The High Court · 2025

2. Penumuri Nandan Reddy, S/o. Keshava Reddy, Aged aboul42 Years, Occ. Govt. Employee, Rio. Flat No. 304, Rukhmini Apartment, Srinagar Colony, Nizamabad. ...RespondenURespondenUAccused No.1 Counsel for the Petitioner :Sri T Srujan Kumar Reddy Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : - - - The Court made the following: ORDER -7 1 I THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DE\/ EADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.334 OF 2C 25 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed to set asid,: the judgment daled 27.03.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No.09 : 2024 by lhe learned Sessions Judge at Nizamabad (for short "app -'llate Court"), confirming the judgment dated 06.02.2024 in Calenderr Case No.883 of 2017 by the learned I Additional Junior Civi Judge-cum-l Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizama rad (for short 'the trial Court').

2. The case of the prosecution before the trial C;, ,urt is that the complainant and accused No.1 were living in Rukl^ r tini Apartment located at Srinagar Colony and some disputes aros€ )etween ihem, due to which accused No. 1 used to quarrel with Lv /1/complainant and used to send vulgar messages through whatseJp and that the complainant was looking after the maintenance o1 :he apartment. That on 16.07 2017, while accused No.'l was parkirl his car across other vehicles, the watchman of the apartment hrr: asked him to park his vehicle properly, on which accused Nc.1 has refused to do it and asked the watchman to inform the matter to the c rmplainant. As such the watchman informed the same to the comp r inant and when ') the complainant went to accused No.1 and questioned him, he along with his brother-in_law i.e. accused No.2 abused him in filthy language and beat him with hands and threatened to kill him. As such, the complainant has lodged a complaint before Town_lV police Station, Nizamabad.

3. The matter was investigated by the police and charge sheet was filed. The cognizance was taken by the triar court for the offences under Sections 290, 323, 506 and S07 reacl with Section 34 of the lndian penal Code (for short ,lpC,) against accused Nos..l and

4. Since the whereabouts of accused No.2 were not known, based on the report submitted by the police an NBW was issued against accused No.2 and the case was split up againsl accused No.2 vide C.C.No.1249 of 2022.

5. Then after due procedure, the trial Court has completed the trial by examining pWs j to 4 and marking the documents under Exs.Pl to p3. on evaluating the evidence on record, the triar court has acquitted accused No..l as he was found not guilty for the alleged offences vide judgment daled 06.02.2024. , I 3

6. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the de facto con plainant has preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court, Nizarr rbad and on hearing both the counsel, the appeal was also c ismissed by confirming the judgment of the trial Court on 27.03.20',a i Aggrieved by the said judgment of dismissal, the present revisi<rr is preferred by the de facfo complainant.

7. Heard the submissions of Sri T.Srujan Kumar Fl. rddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner. None apptri red for the respondent inspite of service of notice. B. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner s- tmits that the trial Court has not appreciated the deposition of PV/ | in a proper perspective and that the judgment of acquittal rende'r d by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court are totall/ perverse and wrong. He further pointed out that the deposition cf PW1 itself is enough to convict the accused and hence, prayed trt set aside the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court and alsr the appellate Court and convict the accused.

9. Perused the record 4 r) \.\

10. The record disctoses that pWs 1 to 4 were examined by the trial Court. pWl is lhe de facto complainant. His evidence reveals that he used to look after the maintenance of the apartment and that there was water leakage of the flat of accused No.1 and due to the said issue, the differences arose between both of them and that accused No.1 used to quarrel with him on petty issues, used to abuse him in firthy ranguage and send awkward messages to his whatsapp. on 16.0r.2017, he parked his car in front of other vehicle which caused problem to the other vehicles and when watchman has requested him to park it in a ce(ain direction, accused No.1 did not listen to him and that when the watchman informed pW1, he questioned accused No..l , on which he started abusing him in filthy language and also threatened him with dire consequences. lmmediately, he went to the police station and lodged a complaint against him. ln his cross examination, he admitted that he has not submitted any messages alleged to have been sent by accused No.1 before the Court.

11. ln support of the case of pWj, he got examined pWs 2 to 4. PW2 is one Raju, who is acquainted with pW1 and accused No..l . ln his evidence, he stated that when he learnt about the quarrel between accused No.1 and pW1 on 16.07 .2011, he went to the said 7 apartment and saw that accused No.1 raised his harr I over pW1 . Upon which, PW1 went to police station and lodged .l e complaint. The said statement does not figure in the evidence o. )W1. When PW1 himself is the de facfo complainant, he has nc . uttered the above said statement. He simply said that accusii,d No.1 has abused him but PW2 says that accused No.1 has rei;ed his hand over PW1 .

12. PW3 is one K.Srikanth, who is a witness for sc: te of offence panchanama. ln his cross examination, it is elicited tr lt he used to run a bakery beside the said Rukmini apartment, wi":re the pW1 used to live '13. PW4 is the Sub-lnspector of Police who filed th,: charge sheet before the Court. His evidence discloses that the c tmplaint was lodged after three days of the incident. Thus, pWl lt s relied upon his evidence and the evidence of his friend/PW2.

14. As discussed above, a contradiction was m€ de out on a comparison of the evidence of pws 1 and 2. pW1 fa I rd to examine the watchman. According to pW1 , watchman/Sailu u as present at the tirne of alleged incident in their apartments and ilt rt it is only on rearning*frq1n sairu about the wrong parking of the ca ,n1ryt ./ 6 and questioned accused No.1, on which gallata has taken place but for the reasons best known to pW1 , Sailu was not examined in this case. Moreover the above said discrepancy is observed in his statement compared to that of pW2 and apart from which, there is no clinching evidence let in by the prosecution to hold that the accused has committed the offence The offences charged are under Sections 290, 323, 506 and 507 of lpC.

15. The said provisions are exfracted hereunder for the sake of reference "290. .Punishment for public nuisance in cases not otherwise provided for.-Whoever commits a public nuisance in any case not otherwise punishable by this Code, shall be punisneJ'witfr flne which may extend to two hundred rupees.

323. Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt._Whoever, except rn the case provided for by section 334, vJluntarily "rr."" hu.t, .nrtt De puntshecl with imprisonment of either description for a term whrch may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. -maf

506. Punishment for criminal intimidation._Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be prnohuO *,ti, imprisonment of either description for a term which extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; lf threat be to cause death or graevous hurt, etc._and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or 1o cause tne destruction of..any property Uy tire, or to'cause- a-ri offence punrshabte with death or g[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ."run l"rr",. o, to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punisheO wittr inifirsonment of either description for a term which may extend to ."r"?., yurr., or. with fine, or with both. ,7 7

507. Criminal intimidation by an anonymous communi(:i tion.- Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidatior by an anonymous communication, or having taken precaution tc )onceal the name or abode of the person from whom the threat contr s, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a ter 1 which may extend to two years, in addition to the punishment prc\ ded for the offence by th6 last preceding section_' 16 To attract the ingredients of Section 323 of lpC tiere should be hurt but in this case, PW1 himself has not stated an,r .ring saying that the accused No.'l has hurt him in any manner. ln l.le absence of which, nothing can be held against the accusr d to have committed the said offence.

17. Section 290 of IPC public nuisance refers to nt sance in a public place. The scene of offence is the parkinJ area in a residential building and the evidence does not pointr:r out that it caused public nuisance in any manner, therefore, the ;aid offence also does not get attracted and with regard to the threil ening made by the accused, PW1 himself has admitted that he has r ot produced any other evidence including alleged whatsapp messa Jes sent by the accused. There is no other evidence but for the self serving testimony of PWs 1 and 2 and therefore, the offerr ,es charged against the accused were not proved. Hence, the tri; I Court was right in acquitting the accused and the appellate C,t rrt also has rightly appreciated the record and has dismissed the i ppeal. This 8 court finds no merit in the arguments of the rearned counser for the revision petitioner and there is nothing to interfere with the concurrent findings arrived at by the trial court and the appelrate Court '18. ln the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed SD/- V.KAVITHA DEPUW REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Sessions Judge, Nizamabad 2. The lAdditional Junior Civil Judge-Cum-l Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Nizamabad

3. The station House Officer Nizamabad lV Town police Station, Nizamabad 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Cdurt for the State of Tetangana at Hyderabad (OUT)

5. One CC to SRI T SRUJAN KUMAR REDDY, Advocate IOPUCJ €. Two CD Copies ADK/PSL Yk HIGH COURT DATED:0210912025 ORDER CRLRC.No.334 of 2025 o O -t- t a( SHT E \. oi. ? 1 0 ]AN I lsn4T6prFf t ----.'-- DISMISSING THE CRLRC q ,€^ #.. €