Smt.v.sowmya

III Addl.Junior Civil Judge-cum-X Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Medchal

Medchal, ADJ Court Complex · Medchal Malkajgiri · Telangana

Smt.V.SOWMYA, III Addl.Junior Civil Judge-cum-X Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Medchal, is posted at Medchal, ADJ Court Complex, Medchal Malkajgiri, Telangana, India. 282 court orders on record since 2019. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, DVC cases.

282

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

CC/200369/2015 Acquitted

ALWAL vs RAVINDRA VIBHUTE

27 May 2022

CC No.369 of 2015 Date: 27.05.2022

IN THE COURT OF III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM

XXIII METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD AT : MEDCHAL

Present: Smt. Sowmya Vardha

XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate

Cyberabad, at Medchal

Friday, 27 th day of May, 2022

CC No.369 of 2015

Between:

The State through Sub Inspector of Police Alwal P.S.

......Complainant

AND

Ravindra Vibhute S/o late Laxman Sidhram Vibhute age:46 yrs, Occ:Tailor, R/o H.No.42, Sriramnagar near Laxminarayan talkies, Sholapur Maharstara state Sholapur ………Accused

This case came up before me for final hearing on 27.05.2022 in the presence of A.P.P for the State and Sri B.Jeevan Reddy Advocate

for the Accused and having stood over for consideration till this day

this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, P.S.Alwal, filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.79/2014 for the offences U/sec.498A of IPC and

Sec.3 & 4 D.P.Act.

2.Facts of the case are that on 28.01.2014 at 09:00 hours received a complaint from Smt.V.Saritha W/o Ravindar, age: 38 yrs, Occ: Tailor,

R/o H.No.130 850/1, Shivanagar, Khanajiguda, Alwal in which she stated that she was married to Ravindra S/o Laxman Rao, age: 50 yrs, 2

CC No.369 of 2015 Date: 27.05.2022

and blessed with two sons, at the time of marriage the complainants parent's gave 5 tulas gold and 4 lakhs cash towards dowry to the accused. But now the complainants husband Ravindra is harassing her both mentally and physically and beating her by demanding on

additional dowry and also he is not taking care of complainant and her

children. Since from 4 years the complainant’s husband is staying at

Pune and visiting her house some times. As such the complainant came to PS and requested to take necessary action against her husband

Ravindra and mother in law Anasuya Bai as per law.

3.On receipt of above complaint L.W.7/Sri S.V.Harikrishna,

Inspector of Police, Alwal P.S., registered a case in crime No.79/2014 under section 498A of IPC and Sec.3 & 4 D.P.Act.,and investigation entrusted to P.W.4/Sri Ch.Raghuramulu, SubInspector of Police, Alwal

P.S..

4.During the course of investigation P.W.4 examined and recorded the statements of P.W.1 to P.W.3 and L.W.3, L.W.5 and L.W.6. Later visited Shivanagar, Khanajiguda and caused enquiries. On 18.02.2014 at 18:00 hrs., the P.W.4 apprehended accused at Sholapur of

Maharastra and brought him to P.S on 19.02.2014 at 14:00 hrs, issued arrest card and produced before the court and sent him to judicial remand. After completion of investigation P.W.4 filed charge sheet against the accused A1 by deleting the name of accused A2 for the offence under section 498A of IPC and Sec.3 & 4 D.P.Act.

5. This case was taken on file by my predecessor for the offences

U/sec. 498A of IPC and Sec.3 & 4 D.P.Act., against accused.

6.On appearance of the accused before the court, copies of documents upon which the prosecution proposed to be relied upon, were furnished to him as required U/sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

CC No.369 of 2015 Date: 27.05.2022

7.The accused examined U/sec.239 Cr.P.C., for the offence U/sec.

498A of IPC and Sec.3 & 4 D.P.Act.,. The charges framed u/sec. 498A of IPC and Sec.3 & 4 D.P.Act., were read over to the accused and explained to him in his vernacular language to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8. In order to prove the guilty of the accused, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.4 and got marked Ex.P1 and P2 on its behalf.

9.P.W.1 [V.Saritha] is the defacto complainant, she deposed that,

PW2 is her mother. She know LW3 to 6, they are her neighbours. Ac cused is her husband. Her marriage with A1 was performed on 17.12.1993. At the time of her marriage, her parents presented 5 tulas of gold and One Lakh cash towards dowry to the accused. She is having two sons. Her elder son is aged about 23 years and her younger son is 20 years old. When her elder son was in VII standard i.e. way back in the year 2003, her husband accused started harassing her physically and mentally to bring money from her parent's house. Since 2003, the accused continuously beating her and harassing her physically and mentally for not bringing money from her parent's house, likewise, she has been harassed till 2014. In the year 2014, she was vexed up with the attitude of her husband and with no hope or change in him, she filed this case against her husband for torturing her unnecessarily for no reason and demanding her dowry. She lodged a report at Alwal P.S.

Ex. P1 is her report.

In her Crossexamination she deposed that, she studied up to x standard. The report / Ex. P1 was drafted by the writer in the police station on her instructions. She do not remember whether the police recorded her statement or not. She is the only daughter to her parents.

Her father left the home during her childhood. Her mother was worked as a private teacher. She does not know the salary of her mother in the 4

CC No.369 of 2015 Date: 27.05.2022

year 1993. Accused is her close relative (Mena mama). She do not have any proof for 5 tulas of gold and Rs.4 Lakhs cash which was given to the accused at the time of marriage as dowry. She denied the sugges tion that “her mother was not in a position to give huge amount of cash of Rs.4 Lakhs to the accused in the year 1993”. She deposed that her husband/accused resides in Sholapur, he is a tailor, till she gave birth to her 2 child, she stayed with the accused at Sholapur. The witness ad mitted that she stated to the police that “her husband took good care of her till she gave birth to her 2 child”. Since her husband necked out of his house in the month of May 2002, she was staying at her mother's house and she lodged this present complaint against the accused in the year 2014.

10.P.W.2 [Vyjayanthimala] deposed that, PW1 is her daughter. She know LW3 to 6, they are her neighbours. Accused / A.1 is her sonin law. She performed her daughter's marriage with A1 on 17.12.1993. At the time of marriage, she gave Rs.2 Lakhs cash, Rs.2 Lakhs towards adapaduchu katnam, 10 tulas of gold and other household articles to wards dowry. After marriage, her daughter PW1 joined the accused at

Sholapur. They were blessed with two children After giving birth to two children, her daughter/ PW1 underwent family planning operation in

Niloufer Hospital and she was sent to her husband's house: Later, the accused sister was died, her sonin law used to harass her daughter /

PW1 with a blame that her daughter/P.W.1 had killed his sister and harassed her daughter / PW1 indiscriminately and kicked her on her stitches, due to which her daughter / PW1 sustained bleeding injuries and was admitted in the hospital Since the time of marriage, her son inlaw never used to take care of her daughter / PW1 and his two chil dren. He used to neglect her by not providing food and used to harass her daughter physically and mentally and finaly, necked out PW1 from his house. Since she was necked out from the house, the accused did 5

CC No.369 of 2015 Date: 27.05.2022

not made an attempt to take her back to his conjugal life. Finally, her daughter / PW1 lodged a complaint before the police station. The ac cused demanded her a house under dowry and demanded her addi tional dowry, when she expressed her inability to give a house, he started harassing her daughter and the children. Police examined her and recorded her statement.

In her Crossexamination she deposed that, that the present com plaint is lodged in the year 2014. Police did not examined her and not recorded her statement. At the time of her daughter's marriage in the year 1993, she used to do beedies (tobacco). She denied the suggestion that “she was not having the financial capacity to give Rs.2 Lakhs, 10 tulas of gold towards dowry to the accused and another Rs.2 Lakhs to wards Aadapaduchu Katnam”. The witness denied the suggest that “as the accused is her close relative and he married P.W.1 without taking any dowry from her.The witness admitted thatwhatever she stated in her chief examination, is not stated to the police and also admitted that her daughter is staying with her from the year 2002, and her daughter P.W.1 never went to Sholapur since 2002 and her soninlaw never visited her house to see her daughter / PW1. The witness denied that “the accused never harassed her daughter / PW1 physically and mentally, her daughter voluntarily left the company of the accused and joined her son in the school at Hyderabad and since then, she is staying with her at her house”.

11.P.W.3 [Jayamma] deposed that, she know PW1 and 2, they are her neighbours. She do not know the accused. She do not know the date of marriage of PW1 but since 10 years, the PW1 along with her chil dren is residing beside her house and she is doing tailoring work, in that way she got acquaintance with PW1 and her mother PW2. When she enquired about the family status of PW1, her mother / PW2 6

CC No.369 of 2015 Date: 27.05.2022

informed her that her soninlaw stays in Sholapur and he used to ha rass her daughter / PW1 and due to the disturbances between the cou ple, the accused left the PW1 and her children. Since 10 years, she never saw the accused visiting the PW1's house. Police examined her and recorded her statement.

12.P.W.4 [Raghuram] deposed that, presently, he is working as S.I.

of Police Medchal. Previously, he worked as S.I. of Police P.S. Alwal from 05.01 2014 to May On 28.01.2014, LW7 / the then Inspector of

Police / S V. Hari Krishna P.S. Alwal received a complaint from PW1 and registered a case in Cr.No.79/2014 for the offence under section 498A of I.P.C. and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P.Act and entrusted the C.D. file to him for further investigation. He examined and recorded the statements of PW1 to 3 and LW3, 5 and 6. On 19.02.2014 he arrested the accused and produced him before the court for judicial remand.

After completion of his entire investigation, he filed the charge sheet in this case Ex.P2 is the F.I.R.

In his CrossExamination he deposed that, It is true that as on the date of the complaint, the PW1 is having two children by name

Manoj Kumar and Hemanth Kumar, he did not examined and recorded the statements of the two children about the harassment. The PW1 stated before him that she stayed with her husband at Sholapur till the year 2002, as per the statement of the PW1, the alleged harassment was caused by the accused when they lived at Sholapur. He did not examined and recorded the statements of any of the witnesses from

Sholapur. As per the Ex.P1 and the statement of the PW1, the PW1 was not residing with the accused as on date of the report / Ex.P1. As per the Ex.P1 and the statement of the PW1, the PW1 did not disclosed the specific date and time when the accused came to the house of the PW1 at Hyderabad. The witness denied the suggestion 7

CC No.369 of 2015 Date: 27.05.2022

that “there is no harassment caused against P.W.1 by the accused, to extract money from the accused, a false allegation of harassment is made after 12 years against the accused basing on the false complaint,

He registered a false case and filed a formal charge sheet”

13.After closure of the prosecution side evidence, accused is exam ined under section 313 Cr.P.C. he denied the incriminating oral and documentary evidences adduced by the prosecution against him and re ported no defence evidence.

14.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether prosecution was able to prove the guilt of Accused for

the offence U/sec. 498A of IPC and Sec.3 & 4 D.P.Act ?

15.The learned A.P.P representing the state argued that the accused harassed the P.W.1 physically and mentally and demand her additional dowry as such he is entitled to be punished U/sec.498A of IPC. On the other hand the learned counsel for accused advanced his arguments by specifically stating that accused never resided with the P.W.1 from 2003 to 2014 as such there is no question of harassment, a false case is foisted against the P.W.1 and he is entitled for acquittal.

16.The burden lies on the prosecution to prove the dowry harassment and cruelty. The prosecution relied on the evidence of

P.w.1 to P.w.4. P.W.1 is the defacto complainant, P.w.2 is the mother,

P.W.3 is the neighbour, P.W.4 is the investigating officer.

17. Sec.498-A of IPC reads as follows “husband or relative of husband of a women subjecting her to cruelty”:

Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

CC No.369 of 2015 Date: 27.05.2022

Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, "cruelty means"—

(a) anywilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

18.As per the above definition, the prosecution has to prove the “cruelty” for cruelty the conduct of the husband shall be in such a nature which drives the women/P.W.1to commit suicide or causes grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health whether mentally or physically, and such harassment should be, to meet unlawful demand of any property or valuable security.

19.The main charges against the accused is cruelty u.sec 498A of

IPC and Dowry Harassment U/sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

On perusal of evidence of prosecution witnesses in both chief and cross, undoubtedly the marriage of P.W.1 with the accused was performed in the year 1993, and P.W.1 led a conjugal life happily for several years with accused in Sholapur and gave birth to two children.

20.The allegation against the accused is he started harassing her by demanding money when she was unable to fulfill his demand her husband/accused harassed her physically and mentally, and according to P.W.1 such harassment was started in the year 2003 when her second son was in VII standard. The alleged physical and mental harassment was in connection with demand of money and the harassment continued till 2014. P.W.1 did not mention specific 9

CC No.369 of 2015 Date: 27.05.2022

instances of harassment but she simply stated period of harassment was from 2003 to 2014, the P.W.1 is not having father, her marriage with Accused was performed by her mother /P.W.2 by giving 5 thulas gold and some cash of Rs.4 lakhs. The accusd is close relative to P.W.1, he is menamama to P.W.1, after marriage P.W.1 resided in Sholapur with her husband/accused. She was in Sholapur till 2003 and after 2003 she has been residing with her mother/P.W.2 at Alwal,

Secunderabad. Her stay in Alwal for last 10 years prior to loading of this complaint was testified by her neighbour P.W.3. It is also elicited through cross examination of P.W.1 and P.W.2 that the alleged accused never visited Alwal from 2003 to 2013 to see her.

21.The testimony of P.W.1 with regard to demand of money was supported by her mother/P.W.2, she also stated that her son in law/accused, treated her daughter P.W.1 cruelty after she gave birth to her second son and in addition to the testimony of P.W.1, the P.W.2 deposed her soninlaw/accused mercilessly kicked her daughter/P.W.1 on sutures on stomach due to which her sutures are broken and bleeded severely , and her son in law demanded money and left her daughter with her, since then P.W.1 was residing with her.

22.The testimony of P.W.2 is totally inconsistent with the testimony of P.W.1, the P.W.1 did not complain about the harassment from 1993 to 2003, she clearly stated that her husband/accused started harassing her when her second son was studying VII standard, but not when she delivered second child as stated by her mother/P.W.2, further P.W.2 stated that her soninlaw/accused kicked her daughter/P.W.1 in her stomach due to which the sutures was broken and bleeded heavily which was not stated by P.W.1. neither P.W.1 nor P.W.2 submitted the medical reports in that regard. Further P.W.2 submitted, her 10

CC No.369 of 2015 Date: 27.05.2022

statement was not recorded by the police, which was denied by the

P.W.4 /investigating officer. The entire testimony of P.W.2 appears to be an improved version, there is no proof for her evidence. Except the marriage of P.W.1 with the accused the testimony of P.W.2 is totally inconsistent with that of P.W.1. Therefore the testimony of P.W.2 shall be considered as relevant only to the extent of performing marriage of

P.W.1 with accused.

23.From the afore side facts, there was clear admission by the P.W.1 that she has been residing with her parents from 2002 to till date and she lodged the complaint in the year 2014, her statement clearly show that she never lived with her husband/accused from 2002 to 2014.

when she did not reside with the accused from 2002 to 2014 where is the question of physical harassment, for suppose she has been mentally harassed in connection with dowry what made P.W.1 to lodge the complaint in the year 2002 or 2003, why she took 12 years to lodge the complaint, the explanation as to the delay caused for lodging the compliant is not properly explained by the investigating officer.

24.The investigating officer P.w.4 stated before the court that the alleged harassment was prior to 2002, took place at Sholapur when both resided at Sholapur, but not from the year 2002 to 2014, as discussed above the witness P.W.1 clearly admitted that her husband took good care of her till 2002, the statement of the witnesses/P.W.4 stating that the harassment was prior to 2002 is totally inconsistent, with that of P.W.1 the investigating officer did not examine any of the neighbours at Sholapur to establish the cruel behavior of the accused against the P.W.1 and also not examined the two sons of the victim/P.W.1 who are well aware of facts of the case.

25.The P.W.1 admitted that she lived happily with her husband till she gave birth to her second son and she came to her parents house 11

CC No.369 of 2015 Date: 27.05.2022

when her 2nd son was in VII standard, which clearly shows that Prior to 2002 there was no harassment at all.. it is glaring fact that from 2002 to 2014 years neither P.W.1 went to Sholapur nor accused visited

P.W.1 at Hyderabad. It is not the case of prosecution that the accused regularly visit house of P.W.1 at Hyderabad and harass her physically and mentally demanding her additional dowry, in such case there is no question of harassment at all. Both the parties are residing separately in two different states form past 10 and above years, there is no relationship and no contacts between the parties at all during all those years i.e., from 2003 to 2014 and the P.W.1 did not complain about the harassment or matrimonial cruelty or dowry demand by her husband from date of her marriage 1993 to till she lastly resided with him.

26.Therefore for the aforesaid reasons, this court is of opinion that there is no proper cogent and relevant evidence on record to substantiate the offence under section 498A of IPC against accused the prosecution failed to establish the dowry harassment and the cruel behavior of the accused towards the defacto complainant as required under section 498A of IPC and section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition

Act beyond all reasonable doubts and as such the accused is acquitted by giving benefit of doubt.

27.IN THE RESULT: The accused is found not guilty for the offence

U/sec.498A of IPC and Sec.3 & 4 D.P.Act., and he is acquitted

U/sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bonds and bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled U/sec. 437 (A) of Cr.P.C. Sureties if any stand discharged, after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by

me in the Open Court this the 27 th day of May 2022.

Sd/-

XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate,

Cyberabad, Medchal 12

CC No.369 of 2015 Date: 27.05.2022

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution

Pw.1 V.Saritha Pw.2 Vyjanthimala Pw.3 Jayamma Pw.4 Raghuram

For Defence None

Exhibits Marked for Prosecution

Ex.P1 Report Ex.P2 F.I.R.

Exhibits Marked for Defence

Nil

Material Objects marked

Nil

Sd/-

XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate,

Cyberabad, Medchal

CC/200188/2018 Acquitted

JAWAHAR NAGAR vs NEERAJ YADAV

31 May 2022

CC No.188 of 2018 Date: 31.05.2022

IN THE COURT OF III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM

XXIII METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD AT : MEDCHAL

Present: Smt. Sowmya Vardha

XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate

Cyberabad, at Medchal

Tuesday, 31 st day of May 2022

CC No.188 of 2018

Between:

The State through Sub Inspector of Police Jawaharnagar P.S.

......Complainant

AND

Sri Neeraj Yadav, S/o Dharmavir, Age: 28 years, Occu: Student, Caste: Yadav, H.No. 3337, Officers Colony, R.K.Puram, Neredmet, Malkajgiri Mandal, Medchal District. ………Accused

This case came up before me for final hearing on 31.05.2022 in the presence of A.P.P for the State and M/s. M.L.Deepak Advocate for the Accused and having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, P.S.Jawaharnagar, filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.816/2016 for the offences U/sec.417, 420 of IPC.

2.The brief facts of the case of the prosecution is, on 15.11.2016 at 18:30 hours the complainant L.w.1 Kumari Pokala Shalini D/o PG Om

Prakash lodged a complaint in which she stated, in the year of 2012 while she was working at Genpact, Uppal, the accused Neeraj Yadav

S/o Dharmvir Yadav, age:29 years, Occ:CA, developed acquaintance 2

CC No.188 of 2018 Date: 31.05.2022

with the her, later he proposed her in the name of love assuring to get marry her then the complainant disclosed him about her previous

Breast Cancer which was completely cured. On which the accused replied he has no problem, there by the complainant was compelled to continue her love relation with him and for the past four years he had physical contact with her. Whenever the complainant asked him about the marriage he used to dodge the same on the pretext of family issues.

While being so, in the year of 2015 the doctor identified that the com plainant has Ovarian Cancer and she informed the same to the ac cused. The accused encouraged the complainant to get treatment, the complainant informed the accused that the doctor said that at the end of the treatment may be they can remove Ovaries and Uterus in that case she can’t conceive. For which the accused assured to get marry complainant as they were in liveinrelation from last four years and said her children doesn’t matter to him and the complainant is only im portant to him. The complainant took the treatment and the doctor re moved her Ovaries and Uterus and she is now perfectly allright. But the accused since for the past six months avoiding her deliberately. On enquiry the complainant came to know that the accused marriage was fixed on 24.11.2016 with other woman. Thereby the accused cheated the complainant on the pretext of marrying her. Hence she requested for necessary action as per the law.

3.On receipt of above complaint L.W.4/Sri S.Ashok Kumar,

Inspector of Police, Jawaharnagar P.S., registered a case in crime

No.816/2016 under section U/Sec.417, 420 of IPC investigation entrusted to P.W.3/Sri Ch.Nethaji, SubInspector of Police,

Jawaharngar P.S.

4.During the course of investigation the P.W.3 examined and recorded the statements of L.W.1, P.W.1 and P.W.2. P.W.3 also 3

CC No.188 of 2018 Date: 31.05.2022

collected the photographs that the L.W.1/ Complainant/Victim and ac cused. Later they visited the scene of offence caused enquires into the facts. Basing on the evidence adduced by L.W.1, P.W.1 and P.W.2 the prima facie case for the alleged offence has been proved against the ac cused Neeraj Yadav. After completion of investigation charge sheet is filed for the offence under sections 417, 420 of IPC.

5. This case was taken on file by my predecessor for the offences

U/sec. 417, 420 of IPC against accused.

6.On appearance of the accused before the court, copies of documents upon which the prosecution proposed to be relied upon, were furnished to him as required U/sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

7.The accused examined U/sec. 239 Cr.P.C. for the offence

U/sec.417, 420 of IPC against the accused and charges framed against the accused were read over to him and explained to him in his vernacular language to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8. In order to prove the guilty of the accused the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.3 and got marked Ex.P1 and P2 on its behalf.

Defacto complaint L.W.1/ Shalini she was the victim and she is not examined before the court due to her death, P.w.1 is the sister of deceased Shalini, P.W.2 is the mother of deceased Shalini and P.W.3 is the investigating officer.

9.P.W.1 [Shivani] is younger sister to L.W.1/Shalini she deposed her sister L.W.1/Shalini died in the year 2017 in the month of

December. Her sister work at GENPACT, Uppal, Hyderabad. One

Neeraj Yadav also worked at GENPACT, he was the colleague to her sister, he proposed about his love to her sister in the year 2012, at that 4

CC No.188 of 2018 Date: 31.05.2022

time, her sister disclosed that she was suffering with breast cancer and undergone treatment of Chemotherapy, radiation etc., and the cancer was cured, the doctor advised her sister to take medication to prevent getting effected with cancer in future. The accused replied that he don’t have any problem with her health and they both continued their relationship, the accused having physical relationship with her sister, they both were in relationship for 4 years, it was not known to us. Later her sister effected with ovarian cancer and she obtained treatment and her ovaries were removed. Doctors instructed that she cannot conceive, her sister informed the same to her boyfriend / Neeraj Yadav, at that time, he was fine for not having children and continued his relationship with her sister. Later on the accused refused to marry her sister on which there was a heated arguments between them and her sister attempted suicide for two times. The accused did not keep his promise and cheated her sister, for which her sister lodged the report in the police station. She came to know through her sister/ LW1. The accused frequently visited her house and also promised to all their family members that he will marry her sister. Police examined her and recorded her statement.

In her cross examination she deposed that, she is married, she is living with her husband. The police did not recorded her statement.

When her sister was admitted in the hospital, herself, her mother, and sometimes Neeraj Yadav used to attend her in the hospital. The witness denied the suggestion that “the entire medical expenditure was borne by Neeraj Yadav / Accused” and also denied “ that she was not aware of relationship between her sister and the accused/ Neeraj

Yadav, to extract money from the accused, she sister foisted this false case against the accused and she is continuing the proceeding against him even after the death of her sister and she is deposing false”.

CC No.188 of 2018 Date: 31.05.2022

10.P.W.2 [P.Sujatha] she is mother of L.W.1/ Shalini. She know the accused / Neeraj Yadav. L.W.1 is her younger daughter, she died in the year 2017 in the month of December. Her daughter used to work at

GENPACT, Uppal, Hyderabad. One Neeraj Yadav also worked at

GENPACT, he was the colleague to her daughter, he proposed about his love to her daughter, at that time, her daughter disclosed that she was suffering with breast cancer and undergone treatment of

Chemotherapy, radiation etc., and the cancer was cured, the doctor advised her daughter to take medication to prevent getting effected with cancer in future. The accused replied that he don’t have any problem with her health and they both continued their relationship, the accused has physical relationship with her daughter, they both were in relationship for 4 ½ years, it was not known to them. Later her daughter effected with ovarian cancer and she obtained treatment and her ovaries were removed. Doctors instructed that she cannot conceive, her daughter informed the same to her boyfriend / Neeraj Yadav, at that time, he was fine for not having children and continued his relationship with her daughter. Later on the accused refused to marry her daughter on which there was a heated arguments between them and her daughter attempted suicide for two times. The accused did not keep his promise and cheated her daughter, for which her daughter lodged the report in the police station. She came to know through her daughter / LW1. The accused frequently visited her house and also promised to all their family members that he will marry her daughter.

Later on without intimating them, he got married another lady and cheated her daughter. She do not have idea whether the police examined her and recorded her statement.

In her cross examination she deposed that, When her daughter was admitted in the hospital, herself, her elder daughter, and sometimes Neeraj Yadav used to attend her in the hospital. The 6

CC No.188 of 2018 Date: 31.05.2022

witness denied the suggestion that “the entire medical expenditure was borne by Neeraj Yadav / Accused” and also denied that “she is not aware of relationship between her daughter and the accused / Neeraj

Yadav, to extract money from the accused, her daughter foisted this false case against the accused and she is continuing the proceeding against him even after the death of her daughter and I am deposing false”.

11.P.W.3 [ Ch. Netaji ] is Investigation officer of this case he deposed that, previously, he worked as SubInspector of Police – Jawahar Nagar from 2015 to 2018. On 15.11.2016, LW4 – S. Ashok Kumar – Inspector of Police received a complaint from LW1 / P. Shalini and registered a case in Cr.No.816/2016 for the offence under section 417 and 420 of

I.P.C. and entrusted the C.D. file to him or further investigation. He can identify the signature of LW4. On receiving the C.D. file, he examined and recorded the statements of LW.1, PW1 and 2, collected the photographs taken by accused with the complainant / LW1 and on 15.11.2016, He affected the arrest of the accused at his residence at

R.K.Puram, and interrogated him, the accused voluntarily pleaded his guilt, he arrested the accused and produced him before the court for judicial custody, he concluded his investigation and filed the charge sheet in this case. Ex. P1 is the F.I.R. Ex. P2 is the 161 Cr. P.C.

statement of LW1.

In his cross examination he deposed that, that P.W.1 did not stated before him that the accused is the colleague of her sister / LW1.

In his enquiry, the accused disclosed that he was working at

GENPACT. He did not collect the employment details i.e., joining report of the accused from GENPACT Company. He is not aware about the compromise between the accused and the complainant family members about the withdrawal of the case. He did not examined and 7

CC No.188 of 2018 Date: 31.05.2022

recorded the statements of colleagues and neighbours of both the accused and LW1. The witness denied the suggestions that “the accused never deceived the LW1, as the LW1 was suffering with cancer, she voluntarily withdrawn the relationship with the accused and advised the accused for marriage with another lady, later she filed the false case against the accused with an intention to extract money from him.” He do not know whether the complainant was died or alive at the time of filing of the charge sheet. He further denied that “without conducting the proper investigation, he filed a false charge sheet.”

12. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, accused examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. he denied the incriminating oral and docu mentary evidences adduced by the prosecution against him and re ported no defence evidence.

13.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether prosecution was able to prove the guilt of Accused for

the offence U/sec. 417, 420 of IPC?

14.To prove the guilty of the accused the prosecution all together examined 3 witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.3.

15.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant and the accused were colleagues, they both worked at Genpact company in the year 2012 , the defacto complainant had a past medical history of breast cancer, she disclosed the same to accused, knowing the said fact, the accused proposed the defacto complainant and promised to marry her, the defacto complainant accepted his proposal and they both were in love affair for 4 and ½ years, while the things stood thus again 8

CC No.188 of 2018 Date: 31.05.2022

defacto complainant effected with ovarian cancer and her ovaries are removed and doctors advised that she will not become pregnant anymore in future, the defacto complainant disclosed the same to accused, accused still continued relationship with her by telling that she is more important to him than children and subsequently he breached the promise of marriage and got engagement with another lady and thereby cheated the defacto complianant, as such the defacto complainant lodged this present case against the accused and accused stood charged for the offence u.sec 417 and 420 of IPC.

16.The prosecution argued that the accused promised to marry

L.W.1 on pretext of promise of marriage they both were in love affair for four and half years and subsequently accused breached the promise of marriage and married somebody else and he cheated the defacto complainant as such accused is entitled to be punished u.sec 417 and 420 of IPC.

17.On the other hand the learned counsel for the accused argued that, the defato complainant and the accused were in love affair for few years. When the complainant L.W.1 /P.Shalini was suffering from ovarian cancer the accused out of love and affection he borne medical expenditure of defacto complainant, he supported the defacto complainant in recovering from cancer, and subsequently when she knows that she could not become pregnant in future, the defacto complainant voluntarily withdrawn from the relationship by advising the accused to get marry to another lady. The accused never intended to cheat the defacto complainant the complainants family foisted this false case with an false allegation with an intention to extract money from the accused family and continuing the proceeding even after the death of the defacto complainant. There is no criminal intention and inducements to bring the act of the accused u.sec 417 and 420 of IPC, as such he is entitled to be acquitted.

CC No.188 of 2018 Date: 31.05.2022

18.To prove the guilty of the accused for the offence U/sec.417 and 420 of IPC the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the ingredients of cheating u.sec 415 of IPC.

19.Having heard the arguments and perused the records, admittedly

L.W.1 filed complaint stating that accused fell in love with her and he has promised to marry her. Subsequently, he failed to marry her and he married somebody else.

20.The acquaintance between both the parties are not disputed. The victim/defacto complainant was cancer patient, she has a medical history of breast cancer and ovarian cancer and she died in the month of December 2017 after lodging this compliant and before filing of charge sheet, as such she was not examined before the court.

21.P.W.1 and P.W.2 are family members of deceased Shalini/L.W.1.

they both supported the prosecution case by deposing that the accused fell in love with L.W.1 and promised to marry her and they both were in live in relationship for more than four years without their knowledge, and subsequently when the L.W.1 was effected with ovarian cancer and her ovaries are removed and she could not become pregnant, the accused still continued his relationship with deceased

Shalini /L.W.1 by telling that children are not important to him than her, and he breached the promise and married somebody else and cheated L.W.1.

22.The question before the court is whether breach of promise to marry will amounts to an offence of cheating U/sections 417 and 420 of

IPC.

CC No.188 of 2018 Date: 31.05.2022

23.The Hon'ble Supreme Court also has categorically held in the case of S.W.PALANITKAR AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF BIHAR AND

ANOTHER reported in (2002) 1 SCC 241 at paragraph No.11 that “mere breach of contract cannot give rise to any criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction and the time when the offence is said to have been committed.”

24.Here in this case, accused is said to have promised to marry

L.W.1 but failed to marry her. There is no direct evidence to establish the relationship between deceased P.Shalini/L.W.1 and accused. The

P.W.1 and P.W.2 are not direct witness. They learnt the above facts through defacto complainant, who is no more, the P.W.2 mother of

L.W.1 deposed that the accused used to stay in the hospital when L.w.1 was taking treatment for ovarian cancer, it clearly shows that there was no criminal intention of cheating the Lw.1, he knew that the L.W.1 is going to die. Therefore there is no force in evidence of P.W.1 and

P.w.2.

25.In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, prosecution has failed to make out a case of criminal intention of accused from the beginning for cheating the complainant

26.Hon’ble Mr.Justice K.Natarajan Judge, Karnataka High Court held in Sri.D.Ramesh Sinha Vs. State of Karnataka

Crl.R.P.No.233/2020 dated 24.02.2020, that “a promise of marriage and breach of contract will not attract the provisions of Sections 417 and 420 of IPC”.

27.The same High Court of Karnataka then and again reiterated the same principle in Venkatesh and State of Karnataka 11

CC No.188 of 2018 Date: 31.05.2022

Crl.M.P.No.5865/2021 dated 13.01.2022 that “not abiding with the

promise of marriage will not amount to the offence of cheating under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.”

28.The aforesaid judgments of Hon’ble High Court of judicature at

Karnataka is applicable to the case where the promise of marriage will not attract Section 420 of IPC. Such being the case, the case proceeding against the accused is abuse of process of law therefore there is no material on record substantiating the offence under section 417 and 420 of IPC against the accused.

29.The prosecution failed to prove the guilty of the accused for the offences U/sec.417 and 420 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubts.

30.IN THE RESULT : The accused found not guilty for the offence

U/sec. 417, 420 and he is acquitted U/sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bonds and bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled U/sec. 437 (A) of

Cr.P.C. Sureties if any stand discharged, after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by

me in the Open Court this the 31 st day of May 2022.

Sd/-

XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Medchal

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution

Pw.1 Shivani Vasanth Pw.2 Pokala Sujatha Pw.3 CH. Nethaji 12

CC No.188 of 2018 Date: 31.05.2022

For DefenceNone

Exhibits Marked for Prosecution

Ex.P1 F.I.R Ex.P2 161 Cr.P.C.statement

Exhibits Marked for Defence

Nil

Material Objects marked

Nil

Sd/-

XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate,

Cyberabad, Medchal

CC/659/2019 Acquitted

JAWAHAR NAGAR vs VEMULA NATARAJU

31 Mar 2022

CC No.659 of 2019 Date: 31.03.2022

IN THE COURT OF III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM

XXIII METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD AT : MEDCHAL

Present: Smt. Sowmya Vardha

XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate

Cyberabad, at Medchal

Thursday, 31 st day of March, 2022

CC No.659 of 2019

Between:

The State through Sub Inspector of Police Jawaharnagar P.S.

......Complainant

AND

A1.Vemula Nataraju, S/o.Late Raju, Age: 26 years, Occ:Ayurvedic Business Auto Driver, R/o. Rent House at Banjarahills Road No.10, Near Vista Hospital, Hyderabad, N/o Near Christian Burial Ground, Chinnamalapally, Thangelamudi Village, Eluru City, West Godavari District.

A2:Vadla Krishna chary S/o late Vadla Bikshapathi, Aged about 25 years, Occ Film Writer R/o.H.No.240, Imampur village, Thoopran mandal Medak District.

………Accused No. 1 and 2

This case came up before me for final hearing on 31032020 in the presence of A.P.P for the State and of Sri M.A.Praveen Kumar, Legal Aid Counsel for the Accused No.1 and Sri B.Jaipal Reddy, Advocate for the Accused No.2 and having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, P.S Jawaharnagar, filed charge sheet against the accused A1 and A2 in Cr.No.128/2017 for the offences

U/sec.457, 380 of IPC against A1 and U/sec.411 of IPC against A2.

CC No.659 of 2019 Date: 31.03.2022

2.The brief facts of the case of the prosecution is on 20.02.2017 at 01:30 hrs the complainant Sri Raj Kamal Pandey S/o S.P.Pandey, age:

34 yrs, Occ: Union Bank of India Employee, Caste: Brahmin, r/o P.No.

67 Part, Malikarjun Nagar, Kapra Mandal, Medchal Dist, lodged a complaint with this PS. In which he stated that on 19022017 at 20:15 hrs the complainant left to Kowkoor to attend dinner at his friend's res idence, later on the same day at 22:30 hrs the complainant returned back to his residence, found that some unknown offenders gained entry into his residence by broke open the main door and committed theft of net cash, Rs. 1,02,000/ and Gold ornaments ie 1) Gold Rings02 Nos, wg12 gms, 2) Gold Mangal Sutras02 Nos, wg10 gms, and 3) ear ring & Jhumka, wg10 gms from the almarah and decamped with the booty.

Hence the complainant requested for necessary action in this regard as per the law.

3.On receipt of above complaint L.W.10/Sri G.Uday Bhaskar, Sub

Inspector of police, Jawaharnagar P.S. registered a case in crime:128 / 2017 under section U/sec.457, 380 of IPC against A1 and U/sec.411 of

IPC against A2, and same was investigated by P.W.5 and L.W.12 one after another on their respective transfers. Later on his transfer the

P.W.7 took up the investigation and filed charge sheet.

4.During the course of investigation the P.W.5/Sri K.Chandra Ku mar, Detective Inspector of Police, P.S. Jawaharnagar examined the complainant and recorded his statement, later visited the scene of of fence and caused discreet enquiries into the facts, besides he prepared

CDF with all its descriptions & observations at the instance of Panchas

P.W.1 and L.W.3. The P.W.5 verified the modus work operation adopted by the unknown offenders and initiated efforts to detect them.

CC No.659 of 2019 Date: 31.03.2022

5. This case was taken on file for the offences U/sec.457, 380 of IPC against accused No.1 and U/sec.411 of IPC against A2.

6.On appearance of the accused persons A1 and A2 before the court, copies of documents upon which the prosecution proposed to be relied upon, were furnished to them as required U/sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

7.The accused No.1 and 2 were examined U/sec. 239 Cr.P.C. for the offence U/sec.457, 380 of IPC against A1 and U/s.411 of IPC against A2 above charges framed against the accused 1 and 2 were read over to them and explained to them in telugu language to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8.In order to prove the guilt of the accused A1 and A2 the prosecution all together examined 8 witnesses, P.W.1 is the panch witnesses scene of offence panchanama, P.W.2 and P.W.4 are the panch witnesses to the confession and seizure panchanama of accused A1 ,

P.W.3 and P.W.8 are the panch witness for confession cum seizure panchanama of accused A2, P.W.5 to P.W.7 are the investigation officers of the case and prosecution marked Ex.P1 to P7.

9. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, accused No.1 and 2 are examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. they denied the incriminating oral and documentary evidences adduced by the prosecution against them and reported no defence evidence.

10.Now the point for determination is: 4

CC No.659 of 2019 Date: 31.03.2022

Q1. Whether the alleged accused person A1 gained entry

into the dwelling house of the complainants/L.W.1 by broke open

the main door lock and committed the theft of cash of

rs.1,02,000/ , gold rings, gold mangalsutra from the almarah. ?

Q.2 Whether the accused A2 received the “ gold ring” from the

accused A1 knowing it to be stolen property?

Q3 “Whether prosecution was able to prove the guilt of Accused

for offence U/sec.457, 380 of IPC against A1 and for the offence

U/Sec.411 of IPC against A2?”

11.The prosecution argued that all the witness P.W.1 to P.W.8 examined on behalf of the prosecution supported the prosecution case, the accused A1 have voluntarily confessed before investigation officers

P.W.7 about the commission of theft gold chain and A2 confessed before the investigating officer P.W.6 about receiving of gold ring from A1, and the investigation officer/ P.W.6 recovered the case property from the possession of the accused A2, in the presence of panch witnesses P.W.3 and P.W.8 . Therefore accused A1 is liable for conviction U/sec.457, 380 of IPC and accused A2 is liable for conviction for receiving the stolen property U/Sec.411 of IPC.

12.On the other hand, the learned counsel for accused argued that, the allegation levelled against the accused A1 and A2 are false and baseless there are no eye witnesses to the incident, the confession panchanama and seizure panchanama Ex.P4, P.6 on which the prosecution is relying has no evidentiary value in the eye of law u.sec 25 of Indian Evidence Act, the case property alleged to have recovered from the possession of the accused person A2 are not proved before this court, accused A1 and A2 are falsely implicated in this case and they are entitled to be acquitted.

CC No.659 of 2019 Date: 31.03.2022

13.Heard the arguments on both sides, perused the evidence on record.

14.As per the prosecution case, the main allegation against the accused A1 is that he gained entry into the complainant house L.w.1 which is situated at Malikarjuna Nagar, Kapra, by break open the house main door lock and stolen net cash of Rs.1,02,000/and gold ornaments gold ring, gold Mangalsutras, gold earins and jumkha from the almara and given gold ring to the accused A2 for later disposal, the investigating officer P.W.7 recovered the case property i.e., gold chain from A1 under cover of confession cum seizure panchanama Ex. P4 and P.W.6 case property gold ring from the possession of A2 under panchanama Ex.P7 as such the accused A1 stood charged for the offence U/sec.457 and 380 of IPC for lurking house trespass and committing theft of net cash of Rs.1,02,000/and gold ornaments gold ring, gold Mangalsutras, gold earins and jumkha in a dwelling house and accused A2 stood charged for the offence u.sec 411 of IPC for receiving the stolen property from A1.

Answer to point 1 and 2:

15.On perusal of record and the evidence of prosecution, undoubtedly the theft has taken place at the complaints/L.W.1 house in his absence and the complainant/L.w.1 lodged the report against the unknown offenders. The complainant LW.1 is not examined before the court and his evidence is closed on report filed by the police.

16.As per the facts and circumstances of the case, the scene of offence is at complainant house which is used for dwelling purpose and squarely falls under the definition of dwelling house U/sec.380 of IPC.

CC No.659 of 2019 Date: 31.03.2022

The alleged incident occurred during the absence of complainant/L.W.1, and the main door lock of the house was found broke open, which falls under the definition of one of the mode of entering into the house, by house breaking by night which is an offence U/sec.457 of IPC. The facts and circumstances satisfy the ingredients U/sec.380 and 457 of IPC.

17.Now the question is “Whether the alleged accused A1 committed the theft in LW.1 house and handed over the stolen gold chain to A2?”

18.Admittedly there are no eye witness to the alleged incident, the accused A1 was arrested by the Detective inspector of police/ P.W.7 in

Crime No:933 of 2018 P.S Jawaharnagar. The inspector was examined as P.W.7, he deposed that the accused A1 voluntarily confessed before him about committing theft of net cash and gold ornaments from the complainants/L.W.1’s house and further confessed that he handed over the children gold chain and gold ring to accused A2. The P.W.7 further deposed that he recorded the confession statement of the accused A1 in the presence of two mediators P.W.2 and P.W.4.

19. P.W.2 and P.W.4 are the panch witnesses to the confession panchanama of accused A1 Ex.P4, which was recorded by P.W.7. The

P.W.2 deposed in the month of January 2019 the Jawaharnagar police called him to the police station and read over some papers to him, the contains in the papers conveys about the some theft and the police obtained his signatures on papers, the witness was declared as hostile.

During cross examination it was elicited that the police shown some gold chain and prepared seizure panchanama in his presence, on confrontation of gold chain witness identified.

CC No.659 of 2019 Date: 31.03.2022

20.From the testimony of P.W.2, it is clearly appears that, no accused person present in the police station and it was admitted by him that the papers were already prepared by the police prior to his visit to police station.

21.P.W.4 is the another panch witnesses to the confession panchanamEx.P4 of accused No.1, he supported the prosecution case and deposed that the accused No.1 confessed before him about the commission of theft at nearly 42 places, and shown one gold chain and gold bracelet to him, and the same was seized by the investigation officer /P.W.7 under the cover of panchanama, in his presence. The

P.W.4 further deposed that the police /P.W.7 recovered only one gold chain and one gold bracelet from the possession of the accused A1.

22.The testimonies of P.W.7 and panch witness P.W.2 and P.W.4 are cogent and relevant to the extent of recovery of gold chain from the possession of A1

23.However there testimonies of P.W.2 P.W.4 and P.w.7 are not believed because , according to P.W.2 no accused was present in the police station and according to P.W.4 only A1 was present in the police station and P.w.2 deposed “police shown one gold chain” and P.W.4 deposed “police seized one gold chain and gold bracelet from possession of the accused A1” but infact the gold chain which was alleged to have seized by the P.W.7 from the possession of the accused A1 is not the case property, as per the complaint given by the complainant/l.W.1 he did not report about the theft of gold chain. Therefore the evidence of

P.W.2, P.W.4 and P.W.7 is totally disbelieved.

24.The other investigation officer was examined as P.W.6 as per the prosecution case he recorded the confession statement of A2, and 8

CC No.659 of 2019 Date: 31.03.2022

recovered the case property i.e., gold ring from the possession of A2 at at Banjarahills. The P.W.6 deposed at the request of P.W.7 he joined with P.W.7 for conducting panchanama at accused A1 house. He along with P.W.7 and two panch witnesses P.W.3 and P.W.8 went to the accused A1 house at Banjara Hills.

25.After recording the confession statements of the accused A1 by

P.W.7, the P.W.6 interrogated the other accused persons V.Krishna

Chary, R.Naresh, Rajashekar who were presented at A1 house, the accused No.2 voluntarily confessed that he had received the stolen property from accused A1 for disposal and further confessed that he kept the property at his house at Toopran, basing on such confession of the accused A2, The investigation officer/P.W.6 along with the panch witnesses P.W.3 and P.W.8 proceeded to accused A2 house at Toopran and recovered the case property gold and silver ornaments pertains to other crimes from the possession of A2 under cover of confession cum seizure panchanama Ex.P6 confession and seizure panchanama in the presence of same mediators P.W.3 and P.W.8.

26.As per the prosecution case the accused A2 is the receiver of stolen property. It is observed from the prosecution evidence, that both the panch witnesses P.W.3 and P.W.8 in whose presence the case property i.e., gold ring was recovered, did not supported the prosecution case, and further one of panch witnesses P.W.8 subsequently stated that the person who confessed before him was “Krishna chary” who is none other than the accused herein and also deposed that the investigation officer /PW.6 did not seized any property from the possession of the accused A2 he further deposed since its been long time more than a year he could not identify the accused in the open court.

CC No.659 of 2019 Date: 31.03.2022

27.Due to hostile testimonies of two panch witnesses P.W.3 and

P.W.8. The prosecution failed to prove the recovery of gold rings from the possession of the A2.

28.The testimony of P.W.6 about the recovery of gold ring from the possession of A2 is totally uncorroborating with testimonies of panch witnesses P.W.4 and P.W.8. Due to hostile testimonies of P.W.4 and

P.W.8 the prosecution failed to prove the seizure of case property from the receiver A2.

29.The prosecution relied on the confession statement Ex.P4 and P6 of the accused A1 and A2. However it is a settled principle of law that as per section 25 of Indian Evidence Act. The confession recorded by the police is not having evidentiary value in the eye of law, such confession of the accused A1 and A2 are relevant under section 27 of

Indian Evidence Act, only when there is recovery or discovery of some material object from the possession of the accused persons. As discussed above the prosecution miserably failed to prove the recovery of stolen property i.e., gold chain and gold ring, from the possession of

A2.

30.Since the incident occurred in late night hours there are no eye witnesses to the incident to prove that the accused A1 broke open the house main door lock of the complainant house, the Investigation

Officer/P.W.5 who visited the scene of offence did not collect the chance prints or any material objects like broken lock or latch etc., from the scene of offence and no photographs of scene of offence is filed, as such there is no material on record incriminating the accused A1 in this crime, the offence under sections 457 and 380 of IPC against the 10

CC No.659 of 2019 Date: 31.03.2022

accused A1 is not proved, further as discussed above the prosecution failed to prove the recovery of stolen property from the possession of

A2, therefore the offence U/sec.411 of IPC is not proved against A2.

Accordingly the point No.1 and 2 is answered.

Answer to Point 3:

31.For the reasons stated above this court concludes that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not cogent and relevant to the case of prosecution and the prosecution failed to prove the guilty of the accused A1 for the offences U/sec.457 and 380 of IPC and A2 for the offence U/sec.411 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubts.

32.IN THE RESULT : The accused A1 is found not guilty for the offence U/sec.457, 380 of IPC and accused A2 also found not guilty for the offence U/Sec.411 of IPC. The accused A1 and A2 are acquitted

U/sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property gold chain wg.about 1 thula and gold ring wg.about 1 thula deposited in the court vide CPR.No. 91 of 2019 shall be returned to the complainant after appeal.

The bonds and bail bonds of the accused No.1 and A2 are shall stands cancelled U/sec. 437A of Cr.P.C.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by

me in the Open Court this the 31 st day of March 2022.

Sd/-

XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate,

Cyberabad, Medchal 11

CC No.659 of 2019 Date: 31.03.2022

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution

Pw.1. M.Rama Krishna Pw.2 Sai Kumar Pw.3 Yashwanth Varma Pw.4 Kothapally Chandu Pw.5 K.Chandra Kumar Pw.6 B.Prakash Pw.7 D.Narsing Rao Pw.8 M.Harish

For DefenceNone

Exhibits Marked for Prosecution

Ex.P1 C.D.F Ex.P2 Signature on the confessioncumseizure panchanama Ex.P3 Signature on the confessioncumseizure panchanama Ex.P4 Confession cumseizure panchanama of A1 Ex.P5 F.I.R Ex.P6 Confessional panchanama of A2 Ex.P7 Signature on confessional panchanama of A2

Exhibits Marked for Defence

Nil

Material Objects marked

Nil

Sd/-

XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate,

Cyberabad, Medchal

CC/657/2019 Acquitted

JAWAHAR NAGAR vs VEMULA NATARAJU

31 Mar 2022

CC No.657 of 2019 Date: 31.03.2022

IN THE COURT OF III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM

XXIII METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD AT : MEDCHAL

Present: Smt. Sowmya Vardha

XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate

Cyberabad, at Medchal

Thursday, 31 st day of March, 2022

CC No.657 of 2019

Between:

The State through Sub Inspector of Police Jawaharnagar P.S.

......Complainant

AND

A2.Polimetla Rajashaker @ Stephen, S/o.Solomon, Age: 33 years, Occ:Bible Typist at Banjarahills Road No.10, R/o Rented house at Nandi Nagar near Cancer Hospital, Banjarahills, Hyderabad. N/o Kamavarapukota Village, West Godavari District.

………Accused No. 1 and 2

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, P.S Jawaharnagar, filed charge sheet against the accused A1 and A2 in Cr.No.817/2017 for the offences 2

CC No.657 of 2019 Date: 31.03.2022

U/sec.457, 380 of IPC against A1 and U/sec.411 of IPC against A2.

2.The brief facts of the case of the prosecution is on 04.10.2017 at 11:30 hours the complainant Sri Sodhanapally Balanarsimha Reddy

S/o Laxmi Reddy, age: 48 yrs, Occ: Journalist, Caste: Kapu, R/o H.No.

4384/1, Navarasa garden, Mohan Rao colony, Balajinagar, Jawaharna gar, Kapra Mandal, Medchal District lodged a complaint with this PS.

In which he stated that, on 01.10.2017 at 06:00 hrs left to Vijayawada to his relatives house. Later on 03.10.2017 at 16:00 hrs the complainant returned back to his house, found that some unknown offenders gained entry into this residence by broke open the main door lock and commit ted theft of gold articles i.e., 1)Two gold rings, 2) Two pars gold ear rings, 3) Two pars small gold ear rings, 4) 4 Laxmi coins. Besides the complainant's house Notary & link document and his children's birth day certificates and Aadhar have been committed theft from the al marah. Hence he requested for necessary action in this regard as per the law.

3.On receipt of above complaint P.W.6/Sri Ch.Nethaji, Sub

Inspector of police, Jawaharnagar P.S. registered a case in crime 817 / 2017 under section U/sec.457, 380 of IPC against A1 and U/sec.411 of

IPC against A2, later on his transfer the P.W.9/Sri N.Ramulu Naik,

Detective SubInspector of Police, Jawaharnagar and took up the investigation.

4.During the course of investigation the P.W.6 examined the com plainant/P.W.1 and recorded his statement. Later visited the scene of offence and caused discreet enquiries into the facts, besides he pre pared CDF with all its descriptions & observations at the instance of

Panchas L.w.s 3&4. The P.W.6 verified the modus work operation 3

CC No.657 of 2019 Date: 31.03.2022

adopted by the unknown offenders and initiated efforts to detect them.

After completion of investigation charge sheet filed.

5.On appearance of the accused persons A1 and A2 before the court, copies of documents upon which the prosecution proposed to be relied upon, were furnished to them as required U/sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

6.The accused No.1 and 2 were examined U/sec. 239 Cr.P.C. for the offence U/sec.457, 380 of IPC against A1 and U/s.411of IPC against A2 above charges framed against the accused 1 and 2 were read over to them and explained to them in telugu language to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.In order to prove the guilt of the accused A1 and A2 the prosecution all together examined 10 witnesses, P.W.1 is the defacto complainant, P.W.2 and P.W.5 are the panch witnesses to the confession and seizure panchanama of accused A1 , P.W.3 and P.W.4 are the panch witness for confession cum seizure panchanama of accused A2, P.W.6 to P.W.9 are the investigation officers of the case and P.W.10 is the circumstantial witness and prosecution marked

Ex.P1 to P10.

8.After closure of the prosecution side evidence, accused No.1 and 2 are examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. they denied the incriminating oral and documentary evidences adduced by the prosecution against them and reported no defence evidence.

9.Now the point for determination is:

Q1. Whether the alleged accused person A1 gained entry into

the dwelling house of the complainants/P.W.1 by broke open the

main door lock and committed the theft ?

CC No.657 of 2019 Date: 31.03.2022

Q.2 Whether the accused A2 received the “ gold chain”

from the accused A1 knowing it to be stolen property?

Q3 “Whether prosecution was able to prove the guilt of

Accused for offence U/sec.457, 380 of IPC against A1 and for the

offence U/Sec.411 of IPC against A2?”

10.The prosecution argued that all the witness P.W.1 to P.W.10 examined on behalf of the prosecution supported the prosecution case, the accused A1 have voluntarily confessed before investigation officers

P.W.7 about the commission of theft gold earrings and A2 confessed

before the investigating officer P.W.8 about receiving of gold earrings

from A1, and selling it to P.W.10, the investigation officer/ P.W.8 recovered the case property M.O.1/gold ear rings, in the presence of panch witnesses P.W.3 and P.W.4 . Therefore accused A1 is liable for conviction U/sec.457, 380 of IPC and accused A2 is liable for conviction for receiving the stolen property U/Sec.411 of IPC.

11.On the other hand, the learned counsel for accused argued that, the allegation levelled against the accused A1 and A2 are false and baseless there are no eye witnesses to the incident, the confession panchanama and seizure panchanama Ex.P5, P.8 and P.9 on which the prosecution is relying has no evidentiary value in the eye of law u.sec 25 of Indian Evidence Act, the case property alleged to have recovered from the possession of the accused person A2 are not proved before this court, accused A1 and A2 are falsely implicated in this case and they are entitled to be acquitted.

12.As per the prosecution case, the main allegation against the accused A1 is that he gained entry into the complainant house P.w.1 which is situated at Navarasa Garden, Balajinagar, Jawaharnagar by break open the house main door lock and committed theft of gold 5

CC No.657 of 2019 Date: 31.03.2022

articles 1)two gold rings 2)two pairs of gold earrings 3)two pairs of small gold earrings, 4)4 Laxmi coins and some documents. Some part of gold ornaments are sold to unknown person at MGBS and given one pair of gold earrings to the accused A2 for later disposal, who inturn sold to PW10 the investigating officer P.W.8 recovered the case property i.e., gold earrings from A2 under cover of confession cum seizure panchanama Ex.P8 and P9. As such the accused A1 stood charged for the offence U/sec.457 and 380 of IPC for lurking house trespass and committing theft of 1)two gold rings 2)two pairs of gold earrings 3)two pairs of small gold earrings, 4)4 Laxmi coins and some documents. in a dwelling house and accused A2 stood charged for the offence U/sec 411 of IPC for receiving the stolen property from A1.

Answer to point 1 and 2:

13.On perusal of record and the evidence of prosecution, undoubtedly the theft has taken place at the complaints/P.W.1 house in his absence and the complainant/P.W.1 lodged the report Ex.P1 against the unknown offenders. The complainant P.W.1 supported the prosecution case by deposing the contents of his report Ex.P1. The case property gold ear rings recovered by Investigation Officer/P.W.8 is produced by the police during trial is identified by the P.W.1 in the open court. M.O.1 is the gold earrings.

14.The scene of offence is at complainant house which is used for dwelling purpose and squarely falls under the definition of dwelling house U/sec.380 of IPC. The alleged incident occurred during the absence of complainant/P.W.1, and the main door lock of the house was found broke open, which falls under the definition of one of the mode of 6

CC No.657 of 2019 Date: 31.03.2022

entering into the house, by house breaking by night which is an offence

U/sec.457 of IPC. The facts and circumstances satisfy the ingredients

U/sec.380 and 457 of IPC.

15.Now the question is “Whether the alleged accused A1 committed the theft in P.W.1 house and handed over the stolen gold earrings to

A2?”

16.Admittedly there are no eye witness to the alleged incident, the accused A1 was arrested by the Detective inspector of police/ P.W.7 in

Crime No:933 of 2018 P.S Jawaharnagar. The inspector was examined as P.W.7, he deposed that the accused A1 voluntarily confessed before him about committing theft of gold articles and further confessed that he handed over the gold earrings to accused A2. The P.W.8 further deposed that he recorded the confession statement of the accused A1 in the presence of two mediators P.W.2 and P.W.5.

17.P.W.2 and P.W.5 are the panch witnesses to the confession panchanama of accused A1 Ex.P5, which was recorded by P.W.7. The

P.W.2 deposed in the month of Jan, 2019 the Jawaharnagar police called him to the police station and read over some papers to him, the contains in the papers conveys about the some theft and the police obtained his signatures on papers, the witness was declared as hostile.

During cross examination it was elicited that the police shown some gold chain and prepared seizure panchanama in his presence, on confrontation of case property witness identified.

18.From the testimony of P.W.2, it is clearly appears that, no accused person present in the police station and it was admitted by him that the papers were already prepared by the police prior to his visit to police station.

CC No.657 of 2019 Date: 31.03.2022

19.P.W.4 is the panch witnesses to the confession panchanamEx.P5 of accused No.1, he supported the prosecution case and deposed that the accused No.1 confessed before him about the commission of theft at nearly 42 places, and shown one gold chain and gold bracelet to him, and the same was seized by the investigation officer /P.W.7 under the cover of panchanama, in his presence. The P.W.4 further deposed that the police /P.W.7 recovered only one gold chain and one gold bracelet from the possession of the accused A1.

20.Admittedly the property which was seized by P.W.7 from the possession of accused A1 not pertaining to present crime. The testimonies of P.W.7 and panch witness P.W.2 and P.W.5 are totally contradicting with regard to the recovery of the property from the possession of A1, where as the I.O/P.W.7 did not disclosed anything about the recovery of case property from the possession of the accused

A1. The testimonies of two panch witnesses are also inconsistent and not corroborating with the testimony of investigating officer P.W.7, according to P.W.2 no accused was present in the police station and according to P.W.5 only A1 was present in the police station and P.w.2 deposed “police shown case property pertains to this crime and other crimes” description of property is not told by P.W.2. The P.W.5 deposed “police seized one gold chain and gold bracelet from possession of the accused A1” and P.W.7 deposed “the another investigating officer P.W.8 recovered the case property M.O.1 gold earnings from accused A2” the above three witnesses P.W.2, P.W.5 and P.W.7 deposed three different versions and there is no link between them . The testimonies of P.W.2,

P.W.5 and P.W.7 are totally not cogent and not relevant to the case of prosecution.

21.The other investigation officers was examined as P.W.8 as per the prosecution case he recorded the confession statement of A2, and 8

CC No.657 of 2019 Date: 31.03.2022

recovered the case property i.e., gold earrings/ M.O.1 from gold smith

P.W.10. The P.W.8 deposed in the presence of two witnesses PW3 and

Pw4 the accused A2 admitted his guilty confessed to have sold property to P.W.10, basing on the confession of A2, P.W.8 recovered M.O.1 from

P.W.10 in the presence of above two mediators under cover of confession cum seizure panchanama Ex.P8 and seizure report Ex.P9 in the presence of same mediators P.W.3 and P.W.4.

22.As per the prosecution case the accused A2 is the receiver of stolen property. It is observed from the prosecution evidence, that both the panch witnesses P.W.3 and P.W.4 in whose presence the case property i.e., gold earrings alleged to have recovered, did not supported the prosecution case.

23.Due to hostile testimonies of two panch witnesses P.W.3 and

P.W.4. The prosecution failed to prove the recovery of gold ear rings and from the possession of the A2.

24.On perusal of seizure report Ex.P9 the property alleged to have been recovered in this crime is described at serial no No.12 in seizure report Ex.P9 as a single item. It is observed in the seizure report Ex.P9 the property pertain to this crime and several crimes was shown to have been recovered from the house of accused A2. As per evidence of

P.W.8 M.O.1 was recovered from P.W.10, the evidence of P.W.8 is totally inconsistent with details mentioned in seizure report Ex.P9 and the two mediators also turned hostile to the prosecution case which makes the court to suspect the roots of prosecution case.

25.The testimony of P.W.8 about the recovery of gold earrings from the possession of A2 is totally uncorroborating with testimonies of panch witnesses P.W.3 and P.W.4. Due to hostile testimonies of P.W.3 9

CC No.657 of 2019 Date: 31.03.2022

and P.W.4 the prosecution failed to prove the seizure of case property

M.O.1 from the receiver A2.

26.The prosecution relied on the confession statement Ex.P5 and P8 of the accused A1 and A2. However it is a settle to principle of law that as per section 25 of Indian Evidence Act. The confession recorded by the police is not having evidentiary value in the eye of law, such confession of the accused A1 and A2 are relevant under section 27 of

27.Since the incident occurred in late night hours there are no eye witnesses to the incident to prove that the accused A1 broke open the house main door lock of the P.W.1 house, the Investigation

Officer/P.W.6 who visited the scene of offence did not collect the chance prints or any material objects like broken lock or latch etc., from the scene of offence and no photographs of scene of offence is filed, as such there is no material on record incriminating the accused A1 in this crime, the offence under sections 457 and 380 of IPC against the accused A1 is not proved, further as discussed above the prosecution failed to prove the recovery of stolen property from the possession of

A2, therefore the offence U/sec.411 of IPC is not proved against A2.

Accordingly the point No.1 and 2 is answered.

Answer to Point 3:

28.For the reasons stated above this court concludes that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not cogent and relevant to the case of prosecution and the prosecution failed to prove the guilty of the 10

CC No.657 of 2019 Date: 31.03.2022

accused A1 for the offences U/sec.457 and 380 of IPC and A2 for the offence U/sec.411 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubts.

29.IN THE RESULT : The accused A1 is found not guilty for the offence U/sec.457, 380 of IPC and accused A2 also found not guilty for the offence U/Sec.411 of IPC. The accused A1 and A2 are acquitted

U/sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. The case property M.O.1 Gold earrings deposited in the court vide CPR.No.88 of 2019 shall be returned to the complainant after appeal. The bonds and bail bonds of the accused

No.1 and A2 are shall stands cancelled U/sec. 437A of Cr.P.C.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by

me in the Open Court this the 31 st day of March 2022.

Sd/-

XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate,

Cyberabad, Medchal

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution

Pw.1. Balanarsimha Reddy Pw.2 Sai Kumar Pw.3 M.Babji Pw.4 P.Srisailam Pw.5 Kothapally Chandu Pw.6 Ch.Netaji Pw.7 D.Narsing Rao Pw.8 B.Bhaskar Pw.9 Ramulu Naik Pw.10 L.Vijay

For DefenceNone

CC No.657 of 2019 Date: 31.03.2022

Exhibits Marked for Prosecution

Ex.P1 Report Ex.P2 Signature on the confessioncumseizure panchanama Ex.P3 Confessionalcumseizure panchanama of A2 Ex.P4 Signature on cofessinalcumseizure panchanama of A2 Ex.P5 Confessioncumseizure panchanama of A1 Ex.P6 F.I.R Ex.P7 C.D.F Ex.P8 Confessional statement –cumseizure panchanama of A2 Ex.P9 Seizure report Ex.P10 161 Cr.P.C.statement

Exhibits Marked for Defence

Nil

Material Objects marked

M.O.1 Gold Ear-rings wg.about 1 thula

Sd/-

XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate,

Cyberabad, Medchal

CC/2251/2021 Acquitted

Alwal - J. Sandhya vs E. Sunitha Naidu

27 May 2022

CC No.2251 of 2021 Date: 27.05.2022

IN THE COURT OF III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM

XXIII METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD AT : MEDCHAL

Present: Smt. Sowmya Vardha

XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate

Cyberabad, at Medchal

Friday, 27 th day of May, 2022

CC No.2251 of 2021

Between:

The State through Sub Inspector of Police Alwal P.S.

......Complainant

AND Smt. Enaganty Sunitha Naidu, W/o Rajesh Naidu Age: 45, Occ: Pvt.Job in Delight Company R/o. Plot No.35, KSR Township, Bandlaguda Keesara Mandal, Medchal District ………Accused

This case came up before me for final hearing on 27.05.2022 in the presence of A.P.P for the State and Sri B.Jaipal Reddy Advocate for the Accused and having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, P.S.Alwal, filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.928/2021 for the offences U/sec.380 of IPC.

2.Facts of the case are that on 27.11.2021 at 19:00 hours, received a complaint from Smt. J.Sandhya W/o Subramanian, age:40 yrs, Occ:

House wife R/o H.No.7120/2, Plot No.54, Srinivas Nagar Colony,

Temple Alwal, Alwal Mandal, Medchal Dist, in which he stated that, on 27.11.2021 between 15:00 hours and 15:30 hours she visited Heena

Herbal Beauty Parlour, near Ramesh Kirana Shop, Temple Alwal,

Srinivasa Nagar and while taking face clean procedure, she has taken 2

CC No.2251 of 2021 Date: 27.05.2022

out all her jewellery i.e 1 ) One Gold chain wg about 50 grams, 2) One

Gold chain with locket about 10 grams, 3) One pair of ear rings about 5 grams, 4) Net cash of Rs.7000/, 5) ATM Cards and PAN Card and kept in her purse and placed on a stand at parlour and asked the owner of parlour Latha to observe it . After the process, she found her purse is not to be seen on the stand. The complainant further confirmed that during the process a lady entered and sat inside the parlour and left after a while. The complainant is suspecting that she might have taken away her purse from the stand. Hence, the complainant requested for necessary action.

3.On receipt of above complaint L.W.9/Sri B.Kiran Kumar,

Detective Inspector of Police, Alwal P.S., registered a case in crime

No.928/2021 under section 380 of IPC and investigation entrusted to

P.W.7/Sri K.Naveen Kumar, SubInspector of Police, Cyberabad

Commissionerate.

4.During the course of investigation P.W.7 examined and recorded the statement of the P.W.1/Smt J.Sandhya. P.W.7 along with his staff visited scene of offence situated at Heena Herbal Beauty Parlour,

Srinivasa Nagar, Alwal, Alwal Mandal, Medchal Dist. Where the incident has taken place, inspected it minutely by securing presence of mediators i.e., P.W.3/Sri T.Balaiah, P.W/5 Sri J.Venkataiah. Later conducted scene of offence observation panchanama and also drawn the sketch of it. Later P.W.7 Verified the CC Cameras in locality and checked the suspect persons. After the spot enquiries, the P.W.7 examined and recorded statements of P.W.2 who is the Owner of the

Heena Herbal Beauty Parlor. Later P.W.7 deputed ID party men of

Alwal P.S with instructions to verify the CCTV Footages if any available, nearby locations of Scene of offence and also movements of

Suspects.

CC No.2251 of 2021 Date: 27.05.2022

5. This case was taken on file for the offences U/sec.380 of IPC against accused.

6.On appearance of the accused before the court, copies of documents upon which the prosecution proposed to be relied upon, were furnished to her as required U/sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

7.The accused examined U/sec.239 Cr.P.C., for the offence

U/sec.380 of IPC. The charges framed U/sec.380 of IPC were read over and explained to accused in vernacular language to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8. In order to prove the guilty of the accused the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.7 and got marked Ex.P1 to P8 on its behalf.

9. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, accused is exam ined under section 313 Cr.P.C. she denied the incriminating oral and documentary evidences adduced by the prosecution against her and re ported no defence evidence.

10.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether prosecution was able to prove the guilt of Accused for

the offence U/sec.380 of IPC?

11.As per the facts and circumstances of the case P.W.2 is running a

Beauty Parlour and name and style Heena Beauty Parlour at Temple

Alwal. On 27.11.2021 in between 03:00 to 03:30 p.m., the defacto complainant/ P.W.1 visited the parlour for beauty services and she has taken out of her jewellery i.e., 1 ) One Gold chain wg about 50 grams, 2)

One Gold chain with locket about 10 grams, 3) One pair of ear rings 4

CC No.2251 of 2021 Date: 27.05.2022

about 5 grams, 4) Net cash of Rs.7000/, 5) ATM Cards and PAN Card and kept in her purse and placed the purse on the stand and asked the

P.W.2 to observe it. After her beauty services the P.W.1 found her purse missing from the stand from place she kept it. The P.W.1 suspecting one lady who came to the parlour might have stolen her purse and lodge the complaint against her under suspicious manner.

The investigation officer P.W.6 arrested the alleged accused and recovered the above articles belongs to the P.W.1 from the possession of the accused as such the accused stood charged for the offence under section 380 of IPC.

12.As per the prosecution case the place of offence is at P.W.2 beauty parlour, the parlour is the place of business and it is used for the human dwelling and squarely falls under the definition of dwelling in house U/sec.380 of IPC.

13.Now the question before the court is whether the alleged accused visited the parlour for beauty services and stolen M.O.1 to M.O.5?

14.The alleged incident occurred without the knowledge of defacto complainant and P.W.2 at the time of alleged incident, both P.W.1 and

P.W.2 were present in the parlour, one unknown person visited the

Heena Parlour for beauty services and stolen P.W.1 pursue containing

M.O.1 to M.O5 suspecting the alleged accused who had visited the parlour the P.W.1 lodged the complaint at police station.

15.It is alleged by the prosecution that the accused with an dishonest intention stolen wallet of P.W.1 containing M.O.1 to M.O.5 from Heena Beauty Parlour for wrongful gain.

16.The prosecution in support of its contention relied on the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.5.

CC No.2251 of 2021 Date: 27.05.2022

17.On careful examination of oral evidence of prosecution witnesses and after Considering the prosecution case this court made an observation that at the t:ime of alleged incident both P.W.1 and P.w.2 were present in the parlour, P.W.1 was busy in parlour services and

P.W.2 was busy with her business and attending customers, both did not notice while the alleged accused taking the wallet of P.w.1 which contains M.O.1 to M.O.5, they had a suspicious on the alleged accused who came to parlour for beauty services and lodged the report against the suspected alleged accused.

18.The independent witnesses to the case are P.w.3 to P.w.5, among them P.W.3 and .P.W.5 are panch for scene of offence panchanama/Ex.P7,the evidence of both the witness are not corroborating to Ex.P7.

19.The I.O/P.W.6 apprehended the accused, he deposed the accused alleged to have confessed about commission of theft at Heena Beauty

Parlour and confessed about stealing the gold articles M.O.1 to M.O.5 from the P.w.1 wallet. Based on confession of accused the I.O/P.W.6 arrested the accused and recovered the case property M.O.1 to M.O 5 from the possession of Accused person in the presence of two mediators P.W.4 and one another under the cover of panchanama

Ex.P8 and the property was identified by the complainant P.W.1,

20.As per the above testimony of investigating officer P.w.6 the property which was lost by the P.W.1 was alleged to have found in the possession of accused and the alleged accused confessed before the him to have committed theft of M.O.1 to M.O.5 and same was recovered under confession panchanama Ex.P8 in the presence of mediator P.W.4.

The mediator/P.W.4 in whose presence the M.O.1 to M.O5 were seized from the possession of Accused turned hostile.

CC No.2251 of 2021 Date: 27.05.2022

21.As per section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act the confession recorded by the police officials is inadmissible in evidence and U/sec.27 of the Indian Evidence Act such confession are only relevant to the extent of recovery or discovery of material objects from the possession of the accused. Due to hostile testimony of P.W.4, the prosecution failed to prove the recovery of M.O.1 to M.O.5 from the possession of the accused.

22.Except P.W.1 All the witnesses right from the P.W.2 to P.W.5 , did not supported the prosecution case, their testimonies are totally inconsistent and not cogent and not in consonance with the document confession and seizure panchanama’s Ex.P8, and as discussed above the prosecution failed to prove recovery of stolen property M.O.1 to

M.O.5 from the possession of accused and also miserably failed to prove that the accused committed theft at Heena Beauty Parlour.

23.Since the incident occurred without the knowledge of P.W.1 and

P.W.2 there are no eye witnesses to the incident to prove that the accused stolen the wallet from P.W.2 parlour and also the prosecution failed to prove the recovery of stolen property M.O.1 to M.O.5 from the possession of accused to connect accused to this crime, as such the offence under section 380 of IPC is not proved against accused.

24.IN THE RESULT : The accused found not guilty for the offence

U/sec. 380 of IPC and she is acquitted U/sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bonds and bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled U/sec.437 (A) of

Cr.P.C. Sureties if any stand discharged, after expiry of appeal time. [

The case property M.O.1)One old Chain wg.about 50 grams,

M.O.2 ) One Gold chain with locket wg.about 10 gram, M.O.3) One pair of ear rings wg.about 5 grams, M.O.4) Net cash of Rs.3000/- (Rs.500/- notes 5) M.O.5) ATM cards and PAN Card, which was returned to the Defacto complainant/Smt.Sandhya, W/o V. Jaya Palan 7

CC No.2251 of 2021 Date: 27.05.2022

for interim custody vide order Crl.M.P.No.2167/2021, dt.27.12.2018 (CPR.No.352 /2021) shall be made absolute after appeal time.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by

me in the Open Court this the 27 th day of May 2022.

Sd/-

XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate,

Cyberabad, Medchal

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution

Pw.1 J.Sandhya Pw.2 Latha Pw.3 T.Balaiah Pw.4 P.Ramesh Pw.5 J.Venkataiah Pw.6 Mangamma Pw.7 K.Naveen Kumar

For DefenceNone

Exhibits Marked for Prosecution

Ex.P1 Report Ex.P2 161 Cr.P.C statement Ex.P3 Signature on the C.D.F Ex.P4 Signature of witness on confession seizure panchanama Ex.P5 Signature of the witness on C.D.F Ex.P6 F.I.R Ex.P7 C.D.F Ex.P8 Confession and seizure panchanama

Exhibits Marked for Defence

Nil

Material Objects marked

M.O.1 One gold Chain wg.about 50 grams

M.O.2 One Gold chain with locket wg.about 10 grams

M.O.3 One pair of ear rings wg.about 5 grams

M.O.4 Net cash of Rs.3000/-(500 Rs notes 6)

M.O.5 ATM cards and PAN Card

Sd/-

XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate,

Cyberabad, Medchal

CC No.2251 of 2021 Date: 27.05.2022

Order Record 251 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
CC/200188/2018	JAWAHAR NAGAR vs NEERAJ YADAV	31 May 2022	Judgement	Acquitted
CC/2251/2021	Alwal - J. Sandhya vs E. Sunitha Naidu	27 May 2022	Judgement	Acquitted
CC/200369/2015	ALWAL vs RAVINDRA VIBHUTE	27 May 2022	Judgement	Acquitted
CC/657/2019	JAWAHAR NAGAR vs VEMULA NATARAJU	31 Mar 2022	Judgement	Acquitted
CC/659/2019	JAWAHAR NAGAR vs VEMULA NATARAJU	31 Mar 2022	Judgement	Acquitted
CC/1154/2019	PS Jawaharnagar vs Vemula Nataraju	31 Mar 2022	Judgement	—
CC/1531/2019	PS Jawaharnagar vs Vemula Nataraju	31 Mar 2022	Judgement	—
CC/1583/2019	PS Jawaharnagar vs Vemula Nataraju	31 Mar 2022	Judgement	—
CC/1878/2019	PS Jawaharnagar vs Vemula Nataraju	31 Mar 2022	Judgement	—
DVC/200028/2015	A SAIDAMMA PALLAVI vs M KUMAR RAJ	30 Mar 2022	Others	—
CC/201035/2017	JAWAHAR NAGAR vs PULIMAMIDI SRIKANTH GOUD	29 Mar 2022	Judgement	—
CC/200075/2015	PS JAWAHARNAGAR vs D RAMU	28 Mar 2022	Judgement	—
CC/200847/2015	ALWAL vs PORANDLA RAHUL PATEL	28 Mar 2022	Judgement	—
CC/200041/2016	JAWAHAR NAGAR vs KOMARAM MALLESH	17 Mar 2022	Judgement	—
CC/701/2021	State of Telangana vs Avusupally Ramaswamy	11 Mar 2022	Judgement	—
CC/200589/2016	ALWAL vs D V R LATCHA RAO	11 Mar 2022	Judgement	—
CC/1896/2019	SAHMIRPET vs SHAIK NAFIUDDIN	04 Mar 2022	Judgement	—
CC/261/2019	JAWAHAR NAGAR vs PALAPATHY MUKESH	28 Feb 2022	Judgement	—
CC/200324/2016	SHAMIRPET vs MADASANI LAXMA REDDY	28 Feb 2022	Judgement	—
CC/200926/2015	SHAMIRPET vs GUNDLAPALLI MALLESH GOUD	28 Feb 2022	Judgement	—
CC/201220/2015	SHAMIRPET vs ANDE NAGI REDDY	28 Feb 2022	Judgement	—
CC/455/2019	SHAMIRPET vs T. AMERNATH	24 Feb 2022	Judgement	—
CC/702/2020	State of Telangana vs Prmod Kumar	24 Feb 2022	Judgement	—
CC/200020/2014	ALWAL vs Y SAMMAIAH	22 Feb 2022	Judgement	—
CC/456/2019	ALWAL vs MADDURI PAVAN	16 Feb 2022	Judgement	—
CC/200059/2015	P.S JAWAHAR NAGAR vs APPIRA SHANKER	25 Jan 2022	Judgement	—
CC/200331/2017	JAWAHAR NAGAR vs K PADMA	24 Jan 2022	Judgement	—
CC/200478/2017	Alwal vs Syed Aziz	24 Jan 2022	Judgement	—
CC/143/2019	JAWAHAR NAGAR vs SAMPANGI MAHESH	20 Jan 2022	Judgement	—
CC/1105/2019	PS JAWAHARNAGAR vs SAMPANGI MAHESH	20 Jan 2022	Judgement	—
CC/614/2021	State of Telangana vs Baba shanker	19 Jan 2022	Judgement	—
CC/201493/2017	SHAMIRPET vs EPPALI GIRI	12 Jan 2022	Judgement	—
CC/1587/2020	State of Telangana vs Kommani Srinivas	07 Jan 2022	Judgement	—
CC/200928/2015	SHAMIRPET vs UPPARY SATYANARAYANA	07 Jan 2022	Judgement	—
CC/1235/2020	State of Telangana vs Tamatta Pavan Singh	05 Jan 2022	Judgement	—
CC/1586/2020	State of Telangana vs Kommani Srinivas	05 Jan 2022	Judgement	—
CC/200685/2015	ALWAL vs CASULA SHRAVAN KUMAR	24 Dec 2021	Judgement	—
CC/200756/2015	SHAMIRPET vs MOHD MAQSOOD AHMED	24 Dec 2021	Judgement	—
CC/1257/2021	K. Srinivas Rao vs Muddangula Venkatesh	24 Nov 2021	Judgement	—
CC/200093/2016	ALWAL vs MANDA SIVA RAJ	01 Nov 2021	Judgement	—
CC/454/2019	ALWAL vs VAZRAM SRI RAMULU	01 Oct 2021	Judgement	—
CC/200254/2015	PS SHAMIRPET vs KARNE VENKATESH	01 Oct 2021	Judgement	—
CC/201381/2017	SHAMIRPET vs KARNE VENKATESH	01 Oct 2021	Judgement	—
CC/651/2019	JAWAHAR NAGAR vs VEMULA NATARAJU	30 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/200182/2016	Jawaharnagar vs TURUGENDRA RAMULU	30 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/202301/2018	SHAMIRPET vs RUPANI SHIVA	30 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/201167/2015	ALWAL vs S.SANDEEP REDDY	27 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/652/2019	JAWAHAR NAGAR vs VEMULA NATARAJU	24 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/660/2019	JAWAHAR NAGAR vs VEMULA NATARAJU	24 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/662/2019	JAWAHAR NAGAR vs VEMULA NATARAJU	24 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/1130/2019	JAWAHAR NAGAR vs VEMULA NATARAJU	24 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/200765/2015	SHAMIRPET vs ARUGULA MALLESH	15 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/1231/2020	State of Telangana vs Chrigurla Dilip Kumar	14 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/200055/2015	JAWAHAR NAGAR vs ATTARI BHEEMA RAJU	14 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/705/2020	State of Telangana vs Ponnala shiva shanker	13 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/708/2020	JAWAHAR NAGAR vs PONNALA SHIVA SHANKAR	13 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/1440/2019	JAWAHAR NAGAR vs VEMULA NATARAJU	13 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/217/2021	State of Telangana vs MUKKERA UPENDER	08 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/200333/2016	Shamirpet vs Thumma Ashok	08 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/1128/2019	JAWAHAR NAGAR vs VEMULA NATARAJU	03 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/1129/2019	JAWAHAR NAGAR vs VEMULA NATARAJU	03 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/1156/2019	PS Jawaharnagar vs Vemula Nataraju	03 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/1157/2019	PS Jawaharnagar vs Vemula Nataraju	03 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/654/2019	JAWAHAR NAGAR vs VEMULA NATARAJU	01 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/663/2019	JAWAHAR NAGAR vs VEMULA NATARAJU	01 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/646/2019	JAWAHAR NAGAR vs VEMULA NATARAJU	31 Aug 2021	Judgement	—
CC/653/2019	JAWAHAR NAGAR vs VEMULA NATARAJU	31 Aug 2021	Judgement	—
CC/200317/2015	PS SHAMIRPET vs KAMALAPALLY VEDANTHAM REDDY	31 Aug 2021	Judgement	—
CC/1769/2020	JAWAHARNAGAR vs SAMPANGI MAHESH	26 Aug 2021	Judgement	—
CC/202715/2018	JAWAHAR NAGAR vs S NARANG	26 Aug 2021	Judgement	—
CC/200431/2014	PS SHAMIRPET vs N.PRAHALAD	10 Aug 2021	Judgement	—
CC/200676/2014	PS JAWAHARNAGAR vs VARIGANTI POCHAIAH	06 Aug 2021	Judgement	—
CC/1494/2020	ALWAL vs SAMPANGI MAHESH	02 Jul 2021	Judgement	—
CC/1504/2020	ALWAL vs SAMPANGI MAHESH	11 Jun 2021	Judgement	—
CC/837/2020	State of Telangana vs Gogula Raju	29 Apr 2021	Judgement	—
CC/838/2020	State of Telangana vs Gogula Raju	29 Apr 2021	Judgement	—
CC/200093/2018	JAWAHAR NAGAR vs M NAVEEN	27 Apr 2021	Judgement	—
CC/200240/2014	ALWAL vs GUMMADI RAMCHANDHER	22 Apr 2021	Judgement	—
CC/200691/2016	SHAMIRPET vs DACHEPALLI ANJAIAH	19 Apr 2021	Judgement	—
CC/201037/2015	SHAMIRPET vs DYAGALA SRIRAMULU	19 Apr 2021	Judgement	—
CC/200146/2014	Jawaharnagar vs V RAMESH	15 Apr 2021	Judgement	—
CC/1573/2020	ALWAL vs DASARI NARESH	01 Apr 2021	Judgement	—
CC/782/2020	State of Telangana vs Aerva Krishna Reddy	25 Mar 2021	Judgement	—
CC/1312/2019	Shamirpet vs Shaik Khadar	25 Mar 2021	Judgement	—
CC/1321/2019	Shamirpet vs Shaik Khadar	25 Mar 2021	Judgement	—
CC/1420/2019	SHAMIRPET vs SHAIK KHADAR	25 Mar 2021	Judgement	—
CC/200438/2014	PS SAHMIREPT vs SHIVARATRI TIRUPATHI@ VADDE TIRUPATHI	24 Mar 2021	Judgement	—
CC/200083/2015	JAWAHAR NAGAR vs RAJENDAR RAJESH	22 Mar 2021	Judgement	—
CC/200280/2017	SHAMIRPET vs MADIREDDY BALREDDY	22 Mar 2021	Judgement	—
CC/200838/2015	ALWAL vs T.V YASHPAL	22 Mar 2021	Judgement	—
CC/363/2021	State of Telangana vs GOLLAPU NARENDRA	19 Mar 2021	Judgement	—
CC/200464/2015	SHAMIRPET vs JAKKU RAMULU	19 Mar 2021	Judgement	—
CC/201437/2018	JAWAHAR NAGAR vs SHIVARATHRI PAVAN	18 Mar 2021	Judgement	—
CC/1400/2020	JAWAHARNAGAR vs K SUNNY	12 Mar 2021	Judgement	—
CC/1533/2020	JAWAHAR NAGAR vs K SUNNY	12 Mar 2021	Judgement	—
CC/200649/2016	SHAMIRPET vs MAMINDLA RAJU	12 Mar 2021	Judgement	—
CC/201222/2015	SHAMIRPET vs SANGANAMAINA MALLESH	09 Mar 2021	Judgement	—
CC/200250/2016	JAWAHAR NAGAR vs VALLAKATHI RAMESH	05 Mar 2021	Judgement	—
CC/457/2019	ALWAL vs BAIRI RAMESH	04 Mar 2021	Judgement	—
CC/463/2019	ALWAL vs BHUJAMGARI SANTHOSH REDDY	04 Mar 2021	Judgement	—

Showing 100 of 251 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

May 2022		3
Mar 2022		14
Feb 2022		8
Jan 2022		11
Dec 2021		2
Nov 2021		2
Oct 2021		3
Sep 2021		22
Aug 2021		7
Jul 2021		1
Jun 2021		1
Apr 2021		8

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Smt.V.SOWMYA handled?

Smt.V.SOWMYA has handled 282 court orders since 2019 at Medchal, ADJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 8 orders per month.

What types of cases does Smt.V.SOWMYA hear?

Based on available records, Smt.V.SOWMYA primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases, Domestic Violence Cases) at Medchal, ADJ Court Complex.

Where is Smt.V.SOWMYA currently posted?

Smt.V.SOWMYA is posted as III Addl.Junior Civil Judge-cum-X Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Medchal at Medchal, ADJ Court Complex, Medchal Malkajgiri, Telangana.

Are judgments by Smt.V.SOWMYA available online?

Yes. 5 judgments by Smt.V.SOWMYA are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Smt.V.SOWMYA dispose cases?

Smt.V.SOWMYA disposes approximately 8 cases per month, based on 282 orders handled over their tenure at Medchal, ADJ Court Complex.

Since when is Smt.V.SOWMYA serving?

Smt.V.SOWMYA has been serving at Medchal, ADJ Court Complex since 2019.

Case Types

CC 99%

DVC 1%

Posting History

Jun 2022 — Aug 2022

III Addl.Junior Civil Judge-cum-X Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Medchal
Jul 2019 — Jun 2022

III AJCJ-cum-XXIII Metropolitan Megistrate · 282 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 5

Other Judges at this Court

Smt. G. Bhanumati

II Addl.District and Sessions Judge-cum-I Addl.Fam...

180 orders

Ms. V. Sravani Yadav

Prl Junior Civil Judge-cum-VII Addl Judicial Magis...

110 orders

Sri. U. Thirupathi

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-IX Addl. Judicial...

169 orders

K. Yuvaraja

Addl.Senior Civil Judge-cum-Addl Chief Judicial Ma...

0 orders

Smt. Paladugula Alekhya

I Addl.Junior Civil Judge-cum-VIII Addl. Judicial...

54 orders

Smt. Arella Hemalatha

III Addl.Junior Civil Judge-cum-X Addl.Judicial Ma...

65 orders

Sri K. Venkatesh

Fast Track Special Court for expeditious Trial and...

41 orders

← View all judges at Medchal, ADJ Court Complex

Smt.v.sowmya

XXIII METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD AT : MEDCHAL

Present: Smt. Sowmya Vardha

XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate

Cyberabad, at Medchal

Friday, 27 th day of May, 2022

J U D G M E N T

“Whether prosecution was able to prove the guilt of Accused for

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution

For Defence None

Exhibits Marked for Prosecution

Exhibits Marked for Defence

Nil

Material Objects marked

Nil

XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate,

Cyberabad, Medchal

XXIII METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD AT : MEDCHAL

Present: Smt. Sowmya Vardha

XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate

Cyberabad, at Medchal

Tuesday, 31 st day of May 2022

J U D G M E N T

“Whether prosecution was able to prove the guilt of Accused for

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution

For DefenceNone

Exhibits Marked for Prosecution

Exhibits Marked for Defence

Nil

Material Objects marked

Nil

XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate,

Cyberabad, Medchal

XXIII METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD AT : MEDCHAL

Present: Smt. Sowmya Vardha

XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate

Cyberabad, at Medchal

Thursday, 31 st day of March, 2022

J U D G M E N T

Q1. Whether the alleged accused person A1 gained entry

into the dwelling house of the complainants/L.W.1 by broke open

the main door lock and committed the theft of cash of

rs.1,02,000/­ , gold rings, gold mangalsutra from the almarah. ?

Q.2 Whether the accused A2 received the “ gold ring” from the

Q3 “Whether prosecution was able to prove the guilt of Accused

for offence U/sec.457, 380 of IPC against A1 and for the offence

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution

For DefenceNone

Exhibits Marked for Prosecution

Exhibits Marked for Defence

Nil

Material Objects marked

Nil

XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate,

Cyberabad, Medchal

XXIII METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD AT : MEDCHAL

Present: Smt. Sowmya Vardha

XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate

Cyberabad, at Medchal

Thursday, 31 st day of March, 2022

J U D G M E N T

Q1. Whether the alleged accused person A1 gained entry into

the dwelling house of the complainants/P.W.1 by broke open the

Q.2 Whether the accused A2 received the “ gold chain”

Q3 “Whether prosecution was able to prove the guilt of

Accused for offence U/sec.457, 380 of IPC against A1 and for the

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution

For DefenceNone

rs.1,02,000/ , gold rings, gold mangalsutra from the almarah. ?