Page Nos.1 of 27 CC.No.650/2020
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
(CRIMINAL COURT FOR AGENCY AREAS),
AT BHADRACHALAM.
Dated, this the 12th day of May, 2026
Present: Sri V.Siva Naik, Judl. Magistrate of I Class, (Criminal Court for Agency Areas), Bhadrachalam.
CC.No.650 of 2020
(Crime No.343 of 2020 of P.S Bhadrachalam Town)
Between:-
The State of Telangana represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Bhadrachalam Town.
..... Complainant
And
Kolichalam Naveen Kumar, S/o.Brahmaiah, Age:33 Years, Occ:Advocate at Bhadrachalam, R/o.H.No.10-1-24/3, Shilpinagar, Bhadrachalam.
.... Accused
This petition is coming before me for final hearing on 12.05.2026 in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor Sri K.Srinivasa Rao for the prosecution and B.V.Karthik, Learned Counsel for the Accused; Upon perusing the material on record, upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-
:: J U D G M E N T ::
1.The State represented by its Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S Bhadrachalam Town filed charge sheet against the Accused in Cr.No.343/2020, for the offence punishable
U/Sec.294(b), 186, 504 Indian Penal Code.
2.The brief facts of the case are that:-
On 20.09.2020 at about 20:00 hours, the complainant, who is a police constable, lodged a report at PS Bhadrachalam Town Police Station stating that on 20.09.2020 at
Page Nos.2 of 27 CC.No.650/2020 about 11:30 hours, while he along with the Sub-Inspector of Police, B. Suresh, and other staff were conducting vehicle checking duty at Ambedkar Centre, Bhadrachalam, one person riding a motor cycle bearing No. AP29CC2823 came from Charla Road side. On instructions of the Sub-Inspector, the complainant stopped the said vehicle and checked for pending e-challans through the police application, and found that four e-challans were pending against the vehicle. When the rider was requested to pay the fine amount, he stated that he is an advocate and would pay later, and started arguing that the police had no right to stop his vehicle. It is further alleged that the rider abused the police in filthy language and obstructed them in discharge of their official duties. It is further stated that the rider threw away the vehicle keys and left the place stating that he knew how to take back the vehicle. When the police were shifting the vehicle to the police station, the accused allegedly took photographs and posted them on social media with allegations that the police were riding the vehicle without helmets, thereby intentionally interfering with the discharge of official duties. Subsequently, the rider was identified as one Kolichalam Naveen Kumar, Advocate, resident of Bhadrachalam.
3.Based on the said report, a case in Crime No.343 of 2020 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 186 and 504 IPC, and FIR was issued to all concerned.
4.During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer examined the complainant and other witnesses and recorded their statements. He also visited the scene of offence at Ambedkar Centre, Bhadrachalam, which is situated at a distance of about 2 kilometers from the police station, and prepared the crime detail form in the presence of mediators.
Page Nos.3 of 27 CC.No.650/2020
While the investigation was in progress, the accused appeared before the police on 20.09.2020 and surrendered. He was taken into custody and interrogated, during which he is said to have allegedly admitted the offence. Thereafter, a notice under
Section 41(A) Cr.P.C. was issued to him, directing him to appear before the Court. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused for the aforesaid offences.
5.On appearance of the Accused the relevant copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C.
6. The Accused was examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C and the charges were framed against the Accused for the offences punishable U/Sec.294(b), 186, 504 of Indian Penal Code were framed against the accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which the Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
7. The prosecution in order to substantiate its case against the Accused, examined
PW1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P3. Thereafter the Prosecution evidence was closed.
8. After closure of prosecution evidence, the Accused was examined U/Sec.313
Cr.P.C, the incriminating material available against him in the prosecution evidence was read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he denied the offence and stated that he had no defence evidence to adduce.
9.Perused the record. Heard both sides.
10. Now, the point that arises for consideration is:
“Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the Accused for
the offence punishable U/Sec.294(b), 186, 504 of Indian Penal Code,
beyond reasonable doubt?”
Page Nos.4 of 27 CC.No.650/2020
POINT:-
11.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that LW-1 was working as a Head
Constable in P.S. Bhadrachalam Traffic and, as part of his official duties, on 20.09.2020 in the morning, he along with the Sub-Inspector of Police B. Suresh and other police staff was performing vehicle checking duty at Ambedkar Centre, Bhadrachalam. At about 11:30 hours, the accused, who was riding a motor cycle bearing No. AP29CC2823, came from Charla Road side. On the instructions of the Sub-Inspector of Police, LW-1 stopped the said vehicle and verified the pending e-challans through the police application, and found that four e-challans were pending against the said vehicle. Thereupon, the Sub-
Inspector of Police requested the accused to pay the fine amount and take back the vehicle. However, the accused stated that he is an advocate and that he would pay the fine later, and began to argue that the police had no right to stop his vehicle. It is further alleged that the accused abused LW-1 in filthy language and obstructed him in the discharge of his official duties.
It is further the case of the prosecution that the accused threw away the vehicle keys stating that he knew how to retrieve the vehicle. Thereafter, when LW-1 was sending the vehicle to the police station through Home Guard HG-1134, the accused took photographs and posted them on social media making false allegations that the police were riding the vehicle without wearing helmets, thereby intentionally interfering with and deterring the lawful duties of LW-1. Thus, according to the prosecution, the accused committed offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 186 and 504 IPC.
Page Nos.5 of 27 CC.No.650/2020
12.To substantiate the said allegation PW.1 to PW.7 were examined. PW1 is the complainant. PW2, PW3, PW5 and PW6 are the Police Personnel and Eye-Witnesses,
PW4 Panch Witness for Crime Detail Form, PW7 is the Investigation Officer.
13.PW.1/G.Baskar Rao, who is a police constable, deposed that on 20.09.2020, while he was on routine duty, he was instructed by the Sub-Inspector to attend Ambedkar
Centre for vehicle checking and issuing traffic challans. Accordingly, he, along with the
Sub-Inspector, proceeded to the said place and while conducting vehicle checking, intercepted a person who was coming on a motorcycle bearing No.AP 29 CC 2823 without wearing a helmet. On verification through the TS App, he found that four challans were pending against the said vehicle and informed the same to the Sub-
Inspector. Thereupon, the said person questioned his authority to stop the vehicle, got down from the motorcycle and threw the key. As per the instructions of the Sub-
Inspector, PW1 handed over the vehicle to a Home Guard by name Chandu to take it to the police station. At that time, the said person took photographs of the Home Guard, who was taking the vehicle without wearing a helmet, and later circulated the photographs on social media platforms. Subsequently, PW1 came to know that the said person is Kolichela Naveen, an Advocate. PW1 stated that he went to the police station and lodged a report (Ex.P1) stating that the accused obstructed him in discharge of his official duties.
In the cross-examination, PW1 admitted that Ambedkar Junction is a busy locality having traffic signals in four directions and is connected to an interstate highway and is under CCTV surveillance. He further admitted that generally duties are recorded in the
General Diary, but he has no knowledge whether the GD entry in respect of the present
Page Nos.6 of 27 CC.No.650/2020 duty was produced before the Court. He also stated that he has no knowledge whether any challan was generated against the accused, and that the alleged pending challans were not produced before the Court. He admitted that no specific abusive words allegedly used by the accused were mentioned in the complaint. He further admitted that no proof was submitted regarding the alleged viral video, including details of the platform or recipients, and that no legal action was taken in that regard. He also admitted that no seizure report of the vehicle was filed, though the vehicle was taken to the police station by PW3.
However, PW1 denied the suggestions that the pending challans were already cleared, that arguing with the police is not an offence, that the police obstructed the constitutional rights of the accused, and that the case was foisted due to ego. He denied that the accused respecting the rules, he has not argued, used abusive language, and obstructed the discharge of official duties. He further denied that no such incident took place and maintained that the accused had obstructed them in discharge of official duties.
14. PW.2/E.Ananthaiah, Police Personnel/Eye-Witness deposed that on 20.09.2020 at about 11:00 AM, he, along with the Sub-Inspector of Police B. Suresh, PW1, and other staff, was conducting vehicle checking at Ambedkar Centre, Bhadrachalam. During the course of checking, one person came on a motorcycle bearing No.AP 29 CC 2823 without wearing a helmet. On the instructions of the Sub-Inspector, PW1 stopped the vehicle and on verification found that four challans were pending against it and the rider was identified as Kolichalam Naveen Kumar. The Sub-Inspector instructed the said person to clear the pending challans and then take the vehicle. PW2 stated that the accused,
Page Nos.7 of 27 CC.No.650/2020 claiming himself to be an advocate, started arguing with the Sub-Inspector in an abusive tone, questioning the authority of the police to stop his vehicle, and made derogatory remarks against the police personnel. He also deposed that the accused handed over the key of the vehicle and, in a threatening manner, stated that he would get back his vehicle. As a crowd gathered at the spot, the Sub-Inspector instructed that the vehicle be taken to the police station, and accordingly LW3 took the vehicle towards the police station. PW2 further stated that the accused took photographs of the police personnel and circulated the photographs in WhatsApp groups making derogatory remarks against the police personnel. He deposed that by such conduct, the accused created a threatening atmosphere and obstructed the police personnel in discharge of their lawful duties, and on that basis PW1 lodged the report.
In the cross-examination, PW2 admitted that Ambedkar Junction is a busy locality having traffic signals in four directions, connected to an interstate highway, and is under
CCTV surveillance. He further admitted that generally duties are recorded in the General
Diary, but he has no knowledge whether any GD entry in respect of the present duty was produced before the Court. He also stated that he has no knowledge whether any challan was generated against the accused and admitted that the alleged pending challans were not produced before the Court. He further admitted that no specific abusive words allegedly used by the accused were mentioned in the complaint or in his statement. PW2 also admitted that no proof was produced regarding the alleged viral video, including details as to the platform, group, or recipients, and that no legal action was taken in respect of the same. He further admitted that no seizure report was filed regarding the vehicle, though he stated that PW3 took the vehicle to the police station.
Page Nos.8 of 27 CC.No.650/2020
However, PW2 denied the suggestions that the pending challans were already cleared, that the police obstructed the constitutional rights of the accused, and that the case was foisted due to ego. He asserted that the accused, claiming to be an advocate, argued, used abusive language, and obstructed the police personnel in discharge of their lawful duties. He further denied the suggestion that no such incident took place and maintained that the accused had indeed obstructed their legitimate duties.
15. PW.3/K.Chandraiah,Police Personnel/Eye-Witness deposed that on 20.09.2020 at about 11:00 AM, he, along with the Sub-Inspector of Police, PW1, PW2 and other staff, was conducting vehicle checking at Ambedkar Centre, Bhadrachalam. During the course of checking, a person came on a CBZ motorcycle, and on the instructions of the Sub-
Inspector, the said vehicle was stopped and the pending challans were verified. The Sub-
Inspector directed the rider to keep the vehicle aside and clear the pending challans.
PW3 stated that the accused threw the vehicle keys towards PW1 and questioned the authority of the police, stating that he was an advocate and that they had no right to stop his vehicle. Thereafter, on the instructions of the Sub-Inspector, PW3 took the said vehicle to Bhadrachalam Traffic Police Station while on duty in uniform. He further stated that the accused captured photographs of him and later posted them in social media groups, making derogatory remarks against the police personnel. PW3 deposed that upon coming to know of the same, PW1 lodged a report at Bhadrachalam Town
Police Station.
In the cross-examination, PW3 admitted that on the date of the incident he was on duty near Ambedkar Centre. He further admitted that he did not submit any duty pass to the Sub-Inspector. He also admitted that there is a traffic signal point at the said
Page Nos.9 of 27 CC.No.650/2020 place and that the junction has four directions. He stated that he had not specifically mentioned in his deposition as to which direction they were checking the vehicles, but added that the checking was being conducted near the Gas Godown.
PW3 admitted that on the day of the incident, the Sub-Inspector came to the scene in a car and the same was parked by the side, and that there was no specific parking place at the said area and the vehicle was kept in a ‘no parking’ area. He further admitted that no notice was given to the accused and that the vehicle of the accused was not formally seized. He also admitted that he did not wear a helmet while shifting the accused’s vehicle to the police station, stating that he was on duty and wearing a duty cap. He stated that he does not know whether the report relating to pending challans was submitted before the Court. PW3 further admitted that he does not know who shared his photograph on WhatsApp and that PW1 lodged the complaint alleging that the accused defamed the police through WhatsApp groups. However, PW3 denied the suggestions that no such incident took place, that he was deposing falsely under the pressure of his superiors, or that a false case was foisted against the accused. He maintained that the accused picked up a quarrel and obstructed the police personnel in discharge of their duties.
16.PW.4/Mantri Rama Krishna, Panch Witness for Crime Detail Form deposed that in the year 2020, the Bhadrachalam Police conducted scene of offence panchanama and prepared the Crime Details Form (CDF) along with a rough sketch in connection with the present incident. He identified Ex.P2 as the CDF. PW4 further described the boundaries of the scene of offence are: East – Petrol Bunk; West – Kunavaram Road; North – Cherla
Road; South – MeeSeva Centre.
Page Nos.10 of 27 CC.No.650/2020
In the cross-examination, PW4 stated that the distance between Burgampahad and Bhadrachalam is about 8 kilometers and that he usually opens his shop at about 9:30
AM on all days. He admitted that he acted as a panch witness at the request of the police and that one constable had called him for the same. However, he also stated that the police had not taken him anywhere in connection with the panchanama. He stated that he could not exactly recall the document on which he signed and admitted that he does not know the exact contents of the said document.
17.PW.5/A.Nageswara Rao, Police Personnel/Eye-Witness deposed that on 20.09.2020 at about 11:00 AM, he, along with the Sub-Inspector (PW1), PW2, PW3 and other staff, was conducting vehicle checking at Ambedkar Centre, Bhadrachalam. During the course of checking, a person came on a CBZ motorcycle without wearing a helmet.
On the instructions of the Sub-Inspector, the said vehicle was stopped and upon verification it was found that several challans were pending against the vehicle. The Sub-
Inspector directed the rider to keep the vehicle aside and clear the pending challans.
PW5 stated that the accused refused to pay the challans, threw the vehicle keys towards
PW1, and stated that he was an advocate and questioned the authority of the police to stop his vehicle, further stating that he would pay later and that the police may take the vehicle if they wanted. Thereafter, on the instructions of the Sub-Inspector, PW3 took the vehicle to Bhadrachalam Traffic Police Station while on duty in uniform. He further stated that the accused captured photographs of PW3 and posted them in social media groups, making derogatory remarks against the police personnel. PW5 deposed that upon coming to know of the same, PW1 lodged a report at Bhadrachalam Town Police
Station, and the police examined him and recorded his statement.
Page Nos.11 of 27 CC.No.650/2020
In the cross-examination, PW5 admitted that there is a traffic signal point at the place of occurrence and that it is a junction connecting an interstate road, and that there is a possibility of CCTV surveillance at the said place. He stated that the area would be busy only at certain times. He further admitted that no duty passes were submitted and expressed lack of knowledge as to whether their duties were recorded in the General
Diary. He also stated that he has no knowledge whether any challan was generated on the date of the incident, though he added that the pending challans were shown to the accused through the TS Cop application. He further stated that the vehicle checking was conducted between 10:30 AM and 12:00 noon. PW5 admitted that he does not know whether a vehicle can be seized for pending challans and that he does not know whether the alleged social media messages were produced before the Court. He, however, stated that he had seen certain messages allegedly posted by the accused, including a message reading “Samanyulaku Oka Nyayam, Police laku oka Nyayam,” along with a photograph of PW3 riding the accused’s vehicle without a helmet. He further admitted that he does not know the nature of cases filed in this regard and that he does not know whether there is any designated parking place at Ambedkar Centre. However, PW5 denied the suggestions that no challans were pending or that no such incident took place. He asserted that while performing their duty, they stopped the accused’s vehicle and asked him to clear the pending challans, but the accused, claiming to be an advocate, argued with the police personnel, which led to a gathering of people and obstruction of their duties for more than 30 minutes. He further denied the suggestion that the police had parked their vehicle in a ‘no parking’ area and obstructed traffic. In response to a specific
Page Nos.12 of 27 CC.No.650/2020 question regarding non-production of CCTV footage, PW5 stated that he does not know why such records were not furnished.
18.PW.6/Karam Bhadraiah, Police Personnel/Eye-Witness deposed that on 20.09.2020, he, along with PW1, PW2, PW3, PW5 and the Sub-Inspector of Police, B.
Suresh, went to Ambedkar Centre, Bhadrachalam, to conduct vehicle checking. At about 11:30 AM, during the course of checking, they stopped the vehicle of the accused and upon verification found that there were pending challans against the said vehicle. The
Sub-Inspector instructed PW1 to direct the accused to clear the pending challans. PW6 stated that the accused, claiming himself to be an advocate, stated that he knew the rules and questioned the authority of the police to stop his vehicle, and thereafter picked up a quarrel with PW1. Due to the said argument, the Sub-Inspector instructed
PW3 to take the vehicle to the police station, and accordingly PW3 took the vehicle. PW6 further stated that while PW3 was taking the vehicle, the accused captured his photograph and later posted it on social media platforms.
In the cross-examination, PW6 stated that he has no knowledge regarding the
General Diary entry relating to the incident. He admitted that Ambedkar Centre is a four- road junction with a traffic signal and that there is generally no designated parking place at the signal point. He denied the suggestion that the police had parked their vehicle in a ‘no parking’ area or that the vehicle checking was conducted at an improper place, and asserted that it was a designated checking point. PW6 admitted that no notice was served on the accused regarding pending challans and that the vehicle was not formally seized, further stating that he does not know the seizure procedure. He also admitted that he does not know whether CCTV cameras were available at the spot, though he
Page Nos.13 of 27 CC.No.650/2020 stated that cameras are generally used for surveillance. He further admitted that PW3 did not wear a helmet while taking the vehicle. PW6 admitted that no case was filed under the Information Technology Act and that he has no knowledge as to the platforms where the alleged posts were circulated. He denied the suggestion that no photographs or videos were taken by the accused. He further denied the suggestion that PW3 took the vehicle without authorization, but added that the accused had thrown the key of the vehicle, due to which it was taken to the police station. PW6 denied the suggestions that he was deposing falsely, that due procedure was not followed, that a false or precautionary case was registered, or that the case was foisted against the accused due to his being an advocate or to satisfy police ego.
19.PW.7/B. Mahesh, the Investigating Officer, deposed that on 20.09.2020 at about 20:00 hours, on receipt of Ex.P1 report lodged by PW.1, he registered a case in Crime
No.343 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 186 and 504 IPC and issued Ex.P3-FIR to all concerned. During the course of investigation, he examined PW.1 and recorded his statement. Thereafter, he visited the scene of offence, secured the presence of PW.4 and LW.6, prepared Ex.P2-Crime Details Form and rough sketch in their presence, and examined PW.2, PW.3, PW.5 and PW.6 and recorded their statements. He further deposed that during the course of investigation, the accused appeared before the police station and notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. was issued to him. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused.
In the cross-examination, PW7 admitted that the complaint was lodged at about 20:00 hours, whereas the incident occurred at about 11:30 hours, and that the distance between the police station and the scene of offence is about 1 km, which can be covered
Page Nos.14 of 27 CC.No.650/2020 within 20 minutes. He stated that the delay in lodging the FIR was due to reporting after duty hours and that the same was mentioned in Ex.P3, though he admitted that the reasons for delay were not specifically mentioned in the complaint. PW7 admitted that he did not implicate Sub-Inspector Suresh as a witness, though his presence at the scene was stated by other witnesses. He further admitted that there is no designated parking place at Ambedkar Centre, but denied the suggestion that the police vehicle was parked in a ‘no parking’ area. He stated that CCTV cameras at the scene of offence were not in working condition and denied the suggestion that he had not visited the scene of offence. PW7 admitted that no separate complaint was received from any person other than PW3 regarding the alleged sharing of messages against police personnel. He further admitted that the accused vehicle was not seized and that no notice was served regarding pending challans, though he stated that verification was done through the website. He also admitted that specific particulars and nature of challans were not mentioned in detail. PW7 admitted that no challan was imposed on PW3 for shifting the vehicle without helmet, stating that he was not present at that time and that the vehicle was shifted due to obstruction by the accused and to control the crowd. He stated that he is aware that there is no exemption for driving without helmet. He further stated that photographs shared by the accused were collected and submitted. PW7 denied the suggestion that a false case was foisted against the accused and maintained that the investigation was conducted properly.
20.Upon careful appreciation of the entire oral and documentary evidence available on record, this Court finds that the evidence of PW.1 to PW.3, PW.5 and PW.6, who are eye-witnesses to the incident, consistently establishes that on 20.09.2020, while the
Page Nos.15 of 27 CC.No.650/2020 police personnel were performing official vehicle checking duty at Ambedkar Centre,
Bhadrachalam, the accused questioned the authority of the police to stop his vehicle despite pending challans being found against the same. The consistent version of the prosecution witnesses further reveals that the accused argued with the police personnel at the checking point, threw the vehicle keys, caused gathering of the public at the spot and obstructed the police personnel in discharge of their lawful duties. Their evidence remained consistent on material particulars regarding obstruction caused by the accused during discharge of official duties.
21.The evidence of PW.7, the Investigating Officer, also corroborates the testimony of the eye-witnesses regarding registration of the crime, investigation and filing of the charge sheet. Though certain omissions were elicited in the cross-examination regarding non-production of CCTV footage, challan details and General Diary entries, such omissions are not sufficient to discard the otherwise cogent and consistent testimony of the prosecution witnesses with regard to obstruction of public servants while discharging official duties.
22.The counsel for the accused argued that prosecution did not file any duty certificate of public servants, hence this court should consider that they were not on duty on the day of incident, regarding the same, this court is of the opinion that filing of duty certificate is not mandatory in all cases when the prosecution is able to prove from other circumstances that the public servant was discharging official duties and mere non-filing of duty certificate does not damage the case of prosecution.
23.Further the Learned defence counsel argued several points by leading the court to 161 Cr.PC statements. Since statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. do not carry
Page Nos.16 of 27 CC.No.650/2020 substantive evidentiary value, this court cannot rely upon them as substantive evidence at the time of Judgment. The 161 Cr.P.C statements can only be used for the purpose of contradictions but not for corroboration. Even to use them for contradictions, the counsel for the accused shall put the specific contradictions to the witness in his cross- examination.
24.The learned defence counsel argued that most of the material witnesses examined by the prosecution are police personnel though the alleged incident took place at a busy junction. Hence, according to the defence, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is interested and not trustworthy and therefore no reliance can be placed upon their testimony.
Regarding the said contention, this Court is of the considered opinion that merely because the witnesses are police personnel, their evidence cannot be discarded on that ground alone. It is a settled principle of law that the testimony of police officials is equally admissible and reliable if it is found to be cogent, consistent and trustworthy. In the present case, the evidence of PW.1, PW.2, PW.3, PW.5 and PW.6 is consistent on all material particulars regarding the manner in which the accused obstructed the police personnel while they were discharging official duties at the vehicle checking point.
Nothing substantial was elicited in their cross-examination to discredit their version.
Further, there is no material on record to show any prior enmity or motive for falsely implicating the accused. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the police witnesses merely on the ground that they belong to the police department.
Their evidence inspires confidence and can safely be relied upon.
Page Nos.17 of 27 CC.No.650/2020
25.The counsel for defence argued that during said incident it was witnessed by many but only few witnesses were implicated, regarding the same this court relies on
Hon’ble Supreme Judgment in Kunju Vs. State of Tamilnadu 2008 wherein it stated
that as a general rule the court can act on the testimony of a single witness provided he is wholly reliable. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness. That is the logic of Section 132 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, but, if there are doubts about the testimony the courts will insist on corroboration.
It is for the court to act upon the testimony of witnesses. It is not the number, the quantity, but the quality that is material. The time honoured principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. On this principle stands the edifice of Sec.134 of
Indian Evidence Act. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise. To sum up, corroboration would be required only if witness is neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In this present case this court opines that the witness is a reliable witness and gains faith of this court.
26.This court also finds that it is pertinent to note that, Section 134 of Indian
Evidence Act specifically provided that no particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for proof of any fact.
27.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in V.Vadivalu Thevar Vs. State of Madras AIR 1957 SC. 614: 1958 Cri. L.J 1000, Ram Ratan Vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1962(1) Cri. L.J 473: AIR 1962 S.C 424, Maqsoodan Vs State of Uttar Pradesh, 1983 S.C.C (Cri) 176: AIR 1983 S.C 126: 1983 Cri.L.J.218; Suresh Vs State of Uttarpradesh, 1981 Cri. L.J 746: AIR 1981 SC 1122, Jagdev Singh Vs State of Maharashtra, AIR 1981 SC.648: 1981 Cri.L.J 166:
Page Nos.18 of 27 CC.No.650/2020 1981 S.C.C (Cri)267, has held that section 134 of Indian Evidence Act is based on the maxim that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. The Court is concerned with the quality and not quantity of the evidence, necessary for proving or disproving a fact.
If the legislature were to insist upon plurality of witnesses then the cases where the testimony of a single person only could be available in proof of the crime would go un- punished.
28.The defence counsel argued that there are minor variations in the evidences deposed by PW1 to PW6, regarding this court takes aid of Hon’ble Supreme
Court Judgment in State of Maharashtra Vs. Krishna Murti Laxmi Pati Naidu 1981,
Beti Pedla Vs. State of Orrissa, 1981 wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court opined that
“minor variation between what the eye witness said on a particular point in examination in chief and cross-examination does not affect its credibility, when the witness was consistent as to point of substance.
29. The defence counsel argued that there are minor inconsistencies in the depositions of few witnesses. Even though there are minor inconsistencies as to depositions of few witnesses, this court considers that the same to be minor discrepancies and not fatal to this case.
30.The counsel for Defence also argued that there are minor discrepancies in the evidence deposed by PW7/ Investigation Officer regarding this court takes aid of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgment in Brahm Swaroop & Anr Vs.State of UP 2010(4)
Crimes 267(SC) wherein itclarified that “It is a settled legal proposition that while appreciating the evidence of a witness, minor discrepancies on trivial matters, which do not
Page Nos.19 of 27 CC.No.650/2020 affect the core of the prosecutions case may not prompt the court to reject the evidence in its entirety”.
31.Further this court takes aid of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgment in
Mallappa Siddappa Alakanur Vs. State of Karnataka, 2009(3) Crimes 230(S.C):
Bhagwati Prasad Vs.State of M.P 2009(4) Crimes 328(S.C) wherein it categorically stated that “minor discrepancies are not fatal to prosecution story”.
32.Further this court takes aid of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of
Rajasthan Vs. Jaggu Ram, 2008 (1) Crimes 180 (SC): 2008(1) Cri.L.J.1039(SC): AIR 2008 SC.982: 2008(3) AIC 183: 2008(1) Scale 22, has clarified that “while deciding a criminal case, court should not give undue weightage to minor discrepancies in prosecution case and acquit the accused ignoring the most important factors and the case.
33. Further this court takes aid of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Yogesh Singh Vs.
Mahabeer Singh 2017 Cri.LJ291(SC): 2016(10) JT332: 2016(4) Crimes 121: 2016 AIR
(SCW) 5160: 2016 AIR (SC)5160 opined that “It is well settled in law that the minor discrepancies are not to be given undue emphasis and the evidence is to be considered from the point of view of trust worthiness. If the evidence is incredible and cannot be accepted by the test of prudence, then it may create a dent in the prosecution version”.
34.If an omission or discrepancy goes to the root of the matter and ushers in incongruities, the defence can take advantage of such inconsistencies.
It needs no special emphasis to state that every omission cannot take place of a material omission and therefore, minor contradictions, inconsistencies or insignificant
Page Nos.20 of 27 CC.No.650/2020 embellishments do not effect the core of the prosecution case and should not be a ground to reject the prosecution evidence. It is only the serious contradictions and omissions which materially affect the case of the prosecution but not every contradiction or omission.
35.Further this court takes aid of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
T.V.Saravanan @ SAR Prasa Venkatachaariar Chaturvedi Vs.State through Sec.2006
(1) Crimes 223 (SC), categorically stated that the minor discrepancies in the statement of prosecution witnesses point out by the counsel for the respondents need not detain us any longer. Every discrepancy in the witness statement is not fatal to the prosecution’s case.
The discrepancy, which does not materially affect the prosecution case, does not create any infirmities.
36.The counsel for the defence argued that there is a discrepancies in time by the prosecution witnesses, regarding the same, this Court is of the opinion that; when there are telltale circumstances on record clearly supporting the prosecution case, assuming there are some discrepancies in the evidence of witnesses as regards time, it would not make any dent in the prosecution story as stated in Sushil Sharma Vs. the
State of NCT of Delhi 2013(4) Crimes 131(SC).
37. The counsel for defence argued that PW.2, PW3, PW.5, PW.6 have acquaintance to PW.1 hence their evidence should be discarded and not to be weighed regarding this, this court takes aid of Supreme Court precedent in Pushkar Lal Vs. Madan Lal 2010(4) crimes 29(Raj) wherein it held that “The interested witness is a person, who possess
Page Nos.21 of 27 CC.No.650/2020 some subjective and vested interest in result of the dispute and for that purpose he may deviate from objectivity and cause injury to the fair trial. No inference for being an interested witness can be drawn, just for the reason that the witness is in relation of a person concerned. Hence, considering the above precedent this court opines that their evidence cannot be discarded upon a mere allegation that they are interested witnesses hence, it cannot be considered and merely because they are acquainted with PW1, their evidence cannot be discarded merely on the ground.
38.This Court also takes aid of Ashok Rai Vs. State of UP, 2014 Cri.L.J3085(SC) where Supreme Court held that, evidence of interested witness can be accepted even without corroboration, if it is intrinsically reliable.
38.This Court also takes aid of Rajiv alias Prakash Vs. State of M.P 1994
Cri.L.J.2167: 1994 AIR SCW902 where Supreme Court held that “The evidence of a witness cannot be rejected merely because it was an interested witness”.
39. The counsel for defence argued that there are certain omissions in the investigation, in answer to the said contention, this court takes aid of Paramjit Singh @
Mithu Singh Vs.State of Punjab, 2007(4) Crimes 302 (S.C.) “when the version of eye- witnesses is quite consistent and reliable and when they were present at the place of occurrence, then certain omissions in investigation would not be material”.
40. At this juncture this court intends to quote the Apex Court precedents where in it stated in many of its Judgments “Certain lapses in the investigation cannot be fatal to the case of the prosecution when the witnesses are found to be credible. To substantiate the view of this court, it is necessary to mention the opinion of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in State of Karnataka v. K. Yarappa Reddy, wherein it is held that “But can
Page Nos.22 of 27 CC.No.650/2020 the above finding (that the station house diary is not genuine) have any inevitable bearing on the other evidence in this case? If the other evidence, on scrutiny, is found credible and acceptable, should the Court be influenced by the machinations demonstrated by the investigating officer in conducting investigation or in preparing the records so unscrupulously? It can be a guiding principle that as investigation is not the solitary area for judicial scrutiny in a criminal trial, the conclusion of the court in the case cannot be allowed to depend solely on the probity of investigation. It is well-nigh settled that even if the investigation is illegal or even suspicious the rest of the evidence must be scrutinized independently of the impact of it. Otherwise the criminal trial will plummet to the level of the investigating officers ruling the roost. The court must have predominance and pre eminence in criminal trials over the action taken by investigating officers. Criminal justice should not be made a casualty for the wrongs committed by the investigating officers in the case. In other words, if the court is convinced that the testimony of a witness to the occurrence is true the court is free to act on it albeit the investigating officer's suspicious role in the case”.
41."...the lapse on the part of the Investigating Officer should not be taken in favour of the accused, may be that such lapse is committed designedly or because of negligence. Hence, the prosecution evidence is required to be examined dehors such omissions to find out whether the said evidence is reliable or not. For this purpose, it would be worthwhile to quote the Following observations of this Court from the case of
Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar and others, J.T. (1998) 3 SC 290.
Page Nos.23 of 27 CC.No.650/2020
42."In such cases, the story of the prosecution will have to be examined de hors such omissions and contaminated conduct of the officials otherwise the mischief which was deliberately done would be perpetuated and justice would be denied to the complainant party and this would obviously shake the confidence of the people not merely in the law enforcing agency but also in the administration of justice."
43.Hence, the principle of law is crystal clear that on the account of defective investigation the benefit will not inure to the accused persons on that ground alone. It is well within the domain of the courts to consider the rest of the evidence which the prosecution has gathered such as statement of the eyewitnesses etc. It has been a consistent stand of this court that the accused cannot claim acquittal on the ground of faulty investigation done by the prosecuting agency."
44.Further, the complaint lodged by PW.1, who is the affected public servant, satisfies the requirement under Section 195 Cr.P.C., thereby enabling this Court to take cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 186 IPC. To attract the offence under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution has to establish that the accused voluntarily obstructed a public servant in discharge of his public functions. In the present case, the evidence of PW.1, PW.2, PW.3, PW.5 and PW.6 clearly establishes that the police personnel were on official traffic checking duty and that the accused intentionally argued with them, questioned their authority, threw the keys of the vehicle and obstructed the discharge of official duties. The evidence further discloses that due to the conduct of the accused, a crowd gathered at the place causing interruption to the official functioning of the police personnel. The evidence of prosecution witnesses is
Page Nos.24 of 27 CC.No.650/2020 natural, cogent and trustworthy. Their presence at the scene is not disputed. Minor omissions and procedural irregularities do not go to the root of the prosecution case.Hence, the ingredients of Section 186 IPC are satisfactorily proved beyond reasonable doubt.
45.However, insofar as the offences punishable under Sections 294(b) and 504 IPC are concerned, this Court finds that the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of the said offences. Since the exact obscene or provocative words allegedly uttered by the accused were not brought on record by the prosecution which insulted the PW1 and other police officials who are on duty and provoked them to commit breach of public peace. Neither in Ex.P1 complaint nor in the oral evidence of prosecution witnesses were the exact abusive words allegedly uttered by the accused mentioned. In the absence of specific obscene or insulting words capable of provoking breach of peace being brought on record, the offences under Sections 294(b) and 504 IPC are not made out. Mere allegation that the accused argued in an abusive tone is insufficient to attract the said provisions.
46.Accordingly, this Court holds that the prosecution has proved the offence punishable under Section 186 IPC against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
However, the prosecution failed to prove the offences punishable under Sections 294(b) and 504 IPC. Accordingly, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offence under
Section 186 IPC and acquitted for the offences under Sections 294(b) and 504 IPC.
47.Considering the above discussion, this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for offence U/Sec.186 Indian Penal Code and failed to prove guilt U/Sec.294(b), 504 of Indian Penal Code.
Page Nos.25 of 27 CC.No.650/2020
48.IN THE RESULT, Accused is found guilty for the offence under Sec.186 of
Indian Penal Code, accordingly the Accused is convicted under Sec.248(2) Cr.P.C for the offence punishable Under Section 186 of IPC. Further Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec.294(b), 504 IPC and he is acquitted U/Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C.
Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Bhadrachalam.
:: HEARING ON QUANTUM OF SENTENCE ::
49.Heard the Accused wherein he stated that he is an Practicing Advocate in this Bar and he is having bright future and he is intending to apply for Law Officer in future and that he may be admonished by invoking the provision of Probation of Offenders Act.
He also stated that there are no adverse antecedents against him and also stated that he is not involved in any other criminal activities and no other case is pending against him, hence he prays the court to take a lenient view.
Upon perusal of record the prosecution has not filed any report adverse to the conduct of the accused.
The Accused was sentenced to Simple Imprisonment for (03) months and and to pay fine of Rs.500/-. It is pertinent to mention here that Sec.186 of Indian Penal Code is punishable with imprisonment up to (03) months or fine which may extend to Rs.500/- or with both.
Therefore, in this case this court opines it is a fit case where in the provisions of
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 can be applied. Considering that the Accused is first time offender and expressed remorse and that the offence did not result of lasting harm
Page Nos.26 of 27 CC.No.650/2020 or loss and considering the same, this court finds at expedient to extent the benefit of
Section 3 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 by releasing the Accused after due admonishing. The accused is cautioned to maintain good conduct in future and not to repeat any such acts. Hence, taking into consideration of the plea of the convict and facts of the case, this court opines extending beneficial provisions of Probation of
Offenders Act would meet ends of justice.
50.As the offence U/Sec.186 of Indian Penal Code is punishable up to (03) months or fine which may extend to Rs.500/- or with both, considering the nature of offence and considering the conduct of the accused and his change in attitude for his mistake this court take lenient view against the Accused Under Section 3 of Probation of offenders act by admonishing him would meet the ends of justice. As such Accused is admonished for his acts against PW1 and he is warned not to repeat such kind of things in future. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. There is no property as to order.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 12 th day of May, 2026.
Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Bhadrachalam.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
Prosecution Defence
PW1G.Baskar Rao PW2E.Ananthaiah PW3K.Chandraiah PW4M.Rama Krishna
Page Nos.27 of 27 CC.No.650/2020
PW5A.Nageswara Rao PW6Karam Bhadraiah PW7B.Mahesh
Documents Marked
Prosecution Defence
Ex.P1Report Ex.P2Crime Detail Form Ex.P3First Information Report
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR
PROSECUTION
NIL
DEFENCE
NIL
Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Bhadrachalam. Corrections carried out by me: