Vadluri Susmitha

CC 1033 of 2022 Page 1 of 7

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT KOSGI

Thursday the 31 st day of July, 2025

Present: Smt. Vadluri Susmitha

Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

KOSGI.

CC No. 1033 of 2022

Between:

State through Sub-Inspector, PS Damargidda.

...Complainant

And

Edgi Narayana Goud @ Narayana Goud S/o. Ramulu Age: 40 years, Occ: Coolie R/o. Damargidda village and Mandal.

...Accused

*** This case is coming up before me for final hearing on 31-07-2025 in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Advocate Sri. A. Hari Chandra Reddi

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

consideration till this day the court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Damargidda laid charge sheet against accused in CC No. 1033 of 2022 for the offences U/s. 304-A IPC &

Sec.196, 56/192 of MV Act against accused.

The case of the prosecution in nutshell:

2. On 09.05.2022 at 07:00Hrs. LW-11 received a Telugu petition from

CC 1033 of 2022 Page 2 of 7

Smt.Chakali Jangamma W/o Yadaiah, Age: 50yrs, Caste: Chakali, Occ: Coolie,

R/o Kothur village of Bomraspet mandal, Vikarabad district. In which she stated that she has having two sons and one daughter, among them her younger son Sri. Chakali Sailu s/o Yadaiah, age: 28yrs was for his eking liveli- hood who was did labour work.on.29.04.2022 he along with their villager all were came in Auto bearing No.TS34T7971 to Narayanpet town for BJP Party meeting. After completed the meeting, While they are returning to their vil- lage in above said auto at about 21:00hrs on the way at near by Kyathanpally village curve the Auto driver Edigi Narayana Goud drove his auto rash and negligence manner and did over turned out the auto. As resultant in which the complainant son received blood injuries on left side of head, on face and internal injuries, and some villager also received internal injuries. After admit to the complainant son in Govt. Hospital, Narayanpet for treatment and their villagers are gave intimation to her, on which she came there, on advice of there duty doctor they shifted to her son to KIMS Hospital, Hyderabad for bet- ter treatment. But,on.08.05.2022 at 11:25 hrs her son was died while under- going treatment. the complainant family member all are has in Hospital due to which today she came to PS and lodge a complaint. As such in the matter she requested that to take a legal action on the Auto Driver Edigi Narayana Goud as per law. As per the contents of the above Petition LW-11 Registered a Case in Cr.No. 38/2022 u/s 304(A) IPC and took up the investigation.

3. During the course of investigation, the LW-11 has examined and re

CC 1033 of 2022 Page 3 of 7

corded the statement of LW-1 at PS Damaragidda, visited scene of offence which is located at Kyathanpally village and secured the presence of two me- diators i.e., LW-7 & 8 and drafted the rough sketch in the prescribe crime de- tail form, Visited mortuary room of Gandhi Medical College, Hyderabad where found the dead body of deceased Sri. Chakali Sailu s/o Yadaiah, age:28yrs,

Caste: Coolie, in Mortuary Room and got photographs of deceased dead body.

during the inquest the LW-11 examined the LWs 1 to 4 and recorded the statements of LWs. 2 to 4 u/s 161(3) Cr.P.C, later secured the presence of two mediators i.c. LWs 5 & 6, held inquest over the dead body of deceased and subjected the corpse of the deceased for PME at Gandhi Medical college,

Hyderabad, After the PME the corpse handed over to blood relatives for fu- neral rights. Subsequently the LW-12 took up further investigation from the

LW-11 and verified her investigation and found on proper lines.

4. On 10.05.2022, the LW-12 served a notice u/s 41(A) Cr.P.C to the accused with instructions to appear before the LW-12 on 12.05.2022 with DL, original documents of crime vehicle and ID proofs. In compliance to the notice u/s 41(A) Cr.P.C, on 12.05.2022 the accused came to PS, surrendered before

LW-12, admitted his guilt in the commission of offence, produced his ID proof, acknowledgement of notice u/s 41(A) Cr.P.C and failed to produce vehicle in- surance & Fitness certificate copies. On verification of documents of crime ve- hicle there is no valid insurance certificate pertains to crime vehicle. As such the LW-12 served undertaking notice u/s 41(A) (3) Cr.P.C and let off him with

CC 1033 of 2022 Page 4 of 7

instructions to appear before the Honourable court after receiving summons.

Further the LW-12 addressed a letter to the MVI Narayanpet with a request to inspect the crime vehicle. The LW-9 held PME over the dead body of the de- ceased, furnished detailed PME report and opined that the cause of the death of the deceased was due to "Head Injury ". The LW-10 inspected the crime vehicle and furnished report stating that "In my opinion, that the accident oc- curred was not due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle".

5. The case was taken on file for the offence U/s. 304-A IPC &

Sec.196, 56/192 of MV Act against accused vide CC.No.1033/2022.

6. On appearance of accused, copies of documents was furnished to him as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

7. The accused is examined under Section 251 of Cr.P.C and framed charge U/s. 304-A IPC & Sec.196, 56/192 of MV Act, explained to him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8. Later on the present case file CC.No.312/2022 is transferred to this court and re-numbered as CC.No.1033/2022. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution PWs 1 to 4 were examined and got marked Ex.P1 to

P4. Due to hostile evidence of PWs 1 to 4, the learned APP has given up the evidence of remaining witnesses, as such the prosecution evidence was closed. As there is no incriminating material, the examination of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C is dispensed with.

CC 1033 of 2022 Page 5 of 7

8. Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

Now the point for determination :

9. Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for

the offences U/s. 304-A IPC & Sec.196, 56/192 of MV Act , beyond

reasonable doubt ?

POINT:

10. It is case of the prosecution that accused drove the auto in rash and negligent manner resulting which the son of PW1 received blood injuries on his head, on face and admitted to Govt. Hospital, Narayanpet subsequently he has died due to the accident. Basing on the complaint of PW1 police has conducted investigation and filed charge sheet against the accused.

11. To prove the allegation the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW4 and got Ex.P1 to P4 were marked. PW1 is the complainant/mother of deceased, PW2 is the brother of deceased, PW3 and PW4 are eye witness to the incident.

12. During course of evidence of PW1 she did not support the case of the prosecution and even she did not support her own complaint but she only identified her signature and it is marked as Ex.P1. So as to PW2 to PW4 during the course of their evidence they also not supported the case of the prosecution. As they did not support the case of the prosecution, the learned

APP has declared them as hostile and nothing was elicited in their cross

CC 1033 of 2022 Page 6 of 7

examination. In view of hostile evidence of PW1 to PW4 the learned APP has given up the evidence of remaining witnesses as no purpose would be served in examining the other witnesses. In though circumstances the prosecution was closed the examination of the accused U/s. 313 Cr.P.C was also dispensed with, since no incriminating material was available against accused in the evidence of PW1 to PW4.

13. Hence, it is clear that the parties might have compromised the matter, due to which they might have resiled from their previous statements.

Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused for the alleged offence. Accordingly the point is answered.

11. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence

U/s. 304-A IPC & Sec.196, 56/192 of MV Act and 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 section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after appeal

time is over.

Typed by the typist on my dictation, pronounced in the open court on this the 31st day of July, 2025.

Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kosgi.

CC 1033 of 2022 Page 7 of 7

:: Appendix of Evidence::

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW1 Chakali Jangamma PW2 Chakali Srinivas -Nil- PW3 Peragogi Raju PW4 Mailarapu Anjilaiah

::Exhibits Marked ::

For Prosecution: For Defence:

Ex.P1 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW1 Ex.P2 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW2 -Nil- Ex.P3 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW3 Ex.P4 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW4

MATERIAL OBJECTS

Nil

Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kosgi.

CC 193 of 2022 Page 1 of 6

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT KOSGI

Thursday the 31 th day of July, 2025

Present: Smt. Vadluri Susmitha

Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kosgi.

CC No. 193 of 2022

Between:

State through Sub-Inspector, PS Maddur.

...Complainant

And

Avuti Ravi S/o. Late Mallappa Age: 35 years, Occ: Tractor Driver R/o. Nidjintha village of Maddur Mandal.

...Accused

*** This case is coming up before me for final hearing on 31-07-2025 in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Advocate Sri. K. Santhosh Naik for the accused, upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day the court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Maddur laid charge sheet against accused in CC No. 193 of 2022 for the offences U/s. 304-A IPC against accused.

The case of the prosecution in nutshell:

2. On 09-10-2020 at 09:00 hours received complaint from

Smt.Kotakonda Kashamma W/o. Kotakonda Sayappa, Age: 50 years Cate:

CC 193 of 2022 Page 2 of 6

Sc(Mala), Occ: Coolie R/o. Nidjintha village of Maddur Mandal. In which she stated that yesterday i.e., on 08-10-2020 afternoon at about 01:00 PM her elder son Kotakonda Dasthappa S/o. Sayappa Age: 28 years, Occ: Private

Employee took their caste person K. Raju’s bike bearing No. TS 06 EH 1213 and left from the home by saying he is going to Nidjintha gate, but after just few minutes she received information from her villagers, i.e., her son while going to Nidjintha gate on the way near Kothur Thirupathi Reddy agriculture land at about 01:15 PM one soil loaded tractor bearing no. TS 06 UC 5612 (Engine), TS 06 UC 5613 (Trolley) which was coming from Laxmamma gutta road, the driver of said tractor Avuti Ravi S/o. Late Mallappa drove his tractor with rash and negligent manner and suddenly came on to the main road and gave dash to her sons motorcycle and her son received injuries, by knowing that immediately she along with K.Raju and Mala Srinivas all three went there and saw that he son received severe blood injuries to his head, right jaw,

Right hand wrist, chest and both legs, immediately they shifted her son to Na- rayanpet Govt. Hospital in a 108 ambulance from there to SVS Hospital, Ma- habubnagar for better treatment, there while undergoing treatment yesterday i.e., on 08-10-2020 at 09:22 PM her son was died. As such today she came to

PS and requested to take legal action on above person and do justice.

3. As per the contents of the above complaint LW12 registered a case in

Cr.No.120/2020 U/s. 304-A IPC and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation LW12 examined and recorded the statement of LWs1

CC 193 of 2022 Page 3 of 6

U/s. 161 Cr.P.C. statement in part-II CD detail at PS. Later the LW12 pro- ceeded to Nidjintha village, where the LW12 conducted the scene of crime panchanama in the present of two mediators i.e., LWs 6 and 7 in crime detail form. Further the LW12 proceeded to SVS Hospital, Mahabubnagar, where se- cured the presence other two mediators i.e., LWs 8 and 9 and held inquest on the dead body of deceased, and sent the dead of the deceased to GGH, Ma- habubnagar for PME. While returned to PS the LW12 examined and recorded the statement of LW5 U/s. 161 Cr.P.C. statement in part-II CD at Nidjintha vil- lage. On 13-10-2020 the accused Avuti Ravi S/o. Late Mallappa, Age: 35 years, Caste: Balija Occ: Tractor Driver R/o. Nidjintha village was arrested and issued 41-A Cr.P.C notice against him.

4. The LW9 has held PME over the dead body of the deceased, and is- sued PME report stating that “Cardio Respiratory failure as a result Hammer- rohage shock due to head injury”. The LW10 MVI, Mahabubnagar has issued

MVI report, in which he opinioned that this accident occurred not due to any mechanical defects of this vehicle No. TS 06 UC 5612, trolley no. TS 06 UC 5613.

5. The case was taken on file for the offence U/s. 304-A IPC against accused vide CC.No.193/2022.

6. On appearance of accused, copies of documents was furnished to them as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

CC 193 of 2022 Page 4 of 6

7. The accused is examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C and framed charge U/s. 304-A IPC, explained to them to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8. Later on the present case file CC.No.326/2022 is transferred to this court and re-numbered as CC.No.193/2022. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution Pws 1 to 4 were examined and got marked Ex.P1 to

P4. Due to hostile evidence of Pws 1 to 4, the learned APP has given up the evidence of remaining witnesses, as such the prosecution evidence was closed. As there is no incriminating material, the examination of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C is dispensed with.

9. Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

Now the point for determination :

10. Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the

accused for the offences U/s. 304-A IPC, beyond reasonable doubt ?

POINT:

11. It is case of the prosecution that accused drove the tractor in rash and negligent manner resulting which the son of PW1 received blood injuries on his head, on face and admitted to Govt. Hospital, Narayanpet subsequently he has died due to the accident. Basing on the complaint of PW1 police has conducted investigation and filed charge sheet against the accused.

12. To prove the allegation the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW4

CC 193 of 2022 Page 5 of 6

and got Ex.P1 to P4 were marked. PW1 is the complainant/mother of deceased, PW2 is the witness and brother of deceased, PW3 is brother-in-law of deceased and PW4 is uncle of the deceased.

13. During course of evidence of PW1 she did not support the case of the prosecution and even she did not support her own complaint but she only identified her signature and it is marked as Ex.P1. So as to PW2 to PW4 during the course of their evidence they also not supported the case of the prosecution. As they did not support the case of the prosecution, the learned

APP has declared them as hostile and nothing was elicited in their cross examination. In view of hostile evidence of PW1 to PW4 the learned APP has given up the evidence of remaining witnesses as no purpose would be served in examining the other witnesses. In that circumstances the examination of the accused U/s. 313 Cr.P.C was also dispensed with, since no incriminating material was available against accused in the evidence of PW1 to PW4.

14. Hence, it is clear that the parties might have compromised the matter, due to which they might have resiled from their previous statements.

Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused for the alleged offence. Accordingly the point is answered.

15. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence

U/s. 304-A IPC and he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six

CC 193 of 2022 Page 6 of 6

months as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property,

if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed by the typist on my dictation, pronounced in the open court on this the 31st day of July, 2025.

Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kosgi.

:: Appendix of Evidence::

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW1 Kotakonda Kashamma PW2 Kotakonda Karunakar -Nil- PW3 Kotakonda Raju PW4 Mala Srinivas

::Exhibits Marked ::

For Prosecution: For Defence:

Ex.P1 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1 Ex.P2 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2 -Nil- Ex.P3 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3 Ex.P4 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW4

MATERIAL OBJECTS

Nil

Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kosgi.

CC 1265 of 2022 Page 1 of 6

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT KOSGI

Tuesday the 05 th day of August, 2025

Present: Smt. Vadluri Susmitha

Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kosgi.

CC No. 1265 of 2022

Between:

State through Sub-Inspector, PS Maddur.

...Complainant

And

A1) Rebbani Pally Raju s/o Narsimulu, Age: 21 years, occ: Student A2) Neerati Vishnu S/o. Hanmanthu Age: 23 years, occ: Agriculture A3) Jambula Anjaneyulu S/o Basappa, Age: 19 years, occ: Student A4) Kommuru Anjaneyulu S/o Raju, Age: 20 years, occ: Agriculture All are R/o. Kishannagar village of Maddur Mandal.

...Accused.

*** This case is coming up before me for final hearing on 05-08-2025 in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Advocate Sri. P. Sudhakar Reddy for the accused, upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day the court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Maddur laid charge sheet against accused in CC No. 1265 of 2022 for the offences U/s. 354-

A, 323, 324 r/w 34 IPC against accused.

The case of the prosecution in nutshell:

CC 1265 of 2022 Page 2 of 6

2. On 10.07.2017 at 14:30 hours received a complainant by the complainant Kum. Kommur Soni D/o Bemanna, age: 18 years,

Caste: Telugu,

Occ: Student (Degree2nd year) r/o Kishannagar village of Maddur

Mandal in which she stated that her villager namely Rebbanipally

Raju S/o Narsimulu, age: 23 years was since two moths harassing by saying to marry her. When she going to collage he fallow her and harassing her by saying that she did not marry him then he commit suicide. Then she told to the matter to her father. On 09.07.2017 at 06:00 Rebbani Raju along with Neereti Vishnu S/o Hanmanthu,

Jambula Anjaneyulu S/o basappa, Kommuru Anjaneyulu S/o Raju are proceeding in front of her house then her father stopped to the

Rebbani Raju and asked him why did you harassed my daughter then he replayed that " Nidi Yendira' and beat her father with a stone then her father received blooding injures on his head and the remaining person persons beat her mother with hands. Then she requested to take legal action against who beat her father and mother.

3. As per contents of above petition LW-8 registered a case in

Cr. No. 75/2017 U/Sec. 354(A), 323,324 r/w 34 IPC took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, LW-8 examined and recorded the statement of LWs 1 to 3 at Police Station at U/Sec.

161 (3) Cr.P.C in lucid vernacular language and the same was incorporated in the case diary part-II in detail. Further visited the

CC 1265 of 2022 Page 3 of 6

scene of offence located at Kishannagar village there secured two mediator i.e LWs 5 & 6 in their presence conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn the rough sketch of the scene, recorded the state ment of LW-4 at Police Station at U/Sec. 161 (3) Cr.P.C in lucid vernacular language and the same was incorporated in the case diary part-II in detail. During the further course of investigation LW-9 taken over the investigation of this case from the LW-8, and gone through the

CD file and found the investigation done by him is on proper line.

Further LW-9 served a notice u/s 41(A) Cr.P.C. against the accused persons A-1 to A-4 with directions to appear before me, on 12.07.2017 at 10.00 hours undersigned and produced the identity proof etc.

4.The case was taken on file for the offence U/s. 354-A, 323, 324 r/w 34 IPC against accused vide CC.No.302/2017.

5.On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to them as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

6.The accused are examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C and framed charge U/s. 354-A, 323, 324 r/w 34 IPC, explained to them to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. Later on the present case file is transferred to this court and re-numbered as CC.No.1265/2022. During the course of trial, on

CC 1265 of 2022 Page 4 of 6

behalf of the prosecution Pws 1 to 5 were examined and got marked

Ex.P1 to P5. Due to hostile evidence of Pws 1 to 5 the learned APP has given up the evidence of LW6 to LW9 witnesses, as such the prosecution evidence was closed. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the Sec.313 Cr.P.C is recorded and arguments heard.

8. Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

Now the point for determination is :

9. Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the

accused for the offences U/s. 354-A, 323, 324 r/w 34 IPC,

beyond reasonable doubt ?

POINT:

10. It is a case of the prosecution that accused harassed the

PW1 to marry him when she refused marry him the accused harassed the PW1, when the father of PW1 asked the accused about harassment the accused bet the father of PW1 with stones, resulting which PW2 have received blood injuries. On the complaint of PW1 the police conducted investigation and filed charge sheet against the accused.

11. To prove the allegation the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW5 and got Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. PW1 is the complainant and victim,

PW2 is the eye witness and injured also father of PW1, PW3 is the eye witness who is mother of PW1, PW4 is the panch witness and

PW5 also eye witness to the incident. 12. During the course of

CC 1265 of 2022 Page 5 of 6

evidence of PW1 she did not supported the case of the prosecution and even she did not support her own complaint. PW1 only identified her signature on the report and it was marked as Ex.P1. As she did not supported the case of the prosecution the learned APP declared her as hostile witness. Nothing is elicited from the cross of

PW1. 13. With regard to PW2 he did not support the case of the prosecution, the learned APP has declared him as hostile and nothing was elicited from his cross examination. So as to PW3 to PW5 they did not support of case of the prosecution and the learned APP has declared them as hostile witness and nothing was elicited from their cross examination.

14. Hence, it is clear that the parties might have compromised the matter, due to which they might have resiled from their previous statements. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused for the alleged offence beyond reasonable doubt.

Accordingly the point is answered.

15. In the result, accused are found not guilty for the

offence U/s. 354-A, 323, 324 r/w 34 IPC and they are

acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of

the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as

per section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property, if

any, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

CC 1265 of 2022 Page 6 of 6

Typed by the typist on my dictation, pronounced in the open court on this the 05thday of August, 2025.

Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kosgi.

:: Appendix of Evidence::

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW1 Kommuru Soni PW2 Kommur Beemanna-Nil- PW3 Kommur Srishailamma PW4 Jambula Venkataiah PW5 Neerati Sukkappa

::Exhibits Marked ::

For Prosecution: For Defence:

Ex.P1 PW1 identified her signature on the report Ex.P2 161 Cr.P.C Statement is marked through PW2 -Nil- Ex.P3 161 Cr.P.C Statement is marked through PW3 Ex.P4 PW4 identified her signature on CDF Ex.P5 161 Cr.P.C Statement is marked through PW5

Material Objects Nil

Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kosgi.

CC 76 of 2022 Page 1 of 6

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT KOSGI

Thursday the 07 th day of August, 2025

Present: Smt. Vadluri Susmitha

Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kosgi.

CC No. 76 of 2022

Between:

State through Sub-Inspector, PS Maddur.

...Complainant

And

Gurmitkal Venkat Reddy S/o. Kistareddy Age: 64 years, Occ: Agriculture R/o. Nidjintha village and Mandal.

...Accused

*** This case is coming up before me for final hearing on 07-08-2025 in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Advocate Sri. A.V.Anand for the accused, upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day the court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Maddur laid charge sheet against accused in CC No. 76 of 2022 for the offences U/s. 435 IPC against accused.

The case of the prosecution in nutshell:

2. This is the case of "Mischief by Fire", Occurred on 07.10.2018 at 10:00 hours, at by No 101 in the out skirts of the Nandigama village of Mad-

CC 76 of 2022 Page 2 of 6

dur mandal and reported at Police Station on 08-10-2018 at 17:00 hours, by the complainant Sri Pundikura Bhaskarreddy s/o Ramreddy, Age: 17 years,

Caste: Reddy, Occ, Agril, R/o Nandigama Village of Maddur mandal, where in the accused person Sri Gurmitkal Venkatreddy sri Kistareddy, age, 64 years, caste, Reddy, occ: Agriculture, r/o. Nandigama village and mandal, was came to his land and burned the hut.

3. The complainant in this case came to the Police Station and gave a report about the occurrence stating that "He is a resident of Nandigama vil- lage of Maddur mandal and living by doing agriculture works, on 08.10.2018 at 1700 hours received a complaint from Sri. Pundikura Bhaskarreddy s/o

Ramreddy, Age: 32 years, Caste: Reddy, Occ; Agril, R/o Nandigama Village of

Maddur mandal in which he stated that, he and his brother namely Srinivas- reddy brought some land Sy No. 101 C from Uppu Shankaraiah, Raju,

Shankaraiah brothers son, form these three persons complainant brought 2

Acre and 20 Guntas form each one.

4. Then they all are registered the land to the complainant. In that same Sy.No.101 C also brought 2 acre 20 guntas by his villager Gurmitkal

Venkatreddy from Uppu Shivaneela. In that land all are cultivating from 2 years. On 02.10.2018 Venkatreddy Came to his land and burned the com- plainant hut. After seeing of this incident his brother Srinivas reddy said the incident over phone call. On this matter Venkatreddy said we are talking in the presence of village elders but till now he is not responding. Basing on the

CC 76 of 2022 Page 3 of 6

petition LW-7 registered a case in Cr.No. 140/2018 u/s 435 IPC and took up the investigation. The original petition is enclosed herewith.

5. During the course of the investigation LW-7 has examined the LW-1 at Police Station U/Sec. 161 (3) Cr.P.C. and the same was in corporate with the Part-Il CD and left the Police Station and visited the scene of offence situ- ated at land Sy. No. 101 in the outskirts of the Nandigama village of Maddur mandal and secured the presence of LWs 5 & 6 and in their presence con- ducted the scene of offence panchanama and drawn the rough sketch of the scene of crime and nothing has seized from the scene as there is no in crim- inating articles found in the scene. Later he has summoned the LWs 2 to 4 and examined and recorded their detail statements U/Sec. 161 (3) Cr.P.C. and the same was in corporate with Part-II CDs.

6. On transfer and posting to this Police station LW-8 taken charge on 21.11.2018 and gone through the CD file and once again I have visited the scene of offence and contacted the complainant and examined him orally he stated the same as he said earlier.

7. The case was taken on file for the offence U/s. 435 IPC against accused vide CC.No.25/2019.

8. On appearance of accused, copies of documents was furnished to them as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

9. Later on the present case file is transferred to this court and re-

CC 76 of 2022 Page 4 of 6

numbered as CC.No.76/2022. The accused is examined under Section 239 of

Cr.P.C and framed charge U/s. 435 IPC, explained to them to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

10. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution PWs 1 to 3 were examined and got marked Ex.P1 to P3. The learned APP has given up the evidence of LW3, LW5 to LW8 witnesses, as such the prosecution evidence was closed. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the Sec.313

Cr.P.C is recorded and arguments heard.

11. Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

Now the point for determination :

12. Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the

accused for the offences U/s. 435 IPC, beyond reasonable doubt ?

POINT:

13. It is case of the prosecution that accused has committed mischief by fire to the hut of the complainant in view of some past rivalties. Basing on the complaint given by the PW1, police has conducted investigation and filed charge sheet against the accused.

14. To prove the allegation the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW3 and got Ex.P1 to P3 were marked. PW1 is the complainant, PW2 and PW3 are eye witness to the incident.

CC 76 of 2022 Page 5 of 6

15. During course of evidence of PW1 he did not support the case of the prosecution and even he did not support his own complaint. The 161

Cr.P.C Statement of PW1 is marked as Ex.P1. As PW1 did not support the case of the prosecution, the learned APP has declared him as hostile witness and nothing was elicited from his cross examination.

16. So as to evidence of PW2 and PW3 during the course of their evidence they also not supported the case of the prosecution. As they did not support the case of the prosecution, the learned APP has declared them as hostile and nothing was elicited in their cross examination. In view of hostile evidence of PW1 to PW3 the learned APP has given up the evidence of remaining witness as no purpose would be served in examining the other witnesses.

17. Hence, it is clear that the parties might have compromised the matter, due to which they might have resiled from their previous statements.

Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused for the alleged offence. Accordingly the point is answered.

18. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence

U/s. 435 IPC and he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The

bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months

as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property, if any,

shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

CC 76 of 2022 Page 6 of 6

Typed by the typist on my dictation, pronounced in the open court on this the 07th day of August, 2025.

Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kosgi.

:: Appendix of Evidence::

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW1 Pundikura Bhaskarreddy PW2 Beesu Srinivas Reddy -Nil- PW3 Bandagonda Ramakrishna Reddy

::Exhibits Marked ::

For Prosecution: For Defence:

Ex.P1 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1 Ex.P2 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2 -Nil- Ex.P3 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3

MATERIAL OBJECTS

Nil

Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kosgi.

CC 752 of 2022 Page 1 of 6

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT KOSGI

Tuesday the 05 th day of August, 2025

Present: Smt. Vadluri Susmitha

Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kosgi.

CC No. 752 of 2022

Between:

State through Sub-Inspector, PS Maddur.

...Complainant

And

Bandamidi Kashappa S/o. Sayappa Age: 48 years, Occ: Agriculture R/o. Khajipur village of Maddur Mandal.

...Accused

*** This case is coming before me on 05-08-2025 for final hearing in the presence of learned APP for the State and Sri. A.V.Anand, learned counsel for accused and after perusing the case records, upon hearing the arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court has delivered the following:-

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

1. The Charge Sheet is laid by the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S,

Maddur in Crime No.03/2017 for the offence U/s. 326 IPC.

The case of the prosecution in nutshell:

2. This is a case of “Grievous Hurt", which occurred on 06.01.2017 at 22.00 hours, at Khajipur village of Maddur mandal and reported

CC 752 of 2022 Page 2 of 6

on 07.01.2017 at 12.45 hours, by the complainant. Sri. Bandamidi Hanmanthu

S/o Sayappa, age: 20 years, Caste: SC Madiga, Occ: Student (Degree 1 Years) r/o Khajipur village of Maddur Mandal, Wherein the accused person Sri.

Bandamidi Kashappa S/o Sayappa, age: 48 years was picked up quarrel with the complainant and his son and beat them over sharing of burial amount and beat the LW-2 with sticks and caused bleeding injuries. The place of offence comes under the limits of the Police Station.

3. "He is a resident of Khajipur village of Maddur mandal and living by doing agriculture works. his villager Bandamidi Hanmamma W/o Kashappa was died on 06.01.2017 at 22:00 hours while they are sharing burial amount his villager namely Kashappa S/o Sayappa raised quarrel up to give more money to him. Then he stated that the complainant said "Yevariki Yentha

Vaste Antte Thisukundam" then the Kashappa S/o Sayappa beat him on seeing this his son Anjappa intervened to rescue but he also beaten up by the

Kashappa with stick son. As such the complainant requested to take legal action against Kashappa S/o Sayappa. As per the contents of the above petition, LW-8 registered a case in Cr No. 03/2016 U/s 324 IPC and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, the LW-8 examined and recorded the statement of LW-1 u/s 161(3) Cr.P.C which incorporated in Part-

II C.D and on same day the LW-8 proceeding to Khajipur village where recorded the Statements of LW-2 to 4. Immediately LW- 8 visited scene of offence which is situated in the Khajipur village of Maddur Mandal. and the scene observation drafted in the crime detail farm in the presence of LWs. 5

CC 752 of 2022 Page 3 of 6

and 6. Further efforts were made to arrest the accused persons and found them absconding from the village, there is no incriminating articles found in the scene nothing has seized from the scene.

4. On 09.01.2017 received M.C from Dr. E. Venkat Dadan, Civil

Assistant Surgeon, who treated the injured person LW-2 in which he pine that the LW-2 received injuries as "Grievous in Nature". Basing on the medical certificate and the opinion of the doctor the section of law 324 IPC is altered to section 326 IPC.

5. The case was taken on file for the offence U/s. 326 IPC against accused vide CC.No.130/2017.

6. On appearance of accused, copies of documents was furnished to him as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

7. The accused is examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C and framed charge under Section 326 IPC, explained to him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8. Later on the present case file is transferred to this court and re- numbered as CC.No.752/2022. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution Pws 1 to 7 were examined and got marked Ex.P1 to P7. Due to hostile evidence of Pws 1 to 7, the learned APP has given up the evidence of

LW4 witness, as such the prosecution evidence was closed. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the Sec.313 Cr.P.C is recorded and arguments heard.

CC 752 of 2022 Page 4 of 6

9. Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

Now the point for determination is :

10. Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the

accused for the offences U/s. 326 IPC, beyond reasonable doubt ?

POINT:

11. It is a case of the prosecution that accused beat the PW1 and PW2 (who is father and son) with stick and picked up quarrel with them and caused blood injuries regarding sharing of burial amount. On the complaint of

PW1 the police conducted investigation and filed charge sheet against the accused.

12. To prove the allegation the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW7 and got Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. PW1 is the complainant also injured, PW2 is the son of complainant who is also injured, PW3 is the eye witness to the incident,

PW4 and PW5 is the panch witness, PW6 is the doctor who treated the injured person, PW7 is the investigating officer.

13. During the course of evidence of PW1 he did not support the case of the prosecution and even he did not support his own complaint. PW1 only identified his signature thereon and it was marked as Ex.P1. Nothing is elicited from the cross of PW1. With regard to PW2 he did not support the case of the prosecution, the learned APP has declared him as hostile and nothing was elicited from his cross examination. So as to PW3 to PW5 they did not support of case of the prosecution and the learned APP has declared them as hostile

CC 752 of 2022 Page 5 of 6

witness and nothing was elicited from their cross examination. With regard to

PW6 and PW7 even though they supported the case of the prosecution but the crucial witnesses PW1 and PW2 who are injured not supported the case of the prosecution.

14. Hence, it is clear that the parties might have compromised the matter, due to which they might have resiled from their previous statements.

Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused for the alleged offence beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly the point is answered.

15. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence

under Section 326 IPC and they are acquitted under Section 248(1)

of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period

of six months as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked case

property, if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed by the typist on my dictation, pronounced in the open court on this the 05th day of August, 2025.

Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kosgi.

CC 752 of 2022 Page 6 of 6

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: Nil

PW1Bandamidi Hanmanthu PW2Bandamidi Anjaneyulu PW3Bandamidi Chinna Hanmanthu PW4 Bantu Kashappa PW5 Kodavati Lalappa PW6 Dr.E.Venkat Dadan PW7 Y.Narender

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: Nil

Ex.P1Report is marked through PW1 Ex.P2161 Cr.P.C statement is marked through PW2 Ex.P3 161 Cr.P.C statement is marked through PW3 Ex.P4 CDF is marked through PW4 Ex.P5 MC is marked through PW6 Ex.P6 FIR is marked through PW7 Ex.P7 CDF is marked through PW7

MATERIAL OBJECTS

Nil

Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kosgi.