Mrs. Upanishadwani Dammu

C.C.No.239 of 2021Page 1 of 11Date: 30-04-2026

IN THE COURT OF I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM- I ADDL. JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT KOLLAPUR, NAGARKURNOOL DISTRICT.

Thursday, on this the 30th day of April, 2026

Present: Smt.D.Upanishadwani Prl.JCJ-cum-JMFC, Kollapur, FAC I Addl. JCJ-Cum-JFCM, Kollapur, Nagarkurnool District.

C.C.No.239of2021 Between: State through the Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station, Kodiar. Crime No.33 of 2021

of Police Station, Kodair. ...Complainant

And

A-1:- Veerapaga Venktramulu, S/o Bojjanna, age: 40 Yrs, Caste: Madiga, Occ:Agril, R/o Nagulapally village of Kodair mandal.

A-2:- Veerapaga Kurumurthy @ Kumar, S/o Balaswamy, age: 28 Yrs, Caste: Madiga, Occ:Cable operator, R/o Nagulapally village of Kodair mandal.

A-3:- Veerapaga Mahesh, S/o Gopal, age: 23 Yrs, Caste: SC Madiga, Occ:Driver, R/o Nagulapally village of Kodair mandal.

A-4:- Veerapaga Bichaiah, S/o Kistaiah, age: 50 Yrs, Caste: SC Madiga, Occ: Agril, R/o Nagulapally village of Kodair mandal.

A-5:- Veerapaga Devendram, S/o Kistaiah, Age: 42 Yrs, Caste: Madiga, Occ: Agril, R/o Nagulapally village of Kodair mandal.

..Accused persons

Offence::Under Secs.332, 353, 341 r/w 34 of IPC against accused No.1 to 5. Plea of accused:Not guilty Finding:Found not guilty Sentence or Order:TheaccusedNo.1to5arefoundnotguiltyfor theoffenceUnderSecs.332,353,341r/w34of IPCandaccordinglytheyareacquittedofthe sameundersection248(1)Cr.P.C.Thebail bondsoftheaccusedpersonsshallstands cancelledafterlapseofappealperiod.Case propertyifanyshallbedestroyafterexpiryof appealperiod. *****

C.C.No.239 of 2021Page 2 of 11Date: 30-04-2026

This case coming up before me for final hearing on 29.04.2026 in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri.J.C.Kurumurthy, Advocate for the accused No.1 to 5, upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:- -::JUDGMENT::-

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station, Kodair laid Charge sheet against accused in Crime No.33 of 2021 for the offence Under Secs.332, 353, 341 r/w 34 of

IPC against Accused No.1 to 5.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 25-03-2021 at 10 PM as per the instruction of SI, Kodair the complainant, Lw2/M.Venkataiah and Lw3/V.Srinivasulu left to Nagulapally village in Government vehicle bearing No. TS 09PA-1965 as quarrel was going on and when they reached bridge canal Nagulapally villagers beat

Lw4/G. Pedda Swamy and on seeing the incident, complainant thought the villagers might kill Lw4, the complainant took the custody of Lw4 and made him to sit in his vehicle and proceeded to police station and when they reached -near house of

Mandla Rama Swamy, A1 came there on motor cycle and obstructed Government vehicle, then A2 to A5 obstructed vehicle and beat Lw4 who sat in the vehicle and

A2 and A3 caught hold the shirt of the complainant and gave blow on his lips and caused bleeding injuries and other accused persons pushed Lw2 and Lw3. Hence, lodged report.

As per the contents of the above complaint, the LW.9/Krishna Obula Reddy, registered a case in Cr.No.33/2021 Under Secs.332, 353, 341 r/w 34 IPC and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, LW.9 examined and recorded the

C.C.No.239 of 2021Page 3 of 11Date: 30-04-2026 statements of LW1/M.Krishnaiah. Later LW9 visited scene of offence at BT Road towards the Kodair Village and secured two mediators LW5/G.Chinna Swamy and

LW6/K.Kashi and conducted scene of offence panchanama and draw rough sketch.

later LW9 examined and recorded the statement of LW2/M.Venkataiah,

LW3/V.Srinivasulu and LW4/ G.Pedda Swamy. Later LW.9/Krishna Obula Reddy issued notice U/s 41 A (3) Cr.P.C. to accused persons. After completion of investigation LW.9/Krishna Obula Reddy, filed charge sheet against Accused No.1 to 5.

3. After filing the charge sheet, the case was taken on file for the offence

Under Secs.332, 353, 341 r/w 34 IPC against Accused No.1 to 5.

4.On appearance of the accused No.1 to 5, copies of case documents were furnished to them in compliance under section 207 Cr.P.C and they are examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C for the offence Under Secs.332, 353, 341 r/w 34 IPC against Accused No.1 to 5, explained and read over to them in Telugu, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. To prove the case of the prosecution, prosecution examined Pw1 to Pw7 and got marked Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-4. Lw8/Ms.Swarupa Kaatam evidence is closed as

Learned App given up the evidence on 10-04-2026 as per docket.

6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the Accused No.1 to 5 examined under sec.313 Cr.P.C. for the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, in

C.C.No.239 of 2021Page 4 of 11Date: 30-04-2026 the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which they denied and reported no defense evidence.

7.Heard the arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for Accused persons.

8.Nowthepointfordeterminationis:

1) Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt or not?

2) To what relief ?

POINT:

9. The case of prosecution is that on 25-03-2021 at 10 PM as per the instruction of SI, Kodair the complainant, along with Lw2/M.Venkataiah and

Lw3/V.Srinivasulu went to Nagulapally village in Government vehicle bearing No. TS 09PA-1965 due to quarrel; in village. Near Bridge canal, Villagers beat Lw4/G. Pedda

Swamy, complainant took LW4 into custody and while proceeding to police station, near Mandla Rama Swamy house, A1 obstructed vehicle on motorcycle and A2 to A5 beat LW4. A2 and A3 caught hold of complainant’s shirt and caused bleeding injury on lips. LW2 and LW3 pushed LW2 and LW3.

10. To prove the case of the prosecution, prosecution examined Pw1 to Pw7 and got marked Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-4. Lw8/Ms.Swarupa Kaatam evidence is closed as

Learned App given up the evidence on 10-04-2026 as per docket.

C.C.No.239 of 2021Page 5 of 11Date: 30-04-2026

11.Pw1/M.Krishnaiah deposed in the same lines of report. Hence, needs no repetion. Ex.P-1/ is Report marked.

In cross examination , it is elicited that he is working as head constable at kodair PS and can identify the accused persons with surname as Veerapaga and on the day of incident Lw2 was driving vehicle and when they reached scene of offence they noticed that accused persons were beating Lw4 and they took Lw4 in to their custody to save him and do not know whether Lw4 filed a cases against accused persons about this incident and also about case under section 307 IPC and also a criminal case under SC and ST filed by accused persons against Lw4 as counter case and ended in acquittal. Further elicited that he do not know in which mode SI received the information and he went to hospital on next day of incident and he can identify Lw4 if shown to him. The suggestions that his statement was not recorded by SI and A2 and A3 never punched him and he himself fell down on the road while getting down from vehicle and received the injury and intentionally to harass accused persons he filed false report and deposing false were denied.

12. Pw2/V. Srinivasulu deposed that on 25-03-2021 at 10 pm when he was in police station, SI informed Pw1 that a galata is taking place in Nagulapally village near bridge and instructed Pw1 to go said place and he, Lw2 and Pw1 went to scene of offence and noticed public gathering and A1 to A4 were beating Lw4, on that he,

Pw1 and Lw2 took Lw4 in there Tata Sumo and reached to some distance but, A1 followed them on bike and stopped his bike in front of vehicle, meanwhile A2 and

A3 came there and caught hold the collar of Pw1 and gave blow on his jaws and

C.C.No.239 of 2021Page 6 of 11Date: 30-04-2026 pushed him and Lw2 aside due to which they fell down and A4 and A5 came there and all the accused persons obstructed their legitimate duties and later they took

Lw4 to police station and informed the same to SI and case was registered against accused persons and police recorded his statement.

13. Pw3/M.Venkataiah deposed in the lines of Pw2. Hence , needs no repetation.

In cross examination, it is elicited that two months prior to incident he joined as police constable in Kodair PS and prior to that he worked as PC in Kollapur PS and he know all the accused persons with their surnames and also know Lw4 and he did not took photographs of scene of offence when accused persons were beating

Lw4 and Lw4 lodged report against accused persons . Further they all went to scene of offence on the instructions of SI but do not know the mode of information SI received and and do not know whether Lw4 filed a case under section 307 IPC against accused persons and accused persons filed case under SC and ST against

Lw4 as counter case and his statement was recorded by writer. The suggestions that he forget some of the names of accused persons and he never went to scene of offence nor witnesses while accused persons were beating Lw4 and they never beat

Lw4 and to harass accused persons deposing false at the instance of Pw1were denied

14.Pw4/Pedda Swamy injured deposed that he know Pw1 to Pw3 and 4 years ago one day galata took place between his younger son/Eshwar and A3 at

Nagulapally and he went there to sought the issue but, accused persons beat him and one person among gathering called to police and Pw1 to Pw3 came scene of

C.C.No.239 of 2021Page 7 of 11Date: 30-04-2026 offence and took him with them in police vehicle and by that he received injury to head and stomach and vehicle and vehicle moved till village shivar, meanwhile A1 came on bike and stopped his vehicle in front of police vehicle and A2 to A5 came there and beat him and tried to drag him out from police vehicle but, Pw1 to Pw3 locked him in vehicle and Pw1 came out from vehicle and again accused persons forcibly dragged him out and beat him and Pw1 to Pw3 rescued him , but, all accused persons beat Pw1 to Pw3 with hands and Pw1 received injury on his jaw as

A1 gave blow on cheek and A2 beat Pw3 and again accused persons beat him on his head with stick and he became unconscious and regained conscious on next day of incident when he was in hospital, Nagarkurnool and police recorded his statement.

In cross examination, it is elicited Lw5 is his younger brother and he know

Pw5 and accused persons are resident of same village as such he can identify them with their names and they frequently move together and he has personal acquittance with Pw1 to Pw3 as such he can identify them. Further elicited that what ever he deposed in chief has not taken place and at the instance of Pw1 to

Pw3 he deposed false and he do not know any thing about this case and prosecution declared him hostile and the suggestion that he compromised this case with accused persons he is deposing false is denied.

15.Pw5/K. Kashi not supported the prosecution.

16.Pw6/Krishna Obula Reddy, who is investigating officer deposed that on the complaint of PW1, he registered Crime No.33/2021 under Section 332, 353, 341

R/W/ 34 of IPC. Ex.P2 is FIR. He took up investigation, examined PW1, visited the

C.C.No.239 of 2021Page 8 of 11Date: 30-04-2026 scene of offence at BT road towards Kodair village and conducted scene offence panchanama in the presence of PW5 and LW5/Chinna Swamy and also examined and recorded the statement of PW2 to 4. on 26.03.2021 he issued 41-A Cr.P.C.

notice and sent to A1 to A5. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

In cross examination, it is elicited that on his direction Pw1 to Pw3 went to

Nagulapally village and he did not accompanied them and recorded their statement and conducted scene of offence and in rough sketch he did not shown bridge and also exact place of incident. Further elicited that this case and also two cases was registered against Pw4 vide crime No.32/2021, U/Sec.307, 435, 324, 452, 427 r/w 34

IPC and do not know whether SC.No.67/2021 and SC.No.219/2021 both parties settled out of the court. The suggestion that accused persons used to raise agitations before police stations with regard to public issues as such filed false case against them were denied.

17. Pw7/Dr.K.Prashanthi deposed that she received requisition from SHO,

Kodair to examine PW1/M.Krishnaiah, accordingly, she examined PW1 and found injuries as Pain over the lip, the nature of injuries is simple in nature. She issued

Ex.P4 medical certificate of PW1.

In cross examination, it is elicited that in MC he did not mentioned at what time he examined injured but mentioned the date and the injury mentioned might be possible if any person got slip while boarding vehicle or if a person fell on the

C.C.No.239 of 2021Page 9 of 11Date: 30-04-2026 road. The suggestions that without examining the injured he issued MC of Pw1 and deposing false were denied.

18.To substantiate the case of the prosecution, prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of Pw1 to Pw4 coupled with Pw6 and Pw7 as per the evidence of Pw1 to

Pw3, on the instruction of his SI then went to Nagulapally village with regard to galata took place between Pw4 and accused persons and they noticed all the accused persons were beating Pw4 and they took custody of Pw4 in order to save his life and took him in their police vehicle and moved some distance but A1 came on his bike and stopped bike infront of their vehicle and A2 to A5 came there and beat Pw4 and dragged Pw4 out but, Pw1 to Pw3 locked him in vehicle and A1 gave blow on jaw due to which he received injury on lip and A2 and A3 beat Pw2 and Pw3 with hands and pushed them aside and again beat Pw4/Pedda Swamy and obstructed Pw1 to Pw3 official duties.

19.The accused persons were charged with 332, 353,341 IPC. The prosecution must prove that the accused persons caused hurt to a public servant while discharging official duties or intent to deter from such discharge and also wrongfully restrained Pw1 to Pw4. Though Pw1 to Pw3 deposed in one tone that they were on official duties on the date of incident and A1 beat Pw1, A2 and A3 pushed Pw2 and Pw7 aside but, no GD entry or any contemporaneous record is produced to substantiate the same and such beat evidence without explanation gives rise to an adverse inference and it does not inspire confidence to conclusively hold that Pw1 to Pw3 acting in discharge of official duty. Further Pw7 who examined Pw1 issued medical certificate is corroborating with the injury stated by

C.C.No.239 of 2021Page 10 of 11Date: 30-04-2026

Pw1 to Pw3 but, it only proves the factum of hurt not the official duty element and

Pw1 to Pw3 went to scene of offence as sub inspector assigned duty to them that galata taking place at Nagulapally village and they rescued Pw4, but Pw4 after chief examination turned hostile in cross examination and Further Pw1 to Pw3 by the time they rescued Pw4 was beaten by accused persons but, Pw4 was not sent to medical examination along with Pw1 as he also received injury due to act of A1.

Prosecution failed to examine any independent witnesses to prove the charges against accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.

20.From the above facts and circumstances , prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredients of section 332, 353, 341 r/w 34 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt.

21.In the result, The accused No.1 to 5 are found not guilty for the offence

Under Secs. 332, 353, 341 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted of the same under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused persons shall stands cancelled after lapse of appeal period. Case property if any shall be destroy after expiry of appeal period.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30 th day of April, 2026.

Prl.JCJ-cum-JMFC, Kollapur, FAC I Addl. JCJ-Cum-JFCM, Kollapur, Nagarkurnool District.

C.C.No.239 of 2021Page 11 of 11Date: 30-04-2026

APPENDIXOFEVIDENCE

WITNESSESEXAMINED.

FORPROSECUTION:FORDEFENCE:

PW1: M. Krishnaiah, -NIL-

PW2: V. Srinivasulu

PW3: M.Venkataiah

PW4: Pedda Swamy

PW5: K.Kashi

PW6: Krishna Obula Reddy

PW7: Dr.K. Prashanthi

EXHIBITSMARKED.

FORPROSECUTION:FORDEFENCE:

Ex.P1: is Report-NIL-

Ex.P2 : is FIR

Ex.P3: is CDF

EX.P4 : is Medical Certificate of PW1

MATERIALOBJECTSMARKED.

-NIL-

Prl.JCJ-cum-JMFC, Kollapur, FAC I Addl. JCJ-Cum-JFCM, Kollapur, Nagarkurnool District.

C.C.No.457 of 2021Page 1 of 11Date: 30-04-2026

IN THE COURT OF PRL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT KOLLAPUR,

NAGARKURNOOL DISTRICT.

Thursday, on this the 30th day of April, 2026

Present: Smt.D.Upanishadwani Prl.JCJ-cum-JMFC, Kollapur, Kollapur, Nagarkurnool District.

C.C.No.457of2021 Between:

State through the Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station, Kollapur. Crime No.140 of 2021

of Police Station, Kollapur. ...Complainant

And

A-1.Shaik Raheem Pasha s/o Pedda Niranjan @ Shaik Niranjan Pasha. Age 39 years. Caste: Muslim, Occ: 10th ward councilor r/o Bandaigutta. Kollapur town. 9652051449.

A2. Paspula Narsimha s/o Edanna. Age 49years, Caste: SC-Madiga. Occ: Business r/o Chukkaipally village, Kollapur Mandal. 9440925586.

A-3 Machupally Balaswamy s/o Kistaiah. Age 59 years, Caste: SC-Mala, Occ: 3r Ward Councilor r/o Chukkaipally village of Kollapur mandal. 9440748428.

A4. Mohammed Iqbal s/o Gul mahammed, Age 43years, Caste: Muslim, Occ:Business r/o H.No. 1-6-32, Hanuman Colony of Kollapur Town. 9959356355.

A-5. MA. Nayeem s/o MA. Azeez, Age 40 years, Caste: Muslim, Occ: 9th ward councilor r/o Chouni Veedhi, Kollapur town. 7993801636.

A6. K.Dharma Teja s/o Venkat Ramulu. Age 30years, Caste: Rajaka, Occ: Student r/o H.No. 2-89, Konduru Village of Pentlavelly mandal. 9177050558.

A7. Karne Shivaiah s/o Mashanna, Age 35years, Caste: SC-Mala, Occ: Coolie r/o H.No. 2-16-104, Ambedkar Street of Kollapur Town. 9989761920.

A8. Borelly Mahesh @ Mahesh Babu s/o Sangamaiah, Age 36years. Caste:SC- Madiga. Occ: Business, r/o H.No. 1-4-46, Hanuman Colony of Kollapur Town. 8919538108.

A9. Mohammed Mustaq s/o Abdul Rasheed, Age 26years, Caste: Muslim, Occ: Student r/o H.No. 1-467/A, Hanuman Colony of Kollapur Town. 9885434932.

C.C.No.457 of 2021Page 2 of 11Date: 30-04-2026

A-10. Pinnamsetty Balaswamy @ Medari Balu s/o Bichanna. Age 48 years, Caste: Mason, Occ: Business r/o Kollapur town. 9666112003.

A-11. Mekala Ramya Kumari w/o Mekala Nagaraju, Age 36 years, Caste: Mudiraj, Occ: 6th ward councilor & house wife r/o Madhavaswamy Nagar, Kollapur town. 9959663958.

A-12. Smt Pinnamsetty Jyothi w/o Shekar, Age 43 years, Caste: Medari, Occ: 1 st ward councilor & house wife r/o H.No. 1-926, SST road Kollapur town. 9866344655.

A13. Borelly Karuna Sree @ Pagidala Karuna D/o Pagidala Chinnaiah w/o Mahesh, Age 34years, Caste:SC-Madiga, Occ: 11 th Ward Councilar r/o H.No. 1-4-46, Hanuman Colony of Kollapur Town. 8919538108, Adhar No.817429976781.

A14. Krishnama Naidu @ Bogimalla Krishnaiah s/o Bogimalla Pentaiah, Age 49years. Caste: Boya, Occ: Builder r/o H.No. 1-6-111/1, Near Varsha Collage of Kollapur Town. 8008659849.

A15. Bheemisetty Dileep Kumar s/o, Bheemisetty Mallikarjun, Age 35years, Caste: Vysya, Occ: Business r/o H.No. 2-11-140/a, Raja Veedi of Kollapur Town. 9959837593.

...Accused persons.

Offence::Under secs.290, 341 r/w 34 Indian Penal Code against Accused No.1 to 15. Plea of accused:Not guilty Finding:Found not guilty Sentence or Order:TheaccusedNo.1to15arefoundnotguilty fortheoffenceUndersecs.341,290r/w34 IndianPenalCodeandaccordinglyaccused Nos.1to15areacquittedofthesameunder section248(1)Cr.P.C.Thebailbondsofthe accusedNos.1to15shallstandscancelled afterlapseofappealperiod.Casepropertyif anyshallbedestroyafterexpiryofappeal period. *****

This case coming up before me for final hearing on 29.04.2026 in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri.T.ShivaReddy,

Advocate for the accused Nos.1 to 15, upon perusing the material papers on record

C.C.No.457 of 2021Page 3 of 11Date: 30-04-2026 and having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:- -:: JUDGMENT ::-

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station, Kollapur laid Charge sheet against accused No.1 to 15 in Crime No.140 of 2021 for the offence Under secs.

341, 290 r/w 34 Indian Penal Code against Accused No.1 to 15.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 19-08-2021 at 9 AM the complainant and Lw2 were performing blue colt duty and when reached NTR Chowrastha at 4 pm, some persons were wrongly restraint the vehicle which were going from

Ambedkar Chowrastha to RDO office causing inconvenience to the traveling general public and creating nuisance and seeing the same complainant and asked said persons why they are performing Dharna and about permission for such dharna and they replied that there is no permission on that complainant requested said persons to go from there but, said persons raise slogans stating that Police

Julum Nasinchali, police down and complainant came to know the names of said persons and some others and the reasons for dharna that police registered under

Sections 324, 323, 506 r/w 34 IPC which related to plot dispute. As per the contents of the above complaint, the LW.9/G.B.V.Ramana, registered a case in

Cr.No.140/2021 Under secs. 341, 290 r/w 34 Indian Penal Code and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, LW.9 examined and recorded the statements of LW1/P.Balakrishna and LW2/N.Shivakumar. Thereafter LW9 proceed to scene of offence situated at NTR Chourastha, Kollapur where he secured the

C.C.No.457 of 2021Page 4 of 11Date: 30-04-2026 presence of two mediators LW7/H.Venkatrao and LW8/T.Raghavendra in their presence conducted the scene of offence panchanama and drafted the rough sketch of the scene. Later LW9 examined and recorded the statement of

LW3/B.Muralidhar Reddy, LW4/C.Ramaiah, LW5/A.Dhanraju and LW6/Md.Fakruddin at police station. Later issued notice U/s 41-A (3) of Cr.P.C to accused persons A1 to

A15. After completion of investigation LW.9/G.B.V.Ramana, filed charge sheet against Accused No.1 to 15.

3. After filing the charge sheet, the case was taken on file for the offence

Under secs. 341, 290 r/w 34 Indian Penal Code against Accused No.1 to 15.

4.On appearance of the accused Nos.1 to 15, copies of case documents were furnished to them in compliance under section 207 Cr.P.C. and they are examined under sec. 251 Cr.P.C for the offence Under secs. 341, 290 r/w 34 Indian Penal

Code against Accused No.1 to 15. explained and read over to them in Telugu, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. To prove the case of the prosecution, prosecution examined Pw1 to Pw8 and got marked Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-8.

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the Accused No.1 to 15 examined under sec.313 Cr.P.C. for the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which they denied and reported no defense evidence.

C.C.No.457 of 2021Page 5 of 11Date: 30-04-2026

7.Heard the arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for Accused persons.

8.Nowthepointfordeterminationis 1). Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused persons i.e A1 to A15 beyond all reasonable doubt or not?

2). To what relief?

POINT:-

9. On 19-08-2021 at 9 AM the complainant and Lw2 were performing blue colt duty and when reached NTR Chowrastha at 4 pm, some persons were wrongly restraint the vehicle which were going from Ambedkar Chowrastha to RDO office causing inconvenience to the traveling general public and creating nuisance and seeing the same complainant and asked said persons why they are performing

Dharna and about permission for such dharna and they replied that there is no permission on that complainant requested said persons to go from there but, said persons raise slogans stating that Police Julum Nasinchali, police down and complainant came to know the names of said persons and some others and the reasons for dharna that police registered under Sections 324, 323, 506 r/w 34 IPC which related to plot dispute.

10. To prove the case of the prosecution, prosecution examined Pw1 to Pw8 and got marked Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-8. Summons of LW6/ Md.Fakruddin returned inspite of condition. Hence evidence of LW6 is closed on 27-04-2026 as per docket.

C.C.No.457 of 2021Page 6 of 11Date: 30-04-2026

11. Pw1/P. Balakrishna deposed that he worked as police constable from 14- 03-2018 to 22-03-2024 and and Lw2 worked along with him and deposed in the lines of report and identified the accused persons with names and counsel reported no objection regarding identification of absent accused persons and marked Ex.P- 1/Report and his statement was recorded.

In cross examination, during his tenure in Kollapur police station he worked as court duty officer in Kollapur court complex for 5 years and court duty were

Monday , Thursday and Friday of every week and at that time it was single court with all police stations and on the day of incident there was no law and order problem and also no emergency situation and day of incident is Thursday and from whom he came to know the names of accused persons and all of them belongs to congress party and from 2019 to 2023 TRS party was ruling the Government and Sri

Harshavardhan Reddy was MLA and he have acquittance with all the accused persons with their names as such he is able to identify each and every accused persons with their names. The suggestion that accused persons never performed

Dharna and due to political pressure of ruling party filed false report is denied.

12.Pw2/B. Muralidhar Reddy, Pw3/D. Dhan Raj and Pw6/H. Ramaiahsetty who are cited as eyewitness not supported the prosecution and marked Ex.P-2/161

Cr.P.C. statement of PW2 , Ex.P-3/161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3 and Ex.P-6/161

Cr.P.C. statement of PW6.

C.C.No.457 of 2021Page 7 of 11Date: 30-04-2026

Pw4/H.Venkat Rao and Pw5/T.Raghavendra who are cited as punch witness for scene of offence not supported the prosecution and got marked

Ex.P-4/signature of PW4 on scene of offence panchanama and Ex.P-5/signature of

PW5 on scene of offence panchanama.

13. Pw7/N. Shiva Kumar deposed that on 19.08.2021 he and PW1 were on duty at Kollapur when a group of about 30 people gathered at NTR Chowrastha, blocked vehicles, and staged a dharna without permission. They questioned the group and learned it was related to land dispute cases (Crime Nos. 138/2021 & 139/2021). The witness reported the matter to the SI and a case was registered against some members, though he could identify only a few individuals.

In cross examination it is elicited that at the time of alleged incident Pw1 worked as court duty officer in Kollapur court complex on monday, Thursday and

Friday and the court duty officer will perform as court officer from 10 AM to 5:00

P.M. there is correction in timings in Sec 161 crpc statement and B.Harsha vardhan

Reddy was MLA of Kollapur constituency and accused persons belongs to BRS party. The suggestion accused persons belongs to congress party and due to political pressure he filed false charge sheet basing on false report lodged by Pw1.

14. Pw8/G.B.Venkataramana deposed that he worked along with Pw1 in

Kollapur PS and deposed in the lines of report . Further deposed that 30 members were performing Dharna and among them he can identify only few with their names and they are Raheem and Dharma Tej.

C.C.No.457 of 2021Page 8 of 11Date: 30-04-2026

In cross examination , it is elicited that prior to 2021 till 2023 , Pw1 was court duty officer of Kollapur PS and on the day of incident 80 to 90 people gathered at scene of offence and he joined as Police constable in the year 2022 and he do not stated in Sec 161 crpc statement from whom he came to know the names of accused persons. The suggestions that accused persons were not there among 80 to 90 members and at the instance of Pw1 he is deposing false and accused persons never wrongfully restrained the vehicles nor performed Dharna and no way concerned with this case were denied.

15. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of Pw1 , Pw8 coupled with Pw7 as per their evidence accused persons wrongfully restrained the vehicle by performing Dharna at NTR Chowrastha and when Pw1 and Pw8 asked for permission for such dharna they informed no permission and when said them to go from there they all raised slogans Police

Julum Nashinchali and caused inconvenience to general public and created nuisances.

16. The accused persons were charged with 341, 290 r/w 34 IPC. The prosecution must prove that the accused persons wrongful restrained the vehicle and caused inconvenience and created nuisance. The entire case of the prosecution rests upon the testimony of official witnesses, namely Pw1, Pw8 coupled with Pw7. Though there is no legal bar to base conviction on such testimony, when the incident is alleged to have occurred in a public place, the non-

C.C.No.457 of 2021Page 9 of 11Date: 30-04-2026 examination of any independent witness assume significance. In the present case, no member of the public or any effected vehicle driver has been examined establish that the accused persons actually obstructed movement or caused inconvenience. The evidence on record is general in nature and does not disclose any specific instance of wrongful restraint of any particular person or vehicle.

17. Further Pw1, Pw7 and Pw8 categorically admitted that Pw1 worked as court duty officer and alleged duty occurred on court working day and prosecution failed to explain as how Pw1 was present at the scene of offence instead of attending court duty. Though Pw8 deposed in the lines of Pw1 but, he is also a police constable working in same police station at the time of offence. This casts a doubt regarding his presence at the relevant time and place.

18. Further, the allegation that the accused persons raised slogans against the police, even if accepted , does not by itself constitute an offence under section 341 or 290 IPC in the absence of proof of obstruction or public nuisance. To constitute an offence under section 341 IPC there must be clear evidence if voluntary obstruction preventing a person from proceeding in a direction in which he had right to proceed such evidence is lacking in the present case. Similarly , to attract section 290 IPC , there must be proof of public nuisance causing common injury , danger or annoyance , which is also not established. From the above discussions, this court is of considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the

C.C.No.457 of 2021Page 10 of 11Date: 30-04-2026 essential ingredients of the offences charged beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, benefit of doubt must go to the accused persons.

19.Intheresult, the accused No.1 to 15 are found not guilty for the offence

Under secs.341, 290 r/w 34 Indian Penal Code and accordingly accused Nos.1 to 15 are acquitted of the same under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused Nos.1 to 15 shall stands cancelled after lapse of appeal period. Case property if any shall be destroy after expiry of appeal period.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade-III corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30 th day of April, 2026.

Prl. JCJ-cum- Prl.JMFC, Kollapur Nagarkurnool District.

APPENDIXOFEVIDENCE

WITNESSESEXAMINED.

FORPROSECUTION:FORDEFENCE:

PW1:P. Balakrishna -Nil-

PW2:B. Muralidhar Reddy

PW3:A.Dhan Raj

PW4:H.Venkat Rao

PW5:T.Raghavendra

PW6:H.Ramaiahsetty

PW7:N. Shiva Kumar

PW8:G.B. Venkataramana

C.C.No.457 of 2021Page 11 of 11Date: 30-04-2026

EXHIBITSMARKED.

FORPROSECUTION:FORDEFENCE:

Ex.P1: is Report -NIl-

Ex.P2: is 161 CR.P.C. statement of PW2

Ex.P3: is 161 CR.P.C. statement of PW3

Ex.P4: is Signature of PW4 on scene of offence panchanama

Ex.P5 is Signature of PW5 on scene of offence panchanama

Ex.P6 is 161 CR.P.C. statement of PW6

Ex.P7 is First Information Report

Ex.P8 is Scene of offence Panchanama along with Rough Sketch

MATERIALOBJECTSMARKED.

-NIL-

Prl. JCJ-cum- Prl.JMFC, Kollapur Nagarkurnool District.

C.C.No.381 of 2021Page 1 of 9Date: 30-04-2026

IN THE COURT OF PRL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT KOLLAPUR,

NAGARKURNOOL DISTRICT.

Monday, on this the 30th day of April, 2026

Present: Smt.D.Upanishadwani Prl.JCJ-cum-JMFC, Kollapur, Kollapur, Nagarkurnool District.

C.C.No.381of2021 Between:

State through the Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station, Kollapur. Crime No.154 of 2021 of Police Station, Kollapur.

...Complainant

And

Pebba Ramesh Goud, S/o Rangaswamy Goud, age 32 yrs, Occ: Driver, R/o H.No.1-5- 364, Varidela, Kollapur Town.

...Accused

Offence::Under Secs.420 IPC and Sec.7 of Essential Commodities Act against accused Plea of accused:Not guilty Finding:Found not guilty Sentence or Order:Theaccusedisfoundnotguiltyforthe offenceUnderSecs.420IPCandSec.7of EssentialCommoditiesActandaccordingly accusedisacquittedofthesameunder section248(1)Cr.P.C.Thebailbondsofthe accusedshallstandscancelledafterlapseof appealperiod.Casepropertyifanyshallbe destroyafterexpiryofappealperiod.

*****

This case coming up before me for final hearing on 29.04.2026 in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri.P.Raju, Advocate

for the accused, upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood over

for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:-

C.C.No.381 of 2021Page 2 of 9Date: 30-04-2026 -:: JUDGMENT ::-

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station, Kollapur laid Charge sheet against accused in Crime No.154 of 2021 for the offence Under Secs. 420 IPC and Sec.7 of

Essential Commodities Act against Accused.

2. The brief facts of the case is that on 18.09.2021 at 10:00 hrs, the complainant/P. RamMohan, lodged a complaint at the police station regarding the illegal sale of PDS rice.

3.On 18.09.2021 at about 7.00 hours on credible information the complainant along with Constable and Home guard of Police Kollapur, reached at Choutabetla village and intercepted a vehicle TATA ACEE Auto bearing No. AP 22X 0882 and found 20 plastic bags of PDS rice about 08.50quintals of PDS rice. On enquiry the accused discloses that, he had purchased the PDS rice from the ration card holders cost of Rs.12/- and selling at Rs.15/- per KG to laborers. Hence the complainant requested for take necessary legal action as per law. As per the contents of the above complaint, the LW.9/S. Ramaswamy Goud, registered a case in

Cr.No.154/2021 Under Secs.420 IPC and Sec.7 of Essential Commodities Act and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, LW.9 examined and recorded the statements of LW1/P. Ram Mohan. Later LW9 secured LW4/G. Shiva,

LW5/ Md. Firoz, LW6/C. Sriramulu, and in their presence conducted scene of offence panchanama and seized 20 PDS rice bags and handed over to MLS Point. Further came to PS and examined and recorder the statement of LW2/P. Balakrishna,

LW3/B. Venkatesh. Further proceed to scene of offence at Choutabetle road near

C.C.No.381 of 2021Page 3 of 9Date: 30-04-2026

Iqal water plant Kollapur and secured LW7/M.Venkateshwarlu and

LW8/E.Ramaswamy held scene of offence panchanama and drafted rough sketch.

On 18.09.2010 LW10/G.B.V.Ramana taken over CD file and issued notice U/s 41-A of

Cr.P.C to accused person. After completion of investigation LW10/G.B.V.Ramana, filed charge sheet against Accused.

4. After filing the charge sheet, the case was taken on file for the offence

Under Secs.420 IPC and Sec.7 of Essential Commodities Act against Accused.

5.On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents was furnished to him in compliance under section 207 Cr.P.C. and they are examined under sec. 239

Cr.P.C for the offence Under Secs.420 IPC and Sec.7 of Essential Commodities Act , against Accused explained and read over to him in Telugu, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove the case of the prosecution, prosecution examined Pw1 to Pw7 and got marked Ex.P-1 to Ex.P7. Summons of LW3 and LW5 are returned. Hence their evidence is closed.

7. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the accused was examined under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. and he has denied the incriminating evidence put to her and has stated no defence evidence.

8.Heard the arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for Accused persons.

C.C.No.381 of 2021Page 4 of 9Date: 30-04-2026

9.Nowthepointfordeterminationis

1)Whethertheprosecutionhasprovedtheguiltyofaccusedbeyond reasonabledoubt?

2)Towhatrelief?

POINT:

10. The case of the prosecution is that on 18.09.2021 at about 7.00 hours on credible information the complainant along with Constable and Home guard of

Police Kollapur, reached at Choutabetla village and intercepted a vehicle TATA

ACEE Auto bearing No. AP 22X 0882 and found 20 plastic bags of PDS rice about 08.50quintals of PDS rice. On enquiry the accused discloses that, he had purchased the PDS rice from the ration card holders cost of Rs.12/- and selling at Rs.15/- per

KG to laborers. Hence the complainant requested for take necessary legal action as per law.

11.To prove the case of the prosecution , prosecution examined Pw1 to Pw7 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 and the Summons of LW3 and LW5 are returned. Hence their evidence is closed.

12. Pw1/P. Ram Mohan deposed that on 18.09.2021 at about 7.00 hours himself and S.I. of police, Kollpur on credible information reached at Choutabetla village and intercepted a vehicle TATA ACEE Auto bearing No. AP 22X 0882. On enquiry the accused discloses that, he had purchased the PDS rice from the ration card holders of Rs.10/- for KG to feed hens in Poultry and selling for higher prices.

Later he seized the vehicle and PDS rice deposited in MLS point incharge, Kollapur.

C.C.No.381 of 2021Page 5 of 9Date: 30-04-2026

In cross examination, certain material admissions were elicited which affect the prosecution case. The witness admitted that No enquiry was conducted with the alleged seller of PDS rice to the accused; The seized rice was not sent for any scientific or chemical analysis to establish that it was PDS rice; The witness relied upon police procedure and handed over documents to police without independent verification; The presence of panch witnesses was secured by the police, denied all material suggestions put by the defence, including that no raid was conducted, that no PDS rice was seized from the accused, and that a false case was foisted for statistical purposes. The witness further denied the suggestion that PDS rice cannot be distinguished from market rice or that ordinary rice becomes PDS rice upon storage.

13.Pw2/M. Venkateshwarlu, PW3/Ramaswamy, PW6/C.Sriramulu, PW7/G. Shiva, who are punch witnesses not supported prosecution and marked Ex.P3/ Signature of PW2 on scene of offence Panchanama, Ex.P6/Signature of PW6 on scene of offence Panchanama, and Ex.P7 is signature of PW7 on confession cum seizure panchanama.

14. Pw4/S. Ramaswamy who is investigating officer deposed that on the complaint of PW1, he registered Crime No.154/2021 under Section 420 IPC and

Section 7 EC Act. Ex.P4 is FIR. He took up investigation, examined PW1 and Lw2 and 3 visited the scene of offence near Iqbal Water Plant, Kollapur, and conducted scene offence panchanama in the presence of PW2 and PW3. Later, he handed over the case file to LW10/Sub-Inspector for further investigation. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

C.C.No.381 of 2021Page 6 of 9Date: 30-04-2026

In cross examination, it is elicited that he did not examine any water plaint workers who were on 24-hour duty. PDS rice is available in open market, he did not examine any PDS rice seller and no independent witnesses were examined. Denied suggestion that he never visited scene of offence and also denied filing false charge sheet based on false report of PW1, and also denied suggestion that accused is not connected with offence and denied deposing false evidence.

15. PW5/P. Balakrishna, who is Police constable deposed that on the instruction of PW4 himself, PW1, LW3 went to Choutabetla village and intercepted a vehicle

TATA ACEE Auto bearing No. AP 22X 0882. On enquiry the accused discloses that, he had purchased the PDS rice from the ration card holders of Rs.12/- for KG and selling the same for Rs.15/- per KG to coolies who came to catch fishes. Later he seized the vehicle and PDS rice deposited in MLS point incharge, Kollapur.

In cross examination he admitted that PW1 did not check all 20 PDS rice bags and seized PDS rice is available in open market. PW1 did not verify with purchasers or seller regarding sale/purchase of seized rice. He also admitted that he did not verify vehicle documents and driving license of accused. He denied the suggestions that PW1 lodged false report for statistical purpose

16. Though prosecution has examined official witnesses who conducted and raid and seizure but, the panch witnesses to raid and seizure turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. Further no independent public witness , seller of alleged PDS rice , civil supplies department official, ration shop dealer or godwon in charge was examined. Further to prove Sec.7 of Essential commodity act , though the prosecution alleges that the seized rice is PDS rice , no competent authority

C.C.No.381 of 2021Page 7 of 9Date: 30-04-2026 from the civil supplies department has verified or certified the seized rice as PDS rice and no material is placed to show any identification marks , linkage to any fair price shop or confirmation through departmental records. This court has come across the judgment StateofRajasthanV.DaultRam,AIR1980SC1314, the

Hon’ble Supreme court held that mere recovery of an essential commodity is not

sufficient unless conscious and unlawful possession in violation of a control order is clearly proved. Identification of the commodity itself is a foundational fact. Further in TahsildarSinghV.StateofU.PAIR1959SC1012, the Hon’ble Supreme court held that withholding of material witnesses without explanation entitles the accused to benefit of doubt.

17.FurtherinState(NCTofDelhi)V.Sunil,(2001)1SCC652, the Hon’ble supreme court held that conviction can be based on official witnesses alone if their evidence is reliable. However, in the present case , their testimony does not receive corroboration on material particulars such as source of rice , identity as PDS rice, and unlawful diversion. Further in VesaHoldings(P)Ltd.V.StateofKerala, (2015)8SCC293, the Hon’ble supreme court held that statutory or regulatory violations do not automatically constitute cheating in the absence of deception and dishonest inducement.

18.From the above facts and circumstances, this court is opinion that in the absence of examination of the ration shop dealer, seller and civil supplies officials , the prosecution has failed to establish the link between the seized rice and the public distribution system. Further even assuming the prosecution version to be

C.C.No.381 of 2021Page 8 of 9Date: 30-04-2026 true , the allegations at the best disclose a statutory offence , and no ingredients of cheating are made out, therefore section 420 IPC is clearly not attracted.

19.Intheresult, the accused is found not guilty for the offence Under Secs. 420

IPC and Sec.7 of Essential Commodities Act and accordingly accused is acquitted of the same under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after lapse of appeal period. Case property if any shall be destroy after expiry of appeal period.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade-III corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30 day of April, 2026.

Prl. JCJ-cum- Prl.JMFC, Kollapur Nagarkurnool District.

APPENDIXOFEVIDENCE

WITNESSESEXAMINED.

FORPROSECUTION:FORDEFENCE:

Pw1/P. Ram Mohan -Ni-

Pw2/ M. Venkateshwarlu

PW3/Ramaswamy

PW4/S. Ramaswamy Goud

PW5/P. Balakrishna

PW6/ C. Sriramulu

PW7/G.Shiva

C.C.No.381 of 2021Page 9 of 9Date: 30-04-2026

EXHIBITSMARKED.

FORPROSECUTION:FORDEFENCE:

Ex.P1: is Report-Nil-

Ex.P2: is attested copy of Panchanama

Ex.P3: is Signature of PW2 on scene of offence panchanama

Ex.P4 : is First Information Report

Ex.P5 : is CDF

Ex.P6: is Signature of PW6 on scene of offence panchanama

Ex.P7: is Signature of PW7 on scene of offence panchanama

MATERIALOBJECTSMARKED.

-NIL-

Prl. JCJ-cum- Prl.JMFC, Kollapur Nagarkurnool District.

M.C.No.27 of 2017Page 1 of 7Date: 30-04-2026

IN THE COURT OF PRL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

KOLLAPUR, NAGARKURNOOL DISTRICT.

Thursday, on this the 30th day of April, 2026

Present: Smt.D.Upanishadwani Prl.JCJ-cum-JMFC, Kollapur, Kollapur, Nagarkurnool District.

M.C.No.27of2017

Between:-

1. Smt. Suragouni Saroja @ Pavani @ Sujatha w/o Niranjan Goud 36years occ house wife r/o Chinthalapally village of Kollapur mandal at present residing at her parent's house at Peddadagada village of Chinnambavi mandal.

2. Suragovuni Vistnuvardhan Goud s/o Niranjan Goud, age 6 ½ years student,

3. Suragovuni Vhystnavi d/o Niranjan Goud, age 4 ½ years student, Petitioner No.1 is the mother and natural guardian of petitioners' No. 2 and 3 …. Petitioners AND

Suragouni Niranjan Goud s/o Bakkanna Goud, age 45 years agril r/o Chintalapally village of Kollapur manal

…..Respondent

*****

This case coming up before me for final hearing on 27.04.2026 in the presenceSmt.K.Vasanthareddy, Counsel for petitioners and of Sri.T.Shiva Reddy, Counsel for the accused, upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:-

ORDER

1.This is a petition under Section 125 of Cr. P. C by the petitioners seeking maintenance from the respondent.

(a)PassordersgrantingmaintenanceforasumofRs.3,000/-permonthto petitioners.

M.C.No.27 of 2017Page 2 of 7Date: 30-04-2026

2. The brief averments of the petition of the petitioner’s :-

The contention of petitioner No.1 that she is legally wedded wife of the respondent and there marriage was performed at Sree Mapdanagopalaswamy temple at Jetaprolue Village before elders and at the time of marriage her parents gave Rs.25,000/- and joined respondent at her in laws house and they both lived happily for few days and respondent started suspecting her character and harassed her that she is not beautiful and beat her several times in drunken condition. Further contends that respondent demanded

additional dowry and bearing the harassment she lead marital life and gave

birth to petitioner no. 2 and 3 and her respondent parents also beat her for

additional dowry and respondent forcibly took ornaments of petitioner No.1

and same was informed to her parents but, they expressed their inability and lastly on 20-05-2015 at 10 PM respondent beat petitioner no.1 and driven out from their house and she came to her parents house along with petitioner no.

2 and 3. Further contends that panchayath took before elders of Peddadagda village but, respondent not listen to their words and beat petitioner No.1.

Further contends that respondent got 12 acres of agricultural land and one pakka residential house at Chinthalapoally village and earning Rs.

3,00,000/- per annum and he has sufficient means and intentionally neglected and refusing to maintain petitioners. Hence, this petition.

3.Notices were sent to respondent and filed counter.

M.C.No.27 of 2017Page 3 of 7Date: 30-04-2026

4.The brief averments of the counter of Respondent.

The respondent admitted the relationship with petitioner’s, but denied all avernments. Further contends that he looked petitioners with love and affection and he should look after his old aged parents and petitioner No.1 never took care of her in laws and she is in habit to go to her parents house without informing nor knowledge respondent and he never neglected petitioners but, infact petitioner no.1 neglected him and his parents and she herself left his society as he is suffering with nervous disease and not able to walk and unable to do any work as such he is not earning any thing and cannot provide separate maintenance to petitioners and he is ready to take back petitioners and maintain them. Hence , to dismiss the petition.

5.Enquiry

During enquiry, to substantiate the case of the petitioners, the

Petitioner no.1 got examined as Pw1 and no document marked. On 13.12.2024 respondent evidence was closed as per docket and and on 24.01.2025 advocate commissioner was appointed to cross examine respondent but, despite of conditions advocate commissioner did not file cross examination of respondent2, as such his cross examination was closed and closed respondent evidence.

6.Heard both sides and perused the record.

M.C.No.27 of 2017Page 4 of 7Date: 30-04-2026

7.Nowthepointsfordeterminationare:

(1) Whetherthepetitionersareentitledformonthly maintenancefromtherespondent?

(2) AstoWhatresult?

POINT

8.In order to grant maintenance to the petitioners, the petitioners has to establish that the respondent willfully neglected the petitioners, refused to maintain them, the petitioners are unable to maintain themselves and the respondent has sufficient means to maintain the petitioners.

9. Pw1/ Suragouni Saroja deposed in the same lines of petition and further deposed that her son/ Suragouni Vishnuvardhan Goud is aged about 11 years and second son/Suragouni Vaishnavi aged about 8 years and they both are studying in 4 class.

In her cross examination, it is elicited that she got married with respondent on 23.05.2010 and studied up to 4 class and dowry was presented to respondent in Madanagopala swamy temple, Jetaprolue and for 3 years she lead happy martial life with respondent and she have 3 sisters and 1 brother and also she gave complaint to police with regard to harassment but, police did not registered the case and respondent and his parents harassed for additional dowry and she did not filed any document to show that respondent is having lands and her parents have 4 acres of land and she did not file photographs related to giving dowry and she do not know the health condition of parents of respondent. The suggestion that denied

M.C.No.27 of 2017Page 5 of 7Date: 30-04-2026

that she have no knowledge of the respondent’s present health condition and it is incorrect to state that the respondent is suffering from paralysis.

She deny the allegation as false.

10. In proceedings under section 125 Crpc , the court is not required to record a finding on matrimonial cruelty as in a divorce proceedings. The limited enquiry is whether the petitioners are unable to maintain them and whether the respondent, having sufficient means, neglected or refused to maintain her.

11. In the present case, the testimony of the petitioner No.1 with regard to harassment with regard to additional dowry, suspicion and physical abuse though challenged in cross examination, and elicited that petitioner No.1 filed criminal case before police and same was not registered and she did not file any document to prove dowry. The claim for maintenance does not depend upon strict proof of dowry demand or registration of a criminal case and there is no rebuttal to petitioner No.1 assertion that the respondent failed to maintain petitioners. Further no criminal case was registered does not , by itself , render the version of petitioner No.1 unreliable. The court is only required to see whether there is neglect or refusal to maintain despite sufficient means and maintenance proceedings are independent and covered by a lower standard of proof, namely preponderance of probabilities.

12. Further the respondent, though given opportunity , did not step into the witness box, even an advocate commissioner was appointed to record his evidence on the ground of ill health , but no evidence was ultimately

M.C.No.27 of 2017Page 6 of 7Date: 30-04-2026

recorded and no report was filed, resulting in closure of respondent’s evidence. In this circumstances an adverse inference has to be drawn that the respondent has not tenable defence to offer against the claim of the petitioner No.1

13. This court came across a judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court

ChaturbhujV.SitaBai(2008)2SCC316, it held that even if the wife unable to prove cruelty , neglect or refusal to maintain is sufficient for granting maintenance.

14. From the testimony of Pw1, respondent neglected the petitioners despite of having sufficient means and harassed petitioner No.1 for want of

additional dowry and suspecting her character and stating that she is not

beautiful and ultimately neglected to maintain them and sine 20-05-2015 petitioner No.1 along with petitioner No.2 and 3 in her parents house.

15. From the above facts and circumstances, by taking into consideration the evidence and arguments put forth by both the counsels the petitioner

No.1 version indicates that she and petitioner No.2 and 3 are living separately, and conduct constitute sufficient cause for living separately and therefore entitled to claim maintenance and by taking into account the present cost of living, Pw1 proved the essential ingredients of Sec 125 Crpc and this court is of the considered opinion that petitioners are entitled for maintenance. The point is answered accordingly.

M.C.No.27 of 2017Page 7 of 7Date: 30-04-2026

16.In the result, this petition is allowed in the following terms:

1. The petitioner No.1 to 3 are entitled for Rs.5,000/- each per month from Respondent towards the maintenance and Rs.5,000/- for education expenses of petitioner No.2 and 3. (total Rs.25,000/-). The Respondent is directed to pay Rs.25,000/- on or before 10th of every calendar month. The petitioner No.1 to 3 are entitled the maintenance amount from the date of petition.

2. The parties are entitled for free copy of order of application u/s 24 of the Act.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade-III corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30 th day of April, 2026.

Prl. JCJ-cum- Prl.JMFC Kollapur Nagarkurnool District.

APPENDIXOFEVIDENCE

WITNESSESEXAMINED.

FORPROSECUTION:FORDEFENCE:

Pw1/Suragouni Saroja -Nil-

EXHIBITSMARKED.

FORPROSECUTION:FORDEFENCE:

-Nil- -Nil-

MATERIALOBJECTSMARKED.

-NIL-

Prl. JCJ-cum- Prl.JMFC, Kollapur Nagarkurnool District.

C.C.No.242 of 2024Page 1 of 7Date: 28-04-2026

IN THE COURT OF I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM- I ADDL. JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT KOLLAPUR, NAGARKURNOOL DISTRICT.

Tuesday, on this the 28th day of April, 2026

Present: Smt.D.Upanishadwani Prl.JCJ-cum-JMFC, Kollapur, FAC I Addl. JCJ-Cum-JFCM, Kollapur, Nagarkurnool District.

C.C. No.242 of 2024

Between:

State through the Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station, Kodair. Crime No.70 of 2024 of Police Station, Kodair.

...Complainant

And

Mekala Ramudu, S/o Balaiah, age 43 yrs, Occ: Agril, R/o H.NO.4-59/41, Kamballapur Village of Srirangapur Mandal of Wanaparthy District.

...Accused

Offence::Under Secs.304(A) IPC and Sec.181, 196 of Motor Vehicle Act against accused Plea of accused:Not guilty Finding:Found not guilty Sentence or Order:The accused is found not guilty for the offence Under Secs.304(A) IPC and Sec.181, 196 of Motor Vehicle Act and accordingly accused is acquitted of the same under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after lapse of appeal period. Case property if any shall be destroy after expiry of appeal period.

*****

This case coming up before me for final hearing on 27.04.2026 in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Smt. N.

Ramalaxmamma, Advocate for the accused, upon perusing the material papers on

C.C.No.242 of 2024Page 2 of 7Date: 28-04-2026 record 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, Police Station, Kodair laid Charge sheet against accused in Crime No.70 of 2024 for the offence Under Secs.304(A) IPC and

Sec.181, 196 of Motor Vehicle Act against Accused.

2.The brief facts of the case is that on 14-05-2024 at 9:00 hours,

LW11/S.Kurumurthy received the complaint from LW1/M. Balkaiah, in which he stated that on 5.5.2024 at 7.00 hours his son M.Ramudu and his daughter-in-law

M.laxmidevamma went to Nayinapally Maisamma temple by bike Br.No. AP-22-P- 2930, after visiting goddes Maisamma, while they were returning on the way

Yethaam x road, in the shivar of Yetham village his son drove his bike in rash and negligence manner with high speed while avoiding bus he lost control over his bike and fell down from bike. As a result his son sustained with bleeding injuries on his ribs and head, his daughter-in-law sustained with severe bleeding injuries on her head and legs. While undergoing treatment the the deceased/M.Laxmidevamma is succumbed on 13.05.2024 at 17.45 hours at NIMS hospital. As per the contents of the above complaint, the LW.11/S. Kurumurthy, registered a case in Cr.No.70/2024

Under Secs.304(A) IPC and Sec.181, 196 of Motor Vehicle Act and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, LW.11 examined and recorded the statements of LW1. Later LW8 visited the scene of offence at Yetham X road, in the

C.C.No.242 of 2024Page 3 of 7Date: 28-04-2026 shivar of Yetham village, Kodair mandal, and conducted panchanama for scene of offence in the presence of two panchas LW4 and LW5 and drawn rough sketch of scene. On 15.5.2024 as per the instructions of LW11, LW10 visited NIMS hospitl secured LW6 and LW7 and subjected dead body for PME, the medical officer conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. Lw.11 issued notice U/s 41-

A (3) and (4) of Cr.P.C to accused person. After completion of investigation

LW.11/S. Kurumurthy, filed charge sheet against Accused.

4. After filing the charge sheet, the case was taken on file for the offence Under

Secs.304(A) IPC and Sec.181, 196 of Motor Vehicle Act against Accused .

5.On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents was furnished to him in compliance under section 207 Cr.P.C. and he was examined under sec. 251

Cr.P.C for the offence Under Secs.304(A) IPC and Sec.181, 196 of Motor Vehicle

Act, against Accused explained and read over to him in Telugu, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove the case of the prosecution, prosecution examined Pw1 to Pw3 and got marked Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-4. The evidence of LW4/S. Srihari, LW5/ A. Raju, LW6/

P. Swamy, LW7/ I. Kurmaiah, LW8/ Dr.Abhijit Subhedar, LW9/ G. Mahesh, LW10/ K.

ravi, LW111/ S. Kurumurthy was given up by Learned Assistant public prosecutor as

C.C.No.242 of 2024Page 4 of 7Date: 28-04-2026

PW1 to PW3 did not supported the prosecution, as Investigating officer evidence is closed.

7. Since there is no incriminating evidence appearing against the accused in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the examination of the accused U/s. 313 of

Cr.P.C. is dispensed with.

8.Heard the arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for Accused persons.

9. Now the point for determination is

1) Whether the prosecution proved that the death of deceased person/M.

Laxmidevamma was caused in a rash and negligence driving of bike beyond

all reasonable doubt ?

2) Whether the prosecution establish the identification of the accused person beyond all reasonable doubt ?

3) Whether the prosecution proved that the accused drove the crime

vehicle in rash and negligent manner and caused death of deceased person/

M. Laxmidevamma?

4) To what relief ?

POINT:

10. The case of the prosecution is that on 5.5.2024 at 7.00 hours accused

M.Ramudu and his wife M.laxmidevamma went to Nayinapally Maisamma temple by bike Br.No. AP-22-P-2930, after visiting goddes Maisamma, while they were returning on the way Yethaam x road, in the shivar of Yetham village he drove his

C.C.No.242 of 2024Page 5 of 7Date: 28-04-2026 bike in rash and negligence manner with high speed while avoiding bus he lost control over his bike and fell down from bike. As a result he sustained with bleeding injuries on his ribs and head, his wife sustained with severe bleeding injuries on her head and legs. While undergoing treatment his wife the deceased/M.Laxmidevamma is succumbed on 13.05.2024 at 17.45 hours at NIMS hospital.

11. To prove the case of prosecution, prosecution only examined Pw1 to Pw3 and marked Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-4.

12. Pw1/B. Balaiah who is father-in-law of deceased , Pw2/B. Subhas who is brother of deceased , PW3/B. Savithri , sister-n-law of deceased , not supported the prosecution and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4.

13. Though prosecution has examined 3 witnesses, but Pw1 to Pw3 turned hostile

No independent witness has been examined to establish that the accused was driving the bike in rash and negligent manner at the time of accident. Mere proof of the accident and the death of the deceased is not sufficient to bring home the charges under section 304-A IPC. It is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that the accused committed a rash and negligent act which was the proximate cause of the death. In the absence of any direct or circumstantial evidence showing such rash ness or negligence, this court is constrained to hold that the prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offence.

C.C.No.242 of 2024Page 6 of 7Date: 28-04-2026

This court came across a Judgment in State of Karnataka V. Satish (1998) 8

SCC 493, the Hon’ble court held that rashness or negligence cannot be presumed merely because an accident has occurred and in Syad Akbar V. State of Karnataka (1980) 1 SCC 30, the Hon’ble court held that the evidence of investigating officer , being only formal in nature, is insufficient to fasten criminal liability upon the accused. Hence, in the absence of trustworthy and substantive evidence, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.

14.In the result, The accused is found not guilty for the offence Under Under

Secs.304(A) IPC and Sec.181, 196 of Motor Vehicle Act and accordingly accused is acquitted of the same under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after lapse of appeal period. Case property if any shall be destroy after expiry of appeal period.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade-III corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 28 th day of April, 2026.

Prl.JCJ-cum-JMFC, Kollapur, FAC I Addl. JCJ-Cum-JFCM, Kollapur, Nagarkurnool District.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED.

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Pw1/M. Balaiah -Nil-

C.C.No.242 of 2024Page 7 of 7Date: 28-04-2026

Pw2B. Subhash

PW3/B. Savithri

EXHIBITS MARKED.

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P1: is Report

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

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED.

-NIL-

Prl.JCJ-cum-JMFC, Kollapur, FAC I Addl. JCJ-Cum-JFCM, Kollapur, Nagarkurnool District.