Smt Vindya Naik

1CC.No.146/2015

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, AT

BODHAN

Present: Smt.Vindhya Naik, I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan.

Tuesday, this the 19th day of March, 2019

CC.No.146 of 2015

Between:

The State through the S.I. of Police, P.S. Kotagiri.

.. Complainant

AND

A1:Begari Sailu S/o Late Bhumaiah, age 35 yrs, Caste: Mala, Occ: Agril. Labor, R/o. Kallur (V) of Kotagiri Mandal. A2:Begari Babu S/o Late Bhumaiah, age 38 years, Caste: Mala, Occ: Labor, R/o. Kallur (V) of Kotagiri Mandal. A3:Begari Laxmi W/o Babu, age 35 yrs, Caste: Mala, Occ: Labor, R/o. Kollur (V) of Kotagiri Mandal. A4:Kokkera Gangavva @ Sayavva W/o Late Sailu, age 40 yrs, Caste: Mala, Occ: Labor, R/o. Sangem (V) of Birkur Mandal.

.. Accused

This case is coming on 18-03-2019 before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of the learned Sr. APPO for the complainant and Sri T.Rajendranath Jadav, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Kotagiri has filed the charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable U/s.290, 325, 506 r/w 34 of the IPC and for the offences punishable U/s.290, 323, 506 r/w 34 of the IPC against the accused Nos.3 and 4 in Cr.No.65/2015.

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

That on 03.06.2015, at 6.00 p.m., the defacto complainant/LW1-Begari

Ramesh came to the PS and lodged a complaint, in which, he contended that two months prior to this complaint, in Varni when his villager Begari Sailoo (accused No.1) was seen, he accosted said Sailoo, to which, Sailoo said what is necessity to have talks with him, who left the village and saying so, the accused No.1 quarreled with him. That on 01.06.2015, at 6.00 p.m., he along 19/03/2019 I AJMFC 2CC.No.146/2015 with LW2-Layak went to Kallur village to leave the tractor trolley, then, near

Savithri Hotel, keeping the old dispute in mind, the accused No.1 along with his elder brother Begari Babu (accused No.2), his sister-in-law Begari Laxmi (accused No.3) and elder sister Sayavva (accused No.3) having hold the complainant and beat him with sticks and hands by abusing him in filthy language by stating that by seeing the accused No.1 alone in Varni, why the complainant beat the accused No.1. On seeing this, LW2 tried to resist them, but the accused threatened LW2-Layak. A1 and A2 beat the complainant with sticks, due to which, he received injuries on his left hand, back, face and legs. This incident was witnessed by LW4-Mohan, LW3-Kishanlal and LW5-

Begari Gangaram. He further submitted that on the same night he has taken the treatment in Govt. Hospital, Bodhan. Hence, he requested to take necessary legal action against the accused persons. Basing on the said complaint, LW9-S.M.Basheer Ahmed, SI of Police has registered a case in

Cr.No.65/2015, U/s.290, 323, 324 and 506 r/w 34 of the IPC and took up the investigation. During the course of the investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of all the witnesses, conducted the scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch in the presence of LW6-Sandhi Venkat

Reddy and LW7-Kalige Bhumaiah and later, on 04.06.2015, he issued notices

U/s.41-A Cr.P.C. to the accused Nos.1 to 4 and that on 08.06.2015, A1 to A4 came to the PS and on enquiry, A1 and A2 stated that they thrown the sticks, which are used in the commission of offence, as such, he could not recovered from them and A1 to A4 were released on bail after producing sufficient sureties. After collecting the injury certificate from LW8-Dr.Anurudh, which discloses that the injuries are grievous in nature and after completion of the investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable U/s.290, 325 and 506 r/w 34 of the IPC and for the offences punishable U/s.290, 323 and 506 r/w 34 of the IPC against the accused Nos.3 and 4. Hence, the charge sheet.

19/03/2019 I AJMFC 3CC.No.146/2015

3.The case was taken on file against the accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offences punishable U/s.290, 326 and 506 r/w 34 of the IPC by my learned

Predecessor. On appearance of the accused persons, copies of all the documents were furnished to them as required U/s.207 of Cr.P.C. The accused Nos.1 to 4 were examined U/s.239 of Cr.P.C., by my learned

Predecessor and on hearing, the charges U/s.290, 326 and 506 of the IPC against the accused Nos.1 to 4 were framed and read over and explained to them in vernacular language, for which, they denied and claimed to be tried.

4.In order to prove the guilt of the accused Nos.1 to 4, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P1 to P9 documents. After prosecution reported its evidence as closed, the accused were examined

U/s.313 Cr.P.C, explaining the incriminating material that appeared against them, for which, they denied the prosecution evidence as being false and reported no defence evidence.

5.Heard both sides and perused the record.

6.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offences punishable U/s.290, 326 and 506 of the IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

7. POINT:To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution have examined PWs 1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P1 to P9 documents. Ex.D1 is the contradictory portion in Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3, which is marked on behalf of the defence counsel. Wherein, PW1-Begari Ramesh is the defacto complainant and injured, PW2-Salla Mohan, PW3-Layak, PW4-

Purvai Kishanlal and PW5-Begari Gangaram are the eye witnesses, PW6-

Sandhi Venkat Reddy and PW7-Kalige Bhumaiah are the panchas for the scene of offence panchanama and PW8-S.M.Basheer Ahmed, SI of Police is the Investigating Officer in this case. Ex.P1 is the complaint, Exs.P2 to P4 are 19/03/2019 I AJMFC 4CC.No.146/2015 the Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements of PWs 2, 4 and 5 respectively. Ex.P5 is the signature of PW6 on scene of offence panchanama, Ex.P6 is the signature of PW7 on scene of offence panchanama, Ex.P7 is the First Information

Report, Ex.P8 is the scene of offence panchanama and Ex.P9 is the injury certificate (which is marked as subject to objection).

8.The defacto complainant/PW1-D.Ramesh, in his evidence have deposed that on 01.06.2015, at about 6.00 p.m., he along with PW3 reached Kallur village to give the Trolley to one Eashwar Reddy and while they were talking with PW2. In the meanwhile, A1 and A2 came from behind and beat him with sticks on his legs, face, hands and back, due to which, he sustained injuries.

Upon which, the Kallur villagers have tried to stop the accused, but it went in vain. After some time, A3 and A4 came to the scene and abused him by holding his hair. Further, A1 and A2 dragged him to Kallur bus stand and confined him for 1 ½ hours. He further deposed that A1 and A2 sent him to

PS by auto and by the time the complainant reached the PS, his family members were already present there and the police have referred him to

Govt. Hospital, Bodhan for treatment. He lodged Ex.P1 complaint before the police. He further deposed that the accused beat him by keeping the old grudges in mind, as previous to this incident, A1 abused him when he went to talk with him. In his cross-examination, the defence counsel could elicitate the omission of the fact that A1 and A2 hit him with stick and A3 and A4 holded his hair and abused him when he was talking with PW2 and that the

Kallur villagers tried to stop the accused, which went in vain and further, A1 and A2 dragged him to Kallur bus stand and confined him for 1 ½ hour and later, they sent to PS.

9.Coming to the evidence of PW3-Mohd.Layak, who was with PW1 at

Kallur village while they went to return the tractor. According to him, about three years ago, at 5.00 or 6.00 p.m., he along with PW1 went to Kollur 19/03/2019 I AJMFC 5CC.No.146/2015 village to return the trolley to its owner and while returning they were having tea at one hotel in Kollur village, when A1 and A2 came and started beating

PW1, due to which, he fell down and became unconscious and after one hour,

PW1 along with his relatives and he went to PS and lodged the complaint.

The evidence of PW3 and PW1 is not corroborating with the specific overt act alleged by both of them against the A1 to A4.

10.Further, coming to the evidence of PW2-S.Mohan, with whom PWs 1 and 3 were talking when the alleged incident happened. He did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile.

11.Further, the complaint discloses that PW4-P.Kishan Lal and PW5-

B.Gangaram are the eye witnesses to the case, who have not supported the case of the prosecution. Both the panch witnesses for scene of offence panchanama i.e. PW6-S.Venkat Reddy and PW7-K.Bhoomaiah, have not supported the case of the prosecution. The prosecution have failed to prove the scene of offence alleged to have committed and admittedly no material object was recovered in this case. The evidence of PW3 also does not discloses any fact if there was any weapon used by the alleged A1 and A2 as deposed by PW1. Further, PW3 did not state any allegation against A3 and

A4 and Ex.D1 a contradicting statement was marked in PW3’s evidence. The evidence of the Investigating Officer/PW8-S.M.Basheer Ahmed is chronological order of the event of the investigation. He deposed that on 03.06.2015, at 6.00 p.m., PW1 came to the PS and lodged the complaint

before him and basing on it, he registered a case in Cr.No.65/2015, U/s.290,

323, 324 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC and issued Ex.P7 FIR to all concerned, examined and recorded the statements of PWs 1 and 3 in PS and referred

PW1 to Govt. Hospital, Bodhan along with requisition and thereafter, on 04.06.2015, he proceeded to the scene of offence, situated at Kallur village, conducted Ex.P8 scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch in 19/03/2019 I AJMFC 6CC.No.146/2015 the presence of PWs 6 and 7, later, he examined PWs 2, 4 and 5 and on the same day, he issued notices U/s.41-A Cr.P.C. to A1 to A4, who came to the PS and executed personal bonds of Rs.10,000/- each, as such, they were not arrested and after receiving the medical certificate and after completion of the investigation, he laid the charge sheet by adding Section 325 of IPC against the A1 and A2 and that PWs 2, 4 and 5 have stated before him as in

Exs.P2 to P4. Ex.P9 is the injury certificate, which is marked as subject to objection, as he is not the author of the document. In the cross-examination, he admitted that there is a delay in registering the FIR and he also admitted that he did not examine any owner of the hotel as shown in the scene of offence. All the omissions and contradiction part were confronted to the

Investigating Officer. The omission elicited in the evidence of PW1 that A3 and A4 holded PW1’s hair and that A1 and A2 dragged him to Kollur bus stand and confined for 1 ½ hour was confronted to the Investigating Officer, who admitted that such statement was not stated by PW1 before him. Thus, the omission is hitting the main root of the case as PW1 made improvement in his evidence, which is leading to contradiction. The prosecution have not examined the doctor, who treated PW1 and the medical certificate was marked by the Investigating Officer as Ex.P9, where the defence counsel have made his objection in marking the injury certificate, since he is not being the author of the said document. It is further admitted by the

Investigating Officer that he is not aware of medical jurisprudence, which says that he is not the right person to speak about the injuries, as he do not have any knowledge about the nature, age and the medical language mentioned in the injury certificate. The defence counsel in his argument shave submitted two case laws of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2017 (1)

ALD (Crl.) 552 (SC) and the Hon’ble High Court in Thummala Lovaraju

Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2009 (2) L.S. 95 (D.B.), where the Hon’ble

Supreme Court and the Hon’ble High Court in both the cases, have held that 19/03/2019 I AJMFC 7CC.No.146/2015 if there are two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one which is pointing guilt of the accused and the other is innocence, the view which is favourable should be adopted. As no corroboration found in the material witnesses i.e. PWs 1 and 3 and the eye witnesses not supporting the case of the prosecution. None examination of the doctor are few lacunas found in the prosecution case.

12.From the above discussion, the prosecution have failed to prove the guilt of the accused Nos.1 to 4 beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused Nos.1 to 4 are entitled for acquittal for the offences punishable

U/s.290, 326 and 506 r/w 34 of the IPC. Thus, the point is answered accordingly in favour of the accused persons and against the prosecution.

13.In the result, the accused Nos.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/s.290, 326 and 506 r/w 34 of the IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted U/s.248 (1) of the Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused persons shall stand discharged. The unmarked non valuable case property deposited into the Court, if any, shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over.

Partly dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her and partly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 19th day of March, 2019.

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: PW1: (LW1)Begari Ramesh.Defacto complainant and - None - injured.

PW2: (LW4)Salla Mohan.Eye witness.

PW3: (LW2)Layak.Eye witness.

PW4: (LW3)Purvai Kishanlal.Eye witness.

PW5: (LW5)Begari Gangaram.Eye witness.

19/03/2019 I AJMFC 8CC.No.146/2015

PW6: (LW6)S.Venkat Reddy.Panch witness for scene of offence panchanama.

PW7: (LW7)Kalige Bhumaiah.Panch witness for scene of offence panchanama.

PW8: (LW9)S.M.Basheer Ahmed, Investigating Officer. SI of Police.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1: Complaint. Ex.P2: Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2. Ex.P3: Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW4. Ex.P4: Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW5. Ex.P5: Signature of PW6 on scene of offence panchanama. Ex.P6: Signature of PW7 on scene of offence panchanama. Ex.P7: First information report. Ex.P8: Scene of offence panchanama. Ex.P9: Injury certificate (marked as subject to objection by the defence counsel)

FOR DEFENCE: Ex.D1: Contradictory portion in Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil -

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan.

19/03/2019 I AJMFC 9CC.No.146/2015

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT (IN THE FORM OF CD)

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, BODHAN

CC.No.146 of 2015

1. Date of offence:01.06.2015.

2. Date of complaint:03.06.2015.

3. Date of apprehension:08.06.2015.

4. Date of release :08.06.2015.

5. Date of commencement of trial:09.03.2016.

6. Date of closure of trial:27.02.2019.

7. Date of Judgment:19.03.2019.

8. Explanation of delay or remarks:- -

Complainant:

The State through the Sub Inspector of Police, Kotagiri.

Description of accused:

A1:Begari Sailu S/o Late Bhumaiah, age 35 yrs, Caste: Mala, Occ: Agril. Labor, R/o. Kallur (V) of Kotagiri Mandal. A2:Begari Babu S/o Late Bhumaiah, age 38 years, Caste: Mala, Occ: Labor, R/o. Kallur (V) of Kotagiri Mandal. A3:Begari Laxmi W/o Babu, age 35 yrs, Caste: Mala, Occ: Labor, R/o. Kollur (V) of Kotagiri Mandal. A4:Kokkera Gangavva @ Sayavva W/o Late Sailu, age 40 yrs, Caste: Mala, Occ: Labor, R/o. Sangem (V) of Birkur Mandal.

Offence Under Section: U/s.290, 326 & 506 r/w 34 of the IPC.

Finding: Found not guilty.

Sentence : Acquitted.

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan.

To, The Hon’ble I Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

19/03/2019 I AJMFC

1CC.No.302/2015

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, AT

BODHAN

Present: Smt. Vindhya Naik, I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan.

Tuesday, this the 19th day of March, 2019

CC.No.302 of 2015

Between:

The State through the S.I. of Police, P.S. Varni.

.. Complainant

AND

A1:Anumadi Sailoo S/o Saidaiah, age 37 yrs, Caste: Madiga, Occ: Labour, R/o. H.No.9-35, Chandoor (V) of Varni (M). A2:Anumadi Narsimloo S/o Saidaiah, age 31 yrs, Caste: Madiga, Occ: Labour, R/o. H.No.9-35/1, Chandoor (V) of Varni (M).

.. Accused

This case is coming on 18-03-2019 before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of the learned Sr. APPO for the complainant and Sri N.Eshwar, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Varni has filed the charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 and 2 herein for the offence punishable U/s.324 r/w 34 of the IPC in Cr.No.215/2015.

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

That on 15.10.2015, at 1.00 p.m., the defacto complainant/LW1-Guddi

Chinna Gangaram came to the PS and lodged a complaint, in which, he contended that on 13.10.2015, at 10.00 hours, his son LW5-Abhilash, aged 15 years, quarreled with one Anumadi Prem Kumar, who is the son of Sailoo (accused No.1) on petty issue and after that, his son and his wife Gangamani went to their relatives house at Bodhan. Yesterday i.e. on 14.10.2015, at about 3.00 p.m., his wife and his son came to Chandoor village, in the meantime, Sailoo (accused No.1) and his younger brother namely Narsimloo (accused No.2) came to his son Abhilash and picked up a quarrel with him on 19/03/2019 I AJMFC 2CC.No.302/2015 the issue of petty quarrel in between Prem Kumar and Abhilash and when the complainant was rescuing his son from the clutches of A1 and A2, A1 thrown him and A2 beat on his head with stick and LW2-D.Sailu and LW3-

Smt.B.Gangamani were witnessed the said incident. Hence, he requested to take necessary legal action against the accused persons. Basing on the said complaint, LW9-G.Anjaiah, SI of Police has registered a case in

Cr.No.215/2015, U/s.324 r/w 34 of the IPC and took up the investigation.

During the course of the investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of all the witnesses, conducted the scene of offence panchanama and also drawn rough sketch in the presence of LW6-Bhairapuram Abbaiah and LW7-Hanmadi Sailoo. On 19.10.2015, he served notice U/s.41-A of Cr.P.C.

to the accused. After collecting the injury certificate from LW8-Dr.Rajeshwar and after completion of the investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable U/s.324 r/w 34 of the IPC.

Hence, the charge sheet.

3.The case was taken on file against the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable U/s.324 r/w 34 of the IPC by my learned Predecessor. On appearance of the accused persons, copies of all the documents were furnished to them as required U/s.207 of Cr.P.C. The accused Nos.1 and 2 were examined U/s.239 of Cr.P.C., by my learned Predecessor and on hearing, the charge U/s.324 r/w 34 of the IPC against the accused was framed and read over and explained to them in vernacular language, for which they denied and claimed to be tried.

4.In order to prove the guilt of the accused Nos.1 and 2, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P1 to P8 documents. After prosecution reported its evidence as closed, the accused were examined

U/s.313 Cr.P.C, explaining the incriminating material that appeared against 19/03/2019 I AJMFC 3CC.No.302/2015 them, for which, they denied the prosecution evidence as being false and reported no defence evidence.

5.Heard both sides and perused the record.

6.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable U/s.324 r/w 34 of the IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

7. POINT:To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution have examined PWs 1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P1 to P8 documents. Wherein,

PW1-D.Sailu, PW2-Smt.B.Gangamani, PW3-D.Nadpi Gangaram and PW6-

G.Abhilash are the eye witnesses, PW4-Hanmadi Sailoo is one of the panchas for scene of offence panchanama, PW5-Guddi Chinna Gangaram is the defacto complainant and injured, PW7-G.Anjaiah, SI of Police is the

Investigating Officer in this case and PW8-Dr.Ashish, who deposed on behalf of LW8-Dr.Rajeshwar. Exs.P1 to P3 are the 161 Cr.P.C. statements of PWs 1 to 3 respectively, Ex.P4 is the signature of PW4 on scene of offence panchanama, Ex.P5 is the complaint, Ex.P6 is the First Information Report,

Ex.P7 is the scene of offence panchanama along with rough sketch and Ex.P8 is the injury certificate of PW5.

8.It is the evidence of the defacto complainant/PW5-Chinna Gangaram, who deposed that about 3 ½ years ago, at 10.00 a.m., his son LW5-

G.Abhilash, who is examined as PW6 had quarreled with one Vinod Kumar, who is the son of A1, infront of his house at Chandoor Village. Upon which, he intervened and separated them and A2 beat him with a stick on his head, due to which, he received injury on his head and fell unconscious.

Thereafter, PWs 2 and 1 took him to PS, where he lodged Ex.P5 complaint with the police, who referred him to Govt. Area Hospital, Bodhan. He further 19/03/2019 I AJMFC 4CC.No.302/2015 deposed that prior to this incident, a quarrel had took place between PW6 and Vinod Kumar in a school at Chandoor village.

9.Coming to the evidence of PW6-G.Abhilash. His evidence has disclosed a new fact, which happened one day prior to the alleged incident of this case, where he deposed that about 3 ½ years ago, at 10.00 a.m., one Prem Kumar, who is the son of A1, have spited on the floor by seeing him. Upon which,

PW6 questioned him as to why he spited by seeing him and Prem Kumar replied that it is none of your business and abused him in the name of his mother. Thereafter, the Prem Kumar held the collar of PW6, for which, he beat him and one Jyothi, who is the aunt of Prem Kumar, came and separated them. Thereafter, he along with his mother and younger sister came to

Bodhan to attend a function and one of the accused called his mother on phone and asked to return immediately, otherwise, he would kill his father.

Then, on the next day, when they returned at 11.00 a.m., to his house and while entering into their colony, the mother of A1 was abusing them and A1 held PW6’s collar and beat and pushed him a side. Thereafter, his father intervened and questioned A1 as to why he is beating his son PW6 and after that A2 came and beat PW6’s father i.e. PW5 with stick on his head, due to which, his father fell down on the floor and became unconscious. Post which, they went to the PS and lodged the complaint, where the police have referred them to Govt. Hospital, Bodhan. The complete evidence of PW6 that one

Prem Kumar spitted by seeing PW6 on the ground and that abused him in filthy language in the name of his mother and that Prem Kumar holded his collar and that one of the accused made a call to his mother to come down to their house immediately, otherwise, his father would be killed and that on the next day, when they were proceeding in the colony, the mother of A1 abused

PW6 and his family members and A1 caught hold the collar and beat and pushed PW6 was brought under omission by the defence counsel and the 19/03/2019 I AJMFC 5CC.No.302/2015 same omission was confronted to the Investigating Officer/PW7-G.Anjaiah, who also admitted that such fact was not stated by PW6 in his statement

before him.

10.The evidence of the defacto complainant i.e. PW5 is that PW6 was quarreling with one Vinod Kumar, who is the son of A1, and when he intervened and tried to separate them, A2 came and beat him with stick on his head. The evidence of his son i.e. PW6 is that there was a quarrel between him and Prem Kumar and his evidence does not disclose that he was quarreling with Vinod Kumar, who is the son of A1 instead it says that A1 holded the collar of PW6, beat him and pushed him and upon such incident, the father of PW6 intervened and hence, such alleged incident happened.

The evidence of the complainant and his son is not corroborating with the alleged commission of offence and is hitting the main root of the case. The evidence of PWs 5 and 6 corroborates with the injury caused to PW5 and further, the same is corroborating with the medical evidence. However, the variation in the material witnesses evidence does not make believe the Court that it is the alleged accused, who is said to have caused the injury. Further, when the other eye witnesses PW1-D.Sailoo, PW2-B.Gangamani and PW3-

D.Nadipi Gangaram have not supported the case of the prosecution and turned hostile and when the scene of offence is also not proved by the prosecution, as the panch for the scene of offence panchanama i.e. PW4-

H.Sailoo turned hostile, which creates a doubt in the mind of the Court about the happening of the incident by the alleged accused. The evidence of the

PW8-Dr.Ashish is that he worked with Dr.Rajeshwar, CAS in Govt. Area

Hospital, Bodhan, for 20 days and he can identify his signature and that on 14.10.2015, Dr.Rajeshwar received a requisition from SI of Police, Varni to examine G.Chinna Gangaram and he observed the laceration over right parietal region, which is simple injury. It is only the evidence of the 19/03/2019 I AJMFC 6CC.No.302/2015

Investigating Officer/PW7-G.Anjaiah, which is nothing but the chronological order of the event of the investigation, which speaks against the alleged accused. Though the injuries are proved by the prosecution caused toPW5, but due to no corroboration among the material witnesses of the prosecution that the incident caused to have done by the alleged accused. The prosecution failed to prove that such alleged injury to PW5iscaused by the alleged accused.

11.From the above discussion, the prosecution have failed to prove the guilt of the accused Nos.1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused Nos.1 and 2 are entitled for acquittal for the offence punishable

U/s.324 r/w 34 of the IPC. Thus, the point is answered accordingly in favour of the accused persons and against the prosecution.

12.In the result, the accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s.324 r/w 34 of the IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted U/s.248 (1) of the Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused persons shall stand discharged. The unmarked non valuable case property deposited into the Court, if any, shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over.

Partly dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her and partly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 19th day of March, 2019.

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE: PW1: (LW2)Dakidi Sailu.Eye witness.- None -

PW2: (LW3)Smt.B.Gangamani.Eye witness.

PW3: (LW4)D.Nadipi Gangaram.Eye witness.

PW4: (LW7)H.Sailoo.Panch witness for scene of offence panchanama.

19/03/2019 I AJMFC 7CC.No.302/2015

PW5: (LW1)G.Chinna Gangaram.Defacto complainant.

PW6: (LW5)G.Abhilash.Eye witness.

PW7: (LW9)G.Anjaiah, SI of Police. Investigating Officer.

PW8Dr.Asish.Deposed on behalf of LW8- Dr.Rajeshwar.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE: Ex.P1: Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1.- Nil - Ex.P2: Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2. Ex.P3: Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3. Ex.P4: Signature of PW4 on scene of offence panchanama. Ex.P5: Complaint. Ex.P6: First Information Report. Ex.P7: Scene of offence panchanama along with rough sketch. Ex.P8: Injury certificate of PW5.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil -

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan.

19/03/2019 I AJMFC 8CC.No.302/2015

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT (IN THE FORM OF CD)

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, BODHAN

CC.No.302 of 2015

1. Date of offence:15.10.2015.

2. Date of complaint:14.10.2015.

3. Date of apprehension:19.10.2015.

4. Date of release :19.10.2015.

5. Date of commencement of trial:07.11.2016.

6. Date of closure of trial:20.02.2019.

7. Date of Judgment:19.03.2019.

8. Explanation of delay or remarks:- -

Complainant:

The State through the Sub Inspector of Police, Varni.

Description of accused:

A1:Anumadi Sailoo S/o Saidaiah, age 37 yrs, Caste: Madiga, Occ: Labour, R/o. H.No.9-35, Chandoor (V) of Varni (M). A2:Anumadi Narsimloo S/o Saidaiah, age 31 yrs, Caste: Madiga, Occ: Labour, R/o. H.No.9-35/1, Chandoor (V) of Varni (M).

Offence Under Section: U/s.324 r/w 34 of the IPC.

Finding: Found not guilty.

Sentence : Acquitted.

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan.

To, The Hon’ble I Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

19/03/2019 I AJMFC

1 CC.No.159/2018

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

BODHAN

Present: Smt. Vindhya Naik, I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan.

Wednesday, this the 20th day of March, 2019

CC.No.159 of 2018

Between:

The State through the S.I. of Police, P.S. Yedapally.

.. Complainant

AND

Doli Anjan Kiran S/o Yadagiri, age 36 yrs, Caste: Bestha, Occ: Owner & Driver of Indica Vista Car bearing No.AP09VLTR-7141, R/o. H.No.11-12-1100, Warasiguda, Secunderabad.

.. Accused

This case is coming on 19-03-2019 before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of the learned Sr. A.P.P.O., for the State and of Sri T.Rajendranath Jadav, Advocate for the accused person and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

:: JUDGMENT ::

The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Yedapally has filed the charge sheet against the accused herein in Cr.No.10/2013 for the offence punishable

U/s.304-A of the IPC.

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

That on 22.01.2013, at 12.00 hours, the defacto complainant/LW1-Aity

Lingaboi came to the PS and lodged a complaint before the police, in which, he contended that his son Aity Datthu, who has taken the agriculture land on lease basis from one Uppu Santhosh, which is situated on the outskirts of

Jankampet village and cultivating maize crop. That on 22.01.2013, at about 5.30 a.m., his son Aity Datthu took his friend Bhaidi Gangadhar’s TVS XL Super

AP25AH-5437 and started to the agriculture land to channel water to maize crop and after that, at around 8.10 a.m., LW5-Mittapally Mahesh of Jankampet villager telephoned to the complainant by his son’s phone and informed him 20/03/2019I AJMFC 2 CC.No.159/2018 that at around 7.45 a.m., while his son Aity Datthu coming to Bodhan from

Janakampet on TVS XL Luna, on the way, when he reached Samskruthi Public

School at corner, situated on the outskirts of Maktha shivar, in the meantime, an Indica Vista Car bearing No.AP09VLTR-7141 proceeding towards Nizamabad from Bodhan and its driver drove the said car in a rash and negligent manner at the corner and gave dash to his son’s TVS XL, due to which, his son fell down on the road and sustained fracture injury to his right leg, injuries to beard, face and the blood oozing from ear and mouth and was shifted to Govt.

Civil Hospital for treatment, but the doctors declared that his son was dead.

On knowing the said information, the complainant along with his family members rushed to Govt. Hqrs. Hospital, Nizamabad and found the dead body of his son with the right leg fracture and grievous injuries on his beard, face and oozed blood from his ear and mouth. Hence, he requested to take necessary legal action against the said car driver. Basing on the above complaint, LW10-R.Krishna, SI of Police had registered a case in Cr.No.10/2013,

U/s.304-A of the IPC and took up the investigation. During the course of the investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of all the witnesses, conducted the scene of offence panchanama and drawn the rough sketch in the presence of LW6-Dheemere Sailu and LW7-Gundaram Shanker and he visited to Govt. Hqrs. Hospital, Nizamabad along with LWs 1, 6 and 7, conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of the above said mediators i.e. LWs 6 and 7, got photographed the dead body and subjected the dead body for PME. Later, on 23.01.2013, the accused came to the PS and surrendered before him, as such, he issued notice U/s.41-A of

Cr.P.C. to the accused and again on 24.01.2013, the accused surrendered himself before him and voluntarily confessed the guilty and he verified the vehicle documents and found it to be correct, as such, he affected the arrest of the accused and released him on bail after producing sufficient sureties. After obtaining the PME report and MVI report and after completion of the 20/03/2019I AJMFC 3 CC.No.159/2018 investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable Under Section 304-A of the IPC. Hence, the charge sheet.

3.The case was taken on file against the accused for the offence punishable Under Section 304-A of the IPC by my learned Predecessor. On appearance of the accused, the copies of all documents were furnished to him as required U/sec.207 of Cr.P.C. The accused was examined U/sec.251 Cr.P.C., by me and on hearing, the contents of Under Section 304-A of the IPC was read over and explained to him in vernacular language, for which he denied and claimed to be tried.

4.In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PWs 1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6 documents. After prosecution reported its evidence as closed, the accused was examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating material that appeared against him in the prosecution evidence. The accused was denied the prosecution evidence as being false and reported no defence evidence.

5.Heard both sides and perused the record.

6.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused

for the offence punishable U/s.304-A of the IPC and beyond

reasonable doubt?

7. POINT:To support the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined Pws 1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6 documents. Wherein,

PW1-Aity Lingaboi is the defacto complainant and father of the deceased and

PW2-R.Krishna, SI of Police is the Investigating Officer in this case. Ex.P1 is the complaint, Ex.P2 is the FIR, Ex.P3 is the scene of offence panchanama, Ex.P4 is the inquest report, Ex.P5 is the PME report and Ex.P6 is the MVI report.

8.The evidence of the defacto complainant i.e. PW1-A.Linga Boi that about 20/03/2019I AJMFC 4 CC.No.159/2018 six years ago, at 7.00 a.m., he received information over phone that his son

Dattu met with an accident at a distance of 3 KMs from Yedapally and thereafter, he was shifted to Govt. Hospital, Nizamabad and immediately, he rushed to Govt. Hospital, Nizamabad and found the dead body in the mortuary and thereafter, he went to the PS and lodged Ex.P1 complaint with the police.

The evidence of the Investigating Officer/PW2-Krishna, SI of Police, is nothing but the chronological order of the event of the investigation, he deposed that on 22.01.2013,, at 12.00 noon, PW1 came to the PS and lodged the complaint

before him and basing on it, he registered a case in Cr.No.10/2013, U/s.304-A

of the IPC and issued Ex.P2 FIR to all concerned, examined and recorded the statement of PW1 at PS, rushed to the scene of offence infront of Sanskrut

Public School, at the outskirt of Janakampet village, conducted Ex.P3 scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch, got photographed the scene in the presence of LW6-D.Sailoo and LW7-G.Shankar, rushed to Govt. Hospital,

Nizamabad along with Lws 6 and 7 and found the dead body of the deceased in the mortuary room, conducted Ex.P4 inquest panchanama over the dead body of the deceased A.Dathu in their presence, got photographed the dead body, examined and recorded the statements of LW2-A.Sayavva, LW3-

A.Anasuya, LW4-A.Gangamani and LW5-N.Mahesh and handed over the dead body to LW8-Dr.Shyam Sunder for PME and accordingly, LW8 conducted PME over the dead body of the deceased and opined that the death is caused due to road traffic accident and polytrama C hemorrhagic shock; that he filed requisition before LW9-Sk.Raja Mohamad, MVI for inspecting the crime vehicle and accordingly, he gave his opinion that the accident was caused not due to any mechanical defect of the vehicle. He further deposed that on 23.01.2013, the accused came to the PS and voluntarily surrendered before him, on that he served the notice U/s.41-A Cr.P.C to the accused and instructed him to appear

before the IO and produce sufficient sureties and that on 24.01.2013, at 11.00

a.m., the accused came to PS and voluntarily surrendered before him and he 20/03/2019I AJMFC 5 CC.No.159/2018 verified the original driving licence of the accused and other documents of crime vehicle and found to be correct, affected the arrest of the accused and enlarged him on bail after sufficient sureties and after collecting the documents, he laid the charge sheet. Ex.P5 is the PME report and Ex.P6 is the

MVI report. The defence counsel in his cross-examination have not denied to the death of the deceased by marking the PME report and inquest report. The prosecution could prove the death of the deceased, however, the prosecution could not connect the alleged accused with the said crime, since no material witness was brought by the prosecution to say that it is the alleged accused, who drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the death of the deceased by accident.

9.The learned Sr. APPO has given up the evidence of LWs 2 to 4 and 6 to 8.

The only eye witness to the case i.e. LW5-Mittapally Mahesh was closed by the learned Sr. APPO by fling a report that at present, the said person was not residing at the village.

10.Fromthe evidence put-forth by the prosecution,none of the prosecution have pointed out any alleged act against the alleged accused.

11.In a case law held in between GURUJALA RAMESH Vs. STATE OF A.P.

2003 (2) ALD (Crl.) 12 A.P. the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh has categorically held that when a Police Officer who detected the offence and arrested the accused, gave a report which was registered as FIR and the same officer investigated the case and filed the charge sheet, any conviction based on such investigation cannot be sustained.

12.It is only the evidence of the Investigating Officer/PW2, which is nothing but the chronological order of the event of the investigation, as there is no evidence against the accused on record. Thus, in the absence of any relevant evidence brought by the prosecution and in the absence of any corroborative 20/03/2019I AJMFC 6 CC.No.159/2018 with the evidence of the Investigating Officer/PW2, it is not safe to give conviction only on the basis of the evidence of the Investigating Officer/PW2.

13.From the above said discussion, the prosecution have failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused is entitled for acquittal for the offence punishable U/s.304-A of the IPC. The point is accordingly answered against the prosecution and in favour of the accused.

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

U/s.304-A of the IPC, and accordingly, he is acquitted U/s.255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand discharged. The unmarked non valuable case property deposited into the Court, if any, shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over.

Partly dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her and partly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 20th day of March, 2019.

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: PW1: (LW1) Aity Lingaboi. Defacto complainant and father of - None - the deceased.

PW2: (LW9) R.Krishna, Investigating Officer. SI of Police.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: Ex.P1: Complaint.- Nil - Ex.P2: First Information Report. Ex.P3: Scene of offence panchanama. Ex.P4: Inquest report. Ex.P5: PME report. Ex.P6: MVI report.

20/03/2019I AJMFC 7 CC.No.159/2018

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- NIL -

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan.

20/03/2019I AJMFC 8 CC.No.159/2018

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT(IN THE FORM OF PDF IN CD)

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, BODHAN

CC.No.159 of 2018

1. Date of offence:22.01.2013.

2. Date of complaint :22.01.2013.

3. Date of apprehension:24.01.2013.

4. Date of release :24.01.2013.

5. Date of commencement of trial:04.09.2018.

6. Date of closure of trial:14.03.2019.

7. Date of Judgment:20.03.2019.

8. Explanation of delay or remarks:- -

Complainant:

The State through Sub Inspector of Police, Yedapally.

Description of accused:

Doli Anjan Kiran S/o Yadagiri, age 36 yrs, Caste: Bestha, Occ: Owner & Driver of Indica Vista Car bearing No.AP09VLTR-7141, R/o. H.No.11-12-1100, Warasiguda, Secunderabad.

Offence Under Section: 304-A of the IPC.

Finding: Found not guilty.

Sentence : Acquitted.

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan.

To,

The Hon’ble I Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

20/03/2019I AJMFC

1CC.No.207/2018

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE AT

BODHAN

Present:- Smt. Vindhya Naik, I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan.

Monday, this the 18th day of March, 2019

C.C.No.207 of 2018

Between:

The State through the S.I. of Police, Proh. & Excise, SHO, Bodhan.

.. Complainant

And

*A1:Akkalagari Bala Mani W/o Late Akkalagari Narayan Goud, aged 63 years, House Wife, R/o. H.No.1-4-736, LBS Nagar, Bodhan, Dist. Nizamabad. A2:Shakarlavari Narender Reddy R/o. Dharmabad of Maharashtra. (*The accused No.1 was died and the case against the accused No.1 is abated on 07.02.2019)

.. Accused

This case is coming on 12-03-2019 before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of the learned Sr. APPO for the State and of Sri T.Rajendranath Jadav, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

:: JUDGMENT ::

1.The Proh. & Excise Sub-Inspector, Bodhan has filed charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable U/s.34 (a) of the

A.P. Excise Act, 1968 and Rule 4 (a) of A.P. C.H. Rules, 1973 in

COR.No.434/2014-15.

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

That on 13.11.2014, on receipt of reliable information regarding the illegal possession and sale of intoxicant substances (which are used to mix in the toddy) in the H.No.1-4-736, situaoted at LBS Nagar, near Jamkar Hospital,

Bodhan, LW3-N.Mahesh, Proh. & Excise Inspector, ESTF, Nizamabad and LW4-

M.Sindu, P&ESI, ESTF, Nizamabad along with their staff members by securing the presence of LW1-Bunnaka Sudarshan and LW2-Gunjari Nagaiah, panch witnesses, were proceeded to the said house at 1.30 p.m., and found one 18/03/2019 I AJMFC 2CC.No.207/2018 woman was present in the said house and on enquiry, she disclosed her name as Akkalagari Balamani, who is the accused No.1 in this case, on that,

Lws 3 and 4 served search memo on A1 and during the search, they found one gunny boag underneath of Sofa, which containing 30 Kgs of raw chloral hydrate, three gunny bags found in another room, each bag containing 30

Kgs of raw chloral hydrate and another packet containing 15 Kgs of chloral hydrate, totally 135 kgs of chloral hydrate and on further search, they also found 8 packets of white powder, which are used to mix in the toddy. On demand, the accused No.1 failed to produce any valid licence or permit for possession and stock the said contraband and she also stated that the said chloral hydrate was supplied by S.Narender Reddy, who is the accused No.2.

Then, Lws 3 and 4 conducted panchanama, seized the entire contraband, drawn two samples from each contraband, arrested the accused No.1 and handed over the investigation to LW5-M.Vijay, P&E SI, SHO Bodhan. Later,

LW5 registered the case against the accused under COR.No.434/2014-15, produced the accused No.1 before the Court for judicial remand and the accused No.2 was produced before the Court on 02.03.2016 on PT Warrant.

Further, he deposited the sample bottles into the Court with a request to send one of them for chemical analysis and after receiving the C.E. report, and after completion of the investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable U/s.34 (a) of the A.P.

Excise Act, 1968 and Rule 4 (a) of A.P. C.H. Rules, 1973.

3.The case was taken on file against the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable Under Section U/s.34 (a) of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 and

Rule 4 (a) of A.P. C.H. Rules, 1973 by me. On appearance of the accused

Nos.1 and 2, the copies of all the documents were furnished to them as required U/sec.207 of Cr.P.C. The accused No.1 was died and the case against the accused No.1 is abated on 07.02.2019. The accused No.2 was examined U/sec.239 Cr.P.C., and the charges were framed for the offences 18/03/2019 I AJMFC 3CC.No.207/2018 punishable U/s.34 (a) of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 and Rule 4 (a) of A.P. C.H.

Rules, 1973. The contents of the examination is read over and explained to him, for which he denied and claimed to be tried.

4.The prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P7 documents. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused No.2 was examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. for the incriminating material found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, he denied the same and reported that he is not having any defence witnesses to be examined on his behalf.

5.Heard both sides and perused the record.

6.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused No.2

for the offence punishable U/s.34 (a) of the A.P. Excise Act,

1968 and Rule 4 (a) of A.P. C.H. Rules, 1973 beyond reasonable

doubt for illegal possession of raw chloral hydrate and for

selling the same without having valid licence or permit?

7. POINT: The accused No.2 stood charged for the offences punishable U/s.34 (a) of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 and Rule 4 (a) of A.P. C.H.

Rules, 1973, for illegal possession and sale of Raw Chloral Hydrate without having any valid licence or permit from the Government.

8.In order to connect the accused No.2 with the crime, the prosecution has examined Pws 1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P7 documents, wherein,

PWs 2 and 4 are the panch witnesses, and Pws 1 and 3 are the Investigating

Officers, who detected the case, conducted panchanama, seized the contraband, registered the case, issued COR and arrested the accused and after completion of the investigation, filed the charge sheet against the accused.

9.PW2-N.Sudarshan and PW4-G.Nagaiah, who are the panch witnesses, deposed that about one year ago, Excise police obtained their signatures on 18/03/2019 I AJMFC 4CC.No.207/2018 the blank papers. The learned Sr. APPO declared Pws 2 and 4 as hostile and sought permission to the Court to cross examine the witnesses. Except marking of their signature under Exs.P3 and P7 respectively, nothing could be elicited in their cross examination to connect the accused with the alleged offence.

10.PW1-N.Mahesh, the P&EI of Police, deposed that on 13.11.2014, he received reliable information regarding the illegal sale and possession of

Intoxicant substance in a H.No.1-4-736, situated at LBS Nagar, Bodhan, he along with LW4-M.Sindhu and staff by securing the presence of LW1-

N.Sudarashan and LW2-G.Nagaiah rushed to the said house and found one women present in the house and on inquiry, she disclosed her name as

Akkalgari Balamani (A1) and he issued search memo to her under Ex.P1, and during the search, they found one Ganni bag under the sofa containing 30 kgs of raw chloral hydrate and 3 Gunny bags in an other room, each containing of 30 kgs of raw chloral hydrate and another packet containing 15 kgs of chloral hydrate, totally 135 kgs of chloral hydrate and on further search, they also found 8 packets of white power which are used in mixing toddy and A1 disclosed as the above stock was supplied by S.Narender

Reddy, who is the accused No.2, and he drawn two samples and seized the remaining contraband from the scene under a cover of panchanama under

Ex.P2 in the presence of LWs 1 and 2 and handed over the case property, panchanama and A1 to LW5-M.Vijay, P & E SI and he was accompanied by

LW4-M.Sindhu, P & E SI in all proceedings.

11.PW3-M.Vijay, P&E SI of Police, SHO, Bodhan, deposed that after receiving the case papers, sample bottles and the A1 from LW3 M.Sindhu, he registered the case in COR No.434/2014-15, U/s.34 (a) of AP Excise Act r/w 4

(a) of AP Chloral Hydrate Rules, 1973 and issued COR under Ex.P4 to all concerned, deposited the sample bottles before the Court with a requisition 18/03/2019 I AJMFC 5CC.No.207/2018 under Ex.P5 letter of advice to send one sample bottle for chemical examination and that A2 was remanded to judicial custody on 02.03.2016 and after receiving the CE report under Ex.P6 and after completion of the investigation, he laid the charge sheet.

12.From the above evidence, it is seen that Pws 2 and 4, who have alleged to have acted as panch witnesses for seizure of the property, have not supported the case of the prosecution and their evidence is hostile in nature and they have not stated anything about the case. Pws 1 and 3, who are the

Investigating Officers, whose evidence goes procedural in nature have failed to examine any of the neighbouring witnesses of the alleged toddy shop to ascertain whether the accused was found in illegal possession of the said toddy. Further, the evidence of Pws 1 and 3 is not helpful to the case of the prosecution, as it is procedural in nature and the prosecution has failed to mark the sample bottles also.

13.In view of the hostility of the evidence of the mediators for confession and seizure of property from the possession of the accused person and in view of the infirmities discussed supra, it is not safe to rely upon the uncorroborated testimony of Pws 1 and 3 to base the conviction of the accused No.2. Therefore, I hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused No.2 for the offences punishable U/s.34 (a) of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 and Rule 4 (a) of A.P. C.H. Rules, 1973 beyond all reasonable doubt. Consequently, I find that the accused No.2 is not guilty for the offences, with which he stood charged. The point is accordingly answered against the prosecution and in favour of the accused.

14. In the result, the accused No.2 is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/s.34 (a) of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 and Rule 4 (a) of A.P. C.H.

Rules, 1973 and accordingly, he is acquitted U/s.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused No.2 shall stand discharged. The unmarked non 18/03/2019 I AJMFC 6CC.No.207/2018 valuable case property deposited into the Court, if any, shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over. The accused No.1 was died and the case against the accused No.1 is abated on 07.02.2019.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 18th day of March, 2019.

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW1: (LW3) K.Ramulu, P&EI, SHO, Bodhan. Investigating Officer.- None -

PW2: (LW1) Gone Pochaiah.Panch witness.

PW3: (LW2) Siddolla Hanmandlu.Panch witness.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P1: Search memo.- Nil - Ex.P2: Seizure panchanama. Ex.P3: COR. Ex.P4: Letter of advice. Ex.P5: Chemical examiner report. Ex.P6: Signature of PW2 on panchanama. Ex.P7: Signature of PW3 on panchanama.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- NIL -

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan.

18/03/2019 I AJMFC 7CC.No.207/2018

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT (IN THE FORM OF C.D.)

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, BODHAN

C.C.No.207 of 2018

1. Date of offence:13.11.2014.

2. Date of complaint:13.11.2014.

3. Date of apprehension: A1: 13.11.2014,

A2: 02.03.2016.

4. Date of release :A1: 17.11.2014,

A2: 18.03.2016.

5. Date of commencement of trial: 14.02.2019.

6. Date of closure of trial:28.02.2019.

7. Date of Judgment:18.03.2019.

8. Explanation of delay or remarks: --

Complainant:

The State through S.I. of Police, Proh.& Excise, SHO, Bodhan.

Description of the accused:

*A1:Akkalagari Bala Mani W/o Late Akkalagari Narayan Goud, aged 63 years, House Wife, R/o. H.No.1-4-736, LBS Nagar, Bodhan, Dist. Nizamabad. A2:Shakarlavari Narender Reddy R/o. Dharmabad of Maharashtra. (*The accused No.1 was died and the case against the accused No.1 is abated on 07.02.2019)

Offence Under Section: U/s.34 (a) of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 and Rule 4 (a) of A.P. C.H. Rules, 1973.

Finding: Found not guilty.

Sentence :Acquitted.

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan .

To,

The Hon’ble I Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

18/03/2019 I AJMFC

1CC.No.60/2018

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, AT

BODHAN

Present: Smt. Vindhya Naik, I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan.

Wednesday, this the 20th day of March, 2019

CC.No.60 of 2018

Between:

The State through the S.I. of Police, P.S. Yedapally.

.. Complainant

AND

Samala Anjani Kumar S/o Anjaneyulu, age 27 yrs, Caste: Munnurkapu, Occ: LIC Agent, R/o. H.No.3-24, Pocharam village of Yedapally Mandal.

.. Accused

This case is coming on 19-03-2019 before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of the learned Sr. APPO for the complainant and Sri B.Mohan Kumar, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Yedapally has filed the charge sheet against the accused herein for the offences punishable U/s.448, 506, 323 and 290 of the IPC in Cr.No.152/2013.

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

That on 28.10.2013, at 9.00 p.m., the defacto complainant/LW1-

Smt.Rasuri Balamma came to the PS and lodged a complaint, in which, she contended that on 22.10.2013, at 6.30 a.m., she woke up and came outside to sweep the courtyard and found the grass and dung of the buffalos of one

Shyamala Laxmi, whose house is situated opposite to her house and the family members of said Laxmi tied the she buffalos beside their house and on noticing the grass and dung, she asked Shyamala Laxmi to sweep half of the courtyard, which is occupying the road, but, she could not sweep the same.

At the same time, Shyamala Laxmi’s son by name Shyamala Anil Kumar, who is squeezing milk, threw the milk vessel on her, but she escaped from it and 20/03/2019 I AJMFC 2CC.No.60/2018 went inside, but the said Anil Kumar abused the complainant in filthy language and criminally trespassed into her house and dragged her outside from the house by holding her hair and beat her with hands and kicked her with legs and also threatened her with dire consequences to kill her, if she again questioned them in connection with the grass and dung and one LW2-

Guntha Mogulaiah and LW3-Sunnapu Ashok, who tried to interfere to rescue her, but he left the place. She further submitted that the delay caused in giving the report, due to the absence of her husband. Hence, she requested to take necessary legal action against the accused. Basing on the said complaint, LW6-R.Krishna, SI of Police has registered a case in

Cr.No.152/2013, U/s.448, 506, 323 and 290 of the IPC and investigated into.

During the course of the investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of all the witnesses, conducted the scene of offence panchanama by means of rough sketch in the presence of LW4-Neeradi Ravi Kumar and

LW5-Kotta Lasmaiah and later, on 04.11.2013, he issued notice U/s.41-A

Cr.P.C. to the accused, who came to the PS on 05.11.2013 and surrendered voluntarily before him and on interrogation, he confessed about the commission of offence and later, he was released on bail after producing sufficient sureties. After completion of the investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/s.448, 506, 323 and 290 of the IPC. Hence, the charge sheet.

3.The case was taken on file against the accused for the offences punishable U/s.448, 506, 323 and 290 of the IPC by my learned Predecessor.

On appearance of the accused persons, copies of all the documents were furnished to him as required U/s.207 of Cr.P.C. The accused was examined

U/s.251 of Cr.P.C., for the offences punishable U/s.448, 506, 323 and 290 of the IPC by me and the contents of it were read over and explained to him in vernacular language, for which he denied and claimed to be tried.

20/03/2019 I AJMFC 3CC.No.60/2018

4.In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined

PWs 1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5 documents. After prosecution reported its evidence as closed, the accused was examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C, explaining the incriminating material that appeared against him, for which, he denied the prosecution evidence as being false and reported no defence evidence.

5.Heard both sides and perused the record.

6.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable U/s.448, 506, 323 and 290 of the IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

7. POINT:To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution have examined PWs 1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5 documents. Wherein,

PW1-Guntha Mogulaiah and PW2-Sunnapu Ashok are the eye witnesses and

PW3-R.Krishna, SI of Police, who is the Investigating Officer in this case.

Exs.P1 and P2 are the Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements of PWs 1 and 2 respectively. Ex.P3 is the complaint, Ex.P4 is the First Information Report and

Ex.P5 is the scene of offence and seizure panchanama.

8.The evidence of the defacto complainant/LW1-Smt.Rasuri Balamma was closed on filing of the death certificate by the Police Officer. Coming to the evidence of the eye witnesses to the case i.e. PW1-G.Mogulaiah and PW2-

S.Ashok, who have not supported the prosecution case and were declared as hostile by the learned Sr. APPO, where, their 161 Cr.P.C. statements were marked under Exs.P1 and P2 respectively and they have not submitted any allegation alleged to have committed by the alleged accused and did not support the case of the prosecution. The evidence of LWs 4 and 5 were given up by the learned Sr. APPO.

20/03/2019 I AJMFC 4CC.No.60/2018

9.It is the evidence of PW3-Krishna, who is the Investigating Officer, whose evidence is chronological order of the event of the investigation. As per him, on 28.10.2013, at 9.00 p.m., LW1-R.Balamma came to the PS and lodged Ex.P3 complaint before him and basing on it, he registered a case in

Cr.No.152/2013, U/s.447, 506, 323, 220 of the IPC and issued Ex.P4 FIR to all concerned, examined and recorded the statement of LW1 in PS and on 29.10.2014, he visited the scene of offence, situated at Pocharam village, conducted Ex.P5 scene of offence and seizure panchanama in the presence of LW4-N.Ravi Kumar and LW5-K.Laxmaiah, examined and recorded the statements of Pws 1 and 2 and Pws 1 and 2 stated as in Exs.P1 and P2. He further deposed that on 04.11.2013, he served the notice U/s.41-A Cr.P.C to the accused, who complied the same, as such he was not arrested and on that on 05.11.2013, at 11.00 a.m., the accused surrendered before the SHO and on interrogation, he confessed to have committed the offence, later, he affected his arrest and was released on bail after execution of personal bond and sureties and after completion of the investigation, he laid the charge sheet.

10.Fromthe evidence put-forth by the prosecution,none of the prosecution have pointed out any alleged act against the alleged accused.

11.In a case law held in between GURUJALA RAMESH Vs. STATE OF

A.P. 2003 (2) ALD (Crl.) 12 A.P. the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh has categorically held that when a Police Officer who detected the offence and arrested the accused, gave a report which was registered as FIR and the same officer investigated the case and filed the charge sheet, any conviction based on such investigation cannot be sustained.

12.It is only the evidence of the Investigating Officer/PW3, which is nothing but the chronological order of the event of the investigation, as there is no 20/03/2019 I AJMFC 5CC.No.60/2018 evidence against the accused on record. Thus, in the absence of any relevant evidence brought by the prosecution and in the absence of any corroborative with the evidence of the Investigating Officer/PW3, it is not safe to give conviction only on the basis of the evidence of the Investigating

Officer/PW3.

13.Therefore, from the above discussion, the prosecution have not proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal for the offences punishable U/s.448, 506, 323 and 290 of the IPC. Thus, the point is answered accordingly in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

14.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable

U/s.448, 506, 323 and 290 of the IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted U/s.255 (1) of the Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand discharged. The unmarked non valuable case property deposited into the Court, if any, shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 20th day of March, 2019.

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE: PW1: (LW2) Guntha Mogulaiah.Eye witness.- None -

PW2: (LW3) Sunnapu Ashok.Eye witness.

PW3: (LW6) R.Krishna, Investigating Officer. ASI of Police.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE: Ex.P1: Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1.- Nil - Ex.P2: Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2. Ex.P3: Complaint. Ex.P4: First information report. Ex.P5: Scene of offence and seizure panchanama.

20/03/2019 I AJMFC 6CC.No.60/2018

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil -

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan.

20/03/2019 I AJMFC 7CC.No.60/2018

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT (IN THE FORM OF CD)

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, BODHAN

CC.No.60 of 2018

1. Date of offence:22.10.2013.

2. Date of complaint:28.10.2013.

3. Date of apprehension:05.11.2013 & 13.11.2018.

4. Date of release :05.11.2013 & 15.11.2018.

5. Date of commencement of trial:20.02.2019.

6. Date of closure of trial:14.03.2019.

7. Date of Judgment:20.03.2019.

8. Explanation of delay or remarks:- -

Complainant:

The State through the Sub Inspector of Police, Yedapally.

Description of accused:

Samala Anjani Kumar S/o Anjaneyulu, age 27 yrs, Caste: Munnurkapu, Occ: LIC Agent, R/o. H.No.3-24, Pocharam village of Yedapally Mandal.

Offence Under Section: U/s.448, 506, 323 & 290 of the IPC.

Finding: Found not guilty.

Sentence : Acquitted.

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan.

To, The Hon’ble I Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

20/03/2019 I AJMFC