Sri.Victor Immanuel

1

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE;

HYDERABAD.

Present: N.VICTOR IMMANUEL VIII Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, FAC IV Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge Hyderabad. Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2018

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 112 of 2017

From what court this appeal is preferredXII Spl. Magistrate, Hyderabad

Number of the case in that CourtCC No. 257 of 2015 Number of the appealC.A.No. 112 of 2017 Name and description of the Appellant / Dr. K. Krishna Swaroop Reddy, S/o. AccusedLate K. Shivarami Reddy, Aged about 58 years, R/o. Pacific Hospital Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 237, Road No. 36, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. Name and description of the Respondent / M/s. S.R.R. Mutually Aided Co-op. ComplainantSociety Ltd., Rep. By its Managing Director Sri Omesh Kumar Waghray, S/o. N. Waghray, Aged avbout 60 years, Office at 1-1-113, 1st floor, RTC X Roads, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad.

The sentence and law under whichIn the result, the accused has conviction was imposed in the lower courtcommitted offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and as such the accused is convicted U/s. 255 (2) Cr.P.C. for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments, Act, 1881 and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence U/s. 138 of NI Act and further sentenced U/s. 357(1)

(a) and (b) Cr.P.C. a compensation of Rs. 41,40,000/- by way of fine within one month. It is further directed that in case of default of payment of compensation by way of fine, the accused shall further undergo SI for a period of three months. Whether confirmed, modified or In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Reversed, if modified the Modification:The judgment of trial court judge passed in CC No. 257/2015, dated 10-01-2017 on the file of XII Special Magistrate, Hyderabad, be and hereby confirmed.

DATE OR ON WHICH

Presentation01-02-2017 Filing01-02-2017 Notice issued by the Court02-02-2017 Bail bond if appellant is let out on bail------ 2

Appellant is ordered to be appear27-03-2017 Hearing28-05-2018 JUDGMENT03-07-2018

This appeal is coming on for hearing before me, upon perusing the petition and record of evidence and proceedings and of appeal and upon duly considering the same after hearing the arguments of Sri Pramod Kumar, Counsel for the Appellant/Accused and Sri V. Amar Kumar, Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant and having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:

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

1.This criminal appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 10-01-2017 passed by the XII Special Magistrate, Hyderabad, in C.C.No.257/2015.

2.The appellant herein is the accused and the respondent is the complainant so- ciety before the trial court. For the sake of brevity, the ranks of the parties referred to in the complaint are maintained.

3.The case relates to offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

The case of the complainant in brief is that the accused issued the cheque bearing

No.359342 (Ex.P5) dated 15-11-2014 for a sum of Rs.41,40,000/- drawn on Andhra

Bank, Apollo Hospital Branch, Hyderabad, to the complainant society towards dis- charge of the amount borrowed from the society. On presentation of the cheque, it came to be dishonoured for the reason “Insufficient Funds” in the account of the ac- cused under cheque return memo (Ex.P6). Thereupon, the complainant society got is- sued a legal notice dated: 10-12-2014 (Ex.P7) to the accused informing him about the bouncing of cheque and demanded him to pay the bounced cheque amount. There being no response from the accused, the complainant society filed the complaint against the accused under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. During the course of trial, the complainant society examined PW.1 and got marked Ex.P1 to P11.

On behalf of the accused, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked.

3

4.The trial court on appreciation of evidence, found the accused guilty and con- victed him and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay an amount of Rs.41,40,000/- to the complainant as compensation under

Section 357(1)(a) and (b) of Cr.P.C. within one month from the date of judgment and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the of- fence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

5.Being aggrieved by the lower court judgment, the accused filed the present ap- peal on the grounds that the court below has grossly erred in convicting him (ac- cused), which is bad in law and inadmissible. The lower court failed to observe that

Ex.P5 cheque was never issued by him towards legally enforceable debt. The lower court ought to have seen that the complainant in his cross-examination admitted that he has not filed any document to show that he is the Managing Director of the Society and in the absence of such document, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The court below ought to have seen that the complainant has not even proved that the so- ciety is the registered society and he has not filed any registration certificate and as such he is not entitled to recover the said amount from him (accused). The court below failed to observe that Ex.P4 balance and security confirmation letter does not even bear the loan account number mentioned in the loan application (Ex.P2).

6.It is further contended by the accused that the lower below failed to observe that Ex.P10 statement of account was prepared by the complainant society without following the provisions of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and it has not been certified by any authorized person and the same deserves to be dismissed as the same is barred in the eye of law. The court below failed to observe that the alleged loan amount paid by the society has also not been proved and the complainant has not filed any bank statement showing the transfer of the said amount and showing that he (accused) is the member of the society. The lower court ought to have seen that the cheque itself is a disputed one and as such the conviction is unsustainable and the findings given by the court below are perverse.

4

7.With the above submissions, learned counsel for the appellant herein sought for dismissal of the impugned judgment and for allowing the appeal.

8.On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent herein supported the lower court judgment and submitted that the impugned Judgment does not war- rant any interference and accordingly sought for dismissal of the criminal appeal.

9.In the light of the above rival contentions, the following points would emerge for determination:

(i)Whether Ex.P5 cheque is not issued for legally enforceable debt?

(ii)Whether PW.1 is not managing director of the complainant society and if so, he is not entitled to file the case?

(iii)Whether the complainant society is not registered one and whether the accused is not the member of it?

(iv)Whether Ex.P11 statement of account is an admissible document in evidence without compliance of Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act?

(v)Whether the lower court judgment is liable to be set aside?

POINT NOs.1 TO 4:

10.In order to answer these points, it is necessary to look into the evidence on record. I have gone through the entire evidence on record and also the impugned judgment. Now, it requires to be seen whether the complainant society has dis- charged the initial burden of proof of connecting the cheque in question (Ex.P5) to any legally enforceable debt or liability as required under Section 138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act?

11.In the present case, PW.1 in the chief affidavit filed by him stated that he is the

Managing Director of the complainant society registered under the provisions of A.P.

Mutually Aided Cooperative Societies Act and the accused is the member of the soci- ety and he has availed financial assistance by executing loan documents (Ex.P2 to

P4) agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a. and towards the discharge of the loan the accused issued a cheque bearing No.359342 (Ex.P5) dt: 15-11-2014 for Rs.41,40,000/- drawn on Andhra Bank, Apollo Hospital Branch, Hyderabad and 5 when the complainant society presented the said cheque, it was returned with en- dorsement “Insufficient Funds” under cheque return memo (Ex.P6). Then the com- plainant society got issued legal notice (Ex.P7) dated: 10-12-2014 demanding the payment of the said amount within 15 days and the same was served on accused under postal receipt (Ex.P8). But the accused neither gave reply nor did he pay the amount. Hence, the complainant society filed the complaint. Though a lengthy cross- examination is done by the defence counsel, nothing useful is brought out to disprove the evidence of PW.1.

12.It is the contention of the accused that the complainant society is not registered one and he is not the member of the society and that PW.1 is not competent person to file the case. PW.1 has categorically stated that the complainant society is a regis- tered society under the provisions of A.P. Mutual Aided Co-operative Societies Act and that it was formed to promote the economic and socio betterments of its mem- bers. It is no doubt true that the complainant has not filed any documentary proof to show that the complainant society is a registered one. So also, no document is filed that PW.1 is the Managing Director of complainant society. But a perusal of Ex.P1 the resolution passed by the complainant society and Ex.P3 the demand promissory note executed by the accused divulge that the complainant society is a registered one.

Further, all the details of the complainant society are mentioned in them and the same is also reiterated in the complaint as well as Ex.P7 legal notice. Pertinently, Ex.P3 promissory note is not disputed or denied by the accused. The registered number of the complainant society is also mentioned in Ex.P1 and P3. The assertion made by

PW.1 that the complainant society is a registered society remained unchallenged.

Therefore, it cannot be said that the complainant society is not registered society.

13.With regard to the competency of PW.1 to file the case on behalf of the com- plainant society, PW.1 asserted that he is the Managing Director of the complainant society. The same is not seriously disputed or denied by the accused. Though a lengthy cross-examination is done by the defence counsel, nothing is elicited to dis- prove the same, a casual suggestion is put to PW.1 that he is speaking false without 6 any authority, that too at the end of his cross-examination. Since the company is juris- tic person, it should be represented by human agency. If really, PW.1 is not the man- aging director, the complainant society would not have allowed him to give evidence.

Further, the complainant society passed a resolution under Ex.P1 dated: 02-03-2014 authorizing PW.1 to file the case. A perusal of Ex.P1 authorization reveals that PW.1 is authorized to represent the case. PW.1 is defined as Managing Director of the com- plainant society in Ex.P2 to P4 (loan documents). Therefore, it cannot be said that

PW.1 is not the Managing Director of the complainant and he is not competent to rep- resent the complainant society. Further, PW.1 deposed that the accused is the mem- ber of the complainant society. The suggestion given by the defence counsel on that aspect is denied by PW.1. Therefore, it cannot be said that the accused is not a mem- ber of the complainant society. If really, PW.1 is not a member of the complainant so- ciety, he has no need to execute the documents for availing loan.

14.With regard to the contention of the defence counsel that there is no legally en- forceable debt, the same cannot be accepted. Needless to say that there is evidence of PW.1, who categorically stated that the accused received loan amount from the complainant society by submitting loan application (Ex.P2) and he also executed promissory note (Ex.P3). As on 26-02-2013, the accused was due an amount of

Rs.36,25,248/- and he acknowledged the same under Ex.P4. Further, the accused is- sued cheque (Ex.P5) in discharge of debt for Rs.41,40,000/- and on the presentation of the cheque, it was dishonoured.

15.In the present case, neither it is denied nor can it be disputed that the signature found on the cheque in question (Ex.P5) belongs to the accused. According to the ac- cused, he put a signature on a blank cheque and the same is not issued for legally enforceable debt. It is the version of the accused that the contents of Ex.P5 were not filled up by him and as such the same is fabricated one. But it is settled law that the contents of the body of the cheque can be filled up by anybody else. The signature of the account holder is only the crucial and important. Here, the accused has not de- nied his signature on Ex.P5 cheque.Having admitted the signature on the cheque, it 7 is for the accused to explain as to under what circumstances he had to put signature on the blank cheque. But in this case, the accused did not put forth any explanation on that aspect.The learned counsel for the accused gave a formal suggestion to

PW.1 that too at the end of his cross-examination that Ex.P5 cheque was a signed blank cheque. However, the said suggestion was denied by PW.1. In this case, the accused not only executed the subject cheque Ex.P5 but also Ex.P2 loan application,

Ex.P3 pronote and Ex.P4 balance and security confirmation letter. At this juncture, it is to be remembered that the accused gave answers in 313 Cr.P.C. examination “ I have taken part of the loan. I have executed Ex.P2 to P4. I have received legal notice.

I have given blank cheque”. Under the above circumstances, the court shall draw a presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act in favour of the complainant.

16.It is next contended on behalf of the accused that Ex.P11 statement of account filed by the complainant society is not admissible in evidence without compliance of

Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act. According to the defence Ex.P11 is an electronic extract statement of accounts filed by the complainant society. Therefore, the compli- ance of Section 65-B of Evidence Act is mandatory. In this regard, the defence coun- sel relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Anvar Vs P.K. Basheer and others reported in 2015 0 AIR(SC) 180.

17.But in the recent past, the Hon’ble Supreme Court clarified the legal position on the subject on the admissibility of the electronic evidence in case of Shafhi Moham- mad Vs State of Himachal Pradesh in SLP No.2302/2017, wherein, it is held that the requirement of certificate under Section 65-B of Evidence Act is not always manda- tory, especially by a party who is not in possession of device from which the docu- ment is produced. Such party cannot be required to produce the certificate under

Section 65-B(4) of Evidence Act. The applicability of requirement of certificate being procedural can be relaxed by Court wherever interest of justice so justifies. In the present case also, PW.1 filed the statement of account available in the complainant society. Therefore, it cannot be doubted. Even assuming for the sake of moment that 8

Ex.P11 is not admissible in evidence, we have other evidence on record i.e. promis- sory note, cheque and confirmation letter apart from the admissions made by the ac- cused in his 313 Cr.P.C. examination. Therefore, even if Ex.P11 is eschewed from consideration, the very root of the case of the complainant does not go.

18.In this regard it is useful to rely on the judgments of Supreme Court in case of

Rangappa Vs Mohan reported in 2010 Law Suit(SC) 227 and in case of Vijay Vs Lax- man and another reported in 2013 LawSuit (SC) 124, wherein, the Lordship held that once the cheque relates to the account of the accused and he accepts and admits his signatures on the cheque, then initial presumption as contemplated under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act has to be raised by the Court in favour of the com- plainant. The presumption referred to in Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act is a mandatory presumption and not as a general presumption, but the accused is enti- tled to rebut the presumption. In the present also, the signature on Ex.P5 is not dis- puted. In my humble view, the above cited judgments are squarely applicable to the facts of the case on hand.

19.In the decision reported in 2004 Crl.J.3170 in case of B.V. Rangam Vs B.

Govinda Reddy, our own High Court held that once the cheque is in possession of a complainant, it must be deemed that he had discharged the initial burden as to legally enforceable debt and as such it is for the accused to prove that the said cheque was not issued for the purpose of any legally enforceable debt or liability.

20.Since there is a clear admission on the part of the accused that he issued

Ex.P5, it is for him to raise probable defence to rebut the presumption and he has to further show that it is not issued for legally enforceable debt. It has to be seen whether the accused had raised probable defence?

21.The accused had raised the defence that the cheque in question bearing his signature is not issued in connection with the loan amount of Rs.30,00,000/- received on 01-03-2010. According to the accused, there was no legally enforceable debt or li- ability between him and the complainant society since he has not borrowed

Rs.30,00,000/-. But the bare denial of the passing of consideration is not sufficient.

9

Something which is probable has to be brought on record for getting the benefit of shifting the onus of proving to the complainant. To disprove the presumption, the ac- cused has to bring on record such facts and circumstances upon consideration of which, the court may either believe that the consideration did not exist or its not exis- tence was so probable that a prudent man would under the circumstance of the case act upon the plea that it did not exist.

22.The very significant factor which is required to be noticed is that the com- plainant issued a legal notice (Ex.P7) to the accused informing about the bouncing of cheque. But the accused neither gave reply nor did he pay the bounced cheque amount. The failure to respond to legal notice leads to adverse inference against the accused. If the complainant misused the cheque, the accused would not have kept quiet. He would have taken steps against the complainant society. But it was not done in this case for the reasons best known to the accused only. By not responding to the legal notice, the accused impliedly admitted the case of the complainant society. The accused tried to impress upon the court that the notice Ex.P7 was not duly served on him. But the same cannot be believed and accepted. Ex.P8 postal receipt, Ex.P9 set- tlement reply of post office showing delivery and Ex.P10 acknowledgment due are also supporting the case of the complainant. In the 313 Cr.P.C. examination, the accused admitted that he received notice.

23.The accused did not come into the witness box nor did he examine postman.

Even the accused did not give stop payment instructions to the Bank. If really the ac- cused did not issue cheque, he would have given stop payment instructions. The lower court has rightly held that the accused failed to probablise any of his defences.

Whatever the contradictions and omissions pointed out by the defence counsel are minor, which cannot go very root of the case of the complainant society.

24.The learned counsel for the accused relied on three judgments on the aspect of competency of complainant (PW.1).But in my humble, they are not applicable.

10

25.The Judgment of Madras High Court in case of Jawahar Mills Ltd Vs General

Diffusions reported in LAWS (MAD)-2007-1-99. In that case, the authorization letter

Ex.P9 was signed by one Vivekananthan, the Managing Director, the son of the Direc- tors viz. Palaniyyappan. The complainant did not choose to examine the said

Vivekananthan to show that he is the managing director of the company. But here in this case, all the directors including PW.1 Managing Director signed Ex.P1 authoriza- tion letter. Further, the complainant examined the Managing Director as PW.1. There- fore, the cited judgment is distinguishable.

26.Another judgment of Madras High Court in case of M/s. State Haryana State

Co-operative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. Vs Shree Olive Fabrice and oth- ers reported in LAWS(MAD)-2007-8-174. In that case, there is a GPA executed in favour of PW.1 by the Managing Director. In those circumstances, the Hon’ble High

Court held that the Managing Director is not competent to execute GPA. But the present case facts are different.

27.Another judgment of Bombay High court in case of Entertainment Society of

Goa Vs Ritza Wine Pvt.Ltd. reported in LAWS (BOM)-2011-1-40. In that case, no res- olution had been passed by the complainant society authorizing the complainant. But in the present case, the resolution was passed authorizing PW.1 to file case.

28. Similarly, though the learned defence counsel cited seven (7) judgments of various courts on various aspects i.e. (1) M.Jagannadha Rao case reported in 2000 0

AIR (SC) 426 (2) M.K. Mukherjee case reported in 1998 0 AIR (SC) 1406 (3) Chan- dradhar Goswami case reported in 1967 0 AIR(SC) 1058 (4) Arulmigu Viswe- waraswami case reported in 1996 0 supreme (Mad) 486 (5) A. Raghavamma case reported in 1964 0 AIR(SC) 136 (6) Raj Kumar Singh case reported in 2013 0

AIR(SC) 3150 and (7) M.S.Narayana Menon case reported in 2006 0 AIR(SC) 3366, in my humble view, they are not applicable to the present case facts. Because in this case, the complainant proved and established that the accused has not only executed the promissory note but also issued cheque. Further, the accused acknowledged the 11 debt under Ex.P4. Therefore, there is no need to discuss the judgments cited by the defence counsel.

29.Coming to the case of the complainant, the evidence of PW.1 coupled with

Exs.P1 to P11 establish its case that there is legally enforceable debt and the pre- sumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act is also in its favour, which is not rebutted by the accused. Further, the judgments cited by the complainant soci- ety are applicable to the facts of this case. Therefore, the evidence brought on record by the complainant shows that there exists legally enforceable debt. Thus, the point

Nos.1 to 4 are answered accordingly.

POINT NO.5:

30.In view of my findings on point No.1 to 4, the impugned judgment does not call for any interference. Even on the merits of the case also, I do not find any reason to interfere with the decision of the lower court. Hence, the lower court judgment is not li- able to be set aside. Thus, the point No.5 is answered accordingly.

31.In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The Judgment of trial court Judge passed in C.C.No.257/2015, dated: 10-01-2017 on the file of XII Special Magistrate,

Hyderabad, be and hereby, confirmed.

Since the appellant/accused called absent, the lower court is directed to take steps to apprehend the appellant/accused.

Directly typed to my dictation by Stenographer of this Court, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 3rd day of July, 2018.

,

Sd/- N. VICTOR IMMANUEL

VIII ADDL.METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE,

FAC IV ADDL.METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE,

HYDERABAD.

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE: 

AT HYDERABAD

Present: Sri. N.Victor Immanuel, VIII Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, FAC V Addl. Metropolitan sessions Judge, (Mahila Court), Hyderabad.

THURSDAY THE 05 th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019

SESSIONS CASE NO. 621 OF 2013

(in PRC No. 9 of 2013)

Committed by : Sri. Ch. V.R.R. Varaprasad, XI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad.

Crime Number and Police Station: Crime No. 137 of 2010, Bowenpally P.S., Hyderabad.

Name and description of the Accused: A­1, Batula Rajeshwar Rao @ Rajesh, S/o. Mutyalu, Age : 30 years, Occ : Delivery boy Maniknat Citinet Services, Gunfoundry, Hyderabad, Caste : SC (Mala), R/o. 2­2­1093/4, Bhagyanagar, Golnaka, Kachiguda, Hyderabad.

A­2, S. Sadanandam @ Sada, S/o. Laxminarayana, Age : 25 yrs., Occ : Electrician, Caste : Vadla, C/o. Sainagar Swamy Vivekanananda School, R/o. 2­3­705/1, Maruthinagar, Amberpet N/o. Koyajlapur (V), Choutuppal Mandal of Nalgonda.

A­3, Kullapally Raju S/o. Komraiah, Age : 23 yrs., Rag Picker with MCH Caste : SC, R/o. 2­2­1093/89/8, Ambedkar Nagar, Golnaka, Hyd.

A­5, P. Rajesh S/o. Ashok, Age : 25 yrs. Caste : Bestha, Occ : Pvt. Employee in Patel Automobile, Kingkoti, R/o. 16­7­532/8, Beside Nagadevatha Temple, Municipal Colony, Azampura, Chaderghat, Hyderabad.

A­6, K. Mallikarjun S/o. Yellaiah, Age : 25 yrs., Occ : RTA Broker at Khairatabad R/o. 2­3­705/1, Tirumalnagar, Amberpet.

A­7, Praveen Dubey S/o. Deegmber Dubey, Age : 35 yrs., Caste : Brahmin, Occ : Pvt. Employee in Motul Oil Marketing R/o. 2­3­707/1/B, Thirumalnagar, Ganganagar, Amberpet, Hyderabad.

A­8, Srinu S/o. Yadaiah, Age : 25 yrs., Occ : Business R/o. 19­2­174/2/6, Azampura, Chaderghat, Hyderabad

Name and description of the: The State represented by the Inspector of Police, Bowenpally P.S., Hyderabad.

Prosecution conducted by : Addl. Public Prosecutor

Accused defended by: Sri. B. Rajavardhan Reddy

Offence charged: U/sec. 147, 148, 153­A, 307, 323 r/w. 149 of IPC

Plea of the accused: Found Not guilty.

Finding of the Court: Found Not guilty.

Result : In the result, the Accused Nos. 1 to 3, 5 to 8 are found not guilty for the ofences under sections 148, 153­A, 307 and 323 r/w. 149 of IPC and they are acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled subject to appeal time of six months as enumerated in Section 437­A Cr.P.C.

The unmarked properties, if any, shall be disposed off in accordance with law.

J U D G M E N T

1. The Inspector of Police, PS Bowenpally, Hyderabad, has laid the charge sheet in

Cr.No.137/2010 against the accused Nos.1 to 8 for the offences punishable under

Sections 147, 148, 153­A, 307 and 323 r/w 149 of IPC. 

2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that the complainant by name Amzad (PW.1) was running a car mechanic shed at Narketpally and on 25­03­2010, PW.3 gave a car for repair and after repair, on the intervening night of 29/30­03­2010,

PW.1 along with his cousin (PW.2) was proceeding to Kukatpally, Hyderabad to deliver the car to PW.3 and on the way at Bowenpally, they asked for address and six persons gave address particulars. Then PW.1 and PW.2 proceeded further in the same car and meanwhile, the said six persons came on motor vehicles and stopped the car and onge among them i.e. A2 stabbed PW.1 with knife and caused injuries. On that PW.1 gave report Ex.P1 in the police station.

3. On receipt of report (Ex.P1) from PW.1, Sri John Victor, the then Sub­Inspector of

Police (LW.10) registered a case in Cr.No.137/2010 under Section 324 of IPC and issued FIR (Ex.P5) and referred the injured persons i.e. PW.1 and PW.2 to Gandhi

Hospital for treatment and handed over the case file to PW.9 the then Sub­

Inspector of Police, PS Bowenpally for further investigation. PW.6 Doctor treated

PW.1 and PW.2 and issued Ex.P4 wound certificate. During the course of further investigation, PW.9 examined and recorded the statements of PW.1 to PW.3. He visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch in the presence of PW.1 and PW.2. Basing on the statements of PW.1 and PW.2, PW.9 altered the section of law from 324 to 147, 148, 153A, 307 and 323 r/w 149 of IPC and filed memo

before the Court. On information that A1 to A4 were arrested by Kushaiguda

Police and that A5 to A8 have surrendered themselves before the Court in

Cr.No.206/2010, PW.9 obtained PT warrant from the Court and got them remanded into this case and then, handover the case file to PW.8 the then

Inspector of Police, PS Bowenpally for further investigation. 

During the course of further investigation, PW.8 filed a requisition before the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad along with CD file for obtaining prosecution orders from the Government to prosecute the accused persons under

Section 153(A) of IPC and on his transfer, he handed over the case file to PW.10 the then Inspector of Police, PS Bowenpally for further investigation. During the course of further investigation, PW.10 received the permission from the

Government to prosecute the accused and he collected the medical certificates of

PW.1 and PW.2. After verifying the investigation done by PW.8 and PW.9 and after completion of investigation, PW.10 filed charge sheet. 

4. On the said allegations, the Learned Magistrate took the case on file and after observing all formalities, duly committed the case to Metropolitan Sessions Judge,

Hyderabad. The learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge took the case on file as

Sessions Case and made over the same for trial to this court.

5. On appearance of the accused Nos.1 to 3, 5 to 8, they are examined under Section 227 Cr.P.C. They denied the offence. Heard and charges under Sections 148, 153­

A, 307, 323 r/w 149 of IPC were framed against A1 to A3, A5 to A8 and the same were read­over and explained to them, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 

6. During the pendency of case, A4 died and hence, the case against A4 was abated. 

7. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.10 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5.

8. After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused are examined under

Section 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating circumstances that are appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and they denied the same. On behalf of the accused, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked. 

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

10. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor argued that the prosecution is able to prove the case against the accused and hence, they are liable to be punished in accordance with law.

11. On the other hand, learned defence counsel argued that no witnesses spoke against the accused. PW.1 alone identified A2 in the Court for the first time. No identification parade is conducted. The prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and hence, the accused are entitled for acquittal.

12. In the light of the above rival contentions, the following points would arise for determination:

(i)Whether on the intervening night of 29/30­03­2010 at about 3.10 a.m. on the main road near Anuradha timber depot, New Bowenpally, A1 to A3 and

A5 to A8 along with A4 (deceased) formed into an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons stabbed (PW.1) and caused injuries ?

(ii)Whether on the same date, time and place mentioned in point No.1, A1 to A3 and A5 to A8 along with A4 (deceased) armed with deadly weapons and attempted on the life of PW.1 with common object? 

(iii)Whether on the same date, time and place mentioned in point No.1, A1 to A3 and A5 to A8 along with A4 (deceased) promoted enmity between the groups on the grounds of religion?

(iv)Whether the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the accused Nos.1 to 3, 5 to 8 for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 153­A, 307, 323 r/w 149 of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT No. 1 TO 3 :

13. In order to answer these points, it is necessary to look into the evidence on record.

It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant by name Amzad (PW.1) was running a car mechanic shed at Narketpally and on 25­03­2010, PW.3 gave a car for repair and after repair, on the intervening night of 29/30­03­2010, PW.1 along with his cousin (PW.2) was proceeding to Kukatpally, Hyderabad to deliver the car to PW.3 and on the way at Bowenpally, they asked for address and six persons gave address particulars. Then PW.1 and PW.2 proceeded further in the same car and meanwhile, the said six persons came on motor vehicles and stopped the car and one among them i.e. A2 stabbed PW.1 with knife and caused injuries. On that

PW.1 gave report Ex.P1 in the police station.

14. The burden is on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It has to be seen how far the prosecution is able to prove its case. 

15. It is the evidence of PW.1, who is the complainant­cum­victim that he was running a car mechanic shed at Narketpally and that on 25­03­2010 PW.3 gave car for repair and after repair, on 29­03­2010 at about 12.00 midnight, he along with his cousin (PW.2) was taking that car from Narketpally to Hyderabad to hand over the car to the owner at Kukatpally and on the way at Bowenpally, they asked for address and then, one person gave the address particulars. Then they proceeded further and meanwhile, six persons, who gave address particulars came behind and one among them i.e. A2 stabbed him with knife on his left side of the neck and also on below the right side eye and also left hand, and on seeing the vehicles coming on the road, all the persons ran away. Then, he gave complaint Ex.P1 in the police station.

16. PW.2 the cousin of PW.1 deposed on the same lines of PW.1

17. PW.3 the owner of the vehicle deposed that he has given his car to PW.1 for repair and he spoke about the information given by PW.1 regarding the attack made on him by unknown persons. 

18. PW.4 is the panch witnesses for confessional statement­cum­seizurenama of A1 and A2 made in other crime and he did not support the case of prosecution and he turned hostile and he only admitted his signatures on the panchanama and they are marked as Exs.P2 and P3.

19. PW.5 is the panch witnesses for confessional statement­cum­seizurenama of A7 made in other crime. But PW.5 stated that he acted as panch witnesses in case relating to burning of auto. He deposed that he put his signatures on already written papers and contents are read over to him. 

20. PW.6 Doctor states that he examined the injured persons PW.1 and PW.2 and wound certificate is marked as Ex.P4.

21. PW.7 the Inspector of Police, PS Kushaiguda states that on 05­04­2010 at about 11.00 a.m., while he was conducting vehicle checking at Sanikpuri x road, he found A1 and A2 in suspicious circumstances and he apprehended them and on interrogation, they confessed to have committed the offence in Cr.No.206/2010 of his police station and also this present offence. On the same day, he arrested A3 and A4 and on interrogation, they confessed to have committed the present offence and he recorded their confessional statements in the presence of panch witnesses and he informed the same to PW.9 the Sub­Inspector of Police, PS

Bowenpally. 

22. PW.9 the first Investigating Officer spoke about receiving of complaint (Ex.P1), registration of case, issuing of FIR (Ex.P5) and sending of injured persons i.e.

PW.1 and PW.2 to the Hospital by John Victor, the then Sub­Inspector of Police (LW.10). He further spoke about receiving of case file from LW.10, examination and recording of statements of PW.1 to PW.3, visiting of scene of offence, drawing of rough sketch, alteration of Section of law from 324 to 147, 148, 153A, 307 and 323 r/w 149 of IPC, remanding of the accused in this case on PT warrants, filing of requisition before the Court for conducting test identification parade and handing over of case file to PW.8 on his transfer. 

23. PW.8 the second Investigating Officer spoke about receiving of case file from

PW.9, filing of requisition to the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad for obtaining prosecution orders from the Government to prosecute the accused persons under

Section 153A of IPC and handing over of case file to PW.10 on his transfer. 

24. PW.10 the third Investigating Officer spoke about receiving of case file from PW.8 and permission letter from the Government to prosecute the accused persons, collecting of medical certificates (Ex.P4) and filing of charge sheet.

25. Here, in this case though it is alleged that A1 to A8 attached PW.1, there is no evidence on record to prove the same. In fact, no witnesses spoke against A1, A3 to A8. The main witnesses i.e. PW.1 and PW.2 also did not say anything against

A1, A3 to A8 either in their chief­examination or in cross­examination. In cross­ examination, PW.1 admitted that he has no prior acquaintance with the accused persons. Admittedly, the alleged offence took place at 12.00 midnight. Strangely,

PW.1 and PW.2 say that 6 persons attacked them, whereas in the charge sheet 8 persons were shown. Of them, A4 died. 

26. According to PW.1, A2 is the one among the six persons. But here in the FIR, no descriptive particulars of A2 were given. Further, PW.2 did not say anything against A2. PW.1 in cross­examination states that after 4 days of Ex.P1, he was called by the police to the police station and A2 was present and the police showed him 2 or 3 photos, where A2 was seen in the photos. PW.1 identifies A2, who is not known to him in the Court for the first time. It must be stated that this identification is innocuous and does not furnish any evidence against A2. In Ex.P1 report, PW.1 did not give the name of A2 and for that matter of none of the accused. The total absence of any such description, which would have provided a yardstick to evaluate the identification of A2 at later date by PW.1 would render his identification weak.

27. In such a situation, ordinarily after the accused was arrested, the test identification parade should have been held. It is admitted that no such identification parade was held in this case. It is only when PW.1 came to give evidence in the Court, he identifies only A2. Of course, PW.9 stated that he filed a requisition before the

Magistrate for holding the test identification parade, but PW.1 and PW.2 did not

cooperate. Effect of non­holding of parade, where a witness identifies an accused, who is not known to him in the Court for the first time, his evidence is absolutely a value less unless there has been a previous test identification parade to test his power of observations. The idea of holding test identification parade under

Section 9 of the Evidence Act is to test the veracity of the witness on the question of capability to identify an unknown person, whom the witness may have seen only once. In the absence of test identification parade, it will be holy unsafe to rely on the sole testimony of PW.1. In this regard, it is necessary to rely upon the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mohd Abdul Hafeez Vs State of

Andhra Pradesh reported in 1982 LawSuit (SC) 197 and in case of Kanan Vs State of Kerala reported in 1979 LawSuit (SC) 190, wherein it is held that the test identification parade is necessary. In my humble view, the above referred judgments are squarely applicable to the present case facts. 

28. Here in this case, it is not the case that PW.9 Investigating Officer directly arrested the accused and interrogated. It is PW.7 who is the Inspector of Police, PS

Kushaiguda apprehended the accused in suspicious circumstances and on interrogation, they confessed to have committed this offence and on information,

PW.9 got the accused remanded in this case on PT warrants. That is to say on the alleged confessional statements given by the A1 to A4 in another case, they were remanded in this case. But unfortunately, the said confessional statements are not marked in this case. Though the prosecution tried to prove the same through PW.4 and PW.5 the alleged panch witnesses for confessional statement, they did not support the case of the prosecution. However, the confessional statement given

before the police is not admissible in evidence. 

29. Though it is alleged that the accused attacked PW.1 with a knife, there is no recovery of weapon of the crime. 

30. The medical evidence is also not supporting the case of the prosecution. PW.6

Doctor stated that he examined PW.1 and PW.2 and issued wound certificate vide

Ex.P4. But in cross­examination, he admitted that he did not sign the wound certificate Ex.P4. Therefore, Ex.P4 cannot be attached much weight. 

31. In charge sheet, it is alleged by the prosecution that on 27­03­2010, there were communal incidents took place in old city area between muslims and hindus over tying of religious flags and in that process, as per pre­plan the accused persons formed into an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons with an intention to hurt the feelings of particular religious people and attacked one muslim person at HB colony, Moulali and also stabbed PW.1 in this case. But there is absolutely no evidence or material on record on that aspect. None of the witnesses spoke the same. Thus, the point Nos.1 to 3 are answered accordingly.

POINT NO.4:

32. In view of my findings on Point Nos. 1 to 3, I am constrained to hold that the prosecution is not able to prove the guilt of the accused Nos.1 to 3, 5 to 8 for the offence punishable under Sections 148, 153­A, 307, 323 r/w 149 of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused Nos.1 to 3, 5 to 8 are entitled to the benefit of doubt. Thus, the Point No. 4 is answered accordingly.

33. In the result, the accused Nos.1 to 3, 5 to 8 are found not guilty for the offences under Sections 148, 153­A, 307 and 323 r/w 149 of IPC and they are acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled subject to appeal time of six months as enumerated in Section 437A Cr.P.C. 

The unmarked properties, if any, shall be disposed off in accordance with law.

Directly typed to my dictation by Stenographer, VIII AMSJ corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 5 th day of December, 2019.

FAC V ADDL.METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE:

HYDERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW.1 : Amzad PW.2 : Mehraj PW.3 : Ch. Nageshwar Rao PW.4 : M. Srisailam Reddy PW.5 : A. Sanjeev Rao PW.6 : Dr. B. Sudhakar PW.7 : A. Mutyam Reddy PW.8 : C. Venu Gopala Reddy PW.9 : K. Satyanarayana PW.10: R.B. Rangaiah

FOR DEFENCE: None

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1 : Complaint Ex.P.2 : Signature on the Panchanama of PW.4 Ex.P.3 : Signature on the Panchanama of PW.4 Ex.P.4 : Wound Certificate Ex.P.5 : First Information Report

FOR DEFENCE:Nil.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

­ N I L ­

 FAC V ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE,

HYDERABAD

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE: 

AT HYDERABAD

Present: Sri. N.Victor Immanuel, VIII Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, FAC.V Addl. Metropolitan sessions Judge, (Mahila Court), Hyderabad.

WEDNESDAY THE 20 th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019

SESSIONS CASE NO. 152 OF 2014

(in PRC No. 37 of 2013)

Committed by : Sri. P. Vasanth, III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

Crime Number and Police Station: Crime No. 461 of 2012, Banjara Hills P.S., Hyderabad.

Name and description of the Accused: A­1, Md. Younus s/o. Md. Saleem, Age : 22 years, Occ : Electrician, Caste : Muslim, R/o. H.No.GF 171, Mahatma Gandhi Nagar, Film Nagar, Hyderabad.

A­2, Syed Ashraf s/o. Syed Amjad, Age : 21 years, Occ : Car Dentar Caste : Muslim, R/o. H.No.GF 171, Mahatma Gandhi Nagar, Film Nagar, Hyderabad.

Name and description of the: The State represented by the Inspector of Police, Banjara Hills P.S., Hyderabad.

Prosecution conducted by : Addl. Public Prosecutor

Accused defended by: Mohammed Jani

Offence charged: U/sec. 354, 325 r/w. 34 of IPC

Plea of the accused: Found Not guilty.

Finding of the Court: Found Not guilty.

Result : In the result, the Accused No.1 is found not guilty for the offence under section 354 of

IPC and the Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence under section 325 r/w. 34 of IPC and they are acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled subject to appeal time of six months as enumerated in section 437­A Cr.P.C.

J U D G M E N T

The Sub­Inspector of Police, PS Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, has laid the charge sheet 1.

in Cr.No.461/2012 against the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under

Sections 354 and 352 r/w 34 of IPC. 

The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that the complainant by name Smt. 2.

Paniti Bhagya (PW.1) and the accused No.1 are residing in the same locality i.e. MG

Nagar, Film Nagar, Hyderabad and A1 was running a Kirana Shop in his residence. On 18­05­2012 at about 14.30 hours, when PW.1 was returning home after work, A1 stopped her in front of his shop and demanded to pay Rs.2/­, which was due to him, and when she told that she does not owe anything to him, A1 abused her in filthy language and pulled her saree and beat her with hands. PW.1 went to the house and informed the same to her husband Sri P. Mallesh (LW.2), and on that LW.2 went to the shop of A.1 and asked the reason for beating his wife and pulling her saree. Then A1 along with his brother A2 entered into an argument and beat LW.2 with hands blue and black, due to which LW.2 sustained fracture injury on his left hand little finger. On that, PW.1 gave complaint Ex.P1 in the police station. 

On receipt of complaint (Ex.P1) from PW.1, Sri M. Seetharamulu (LW.6), the Sub­ 3.

Inspector of Police, PS Banjara Hills registered a case in Cr.No.461/2012 under Sections 354 and 325 r/w 34 of IPC and issued FIR (Ex.P3) and referred the injured persons i.e.

PW.1 and Sri P. Mallesh (LW.2) to Osmania General Hospital for treatment and handed over the case file to PW.4 the then Inspector of Police, PS Banjara Hills for further investigation. During the course of further investigation, PW.4 visited the scene of offence and examined PW.1 to PW.3 and Sri P. Mallesh (LW.2) and recorded their statements. On 18­05­2012 at about 20.30 hours, PW.4 apprehended both the accused at the scene of offence and brought them to the police station and arrested them and produced them before the Court for judicial custody. After collecting the wound certificates of PW.1 and Sri P. Mallesh (LW.2) under Exs.P4 and P5 from the Doctor (LW.5) and after completion of investigation, PW.4 filed charge sheet. 

On the said allegations, the Learned Magistrate took the case on file and after 4.

observing all formalities, duly committed the case to Metropolitan Sessions Judge,

Hyderabad. The learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge took the case on file as Sessions

Case and made over the same for trial to this court.

On appearance of the accused Nos.1 and 2, they are examined under Section 227 5.

Cr.P.C. They denied the offence. Heard and charge under Section 354 of IPC was framed against A1 and the charge under Section 325 r/w 34 of IPC was framed against A1 and

A2 and the same were read­over and explained to them, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

.

During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.4 and got 6.

marked Exs.P1 to P5.

After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused are examined under 7.

Section 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating circumstances that are appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and they denied the same. On behalf of the accused, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked. 

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

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor argued that the prosecution is able to prove 9.

the case against the accused and hence, they are liable to be punished in accordance with law.

On the other hand, learned defence counsel argued that PW.1 gave evidence 10.

having assailed from the complaint Ex.P1 and she gave different versions in her chief­ examination and in cross­examination. Further, PW.1 denied to have given Ex.P1 complaint. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and hence, the accused are entitled for acquittal.

In the light of the above rival contentions, the following points would arise for 11.

determination:

1.Whether on 18­05­2012 at about 14.30 hours at Mahatma Gandhi Nagar, Film Nagar, Hyderabad, the accused No.1 outraged the modesty of PW.1 by pulling her saree and beating her with hands?

2.Whether on the same date, time and place mentioned in point No.1, the accused Nos.1 and 2 beat Sri P. Mallesh (LW.2) causing fracture injury to his left hand little finger?

3.Whether the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC and the guilt of the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 325 r/w 34 of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT No. 1 AND 2 :

It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant by name Smt. Paniti Bhagya 12.

(PW.1) and the accused No.1 are residing in the same locality i.e. MG Nagar, Film Nagar,

Hyderabad and A1 was running a Kirana Shop in his residence. On 18­05­2012 at about 14.30 hours, when PW.1 was returning home after work, A1 stopped her in front of his shop and demanded to pay Rs.2/­, which was due to him, and when she told that she does not owe anything to him, A1 abused her in filthy language and pulled her saree and beat her with hands. PW.1 went to the house and informed the same to her husband Sri

P. Mallesh (LW.2), and on that LW.2 went to the shop of A.1 and asked the reason for beating his wife and pulling her saree. Then A1 along with his brother A2 entered into an argument and beat LW.2 with hands blue and black, due to which LW.2 sustained fracture injury on his left hand little finger. On that, PW.1 gave complaint Ex.P1 in the police station. 

The burden is on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It 13.

has to be seen how far the prosecution is able to prove its case. 

It is the evidence of PW.1, who is the complainant­cum­victim that in the year 14.

2012, one day between 9.00 and 10.00 a.m., her son went to the Kirana shop of the accused and the accused did not give the change to her son. Then, she along with her husband (LW.2) went to the shop and A1 and A2 were present in the shop. There was a galata, in which A1 and A2 pulled her saree and beat her with hands. Further, A1 and A2 came to their house along with their brother­in­law and beat her husband, due to which, her husband left hand little finger got fractured. Then herself and her husband went to the police station and gave Ex.P1 complaint. But in cross­examination, PW.1 stated that five or six persons came upon her. She categorically admitted that she cannot say who pulled her saree and who beat her among five or six persons and she thought of that the accused must have pulled her saree. She also admitted that she does not know the contents of Ex.P1 complaint and she cannot say who gave complaint and when it was lodged and the police did not examine her.

PW.2 the mother­in­law of PW.1 deposed that at about 7 years ago, A1 and A2 15.

along with 4 to 5 members entered their house and beat her son (LW.2) and they pulled the saree of PW.1 and beat her with sticks. In cross­examination, she stated that at about 1.00 p.m. the incident occurred at the house of PW.1 and she cannot say the overt acts of each accused. She cannot say how many persons gathered at the time of incident.

However, learned defence counsel gave a suggestion that no such incident occurred and she is giving false evidence. 

PW.3 the co­sister­in­law of PW.1 turned hostile and she did not say anything 16.

against the accused. Learned Additional Public Prosecuted treated her hostile and cross­ examined her and the relevant portion of her 161 Cr.P.C. statement is marked as Ex.P2.

Coming to the evidence of PW.4, he is the Investigating Officer, who stated that 17.

Sri M. Seetharamulu (LW.6), the Sub­Inspector of Police, received the complaint (Ex.P1) from PW.1 and registered the same as a case in Cr.No.461/2012 under Sections 354 and 325 r/w 34 of IPC and issued FIR (Ex.P3) and referred the injured persons i.e. PW.1 and

Sri P. Mallesh (LW.2) to Osmania General Hospital for treatment and handed over the case file to him for further investigation. He further deposed that during the course of further investigation, he visited the scene of offence and examined PW.1 to PW.3 and Sri

P. Mallesh (LW.2) and recorded their statements. On 18­05­2012 at about 20.30 hours, he apprehended both the accused at the scene of offence and brought them to the police station and arrested them and produced them before the Court for judicial custody. After collecting the wound certificates of PW.1 and Sri P. Mallesh (LW.2) under Exs.P4 and P5 from Doctor (LW.5) and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet. 

In cross­examination, PW.4 categorically admitted that he has not prepared the 18.

rough sketch of the scene of offence. He also admits that there is no mention in the 161

Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1 that her son went to the Kirana Shop and that the accused did not give the change to her son. It is further admitted by him that PW.1 did not state in her 161 Cr.P.C. statement that she along with her husband went to the shop, when A1 and A2 were present in the shop. He also admits that PW.1 did not state in her 161

Cr.P.C. statement that A1 and A2 came upon her house along with their brother­in­law and beat her husband, due to which his hand got fractured. However, a suggestion is given to this witness by the defence counsel that no such incident occurred and his investigation was table investigation and A1 and A2 were falsely implicated in this case. 

Learned defence counsel vehemently argued that PW.1 gave evidence having 19.

assailed from the complaint Ex.P1 and 161 Cr.P.C. statement. There is much force in the above contention. As per Ex.P1 the alleged complaint was given by PW.1, it is the case of the prosecution that when PW.1 was going to her house from work place, A1 stopped her and asked about repayment of Rs.2/­, which is due to him and PW.1 gave adamant answer, and in that process, A1 abused her and pulled her saree and also beat her with hands. On coming to know about the incident, PW.1’s husband (LW.2) came to the scene and questioned A1 about the beating of her wife, and on that A1 and A2 beat him, due to which his left hand little finger got fractured. 

But contrary to the above, in chief­examination, PW.1 strangely stated that her son 20.

went to the Kirana shop of the accused and the accused did not give the change to her son. Then, she along with her husband (LW.2) went to the shop when A1 and A2 were present and there was a galata, in which A1 and A2 pulled her saree and beat her with hands. Further, A1 and A2 came upon their house along with their brother­in­law and beat her husband, due to which, her husband got fracture.

From the above, it is very clear that the evidence of PW.1 is not in conformity with 21.

her complaint (Ex.P1) and her 161 Cr.P.C. statement. In other words, PW.1 did not support the contents of Ex.P1 and her 161 Cr.P.C. statement. Having assailed from her complaint (Ex.P1) and 161 Cr.P.C. statement, PW.1 gave evidence. The same is admitted by PW.4 Investigating Officer. 

However, in cross­examination, PW.1 gave another version that five or six 22.

unknown persons came upon her and she cannot say who pulled her saree and who beat her among them. Only she thought of that, the accused might have pulled her saree.

PW.1 has gone to an extent of denying the giving of complaint Ex.P1. She further says that she does not know who gave complaint. Here in this case, needless to say that PW.1 gave three different versions, one is in Ex.P1, other is in chief­examination and another is in cross­examination, which are contrary to each other. When a witness gave three different versions, one is in complaint, other is in chief­examination and another is in cross­examination, such evidence cannot be relied on safely.

Of course, PW.2 also gave evidence on the same lines of PW.1. As pointed out by 23.

me, the evidence of PW.1 is not consistent. According to PW.2, the incident occurred at the house of PW.1. But PW.1 says that the incident occurred at the shop of A1. The scene of offence is shifted. Therefore, even the evidence of PW.2 cannot be relied on.

PW.3 is the co­sister­in­law of PW.1. But she did not support the case of the 24.

prosecution and learned Additional Public Prosecution declared her hostile. Therefore, her evidence also is of no use. 

Coming to the evidence of PW.4, he is the Investigation Officer, he spoke about 25.

the investigation done by him. Though it is alleged in the charge sheet that the husband of PW.1 (LW.2) got fracture injury, the same is not proved. Unfortunately, Sri P. Mallesh (LW.2) who is the alleged injured is no more. Though PW.4 filed the wound certificates under Exs.P4 and P5, they are not proved by examining the Doctor. It is settled that mere marking of document is not sufficient and the contents must be proved by examining the person concerned. In this case, the wound certificates are marked through PW.4

Investigating Officer, which cannot be considered. Further, it is alleged that the brother­ in­law of the accused also participated in the commission of offence, but the investigation is silent about that. Thus, the offence under Section 325 r/w 34 IPC is not proved. 

In this case, the main allegation is that A1 outraged the modesty of PW.1 by 26.

pulling her saree at his shop since she gave adamant answer when A1 asked the repayment of Rs.2/­, which is due to him. 

With regard to the offence under Section 354 of IPC, the prosecution is required to 27.

prove that there is an assault or force used to the woman with an intention to outrage her modesty. If assault or criminal force is not used, any indecent behaviour of the accused will not amount to an offence under Section 354 of IPC. In this present case, though it is alleged that A1 pulled the saree of PW.1, there is no any iota of evidence to show that A1 had an intention to outrage the modesty of PW.1. The expression “outrage of modesty” must be read with words “intending to or knowing it to be likely that he will”. Here in this case, the evidence on record does not show that there is an intention or knowledge for A1 to outrage the modesty of PW.1. Though in chief­examination, PW.1 stated that

A1 pulled her saree, in cross­examination, she admitted that five or six unknown persons came upon her and one among them pulled her saree. Therefore, PW.1 evidence is unreliable. Therefore, the offence under Section 354 of IPC is not made out. Thus, the point Nos.1 and 2 are answered accordingly.

POINT NO.3:

In view of my findings on Point Nos. 1 and 2, I am constrained to hold that the 28.

prosecution is not able to prove the guilt of the accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC and the guilt of the accused No.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 325 r/w 34 of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused Nos.1 and 2 are entitled to the benefit of doubt. Thus, the Point No. 3 is answered accordingly.

In the result, the accused No.1 is found not guilty for the offence under Section 29.

354 of IPC and the accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence under

Section 325 r/w 34 of IPC and they are acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled subject to appeal time of six months as enumerated in Section 437A Cr.P.C.

Directly typed to my dictation by Stenographer, VIII AMSJ corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 20 th day of November, 2019.

FAC V ADDL.METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE:

HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW.1 : P. Bhagya PW.2 : Yadamma PW.3 : Kashamma PW.4 : M. Venkateshwar Rao

FOR DEFENCE: None

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1 : Complaint Ex.P.2 : Relevant portion in 161 Cr.P.C. Statement by PW.3 Ex.P.3 : First Information Report Ex.P.4 : Medical Certificate of PW1. Ex.P.5 : Medical Certificate of LW2.

FOR DEFENCE:Nil.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

­ N I L ­

 FAC V ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE,

HYDERABAD

1

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE;

HYDERABAD.

Present: N.VICTOR IMMANUEL VIII Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, FAC IV Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge Hyderabad.

Dated this the 4th day of July, 2018

D.V.C.Crl. A. No. 1213 of 2017

From what court this appeal is preferredIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad

Number of the case in that CourtDVC No. 11 of 2012 Number of the appealDVC Crl.A.No. 1213 of 2017 Name and description of the Appellant / Smt. Roopa Volety, W/o. Sreerama PetitionerArvind Volety, Aged about 50 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.No. 7-1-170/D, Dharam Karan Road, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. Name and description of the Respondents/ 1) Mr. Sree Rama Arvind Volety, S/o. ComplainantsSreerama Chary Volety, Aged about 55 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No. 7-1- 170/D, Dharam Karan Road, Ameerpet, Hyderabad.

2) Mr. Sreerama Chary Volety, S/o. Late V.V.R. Narsimha Chary, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No. 7-1-170/D, Dharam Karan Road, Ameerpet, Hyderabad.

3) Mr. Ananta Sayana, S/o. Not known to the petitioner, Aged about 50 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No. 9-1-7-83, 84/1, Flat No. 206, Block-B, 2nd floor, Padma Hamsa Apartment, Sardar Patel Road, Secunderabad.

4) The State of Telangana, Rep. By Protection Officer, Hyderabad through Public Prosecutor, Hyderabad.

The sentence and law under whichIn the result, this complainant is partly conviction was imposed in the lower courtallowed. Accordingly, Respondents 1 & 2 are directed to restrain from committing any type of domestic violence against the complainant. The respondent No.1 is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) per month to the complainantasthemonthly maintenance. The above awarded maintenance shall be paid on or before the 5th day of every calender month 2 from the date of this order. Respondent No.1 is also directed to pay the awarded compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) to the complainant in three installments within three months from the date of this order. A free copy of this order shall be given to both the parties in compliance of provision of Section 24 of the PWDV 2005 Act. A copy of this order shall also be forwarded to the Protection Officer to take the aid of concerned police to implement the order passed in the Relief No.1. More over, complainant is directed to furnish her bank account particulars to the respondents in order to facilitate them to deposit the awarded monthlymaintenanceand compensation amount and report the same to this Court. Complainant is at liberty to take the appropriate steps under the law for the enforcement of this order if the respondents fail to comply the same. Whether confirmed, modified or In the result, the appeal is partly allowed Reversed, if modified the Modification:and partly dismissed. The 1st respondent is directed to pay Rs.20,000/- per month towards maintenance from the date of the petition and Rs. 5,00,000/- towards compensation and Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenditure to the 1st petitioner. The relief of return of dowry, gold and silver articles is declined.

DATE OR ON WHICH

Presentation01-11-2017 Filing01-11-2017 Notice issued by the Court02-11-2017 Bail bond if appellant is let out on bail------ Appellant is ordered to be appear04-12-2017 Hearing23-05-2018 JUDGMENT04-07-2018

This appeal is coming on for hearing before me, upon perusing the petition and record of evidence and proceedings and of appeal and upon duly considering the same after hearing the arguments of Sri G. Suresh Goud, Counsel for the Appellant/Accused and Ms. G. Sudha, Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant and having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:

3

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

1.The present appeal has been filed by the appellant/1st petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 5-10-2017 passed in DVC No.11/2012 by the learned III

Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

2.The appellant is the 1st petitioner and the respondents are the respondents

before the trial court. For the sake of brevity, the ranks of the parties referred to in the

DVC No.11/2012 are maintained.

3.The 1st petitioner moved an application before the Protection Officer and also gave complaint against the respondents No.1 to 6, who are the husband, father-in- law, aunt, aunt, uncle and uncle of the 1st petitioner respectively. The learned III

Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, has taken cognizance against respondent Nos.

1, 2 and 6 only and as the respondent no.6 failed to file counter, his right to file counter was forfeited and accordingly the respondent no.6 was set exparte.

4.The case of the 1st petitioner is that her marriage was performed with the 1st respondent on 13-7-1987 as per Hindu rites and customs and at the time of marriage, her parents gave an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- in cash, 50 tulas of gold ornaments and 5 Kgs of silver ornaments and also costly clothes as dowry. she lead her matrimonial life with the respondent no.1 happily for a brief period only as his family members started to harass her by making a comment that her parents did not give sufficient dowry as per their expectations. Out of the wedlock, they were blessed with one daughter Somila Volety and one son Yashvardhan Volety. In the first pregnancy she gave birth to a female child on 12-12-1998 the respondents did not show any mercy towards her and continued their harassment by even not providing any proper food and medicine in time. Moreover, the pre and post delivery expenses of first and second delivery were born by her parents only. Apart from that at the cradle ceremonies of her 1st and 2nd child her parents gave 5 tulas and 7 tulas of gold respectively. Being not satisfied with 5 tulas of gold the respondents used to scold her and beat her black and blue and also demanded her to bring an additional dowry of

Rs.1,00,000/-.

5.Respondent no.1 being a habitual drunker used to come to the house in the late hours in the nights and also used to bring his friends about 5 to 8 members for consuming alcohol all together in the night hours and leave on the next day morning.

Moreover, the respondent no.1 used to demand her parents 2 to 5 tulas of gold and

Rs.20,000/- to Rs.30,000/- for purchasing clothes on every occasion and festivals.

Her parents gave Rs.10,00,000/- as additional dowry on different occasions. From 4 the year 2005, 1st respondent is not giving any conjugal society to her and on several occasions he used to pick up quarrel with her which caused physical and mental torture to her. On 20-11-2011, 1st respondent and other family members picked up a quarrel with her and demanded her to get Rs.5,00,000/- from her parents or else they would neck out her from their house. When she refused to do so, the respondents abused her in filthy language and beat her and threatened with dire consequences.

The streedhana is under the custody of her husband and other family members as they did not allow her to use her own articles and threatened her that they would misappropriate the same.

6.She lodged a complaint to the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police,

C.C.S., Hyderabad, and the same was registered as case in Crime No.507/2011 for the offence under Sections 498-A and 506 IPC and under Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry

Prohibition Act and the same is pending before the learned XIII Addl. Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and she also initiated maintenance proceedings and the same is pending. Her son is pursuing intermediate first year at St.Mary's college, Yousufguda, Hyderanad and her husband neglected to give single paise to her. Her husband and father in law sold out the property at Bangalore for

Rs.70,00,000/- and Rs.55,00,000/- was mentioned in the sale deed. Her husband is having partnership firm viz., M/s.Sri Arvind Agencies having its office at

Dharmakaran Road, Ameerpet, Hyderabad is Rs.65,34,343/-. Her husband is having two immovable properties and getting Rs.22,000/- rent per month. After filing criminal case the respondents did not allow her to enter the kitchen and not providing any food to her and threatened to ruin her life. She lodged a complaint against the respondents in S.R.Nagar.P.S but they did not take any action. Later she field DVC to grant residential accommodation, maintenance and compensation.

7.The Protection Officer forwarded the complaint along with the application of the 1st petitioner to the learned trial court and the learned trial court registered it as DVC

No.11/2012 against the respondents 1, 2 and 6 initially and as the respondent no.6 failed to file counter his right to file the same was forfeited and accordingly he is set exparte. During the course of inquiry, 1st petitioner herself is examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.13. On the other hand, the respondent no.1 himself is examined as R.W.1 and his maternal aunt was examined as R.W.2 and marked

Exs.D.1 to D.3.

8.After trial, the learned trial court passed an order against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 restraining them from committing any type of domestic violence against the 1st petitioner. The respondent no.1 is directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- per 5 month to the 1st petitioner towards maintenance, payable on or before 5th day of every calendar month from the date of order.. The respondent no.1 is also directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the 1st petitioner, payable in three installments within three months from the date of order. Accordingly, the DVC is allowed in part.

However, the other reliefs i.e., medical expenses of Rs. 50,000/- and to return the

Gold Ornaments, Silver and cash which were allegedly given as dowry at the time of marriage are refused.

9.Being aggrieved by the order of the trial court, the present appeal is preferred by the 1st petitioner to enhance the monthly maintenance to Rs.1,00,000/- from

Rs.10,000/- and enhance the compensation amount to Rs.1,00,00,000/- from

Rs.1,00,000/- and to pay Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses and for return of dowry, additional dowry, gold and silver article by setting aside the order dated 05-10-2017 of learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, in DVC No.11/2017 on the ground that the trial court failed to appreciate the evidence on record and erroneously passed order.

10.This court has perused the entire record received from the learned trial court apart from the impugned order passed by the learned trial court judge and heard both sides.

11.Now the points that arise for determination are :-

(i)Whether the 1st petitioner is entitled for enhancement of maintenance of

Rs.10,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- ?

(ii)Whether the 1st petitioner is entitled for enhancement of compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- to Rs. 1,00,00,000/- ?

(iii)Whether the 1st petitioner is entitled for Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses ?

(iv)Whether the 1st petitioner is entitled for return of dowry and additional dowry, gold and silver articles, which were purported to have been presented by her parents ?

POINT NOS.1 TO 4:

12.There is no dispute with regard to the relationship between the parties. The 1st respondent is the husband and 2nd respondent is the father-in-law of the 1st petitioner and other respondents are relatives of 1st respondent. It is also not in dispute that the marriage between the 1st petitioner and the first respondent took place on 13-7-1987 as per Hindu rights and customs. Out of their wedlock, one female and one male child 6 were born to them. Though originally the case is filed against R.1 to R.6, the lower court took cognizance against R.1, R.2 and R.6 only. After trial the lower court held that there is no material on record that R.6 committed domestic violence. Therefore, the order was passed against R.1 and R.2 only. The complaint was filed by the petitioner before the lower court seeking reliefs i.e., protection order, maintenance, residential accommodation, return of gold, silver and dowry amounts and medical expenses and compensation.

13.As seen from the lower court order, the trial court after considering all the facts and circumstances held that there was domestic violence and the respondents 1 and 2 committed the domestic violence against the appellant/1st petitioner. The sound reasons are also given by the lower court on that aspect and the same is not challenged by the respondents. The lower court granted protection order restraining the respondents 1 and 2 from committing any type of domestic violence against the petitioner and the same is also not challenged by the respondents. Ofcourse, the petitioner also did not dispute it. But the dispute is with regard to the other reliefs i.e., maintenance, compensation and medical expenses and return of gold and silver articles and dowry amount.

14.The lower court awarded Rs.10,000/- per month towards maintenance to the petitioner, though the petitioner sought for Rs.1,00,000/- per month and the lower court awarded Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner towards compensation, though the petitioner sought for Rs.1,00,00,000/-. However, the lower court declined to grant medical expenditure of Rs.50,000/- and to return gold, silver and dowry amount and

additional dowry which were alleged given at the time of marriage.

15. Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioner preferred the present appeal for enhancement of maintenance to an extent of Rs.1,00,000/- per month and

Rs.1,00,00,000/- towards compensation and also for return gold, silver and dowry amount allegedly given at the time of marriage and also Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses.

16.With regard to the enhancement of maintenance amount, the lower court awarded Rs.10,000/- per month, Now the petitioner seeks to enhance the same to

Rs.1,00,000/-. But in my view the granting of maintenance amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- per month is not possible. The court should also see the financial capacity of the respondent. Further even according to the petitioner she already filed a maintenance case and the respondent is paying interim maintenance in that case and the same is pending. Here except the evidence of P.W.1 there is no other evidence with regard to 7 the financial capacity of the respondents. She only states that the respondent is having partnership firm under the name and style of Sri Arvind Agencies, but what is his income is not stated by the petitioner. Therefore, in the absence of proof of means and financial capacity of respondent it is not proper and possible to enhance the maintenance amount to Rs.1,00,000/-. However, keeping in view of the financial capacity of the respondent and needs of the petitioner I feel that it would meet the ends of justice if the monthly maintenance is enhanced to Rs. 20,000/- from

Rs. 10,000/-.

17.With regard to the compensation, the lower court awarded Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner towards compensation though the petitioner sought for Rs.1,00,00,000/-.

The petitioner pleads that the lower court failed to appreciate the mental agony suffered by her and in this regard, she relied on Ex.P.11 copy of F.I.R which discloses that 1st petitioner filed a case under Sections 498-A, 506 IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of

Dowry Prohibition Act against the respondents and the same is pending before the

XIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The copy of F.I.R is marked as

Ex.P.11. It may be true that the petitioner might have suffered mental agony as pleaded by her. It is also true that the mental agony cannot be measured. But here the petitioner seeks Rs.1,00,00,000/-, which is not a small amount. It is a huge amount. As pointed out supra, unless there is a proof regrading means and financial capacity of the respondents, it is not proper to award Rs.1,00,00,000/- The court must see the financial capacity of the respondents. Though it is pleaded by the petitioner that R.1 is running partnership firm viz., M/s.Sri Arvind Agencies, there is no proof for it except the oral and interested testimony of P.W.1. As seen from the lower court order, it is clearly observed by the lower court judge that the 1st petitioner did not file any scrap of paper regarding the financial capacity of the respondents. However, taking into consideration the financial status of the respondents, the compensation is enhanced to Rs.5,00,000/- from Rs.1,00,000/-.

18.As regard the medical expenses of Rs.50,000/-, it is the claim of the petitioner that she gave birth to two children and during the pregnancy time, her parents only incorrect, the medical expenses of Rs.50,000/-. In my view the petitioner is entitled for

Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses as there is evidence of P.W.1.

19.As far as return of gold, silver and dowry amount is concerned, the lower court has rightly rejected the relief on that ground that there is no evidence. Infact even no witnesses were examined and the marriage elders or parents are not examined.

Except the interested testimony of P.W.1 there is no other evidence to show that the gold and silver and dowry amount were given at the time of marriage. On the other 8 hand, there is is evidence of R.W.1 and R.W.2 to show that nothing was given at the time of marriage. Even there is no evidence to show that the 1st petitioner parents have got such capacity to give Gold, Silver and Dowry. The counsel for the petitioner contended that the court can draw presumption under Dowry Prohibition Act, with regard to giving of dowry, but without any document there is no reason to hold that the dowry and gold and silver were given to the respondents. Hence, the request of the 1st petitioner to return the gold, silver and dowry cannot be accepted. Thus, the point nos.1 to 4 are answered accordingly.

20.In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and partly dismissed. The 1st respondent is directed to pay Rs.20,000/- per month towards maintenance from the date of the petition and Rs.5,00,000/-towards compensation and Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenditure to the 1st petitioner. The relief of return of dowry, gold and silver articles is declined.

Directly typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 4th day of July, 2018.

Sd/- N. VICTOR IMMANUEL

VIII ADDL.METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE,

FAC IV ADDL.METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE,

HYDERABAD.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

AT HYDERABAD.

Dated this the 18th day of July, 2018

PRESENT : N.VICTOR IMMANUEL,

VIII ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE,

FAC.IV ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE,

HYDERABAD.

SESSIONS CASE NO. 711 of 2017

(PRC No. 50 of 2016)

BETWEEN:

The State through Sub Inspector of Police, PS Madannapet, Hyderabad.

...Complainant

V/s

A-1Md.Rafiq, S/o.Md.Yousuf, aged 20 Yrs, Occ:Labour, R/o.Flat No.1, Royal Colony, Balapur, Bandlaguda, R.R.Dist.

A-2Md.Mohsin, S/o.Md.Farooq, aged 22 yrs, Occ:Painter, R/o.H.No.17-2-2444, Kurmaguda, Madannapet, Hyderabad.

A-3Shaik Irfan, S/o.Shaik Qursheed, aged 23 yrs, Occ:Driver, R/o.H.No.17-2-780/5, Madannapet, Hyderabad.

A-4Shaik Md.Ghouse @ Laddu, S/o.Shaik Md.Hussain, aged 28 yrs, Occ:Painter, R/o.H.No.17-1-181/A/8, near Old Idgah, Bhanunagar, Madannapet, Hyderabad.

A-5Shaik Md.Mustafa, S/o.Shaik Md.Hussain, aged 22 yrs, Occ:Painter, R/o.H.No.17-1-181/A/B, Old Idgah, Bhanunagar, Madannapet, Hyderabad.

A-6Shaik Md.Gaffar, S/o.Shaik Md.Hussain aged 20 yrs, Occ:Painter, H.No.17-1-181/A/B, Old Idgah, Bhanunagar, Madannapet, Hyd.

….Accused Nos. 1 to 6 This case is coming before me finally and upon hearing the arguments of the Additional Public prosecutor for the State and Sri Aqeel Ahmed, Counsel for all accused and upon hearing the arguments of both sides this court made the following:

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Madannapet.P.S., Hyderabad, has laid the charge sheet in Cr.No.50/2016 against A.1 to A.6 for the offences punishable 2 under Sections 147, 148, 120-B, 307 r/w 149 IPC and Section 25 (IB) of Arms

Act.

2.The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that the complainant Syed

Moiz (P.W.1) and Rafi (A.1) are friends earlier and in the month of Ramzan 2016 there was a quarrel taken place in between A.1 and the complainant while they were in intoxication condition and since then the rivalry developed between them. On 27-3-2014 evening, some persons have torn the complainant's auto cover and the complainant suspected A.1 and picked up a quarrel with A.1 and his friends A.2 to A.6 and some heated arguments took place between them. In this regard A.1 along with A.2 to A.6 hatched a plan to eliminate the complainant. According to their plan on 28-3-2016 at 7pm the accused called Syed Moiz (P.W.1) to Imli-ka-jhad, Madannapet for discussions and A.1 took knives and rods and A.1 along with A.2 to A.6 went to Imli-ka-khad in A.3's auto and way laid the complainant Syed Moiz (P.W.1).

Accordingly at about 9pm P.W.1 along with Mohd.Abdul Khader (P.W.2) came to imli-ka-khad. On that A.1 and A.2 picked up quarrel with P.W.1 and and attacked him. On seeing the same A.4 took a rod and A.3 to A.6 attacked on

P.W.1 and helds his hands. On that A.1 stabbed on the chest of P.W.1 with knife with an intention to kill him and when P.W.1 defended with his hand, he received injury on his hand and ribs. When P.W.2 intervened to rescue P.W.1 the accused also attacked P.W.2 and on seeing the public gathering the accused sped away from the spot.

3.Basing on the statement of P.W.1 (Ex.P.4) recorded by Kranthi Kumar,

PC-5347 (L.W.10) a case was registered by B.Vishnu Vardhana Rao, A.S.I of

Police (L.W.11) in Crime No.50/2016 under Section 307 r/w 34 IPC and issued

F.I.R Ex.P.5 and handed over the case file to K.Venkat Reddy, S.I of Police (P.W.3) for further investigation. During course of investigation P.W.3 visited

Osmania General Hospital and recorded the statement of P.W.1 and visited the scene of offence. P.W.3 prepared the scene of offence observation panchanama and rough sketch in the presence of Syed Sabbir Ali (L.W.4) and

Mohd.Farwaz Iliyas (L.W.5). P.W.3 added the Sections 147, 148, 120-B r/w 149

IPC and Section 25 (IB) of Arms Act and took up further investigation. On information P.W.3 went to the house of A.3 and apprehended A.1 to A.5 and on interrogation they confessed to have committed the offence along with

A.6. P.W.3 recorded their confessional statement in the presence of Syed 3

Kaleem (L.W.6) and Mohd.Ajmal Khan (L.W.7) and seized two swords and a rod and an auto i.e., M.Os.1 to 3 under Exs.P.7 to P.9 respectively. A.1 to A.5 were produced before the court for judicial custody. On the requisition of

P.W.3, Smt.Srivani (L.W.8), VIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad conducted T.I parade of the accused persons by eye witness Kesar Dayanand

Singh (L.W.3) vide Ex.P.10. A.6 obtained anticipatory bail and surrendered

before P.W.3 and P.W.3 arrested him and released on bail. Dr.Smt.Shalini

(L.W.9), Asst.Professor of General Surgery treated P.W.1 and opined that the injuries received by P.W.1 are simple in nature vide Ex.P.11.

4.On the said allegations, the learned Magistrate took the case on file and after observing all formalities, duly committed the case to Metropolitan

Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. The learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge took the

case on file as Sessions Case and made over the same for trial to this Court.

5.On appearance of A.1 to A.6, they were examined under Section 227

Cr.P.C. They denied the offences. Heard the charge under Sections 147, 148, 120-B, 307 r/w 149 IPC have been framed against A.1 to A.6 and the same were read over and explained to them, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.11 and M.Os.1 to 3.

7.After closure of prosecution side, evidence, A.1 to A.6 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating circumstances that are appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and they denied the same. No defence witnesses were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the accused.

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

9.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor argued that though the main witness turned hostile, there is evidence of police official. Hence, the prosecution is able to prove the case against the accused and hence he is liable to be punished in accordance with law.

10.On the other hand, learned defence counsel argued that there is no evidence against the accused and the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

4

11.In the light of the above rival contentions, the following points would arise for determination :

1)Whether A.1 to A.6 committed rioting by forming into an unlawful assembly and attacked P.W.1 ?

2)Whether A.1 to A.6 committed rioting by forming into an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons viz., knives and rod with common object to attack on P.W.1 ?

3)Whether A.1 to A.6 committed conspiracy to eliminate P.W.1 and in pursuance of such conspiracy A.1 to A.6 attacked on P.W.1 with knives and rod ?

4)Whether A.1 to A.6 attacked on P.W.1 with an intention to kill him ?

5)Whether the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of A.1 to A.6 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 120-

B, 307 r/w 149 IPC ?

POINT Nos.1 to 4:

12.The case of the prosecution is that earlier in the month of Ramzan 2016 there was a quarrel took place in between A.1 and the complainant (P.W.1) while they were in intoxication condition and since then the rivalry developed between them. While so on 27-3-2014 evening some persons have torn the complainant's auto cover and the complainant suspected A.1 and picked up a quarrel with A.1 and his friends A.2 to A.6 and some heated arguments took place between them. In this regard A.1 along with A.2 to A.6 hatched a plan to eliminate the complainant. According to their plan on 28-3- 2016 at 7pm the accused called Syed Moiz (P.W.1) to imli-ka-jhad,

Madannapet for discussions and A.1 took knives and rods and A.1 along with

A.2 to A.6 went to Imli-ka-khad in A.3's auto and way laid for the complainant

Syed Moiz (P.W.1). Accordingly at about 9pm P.W.1 along with Mohd.Abdul

Khader (P.W.2) came to imli-ka-khad. On that A.1 and A.2 picked up quarrel with P.W.1 and and attacked him. On seeing the same A.4 took a rod and A.3 to A.6 attacked on P.W.1 and held his hand. On that A.1 stabbed on the chest of P.W.1 with knife with an intention to kill him and when P.W.1 defended with his hand, he received injury on his hand and ribs. When P.W.2 intervened to 5 rescue P.W.1 the accused also attacked P.W.2 and on seeing the public gathering the accused sped away from the spot.

13.But the same is not established by the prosecution. P.W.1 the alleged complainant cum injured did not support the case. On the other hand, he turned hostile. He states that he received injuries by falling on the ground and he was shifted to hospital and he has not even given complaint.

Therefore, P.W.1 did not even support the contents of the complaint. Only his signature on the complaint is marked as Ex.P.1. Learned Additional Public

Prosecutor treated him hostile and cross examined him. P.W.2 the alleged eye witness and injured also did not support the case. He states that he doesn't know anything about the case. This witness is also treated hostile by the prosecutor and cross examined him.

14.From the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, nothing is elicited against the accused. It is the case of the prosecution that (L.W.3) Kesar Dayanand Singh was the eye witness and L.W.8 VIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate conducted the test identification parade of accused by L.W.3. But the same is not proved. Neither L.W.3 nor L.W.8 are examined by the prosecution.

Similarly, though it is the case of prosecution that L.W.9 Doctor treated P.W.1 and issued Ex.P.11 wound certificate the same is also not proved. Ofcourse, the Ex.P.10 and P.11 test identification parade proceedings and wound certificate respectively are marked through the Investigating Officer P.W.3, but mere marking of documents is not sufficient. The contents of it shall be proved by examining the concerned persons. There is absolutely no material on record connecting the accused with the offence. Learned

Additional Public Prosecutor closed the evidence of all the witnesses i.e.,

L.Ws.3 to 11. There remains the evidence of P.W.3 the Investigating Officer.

15.Coming to the evidence of P.W.3, he is the Investigating Officer, who spoke about the investigation done by him in this case. Apparently, he is a circumstantial witness and he is not an eye witness to the occurrence. He spoke about the registering of the case, examination witnesses P.Ws.1 and 2,

L.W.3, visiting of scene of offence and preparation of crime details form, arrest of the accused, recording confessional statement of accused and seizure of two knives and iron rod and filing of charge sheet. However, learned defence counsel gave a suggestion to P.W.3 that without proper 6 verification, he laid charge sheet. Since the injured P.W.1 and eye witness

P.W.2 did not support the case of the prosecution, the accused cannot be convicted basing on the evidence of P.W.3 Investigating Officer. Thus, the point Nos.1 to 4 are answered accordingly.

POINT NO.5:

16.In view of my findings on point Nos.1 to 4, I am constrained to hold that the prosecution is not able to prove the guilt of A.1 to A.6 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 120-B, 307 r/w 149 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, A.1 to A.6 are entitled to the benefit of doubt. Thus, the point no.5 is answered accordingly.

17.In the result, A.1 to A.6 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 120-B, 307 r/w 149 IPC and they are acquitted under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled subject to appeal time of six months as envisaged under Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

M.O.1 knife, M.O.2 steel kanchar and M.O.3 Iron rod shall be sent to committal court to destroy the same after appeal time.

The unmarked property i.e., Autorickshaw bearing registration No.TS- 12-UA-4930 which was already returned to Shaik Irfan (A.3) for interim custody shall be made absolute after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court this the 18th day of July, 2018.

Sd/- N.VICTOR IMMANUEL,

FAC.IV ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE,

HYDERABAD.

7

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

NO. OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW1 – Syed Moniss PW2 – Mohammed JIlani PW3 - K.Venkat Reddy

DEFENCE WITNESSES:-Nil

NO. OF EXHIBITS MARKED

Ex.P1 – Signature of Pw1 on report of Pw1 Ex.P2 – 161 CrPC statement of Pw1 Ex.P3 – 161 CrPC statement of Pw12 Ex.P4 - Report of Pw3 Ex.P5 - FIR issued by Pw3 Ex.P6 - Crime detail form i.e., scene of offence observation panchanama (rough sketch) Ex.P7 - Confession cum seizure panchanama Ex.P8 - Seizure report relating to Accused No.3 Ex.P9 - Seizure report relating to Accused No.3 Ex.P10 -Test identification parade proceedings Ex.P11 -Medico Legal Record

NO. OF EXHIBITS MARKED DEFENCE Nil

NO. OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO1 -One feet Kinfe MO2-Steel Kanchar MO3-Iron rod.

Sd/- N.VICTOR IMMANUEL,

FAC. IV ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE,

HYDERABAD.

// T.C.F.B. O //

SUPERINTENDENT