Vaddi Hari Kumar

CC No.1852 of 2022 1 of 14 Dt:01.09.2025.

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(MOBILE) UNDER PCR ACT-CUM-III ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NIZAMABAD.

Present: Sri.Vaddi Hari Kumar, The Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Trial of cases under T.S. Prohibition and Excise Act-cum-IV

Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Nizamabad. FAC:Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class(Mobile),Under PCR Act-Cum-III

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad.

MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

C.C. No. 1852 of 2022.

BETWEEN:

The State of Telangana, rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, Town-III Police Station, Nizamabad District. …Prosecution AND Kandikanti Rajagoud @ Pilli Raju, S/o. Sadanandgoud, Age: 30 years, Caste:Goud, Occ:Labour, R/o. Ambedkar Colony, Nizamabad.

...Accused

***** This case is coming on 20.08.2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and of Sri. Bitla.Ravi, Counsel for accused, upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court delivered the following:

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

1.This case vide CC.No. 1852 of 2022 was transferredto this court from the Learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad,

District as per the orders of the Hon’ble Prl.Dist. & Sessions Judge,

SPL. AJMFC, MOBILE COURT, NZB

CC No.1852 of 2022 2 of 14 Dt:01.09.2025.

Nizamabad vide O.M Dis.No.1357/P.R. No.137/2023/2024, dt:20.03.2024 on the point of jurisdiction.

2.This case is filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Town-III against accused in Crime No.208 of 2022 for the offence punishable under Section 457 and 380 of IPC.

3.The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that, on 19.08.2022 at 10:00 hours complainant/Begari Raju came to P.S. and lodged petition in telugu language in which he stated that on 16.08.2022 in the evening his mother was died at Varni. On that he went to Varni to attend his mother's final rites. On the next day i.e., on 17.08.2022 at 06:00 A.M. his wife

Lavanya also went to Varni by locking the house doors. On 19.08.2022 at 06:00 A.M. his mother-in-law/Laxmi made a phone call to him and informed that his house doors lock was broken and doors were in open condition. She also informed that the Almirah doors also found opened. Immediately he came to Nizamabad and went to his house and found it to be correct. The lock of doors were broken and the valuables viz. 1) four Ear studs weighing.

1 tula, 2) Two gold chains weighing about 2 tulas, 3) three gold rings weighing About 1 tula, 4) silver leg chains weighing about 10 tulas were found missing from the almirah. Some unknown offenders who entered into his house by broke open the locks might have committed the above said gold and silver ornaments. The worth of stolen ornaments nearly about

Rs.40,000/-. Finally he requested to take necessary action.

SPL. AJMFC, MOBILE COURT, NZB

CC No.1852 of 2022 3 of 14 Dt:01.09.2025.

4.Basing on the contents of report given by the complainant/Begari

Raju, LW9/SI of Police registered a case in Cr.No.208 of 2022 U/sec. 457 and 380 of IPC and took up the investigation.

5.During the investigation, LW9/SI of Police has examined LW1/Begari

Raju. Later he along with the complainant visited the scene of offence i.e., the house of the complainant located at Gouthamnagar, Nizamabad where he has secured the presence of two mediators i.e., LW5/Wagmare Dinesh and LW6/Madhave Arjun and in their presence he conducted scene of offence panchanama and drew rough sketch of the scene in Crime Detail

Form. Later LW9/SI of Police also examined and recorded the statements of

LW2/Begari Lavanya, LW3/Arolla Laxmi. Later deputed Detective party PCs with the instructions to check CC footages located nearby the scene of offence to detect the unknown offenders who committed theft in the house of the complainant. Later LW9/SI of Police took up further investigation of this case.

6. While efforts are in progress on 28.09.2022 after noon it has come to notice that the previous offender/Kandikanti Rajugoud who lodged in District

Jail from October 2021 released from the jail in the month of January 2022 and his whereabouts are not known to anybody. On 28.09.2022 at 03:00

P.M. on credible information about the presence of Kandikanti Rajugoud in his house at Namdevwada Nizamabad, LW10/SI of Police along with his force rushed to his house and apprehended him and interrogated thoroughly.

SPL. AJMFC, MOBILE COURT, NZB

CC No.1852 of 2022 4 of 14 Dt:01.09.2025.

During interrogation he revealed his name and particulars and voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence along with other offences of PS

Kamareddy and to confess his guilty of offence, LW10/SI of Police secured the presence of two mediators LW7/Pavula Amul and LW8/Pavula Shubham and in their presence recorded confessional statement of the accused/Kandikanti Rajugoud a Pilli Raju. As per his confession he also committed the following offences.

In the month of June 2022 he along with Samgawari Kiran went to

Kamareddy on his Hyundai Company Red colour Car Bearing. No. AP-28-DJ- 2918 and gained entry into the house at Vivekananda colony Kamareddy by broke open the locks and committed theft of Silver kalashalu 20, Kanchu

Ginnelu 4, Tambulalu Big-2 and small -2. Copper Vessels 3, Deepantharalu 2 and water Jugs 2 and decamped with the booty. The entire stolen property kept in his house and waiting for its disposal. (Pertains to Cr. No. 363/2022

U/s 457, 380 IPC of P.S. Kamareddy),

Later in the month of July 2022 again he along with Sambawari Kiran went to Kamareddy on his Hyundai Company Red colour Car Bearing. No.

AP-28-DJ-2918 and gained entry into a house at Snehapuri Colony by broke open the locks and committed theft of Two Tulas gold rod. 30 Tulas silver rod and net cash Rs.20,000/- and decamped with the booty. He spent net cash for his personal affairs and kept stolen gold and silver rods in his house

SPL. AJMFC, MOBILE COURT, NZB

CC No.1852 of 2022 5 of 14 Dt:01.09.2025.

and waiting for its disposal. (Pertains to Cr. No.379/2022 U/s 457, 380 IPC of P.S. Kamareddy)

Later in the same month of July 2022 on the intervening night of 21/22.07.2021 he gained entry into a house at Gurbabadi road Nizamabad by broke open the locks and committed theft of net cash Rs.20,000/- and decamped with the booty. Out of them he spent Rs.19,500/- for his personal affairs and remaining Rs.500/- with him. (This is pertains to Cr.No.

157/2022 U/s 457,380 IPC of P.S. Town Ill Nizamabad).

Further on the intervening night of 18/19.08.2022 he went to

Gouthamnagar Nizamabad on his above said car and gained entry into a house by broke open the looks and committed theft of 1) Drops and studs with two mateelu. 2) One gold chain, 3) four gold rings, 4) One necklace, 5) silver leg chains etc., and decamped with the booty. He further confessed that the entire stolen property of this case kept in Manappuram Finance by him and his sister/Latha and took the amount and utilize for his personal affairs. Further the silver leg chains sold out by him to unknown person and spent the money for his personal affairs. Out of three gold rings accused prepared it as four rings by cutting the rings and put in Manappuram

Finance. (Pertains to this Case).

Recoveries:- i. As per the confessional statement of the accused/Kandikanti Rajugoud @

Pilli Raju he brought two packets which are containing stolen properties of

SPL. AJMFC, MOBILE COURT, NZB

CC No.1852 of 2022 6 of 14 Dt:01.09.2025.

Kamareddy PS. On that Lw10 have seized 1) Two Brass Deepanthalu, 2) 15

Copper Chembulu, 3) Two Small Brass Manikyalu, 4) Three small copper plates, 5) One Copper Binde, 6) Two Steel Jugs, 7) One big Brass

Tambulam, 8) Four steel vessels (having brass coating) in Cr. No. 363/2022

U/s 457, 380 IPC of P.S. Kamareddy.

ii. Three pieces of Silver biscuits wg. about 258 grams in Cr. No.379/2022

U/s 457, 380 IPC of P.S. Kamareddy.

iii. Later Lw10 seized net cash Rs.500/- in Cr.No. 157/2022 U/s 457, 380

IPC of this Police Station.

Also seized his Hyundai Company Red colour Car Bearing. No. AP-28-DJ- 2918 which he used in commission of theft offences with intention to escape easily after commission of the offences.

7. Later as per his confession he led the police and panchas to Manappuram

Gold Finance located at thirumala Talkies cross road, Nizamabad where he kept the stolen gold ornaments of this case and took the amounts. They reached to the Finance at about 5:00 P.M, where the accused showed the

LW4/Manager of the Manappuram Gold Finance and told them that the accused kept the gold ornaments with the LW-4. On enquiry the LW4 accepted and brought the gold ornaments 1) Two Gold kammalu with two mateelu wg. about 10.21 grams, 2) One gold chain wg about 14 grams 3) four gold rings wg. About 7.9 grams, 4) One gold necklace wg 12.9 grams and put infront of the Police and panchas. On that the accused identified the

SPL. AJMFC, MOBILE COURT, NZB

CC No.1852 of 2022 7 of 14 Dt:01.09.2025.

ornaments. Later Lw-10 gave 91 Cr.P.C. Notice to the LW4 for handover the ornaments to the Police as it were stolen properties and the same was handover the ornaments to the police. On that Lw10 conducted seizure panchanama before the same mediators and seized the above ornaments.

Later Lw10 also examined and recorded the statement of LW4/Kothpally

Arunkumar, Manager in Manappuram Gold finance.

8. After that LW10 brought the accused/Kandikanti Rajugoud @ Pilli Raju to

P.S. Town III Nizamabad along with seized properties at 07:00 P.M. and effected his arrest duly issuing arrest memo and also followed 50 Cr.P.C.

procedure and produced him before the Hon'ble court for judicial custody.

9.Upon consideration of the material placed before the court, the cognizance for the offences punishable U/Secs. 457 and 380 of IPC were taken against the accused by my learned predecessor and on appearance of the accused before the court, the copies of documents pertaining to the case were furnished to him as per section 207 Cr.P.C., and after furnishing the copies of documents, the accused was examined u/Sec.239 Cr.P.C., for the substance of accusation for the offences punishable U/Secs. 457 and 380 of

IPC for which he denied the accusation and after hearing the prosecution and the accused on considering the submissions made by the prosecution and the accused charges for the offences punishable U/Secs.457 and 380 of

IPC were framed against him and explained to him in Telugu by and having understood the charges framed against him, he denied the charges and on

SPL. AJMFC, MOBILE COURT, NZB

CC No.1852 of 2022 8 of 14 Dt:01.09.2025.

question of plea of guilt he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Hence, the trial against the accused.

10.For bringing home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined

PWs.1 to 7 and got exhibited Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 and MO Nos.1 to 4. The evidence of LW5/Wagmare Dinesh, LW7/Pavula Amul and LW9/D.Sai

Nath/SI of Police, has been given up by the learned APPO. Ex.P1 is the report, Ex.P2 is the signature of PW3 on Crime Detail Form, Ex.P3 is the signature of PW6 on Confession and Recovery Panchanama, Ex.P4 is the

First Information Report. MO Nos.1 to 4 were Gold Items.

11.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the Accused was examined

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C enabling him to explain personally the incriminating circumstancesappearedagainsthimintheevidenceofprosecution witnesses for which he denied the truthfulness of the evidence and reported no defence evidence on his side.

12.Heard, the learned APP and the learned for the accused.

13.Now the point for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the

accused by proving the charges for the offences punishable

U/Secs.457 and 380 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

14. POINT:-

The prosecution case is that on 31.03.2021, PW1 came to police station and lodged a report by stating that on 23.03.2021, he along with his wife Meena and daughter Lalitha went to Hyderabad to visit their son’s

SPL. AJMFC, MOBILE COURT, NZB

CC No.1852 of 2022 9 of 14 Dt:01.09.2025.

house. On 30.03.2021, his brother M.Manohar Rao/PW3 came to Nizamabad from Hyderabad and went to the house of complainant and found the locks of doors and almirahs were broken. He informed the same to complainant.

On 31.03.2021, complainant along with his family came from Hyderabad and found the same. Some unknown offenders gained entry into his house by broke open the locks and committed the theft of 1)One pairs of Gold

Kammalu. 2)Two different types of Gold Kammalu, 3)One Gold Nallapusala

Thade, all items weighing about 25 grams, worth of Rs.25,000/- above said valuables from the almirahs and decamped with booty. While the investigation was in progress, the accused was apprehended by police and the accused confessed about the commission of the present theft along with other thefts committed by him. The police have recovered the stolen property. Therefore, the accused has committed the offence.

15. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined seven(7) witnesses out of cited ten witnesses out of them PW1 is the complainant, PW4 is the witness and wife of PW1, PW5 is the witness and mother-in-law of PW1,

PW2 is the witness manager of Manappuram Gold Finance, PW3 is the panch witness for scene of offence, PW6 is the panch witness for confession-cum- seizure panchanama, PW7 is the Investigation officer who conducted investigation and filed charge-sheet.

16.In Ex.P1 report, the PW1 has stated that some unknown offenders committed theft in his house. As seen from the Ex.P4/FIR, it is further clear

SPL. AJMFC, MOBILE COURT, NZB

CC No.1852 of 2022 10 of 14 Dt:01.09.2025.

that the case was registered against unknown accused. Now it has to see that whether the accused has committed the offence in this case. As seen from the evidence of PW1, PW4 and PW5, the identity particulars of the accused were not stated. PW5, who is the mother in law of PW1, who informed about the commission of theft also not stated the identity or descriptive particulars of the accused. PW1, during his cross-examination testified that he do not know who committed the theft at his house. In the case at hand there are no eye-witnesses who had seen the accused breaking into the house of PW1 by breaking open the lockers and committed alleged theft. There are no photographs of the spot nor the investigation officer had seized the broken locks of the house of PW1.

17. The evidence of PW3 coupled with Ex.P2/Scene of offence panchanama goes to show that the scene of offence panchanama was conducted in the presence of PW3 and LW5. However, it does not connecting the accused with the alleged offence.

18.PW6 is the panch witness for confession-cum-seizure panchanama of accused. He deposed about the confession given by the accused in his presence and also in the presence of LW7. His evidence makes clears that the confession and seizure panchanama was prepared in the presence of police and the accused confessed about the commission in this case. This being the case, at this stage it is penitent to discuss about the law on the

SPL. AJMFC, MOBILE COURT, NZB

CC No.1852 of 2022 11 of 14 Dt:01.09.2025.

confession of the accused recorded in the presence of the police is as follows:

As per Sec 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872:- “No confession made to a police officer, shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence.”

As per Sec 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872:

confession by accused while in custody of police not be prove against him:- “No confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a magistrate, shall be proved as against such person.” As per the judgment of the Apex Court in Lohit Kaushal Vs State of Haryna, (2009) 17 Scc 106: (2011)1scc(CRi)955at Page 110 it was held that, The disclosure statements made by the accused are hit by sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act, 1872, as they had the status of being statements made to the police and nothing more and are, thus, not admissible in evidence. It will be seen that a statement made to the police can only be used to the limited extent provided under section 27 of the Evidence Act and that too only against the person making the statement.” As per the about laid down dictum of law, the confession recorded by police is hit by Sec 25 and 26 of the Indian evidence Act, as such the confession panchanama is admissible. Moreover PW6 during his cross- examination testified that he do not know the contents of the said panchanama.

19.The evidence of PW7 is in the line of investigation and filing of charge sheet. PW7 failed to collect any bills or ownership receipts with regard to lost gold ornaments. As seen from the entire evidence on record there is no single whisper about the identity or descriptive particulars of the accused.

Nowhere in the entire evidence of prosecution disclosing the involvement of accused/Kandikanti Raja Goud in this case. The learned APP contended that if the theft was not taken place, how the police acquired the lost valuable

SPL. AJMFC, MOBILE COURT, NZB

CC No.1852 of 2022 12 of 14 Dt:01.09.2025.

proprieties of PW1 and there is no necessity for the police to falsely implicate the accused. It may be true that on fateful day a theft was committed in the house of PW1 and his family have lost their valuable property, however there is no cogent material on record to connect the accused with this crime.

It seems that on suspicious grounds the accused was implicated in this case since he is habitual offender. However, I am of the view that suspicious however grave and serious may be the reliance cannot be placed that the accused has committed the offence. Therefore, this court of the view that, the material evidence produced by the prosecution is not sufficient to prove the guilty of the accused. Hence this Court is of the view that no offence of committing house breaking and theft has been proved by the prosecution against accused. Therefore the accused is entitled for acquittal.Therefore, the point is answered accordingly.

20. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under sections 454, 380 of Indian Penal Code and accordingly he is acquitted under section 248(1) Criminal Procedure Code. The surety bonds of the accused executed earlier shall stand canceled after lapse of appeal time. The valuable property ie.,. MO Nos.1 to 4 which was deposited before the Court vide CPR

No 279 of 2022, which was given interim custody to its original owner/PW1 vide Crl.MP No.1100 of 2022 dated.28.11.2022 shall become absolute. The remaining property i.e., Item No.1 Hyundai Red Color Car bearing No.AP-28-

DT-2918, which was given to police for interim custody shall be return to its

SPL. AJMFC, MOBILE COURT, NZB

CC No.1852 of 2022 13 of 14 Dt:01.09.2025.

original owner after proper identification and acknowledgment after lapse of appeal period.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 01st day of September, 2025.

FAC:Special Judicial Magistrate Of First

Class(Mobile),Under Pcr Act-Cum-

III Additional Junior Civil Judge

Nizamabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR ACCUSED

PW-1Begari Raju.

PW-2Kothpally Arun Kumar.

PW-3 Madhave Arjun.

PW-4 Begari Lavanya. - Nil -

PW-5Arolla Laxmi.

PW-6Pavula Shubham.

PW-7G.Naresh, SI of Police.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P-1 Report.

Ex.P-2 Signature of PW3 on Crime Detail Form. Ex.P-3 Signature of PW6 on Confession and recovery panchanama. Ex.P-4First Information Report.

FOR ACCUSED

:: NIL::

SPL. AJMFC, MOBILE COURT, NZB

CC No.1852 of 2022 14 of 14 Dt:01.09.2025.

Material Objects marked

MO No.1 Gold Chain weighing about 14 grams. MO No.2Gold Necklace weighing about 12.9 grams. MO No.3Two Gold Ear studs with Matilu weighing about 10.21 grams. MO No.4 Four Gold Rings weighing about 7.9 grams.

FAC:Special Judicial Magistrate Of First

Class(Mobile),Under PCR Act-Cum-

III Additional Junior Civil Judge

Nizamabad.

SPL. AJMFC, MOBILE COURT, NZB

CC No. 192 of 2020 1/12 Dt:02.09.2024

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(MOBILE) UNDER PCR ACT-CUM-III ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NIZAMABAD.

Present: Sri.Vaddi Hari Kumar, The Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Trial of cases under T.S. Prohibition and Excise Act-cum-IV

Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Nizamabad. FAC: Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class(Mobile),UnderPCRAct-Cum-III

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad.

TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

C.C. No. 192 of 2020 .

BETWEEN:

The State of Telangana, Rep., by Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Town-III, Nizamababad. …PROSECUTION AND

Ahmed Khan, S/o.Mohamood Khan, Age:50 years, Caste:Muslim, Occ:Driver of Lorry Bearing No.AP-25-X-7715, R/o.H.No.9-20-907, Auto Nagar, Nizamabad.

…ACCUSED ***** This case is coming on 20.08.2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Assistant Public Prosecutor and of Sri. P.Raju, Learned Counsel for accused, upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court delivered the following:

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

1.This case vide CC.No. 192 of 2020 was transferredto this court from the Learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

SPL. JMFC, (MOBILE COURT), NIZAMABAD.

CC No. 192 of 2020 2/12 Dt:02.09.2024

Nizamabad, District as per the orders of the Hon’ble Prl.Dist. &

SessionsJudge,NizamabadvideO.MDis.No.1357/PR

No.137/2023/2024 dt:20.03.2024 on the point of jurisdiction.

2.Brief facts of the case of prosecution are that, on 12.10.2019 at 18:00 hours complainant/Nayak Megapu Santhosh Kumar came to PS and lodged petition in which he stated that "he is the inhabitant of

Secunderabad and presently he is residing at Namdevwada Nizamabad and working as Chief Goods Supervisor in South Central Railway in

Nizamabad. On 12.10.2019 at 16:30 hours one Railway Goods wagon stopped nearby pambouli on Railway Track for the purpose to load with the bags and at the same time an unknown male person aged about 30-35 years found slept nearby the Wagon by keeping his head on the road. At about 17:00 hours one driver of Lorry Bearing.No. AP-25-X- 7715 who is coming from the side of Flyover bridge drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and drove the vehicle over the head of the unknown male person, resulting which his head crushed under the right wheels of the lorry and died on the spot. This was witnessed by him and one another person namely Vikas. On enquiry he came to know the name of Lorry Driver as Hymed Khan. Finally he requested to take necessary action.

SPL. JMFC, (MOBILE COURT), NIZAMABAD.

CC No. 192 of 2020 3/12 Dt:02.09.2024

3.Basing on the report given by LW1/Nayak Megapu Santhosh

Kumar, LW12/SI of police, Town-III P.S registered a case in Cr.No.290 of 2019 under Section 304(A) of IPC and took up the investigation.

4.During the course of investigation LW12 examined and recorded the statements of LW1. Later LW12 along with the complainant rushed to scene of offence situated at Pambouli beside Railway Goods loading point and found an unknown male person died and his skull was broken and the brain scattered all over the road which he sustained due to passing of back wheels of lorry. A Loarry Bearing No.AP-25-X7715 also found present nearby the deceased. On that LW12/SI of Police secured the presence of two mediators i.e., LW6/Shaik Chand Pasha and

LW7/Kolthe Mohan and in their presence took the photographs of the deceased and scene of offence and conducted Scene of offence panchanma and preserved the scene by means of rough sketch in

Crime Detail Form. Owing to late hours of the night, LW12/SI of Police shifted to Govt. Hospital, Nizamabad and kept in Mortuary Room for safe custody. On 13.10.2019 LW12 visited Govt.Hospital, Nizamabad and recorded the statements of LW2/Ambuti Vikas, LW3/Bommera

Naveen and LW4/Irpudi Ram Prasad. Later LW12/SI of Police took the photographs of the deceased and secured the presence of two mediators i.e., LW8/Bendkewad Vittal and LW9/Kongari Lavan Kumar and in their presence conducted Inquest over the dead body of the

SPL. JMFC, (MOBILE COURT), NIZAMABAD.

CC No. 192 of 2020 4/12 Dt:02.09.2024

unknown male deceased and subjected the dead body for PME to be conducted by LW11/Dr.B.V.Naga Mohan Rao, medical officer who held autopsy over the dead body of the deceased opined that the cause of death is due to Multiple Injuries. On 13.10.2019 at about 20:00 hours

LW5/Mohd.Abdul Waheed who is the owner of the crime vehicle brought by accused/Ahmed Khan.

5.While efforts are in progress for the accused, On 13.10.2019 accused surrendered himself before LW12 and voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence. On that LW12 verified entire documents and found that the accused having Driving License and other documents of the crime vehicle i.e, Lorry Bearing No.AP-25-X-7715.

Later on 14.10.2019 at 10:00 A.M the LW12/SI of Police had issued notice to the accused U/s. 41(A) Cr.P.C. After that LW12 examined and recorded the statement of LW5/Mohd.Abdul Waheed/Owner of the

Crime Vehicle.

6. Later on the file of requisition by the LW12/SI of Police the Finger

Print Bureau authorities Nizamabad developed Finger Prints and tried to match with the old records but no clues could be achieved. As the dead body of the deceased is became decomposition state, LW12/SI of Police filed requisition before MVI Nizamabad. Later LW11 on requisition, inspected the crime vehicle and issued MVI report by stating that accident has not occurred not due to any mechanical defects of the

SPL. JMFC, (MOBILE COURT), NIZAMABAD.

CC No. 192 of 2020 5/12 Dt:02.09.2024

vehicle. As the crime vehicle i.e., Lorry Bearing No.AP-25-X-7715 is no more required LW12/SI of Police released the crime vehicle to Pagilla

Venkata Narayana on behalf of its owner/Mohd. Abdul Waheed as the owner is suffering with ill-health by taking proper ackowledgment on 18.10.2019. On 09.11.2019 LW12/SI of Police sent Form 54 before

Chairman MACT, Hon’ble District Sessions Judge, Nizamabad. Later on 11.12.2019 LW12/SI of Police sent Right Humorous Bone of the unknown deceased to FSL, Hyderabad to preserve DNA. But the same was returned by the Director FSL, Hyderabad with the remarks due to non acceptance of unknown incomplete cases, the case property is herewith not being accepted as there are no claimants persons for the unknown dead body cases.After completion of entire investigation

LW12/SI of Police filed a charge-sheet against the accused.

7.On receipt of charge sheet, this case was taken on file for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC against accused. On appearance of

Accused, copies of case documents were furnished to him as required under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. Accused was examined under Sec.251 of

Cr.P.C for the offence punishable u/Sec.304-A of IPC and the substance of accusation leveled against him is read over and explained to him in his Vernacular language for which, Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

SPL. JMFC, (MOBILE COURT), NIZAMABAD.

CC No. 192 of 2020 6/12 Dt:02.09.2024

8. During the course of trial, prosecution examined Pws-1 to 9 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 on behalf of prosecution. The evidence of

LW6/Shaik Chand Pasha, LW8/Bendkewad Vittal and LW10/K.Hitesh has been given up by the Learned APPO.

9. After closure of prosecution side evidence, accused is examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating evidence available in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, for which accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf. Hence, the evidence on behalf of accused is closed.

10. Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the Accused.

11. Perused the material available on record.

12. Now the point for my determination is

‘ Whether the prosecution has proved and established the guilt

of the accused for the offence punishable under Secs. 304-A of

I.P.C Act beyond all reasonable doubt’ ?

13. POINT:

To prove its case the prosecution has examined Nine (09) witnesses out of cited Twelve (12) witnesses i.e., PW-1 to 9. PW-1 is the complainant and Eye-witness. PW-2 and PW3 are also the Eye- witnesses, PW-4 is the Panch witness for scene of offence, PW-5 is the

SPL. JMFC, (MOBILE COURT), NIZAMABAD.

CC No. 192 of 2020 7/12 Dt:02.09.2024

Photographer, who took the photographs of the deceased. PW6 is the

Owner of the Crime Vehicle. PW7 is the Panch witness for Inquest of

Deceased. PW8 is the Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the Deceased and PW9 is the Investigation Officer who conducted investigation and filed charge sheet.

14.To bring a case of homicide U/Sec 304-A IPC the following conditions must exist, viz.,

1. There must be death of the person in question,

2. The accused must have caused such death; and

3. That such act of the accused was rash or negligent and that it did not amount to culpable homicide.

15.The requirements of Sec 304-A of IPC are that the death of the person must have been caused by doing only a rash and negligent act, and that there must be a direct nexus between the death of person and negligent act of the accused

16.After perusal of the evidence of PW4, PW5 and PW8 coupled with

Ex.P2/Scene of offence Panchanama, Ex.P3/Photographs of Deceased,

Ex.P4/Inquest Panchanama and Ex.P5/PME Report, there is no dispute with regard to the death of deceased , whose age is between 30 to 35 years in an accident that took place on 12.10.2019. Now the main question is whether the accused is responsible for the death of the deceased and whether the identity of the accused had been established and whether the death of deceased has been caused by the accused

SPL. JMFC, (MOBILE COURT), NIZAMABAD.

CC No. 192 of 2020 8/12 Dt:02.09.2024

with his rash or negligent act and it did not amounts to culpable homicide. To prove the above aspect, the prosecution has placed the reliance on the evidence of PW1 to PW9.

17. As per the testimony of PW1, on 12.10.2019 at about 16:30 hours, while he was at his office, PW2 and PW3 came to him and informed him that somebody was died due to an accident. Immediately he rushed to the spot and found one dead body. Thereafter he went to Police station.

The said report was marked as Ex.P1. As per the testimonies of PW2 and PW3 on 12.10.2019 at about 16:30 hours while they were going by the side of Railway track, they found one unknown dead body, who meat with an accident, then they both informed the same to PW1.

Apparently and unfortunately there are no eye-witnesses who have seen the accident. During the cross-examination PWs1 to 3 admitted that they did not witness the alleged accident. Further admitted that

Police never examined them nor recorded their statements. The above testimony is raising doubt about the genuineness of the case of the prosecution with regard to the involvement of the accused in the alleged accident.

18. The evidence of PW6, who is the owner of the Crime vehicle is formal in nature as he deposed that the accused is the driver and on 12.10.2019, he received a phone call from the accused by stating that police caught him and he caused an accident. Apart from the said fact,

SPL. JMFC, (MOBILE COURT), NIZAMABAD.

CC No. 192 of 2020 9/12 Dt:02.09.2024

PW6 not deposed anything in favour of prosecution. The evidence of

PW9, who is an investigation officer is silent about the collecting the vehicle documents, driving license, registration certificates and other documents of the accused. Further, no identification of accused was done by the PWs1 to 3, since they are not the eye-witnesses. In

Piginaraji Rangarao Vs State of A.P., 2009 (2) ALT (Crl.) 128

(A.P), wherein it was held that “When a witness had no prior acquaintance with the accused, the investigation officer should take steps for conducting Test Identification Parade”. Further in this case no independent witnesses has been examined by the prosecution and the evidence of PW1 to PW3 alone is not sufficient to prove the case against the accused.

19.The prosecution failed to prove that the accused was caused the death of deceased by rash and negligent driving and it also has to be seen that no documents of the crime vehicle has been seized. It is not clear from the evidence of the PW9 that whether he had made any efforts to seize the documents or not. The trip sheet, driving license etc. contain the name of the driver of the crime vehicle and those documents may be helpful to the prosecution to establish the identity of the accused. However, in the present case no efforts has been made by the investigation agency and it is also obligatory on the part of the

SPL. JMFC, (MOBILE COURT), NIZAMABAD.

CC No. 192 of 2020 10/12 Dt:02.09.2024

investigation officer to elicit the descriptive particulars of the accused from the witnesses.

20. It may be true that on fateful day, deceased met with an accident by the crime vehicle and died due to negligent driving of the rider of the crime vehicle. As already noticed, the identity of the rider of crime vehicle is not properly established and the investigating agency did not connect the accused with the crime vehicle by way of producing any relevant documentary evidence. Hence, the question of discussion of rashness or negligence act in driving the crime vehicle does not arise. Therefore, no case is made out by the prosecution. Further the prosecution also did not file any documents pertaining to crime vehicle to show that accused was the driver of Auto. In these circumstances I find force in the contention of the defence counsel that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The identity of the person who drove the crime vehicle at the relevant time is not established beyond reasonable doubt.

21. It is trite that in criminal jurisprudence, the prosecution is under an obligation to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The standard of proof to be adopted in criminal cases is not merely preponderance of probabilities but proof beyond reasonable doubts on the basis of cogent, convincing and reliable evidence. It is also well settled that in case of doubt, the benefit must necessarily be

SPL. JMFC, (MOBILE COURT), NIZAMABAD.

CC No. 192 of 2020 11/12 Dt:02.09.2024

given to the accused. It is also settled position of law that whenever there are two views possible, the view which favours the innocence of the accused is to be accepted by the court. Therefore, in view of the above said discussion this court of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly the accused is benefited for acquittal.

22.On careful consideration of the material brought on record, I am of the opinion that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused under sections. 304-A of IPC beyond reasonable doubt. The material brought on record is not sufficient to hold that the accused committed an offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, this court is inclined to acquit the accused.

23. IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under sections 304-A of IPC. Accordingly, he is acquitted under section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. Since, no property is deposited, there is no order with regard to property.

Typed to my dictation by stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 02nd day of September, 2025.

FAC: Special Judicial Magistrate Of First

Class(Mobile),Under Pcr Act-Cum-

III Additional Junior Civil Judge

Nizamabad.

SPL. JMFC, (MOBILE COURT), NIZAMABAD.

CC No. 192 of 2020 12/12 Dt:02.09.2024

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR ACCUSED

PW-1Nayak Megapu Santhosh:: NONE :: Kumar. PW-2Ambuti Vikas. PW-3Bommera Naveen. PW-4Kolthe Mohan. PW-5Irpudi Ram Prasad. PW-6Mohd.Abdul Waheed. PW-7Kongari Lavan Kumar. PW-8Dr.B.V.Nagamohan Rao. PW-9V.Santhosh Kumar, SI of Police.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P-1Report. Ex.P-2Scene of Offence Panchanama. Ex.P-3Photographs. Ex.P-4Inquest Panchaname. Ex.P-5PME Report. Ex.P-6First Information Report. Ex.P-7MVI Report.

FOR ACCUSED

:: NIL::

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL-

FAC:Special Judicial Magistrate Of First

Class(Mobile),Under Pcr Act-Cum-

III Additional Junior Civil Judge

Nizamabad.

SPL. JMFC, (MOBILE COURT), NIZAMABAD.

CC No.735 of 2021 1 of 11 Dt:10.09.2025

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS (MOBILE) UNDER PCR ACT-CUM-III ADDITIONAL JUNIOR

CIVIL JUDGE, NIZAMABAD.

Present:Sri.Vaddi Hari Kumar, The Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Trial of cases under T.S. Prohibition and Excise Act-cum-IV

Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Nizamabad. FAC:Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class(Mobile),Under PCR Act-Cum-III

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad.

MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

C.C. No.735 of 2021.

BETWEEN: The State of Telangana, Rep., by Sub Inspector of Police, PS Town-IV, Nizamababad. …PROSECUTION

AND Gireddy Hanmender Reddy, S/o.Narsareddy, Age:48 years, Caste:Reddy, Occ:RTA Agent, R/o.H.No.6-88/42/11/9 Shesha Sai Nagar, Nizamabad.

…ACCUSED

*****

This case is coming on 01.09.2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and of Sri. M.Saya Reddy, Learned Counsel for accused, upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court delivered the following:

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

1. This case vide CC.No. 735 of 2021 was transferredto this court from the Learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad

District as per the orders of the Hon’ble Prl.Dist. & Sessions Judge,

Nizamabad vide Dis.No.1807/2022 dt:12.04.2024 on the point of jurisdiction and the case received by this Court vide Dis No.726,

FAC: III. AJMFC, MOBILE COURT, NIZAMABAD.

CC No.735 of 2021 2 of 11 Dt:10.09.2025

dated:09.05.2022 as per the proceedings of Hon’ble Prl.Dist & Session

Court.

2. This case is filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Town-IV against accused in Crime No.213 of 2020 for the offence punishable under

Section 353 and 290 of IPC.

3. Gist of prosecution case is that on 12.08.2020 at 18:30 hours the complainant/Jangati Sathish came to Police Station and filed a complaint by stating that on 01.08.2020 he was discharging his duties and in view of Bakrid, he along with HG:149 are performing Blue colt duty and at 18:00 hours when they reached at Vinayaknagar Manikanta shop they found a person Hanmanth Reddy creating nuisance in an intoxication manner and picked up quarrel. He came to know that the said Hanmanth Reddy in an intoxication manner drove his Car and dashed to someone. Upon which they tried to pacify him, but without heeding to their words he became aggressive and abused them in filthy language and obstructed to their duties. Upon which he informed the same to the SIP and the SIP arrived and dispersed away the public.

Hence, he requested to take action against the accused who made nuisance in the public in an intoxicated manner, peace and tranquility to the public. He further stated that delay was caused in lodging the complaint as he thought of filing complaint as the accused is in intoxication manner.

FAC: III. AJMFC, MOBILE COURT, NIZAMABAD.

CC No.735 of 2021 3 of 11 Dt:10.09.2025

4.On the foot of report given by LW1/Jangati Sathish,

LW9/G.Narayana, SI of Town-IV Police Station registered a case in

Cr.No. 213 of 2020 for the offence punishable under section 353 and 290 of IPC. During the course of investigation LW9 has examined the

LW1/Jangati Sathish, LW2/Puli Prabhakar and LW3/Mallikanti Laxmaiah.

LW9/SI of Police also examined LW4/Shaik Saddam, LW5/Gudipally

Nagi Reddy and LW6/Chilvari Prabhakar. Subsequently LW9 has secured the presence of two mediators ie., LW7/Tulasi Swamy and

LW8/Mohammed Asif and in their presence conducted scene of offence panchanama and drew the rough sketch in Crime Detail Form.

5. On 17.08.2020 LW9 has issued a Notice U/s. 41-A of Cr.P.C to the

Accussed. On 18.08.2020 the accused appeared before him and voluntarily confessed to have committed the offence and on completion of entire investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused.

6. On receipt of charge sheet, this case was taken cognizance for the offence under Sec.353 and 290 of IPC against Accused. Copies of case documents were furnished to him under Sec.207 Cr.P.C and he was examined under Sec.251 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under section 353 and 290 of IPC and the substance of accusation leveled against the accused is read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. During course of trial, prosecution examined PW1 to PW6 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 on its behalf. No documents were marked on

FAC: III. AJMFC, MOBILE COURT, NIZAMABAD.

CC No.735 of 2021 4 of 11 Dt:10.09.2025

behalf of Accused. The evidence of LW3/Mallikanti Laxmaiah has been given up by the learned APPO. The evidence of LW4/Shaik Saddam and

LW8/Mohammed Asif have been closed as per the report filed by the police concerned.

8. According to the case of prosecution, PW1/Jangati Sathish is defacto complainant; PW2/Puli Prabhakar is the Eye witness and Assist to I.O,

PW3/Gudupally Nagi Reddy and PW5/Chilvari Prabhakar are the Eye- witnesses, PW4/Tulasi Swamy is te Panch for scene of offence and

PW6/G.Narayana is the investigating officer.

9. After closure of prosecution side evidence, Accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating evidence available in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, for which Accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf. Hence, the evidence on behalf of Accused is closed.

10. Heard. Perused the material available on record.

11. Now the point for my determination is

‘w hether the prosecution has proved and established the guilt

of Accused for the offence under Sec. 353 and 290 of IPC

beyond all reasonable doubt’ ?

12. P O I N T:

The case of the prosecution is that on 01.08.2020, while the complainant/Police Constable was performing his duties during bakrid eve, when they reached at Vinayak Nagar, Manikanta Shop, they found the Accused/Gireddy Hanmender Reddy in an inebriated state and

FAC: III. AJMFC, MOBILE COURT, NIZAMABAD.

CC No.735 of 2021 5 of 11 Dt:10.09.2025

creating nuisance and on enquiry, the complainant came to know that the accused drove the car in an inebriated state and dashed to someone. The LW-1 and 2 tried to pacify the accused for which he became aggressive and abused Lw-1 and 2 in a filthy language and obstructed their duties. Thus the accused created public nuisance and obstructed Lw-1 and 2, while they performing their legitimate duties.

13. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined Pw-1 to Pw-6. Out of them Pw-1 is the complainant. Pw-2 is the eye witness and Assisted the Investigation Officer. Pw-3 and 5 are the Eye-witnesses. Pw-4 is the panch witness for the scene of offence panchanama and Pw-6 is

Investigation Officer, who conducted investigation and filed charge sheet.

14.Section 353 of IPC categorically provides that in order to attract the offence, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the there was assault or use of criminal force restraining public servants from performing his official duties or causing any act with intent to prevent or deter him from discharging his duty. Therefore, it is evident that to make out a case u/Sec 353 of IPC, the prosecution must meet essential requirements that a public servant must be assaulted or subjected to criminal force when he was carrying out his responsibilities; or with the goal of preventing or discouraging him from doing his duties.

15.As seen from the record PW-1 and 2 are the police officials and there is no dispute with regard to the same. PW-1 and 2 during their chief-examination deposed that on 01.08.2020 at about 6:00 PM, he

FAC: III. AJMFC, MOBILE COURT, NIZAMABAD.

CC No.735 of 2021 6 of 11 Dt:10.09.2025

along with PW2 while performing bluecolt duty within the limits of PS

Town-IV, they observed the group of people in front of Manikanta shop at Vinayak nagar, then they went there and observed that one person was in a drunken condition and creating nuisance and during the enquiry they came to know that the person dashed someone with his car under intoxication. Meanwhile they tried to pacify the issue and asked that person to calm down but he has obstructed their duties without heeding their words and he also abused them in a filthy language and also bet PW-1 on his shoulder. Thereafter, he informed the same to their SI/LW3 then he came over there and he pacified the issue. After 2 to 3 days he lodged report against the accused.

According to Pw-1 and 2, the accused was in a drunken condition and created public nuisance and on enquiry they case to know that the accused dashed some one with his car under intoxication.

During cross examination both PW-1 and 2 admitted that they did not take the accused to the hospital for examination. The police also failed to conduct breath analyzer test or failed to collect any proof to show that the accused was in a drunken state at the time of alleged incident.

Pw-6, who is the investigation officer also admitted that he have not collected any report to show that the accused was in a drunken state at the time of alleged incident.

16.As per the case of the prosecution, the accused in an inebriated state dashed some one’s car and creating nuisance, and when Pw-1 and 2 tried to pacify the issue, the accused obstructed their duties and

FAC: III. AJMFC, MOBILE COURT, NIZAMABAD.

CC No.735 of 2021 7 of 11 Dt:10.09.2025

abused them in filthy language and also bet on the shoulder of PW-1.

The entire evidence of prosecution including the EX.P1 Report is silent on the details or particulars of the car and its owner or inside passengers if any. Pw-1 and 2 admitted that they did not seize the car.

Pw-6/Investigation Officer, during his cross-examination also admitted that either in Ex.P1 Report or in his charge sheet their is no mention about the car number or its details.

17.Moreover, as per the prosecution version , the incident took place near manikanta shop, Vinayak Nagar, Nizamabad. However, none of the persons, who were present at the place of incident have been examined by the Investigation Officer, and the Investigation Officer, also admitted in his cross-examination that he has not examined the persons of manikanta shop as a witness and he did not enquire with the neighboring persons of the said shop. What prevented the investigation officer, to examine the independent witnesses who were present at the shop for the reasons best known to him.

18.However, in the instant case one independent witness has been examined as PW-5. Pw-5 testified that in the year 2020 while he returned back from his office he found a crowd at Vinayaknagar and he went there and he observed a commossion took place between police and civilian and that person abused the police in filthy language. The evidence of Pw-5 is silent about the specific abuse words used by the accused. His evidence also silent on the aspect of what type of assault

FAC: III. AJMFC, MOBILE COURT, NIZAMABAD.

CC No.735 of 2021 8 of 11 Dt:10.09.2025

or criminal force used by the accused against PW-1 and 2 and the accused prevented them while performing their duties. The evidence of

PW-5 is silent on these material aspects. As per the statement of PW-5, at the time of alleged incident, Lw-4 and Pw-3 also present. But PW-3, who is one of the independent witness turned hostile by deposing that he do not know any thing about this case. Police never examined nor recorded his statement. Pw-4, who is panch witness for scene of offence panchanama also turned hostile by deposing that he do not know any thing about this case and police obtained his signature on some written papers without disclosing the contens of it. Learned APP after obtaining permission from the court cross examined them but nothing was elicited in favour of prosecution. Hence it is clear that there are no independent witnesses to support the prosecution case and the evidence of Pw-5 is not sufficient to support the case of the prosecution.

19.It is further pertinent to mention that there is a delay in lodging report by the PW-1 and the same was admitted by Pw-1,2 and 6/Investigation Officer during their cross-examination. During cross- examination PW-6/Investigation Officer, offered an explanation that in

Column.No.8 of Ex.P4/FIR it has mentioned that the delay in reporting the complaint as “The accused is in drunken condition so, he thought for decision”. However, such an vague explanation does not inspire the confidence of the court to believe the genuineness of the FIR. In the instant case, the FIR was lodged by the complainant, who is police

FAC: III. AJMFC, MOBILE COURT, NIZAMABAD.

CC No.735 of 2021 9 of 11 Dt:10.09.2025

official, who is having knowledge about procedure of lodging report and its formalities, after an in ordinate and un-explained delay of two to three days police station, which renders the FIR in this case wholly unreliable. The delay in lodging the FIR corrodes the credibility of the prosecution story. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in several cases held that delay in lodging the FIR creates a doubt, if the said delay is not properly explained.

20.Learned counsel for accused submitted that Pw-1, 2 and PW6 are police officials and their evidence cannot be taken into consideration .However, in my opinion prima facie, public servants must be presumed to act honestly and conscientiously and their evidence has to be assessed on its intrinsic worth and cannot be discarded merely on the ground that being public servants, they are interested in the success of their case. Howeverprosecution has failed to furnish any scrap of documentary evidence to substantiate their contentions.

21.The sum and substance of the above discussion goes to show that the prosecution has failed to establish that there was assault or use of criminal force by the accused and such assault or use of criminal force made on the complainant while he was acting in execution of his official duties. At the cost of repetition, it is reiterated here that the material witnesses produced by the prosecution were the departmental witnesses and not the independent witnesses and hence, their testimony is doubtful and cannot be relied upon. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, this court is of the view that the prosecution has

FAC: III. AJMFC, MOBILE COURT, NIZAMABAD.

CC No.735 of 2021 10 of 11 Dt:10.09.2025

failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Therefore, the accused is entitled for acquittal. Therefore, the point is answered accordingly.

22. IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/sec.353 and 290 of IPC. Consequently he is acquitted

U/Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months as contemplated U/s.437(A) of Cr.P.C. Since no property was deposited, there is no order with regard to the property.

Typed to my dictation by stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 10th day of September, 2025.

FAC: Special Judicial Magistrate Of First Class(Mobile),Under Pcr Act-Cum- III Additional Junior Civil Judge

Nizamabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR ACCUSED

PW-1Jangati Sathish.

PW-2Puli Prabhakar.

PW-3Gudipally Nagi Reddy.

:: NONE ::

PW-4Tulasi Swamy.

FAC: III. AJMFC, MOBILE COURT, NIZAMABAD.

CC No.735 of 2021 11 of 11 Dt:10.09.2025

PW-5Chilvari Prabhakar.

PW-6G.Narayana, SI of Police.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P-1Report.

Ex.P-2161 of Cr.P.C statement of PW3.

Ex.P-3Signature of PW4 on Scene of Offence

Panchanama.

Ex.P-4First Information Report.

Ex.P-5Crime Detail Form.

FOR ACCUSED

None

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

:: NIL ::

FAC:Special Judicial Magistrate Of First

Class(Mobile),Under Pcr Act-Cum-

III Additional Junior Civil Judge

Nizamabad.

FAC: III. AJMFC, MOBILE COURT, NIZAMABAD.

Page No. 1 of 10 CC No. 1305 of 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER TELANGANA

PROHIBITION & EXCISE ACT -CUM- IV ADDITIONAL JUNIOR

CIVIL JUDGE, NIZAMABAD.

Present: Sri Vaddi Hari Kumar, Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class for trial of cases under (TS Proh. & Excise) Act -cum- IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad

On this Friday, the 13th day of March, 2026.

Calendar Case No. 1305 of 2018 Between: The Telangana State through, Sub-Inspector of Police, Navipet Police Station, Nizamabad. Represented by Assistant Public Prosecutor. …Complainant AND A1: Shaik Sadaq S/o Shaik Babu, Age:23 Years, Caste: Muslim, Occ: Labour, R/o Auto Nagar Near Water Tank, Nizamabad.

A2: Syed Shadullaha @ Shadul S/o Abdullah, Age:24 Years, Caste: Muslim, Occ: Labour, R/o Near ITI Varni Road, Nizamabad (Case against Accused No.1 and 2 was split up from the main case i.e., CC.No.689 of 2014) A3: Kashapogula Suresh S/o Babu, Age: 24 Years, Caste: SC Madiga, Occ: Labour, R/o Sainagar III Nr Mala Sangham, Nizamabad

...Accused No.1 and 2

*****

This case was came before me on 12.03.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor representing for the State/Complainant and Advocate Sri Md. Junaid Ali, counsel for accused No.1 and Advocate Sri. S Manjith Singh, counsel for accused No.2 upon perusal of record and upon hearing both sides and having stood over the matter to this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

Dt: 13-03-2026 IV JMFC P& E, Nizamabad

Page No. 2 of 10 CC No. 1305 of 2018 :: J U D G M E N T ::

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Navipet Police Station, Nizamabad laid charge sheet against the Accused No.1 to 3 for the offences punishable

U/Secs 457, 380 Indian Penal Code of (hereinafter called IPC).

2. The case of the prosecution in brief are as follows:

On 27.09.2014 at 10.00 hours the complainant/Padala Satyanarayana came to Police Station and lodged a report stating that he is having a residential house at Nandigam village and he is eking livelihood by running kirana shop in front portion of his house. On 12.09.2014 he came to know that his father in law was died at Timmapoor village of Bhainsa Mandal as such he along with his wife and daughter went to Thimmapoor village.

Later, on 17.09.2014 only return back to Nandigam and stayed two days then on 19.09.2014 he went to Thimmapoor village later on 25.09.2014 he he return back to Nandigam and on 26.09.2014 at 0900 hours as usually he opened the kirana shop at night at about 2130 hours and he locked the doors of the kirana shop and slept in bed room which is situated in the first floor of his house. on 27.09.2014 at 0600 hrs he came down and found that his kirana shop door was broke opened, then he called his neighbors by namely

Boni Naryana and Boni Lakshmi entered with them in to his shop and found some articles were Scattered. On searching he did not found one Gold

Suryaharam Weight about 4½ tulas (45 grams) and gold neck chain weight about 2.4 tulas (24 grams) of his wife which is kept in his kirana shop counter. He further stated that on the night of 26/27.09.2014 some unknown offenders gained entery in to his kirna shop by broke opening the locks of the doors and committed theft of above gold articles and decamped with booty. The value of stolen gold is Rs. 1,00,000/- Approximately. Further he

Dt: 13-03-2026 IV JMFC P& E, Nizamabad

Page No. 3 of 10 CC No. 1305 of 2018 came to know that in the night hours some unknown persons pushed the house doors of one Thigala chinna Laxman which is situated in the outskirts of Nandigam village on hues and cries of laxman they were escaped from there. Hence, he requested to take legal action into the matter.

Basing on the complaint, LW-10/M. Sampath Kumar, The then

S.I of Police, Navipet Nizamabad registered a case vide FIR No. 174/2014,

U/Sec. 457, 380 of IPC. Lw-10/M. Sampath Kumar S.I have recorded the statement of LW-1. Later, Lw-12 visited scene of offence situated at

Nadigam village and secured the presence of Lw-6 and LW-7 and conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch. Later, LW-12 have examined and recorded the statements of Lw-2 to Lw-5. While investigation was in progress, on 11.12.2014, Lw-11/S. Saidaiah S.I of Police V-Town,

Nizamabad nabbed the accused No.1 to 3 and on interrogation, when they about to confess the offence, immediately Lw-11 secured the presence of

LW-8 and Lw-9 and recorded the confessional and recovery panchanama of accused No.1 to 3. As per the confessional statements of accused No.1 to 3, in the presence of LW-8 and Lw-9, the police have recovered the stolen property i.e., one gold (surya haram/pedda golusu) Weight about 4.5 tulas and one gold necklace Weight about 2.4 tulas pertains to this crime and other gold and silver ornaments pertains to other by pasting the panchas chits under a cover separate recover panchanama. After Lw-11 brought the accused No.1 to 3 to Town-V, Nizamabad police station and affected their arrest in Cr.No.171/2014 U/sec.457, 380 of IPC of PS V-Town, Nizamabad issuing arrest memo duly informing the grounds of their arrest at 1130 hours to them and to their relatives U/sec.50 Cr.P.C. and sent the accused No.1 to 3 to judicial custody. Later, LW-12 have deposited the case property before

Dt: 13-03-2026 IV JMFC P& E, Nizamabad

Page No. 4 of 10 CC No. 1305 of 2018 this court vide CPR no.201/2014 dated 17.12.2014. After completion of investigation, Lw-12 have filed charge sheet against accused.

3.My learned predecessor has taken cognizance for the offence under sections 457, 380 of IPC against the accused No.1 to 3

4.During the course of proceedings, the case was transferred from

Hon’ble II Additional JFCM, Nizamabad to this Court on the point of

jurisdiction as per the proceedings of Hon’ble Prl. Dist. & Sessions Judge’s court vide proceedings Dis. No. 1357/PR No. 137/2023/2024 Dated:

20.03.2024 and vide proceedings Dis. No.192, Dated: 18.03.2024 of the

Hon’ble CJM, Nizamabad.

5.During course of proceedings, the case against accused No.1 and 2 was split up from the main casei.e., 689/2014. The main Case i.e., 689 of 2014 which was pending against accused No.3 was disposed by the Hon’bel

II Addl. JFCM, Nizamabad on 26.07.2019 and accused no.3 was acquitted in the said case.

6.On appearance of Accused No.1 and 2, the copies of documents are furnished to them as contemplated U/Section 207 of Cr.P.C. and they were examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C and charges are framed under sections 457, 380 of IPC and explained to them in their vernacular language and the accused having understood the same pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried.

7.In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW5 and exhibits P1 to P10 are marked. Learned APP has given up the evidence of Lw-3 to 6 and 9 to 11. Thus the prosecution evidence was closed.

Dt: 13-03-2026 IV JMFC P& E, Nizamabad

Page No. 5 of 10 CC No. 1305 of 2018

8. After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code and explained with incriminating evidence against them for which they denied and reported no defence evidence. Hence the defence evidence was closed.

9.Heard both sides and perused the material available on record. The learned APP argued that, the prosecution established the guilt of the accused persons with the evidence available on record beyond reasonable doubts.

Hence, prayed to convict the accused.

On the other hand the defence counsel argued that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the case against the accused and they were falsely implicated in this case and accordingly prayed to acquit the accused person.

10. Now the point for determination is: “Whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the Accused No.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under sections

457, 380 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubts?”

11. POINT:

The Case of the prosecution is that Accused no.1 and 2 are habitual offenders and they are involved in several property offences and accused no.3 is their friend. The accused no.1 to 3 have committed the theft in the house of complainant by broke opening the locks. The accused have committed theft of gold Suryaharam weighing about 4 ½ tuals and gold neck chain weighing about 2.4 tulas and decamped with booty. Total worth of theft ornaments are Rs. 1,00,000/-. On 10.12.2014, the accused no.1 to 3 were proceeded to Nizamabad from Kothapally on stolen motor cycle and caught by the V-Town, Police, Nizamabad and recovered the entire stolen property. Thus the accused no.1 to 3 are liable to be punished under section 457, 380 of IPC.

Dt: 13-03-2026 IV JMFC P& E, Nizamabad

Page No. 6 of 10 CC No. 1305 of 2018

12.To prove its case the prosecution has examined Five (5) witnesses out of cited Twelve (12) witnesses. Out of them PW1 is the complainant, PW-2 is the witness, PW-3 is the panch witness for scene of offence panchanama and Pw-4 is the panch witness for confession and recovery panchanama and

PW-5 is the Investigation Officer who conducted further investigation and filed charge sheet.

13.In Ex.P1 report, the PW-1 stated that some unknown offenders committed the theft in his house and stolen the gold ornaments. As seen from Ex.P6 FIR, it is further clear that the case was registered against unknown offenders. Now it has to see that whether the accused no.1 and 2 have committed the offence in this case. As seen from the evidence of PW1 and PW-2, the identity particulars of accused were not stated. During cross examination PW-1 and 2 admitted that there are no eye-witnesses to the alleged theft and they do not know who committed the theft. Admittedly there are no eye-witnesses in this case to strengthen the prosecution case.

14.Pw-3, who is a panch witness for scene of offence panchanama and

PW-4, who is a panch witness for confession and recovery panchanama of accused No.1 and 2 were turned hostile and denied about conducting of scene of offence panchanama as well as confession and recovery panchanama in their presence. They both have stated that police obtained their signatures on some written papers without informing the purpose.

Learned APP after obtaining permission from the court cross examined them but nothing was elicited in favour of prosecution. Thus, the scene of offence panchanama and confession and recovery panchanama are not proved.

Dt: 13-03-2026 IV JMFC P& E, Nizamabad

Page No. 7 of 10 CC No. 1305 of 2018

15.The remaining evidence is the evidence of the Investigation officer/PW-5 who conducted further investigation and filed charge sheet.

The evidence of PW-5 is in the lines of conducting of investigation done by

LW-10 and LW-11 and conducting of further investigation by him and he deposed in the line of investigation and filing of charge-sheet and his evidence is formal in nature. As seen from the entire evidence on record there is no single whisper about the identity or descriptive particulars of the accused. Nowhere in the entire evidence of prosecution disclosing the involvement of accused No.1 and 2 in this case. The learned APP contended that if the theft was not taken place, how the police acquired the lost valuable proprieties of PW-1 and there is no necessity for the police to falsely implicate the accused no.1 and 2 . It may be true that on fateful day a theft was committed in the house of PW1 and he has lost his valuable property, however there is no cogent material on record to connect the accused No.1 and 2 with this crime. It seems that on suspicious grounds the accused were implicated in this case since they are habitual offenders.

However, I am of the view that suspicious however grave and serious may be the reliance cannot be placed that the accused have committed the offence. Therefore, this court is of the view that, the material evidence produced by the prosecution is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused no.1 and 2 . Therefore, this court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore the accused are entitled for acquittal. Therefore, the point is answered accordingly.

16. In the result, the accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence under sections 457, 380 of Indian Penal Code and accordingly they are acquitted under section 248(1) Criminal Procedure Code. The surety

Dt: 13-03-2026 IV JMFC P& E, Nizamabad

Page No. 8 of 10 CC No. 1305 of 2018 bonds of the accused no.1 and 2 executed earlier shall stand canceled after lapse of appeal time. The accused No.1 is lodged in District Jail, Nizamabad and Accused No.2 is lodged in Central Prison, Charlapally, Hyderabad.

Therefore the superintendent of District Jail, Nizamabad District is directed to release the accused no.1 and The superintendent of Central Prison,

Charlapally, Hyderabad is hereby directed to release the accused No. 2 forthwith unless they are required to be detain in any other cases. The unmarked case property, which was deposited before the court vide CPR.

No. 201 of 2014 dated: 17.12.2014 shall be return to its original owner/claimant after the lapse of appeal period.

Note:- The main case i.e., CC.No. 689/2014, which was pending against accused No.3 was disposed by the Hon’bel II Addl. JFCM, Nizamabad on 26.07.2019 and accused no.3 was acquitted in the said case.

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

pronounced by me in the open Court on this day of 13th day of March, 2026.

Spl.Judl. Magistrate of First Class Proh. & Excise cum IV AJCJ

Nizamabad.

ppendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW-1: Palda Satyanaryana

PW-2: Voni Narayana

PW-3: Induru Gangadhar --Nil-- PW-4: Kacha Kayala Ganga Sagar

PW-5: G. Venakteswar Rao/I.O

Dt: 13-03-2026 IV JMFC P& E, Nizamabad

Page No. 9 of 10 CC No. 1305 of 2018

Documents Marked For Prosecution: For Defence:

Ex.P1: Report

Ex.P2:Signature in CDF as panch wintess No.2 of PW-3.

Ex.P3: Signatures on confession and recovery panchanama of accused No.1 of PW-4

Ex.P4: Signatures on confession and recovery panchanama of accused No.2 of PW-4

Ex.P5: Signatures on confession and recovery panchanama of accused No.3 of PW-4

Ex.P6: First Information Report --Nil-- Ex.P7: Scene of offence panchanama

Ex.P8: Confession and recovery panchanama of accused No.1 of PW-5

Ex.P9: Confession and recovery panchanama of accused No.2 of PW-5

Ex.P10: Confession and recovery panchanama of accused No.3 of PW-5

Material Objects Marked -- NIL --

Sd/-

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proh & Excise cum IV AJCJ, Nizamabad

Dt: 13-03-2026 IV JMFC P& E, Nizamabad

Page No. 10 of 10 CC No. 1305 of 2018

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS, PROHIBITION AND EXCISE CUM IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL

JUDGE, NIZAMABAD

TABULAR FORM

1 Calendar Case Number:: C.C.No. 1305 of 2018 2 Name of the Station: P.S. Navipet, Nizamabad

FIR/Cr. No.: FIR No.174/2014

Section of law: U/secs 457, 380 of IPC 3 Description of the accused: A1: Shaik Sadaq S/o Shaik Babu, Age:23 Years, Caste: Muslim, Occ: Labour, R/o Auto Nagar Near Water Tank, Nizamabad.

A2: Syed Shadullaha @ Shadul S/o Abdullah, Age:24 Years, Caste: Muslim, Occ: Labour, R/o Near ITI Varni Road, Nizamabad (Case against Accused No.1 and 2 was split up from the main case i.e., 689 of 2014) A3: Kashapogula Suresh S/o Babu, Age: 24 Years, Caste: SC Madiga, Occ: Labour, R/o Sainagar III Nr Mala Sangham, Nizamabad Date of : Occurrence: 27.09.2014

Report or complaint: 27.09.2014

Issue of process: 18.07.2018

Appearance/Apprehension: 17.02.2026

Commencement of trial: 27.02.2026

Closure of trial: 12.03.2026

Sentence or order: 13.03.2026

Explanation for delay --

Spl.Judl. Magistrate of First Class Proh. & Excise cum IV AJCJ To Nizamabad The Hon'ble I Addl. Sessions Judge, Nizmabad.

Date: 13.03.2026 Dis No.

Dt: 13-03-2026 IV JMFC P& E, Nizamabad

CC No.2130 of 2019 1 of 8 Dt:01.09.2025.

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS (MOBILE)

UNDER PCR ACT-CUM-III ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NIZAMABAD.

Present: Sri.Vaddi Hari Kumar, The Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Trial of cases under T.S. Prohibition and Excise Act-cum-IV

Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Nizamabad. FAC:Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class(Mobile),UnderPCRAct-Cum-III

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad.

MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

C.C. No. 2130 of 2019.

BETWEEN:

The State of Telangana, rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, Town-III Police Station, Nizamabad District. …Prosecution AND Kandikanti Rajagoud @ Raju, S/o. Sadanandgoud, Age: 29 years, Caste:Goud, Occ:Coolie, R/o. Sanjeevaiah Colony Near one rupee Hospital, Nizamabad.

...Accused

***** This case is coming on 20.08.2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and of Sri. Bitla.Ravi, Counsel for accused, upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court delivered the following:

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

1.This case vide CC.No. 2130 of 2019 was transferredto this court from the Learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad,

District as per the orders of the Hon’ble Prl.Dist. & Sessions Judge,

Nizamabad vide O.M Dis.No.1357/P.R. No.137/2023/2024, dt:20.03.2024 on the point of jurisdiction.

SPL. AJMFC, MOBILE COURT, NZB

CC No.2130 of 2019 2 of 8 Dt:01.09.2025.

2.This case is filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Town-III against accused in Crime No.229 of 2019 for the offence punishable under Section 457 and 380 of IPC.

3.The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that, on 30.07.2019 at 10:30 hours the Complainant/Minuka Sayareddy came to Police Station and lodged a petition in which he stated that he is the inhabitant of Kanteshwar

Nizamabad and working as Head Master in Govt. High School Darugally

Hamalwadi. On 29.07.2019 at night some unknown offenders gained entry in to Govt. High School by broke open Four (4) rooms locks and committed theft of three (3) mid-day meals rice bags weighing about 150 KGs and decamped with the booty. The worth of stolen rice near about Rs.3,000/-.

Finally he requested to take necessary action.

4.Basing on the contents of report given by the complainant/Minuka

Sayareddy, LW7/SI of Police registered a case in Cr.No.229 of 2019 U/sec.

457 and 380 of IPC and took up the investigation.

5.During the investigation, LW7/SI of Police has examined LW1/Minuka

Sayareddy. Later he along with the complainant visited the scene of offence i.e., Govt. High School Darugally, Hamalwadi, Nizamabad. Later LW7/SI of

Police also examined and recorded the statements of LW2/Nemli

Gangamani. Subsequently LW7/SI of Police has secured the presence of two mediators i.e., LW3/Dayathri Limbagiri Swamy and LW4/Bantu Sailoo and in their presence he conducted scene of offence panchanama and drew rough

SPL. AJMFC, MOBILE COURT, NZB

CC No.2130 of 2019 3 of 8 Dt:01.09.2025.

sketch of the scene in Crime Detail Form. Later LW7/SI of Police took up further investigation of this case.

6. While efforts are in progress on 22.11.2019 at 08:00 hours LW8/SI of

Police apprehended the accused/Kandikanti Rajugoud along with other accused persons in Cr.No.211 of 2019 U/s. 457, 380 of IPC at Khanapur

Cross road, Nizamabad and during interrogation he revealed his name and particulars and voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence. He also confessed that the stolen rice has been utilized to feed his family, which could not recovered. LW8 has also recovered some stolen properties from the possession of accused before LW5/Neecheng Krishna and LW6/Gadugu

Sumith.

7. After that LW8 brought the accused/Kandikanti Rajagoud @ Raju and accused persons to P.S. Town III Nizamabad along with seized properties at 15:15 hours and effected their arrest duly issuing arrest memo and also followed 50 Cr.P.C. procedure and produced before the Hon'ble court for judicial custody.

8.Upon consideration of the material placed before the court, the cognizance for the offences punishable U/Secs.457 and 380 of IPC were taken against the accused by my learned predecessor and on appearance of the accused before the court, the copies of documents pertaining to the case were furnished to him as per section 207 Cr.P.C., and after furnishing the copies of documents, the accused was examined u/Sec.239 Cr.P.C., for

SPL. AJMFC, MOBILE COURT, NZB

CC No.2130 of 2019 4 of 8 Dt:01.09.2025.

the substance of accusation for the offences punishable U/Secs.457 and 380 of IPC for which he denied the accusation and after hearing the prosecution and the accused on considering the submissions made by the prosecution and the accused charges for the offences punishable U/Secs.457 and 380 of

IPC were framed against him and explained to him in Telugu by and having understood the charges framed against him, he denied the charges and on question of plea of guilt he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Hence, the trial against the accused.

9.For bringing home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined

PWs.1 to 5 and got marked exhibited Ex.P1 to Ex.P4. The evidence of

LW2/Nemli Gangamani and LW7/R.Shankarappa/SI of Police have been given up by the learned APPO. The evidence of LW6/Gaduru Sumith has been closed as per the report filed by the Police concerned. Ex.P1 is the report,

Ex.P2 is the Scene of offence Panchanama, Ex.P3 is the signature of PW4 on

Certified Copy of Confession-cum-Seizure Panchanama, Ex.P4 is the First

Information Report.

10.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the Accused was examined

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C enabling him to explain personally the incriminating circumstances appeared against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses for which he denied the truthfulness of the evidence and reported no defence evidence on his side.

11.Heard, the learned APP and the learned for the accused.

SPL. AJMFC, MOBILE COURT, NZB

CC No.2130 of 2019 5 of 8 Dt:01.09.2025.

12.Now the point for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the

accused by proving the charges for the offences punishable

U/Secs.457 and 380 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

13. POINT:

13(i). The proseuction case is that, on the intervining night of 29/30-07- 2019, the accused Kandikati Rajagoud @ Raju gained entry into Government

High school, Hamalvadi, Nizamabad by broke open the locks and committed theft of three (3) mid day meals rice bags nearly about 150 kgs and decamped with the booty. The accused utilized the rice for feeding his family members. Thus the accused is liable for the punishment Under section 457 and 380 of IPC.

14.To prove its case, the prosecution has examined five witnesses out of cited eight witnesses, out of them PW1 is the complainant, PW2 & PW3 are the panch witnesses for scene of offence, PW4 is the panch witness for confession and recovery panchanama and PW5 is the investigation officer who conducted investigation and filed charge sheet.

15.In Ex.P1 report and in the evidence of PW1 it has stated that some unknown persons committed theft in the Government High school. As seen from the Ex.P4/FIR, it is further clear that, the case was registered against unknown accused. Now it has to see that whether the accused has committed the offense in this case. As scene from the evidence of PW1, the identity particulars of the accused were not stated. PW1 during his cross

SPL. AJMFC, MOBILE COURT, NZB

CC No.2130 of 2019 6 of 8 Dt:01.09.2025.

examination testified that he do not know who committed theft.

Unfortunately there are no eye witnesses to the alleged theft.

16.The evidence of PW2 and PW3 coupled with Ex.P2 scene of offence panchanama goes to show that the scene of offence panchanama was conducted in the presence of PW2 and PW3. However, it does not connecting the accused with the alleged offence. PW4, who is the panch witness for confession cum seizure panchanama of accused turned hostile by deposing that he do not know anything about this case but police obtained his signatures on some written papers without disclosing the contents of it. Learned APP cross examined PW4, however nothing was elicited in favour of prosecution, thus the confession cum seizure panchanama of accused is not proved.

17.The evidence of PW5 is in the line of investigation and filing of charge sheet. The investigation officer failed to collect any bills or receipts with regard to the lost rice bags. As seen from the entire evidence on record, there is no single whisper about the identity or descriptive particulars of the accused. No where in the entire evidence of prosecution disclosing the involvement of accused/Kandikanti Rajagoud in this case. It may be true that on fateful day a theft was committed in the Govt. High School and lost the

Rice bags, however there is no cogent material on record to connect the accused with this crime. It seems that on suspicious grounds the accused was implicated in this case since he is habitual offender. However, I am of the view that suspicious however grave and serious may be, the reliance

SPL. AJMFC, MOBILE COURT, NZB

CC No.2130 of 2019 7 of 8 Dt:01.09.2025.

cannot be placed that the accused has committed the offence. Therefore, this court of the view that, the material evidence produced by the prosecution is not sufficient to prove the guilty of the accused. Therefore, this court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore the accused is entitled for acquittal. Therefore, the point is answered accordingly.

18. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under sections 457, 380 of Indian Penal Code and accordingly he is acquitted under section 248(1) Criminal Procedure Code. The surety bonds of the accused executed earlier shall stand canceled after lapse of appeal time.

Since no property was deposited, there is no order with regard to the property.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 01st day of September, 2025.

FAC:Special Judicial Magistrate Of First

Class(Mobile),Under PCR Act-Cum-

III Additional Junior Civil Judge

Nizamabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR ACCUSED

PW-1Minuka Sayareddy.

PW-2Dayathri Limbagiri Swamy.

SPL. AJMFC, MOBILE COURT, NZB

CC No.2130 of 2019 8 of 8 Dt:01.09.2025.

PW-3 Bantu Sailoo.

PW-4 Neecheng Krishna. - Nil - PW-5V.Santhosh Kumar, SI of Police.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P-1 Report.

Ex.P-2 Scene of offence Panchanama.

Ex.P-3 Signature of PW4 on Certified Copy of Confession cum-Seizure Panchanama.

Ex.P-4First Information Report.

FOR ACCUSED

:: NIL::

Material Objects marked

- NIL -

FAC:Special Judicial Magistrate Of First

Class(Mobile),Under Pcr Act-Cum-

III Additional Junior Civil Judge

Nizamabad.

SPL. AJMFC, MOBILE COURT, NZB

CC.No.2130 of 2019 Dated: 01.09.2025

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(MOBILE) UNDER PCR ACT-CUM-III ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NIZAMABAD.

CALANDER.

C.C. No. 2130 of 2019 .

Name of Complainant::The State of Telangana through Sub- 1. Inspector of Police Town-III, Nizamabad.

Names of Accused Persons ::Kandikanti Rajagoud @ Raju, S/o. Late 2. Sadanandgoud, Age: 31 years, Caste:Goud, Occ:Coolie, R/o. Sanjeevaiah colony near one rupee hospital, Nizamabad. Nature of Offence/s::U/Sec.457 and 380 of IPC. 3.

4.Finding::Found not Guilty.

5.Sentence::Acquitted.

6.Date of Occurrence of :: 29.07.2019. offence

7.Date of Complaint:: 30.07.2019.

8.Date of apprehension of ::22.11.2019. the accused Persons

9.Date of release of accused::--- on bail

10. Date of Commencement of::26.07.2022. trial

11.Date of Closure of trial::02.07.2025.

12.Date of Sentence or Order ::01.09.2025.

13.Explanation of delay:: --

FAC:Special Judicial Magistrate Of First

Class(Mobile),Under Pcr Act-Cum-

III Additional Junior Civil Judge

Nizamabad.

To The Hon’ble I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

SPL. AJMFC, MOBILE COURT, NZB