Sri.Venkatram

1

IN THE COURT OF XXVII ADDL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: CYBERABAD,

AT:: MAHESHWARAM, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

PRESENT: Sri.N.Venkatram,

XXVII Addl Metropolitan Magistrate,

Cyberabad, At Maheshwaram.

Thursday, the 31st day of October, 2019.

CC.No.187 of 2018

Between:

The State through PS Maheshwaram

...Complainant.

AND

1. Pulijala Pentaiah, S/o.Late Venkaiah, Age 60 years,

Occ:Agriculture,

2. Pulijala Sarvesh, S/o.Pentaiah, Age 40 years,

Occ:Business,

3. Pulijala Shekar, S/o.Pentaiah, Age 38 years,

Occ:Mechanic,

4. Pulijala Swathi, W/o.Sarvesh, Age 35 years,

Occ:Agriculture,

All are R/o.Dubbacharla Village, Maheshwaram

Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

...Accused.

This case coming on for final hearing before me on 24.10.2019 in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the Complainant and of Sri.P.Sripal Reddy,

Advocate for accused and 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 PS, Maheshwaram filed Charge sheet against A1 to

A4 in crime No.136/2018 under section 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code herein after referred to as IPC.

2.The following are the accusations leveled against A1 to A4:- 2

That 01.08.2018 the defacto complainant Smt.Pulijala Uma and her husband

Pandu @ Pandaiah went to the agriculture fields along with their goats. The goats while grazing entered into the land of A1 as such A1 to A3 picked up quarrel with Pandu @ Pandaiah and beat him with sticks and A4 caught hold the hands of Pandu @

Pandaiah. As a result, the Pandaiah received bleeding injury over his head and right shoulder.

Basing on the report lodged by Smt.Pulijala Uma, the Inspector of Police PS

Maheshwaram registered a case in crime No.136/2018 under section 324 r/w 34 of IPC and entrusted the investigation to the Sub-Inspector of Police. During the course of investigation examined the defacto complainant, brother of injured and recorded the statement. On 02.08.2018 visited the scene of offence and secured the presence of two mediators and conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch.

Further visited OGH, Hyderabad and examined and recorded the statement of injured witness. On 03.08.2018 apprehended the A1 to A3 and affected their arrest and produced them before the Hon’ble Court. Section 41(A) Cr.P.C notice was served on

A4 and she assured to cooperate with the trial. The investigating officer collected medical report from Chief Medical Officer, Osmania General Hospital where under the doctor opined the injuries as simple in nature. Later basing on the material collected filed charge sheet against A1 to A4 for the offence under section 324 r/w 34 of IPC.

3.Basing on the material produced before this court, this court took cognizance for the offence under section 324 r/w 34 of IPC against A1 to A4 and registered the case as

CC.No.187/2018 and issued summons to A1 to A4. On appearance of A1 to A4 this

court furnished case copies to the A1 to A4 in compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C. Later

A1 to A4 were examined under section 239 Cr.P.C., by explaining the accusations leveled against them and they denied the same. Later a charge for the offence under sections 324 r/w 34 of IPC was framed and the same was read over and explained to 3 the A1 to A4 and A1 to A4 denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.In order to prove its case, on behalf of prosecution Pw1 to Pw6 were examined and marked Ex.P1 to P7.

5.After completion of prosecution evidence A1 to A4 were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating evidence available against them and A1 to A4 denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

6.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for accused and perused the record.

7.Now the point for consideration is “whether prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the offence under section 324 r/w 34 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt”?

POINT:-

8.The case of prosecution is that on 01.08.2018 A1 to A4 in furtherance of their common intention voluntarily caused hurt to Pw3 as a result, he suffered from simple injuries. In order to prove these facts the prosecution examined the defacto complainant as Pw1, brother of injured examined as Pw2, the injured witness examined as Pw3, panch witness for scene of offence examined as Pw4 and Pw5 and the investigating officer examined as Pw6. Apart from this oral evidence, the prosecution marked Ex.P1 report, Ex.P4 scene of offence panchanama, Ex.P5 rough sketch, Ex.P6 medical certificate and Ex.P7 FIR.

9.Pw1 deposed that about one year back at 6:00 PM she returned to home from fields and her husband was at fields and she received a call from her husband and 4 informed that A1 to A4 beat him with sticks and suffered from head injury and later she rushed to scene of offence along with her son and daughter and found that her husband suffered from head injury and also oozing of blood from head. Pw2 deposed that on 01.08.2018 at 6:00 PM A1 to A4 beat the Pw3 at fields and he came to know through the villagers and rushed to the scene of offence but met his brother on the way. Pw3 injured deposed that on 01.08.2018 at 2:00 PM A1 picked up quarrel with him as his goats grazed his crop and both abused each other and at about 6:30 PM A1 to A4 came to his fields and beat him with sticks as a result he suffered from head injury and injuries over shoulder and back portion. Further deposed that A4 caught hold his hands tightly and A1 to A3 beat with sticks. Pw4 and Pw5 panch witness for scene of offence did not support the case of prosecution. Pw6 investigating officer deposed about investigating procedures and also testified about arrest of accused.

10.i) In order to prove the charge under section 324 of IPC, at first instance the prosecution has to establish the injury suffered by the Pw3 and A1 to A4voluntarily caused such injury with a stick a dangerous weapon in furtherance of their common intention. In the light of these essential elements this court proceed to scrutinized the evidence on record. Ex.P1 report would disclose that on 01.08.2018 the Pw3 suffered from head injury and injury over right shoulder. Pw1 defacto complainant she deposed that she received information from her husband that A1 to A4 beat him with stick and suffered from head injury and then she rushed to scene of offence along with her son and daughter and found oozing blood from the head and later shifted to the Village clinic. However, she did not testify about the injury suffered over the right shoulder.

Pw2 also testified that Pw3 suffered from head injury and initially he took first Aid in the

Village clinic and later police referred to Osmania General Hospital (OGH). Even Pw3 injured witness deposed that he suffered from head injury and injuries over shoulder and back partition and he lost his conscious and later gained conscious informed to his son by making a call and he took treatment at Village later visited Government hospital, 5

Maheshwaram and further took treatment at OGH. The evidence of Pw1 to Pw3 is consistent about head injury. Pw3 alone testified that he suffered from injuries over shoulder and back portion. The injuries over shoulder and back portion is not corroborated by the evidence of Pw2 and Pw3.

ii)The evidence of Pw1 to Pw3 discloses that the Pw3 took treatment at OGH.

Pw6 investigating officer deposed that he visited OGH and examined and recorded the statement of Pw3 and later collected Ex.P6 medical certificate from OGH. During cross examination suggestion to the Pw6 deposed that he did not refer the Pw3 to the hospital at Maheshwaram and OGH. Further Pw6 admitted that Pw3 was treated as

Outpatient. Ex.P6 medical certificate was marked through investigating officer and doctor was not examined. Ex.P6 indicates a lacerated injury over right abrasion and laceration over both shoulders and doctor opined injuries as simple in nature. The learned counsel for accused argued that Ex.P6 indicates the address of patient as

Maheshwaram and the said certificate belongs to Pandaiah resident of Maheshwaram but not belongs to Pw3. Pw6 investigating officer admitted that Ex.P6 contains the address as Maheshwaram. Ex.P6 carries the outpatient number. However, Pw1 deposed that Pw3 was admitted for 3 days at OGH. The statement which is quite contrary to the Ex.P6. However, the evidence of Pw3 consistently discloses about the head injury and the said injury is adequately corroborated by the evidence of Pw1 and

Pw2 and further it also noted in Ex.P6. Ex.P6 would indicates the name of Pw3 and as well as injury and further it indicates the alleged history of case. Therefore, in noting address as Maheshwaram alone in the opinion of this court would not be a ground to reject Ex.P6 injury certificate.

iii) The opinion of the doctor about the injuries is a simple in nature but the doctor was not examined to testify the same. But at the same time the evidence of Pw3 would indicates the injury and as well as bodily pain. Section 319 of IPC defines hurt which indicates a bodily pain, decease or infirmity. Though the doctor was not examined to testify the opinion as simple in nature but the evidence of Pw3 injured witness 6 adequately proves the bodily pain. Therefore, this court taking into consideration of evidence of Pw3 injured which is corroborated by the evidence of Pw1 and Pw2 and also reflects in Ex.P6 injury certificate holds that prosecution is able to prove the injury suffered by the Pw3. Though the doctor evidence is absent with regard to nature of injury but the evidence of Pw3 adequately proves the bodily pain. Therefore, it can be consider as simple hurt.

11.Now the next point arises for consideration is whether A1 to A4 in furtherance of their common intention voluntarily caused hurt to Pw3. The evidence of Pw1 and Pw2 is in the form of circumstantial nature and they are not the eye witnesses. The evidence of Pw3 injured witness alone is available which is in the form of direct evidence. The cross examination of Pw1 to Pw3 would disclose that there is a previous enmity in between accused and Pw3. Pw1 admitted that earlier there were quarrel took place for 3 times and the same was settled before the elders and a case was also registered on the report of one Prakash, S/o.A1. Therefore, the witnesses

Pw1 to Pw3 are in the nature of inimical and interested witnesses and further Pw1 is the wife of Pw3 and Pw2 is the brother of Pw3. Further it is admitted by the Pw1 to Pw3 that A1 is the paternal uncle of Pw2 and Pw3 and A2 to A4 are their children. Since the witnesses are inimical, interested and related witnesses, therefore their evidence has to be weighted with more caution. Admittedly the scene of offence is located at the fields of Pw3 and no independent direct witness is available in this case. The entire case of the prosecution rests on the sole testimony of Pw3 who is an injured witness.

As noted in the forgoing part of Judgment Pw1 and Pw2 are not the direct witness and they were not present at scene of offence at the time of incident.

12.Pw3 deposed that at 2:00 PM A1 picked up quarrel with him as his goats entered the fields of accused and grazed the crop and both abused each other and at about 6:30 PM A1 to A4 came to his fields and A4 caught hold his hands tightly and A1 to A3 7 beat him. However, the same was denied by the Pw3. On careful perusal of Ex.P1 it does not disclose the incident occurred in the afternoon hours and the same also not testified by the Pw1. But at the same time in spite of cross examination the version of

Pw3 with regard to voluntarily causing hurt by A1 to A4 did not disturb. However, there is a contradiction between the Pw3 and Pw6 investigating officer about place of recording the statement of Pw3. According to Pw3 his statement was recorded on the next day of incident at his fields, whereas Pw6 investigating officer deposed that he visited OGH and recorded the statement of Pw6. The learned counsel for accused argued that this contradiction would falsify the investigation which ultimately creates doubt over the case of prosecution. However, this court is of the opinion that the contradiction about place of recording of the statement alone would not be a ground to reject the case of prosecution. More particularly the core version of voluntarily causing hurt by A1 to A4 is remained as undisturbed. Further the evidence of Pw3 is corroborated by the evidence of Pw1 and Pw2.

13.It is important to note that the scene of offence is located at the fields and where general public presence cannot be expected. Therefore, under said circumstances insisting for corroboration of evidence of Pw3 by the independent witness would not be a reasonable one. The evidence on record would indicates that at relevant point of time except Pw3 and accused no one were present and moreover, the lands of accused and Pw3 appears to be abutting to each other. These circumstances would strengthening the case of prosecution on the voluntarily causing hurt. No doubt there is previous enmity among Pw3 and accused and even Pw1 also admitted that criminal case was registered against her. In such situations there is every possibility of false implication of innocents. However, in the case of hand the evidence of Pw3 in spite of cross examination the core version of voluntarily causing hurt by A1 to A4 is undisturbed.

8

14.Pw4 and Pw5 are the mediators for Ex.P4 scene of offence panchanama and

Ex.P5 rough sketch but they denied conducting of Ex.P4 and P5. Pw6 investigating officer deposed about conducting of Ex.P4 and P5 at scene of offence and he did not find any physical property. Though the independent mediators denied Ex.P4 and P5 but at the same time the evidence of Pw3 injured witness in the opinion of this court is adequate to establish the incident that A1 to A4 voluntarily caused hurt to the Pw3.

15.In view of aforesaid discussion and analysis of evidence, the witnesses Pw1 to

Pw3 are standing in the nature of inimical and interested witnesses but Pw3 being injured witness his evidence, in spite of cross examination inspiring the confidence of this court on the core version of voluntarily causing hurt by A1 to A4. Therefore, the contradiction among the Pw3 and Pw6 about place of recording statement in the opinion of this court would not be a significant fact. As noted in the forgoing part of Judgment the place of incident is located in a remote place where availability of general public cannot be expected. Therefore, by the strength of sole testimony of Pw3 holds that

A1 to A4 in furtherance of their common intention voluntarily caused hurt to Pw3.

16.Pw6 testified that he did not find the physical property at scene of offence which was used in the commission of offence. Even the same also admitted during cross examination. For constituting the offence under section 324 of IPC, the production of weapon used in the commission of offence is crucial but in the case on hand the investigating officer did not seize the same from scene of offence. Therefore, this court has no opportunity to appreciate whether the stick used in the commission of offence is a dangerous one. In the absence of such crucial piece of evidence it is very difficult to hold a finding that A1 to A4 voluntarily causing hurt with dangerous weapon.

Moreover, the stick itself is not dangerous weapon. Therefore, for the lack of weapon used in the commission of offence this court holds that prosecution is failed to prove the charge under section 324 of IPC, however the prosecution adequately proves that A1 to 9

A4 in furtherance of their common intention voluntarily caused hurt to Pw3, which adequately constitute and proves the offence under section 323 of IPC.

17.In the case on hand a charge for the offence under section 324 r/w 34 of IPC is framed and no separate charge framed for the offence under section 323 of IPC. It is relevant to mention that section 222 (2) of Cr.P.C provides to convict a person for minor offence although charge is not framed. In the case on hand the charge is framed for 324 of IPC and the facts proved are for 323 of IPC which is a minor offence.

Therefore, by the aid of section 222 (2) Cr.P.C it is lawful for this court to record conviction for the offence under section 323 of IPC although A1 to A4 are not charged.

18.In view of aforesaid discussion and the analysis of evidence, though the prosecution is able to prove that A1 to A4 in furtherance of their common intention voluntarily caused hurt to Pw3 but the prosecution is failed to prove the charge under section 324 r/w 34 of IPC. However, the prosecution is able to prove charge under section 323 r/w 34 of IPC. Accordingly, this point is answered.

In the result, A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offence under section 324 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly, A1 to A4 are acquitted for the same under section 248(1)

Cr.P.C., Whereas A1 to A4 are found guilty for the offence under section 323 r/w 34 of

IPC and accordingly, A1 to A4 are convicted for the same under section 248 (2) Cr.P.C

The bail bonds of A1 to A4 are stands cancelled subject to section 437(A) Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the

open Court on this the 31stday of October, 2019.

XXVII ADDL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD, MAHESHWARAM.

10

Heard the A1 to A4 on the quantum of sentence to be awarded against them.

This court explained to the A1 to A4 the quantum of sentence provided under section 323 r/w 34 of IPC.

A1 to A4 submitted that they are the farmers by profession and they have no previous antecedents. Further submitted that all are belongs to same family and submitted that A1 is at old age and pray to invoke the provisions of Probation of

Offenders Act and also pray to take a lenient view in awarding sentence.

Having regard to the submission of the A1 to A4, this court do not find any special circumstances to invoke the provisions of PO Act. However, this court considering the socio and economic status of A1 to A4, age and family background of A1 to A4 and further taking into consideration of lesser gravity of offence is of the opinion that lenient view can be extended in awarding sentence.

In the result, A1 to A4 are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence under section 323 r/w 34 of IPC and in default of payment of fine amount A1 to

A4 shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one (1) month.

A1 to A4 have been informed about right of appeal against this Judgment and also informed about free Legal Aid at court of appeal.

Typed to my dictation by the steno, corrected and pronounced by me in the open

Court on this the 31st day of October, 2019.

XXVII ADDL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD, MAHESHWARAM.

11

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:For Accused:

PW1: Pulijala Uma. -Nil-

PW2: Pulijala Satyanarayana.

PW3: Pulijala Pandaiah.

PW4: Guthil Shekar.

PW5: Pothagalla Maisaiah.

PW6: K.Shankar.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:For Accused:

Ex.P1: Report. -Nil-

Ex.P2: Portion of signature on scene of offence panchanama.

Ex.P3: Portion of signature on rough sketch.

Ex.P4: Portion of signature on scene of offence panchanama

Ex.P4 (i): Scene of offence panchanama.

Ex.P5: Portion of signature rough sketch.

Ex.P5 (i): Rough sketch.

Ex.P6: Scene of offence panchanama.

Ex.P6 (i): Medical certificate.

Ex.P7: First Information Report.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

For Prosecution:For Accused :

-Nil- -Nil-

XXVII ADDL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD, MAHESHWARAM.

1

IN THE COURT OF XXVII ADDL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: CYBERABAD,

AT:: MAHESHWARAM, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

PRESENT: Sri.N.Venkatram,

XXVII Addl.Metropolitan Magistrate,

Cyberabad, At Maheshwaram.

Wednesday, the 30th day of October, 2019.

CC.No.239 of 2017

Between:

The State through PS Kandukur.

...Complainant.

AND

1. Buddolla Ravindar, S/o.Krishnaiah, Age 40 years,

Occ:Agriculture,

2. Buddolla Bhaskar, S/o.Krishnaiah, Age 38 years,

Occ:Tailor.

3. Buddolla Rupamma, W/o.Krishnaiah, Age 65 years,

Oc:House hold,

All are R/o.Katikapally, H/o.Rachulur Village, Kandukur

Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

...Accused.

This case coming on for final hearing before me on 23.10.2019 in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the Complainant and of Sri M.Srinivas

Reddy, Advocate for accused and stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1.This is a charge sheet filed by the Inspector of Police of PS Kandukur against A1 to A3 for the offences under sections 447, 427, 341, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code herein after referred to as IPC.

2.The accusations leveled against A1 to A3 in brief are as follows:- 2

That the defacto complainant Smt.Chitte Anitha purchased land admeasuring

Ac.1-16 gts in survey No.526 and 530 situated at Rachloor Village from one Mula Buchi

Reddy through registered sale deed. Later she obtained pattadar pass book proceedings in her favour and since the date of purchased Smt.Chitte Anitha is in physical possession of the said land. A1 and A2 frequently visits the land of Chitte

Anitha and quarreling with her by claiming the land. As such the defacto complainant

Chitte Anitha approached the Junior Civil Judge, Maheshwaram and obtained injunction order in her favour. Even after granting of ad-interim injunction order against A1 to A3, invoilation of said orders on 25.04.2017 at 0900 hours A1 to A3 trespassed into the land of Chitte Anitha and erected a hut and kept the stones in the way and obstructed the way of Chitte Anitha. Smt.Chitte Anitha questioned the accused but A1 to A3 threatened her with dire consequences.

Basing on the report lodged by Sri. Chitte Anitha, the Inspector of police registered a case in Crime No.91 of 2017 under sections 447, 427, 341, 506 r/w 34 of

IPC and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation examined and recorded the statement of witnesses and visited scene of offence and secured the presence of mediators and conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch. On 05.05.2019 the investigating officer served section 41(A) Cr.P.C notice on

A1 to A3 and they assumed to cooperate with the investigation, hence did not affect their arrest. Later basing on the material collected filed charge sheet against A1 to A3.

3.Basing on the material produced by the investigating officer, this court took cognizance for the offences under sections 447, 427, 341, 506 r/w 34of IPC and registered the case as CC.No.239/2017 and issued summons to A1 to A3. In pursuance of service of summons, A1 to A3 appeared before this court and this court furnished case copies to A1 to A3 as provided under section 207 Cr.P.C,. Later A1 to A3 were examined under section 251 Cr.P.C by explaining the accusations for the offences 3 under sections 447, 427, 341, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and they denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.In order to prove it’s case, on behalf of prosecution Pw1 to Pw7 were examined and marked Ex.P1 to P21.

5.After completion of prosecution evidence A1 to A3 were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C by explaining incriminating evidence available against them and A1 to A3 denied the same. On behalf of accused A2 examined as Dw1 and marked Ex.D1 to

D4.

6.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for accused and perused the record.

7.Now the points for consideration are:-

1. Whether A1 to A3 criminally trespassed into the land of Chitte Anitha and caused mischief to her property?

2. Whether A1 to A3 wrongfully restrained the Pw1 from proceeding in her way?

3. Whether A1 to A3 threatened the Pw1 with dire consequences?

4. Whether prosecution is able to prove the guilt of A1 to A3 beyond reasonable doubt”?

POINT No.1 to 3:-

8.i) The case of the prosecution is that A1 to A3 in furtherance of their common intention trespassed into the land of Chitte Anitha Pw1 and caused mischief to her property in violation of ad-interim injunction order granted in favour of Chitte Anitha and also obstructed the way of Chitte Anitha and threatened with dire consequences. In order to prove these facts the prosecution examined the defacto complainant as Pw1 4 and her husband examined as Pw2, eye witnesses examined as Pw3 and Pw4, panch witness for scene of offence and rough sketch examined as Pw5 and Pw6 and the investigating officer examined as Pw7. Apart from this oral evidence the prosecution marked Ex.P1 report, Ex.P2 proceedings of MRO, Kandukur, Ex.P3 1-B of ROR, Ex.P4 to P11 pahanies, Ex.P12 sale deed bearing document No.1821/2006, dated 14.02.2006, Ex.P13 is also sale deed document bearing No.59/2004, dated 07.01.2004,

Ex.P19 FIR, Ex.P20 scene of offence panchanama and Ex.P21 rough sketch.

ii)On behalf of accused Dw1 was examined and marked Ex.D1 copy of plaint filed in OS.No.33/2017, Ex.D2 written statement, Ex.D3 copy of plaint filed in OS.No.13/2017 and Ex.D4 written statement filed in OS.No.13/2017.

9.i) Pw1 deposed that in the year 2006 she purchased land admeasuring Ac.1-16 gts in survey No.526 and 530 through registered sale deed from one Mula Buchi reddy and later she obtained pattadar pass book and title deed from Thasildar and since then she is cultivating the land by raising paddy. She further deposed that A1 to A3 trespassed into her land and then she obtained injunction order and even after granting of injunction also A1 to A3 trespassed into the land and erected hut and obstructed the way and keeping stones and she questioned the A1 to A3 threatened her to kill. Pw2 deposed that in the month of February, 2006 they purchased land admeasuring Ac.1-16 in survey No.526 and 530 and later Pw1 obtained pattadar pass book and title deed and since then they are cultivating the said land by raising paddy and flowers. Further deposed that A1 to A3 as such Pw1 filed a suit and obtained ad-interim injunction order and again on 25.04.2017 A1 to A3 trespassed into the land and erected a temporary hut and obstructed the way by keeping stones. Further deposed that threatened with dire consequences. Pw3 deposed that Pw1 purchased the land at Katikapally Village at about 6 or 7 years back and she cultivating the said land but he did not witness any incident. Pw4 deposed that he heard the Pw1 is having land at Katikapally Village and he do not know the extent and survey number and he did not witness any incident.

5

Pw5 and Pw6 panch witness for scene of offence did not support the case of prosecution and they denied conducting of panchanama and preparing rough sketch.

Pw7 investigating officer deposed about investigating procedures visits of scene of offence conducting of scene of offence panchanama and preparing rough sketch and further testified about the collecting of ROR proceedings copy of injunction order and sale deed.

ii)Dw1 deposed that they filed suit against Pw1 and her vendors for declaration of their title and injunction in respect of land in survey No.530 and 526, and suit is pending on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Maheshwaram. Dw1 further deposed that they acquired the land from their ancestors and Pw1 also filed suit for injunction and they are contesting the said suit, further deposed that Pw1 falsely implicated them in this case and they did not commit any offence.

10.i) This court carefully scrutinized the evidence on record. Ex.P1 is the report it discloses that Pw1 purchased land an extent of Ac.1-16 gts in survey No.526 and 530 from Mula Buchi Reddy and since then she is in possession and enjoyment of the same and obtained ad-interim injunction order against A1 to A3 and inviolation of court such orders A1 to A3 on 25.04.2017 at 0900 hours trespass into the land and erected hut and kept stones across the way. Further threatened the Pw1. Pw1 and Pw2 defacto complainant and her husband testified about acquiring land an extent of Ac.1-16 gts in survey No.526 and 530 situated at Rachulur Village through Ex.P12 from Mula Buchi

Reddy and obtained pattadar pass book and title deed. Both these witnesses testified in the same voice acquiring the land under Ex.P12 Buchi Reddy further these witness also testified about obtaining an injunction order from the Hon’ble Civil Court. Ex.P2 is the proceedings of MRO, Kandukur under which the name of Pw1 mutated in respect of lands in survey No.533 to 536, 526 and 530 admeasuring Ac.8-19 gts. Ex.P3 is the 1-B of ROR which reflects the name of Pw1 as pattadar over the land in survey No.526 and 530 along with other survey numbers. Ex.P4 to P11 pahanies also reflects that Pw1 is 6 pattadar and possessor of land in survey No.526 and 530. Ex.P12 is the sale deed executed in favour of Pw1 by Mula Buchi Reddy in respect of land in survey No.526 and 530 along with other survey numbers.

ii)Pw1 and Pw2 testified about granting of ad-interim injunction against A1 to A3 by the Hon’ble JCJ, Maheshwaram against A1 to A3. However, no such document is filed on behalf of prosecution to show the grant of injunction. However, Dw1 during cross examination deposed that ad-interim injunction was granted in favour of Pw1 against them on 19.04.2017.

iii)It is important to note that the defence stand is that the vendor of Pw1 has no title over the land in survey No.530 and 526 as such they filed suit in OS.No.33/2017 for declaration of their title and injunction against Pw1 and her vendor. On behalf of defence Ex.D1 copy of plaint filed in OS.No.33/2017 and Ex.D2 copy of written statement of Pw1 filed in OS.No.33/2017 were filed further also Ex.D3 copy of plaint filed in OS.No.13/2017 and copy of written statement filed in OS.No.13/2017. On careful perusal of Ex.D1 the plaintiff categorically pleaded that the lands in survey

No.526 and 530 are ancestral property of plaintiff and the land was partitioned among the share holders as such Balaiah and Ramulu have no exclusive rights to transfer the title over the extent of land in survey No.526 and 530 in favour of Buchi Reddy vendor of Pw1, as such the said Buchi Reddy has no right to transfer the said lands in favour of

Pw1 and D1/Pw1 has no better title. During cross examination Pw2 deposed that A1 to

A3 filed a suit against Pw1, Buchi Reddy and vendor of Mula Buchi Reddy whereas

Pw1 deposed that she do not know whether accused filed OS.No.33/2017 for declaration of her document as null and void and for injunction.

iv)Pw7 investigating officer deposed that he did not ascertain the total land holding of Pw1 at Katikapally Village and a suit is pending. He further deposed that he did not ascertain about the filing of suit in OS.No.33/2017 by the accused against Pw1. On careful perusal of the evidence referred herein above it indicates a serious claim and rival claim over the land in survey No.526 and 530 in between Pw1 and accused. The 7 accused are claiming the land in survey No.526 and 530 through their ancestor and the pleadings of plaint discloses that the Pw1 is claiming through the share holders of accused and the accused categorically pleaded in their plaint that the share holders who transferred the land in favour of Buchi Reddy vendor of plaintiff have no valid title in view of partition affected among the share holders. It indicates several questions of facts with regard to the flow of title in favour of Pw1 and it appears that the civil court seized the matter for adjudicating the title of Pw1 and accused. Therefore, when such serious questions with regard to title are pending before the civil court, this court is of the opinion that it is very difficult to reach a finding on the exclusive possession of Pw1 over the land in survey No.526 and 530. No doubt Ex.P12 discloses about transfer of land in survey No.526 and 530 by Buchi Reddy and the subsequent revenue records noted the name of Pw1 as pattadar and possessor. But in view of serious questions as to title and possession of Pw1 and in view of pending of civil suits before the civil court, therefore it is very difficult to come to a conclusion on the exclusive possession of Pw1 over the land in survey No.526 and 530.

11.The allegation is that on 25.04.2017 at 0900 hours A1 to A3 trespassed into the land and erected hut. Except the evidence of Pw1 and Pw2 no other witnesses testified about the trespass of accused. Pw3 and Pw4 are the eye witnesses they did not support the case of prosecution. Pw5 and Pw6 denied conducting of Ex.P20 scene of offence panchanama and drawing panchanama, Ex.P21 rough sketch.

Therefore, the prosecution to prove the criminal trespass and erection of hut by the accused relied on the sole testimonies of Pw1 and Pw2 wife and husband and having claim over the land in survey No.526 and 530. Further it is important to note that

Ex.P21 rough sketch would disclose the position of hut and it is not clear whether that hut would falls either in survey No.526 and 530. It indicates both survey numbers and the Pw7 investigating officer did not explain properly in this regard.

8

12.Ex.P1 discloses about keeping the stones across the way but Ex.P21 does not disclose any such information. Even the exact location of keeping the stones across the way also not noted in panchanama. Therefore, it creates an element of doubt in the mind of this court with regard to obstruction of way by keeping the stones across the way.

13.The prosecution also leveled an accusation with regard to threatening with dire consequences but Pw1 and Pw2 testified that A1 to A3 threatened them with dire consequences and the same was denied by the defence by posing suggestions. Dw1 in his evidence he testified that they are contesting the suit filed by Pw1 and to grab the land Pw1 falsely implicated them in this case and they did not commit any offence. In the light of pendency of suits and having claims and rival claims over an immovable property this court is of the opinion that the testimonies of Pw1 and Pw2 who are highly interested witnesses in the opinion of this court would not be adequate one and their evidence has to be corroborated by some more evidence. But as noted herein above no independent witness support the case of prosecution. Therefore, Pw1 and Pw2 being interested witnesses and having claims in respect of immovable property hesitated to rely on their testimonies to prove the accusation under section 506 of IPC.

14.In view of aforesaid discussion and the reasons assigned thereon, these points are answered against prosecution and in favour of accused.

POINT No.4:-

15.In view of aforesaid discussion and the analysis of evidence, the Pw1 and Pw2 are being interested and inimical witnesses and having claim against accused and in view of pendency of civil suits in respect of land in survey No.526 and 530 (scene of offence panchanama) this court hesitated to rely on the testimony of Pw1 and Pw2 in proof of accusations under sections 447, 427, 341, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. Hence, this 9 court holds that prosecution is failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly this point is answered in favour of accused and against prosecution.

In the result, A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offences under sections 447, 427, 341, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly, A1 to A3 are acquitted for the same under section 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 to A3 are stands cancelled subject to section 437(A) Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the

open Court on this the 30th day of October, 2019.

XXVII ADDL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD, MAHESHWARAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:

PW1: Chitte Anitha.

PW2: Chitte Anjaiah.

PW3: Entla Balraj.

PW4: Nukam Srinu.

PW5: Budida Balraj.

PW6: Gaddimoni Ramachandri.

PW7: K.V.Vijay Kumar.

For Accused:-

DW1: Buddolla Bhaskar.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1: Report.

Ex.P2: CC of proceedings of MRO, Kandukur, dated 29.01.2007.

Ex.P3: 1-B of ROR.

10

Ex.P4: Pahani for the Fasli Year, 1427 (12 sheets).

Ex.P5: Pahani for the Fasli Year, 1426 (6 sheets).

Ex.P6: Pahani for the Fasli Year, 1425 (6 sheets).

Ex.P7: Pahani for the Fasli Year, 1424 (6 sheets).

Ex.P8: Pahani for the Fasli Year, 1423 (6 sheets).

Ex.P9: Pahani for the Fasli Year, 1422 (7 sheets).

Ex.P10: Pahani for the Fasli Year, 1421 (6 sheets).

Ex.P11: Pahani for the Fasli Year, 1420 (6 sheets).

Ex.P12: True copy of sale deed bearing document No.1821/2006, dated 14.02.2006.

Ex.P13: True copy of sale deed bearing document No.59/2004, dated 07.01.2004.

Ex.P14: 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw4.

Ex.P15: Portion of signature on scene of offence panchanama.

Ex.P16: Portion of signature on rough sketch.

Ex.P17: Portion of signature on scene of offence panchanama.

Ex.P18: Portion of signature on rough sketch.

Ex.P19: First Information Report.

Ex.P20: Scene of offence panchanama.

Ex.P21: Rough sketch.

For Accused:-

Ex.D1: Certified copy of plaint filed in OS.No.33/2017 on the file of Junior Civil Judge,

Maheshwaram.

Ex.D2: Certified copy of written statement in OS.No.33/2017 on the file of Junior Civil

Judge, Maheshwaram.

Ex.D3: Certified copy of plaint filed in OS.No.13/2017 on the file of Junior Civil Judge,

Maheshwaram.

Ex.D4: Certified copy of written statement in OS.No.13/2017 on the file of Junior Civil

Judge, Maheshwaram.

XXVII ADDL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD: MAHESHWARAM.

1

IN THE COURT OF XXVII Addl. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: CYBERABAD,

AT:: MAHESHWARAM, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

PRESENT: Sri.N.Venkatram,

XXVII Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate,

Cyberabad, At Maheshwaram.

Wednesday, the 6th day of November, 2019.

CC.No.59 of 2019

Between:

The State through PS Kandukur.

...Complainant.

AND

1. Nagani Prakash, S/o.Late Laxmaiah, Age 30 years,

Occ:Business, R/o.Chinnatundla Village, Yacharam

Mandal, Ranga Reddy District

2. Sunnilla Narsimha, S/o.Sasthaiah, Age 37 years,

Occ:Business, R/o.Thimmapur Village, Kandukur

Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

3. Manda Narsimha, S/o.Yellaiah, Age 30 years,

Occ:Driver, R/o.Thimmapur Village, Kandukur Mandal,

Ranga Reddy District.

...Accused.

This case coming on for final hearing before me on 31.10.2019 in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the Complainant and of Sri G.Chandra

Shekar Reddy, Advocate for accused and stood over for consideration till this day, the

Court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1.This is a Charge sheet filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police of PS Kandukur against A1 to A3 for the offence under section 379 of Indian Penal Code herein after referred to as IPC and section 21(1) MMDAR Act-1957.

2.The accusations leveled against Accused in brief are as follows:- 2

That on 08.03.2019 at 0215 hours the SHO of PS Kandukur received credible information about illegal transportation of soil near Gummadavelly and Madhapur

Village and on the instructions of SHO the PC.5952 the defacto complainant herein along with HG.29 went to Madhapur Village and found tipper bearing No.TS-12 UB- 3239 near Grampanchayath Office loaded with red soil. On enquiry A3 (driver) revealed his particulars and informed that on the instructions of A2 he went to the

Chinnathundla Village and loaded with soil from the land of A1 and transporting to

Hyderabad. Later the defacto complainant shifted the lorry and A3 to the PS and lodged a report with Sub-Inspector of police.

Basing on the report lodged by PC.5952, the Sub-Inspector of police, registered a case in crime No.60/2019 under section 379 IPC and section 21(1) MMDAR Act 1957 and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation examined and recorded the statements of witnesses. Secured the presence of Sri.Raghunandan and

Sri.Narla Ramakrishna and seized the lorry by recording the confession statement of

A3. Later served section 41(A) Cr.P.C notice on A3 and he did not cooperate with the investigation, hence affected his arrest and produced him before the Hon’ble Court for judicial custody. The investigating officer visited scene of offence and secured the presence of Sri.Sudhakar Reddy (Pw4) and Valavoju Sudhakar Reddy (Pw5) and conducted scene of offence panchanama and prepared rough sketch. On 10.03.2019 served section 41(A) Cr.P.C notice on A1 and A2 but they did not cooperate with the investigation, hence on 13.03.2019 apprehended them at their houses and affected their arrest and produced before the Hon’ble Court for Judicial custody. The seized lorry was produced before the Thasildar, Kandukur and imposed penalty and later on the directions of Thasildar the vehicle was released. Later basing on the material collected filed charge sheet against A1 to A3.

3.This Court basing on the material, produced by the investigation officer, took cognizance for the offences under section 379 IPC and section 21(1) MMDAR Act 3 1957against A1 to A3 and numbered as CC.59/2019. On appearance of A1 to A3 case copies furnished to them in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C., Later A1 to A3 were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C., by explaining the accusations leveled against them and they denied the same. Later charges for the offences under section 379 IPC and section 21(1) MMDAR Act 1957 were framed and the same were read over and explained to A1 to A3 and they denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.In order to prove its case, on behalf of prosecution Pw1 to Pw6 were examined and marked Ex.P1 to P13.

5.After completion of prosecution evidence A1 to A3 were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating evidence available from the prosecution evidence against A1 to A3and they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

6.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for A1 to A3 and perused the record.

7.Now the point for determination is “whether prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the offences under section 379 IPC and section 21(1) MMDAR Act 1957beyond reasonable doubt”?

POINT:-

8.The case of prosecution is that A1 to A3were indulged in excavation of soil from the land of A1 situated at Chinnathundla Village and illegally transporting the same. In order to prove these facts the prosecution examined the mediators for confession, seizure panchanama as Pw2 and Pw3, mediators for scene of offence panchanama as 4

Pw4 and Pw5, police constable and investigating officer examined as Pw1 and Pw6.

Apart from this oral evidence, prosecution marked Ex.P1 report, Ex.P8 FIR, Ex.P9 confession cum seizure panchanama, Ex.P10 crime details form, Ex.P11 letter addressed to the Thasildar, Ex.P12letter addressed by the Thasildar and Ex.P13 receipt.

9.Pw2 and Pw3 mediators for Ex.P9 did not support the case of prosecution and denied seizure of lorry with soil and confession of A3.Pw4 and Pw5 also did not support the case of prosecution and denied conducting of Ex.P10 panchanama. Pw1 deposed that on the instructions of SI of police they rushed to Grampanchayath Madhapur and found lorry bearing NO.TS-12 UB-3239loaded with soil and A3 revealed that at the instance of A2 lifted the soil from the land of A1 situated at Chinnathundla Village and transporting to Hyderabad. Pw4 investigating officer deposed about seizure of lorry by recording confession statement of A3 under Ex.P9 and conducting of Ex.P10 panchanama and deposit of vehicle with Tahasildar.

10.This court carefully scrutinized the evidence on record. The evidence of Pw1 discloses about their visit to Grampanchayath Madhapur and found the lorry bearing

No.TS-12 UB-3239 and loaded with soil. During cross examination Pw1 deposed that no villager available at Grampanchayath Office and no panchanama conducted in his presence. Pw1 deposed that no document is available to show his duties. Pw6 investigating officer deposed about seizure of vehicle under Ex.P9 in the presence of

Pw2 and Pw3. But Pw2 and Pw3 denied the same. During cross examination Pw6 deposed that except Pw1 and HG.29 he did not examine any witness and he did not file any document to show duties of Pw1 and HG.29. During the course of further cross examination Pw6 deposed that he did not visit survey No.318 of Chinnathundla Village and did not file any document to show the title of A1 for the land in survey No.318.

Absolutely no material is available to connect the A1 with land in survey No.318. This 5 court is of the opinion that when the investigating officer having knowledge about excavation of soil from survey No.318 by alleging that A1 is the pattedar and it is incumbent on the investigating officer to collect crucial documents like revenue records to connect the A1. Further the investigating officer did not collect any material to establish the excavation of soil from the land in survey No.318. The absence of this crucial material would creates an element of doubt in the mind of this court. Apart from this aspect Pw6 did not visit the survey No.318.

11.It is the contention of the defence that the Police prepared Ex.P9 and P10 by obtaining the signatures of Pw2to Pw5 on blank papers. It is important to note that

Ex.P9 reveals that the confession was made in the presence of Police Officers.

Therefore, the same would hit by section 25 and 26 of Indian Evidence Act.

12.Ex.P12 reveals about imposing of penalty of Rs.25,000/- and deposit of said penalty by the A2 owner of the vehicle and further Ex.P13 receipt discloses about acknowledgment of Lorry bearing No.TS-12 UB-3239. It is important to note that the vehicle was seized on 08.03.2019 and deposited with Thasildar under Ex.P11 on 16.03.2019. The seized lorry was in the custody of Police nearly for 8 days. It is incumbent on the investigating officer to produce the seized property before the

Jurisdiction Magistrate forthwith, but the investigation officer deviated with the procedure as contemplated under section 102 of Cr.P.C and no explanation offered for detaining the lorry for 8 days even for producing before Thasildar.

13.As noted herein above the independent mediators denied the seizure of sand lorry under Ex.P9, only the evidence of Police Officers, more particularly who participated in the investigation alone is available to prove the seizure of lorry with soil.

Further, the evidence on record is inadequate to prove the lifting of soil from survey

No.318 of Chinnathundla Village. Adding to this aspect the evidence on record 6 discloses delay in producing the lorry and no reason offered for the delay. In view of absence of corroborative evidence by independent evidence and in the light of abnormal delay in producing the seized property before Thasildar it creates an element of doubt over the case of prosecution on the seizure of Lorry with sand under Ex.P9.

Therefore, this court hesitated to place of reliance on the un- corroborated testimonies of Police Officers Pw1 and Pw6 in proof of seizure of lorry with soil. Though Ex.P12 discloses about imposing penalty, but the evidence on record is inadequate to prove the lifting of soil and seizure of lorry bearing No.TS-12 UB-3239 under Ex.P9. Hence for the lack of corroborative evidence this court holds that the prosecution is failed to prove the guilt of Accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of Accused and against prosecution.

In the result, A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offences under section 379 IPC andsection 21(1) MMDAR Act 1957and accordingly, A1 to A3 are acquitted for the same under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 to A3 are stands cancelled subject to section 437(A) Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the steno, corrected and pronounced by me in the open

Court on this the 6th day of November, 2019.

XXVII Addl. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD, MAHESHWARAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:For Accused:

PW1: Dasari Suresh. -Nil-

PW2: Chilukala Raghunandan.

PW3: Narra Ramakrishna.

PW4: Gaddam Sudhakar Reddy.

PW5: Valavoju Sudhakar.

PW6: G.Prabhakar.

EXHIBITS MARKED

7

For Prosecution:For Accused:

Ex.P1: Report. -Nil-

Ex.P2: Portion of signature on confession cum seizure panchanama.

Ex.P3: Portion of signature on confession cum seizure panchanama.

Ex.P4: Portion of signature on signatures on crime details form.

Ex.P5: Portion of signature on signatures on crime details form.

Ex.P6: Portion of signature on signature on crime details form.

Ex.P7: Portion of signature on signature on crime details form.

Ex.P8: First Information Report.

Ex.P9: confession cum Seizure panchanama.

Ex.P10: Crime details form

Ex.P11: Letter addressed to Thasildar, Kandukur dated 16.03.2019.

Ex.P12: Letter addressed by Thasildar, dated 20.03.2019 along with photo copy of challan.

Ex.P13: Receipt dated 20.03.2019.

XXVII ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD: MAHESHWARAM.

1

IN THE COURT OF XXVII Addl. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: CYBERABAD,

AT:: MAHESHWARAM, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

PRESENT: Sri.N.Venkatram,

XXVII Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate,

Cyberabad, At Maheshwaram.

Tuesday, the 5th day of November, 2019.

CC.No.57 of 2019

Between:

The State through PS Kandukur.

...Complainant.

AND

1. Thalla Narsimha, S/o.Jangaiah, Age 45 years,

Occ:Agriculture, R/o.Kothaguda Village, Kandukur

Mandal, Ranga Reddy District

2. Sama Pandu Ranga Reddy, S/o.Venkat Reddy, Age 35 years, Occ:Business, R/o.Kothaguda Village,

Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

3. Pasham Raja Shekar Reddy, S/o.Ram Reddy, Age 33 years, Occ:Business, R/o.H.No.2-3-65, Upperpally

Village of Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy

District.

4. Kanuka Chennaiah, S/o.Advaiah, Age 32 years,

Occ:Tipper driver, R/o.H.No.10-83, Thalakondapally

Village & Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

...Accused.

This case coming on for final hearing before me on 31.10.2019 in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the Complainant and of Sri S.Murali Goud

Advocate for accused and stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1.This is a Charge sheet filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police of PS Kandukur against A1 to A4 for the offence under section 379 of Indian Penal Code herein after referred to as IPC and section 21(1) MMDAR Act-1957 and 35(1) of AP Walta Act.

2

2.The accusations leveled against Accused in brief are as follows:-

That on 20.02.2019 the defacto complainant PC.780 and HG.690 were conducting patrolling duty and on the instructions of Station House Officer they visited

Kothaguda Village and found two tippers were loaded with soil and on enquiry A2 and

A4 driver of AP-03 W-6520 and TS-12 UC-0347 and they revealed that they are illegal excavating and transporting the soil from survey No.580, Kothaguda Village belongs to

Thalla Narsimha and they have no valid permission from the concerned authority.

Basing on the report lodged by PC.780, the Sub-Inspector of police registered a case in crime No.45/2019 under section 379 IPC, section 21(1) MMDAR Act 1957and 35(1) of AP Walta Act and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation examined and recorded the statements of witnesses. Secured the presence of Thalla

Sai Kumar and Pothuganti Nareshand seized the tipper lorries by recording the confession statement of A2 and A4. Later visited scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch in the presence of same mediators. Later served section 41(A) Cr.P.C notice on A2 to A4. But they did not cooperate with the investigation, hence arrested their arrest and produced before the

Hon’ble Court for judicial custody. On 25.02.2019 section 41(A) Cr.P.C notice was

served on A1 and he promised to cooperate with the investigation, as such did not affect his arrest. The seized Lorries were produced before the Thasildar, Kandukur and imposed penalty and later on the directions of Thasildar the vehicleswere released.

Later basing on the material collected filed charge sheet against A1 to A4.

3.This Court basing on the material, produced by the investigation officer, took cognizance for the offences under section 379 IPC, section 21(1) MMDAR Act 1957and 35(1) of AP Walta Act against A1 to A4 and numbered as CC.57/2019. On appearance of A1 to A4 case copies furnished to them in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C., Later

A1 to A4 were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C., by explaining the accusations leveled against them and they denied the same. Later charges for the offences under 3 section 379 IPC, section 21(1) MMDAR Act 1957and 35(1) of AP Walta Act were framed and the same were read over and explained to A1 to A4 and they denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.In order to prove its case, on behalf of prosecution Pw1 to Pw4 were examined and marked Ex.P1 to P15.

5.After completion of prosecution evidence A1 to A4 were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating evidence available from the prosecution evidence against A1 to A4 and they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

6.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for A1 to A4 and perused the record.

7.Now the point for determination is “whether prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the offences under section 379 IPC, section 21(1) MMDAR Act 1957and 35(1) of AP Walta Act beyond reasonable doubt”?

POINT:-

8.The case of prosecution is that A1 to A4 were indulged in excavation of soil from land in survey No.580 of Kothaguda Village and illegally transporting the same. In order to prove these facts the prosecution examined the mediators for confession, seizure and scene of offence panchanama as Pw1 and Pw2, the defacto complainant examined as Pw2 and investigating officer examined as Pw4. Apart from this oral evidence, prosecution marked Ex.P7 report, Ex.P8 FIR, Ex.P9 confession cum seizure panchanama, Ex.P10 crime details form, Ex.P11 letter addressed to the Thasildar,

Ex.P12 and P13letter addressed by the Thasildar and Ex.P14and P15 receipts.

4

9.Pw1 and Pw2 mediators for Ex.P9 and P10 did not support the case of prosecution and denied seizure of Lorries with soil. Pw3 deposed that on the instructions of SI of police visited Kothaguda X Road and found two lorries loaded with soil and apprehended A2 and A4. Pw4 investigating officer deposed about seizure of two Lorries by recording confession statement of A2 and A4 under Ex.P9 and conducting of Ex.P10 panchanama and deposit of vehicles with Tahasildar.

10.This court carefully scrutinized the evidence on record. The evidence of Pw3 discloses that on the instructions of SI of police visited Kothaguda X Road and found the A2 and A4 and lorries loaded with soil and later shifted the lorries to the PS. During cross examination Pw3 deposed that he did not submit any document to show his duties. Pw4 investigating officer deposed about seizure of vehicles under Ex.P9 in the presence of Pw1 and Pw2 and further deposed about conducting of Ex.P10 panchanama but Pw1 and Pw2 denied the same. During cross examination Pw4 deposed that he did not examine any independent witness and did not visit survey

No.580 and did not conduct any panchanama. Further also deposed that he did not ascertain the land holding of A1 in survey No.580 and also did not ascertain the number of pattedars in the said survey number. The allegation leveled against accused is pertaining to lifting of soil from survey No.580 and the record reveals that the investigating officer has knowledge about it. But no material collected by the Pw4 to establish the lifting of soil from survey No.580. This would creates an element of doubt in the mind of this court. Even the investigating officer did not examine any neighbor to ascertain the excavation of soil from survey No.580.

11.It is the contention of the defence that the Police prepared Ex.P9 and P10 by obtaining the signatures of Pw1 and Pw2 on blank papers. It is important to note that

Ex.P9 reveals that the confession was made in the presence of Police Officers.

Therefore, the same would hit by section 25 and 26 of Indian Evidence Act.

5

12.Ex.P12 and Ex.P13 reveals about imposing of penalty of Rs.25,000/- and deposit of said penalty by the accused owner of the vehicle and further Ex.P14 and P15 receipt discloses about acknowledgment of Lorry bearing No.AP-03 W-6520 and TS-12 UC- 0347. It is important to note that the vehicle was seized on 21.02.2019 and deposited with Thasildar under Ex.P11 on 27.02.2019. The seized Lorries were in the custody of

Police nearly for 6 days. It is incumbent on the investigating officer to produce the seized property before the Jurisdiction Magistrate forthwith, but the investigation officer deviated with the procedure as contemplated under section 102 of Cr.P.C and no explanation offered for detaining the lorry for 6 days even for producing before

Thasildar.

13.As noted herein above the independent mediators denied the seizure of sand

Lorries under Ex.P9, only the evidence of Police Officers, more particularly who participated in the investigation alone is available to prove the seizure of Lorries with soil. Further, the evidence on record is inadequate to prove the lifting of soil from survey No.580. Adding to this aspect the evidence on record discloses delay in producing the Lorries and no reason offered for the delay. In view of absence of corroborative evidence by independent evidence and in the light of abnormal delay in producing the seized property before Thasildar it creates an element of doubt over the case of prosecution on the seizure of Lorry with sand under Ex.P9. Therefore, this court hesitated to place of reliance on the un- corroborated testimonies of Police Officers Pw4 and Pw1 in proof of seizure of Lorries with soil. Though Ex.P12 and Ex.P13 discloses about imposing penalty, but the evidence on record is inadequate to prove the lifting of soil and seizure of Lorries bearing No.AP-03 W-6520 and TS-12 UC-0347 under Ex.P9.

Hence for the lack of corroborative evidence this court holds that the prosecution is failed to prove the guilt of Accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of Accused and against prosecution.

6

In the result, A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offences under section 379 IPC, section 21(1) MMDAR Act 1957and 35(1) of AP Walta Act and accordingly, A1 to A4 are acquitted for the same under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 to A4 are stands cancelled subject to section 437(A) Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the steno, corrected and pronounced by me in the open

Court on this the 5th day of November, 2019.

XXVII Addl. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD, MAHESHWARAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:For Accused:

PW1: Thalla Sai Kumar. -Nil- PW2: Puligandi Ramesh. PW3: Chinnya Naik. PW4: K.Swamy.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:For Accused:

Ex.P1: Portion of signature on confession cum seizure panchanama. -Nil- Ex.P2: Portion of signature on confession cum seizure panchanama. Ex.P3: Portion of signature on crime details form. Ex.P4: Portion of signature on confession cum seizure panchanama. Ex.P5: Portion of signature on confession cum seizure panchanama. Ex.P6: Portion of signature on crime details form. Ex.P7: Report. Ex.P8: First Information Report. Ex.P9: confession cum Seizure panchanama. Ex.P10: Crime details form. Ex.P11: Office copy of letter addressed to Tahasildar by depositing vehicle dated 27.02.2019. Ex.P12: Letter addressed by Tahasildar in C/196/2014, dated 27.02.2019. Ex.P13: Letter addressed by Tahasildar in C/196/2014, dated 27.02.2019. Ex.P14: Receipt dated 27.02.2019. Ex.P15: Receipt dated 27.02.2019.

XXVII ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD: MAHESHWARAM.

1

IN THE COURT OF XXVII Addl. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: CYBERABAD,

AT:: MAHESHWARAM, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

PRESENT: Sri.N.Venkatram,

XXVII Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate,

Cyberabad, At Maheshwaram.

Wednesday, the 6th day of November, 2019.

CC.No.55 of 2019

Between:

The State through PS Kandukur.

...Complainant.

AND

1. Munavath Veera Nayak, S/o.Jaganath, Age 50 years,

Occ:Business, R/o.H.No.10-50, Maheshwaram Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

2. Katravath Naresh, S/o.Chandar, Age 23 years,

Occ:Lorry Driver, R/o.KC.Thanda Village of

Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

...Accused.

This case coming on for final hearing before me on 31.10.2019 in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the Complainant and of Sri S.Murali Goud

Advocate for accused and stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1.This is a Charge sheet filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police of PS Kandukur against A1 and A2 for the offence under section 379 of Indian Penal Code herein after referred to as IPC and section 21(1) MMDAR Act-1957.

2.The accusations leveled against Accused in brief are as follows:-

That on 29.12.2018 at about 0500 hours the SI of police received credible information about illegal transportation of soil from Dhannaram Pond. Then the SI of police proceeded to the Dhannaram Pond along with PC.778, PC.3811 and HG.210.

2

They noticed one lorry bearing NO.TS-12 UA-9210 loaded with soil with the help of labour. Later the A2 driver of lorry revealed his particulars and informed that on the instructions of A1 he was transporting soil to the brick manufacturing company of one

Shiva situated at Sirigiripuram Village. Later the SI of police got the lorry with soil to the PS and lodged a report with Inspector of police.

Basing on the report lodged by the Sub-Inspector of police, Inspector of police registered a case in crime No.290/2018 under section 379 IPC and section 21(1)

MMDAR Act 1957 and entrusted the investigation to the SI of police. During the course of investigation examined and recorded the statements of witnesses. Secured the presence of Sri.Md.Amzad and Sri.Gude Mallesh and seized the lorry by recording the confession statement of A2. Later served section 41(A) Cr.P.C notice on A1 and A2 and they did not cooperate with the investigation, hence affected their arrest and produced them before the Hon’ble Court for judicial custody. The seized lorry was produced before the Thasildar, Kandukur and imposed penalty and later on the directions of Thasildar the vehicle was released. Later basing on the material collected filed charge sheet against A1 and A2.

3.This Court basing on the material, produced by the investigation officer, took cognizance for the offences under section 379 IPC and section 21(1) MMDAR Act 1957against A1 and A2 and numbered as CC.55/2019. On appearance of A1 and A2 case copies furnished to them in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C., Later A1 and A2 were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C., by explaining the accusations leveled against them and they denied the same. Later charges for the offences under section 379 IPC and section 21(1) MMDAR Act 1957 were framed and the same were read over and explained to A1 and A2 and they denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3

4.In order to prove its case, on behalf of prosecution Pw1 to Pw4 were examined and marked Ex.P1 to P11.

5.After completion of prosecution evidence A1 and A2 were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating evidence available from the prosecution evidence against A1 and A2 and they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

6.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for A1 and

A2 and perused the record.

7.Now the point for determination is “whether prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the offences under section 379 IPC and section 21(1) MMDAR Act 1957beyond reasonable doubt”?

POINT:-

8.The case of prosecution is that A1 and A2 were indulged in excavation of soil from Dhannaram Pond and illegally transporting the same. In order to prove these facts the prosecution examined the mediators for confession, seizure and scene of offence panchanama as Pw1 and Pw2, police constable and investigating officer examined as Pw3 and Pw4. Apart from this oral evidence, prosecution marked Ex.P5 report, Ex.P6 FIR, Ex.P7 confession cum seizure panchanama, Ex.P8 crime details form, Ex.P9 letter addressed to the Thasildar, Ex.P10letter addressed by the Thasildar and Ex.P11 receipt.

9.Pw1 and Pw2 mediators for Ex.P7 and P8 did not support the case of prosecution and denied seizure of lorry with soil. Pw3 deposed that on the instructions of SI of police he went along with SI of police to Dhannaram Village Pond and noticed 4 the A2 and one lorry loaded with soil and A2 revealed that for the instance of A1 transporting to brick manufacturing unit at Nedunur Village. Pw4 investigating officer deposed about seizure of lorry by recording confession statement of A2 under Ex.P7 and conducting of Ex.P8 panchanama and deposit of vehicle with Tahasildar.

10.This court carefully scrutinized the evidence on record. The evidence of Pw3 and Pw4 discloses about their visit to Dhannaram Village Tank and noticing of A2 and lorry loaded with soil. During cross examination Pw3 deposed that SI of police did not examine the neighbors of scene of offence and workers available at scene of offence. It is important to note that Pw3 deposed that A2 revealed the transportation of soil to brick manufacturing unit at Nedunur Village. This version is totally contradicting with the case of prosecution. According to the prosecution case the soil was transporting to the brick unit at Sirigiripuram. This contradiction in the opinion of this court a significant aspect as it creates an element of doubt over transportation of soil. Pw4 investigating officer deposed about seizure of vehicle under Ex.P7 in the presence of Pw1 and Pw2. But

Pw1 and Pw2 denied the same. During cross examination Pw4 deposed that he did not examine neighbors of scene of offence and also did not examine any person from brick unit including the owner Shiva. This court is of the opinion that when the investigating officer having knowledge about delivery of soil to a particular person and it is incumbent on the investigating officer to collect such crucial evidence. But Pw4 did not make any effort to examine any person from brick unit. This circumstance would creates an element of doubt in the mind of this court.

11.It is the contention of the defence that the Police prepared Ex.P7 and P8 by obtaining the signatures of Pw1 and Pw2 on blank papers. It is important to note that

Ex.P7 reveals that the confession was made in the presence of Police Officers.

Therefore, the same would hit by section 25 and 26 of Indian Evidence Act.

5

12.Ex.P10 reveals about imposing of penalty of Rs.25,000/- and deposit of said penalty by the A1 owner of the vehicle and further Ex.P11 receipt discloses about acknowledgment of Lorry bearing No.TS-12 UA-9210. It is important to note that the vehicle was seized on 29.12.2018 and deposited with Thasildar under Ex.P9 on 09.01.2019. The seized lorry was in the custody of Police nearly for 12 days. It is incumbent on the investigating officer to produce the seized property before the

Jurisdiction Magistrate forthwith, but the investigation officer deviated with the procedure as contemplated under section 102 of Cr.P.C and no explanation offered for detaining the lorry for 12 days even for producing before Thasildar.

13.As noted herein above the independent mediators denied the seizure of sand

Lorry under Ex.P7, only the evidence of Police Officers, more particularly who participated in the investigation alone is available to prove the seizure of lorry with soil.

Further, the evidence on record is inadequate to prove the lifting of soil from Dhannaram

Village Tank. Adding to this aspect the evidence on record discloses delay in producing the lorry and no reason offered for the delay. In view of absence of corroborative evidence by independent evidence and in the light of abnormal delay in producing the seized property before Thasildar it creates an element of doubt over the case of prosecution on the seizure of Lorry with sand under Ex.P7. Therefore, this court hesitated to place of reliance on the un- corroborated testimonies of Police Officers Pw4 and Pw3 in proof of seizure of lorry with soil. Though Ex.P10 discloses about imposing penalty, but the evidence on record is inadequate to prove the lifting of soil and seizure of lorry bearing No.TS-12 UA-9210 under Ex.P7. Hence for the lack of corroborative evidence this court holds that the prosecution is failed to prove the guilt of Accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of Accused and against prosecution.

6

In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offences under section 379

IPC and section 21(1) MMDAR Act 1957and accordingly, A1 and A2 are acquitted for the same under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 and A2 are stands cancelled subject to section 437(A) Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the steno, corrected and pronounced by me in the open

Court on this the 6th day of November, 2019.

XXVII Addl. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD, MAHESHWARAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:For Accused:

PW1: Mohd.Amjad. -Nil-

PW2: Gudha Mallesh

PW3: L.Naresh.

PW4: K.Swamy.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:For Accused:

Ex.P1: Portion of signature on confession cum seizure panchanama. -Nil-

Ex.P2: Portion of signature on confession cum seizure panchanama.

Ex.P3: Portion of signature on confession cum seizure panchanama.

Ex.P4: Portion of signature on crime detail form.

Ex.P5: Report.

Ex.P6: First Information Report.

Ex.P7: confession cum Seizure panchanama.

Ex.P8: Crime details form

Ex.P9: Office copy of letter addressed to Thasildar by depositing vehicle dated 09.01.2019.

Ex.P10: Letter addressed by Thasildar in C/196/2014, dated 22.02.2019.

Ex.P13: Receipt dated 22.02.2019.

XXVII ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD: MAHESHWARAM.