPC.

3. Cognizance was taken for the offence punishable U/s. 324 r/w 34 of IPC against accused persons.

4. On appearance of the accused persons, copies of documents were furnished to them as required U/s 207 of Cr.P.C. The Accused were examined U/s. 239 of Cr.P.C.

They denied the allegations. Hence, charge U/s 324 r/w 34 of IPC against the accused are framed, read over and explained to the accused in vernacular language.

They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During the course of trial, the prosecution had examined PWs 1 to 8 and got marked Ex. P1 to P5 and MO 1 to MO 3. On behalf of the accused, none were examined and no documents are marked.

6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined U/s. 313 of Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating evidence appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. They denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

7. Both Prosecution & defence counsel submitted their arguments.

8. Now the point for consideration is:-

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence U/s. 324 r/w 34 of IPC?

9. POINT:

It is the evidence of PW1 that, PW4 got married to the daughter of A1 and A2 to

A5 are the sons of A1. At about 02 years back at 12.00 noon he received a phone call from LW2 informing him that accused No.1 to 5 beat his son PW4 and he lost

Page | 2 {C.C.No.28 of 2018, JFCM, Tandur} conscious and he was shifted to hospital. He immediately went to the hospital and noticed injury on his left eye and head. Later he lodged the complaint. PW4 was beaten by accused as PW4 failed to sent his wife to A1’s house to Divali Festival.

During his cross-examination he stated that ‘’he do not know whether A1 came to my house to questioned the acts of LW5’’. He admitted that A2 to A5 are residing at Hyderabad and his daughter-in-law filed a case U/s. 498-A IPC against his son LW5 and denying all other suggestions put by the counsel.

10. PW2 deposed that, at about 02 years back when she was at Basheerabad she received a phone call from LW3 who informed that accused persons beat her son

PW4 and he lost conscious and was shifted to hospital by LW6. During her cross examination she admitted that LW3 and LW4 used to work in their Gani. She also stated that she do not know whether A1 came to their house to question the acts of

LW5 and admitted that A2 to A5 are residing at Hyderabad and denied all other suggestions put by the counsel.

11. PW3 deposed that on 12-10-2017 at about 11.30 or 12.00 PM when he was at his house, he heard noise from the house of PW1 and PW2, immediately he went there, LW5 was beaten by accused No.1 to 5 with sticks and stones. He sustained injury to his head and below the left eye. He along with LW4 intervened and rescued and he was shifted to Tandur Hospital in an Ambulance and he do not know the reason why A1 to A5 beat PW5. During his cross-examination he deposed that his house is situated after one house of PW1 and PW2’s house. He admitted that LW5 is having Ghani and the wife of LW5 lodged cases against him. Further stated that he do not know whether LW5 resides at Old Tandur and he do not Know LW5 is having illegal relationship with one Sugunamma and he do not know whether LW5 and his wife quarreled with each other one day prior to the incident. Further admitted that A2 to A5 resides at Hyderabad and on the next of the incident police examined and

Page | 3 {C.C.No.28 of 2018, JFCM, Tandur} recorded his statement at evening hours. Further he denied the suggestion put by the counsel.

12. PW4 deposed that while he was at his house accused persons came to the hosue and beat him with sticks and stones. PW3 and LW4 intervened and rescued him. He sustained injuries to his fore head and beneath left eye. During his cross- examination he admitted the relationship with accused persons and stated that police examined him on the next day at Government hospital and he admitted that his wife filed criminal case against him but such case was filed after two days of this incident and denied the suggestion that he was having illegal relationship with another lady.

13. PW5 deposed that police conducted panchanama and drawn rough sketch in his presence and seized MO 1 to MO 3. During his cross-examination he deposed that he do not know the contents of Ex.P2 and P3 and he was not present at the time of galata.

14. PW6 deposed that she received a phone call from her mother in the morning hours that accused persons beat her brother PW4, she immediately went to her brother’s house and have taken her brother to hospital in an ambulance and he was injured on his left eye and head. During her cross-examination she stated that she received a phone call between 9.00 AM to 10.00 AM and denied all other suggestions put by the counsel.

15. PW7 Doctor deposed that PW4 was injured on his nose and left cheek. During his cross-examination he admitted that the above injuries are possible when a person falls on a hard surface.

16. PW8 investigation officer deposed in his chief-examination to the extent of investigation done by him. During his cross-examination he deposed that the incident took place on 12-10-2017 and the complaint was lodged on the next day of the

Page | 4 {C.C.No.28 of 2018, JFCM, Tandur} incident, on which he issued FIR on the same day. He said that he has send the FIR on 13-10-017 and denied all other suggestions put by the counsel.

17. Perused the material available on record. It is admitted that A1 to A5 are relatives of PW4 who is a injured. PW1 and PW2 are parents of PW4, PW6 is sister of PW4.

18. From the suggestion given that, A1 came to the house of PW4 to question the acts of him, makes the Court to believe that A1 came to the house of PW4 on the date of the incident.

19. It is the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses that A1 to A5 beat PW4 with sticks and stones.

20. It is the argument of the counsel for accused that the Medical Certificate issued by PW7 in not corroboration with the oral evidence of prosecution witnesses. It is the evidence of PW7 that, PW4 had abrasion on his left cheek and nose, whereas it the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW6 that he was injured on his left eye and head. But it is the evidence of PW4 who is injured that he was injured beneath his left eye and forehead. Beneath the left eye is naturally called as cheek, hence this court finds no contradiction with the evidence of injured and evidence of PW7.

21. Further, it is the argument of the counsel that A2 to A5 are residing at Hyderabad and the same is admitted by PW1 to PW5. However, this does not mean that A2 to A5 are not present on the date of the incident.

22. Admittedly, PW4’s wife filed criminal case and maintenance case against him, but those cases were filed after lodging this complaint and it is also the evidence of

PW4 that, she also told him to withdraw this case filed against her brother and father.

Page | 5 {C.C.No.28 of 2018, JFCM, Tandur}

23. Further, the council also brought on record, that the incident took place as 12.00 noon but PW6 stated that she received phone call from PW2 in the morning hours.

However, this court finds no point of the argument of the counsel as PW6 evidence is well corroborated with other witnesses and it is the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses that PW4 was shifted to hospital through Ambulance. Moreover, here PW6 is an illiterate who may not be sure of the exact timings.

24. It is the argument of the counsel that all the prosecution witnesses are interested witnesses even PW3 who is cited as a eye witness is also an employee who works under PW4. But this Court finds no inconsistency in the evidence of the witnesses and Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of decisions held that the evidence of the relatives or near ones cannot be rejected, but scrutiny shall be made in appreciating their evidence.

25. It is settled law that, in a galata individual overt actions need not be established by the prosecution.

26. It is the defence of the accused persons that, PW4 being husband of A1-s daughter and A2 to A5’s sister is maintaining an illegal relationship with some women and on questioning that, PW4’s family members lodged this false complaint. It is true from the evidence that there are disputes between PW4 and his wife, but that will never entitle any person to take law into their hands. In view of the above discussion, prosecution proved the guilt of the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence U/s. 324 r/w 34 of IPC and accused are convicted U/s. 248 (2) of

Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in

open Court on this the, 22 nd day of July, 2022.

JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

Page | 6 {C.C.No.28 of 2018, JFCM, Tandur}

TANDUR

APENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW1 is Guru Swamy -None-

PW2 is V.Yellamma

PW3 is Durgappa

PW4 is L axman Rao

PW5 is Ramulu

PW6 is Laxmi

PW7 is Dr.Mukesh

PW8 is G.Laxmaiah, Sub-Inspector of Police

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P1 is the Complaint -NIL-

Ex.P2 Scene of Offence cum Seizure Panchanama

Ex.P3 is Rough Sketch

Ex.P4 is Medical Certificate

Ex.P5 is First Information Report

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO 1 is Stick MO 2 is Stone MO 3 is Stone

JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

TANDUR

Date: 22-07-2022:

27. Accused No. 1 to 5 are present and they are questioned with regard to the quantum of sentence to be imposed on them for the offence punishable

U/s. 324 r/w 34 of IPC and A1 stated that he is an oldaged person and suffering from oldaged ailments and A2 to A5 stated that they would never replace the same and they are having family and they plead guilty and hence prayed Court to take a lenient view applying the provisions of probation of offenders Act.

Page | 7 {C.C.No.28 of 2018, JFCM, Tandur}

28. Taking into consideration the submission made by the accused, prosecution and their counsel and having regard to the facts and circumstance of the case this Court opines that provisions of Probation of offenders Act against the accused persons cannot be applied.

29. This Court considering the submissions that the accused are having family and A1 is suffering from oldaged ailments and also no other offence is against them except this, this Court inclines to impose only fine.

30. In the result, A1 to A5 are found guilty for the offence punishable U/s.

324 r/w 34 of IPC and they are convicted U/s 248 (2) Cr.P.C. and they are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each for the offence punishable U/s. 324 of IPC. In default of payment of fine amount, they shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months each for the offence punishable

U/s.324 of IPC. MO1 to MO 3, deposited into this Court vide C.P.R.No.08 of 2018 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period. Accused reported that they have got sufficient means to engage an Advocate. The accused informed about their right to appeal on this judgment and they reported that they have got sufficient means. The copy of judgment shall be served on the accused persons forthwith.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by

me in open Court on this the, 22 nd day of July, 2022.

JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

TANDUR.

Page | 8 {C.C.No.28 of 2018, JFCM, Tandur}

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,TANDUR,

VIKARABAD DISTRICT.

CALENDER CASE NO. 28 OF 2018

Date Of Offence : 12.10.2017 1.

Date of Complaint : 13.10.2017 2.

Date of Apprehension : 3.

Commencement of Trail : 20.01.2020 4.

Closure of Trial on : 15.07.2022 5.

Date of Judgment : 22.07.2022 6.

Complainant : The State of T.S. through S.H.O. 7. of P.S. Basheerabad.

8. Name of the accused : 1.Vadde Hanmanthu S/o.Giddappa, Aged about 60 Years, Occ: Labour Work, 2.Vadde Swamy S/o Hanmanthu, Aged about 32 Years, Occ: Coolie, 3.Vadde Tuljaram S/o Hanmanthu, Aged about 29 Years, Occ: Coolie, 4.Vadde Mahesh @ Peetla Mahesh S/o Hanmanthu, Abe 26 Years, Occ:Coolie, 5.Vadde Malleh S/o Hanmanthu, aged about 23 Years, Occ: Coolie All R/o. Korviched Village, Basheerabad Mandal, Vikarabad District. . 9. Offences : U/s. 324 r/w 34 of IPC

10. Finding of the Court : Found guilty

11. Result : In the result, A1 to A5 are found guilty for the offence punishable U/s. 324 r/w 34 of IPC and they are convicted U/s 248 (2) Cr.P.C. and they are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each for the offence punishable U/s. 324 of IPC. In default of payment of fine amount, they shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months each for the offence punishable U/s.324 of IPC. MO1 to MO 3, deposited into this Court

Page | 9 {C.C.No.28 of 2018, JFCM, Tandur} vide C.P.R.No.08 of 2018 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period. Accused reported that they have got sufficient means to engage an Advocate. The accused informed about their right to appeal on this judgment and they reported that they have got sufficient means. The copy of judgment shall be served on the accused persons forthwith.

JUDL.FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

TANDUR. Copy Submitted to: The Hon’ble I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, At L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad.

Accused No.1 to 5 present.

Judgment pronounced in open Court (V.S.J.).

Page | 10 {C.C.No.28 of 2018, JFCM, Tandur}

In the result, A1 to A5 are found guilty for the offence punishable U/s.

324 r/w 34 of IPC and they are convicted U/s 248 (2) Cr.P.C. and they are sentenced to pay a fine of

Rs.2,000/- eachfor the offence punishable U/s. 324 of IPC. In default of payment of fine amount, they shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months each for the offence punishable U/s.324 of IPC. MO1 to MO 3, deposited into this Court vide

C.P.R.No.08 of 2018 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period. Accused reported that they have got sufficient means to engage an Advocate. The accused informed about their right to appeal on this judgment and they reported that they have got sufficient means. The copy of judgment shall be served on the accused persons forthwith.

J.F.C.M.

Page | 11 {C.C.No.28 of 2018, JFCM, Tandur}

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,TANDUR

VIKARABAD DISTRICT.

QUESTIONING OF SENTENCE

C.C.NO. 28 of 2018

Between: The State of Telangana through S.H.O. of P.S. Basheerabad. … Complainant A N D

A1. Vadde Hanmanthu … Accused Name:Vadde Hanmanthu S/o. Giddappa, Aged about 60 years Occ: Labour R/o. Korviched Village Date: 22.07.2022.

_____________________________________________________________

Q.1 .Accused No.1 is questioned with regard to the quantum of sentence to be imposed on him for the offence punishable U/s. 324 r/w 34 of IPC ?

Ans:

Page | 12 {C.C.No.28 of 2018, JFCM, Tandur}

JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

TANDUR.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,TANDUR

VIKARABAD DISTRICT.

QUESTIONING OF SENTENCE

C.C.NO. 28 of 2018

Between: The State of Telangana through S.H.O. of P.S. Basheerabad. … Complainant A N D

A2. Vadde Swamy … Accused Name:Vadde Swamy S/o.Hanmanthu, Aged about 32 years Occ: Coolie R/o. Korviched Village Date: 22.07.2022.

_____________________________________________________________

Q.1 .Accused No.2 is questioned with regard to the quantum of sentence to be imposed on him for the offence punishable U/s. 324 r/w 34 of IPC ?

Ans:

Page | 13 {C.C.No.28 of 2018, JFCM, Tandur}

JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

TANDUR.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,TANDUR

VIKARABAD DISTRICT.

QUESTIONING OF SENTENCE

C.C.NO. 28 of 2018

Between: The State of Telangana through S.H.O. of P.S. Basheerabad. … Complainant A N D

A3. Vadde Tuljaram … Accused Name:VaddeTuljaram S/o.Hanmanthu, Aged about 29 years Occ: Coolie R/o. Korviched Village Date: 22.07.2022.

_____________________________________________________________

Q.1 .Accused No.3 is questioned with regard to the quantum of sentence to be imposed on him for the offence punishable U/s. 324 r/w 34 of IPC ?

Ans:

Page | 14 {C.C.No.28 of 2018, JFCM, Tandur}

JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

TANDUR.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,TANDUR

VIKARABAD DISTRICT.

QUESTIONING OF SENTENCE

C.C.NO. 28 of 2018

Between: The State of Telangana through S.H.O. of P.S. Basheerabad. … Complainant A N D

A4. Vadde Mahesh @ Peetla Mahesh … Accused Name:Vadde Mahesh @ Peetla Mahesh S/o.Hanmanthu, Aged 26 years Occ: Coolie R/o. Korviched Village Date: 22.07.2022.

_____________________________________________________________

Q.1 .Accused No.4 is questioned with regard to the quantum of sentence to be imposed on him for the offence punishable U/s. 324 r/w 34 of IPC ?

Ans:

Page | 15 {C.C.No.28 of 2018, JFCM, Tandur}

JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

TANDUR.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,TANDUR

VIKARABAD DISTRICT.

QUESTIONING OF SENTENCE

C.C.NO. 28 of 2018

Between: The State of Telangana through S.H.O. of P.S. Basheerabad. … Complainant A N D

A5. Vadde Mallesh … Accused Name:Vadde Mallesh S/o.Hanmanthu, Aged about 23 years Occ: Coolie R/o. Korviched Village Date: 22.07.2022.

_____________________________________________________________

Q.1 .Accused No.5 is questioned with regard to the quantum of sentence to be imposed on him for the offence punishable U/s. 324 r/w 34 of IPC ?

Ans:

Page | 16 {C.C.No.28 of 2018, JFCM, Tandur}

JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

TANDUR.

Alleging that there are disputes

between complainant family and accused

family as to the illegal relationship

between accused No.1 and wife of LW4.

LW4 is a brother of the deceased. On 27-

02-2022 accused persons made galata at

Grampanchayath office against LW3, on

that accused No.1 filed a complaint

against the husband of the complainant

i.e. the deceased herein, LW3 and LW4,

due to which on 28-02-2022 at about

1130 hours deceased committed suicide

by hanging in his house.

Page | 17 {C.C.No.28 of 2018, JFCM, Tandur}

they are only the bread winners of their

families, if they are persisted in jail their

families will be put to starvation and A5

reported that he is suffering from some

medical treatment

Page | 18

{C.C.No.448 of 2016, JFCM, Tandur}

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, TANDUR,

VIKARABAD DISTRICT.

PRESENT: SMT: T.SWAPNA,

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tandur, Vikarabad District.

DATED, THIS THE 26 TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

C.C. No. 448 OF 2016

Between:

The State of Telangana through S.H.O. of P.S.Peddemul.

….. Complainant

1. A N D

Matta Shekar S/o. Ananthaiah, Aged about 20 Years, Occ: Agriculture, 1.

2.Matta Laxmaiah S/o Narsappa, Aged about 27 Years, Occ: Agriculture, 3.Peddemul Venkataiah S/o Ramchandri, Aged about 25 Years, Occ: Agriculture, 4.Peddemul Shivakumar S/o Ramchandri, Aged about 21 Years, Occ: Agriculture, All R/o. Nagulapally Village, Peddemul Mandal, Vikarabad District.

….. Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sr. APP for the State and of Sri K.Gopal, Advocate for the accused persons, 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

The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Peddemul filed charge sheet against the accused persons in Crime No. 65 of 2016 for the offences punishable Under Section 326 and 504 r/w 34 of IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that, on 13-06-2016 at about 0430 hours all the accused persons intentionally picked up a quarreled with LW3 as they suspected him then he has committed theft and dragged him from Uradamma temple to Church and beat him with sticks on his body and accused persons abused his mother in filthy language, due to which he sustained grievous injury. Basing on the complaint the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Peddemul registered a case for the offences punishable U/s. 326 and 504 r/w 34 of IPC and after completing

Page | 1 {C.C.No.448 of 2016, JFCM, Tandur} investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the accused persons for the offences punishable U/s. 326 and 504 r/w 34 of IPC.

3. Cognizance was taken for the offences punishable U/s. 326 and 504 r/w 34 of IPC against accused persons.

4. On appearance of the accused persons, copies of documents were furnished to them as required U/s 207 of Cr.P.C. The Accused were examined U/s. 239 of Cr.P.C.

They denied the allegations. Hence, charges U/s 326 and 504 r/w 34 of IPC against the accused are framed, read over and explained to the accused in vernacular language. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During the course of trial, the prosecution had examined PWs 1 to 8 and got marked Ex. P1 to P9 and MO 1. On behalf of the accused, none were examined and no documents are marked.

6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined U/s. 313 of Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating evidence appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. They denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

7. Both Prosecution & defence counsel submitted their arguments.

8. Now the point for consideration is:-

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused persons

beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences U/s. 326 and 504 r/w 34 of IPC?

9. POINT:

It is the evidence of PW1 that, the injured is his brother and at about 05 years back the accused persons suspecting LW3 that he has committed theft in the house of one Balamma dragged him from Uradamma temple to Church at Nagulapally Village, and beat him with sticks and stones, due to which he sustained injury on his right shoulder and got fractured. He along with PW3 intervened but they push them away

Page | 2 {C.C.No.448 of 2016, JFCM, Tandur} and abused them in a filthy language. During his cross-examination he admitted that the incident took place on 12-06-2016 at 12.00 noon. Further admitted that his brother

LW3’s photo is affix in the Police Station and opened a file as Rowdy Sheeter and admitted that there were previous theft cases against LW3. He stated that he came on the day of the incident at 5.00 PM from the agricultural fields and denied all the suggestions put by the counsel.

10. PW2 Doctor deposed that on 13-06-2016 he examined the injured M.Hanmanthu and he found the injuries i.e. Fracture on the left collar bone and the nature of the injury is in grievous injury. Ex.P2 is Medical certificate issued by Him. During his cross-examination he admitted that he do not know when the galata took place and he has treated the injured on 13-06-2016. Further stated that injured himself came to the hospital and he identified the injured as Hanmanthu as he himself stated that his name of Hanmanthu and further admitted that if a person hit to a sharp edge of any article or falls down in the drain also sustains above injury mentioned in Ex.P2.

11. PW3 deposed in the same lines of PW1 during his chief-examination. During his cross-examination she admitted that there is a theft case pending against LW3 and deposed that on the day of the incident she came on the evening hours and denied all other suggestions put by the counsel.

12. PW4 deposed that at about 05 years back at 12.00 noon while he was at

Uradamma Temple, accused persons dragged him to church and beat with sticks and stones on suspicion that he has committed theft in the house of Balamma. PW1 and

PW3, and LW4 and LW5 intervened but accused pushed them and beat them. Due to which he sustained injury to his collar bone. During his cross-examinaton he admitted that there is a theft case against him and he went to jail and further admitted that his photos is affixed in the police station, he went to hospital on the same day of the incident, this incident was witnessed by the villagers and denied all other suggestions put by the counsel.

Page | 3 {C.C.No.448 of 2016, JFCM, Tandur} 13. PW5 deposed that at about 05 or 06 years back while he was at his house he heard some noise and came out and found accused persons beating PW4 near the church with sticks and stones. The same was witnessed by PW1 and PW3. The injured was shifted to hospital. During his cross-examination he deposed that PW1,

PW3 and PW4 are his relatives and to other questions he stated that he do not know.

1.14. PW6 and PW7 panch witnesses for Scene of offence cum Seizure panchanama turned hostile and PW6 stated that at about 5 years back when he was at

Grampanchayath, police obtained his signature on some white papers and PW7 stated that at about 5 or 6 years back police called near Church and obtained his signatures on some written papers and he do not know its contents. Ex.P3 is the signature of

PW6 on Scene of offence cum seizure panchanama. Ex.P4 is the signature of PW6 on

Rough Sketch. Ex.P5 is signature of PW7 on Scene of offence cum seizure panchanama. Ex.P6 is the signature of PW7 on Rough Sketch. Though, Sr.P.P. cross- examined, nothing could was elicited except putting a suggestions that they are deposing false.

15. PW8 investigation officer deposed in his chief-examination to the extent of investigation done by him. During his cross-examination he deposed that the the distance between Nagulapally Village and Police station is 8 kilometers. Further admitted that there is one day delay in lodging the complaint and against PW4 there is a suspect sheet and there is case pending against PW4 vide C.C. No.447 of 2016 and denied all other suggestions put by the counsel.

17. Perused the material available on record. It is the evidence of PW1 to PW5 that accused persons beat PW4 due to which he sustained fractured injury to his collar bone.

18. PW1 is a brother of PW4 and PW1 and PW4 are sons of PW3. Admittedly PW5 is a relative to PW1, PW3 and PW4.

19. It is the evidence of PW4 who is the injured and direct witness that the incident took place at 12.00 noon, the same is mentioned by PW1 and PW3. But it is the

Page | 4 {C.C.No.448 of 2016, JFCM, Tandur} evidence of PW1 and PW3 who deposed that they witnessed the incident and tried to rescue PW4 and on the day of incident they came from their agricultural fields in the evening hours at 5.00 PM. As such, this court could not believe the evidence of PW1 and PW3 with regard to their presence at the time of incident.

20. PW5 who is cited as an eye witness to the incident also stated that he along with PW1 and PW3 witnessed the incident, but here PW5 is relative to PW4’s family, hence he would naturally support the case of PW4. It is the evidence of PW1 and

PW3 to PW5 that the incident was witnessed by the villagers, but none of the villagers were examined, that means no independent witness was examined by the prosecution.

21. From the record, the incident took place on 12-06-2016 and the same is admitted by PW1 i.e. the complainant herein and it is also the evidence of PW1, PW3 and PW4 that they went to hospital on the same of the incident, but it is the evidence of PW2

Doctor that he treated PW4 on 13-06-2016 i.e. on the next day of the incident. Ex.P2 is also issued on 13-06-2016. Hence, oral evidence of PW4 is not supported by the documentary evidence. Moreover, as a prudent man no person can bare the fractured pain for a long period of one day and any facture in the body can be detected only through X-ray but no such X-ray is produced before Court.

22. It is admitted that, PW4 is having a criminal conduct. From the evidence of PW4 himself who admitted that there are theft cases against him and also his photo is affixed in police station. It is the defence of the accused that one Balamma who is the grand-mother of accused lodged a theft case against PW4 and PW4 in order to counterblast such case filed this false case. Admittedly there is a theft case against accused, as such there is every possibility of lodging a false case against accused

From the foregoing discussion this court opines that prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.

Page | 5 {C.C.No.448 of 2016, JFCM, Tandur}

23. In the result, accused No.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offences punishable

U/s. 326 and 504 r/w 34 of IPC and they are acquitted U/s. 248 (1) Cr.P.C. for the said offences. Unmarked property, deposited into this Court vide CPR No.330 of 2016 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period. The accused are set at liberty and the bail bonds shall be in force for a period of six months as per section 437-A Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in

open Court on this the, 26 th day of July, 2022.

JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

TANDUR

APENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW1 is M. Krishna -None-

PW2 is Dr.Mukesh

PW3 is M.Yellamma

PW4 is M Hanmanthu

PW5 is M.Srinivas

PW6 is M.Jagannatham

PW7 is J.Venkataiah

PW8 is K. Krishna, Sub-Inspector of Police

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P1 is the Complaint -NIL-

Ex.P2 is Medical Certificate

Ex.P3 is Signature of PW6 on Scene of Offence cum Seizure Panchanama

Ex.P4 is Signature of PW6 on Rough Sketch

Ex.P5 is Signature of PW7 on Scene of Offence cum Seizure Panchanama

Ex.P6 is Signature of PW7 on Rough Sketch

Ex.P7 is First Information Report

Ex.P8 is Scene of Offence cum Seizure Panchanama

Ex.P9 is Rough Sketch

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO 1 is the Stick

JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

TANDUR.

Page | 6 {C.C.No.448 of 2016, JFCM, Tandur}

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,TANDUR,

VIKARABAD DISTRICT.

CALENDER CASE NO. 448 OF 2016

Date Of Offence : 13.06.2016 1.

Date of Complaint : 13.06.2016 2.

Date of Apprehension : 3.

Commencement of Trail : 27.09.2021 4.

Closure of Trial on : 21.06.2022 5.

Date of Judgment : 26.07.2022 6.

Complainant : The State of T.S. through S.H.O. 7. of P.S.Peddemul.

8. Name of the accused : 1.Matta Shekar S/o. Ananthaiah, Aged about 20 Years, Occ: Agriculture, 2.Matta Laxmaiah S/o Narsappa, Aged about 27 Years, Occ: Agriculture, 3.Peddemul Venkataiah S/o Ramchandri, Aged about 25 Years, Occ: Agriculture, 4.Peddemul Shivakumar S/o Ramchandri, Aged about 21 Years, Occ: Agriculture, All R/o. Nagulapally Village, Peddemul Mandal, Vikarabad District.

. 9. Offences : U/s. 326 and 504 r/w 34 of IPC

10. Finding of the Court : Found guilty

11. Result : In the result, accused No.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/s. 326 and 504 r/w 34 of IPC and they are acquitted U/s. 248 (1) Cr.P.C. for the said offences. Unmarked property, deposited into this Court vide CPR No.330 of 2016 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

The accused are set at liberty and the bail bonds shall be in force for a period of six months as per section 437-A Cr.P.C.

Page | 7 {C.C.No.448 of 2016, JFCM, Tandur}

JUDL.FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

TANDUR. Copy Submitted to: The Hon’ble I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, At L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad.

Accused No.1 to 4 present.

Judgment pronounced in open Court (V.S.J.).

In the result, accused No.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/s. 326 and 504 r/w 34 of IPC and they are acquitted U/s. 248 (1) Cr.P.C. for the said offences. Unmarked

Page | 8 {C.C.No.448 of 2016, JFCM, Tandur} property, deposited into this Court vide CPR No.330 of 2016 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period. The accused are set at liberty and the bail bonds shall be in force for a period of six months as per section 437-A Cr.P.C.

Page | 9

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, TANDUR,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

PRESENT: SMT: T.SWAPNA,

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tandur, R.R. District.

DATED, THIS THE 27 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

C.C. No. 09 OF 2016

Between:

The State of T.S through S.H.O. of P. S.Tandur.

…..Complainant

A N D

Madas Pentaiah S/o. Sanjaiah, Aged about 36 Years, Occ: Driver, R/o. Chaithanya Nagar, H/o. Regondi Village, Peddemul Mandal, Vikarabad District.

…..Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sr.

APP for the State and of Sri P. Srinivas, 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 inspector of police Tandur town filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No. 191 of 2015 for the offence punishable Under Section 304-A of IPC against the accused.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution are that, on 20.10.2015 at about 05.00PM, when the complainant/Budigajangam Mogulappa’s elder son

Badigajangam Lalappa and his brother’s son Budigajangam Ashappa were proceeded to Duggapur village on motor cycle bearing No. AP 29 AG 9927, on the way Vikarabad-Tandur road, near Gangothri School the accused drove the

DCM bearing No. AP 28 E 2983 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to their motor cycle, which resulted the deceased persons Lalappa and Ashappa received severe bleeding injuries and died on the spot. Basing on the report given by the PW1/Budigajangam Mogulappa, LW19/P.Venkatramaiah-Inspector

Page | 1 of police, Tandur Town Police Station registered a case in Cr.No. 191/2015,

U/S. 304-A IPC. After completion of investigation, LW19 filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable u/s. 304-A IPC.

3. Cognizance was taken for the offence punishable 304-A of IPC against accused.

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated U/s. 207 of Cr.P.C. Accused was examined U/s. 251 of

Cr.P.C and the accusation of the charge sheet was read over and explained 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 12 and got marked Exs. P1 to P14. PW1 is the complainant and father of deceased

No.1. PW2 and PW3 are circumstantial witnesses. PW4 and PW5 are the witnesses. PW6 is witness and owner of the crime vehicle. PW7 and PW10 are the panch witnesses for inquest panchanama of deceased No.1. PW8 and

PW11 are the panch witnesses for inquest panchanama of deceased No.2.

PW9 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector and PW12 is the investigating officer in this case On behalf of the accused, none were examined, and no documents are marked.

6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined

U/s. 313 of Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating evidence appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

7. Both Prosecution & defence counsel submitted their arguments.

Page | 2

8. Now the point for consideration is:-

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond

all reasonable doubt for the offence U/s. 304-A of IPC against Accused?

9. POINT:

It is the case of the prosecution that the accused who was driving the vehicle i.e. DCM bearing No. AP 28 E 2983 in a rash and negligent manner caused the death of deceased persons due to his high speed and negligent Act.

In order to prove the offence U/s. 304-A IPC the prosecution is required to prove that:

(1) Accused is the driver of the crime vehicle.

(2) Accused drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner with high speed and forced start there by caused the death of deceased persons.

(3) Accused is responsible for the death of Lalappa and Ashappa with his rash and negligent act which is not amounting to culpable incident.

10. If all the above ingredients are proved the accused is liable for the punishment for the offence U/s. 304-A IPC.

11. In this case PW1 is a complainant stated that he cannot say whose the fault of the accident to his son and his brother’s son and when he was at hospital police obtained his thumb impression on some blank papers. Ex.P1 is complaint.

Ex.P2 is 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1and nothing was elicited by Sr.PP during his cross examination except placing suggestion that he is deposing false.

12. PW2 and PW3 also stated that they cannot say whose the fault of the said accident. PW4 and PW5 who cited as witnesses stated that they have not witnessed any accident and they cannot say how the accident occurred and

PW4 further stated that he cannot identify the driver of the crime vehicle and nothing was elicited by Sr.PP during their cross examination except placing

Page | 3 suggestion that they are deposing false. Ex.P3 is 161 Cr.P.C. statement of

PW2. Ex.P4 is 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3. Ex.P5 is 161 Cr.P.C. statement of

PW4. Ex.P6 is 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW5.

13. PW6 owner of the crime vehicle turned hostile by stating that he is owner of DCM Eicher Van Bearing No. AP 28 V 2983 and one Bandaiah is the driver of said vehicle and when he was at Mahaboob Nagar, the said vehicle met with an accident at Gangothri School, Tandur and police never examined him nor recorded his statement. Ex.P7 is 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW6.

14. PW7 and PW10 who are the inquest panch witnesses for deceased No.1 and PW7 turned hostile by stating that he do not know anything about the case and no inquest panchanama was conducted in his presence. Ex.P8 is his signature on inquest panchanama and PW10 stated that on 21-10-2010 at

Government Hospital, Tandur from 8.00 to 11.00 AM police conducted inquest panchanama over the dead body of Lalappa and noticed to injuries on fore head, nose and both legs and blood was oozing from mouth and nose. Ex.P11 is the inquest panchanama of dead body of Lalappa and nothing was elicited by Sr.PP during their cross examination except placing suggestion that they are deposing false.

15. PW8 and PW11 who are the inquest panch witnesses for deceased

No.2 and PW8 turned hostile by stating that he never witnessed the injuries to the dead body of Ashappa and police obtained his signature on some written papers. Ex.P9 is his signature on the inquest panchanama of deceased No.2 and nothing was elicited by Sr.PP during his cross examination except placing suggestion that he is deposing false. And PW11 stated that at about 5 years

Page | 4 back he went to Government hospital, Tandur where police conducted inquest panchanama over the deceased body of Ashappa and noticed to injuries on forehead, nose and both legs and the deceased died in road accident Ex.P12 is inquest panchanama of dead body of Ashappa. During his cross examination he stated that he cannot say the exact date, month and when Ex.P12 was conducted and on the day when he signed on Ex.P12 he alone sign and at the instance of police he signed on Ex.P12. Further stated that he do not know the contents of Ex.P12.

16. PW9 Motor Vehicle Inspector deposed in his chief examination that he inspected crime vehicle bearing No.AP 28 V 2983 Medium Goods Vehicle at

Police Station and he found damage front right hand side and indicator damage and in his opinion the accident was occurred not due to any mechanical defects and he issued Motor Vehicle Inspection Report under Ex.P10 and nothing was elicited by Sr.PP during his cross examination except placing suggestion that he is deposing false.

17. PW12 is the investigating officer deposed to the extent of investigation done by him in this case during his chief examination and nothing was elicited by Sr.PP during his cross examination except placing suggestion that he is deposing false.

18. In this case PW1, complainant and PW2 and PW3 stated that they do not know whose fault the said accident occurred. PW4 and PW5 eye witnesses stated that they are not witnessed the incident. PW6 owner of the crime vehicle turned hostile. PW7, PW8, PW10 and PW11 panch witnesses for inquest panchanama of deceased No.1 and 2 and PW7 stated that no inquest

Page | 5 panchanama was conducted in his presence, PW8 stated that he never witness injuries to the dead body of Ashappa, PW10 and PW11 stated that they do not know the contents of Ex.P11 and Ex.P12 inqeust panchanama of deceased

NO.1 and 2.

19. From the above evidence of prosecution there is no evidence showing that the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle on the date of the incident and the owner of the vehicle mentioned that his vehicle driver name is

Bandaiah.

From the above discussion, this court opines that prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

20. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s.

304-A of IPC and he is acquitted U/s 255 (1) of Cr.P.C. The unmarked

property deposited before this Court vide CPR No.565 of 2015 shall be

destroyed after expiry of appeal period. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the, 27th Day of January, 2021.

JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

TANDUR

APENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW1 is Budigajangam Mogulappa -None- PW2 is Budigajangam Eramma PW3 is Budigajangam Pentamma PW4 is Budigajangam Masappa

Page | 6

PW5 is Vadde Ramesh PW6 is P.Srinivas Reddy PW7 is Jetikeni Esu PW8 is Chakali Venkataiah PW9 is P. Venkat Reddy, Motor Vehicle Inspector PW10 is G.Venkatesham PW11 is Jetikeni Ramulu PW12 is P.Venkatramaiah, Inspector of Police

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P1 is Complaint -None- Ex.P2 is 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1 Ex.P3 is 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2 Ex.P4 is 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3 Ex.P5 is 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW4 Ex.P6 is 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW5 Ex.P7 is 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW6 Ex.P8 is Signature of PW7 on Inquest Panchanama of Deceased No.1 Ex.P9 is Signature of PW8 on Inquest Panchanama of Deceased No.2 Ex.P10 is Motor Vehicle Inspection Report Ex.P11 is Inquest Panchanama of Deceased No.1 Ex.P12 is Inquest Panchanama of Deceased No.2 Ex.P13 is First Information Report Ex.P14 is Post Morterm Examination Report

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL –

JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

TANDUR.

Page | 7 Page | 8

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE TANDUR ::

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

PRESENT: KUM. T.SWAPNA Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Tandur, R.R. District.

DATED, THIS THE 27 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

C.C. No. 211 OF 2018

Between: The State of Telangana through S.H.O. of P.S. Peddemul. … Complainant

A N D

Lambadi Anandam S/o. Narsappa, Aged about 30 Years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Marepally Village, Peddemul Mandal, Vikarabad District.

… Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sr.

APP for the State and of Sri K. Gopal, 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

The Sub-Inspector of police P.S. Peddemul filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No. 29 of 2018 for the offences punishable Under Section 379 of IPC,

Section 21 (4) and (4A) of Mines and Minerals Act, 1957.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution is that on 06-03-2018 at about 1900 hours, on receipt of credible information about illegal transportation of sand illegally via Rukmapur

Village, the complainant/LW8//G. Venkata Srinu-Sub-Inspector of Police along with PCs

Venkat Ramulu PC 3200, MD.Khadeer PC 5623 and A.Nagesh, HG 117 proceeded to

Rukmapur village and on the way at the outskirts of Rukmapur village found one tractor is proceeding with a load of sand in opposite direction and on seeing police Sumo the driver of said tractor stopped the tractor and fled away from the scene and on observation found the tractor with fully loaded with sand and the driver of the tractor transporting the sand without having any permission from the concerned authorities.

During the course of investigation LW8/G.Venkata Srinu/Sub-Inspector of police examined and recorded the statements of witnesses and conducted scene of offence 2 cum seizure panchanama in the presence of LW4/G.Goverdhan Reddy and LW5/Dappu

Raju and seized the tractor loaded with sand and also recorded the confessional statement of the accused in the presence of LW6/Peddemul Ratnaiah and

LW7/G.Jeevaratnam and during further course of investigation LW8/G.Venkata Srinu,

Sub-Inspector of police addressed a letter to Tahsildar of Peddemul Mandal for disposal of case property sand, in turn the Tahsildar of Peddemul Mandal auctioned the sand and received and received sand auction proceedings vide No.B/593/2018, dated 14-03- 2018. The LW8/Sub-Inspector of Police after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against the accused.

3. Cognizance was taken for the offence punishable U/s. 379 of IPC and Section 21 (4) and (4A) of Mines and Minerals Act, against the accused.

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated U/s 207 of Cr.P.C. Accused was examined U/s. 239 of Cr.P.C., he denied the allegations. Hence, charge U/s. 379 of IPC and Section 21 (4) and (4A) of

Mines and Minerals Act, are framed, read over and explained to the accused in vernacular. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During the course of trial, the prosecution had examined PWs 1 to 7 and got marked Exs P1 to P7. On behalf of the accused, none were examined, and no documents are marked. PW1 and PW2 are the Eye witnesses. PW3 and PW4 are panch witnesses for scene of offence cum seizure panchanama. PW5 and PW6 are the panch witnesses for confession cum seizure panchanama and PW7 is the investigation officer.

6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/s. 313 of Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating evidence appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

3 7. Heard both sides and perused the record.

8. Now the point for consideration is:-

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all

reasonable doubt for the offences U/s. 379 of IPC and Section 21 (4) and (4A) of Mines and Minerals Act ?

9. POINT:

PW1 who cited as witness deposed in his chief examination that on 06-03-2018 he along with LW2/Md.Khadir proceeded to Rukmapur village on receiving 108 call and when they reached near Rukmapur village shivaru he noticed one tractor bearing No.

AP 28 DX 9240 and trolley bearing NO.AP 27 G 5835 which was loaded with sand coming from Kagna river and on seeing them the driver of the said tractor fled away by leaving the said tractor and trolley and then they informed the same to LW8/G.Venkata

Srinu, S.I. of police in turn he came to the scene and conducted scene of offence cum seizure panchanama and brought the said tractor along with trolley loaded with sand to the police station. During his cross examination he denied the suggestions put to him by the defence counsel.

10. PW2 who also cited as witness deposed in his chief examination that on 06-03- 2018 when he along with PW1 were at police station LW8,/G.Venkata Srinu S.I. of police received credible information that sand was being illegally transported near

Rukmapur village shivaru, then he along with PW1 and LW8/G.Venkata Srinu, S.I. of police proceeded to Rukmapur village and when they reached Rukmapur outskirts they noticed one tractor bearing No. AP 28 DX 9240 and trolley bearing NO.AP 27 G 5835 which was loaded with sand and on seeing them the driver of the said tractor fled away from the spot, then their S.I./LW8/G.Venkata Srinu conducted scene of offence cum seizure panchanama and brought the said tractor along with trolley loaded with sand to the police station. During his cross examination he denied the suggestions put to him by the defence counsel.

4

11. PW3 and PW4 panch witnesses for scene of offence cum seizure panchanama under Ex.P5 turned hostile by stating that they do not know any facts of the case and at about 1 ½ years back police obtained their signatures on some white papers while they were at the bus stop, Mambapur and further stated that no pahcnnama was conducted in their presence. Ex.P1 is the signature of PW3 on scene offence cum seizure pacnahanma and Ex.P2 is the signature of PW4 on scene offence cum seizure pacnahanma. Though, Sr.P.P. cross-examined, nothing could was elicited except putting a suggestions that they are deposing false.

12. PW5 and PW6 panch witnesses for confession statement cum seizure panchanama under Ex.P7 turned hostile by stating that at about 2 years back police obtained their signatures on some blank papers in the police station. Ex.P3 is the signature of PW5 on confession cum seizure pacnahanma and Ex.P4 is signature of

PW6 on confession cum seizure pacnahanma. Though, Sr.P.P. cross-examined, nothing could was elicited except putting a suggestions that they are deposing false.

.

13. PW7 is the investigation officer who deposed to the extent of investigation done by him in this case. Except PW1 and PW2 no other witness supported the version of prosecution, but their evidence is not at all supported by any of the independent witnesses.

14. It is case of prosecution that the accused transporting the sand illegally without any valid permit or license. PW1 stated in his evidence that he along with PW2 were at police station they proceeded to Rukmpaur on receiving 108 call and found the crime vehicle with loaded sand at Rukmapur Shivaru and then he informed the same to his

S.I., PW8 and in turn PW8 came to the scene and conducted scene of offence cum seizure panchanama. Whereas, it is the evidence of PW2 who stated that he along with

PW1 were at police station, on receiving of credible information by their S.I., PW8, he along with PW1 and PW8/G.Venkata Srinu, S.I. of police proceeded to the scene and found the crime vehicle with loaded sand at Rukmapur Shivaru and their S.I. conducted scene of offence cum seizure panchanama. It is the evidence of both PW1 and PW2 5 that they were at the police station at that time. From the above evidence this court finds inconsistency in their statements and also did not produce any documentary evidence to show that both PW1 and PW2 were on duty at police station on the date of the incident. Hence, this Court opines their evidence as not reliable and trustworthy.

Moreover, neither panch witnesses for seizure nor for confession not supported the prosecution case and stated that the police obtained their signatures on some white papers.

15.There is no evidence on record connecting the accused with the alleged offences. As such, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and the accused is entitled for acquittal.

16. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s. 379 of

IPC and Section 21 (4) and (4A) of Mines and Minerals Act and he is acquitted U/s 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. Unmarked property, deposited into this court vide CPR No. 123 of 2018 shall be given to its original owner on proper identification and receipt, if no body claims confiscate the said property to the state after expiry of appeal period. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per section 437-A Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the, 27th Day of January, 2021.

JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

TANDUR

APENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW1 is P.Venkat Ramulu - None -

PW2 is MD.Khadeer

PW3 is G.Goverdhan Reddy

PW4 is Dappu Raju

PW5 is Peddemul Rathnaiah

PW6 is Gidda Jeevarathnam

PW7 is G.Venkata Srinu-Sub-Inspector of Police 6

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P1 is Signature of PW3 on Scene of offence cum Seizure Panchanama -NIL-

Ex.P2 is Signature of PW4 on Scene of offence cum Seizure Panchanama

Ex.P3 is Signature of PW5 on Confession cum Seizure Panchanama

Ex.P4 is Signature of PW6 on Confession cum Seizure Panchanama

Ex.P5 is Scene of offence cum Seizure Panchanama

Ex.P6 is First Information Report

Ex.P7 is Confession cum Seizure Panchanama

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL-

JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

TANDUR 7

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

TANDUR :: RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

PRESENT: T. SWAPNA,

Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Tandur, R.R. District.

DATED, THIS THE 27 th DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

C.C. No.19 OF 2016

Between: The State of Telangana through S.H.O. of P.S.Tandur. …Complainant

A N D

Shantu Kumar S/o. Pakirappa, Aged about 24 Years, Occ: Mobile Shop, R/o. Back side of More Super Market, Tandur, Vikarabad District. … Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sr. APP for the State and of Sri K.Gopal, 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

The Sub-Inspector of police P.S. Tandur filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No. 261 of 2013 for the offence punishable Under Sections 292 of IPC and Section 65 and 68 of Copy Right Act, 1957 and Section 6 of Indecent

Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act 1986.

2. The brief facts of the case is that on 20-12-2013 when the complainant

Md.Aminuddin PC 3131 and one Md.Amjad PC 3067 were performing day beat duty, at Junior College area at about 1600 hours they found mob of persons gathered at Shantu Mobile Shop and they were watching Blue Films in the mobile shop in computer and on seeing them the persons escaped from there. On questioning with the owner of the said mobile shop he revealed his name as

Shantu Kumar and admitted that he is recording the blue films in the Cell phones,

Memory cards, C.D.’s and Pen Drives from computer on demand of the customers

Page | 1 by taking money illegally. Basing on the complaint given by LW1/Md.Aminuddin,

LW5/Shankaraiah, HC 1906, P.S.Tandur registered a case and after completing investigation, LW6/A.Ravikumar, Sub-Inspector of police, PS Tandur filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable Under Section 292 of IPC and Section 65 and 68 of Copy Right Act, 1957 and Section 6 of Indecent

Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act 1986.

3. Cognizance was taken for the offences punishable Under Section 292 of IPC and

Section 65 and 68 of Copy Right Act, 1957 and Section 6 of Indecent Representation of

Women Act against the accused.

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated u/s 207 of Cr.P.C. Accused was examined U/s. 251 of Cr.P.C and the accusation of the charge sheet was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu. He denied the offence and claimed to be tried.

5. During the course of trial, the prosecution had examined PW 1 to PW 3 and got marked Ex. P1 to P3. This Court closed the evidences of other witnesses as prosecution failed to produce them before the Court inspite of conational order. On behalf of the accused, none were examined and no documents are marked.

6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/s. 313 of

Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating evidence appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

7. Both Prosecution & 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 U/s. 292 of IPC and Section 65 and 68 of Copy

Right Act, 1957 and Section 6 of Indecent Representation of Women Act?

Page | 2

9. POINT:

PW1/Md.Ameenuddin in his chief examination stated that on 20-12-2013 he was on day beat duty at about 04.00 PM he was at Government Junior College, Tandur he noticed a mob in a shop of Shantu Mobile Shop, he went there on seeing him the said persons went away and the owner of the said shop by name Shantu Kumar was present and on enquiry he stated that the said mob were seeing blue films in his computer shop and also he was transferring the said films from Computer to CDs and

Memory cards and the same was selling to public and their Sub-Inspector of police/Ravikumar came there and seized one card rider and computer monitor and

CPU and he identified the accused as the person who is selling the CD’s in the said shop. During his cross examination he stated that he has not filed any documents to show that the accused is the owner of the said shop, further he denied all the suggestions put to him by the defence counsel.

10. PW2 and PW3 who are panch witnesses for Scene, Confession cum Seizure panchanama turned hostile by stating that at about 6 years back police obtained their signatures on some white papers. Ex.P1 is Signature of PW1 on Scene, Confession cum Seizure Panchanama. Ex.P2 is Signature of PW2 on Scene, Confession cum

Seizure Panchanama. Nothing was elicited during their cross-examination by Sr.PP except putting suggestion that they are deposing false.

11. The offences alleged against the accused are under Section 292 of IPC and

Section 65 and 68 of Copy Right Act, 1957 and.Section 6 of Indecent Representation of Women Act?

This Court would like to re-iterate the Section of Law under Copy Right

Act:-

Section 65 of Copy Right Act which reads as follows: Any person who knowingly makes or has in his possession, any plate for the purpose of making

Page | 3 infringing copies of any work in which copy right subsists shall be punished with imprisonment which makes into two years and shall also liable to fine.

Section 68 of Copy Right Act which reads as follows: Penalty for making false statements for the purpose of deceiving or influencing any authority or officer.

Any person who – (a) with a view of deceiving any authority or officer in the execution of the provisions of this act or (b) with a view of procuring or influencing the doing or omission of anything in relation to this Act or any matter there under, makes a false statement or representation knowing the same to be false, shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one year with fine or with both.

12. It is the evidence of PW1 who is a police official on beat duty that he found mob of people watching blue films in a mobile shop under the name of Shantu Mobile

Shop and on enquiry with the owner of the shop he stated that he is downloading blue films from his computer to Cell phones, CDs, Pen drives and Memory Cards and said property was seized. But on the record it is observed that prosecution failed to take any pain in marking the property seized by police and there is no evidence on record showing that the accused is the owner of said shop. Moreover, in this case the evidences of other witnesses were closed by this Court inspite of conditional order, prosecution failed to produce before the Court. Further it is the evidence of

PW2 and PW3 that police obtained their signatures on some white papers. As such there is no evidence on record to prove the guilt of the accused. For the foregoing reasons, the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Thereby, the accused is entitled for an acquittal.

13. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable Under section 292 of IPC and Section 65 and 68 of Copy Right Act, 1957 and.Section 6 of

Indecent Representation of Women Act and he is acquitted U/s 255 (1) of Cr.P.C. The unmarked property deposited before this vide CPR No. 21 of 2016 i.e. Card reader and

Page | 4

Memory Card shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period and Telecom Monitor and

LG CPU shall be given to its original owner on proper acknowledgment and receipt, if no body claims confiscate the said property to the state after expiry of appeal period.

The accused is set at liberty and the bail bonds shall be in force for a period of six months as per section 437-A Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 27th Day of January, 2021.

JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

TANDUR

APENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW1 is MD.Ameenoddin -None- PW2 is Y.Balraju PW3 is P.Manikyam

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P1 is Complaint -NIL-

Ex.P2 is Signature of PW2 on Scene of Offence, Confession and Seizure panchanama

Ex.P3 is Signature of PW3 on Scene of Offence, Confession and Seizure panchanama

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL-

JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

TANDUR

Page | 5