Sri. A.Jagadeesh Chandra Rao

1 Spl SC 15 / 2008

In the court of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Chittoor.

Present: Sri A. JAGADEESH CHANDRA RAO, I Additional Sessions Judge.

Wednesday, the 13 th (Thirteenth) day of April, 2016.

Spl.SC.No.15 of 2008

Private complaint filed by E.Rajamma.

Complainant E.Rajamma, W/o Poojaraiah, Hindu, aged 49 years, House wife and living by coolie work, residing at Yanada colony, Mittameda Rachapalle village, Pulicherla Mandal. Accused 1.T.Subramanyam, aged 48 years, S/o not known,

2.M.Jayachandra Reddy, aged 49 years, S/o Pulla Reddy,

3.M.Jaganmohan Reddy, aged 34 years, S/o Balachandra Reddy, A2 and A3 are residing at Mittameeda rachapalle village, Pulicherla Mandal, Chittoor District.

4.T.Eswaramma, aged 40 years, W/o T.Subramanyam,

5.A.Ravi, aged 35 years, s/o Somarajulu,

6.A.Nirmala, aged 30 years, W/o Ravi,

7.Singarapalli Subramanyam, S/o Govindu, aged 40 years, (Split up and numbered as Spl.SC.No.21/2012 pending)

8.S.Surendra @ Suir, aged 37 years, S/o Govindu,

9.E.Chinnabba, aged 46 years, S/o Nadipanna, A1, A4 to A9 are residing at Yanadi Colony, Mittameeda rachapalle Post, Pulicherla Mandal, Chittoor District.

The prosecution is Sri K.S.Jayaram, conducted by Additional Public Prosecutor for State The accused are defended by Sri B.Nagaraja, advocate for accused.

OFFENCE U/ Secs.448, 323, 354, 436, 509 r/w 149 IPC and Sec.3 (i) (x) of SC/ST Act. Charges U/Secs.448, 323, 354, 436 IPC and Sec.3 (i) (x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. Plea of the accused Not guilty

Finding of court Not guilty 2 Spl SC 15 / 2008

Sentence or order In the result, A1 to A6 and A8 and A9 are found not guilty for the offence U/Secs.448, 323, 354, 436 IPC and Sec.3 (i) (x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 and they are acquitted for the said offences U/sec.235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall continue to be in force for a period of 6 months as per the provisions of 437-A of Cr.P.C. Case against A7 is pending in Spl.SC.No.21/2012.

This case is coming on 06.04.2016 before me for final hearing and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K.S.Jayaram, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri B.Nagaraja, advocate for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. One E.Rajamma filed a private complaint before learned Judicial

Magistrate of I Class, Pakala.

2. Briefly the averments of the private complaint are that on 10.10.2007 at about 8.30 am while the complainant was sitting in front of her house, A1 came to her house in intoxication condition and started abusing the complainant in filthy language. Then the complainant went into her house and locked the house due to fear of A1. Meanwhile, A2 and A3 came to the complainant’s house, A1 abused the complainant in filthy language, A4 to

A9 also came to the complainant’s house and created dangerous atmosphere. A2 directed A1 to bring the complainant to the street. A1 highhandedly broke opened the door, trespassed into the house and taken the complainant to the street. When complainant requested A2 and A3, A2 abused her in her caste name. A2 removed the saree of the complainant.

A3 torn her jacket and pushed her into the street. Meanwhile, A1 intended to outrage her modesty. A4 and A5 are beaten her with their hands and A3 is kicked the complainant on her back side. At the instance of A2 and A3,

A1, A6 to A9 taken the complainant’s body in their hands and processed the complainant like a dead body. Complainant was detained without any dress. A1 destroyed the house of complainant by fire. When the 3 Spl SC 15 / 2008 complainant’s husband and her son reached the house, A2 and A3 abused them in their caste name. Then complainant went to Kallur Police Station and reported the matter but the police has not taken any action. Hence, she presented the private complaint.

3. Sworn statement of the complainant and her witnesses were recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Pakala and took cognizance for the offence under Secs.448, 323, 354, 436 IPC and under

Sec.3 (1) (iii) and (x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. After appearance of the accused, the case is committed to this Court. Case against A7 is split up and numbered as Spl.SC 21/2012. On appearance of other accused and on hearing the prosecution and counsel for A1 to A6 and A8 and A9 chargers were framed U/Secs.448, 323, 354, 436 IPC and Sec.3 (i) (x) of SC/ST (POA)

Act, 1989, read over, explained to them, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. During the course of trial, it is reported that complainant and her husband were dead, hence the remaining witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW3.

5. Accused during the examination under Sec.313 Cr.P.C filed written statement stating that they are filing certified copy of FIR in Cr.No.85/2007 given by PW1 against the accused wherein he admitted that the present case is filed in retaliation to complaint in Cr.No.75/2007 of Kallur PS.

6. Now the points for determination are:

1. Whether accused trespassed into the house of Rajamma, beat and caused injuries to her?

2. Whether Rajamma was disrobed by accused thus out raged her modesty?

3. Whether accused abused Rajamma, her husband and others in their caste name?

4. Whether prosecution has proved the offence U/Secs.448, 323, 354,

436 IPC and Sec.3 (i) (x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 against the accused

beyond all reasonable doubt?

4 Spl SC 15 / 2008

7. Arguments:

The learned APP argued that the complainant and her husband died but the evidence of PW1 to PW3 is cogent, corroborative. They have categorically stated that accused beat the complainant, her husband and son, abused them in their caste name, removed the cloths of the complainant and outraged her modesty. Prosecution proved the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, hence accused may be punished.

8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused argued that after case was registered against PW1 and others in Cr.No.75/2007. The complainant to save PW1 and others presented a false complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Pakala with false averments. PW1 in his 161 Cr.P.C statement in Cr.No.85/2007 of Kallur PS categorically admitted that the present case is filed in retaliation to Cr.No.75/2007.

Admittedly the complainant in this case is not the accused in

Cr.No.75/2007. If really, accused are intended to file false case, they would have certainly impleaded the complainant also as an accused in that case.

PW1 and others approached accused for compromise, accordingly the case in Cr.No.75/2007 was compounded but complainant party given go-bye to the compromise and continued the proceedings in PRC 8/2007. Accused already filed certified copy of compromise petition in Cr.No.75/2007 wherein it was specifically agreed that both parties entered into compromise but the complainant party given go-bye to the compromise but prosecuted this case due to instigation of opponent group of A1 and

A2. PW1 admitted in this case that Narashimulu Naidu helped them to get bail in this case. There are material contradictions and omission in the evidence of PW1 to PW3. The complaint is not at all marked. When the complainant is not examined on the ground that she died, the complaint and her sown statement cannot be used as substantial piece of evidence.

The court is at liberty to summon the case diary of other cases under Sec.91

Cr.P.C for contradicting the prosecution witnesses and cited decisions 5 Spl SC 15 / 2008 reported in 1997 SCC (Crl) 1068 between Harkirat Singh v. State of Punjab and 1999 SCC (Crl) 611 between State of Kerala v. Babu and others.

9. PW1 who is the son of the complainant stated about 7 years back at 8.00 am, when his mother was at her house, all the accused came near to her mother’s house, tied her to a pole abused her in her caste name. When his father asked about the high handed act of the accused, they beat his father. Accused also abused and beat him. Elders in the village came and separated them. PW1 did not state in his sworn statement that his father was also beat by the accused. PW1 in his sworn statement stated that

before they reached to police station other party was present and no justice

was done to him but in his cross examination stated that he did not state that by the time they went to police station, A2 was already present in the police station. PW1 admitted a case was registered against them on the complaint of A1 alleging that they beat A1 on 10.10.2007 at 9.00 am and police also arrested them and they obtained bail in that case. PW1 denied that he entered into compromise in that case. Accused filed certified copy of Crl.MP 1220/2008 dt.30.09.2005 in CC 106/2007 wherein it was mentioned that both parties entered into compromise in CC 106/2007 and

PRC 8/2007. Accordingly, the compromise was recorded and A1 to A5 in

CC 106/2007 were acquitted under Sec.320 (8) Cr.P.C. The contents of the

petition clearly shows that PW1 and her husband Poojaraiah and others signed in the application filed to compound the offence in CC 106/2007. It appears as the defacto complainant is not the accused in CC 106/2007 and as no compromise could be recorded in PRC 8/2007, compromise was not recorded in this case. PW1 denied about the compounding of the offence in CC 106/2007 to the reasons best known to him. PW1 admitted that he presented a complaint in Cr.N.85/2007. PW1 denied that he stated in his 161 Cr.P.C statement in Cr.No.85/2007 that Narayanaswamy Naidu helped them to get bail in Cr.No.75/2007 and as Jayachandra Reddy unnecessarily got filed complaint through A1 against them, they presented complaint against Jayachandra Reddy that he abused them in their caste name. PW1 admitted about the political rivalry between Jayachandra Reddy (A2) in 6 Spl SC 15 / 2008 this case and Narayanaswamy Naidu. He also admitted that Reddeppa, advocate who presented private complaint before Pakala Court is relative of Narayanaswamy Naidu.

10. PW2 who is the maternal uncle of PW1 stated on 10.10.2007 between 8.00 to 8.30 am he went to the house of his elder sister and found that all the accused were assaulting Rajamma and abusing her. When he questioned the accused, he was also abused by the accused. PW2 further stated that Rajamma was tied to a pole on the ground that she did not work in the house of A2, villagers intervened and separated them. PW2 stated

Rajamma and Poojaraiah sustained injuries but they were not sent to government hospital by police. Rajamma and Poojaraiah did not admit themselves in any hospital. PW2 denied that he is A4 in Cr.No.75/2007.

The certified copy of charge sheet filed by the accused in CC.No.106/2007 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Pakala shows that A.Chinabba

S/o Narayana resident of Thalupulapalle near Patoor is A4. PW2 stated that he is resident of Patoor. PW2 in his sworn statement did not state that

Rajamamm was tied to a pole. PW2 admitted that the villagers who separated them and accused includes other caste people.

11. PW3 younger brother of PW1 stated that on 10.10.2007 at about 8.30 am, A2 and A3 accompanied by other accused came to his mother’s house and tied her to a pole and removed her saree. A2 and A3 abused his mother. All the accused beat his mother. They went to police station and his mother presented a report but no action was taken by the police. After 2 days they went to Pakala court and presented complaint. PW3 in his cross examination admitted that on the complaint of A1, a case was registered against them and they were arrested in that case and obtained bail. PW3 stated that his parents did not sustain bleeding injuries, they did not go to hospital. He admitted that by the time they went to police station,

A1 and A2 were already present. He denied the suggestion that he stated in his 161 Cr.P.C statement in Cr.No.85/2007 to the effect that there are disputes and factions between Narayanaswamy Naidu and Jayachandra 7 Spl SC 15 / 2008

Reddy and as Jayachandra Reddy supported A1 in Cr.No.75/2007,

Narayanswamy Naidu supported them and on that they presented a complaint against Jayachandra Reddy alleging that he abused them in their caste name. PW3 stated in his sworn statement that accused threatened to pour kerosene and set fire to them but this fact was not stated by PW1 to

PW3 in their evidence.

12. PW1 to PW3 admitted in their evidence that elders in the village rescued them from the hands of accused. PW1 to PW3 did not state the names of the elders who rescued them. The names of the elders are not mentioned in the complaint. No effort was made by PW1 to PW3 to examine the elders who witnessed the incident. The certified copy of

CC.No.106/2007 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Pakala shows

that PW1 to PW3 in this case are A1, A3 and A4 respectively. The said charge sheet was filed on the complaint of T.Subramanyam who is A1 in this case. The case was ended in compromise before Lok-Adalat. But the said fact was denied due to the reasons best known to PW1 to PW3. The certified copy of Cr.No.85/2007 was registered on the complaint of PW1.

The contents of the statement of PW1 shows that there are ill feelings between them and A2. So PW1 to PW3 are interested witnesses. If really, late Rajamma, complainant in this case was dragged from the house and tied to a pole and beat by 9 persons indiscriminately she would have certainly received some visible injuries. No explanation was given as to why the injured did not go to hospital for treatment. Cr.No.75/2007 was registered on 11.10.2007 whereas the private complaint was filed into the

Court on 25.10.2007 i.e., after 14 days after registering of Cr.No.75/2007.

No documentary evidence is placed to prove that complainant, PW1 and

PW3 went to police station but police have not taken action on their report.

It is not safe to rely upon the evidence of PW1 to PW3 who are close relatives in the absence of independent evidence that-to when there are case and counter cases filed between the parties. Non examination of independent witnesses is fatal to the case of prosecution.

8 Spl SC 15 / 2008

13. In view of the above reasons, I am of the considered view prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and they are entitled for acquittal.

14. In the result, A1 to A6 and A8 and A9 are found not guilty for the

offence U/Secs.448, 323, 354, 436 IPC and Sec.3 (i) (x) of SC/ST (POA) Act,

1989 and they are acquitted for the said offences U/sec.235 (1) Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of accused shall continue to be in force for a period of

6 months as per the provisions of 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Case against A7 is pending in Spl.SC.No.21/2012.

Typed to my Dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 13thday of April, 2016.

Sd/-A.Jagadeesh Chandra Rao.

I Additional Sessions Judge, Chittoor. Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined

NIL

Sd/-A.Jagadeesh Chandra Rao.

I Additional Sessions Judge,

Chittoor.

1 SC 217/ 2012

In the court of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Chittoor.

Present: Sri A. JAGADEESH CHANDRA RAO, I Additional Sessions Judge.

Tuesday, the 15 th (fifteenth) day of March, 2016.

SC.No.217 of 2012

Cr.No.63/2011 of Chittoor I Town PS.

Complainant The Inspector of Police, Chittoor Urban Circle.

1.S.Krishnamurthy, aged 28 years, S/o Accused M.Sekhar, D.No.10-939, Gokulam Street, Chittoor, residing at Durga Colony, Santhapet, Chittoor.

2.S.Indira, aged 26 years, W/o Late K.Srinivasulu (deceased), D.No.5-701, Subhash Chandra Bose Street @ Dongala Bavi Street, Santhapeta, Chittoor, caste by Mudaliar.

3.M.Parimala, aged 46 years, W/o Marudamuthu, D.No.5-701, Subhash Chandra Bose Street @ Dongala Bavi Street, Santhapet, Chittoor, caste by Mudaliyar.

4.M.Muthu, aged 28 years, S/o Masilamani, D.No.148, Kamakshi Sannidhi Street, Kanchipuram, Chengalpet District, Tamilnadu, caste by Achari. (Abated on

13.12.2012)

5. S.Siva, aged 37 years, S/o P.Singaram, D.No.64, Tiruvallur Street, Chinna Kanchipuram, Chengulpat District, Tamilnadu, caste by Naicker. The prosecution is Sri K.S.Jayaram, conducted by Additional Public Prosecutor for State The accused are defended by Sri R.Chandrasekhar, advocate for A1. Sri Ramesh, advocate for A2, A3 and A5. OFFENCE U/Sec.302 r/w 34 IPC and 201 IPC.

Charges U/Sec.302, 201 r/w Sec.34 IPC.

Plea of the accused Not guilty

Finding of court Not guilty

Sentence or order In the result, A1 to A3 and A5 are found not guilty for the offence under Sec.302 and 201 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted for the said offences U/sec.235 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds 2 SC 217/ 2012 of A1 to A3 shall continue to be in force for a period of 6 months as per the provisions of 437- A of Cr.P.C. MOs.2 and 3 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. MO1 auto bearing No.AP-16-W-4521 shall be sold in public auction and the sale proceeds shall be remitted to the State after appeal time is over . A5 shall be released forthwith if he is not required in any other case. The case properties shall be sent to the learned IV Addl. J.F.M.C, Chittoor for disposal as ordered above as per the provisions of Rule 226 Criminal Rules of Practice.

This case is coming on 14.03.2016 before me for final hearing and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K.S.Jayaram, Additional Public Prosecutor for the

State, Sri R.Chandrsekhar, advocate for A1 and of Sri Ramesh, advocate for A2, A3 and A5 and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The Inspector of Police, Chittoor Urban Circle filed charge sheet against A1 to A5 for the offence under U/Sec.302 and 201 r/w 34 IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that A2 is the wife of deceased

K.Srinivasulu, an auto driver. After 2 years of happy married life and after children born to them, deceased Srinivasulu addicted to drinking alcohol, began to abuse and assault his wife every day without giving money for expenses. When deceased beat his wife indiscriminately causing bleeding injuries, she quarreled with him and came out of the house and started to live in her mother's house. She also filed a DVC No.15/2009 on the file of

IV Addl. J.M.F.C, Chittoor. Even after A2 came out of the house, deceased continued to go to the house of A3 in a drunken state, used to picked up quarrel with his wife and beat her and parents in-laws also. A2 had illegal contact with A1 who is residing in the neighboring house. A2 used to tell all her woes to A1 and A1 took A2 to hospital also. On one occasion 3 SC 217/ 2012 deceased picked up quarrel with A1 after came to know about his illegal contact with A2. Since then A1 bore grudge against the deceased. A1 and

A2 decided to do away with the deceased. A3 also gave consent. On the request of A2, A4 and A5 also agreed to help A1 and A2 to kill Srinivasulu.

A1 went and brought A4 and A5 in his auto. On 18.5.2011 at about 10.30 pm when deceased was quarreling with his wife, A1 informed that they have arrived at Santhapet. Then A2 informed A1 that she will bring her husband on the plea of going to police station and they can pick up her husband in the auto. Accordingly A2 was walking with her husband and while they took a turn at a speed breaker, A5 got down from the auto, forcibly pushed the deceased Srinivasulu into the auto, carried him to the forest and beat him indiscriminately in the auto. As deceased was already drunk, he could not raise any cry. Then as per the advise of A2, they took the deceased in the same auto to her new house under construction at

Prasanth Nagar, where A1 tied the neck of the deceased with the rag of his shirt piece and throttled with it and further pressed his neck with his leg.

A4 and A5 also beat the deceased. After killing the Srinivasulu, the dead body was carried and threw it in the ditch behind the PVKN Government

Degree College, Chittoor.

After came to know about the dead body was found,

R.Gopinathareddy (PW1) went there, confirmed it and presented a complaint at 10 am on 19.5.2011. During the course of investigation A1 to

A5 were arrested and in pursuance of confession of A1, the crime vehicle was seized. The medical officer who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased opined that the deceased would appears to be died of due to mechanical asphyxia due to strangulation.

3. The learned IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor

before whom the charge sheet was filed, took cognizance for the offences

under Section 302 r/w 34 and 201 IPC, numbered the charge sheet as

P.R.C.No.56/2011. On appearance of the accused, the learned Magistrate furnished copies of documents and by following procedure committed this case to the Court of Sessions. Sessions Judge received the records and 4 SC 217/ 2012 numbered the same as SC.No.217/2012 and made over the same to this

Court for disposal according to Law.

4. This case was taken on file under Sec.302 and 201 r/w 34 IPC against the accused. Case against A4 is abated on 13.12.2012.

5. On appearance of A1 to A3 and A5, on hearing both sides, this Court framed the charge U/Sec.302 r/w 34 IPC is framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu language, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, on perusal of record it is noticed that charge under Sec.201 r/w 34 IPC was not framed. Hence, additional charge under Sec.201 r/w 34 IPC is framed on 08.02.2016.

6. On behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 17 were examined, Exs.P.1 to

Ex.P24 and MOs.1 to 3 were marked.

7. After closure of the prosecution side of evidence, accused were examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C, by explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, for which they denied the same.

But no defense evidence is adduced.

8. Heard both sides.

9. A5 failed to attend the Court, therefore NBWs was issued against him. On execution of NBW, A5 was remanded to judicial custody on 04.01.2016 and since then he is in judicial custody.

10. Now the point for determination is:-

Whether prosecution has proved that A1 to A5 with a common

intention killed the deceased and thrown the dead body into the

ditch thus committed the offence under Sec.302 and 201 r/w 34 IPC?

5 SC 217/ 2012

11. POINT:

The case against the accused is based on the circumstantial evidence.

PW1 who came to know that the dead body was found in a pit near

Z.P.Quarters near PVKN College, Chittoor, went there, observed the dead body and presented complaint.

12. PW2 stated that on information given by one Y.Subramanyam about the tracing of a male dead body in a pit, he informed the same to PW1.

PW1 and PW2 are not the eye witnesses to the incident.

13. PW3 only stated that he identified the dead body of his younger brother in newspaper, went to police station and also identified the photos of the deceased. PW3 failed to identify A1, he only identified A2 and A3.

PW3 did not state anything with regard to the differences between his brother Srinivasulu and his wife. He also stated that he does not know the reason for the death of his brother Srinivasulu till today.

14. PW4 and PW17 who are the sisters of the deceased also stated that they do not know the cause of the death of Srinivasulu.

15. PW5 to PW11 did not support the case of prosecution and they were treated as hostile.

16. PW12 is one of the panch witness when the investigating officer observed the scene of offence, conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased. He was also said to have been present when A1 to A5 were arrested by the investigating officer and seized auto at the instance of A1.

17. PW16 stated that during the course of investigation he arrested A1 to

A5 and on interrogation, they confessed the offence, A1 lead them to the house and shown the auto which is used for commission of offence.

Admittedly the confession before a police officer is not admissible in evidence.

6 SC 217/ 2012

18. PW14 is the medical officer who conducted post-mortem over the dead body and according to PW14 deceased would have appear to have died of due to mechanical asphyxia due to strangulation.

19. PW15 is the first investigating officer.

20. According to prosecution when accused forcibly took the deceased in auto, deceased had bitten on the index finger of A1. PW13 stated that he examined A1 on 25.5.2011 at 7.20 pm and he found tooth mark over right dorsum index finger. PW13 stated that he did not mention the age of the injury. The evidence of PW13 shows that the injury said to have been caused on 25.05.2011 According to prosecution, accused forcibly took the deceased in an auto on 18.05.2011 but according to wound certificate, A1 sustained injury on 25.05.2011 i.e., on the date of arrest. A1 to A5 were said to have been arrested after 7 days after the commission of offence.

Admittedly the age of the injury of A1 was not noted in the wound certificate. Merely basing on the wound certificate issued by PW13 under

Ex.P16, it cannot be concluded that deceased bite A1 in the struggle between them. The case against the accused is based on circumstantial evidence. Merely there was strained relationship between A2 and deceased, it cannot be concluded that the said strained relationship is itself is motive

for accused to kill the deceased. Prosecution failed to prove motive for the

A2 and A3 to kill the deceased. Prosecution also failed to prove that deceased was in the company of A1 to A5 soon before his death.

Prosecution has only proved that deceased was killed but prosecution failed to prove that accused are the person who killed the deceased. There is no iota of evidence that the accused are the persons who killed the deceased Srinivasulu and thrown the dead body into the pit near PVKN

Government College, Chittoor. Suspicion however strong is not a substitute for legal proof. Prosecution has to prove the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, if there is any deficiency in the case of prosecution, benefit shall goes to the accused. Prosecution failed to prove 7 SC 217/ 2012 the charges against accused beyond all reasonable doubt, hence accused are entitled for acquittal.

21. The case of accused is total denial. A1 did not produce any document to show that he is entitled to take return of the auto. Accused are not claiming the auto. Hence, the auto bearingNo.AP-16-W-4521has to be sold in public auction and sale proceeds shall be confiscate to state.

22. In the result, A1 to A3 and A5 are found not guilty for the offence

under Sec.302 and 201 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted for the said

offences U/sec.235 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 to A3 shall continue

to be in force for a period of 6 months as per the provisions of 437-A of

Cr.P.C. MOs.2 and 3 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. MO1

auto bearing No.AP-16-W-4521 shall be sold in public auction and the sale

proceeds shall be remitted to the State after appeal time is over . A5 shall

be released forthwith if he is not required in any other case.

The case properties shall be sent to the learned IV Addl. J.F.M.C,

Chittoor for disposal as ordered above as per the provisions of Rule 226

Criminal Rules of Practice.

Typed to my Dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 15thday of March, 2016.

Sd/-A.Jagadeesh Chandra Rao.

I Additional Sessions Judge, Chittoor. Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined

For prosecution: For defence:

PW1 R.Gopinadha Reddy – defacto complainant. NIL PW2 : M.Varadharajulu – hearsay witness PW3 : M.Velayudham – hearsay witness PW4 : M.Dhana – hearsay witness. PW5 : K.Vijaya – eye witness PW6 : M.Raja – eye witness. PW7 : C.Raja – eye witness. PW8 : D.Mohan Kumar – eye witness. PW9 : V.Siva Kumar – eye witness PW10: S.Rahamathulla PW11 : A.Hari – photographer.

8 SC 217/ 2012

PW12 : K.Chandra Babu - mahazardar PW13 : Dr.Vinayak – CAS PW14 : Dr.K.Vijaya Kumar – CAS PW15 : M.Mani – Head Constable. PW16 : N.Sudhakar Reddy – Inspector of Police. PW17 : M.Rani.

Exhibits marked for Prosecution:

Ex.P-1 : Complaint given by PW1 Ex.P-2 : Positive photos (4 in nos) with CD Ex.P-3 : Part of 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3 Ex.P-4 : Part of 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3 Ex.P-5 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW4 Ex.P-6 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW5 Ex.P-7 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW6 Ex.P-8 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW7 Ex.P-9 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW8 Ex.P-10: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW9 Ex.P-11 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW10 Ex.P-12 : Scene observation mahazar Ex.P-13: Inquest report Ex.P14: Admissible portion in confession and mahazar Ex.P15: Seizure mahazar. Ex.P16: Wound certificate of A1 Ex.P17 : PM certificate of deceased Ex.P18: FIR in Cr.No.63/2011 Ex.P19: Rough sketch of scene of offence Ex.P20 : Police proceedings Ex.P21: FIR in Cr.No.63/2011 (Altered) Ex.P22: Rough sketches of scene of offence where deceased picked up in auto. Ex.P23: Rough sketches of scene of offence where deceased killed. Ex.P24: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW17.

Exhibits marked for Defence NIL

Material Objects marked MO1 Auto bearing No.AP-16-W-4521 MO2 Underwear of deceased. MO3 Brinjal colour pant of deceased.

Sd/-A.Jagadeesh Chandra Rao.

I Additional Sessions Judge,

Chittoor.

1

In the court of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Chittoor.

Present:- Sri A. JAGADEESH CHANDRA RAO I Additional Sessions Judge.

Wednesday, the 9 th day of March, 2016.

IESC No.58 of 2015

Cr.No.54 of 2015 of Penumur PS.

Complainant The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Penumur PS. Accused 1. Eruvaram Raju, aged 23 years, S/o late E.Narasimhulu, Chennuru Village and Mandal, YSR Kadapa District – A1.

2.Pulikallu Raja Sekhar @ T.Vijay, aged 21 years, S/o Kondaiah, Gundlapalle ST Colony, H/o Gundlapalle, Irala Mandal, Yanadhi by caste – A2.

3.Pulikallu Bala Krishna, aged 20 years, S/o Venkatesh, Gundlapalle ST Colony, H/o Gundlapalle, Irala Mandal, Yanadhi by caste – A4

4.Eruvaram Naresh, aged 23 years, S/o Venkatesh, Gundlapalle ST Colony, H/o Gundlapalle, Irala Mandal, Yanadhi by caste – A5.

5.Sarakanti Ravi, aged 30 years, S/o S.Chengalrayulu, Gundlapalle ST Colony, H/o Gundlapalle, Irala Mandal, Yanadhi by caste – A6.

The prosecution is Sri K.S.Jayaram conducted byAdditional Public Prosecutor. The accused are Sri. K.Murali, advocate for accused. defended by OFFENCE Under Sec.427, 379 IPC and Sec.136 (1) (A) of Electricity Act, 2003. Charges Under Sec.136 (1) (b) of Electricity Act, 2003.

Plea of the accused Not Guilty Finding of the Found not guilty court Sentence or order In the result, A1, A2, A4 to A6 are found not guilty for the offence u/s 136 (1) (b) of Electricity Act, 2003 and they are acquitted for the said offence u/s 235 (1) Cr.P.C. MO1 shall be returned to A.E., APSPDCL, Penumur Mandal after appeal time is over. A1 shall be released forthwith if, he is not required in any other case. The bail bonds of A2, A4 to A6 shall continue to be in force for a period of 6 months as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

2

This case coming before me for final hearing on 01.03.2016 and upon perusing the charge sheet and other material papers on record and upon perusing the written arguments of Sri K.S.Jayaram, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri. K.Murali, advocate for 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, Penumur PS filed charge sheet against

A1, A2, A4 to A6 for the offences U/Secs.427, 379 IPC and Sec.136 (1) (A) of

Electricity Act, 2003 in Cr.No.54/2015.

2. (a) Briefly the averments of the charge sheet are that on the interning night of 02.05.2015 some unknown offenders damaged two 16 KVA transformers, committed theft of 9 kgs of copper winding wire worth

Rs.5,000/- from the agricultural fields of R.Subramanyam (LW2) and

V.Rajasekhara Naidu (LW3). Basing on the complaint of B.Rami Reddy (PW1) a case in Cr.No.54/2015 was registered and investigated.

(b) During the course of investigation on 10.05.2015 at 1.00 pm on information Inspector of Police, Pakala arrested 6 persons at bus shelter,

Pachipalli village on Chittoor – Kadapa road in Cr.No.41/2015, recovered stolen property in this case and other cases under the cover of mahazarnam in the presence of S.Mohammad Nazir (PW2) and G.Subramanyam (LW5).

A1, A2 and A4 to A6 were produced before the Court and A3 was remanded to Juvenile Home. Subsequently, A1, A2 and A4 to A6 were produced in this case on execution of PT warrant and they were remanded to judicial custody. Hence, the charge.

3. The case is taken on file for the offence U/Sec.427, 379 IPC and

Sec.136 (1) (a) of Electricity Act, 2003 against A1, A2, A4 to A6.

4. On production of A1, on appearance of A2, A4 to A6, they were furnished with case documents and were examined U/Sec.228 Cr.P.C. A charge U/Sec.136 (1) (b) of Electricity Act, 2003 is framed, read over explained to them for which, they denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

3

5. Prosecution in order to establish the guilt of the accused examined

PW1 to PW4 and got marked Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-8 documents and MO1.

6. On conclusion of trial, accused were examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C, explained the incriminating evidence adduced by prosecution against them, for which they denied the evidence and stated that they have no defence evidence.

7. Now the points for determination are: -

1. Whether A1, A2, A4 to A6 committed theft of 9 kgs of copper winding

wire after damaging two 16 KVA transformers situated in the village

fields Gopalapuram and Jettigundlapalle on the intervening night of

02.05.2015?

2. Whether A1, A2, A4 to A6 were apprehended by PW3 in the presence

of mediators on 10.05.2015 and recovered stolen property in this case

and other cases?

3. Whether prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the offence

under Sec.136 (1) (b) of Electricity Act, 2003 beyond all reasonable

doubt?

8. POINTS No.1 to 3:-

PW1 stated on the evening of 3.5.2015 while he was in office

R.Subramanyam of Gopalapuram and V.Rajasekhar Naidu of

Jettigundlapalle came to their office and informed about the damage of transformers and theft of 9 kgs of copper winding wire. Then he visited the scene of offence, confirmed the damages to the transformers and theft of copper winding wire and presented complaint to police on 05.05.2015. On 28.5.2015 police called him and shown the recovered stolen wire and he identified the said wire as that of their department and issued Ex.P2. PW1 admitted that he did not state to the police with regard to the descriptive particulars of the stolen winding wire. He also admitted wire similar to the recovered wire will be available in open market.

9. PW2 stated on 10.5.2015 at 12.00 noon while he and G.Subramanyam were in the MRO office, Pakala, one constable approached him with a request to come to police station. Thereafter he along with the other 4 mediator, staff consisting of 15 members went in three jeeps to

Pathipativaripalle bus shelter which is at a distance of 15 kmgs from pakala

Police station on Chittoor – Kadapa road, they found 6 persons. On seeing the police jeeps all the 6 persons trying to escape but they were detained by police. Inspector of Police, Pakala examined all the accused independently and all the accused admitted that they had committed the offences.

Accused also stated that they will show the place where they have concealed the property. All of them lead to the house of A1. A1 produced two bags containing copper winding wire weighing 9 kgs in one bag and 5 kgs in another bag and the same was seized. Again they lead to the house of

A2 and police seized 15 kgs of copper wire in one bag. Subsequently, all the 6 persons lead them to the bushes which is at a distance of 2 km from the house of Rajasekhar and they have shown 4 sticks used in commission of offence and they were seized. PW2 admitted that he is residing at a distance of one furlong in the same street where Pakala police station is situated. He also admitted ST colony in the Gundlapalle is within the jurisdiction of Irala Mandal. There are about 50 houses in Pathipativaripalle village but there is a distance of one furlong from bus shelter and

Pattipativaripalle village. He did not observe the door numbers of the houses of A1 and A2 but there are 30 houses in ST colony. He might have given evidence in Tirupati Court about 10 cases but it is the first time to come to Chittoor to give evidence. Identity slips containing his signatures and accused were not affixed on the seized property.

10. PW3 stated that during the course of investigation in Cr.No.41/2015 he arrested A1, A2, A4 to A6 and Ramakrishna, Juvenile in conflict with law at the bus shelter of Pathipattivaripalle village. All of them voluntarily confessed about the commission of offences. After recording their confession statement he seized one cell phone from possession of A1. On the same day on the confession of accused he also seized one cell phone and 3 iron hooks used to commit dacoits and also seized 2 bags of copper winding wire concealed from the house of A1 containing 5 kgs and 9 kgs.

A2 also produced one bag containing copper of 15 kgs and same was seized under the cover of panchanama in the presence of mediators. He also seized 4 ticks from the road side bushes at furlong stonel No.2 on Chittoor – 5

Kadapa national Highwa near Gundlaguttapalle of Pakala Mandal concerned in Cr.No.41/2015 of Pakala PS. According to PW3 there is no door number to the house of A1. There are 20 houses in ST colony. He has not requested any person from that colony to act as mediators. Bus shelter is an isolated place so there is no possibility in securing independent mediators at bus shelter. He affixed identity slips containing the signatures of the accused on the property seized.

11. PW4 stated that on the complaint of PW1 he registered a case, visited the scene of offence and examined the witnesses. On information that the

Inspector of Police arrested 6 persons and recovered stolen property including property concerned in this case, he sent a constable and secured the property, got executed PT warrants and remanded A1, A2, A4 to A6 to judicial custody. PW1 came to police station, identified the recovered stolen property and issued Ex.P2.

12. Prosecution has not examined any person to prove that these accused are the persons who damaged the transformers and stolen copper winding wire from the transformers. PW1 only stated that some unknown offenders had committed theft of copper winding wire after damaging the transformers.

13. The case with regard to the recovery of stolen copper winding wire is depend on the evidence of PW2 and PW3. So the evidence of PW2 and PW3 has to be carefully scrutinized with regard to the recovery of copper winding wire.

14. According to PW3 accused lead them to the house of A1 and recovered two bags of copper wire from the house of A1. The weight of two bags is 5 kgs and 9 kgs respectively concerned in Cr.No.54/2015 of

Penumur PS. The arrested persons also lead them to the house of A2 and

PW3 recovered a bag of containing 15 kgs of copper wire concerned in

Cr.No.20/2015 of Pakala PS. PW3 in his cross examination stated that he affixed identity slips containing the signatures of the accused on the property seized. Whereas, PW2 stated that no identity slips containing their 6 signatures and signatures of accused were affixed on the seized property.

PW3 stated that there is no door number to the house of A1. Whereas, PW2 stated that he did not observe the door number of the house of A1 and A2.

According to PW2 there are 30 houses in ST colony. But according to PW3 there are 20 houses in ST colony. Admittedly no person from the ST colony is associated for the recovery of copper winding wire from the houses of A1 and A2. The descriptive particulars of the houses of A1 and A2 was also not stated by PW2 and PW3. No rough sketch of the houses of A1 and A2 was prepared and filed into the court. According to PW3 the copper wire will not available in the open market. But according to PW1 who is working as

A.E., stated in his cross examination that wire similar to the recovered stolen wire will be available in the open market. PW1 is the competent person to speak about the availability of copper winding wire in the open market. Admittedly identity slips containing signatures of the accused and mediators were not affixed on the seized copper wire. There are no specific identity marks on the recovered wire. There is no supporting evidence on the record to show that the stolen wire and recovered wire is one and the same. Prosecution has to prove the case against accused beyond all reasonable doubt. If there is any deficiency in the case of prosecution, the benefit shall go to accused.

15. In view of the above infirmities, prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and accused are entitled for acquittal and the property can be returned to APSPDCL

Authorities concerned after obtaining photographs of the property to keep the same in the file under proper acknowledgment.

The points are answered accordingly.

7

16. In the result, A1, A2, A4 to A6 are found not guilty for the offence

u/s 136 (1) (b) of Electricity Act, 2003 and they are acquitted for the said

offence u/s 235 (1) Cr.P.C.

MO1 shall be returned to A.E., APSPDCL, Penumur Mandal after

appeal time is over.

A1 shall be released forthwith if, he is not required in any other case.

The bail bonds of A2, A4 to A6 shall continue to be in force for a period

of 6 months as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 9th day of March, 2016.

Sd/-A.Jagadeesh Chandra Rao.

I Additional Sessions Judge, Chittoor.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For prosecution: For defence PW1: B.Rami Reddy - AE. NIL. PW2 : S.Mohammad Nazeer - mediator PW3 : D.Challan Dora – Inspector of Police. PW4 : P.Sreenivasa Rao – Sub-Inspector of Police.

Exhibits marked For prosecution: Ex.P-1 : Complaint given by PW1 Ex.P-2 : Property Identification certificate issued by PW1. Ex.P-3 : Admissible portion in confession mahazar Ex.P-4 : Seizure mahazar dt.10.5.2015 at 9.30 pm Ex.P-5 : Seizure mahazar dt.10.5.2015 at 5.00 pm Ex.P-6 : Seizure mahazar dt.10.5.2015 at 6.15 pm Ex.P-7 : FIR in Cr.No.54/2013 of Penumur PS. Ex.P-8: Rough sketches 2 in numbers.

For defence NIL Material Objects: MO1 9 Kgs of copper winding wire.

Sd/-A.Jagadeesh Chandra Rao.

I Additional Sessions Judge, Chittoor.

8

1

In the court of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Chittoor.

Present:- Sri A. JAGADEESH CHANDRA RAO I Additional Sessions Judge.

Wednesday, the 9 th day of March, 2016.

IESC No.94 of 2015

Cr.No.20 of 2015 of Pakala PS.

Complainant The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Pakala PS. Accused 1. Eruvaram Raju, aged 23 years, S/o late E.Narasimhulu, Chennuru Village and Mandal, YSR Kadapa District – A1.

2.Pulikanti Raja Sekhar @ T.Vijay, aged 21 years, S/o Kondaiah, Gundlapalle ST Colony, H/o Gundlapalle, Irala Mandal, Yanadhi by caste – A2.

3.Pulikanti Bala Krishna, aged 20 years, S/o Venkatesh, Gundlapalle ST Colony, H/o Gundlapalle, Irala Mandal, Yanadhi by caste – A4

4.Eruvaram Naresh, aged 23 years, S/o Venkatesh, Gundlapalle ST Colony, H/o Gundlapalle, Irala Mandal, Yanadhi by caste – A5.

5.Sarakanti Ravi, aged 30 years, S/o S.Chengalrayulu, Gundlapalle ST Colony, H/o Gundlapalle, Irala Mandal, Yanadhi by caste – A6.

The prosecution is Sri K.S.Jayaram conducted byAdditional Public Prosecutor. The accused are Sri. K.Murali, advocate for accused. defended by OFFENCE Under Sec.427, 379 or 411 IPC and Sec.136 (1) (A) of Electricity Act, 2003. Charges Under Sec.136 (1) (b) of Electricity Act, 2003.

Plea of the accused Not Guilty Finding of the Found not guilty court Sentence or order In the result, A1, A2, A4 to A6 are found not guilty for the offence u/s 136 (1) (b) of Electricity Act, 2003 and they are acquitted for the said offence u/s 235 (1) Cr.P.C. MO1 shall be returned to A.E., (Operations) APSPDCL, Pakala Mandal after appeal time is over. A1 shall be released forthwith if, he is not required in any other case. The bail bonds of A2, A4 to A6 shall continue to be in force for a period of 6 months as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

2

This case coming before me for final hearing on 01.03.2016 and upon perusing the charge sheet and other material papers on record and upon perusing the written arguments of Sri K.S.Jayaram, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri. K.Murali, advocate for 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, Pakala PS filed charge sheet against A1,

A2, A4 to A6 for the offences U/Secs.427, 379 or 411 IPC and Sec.136 (1) (a) of Electricity Act, 2003 in Cr.No.20/2015.

2. (a) Briefly the averments of the charge sheet are that on the intervening night of 22/23-02-2015 some unknown offenders had thrown down two 25 KVA and two 16 KVA transformers from the electric poles in the fields situated at Thotapalle, Achamma Agraharam, Adenapalle villages of Pakala Mandal and committed theft of 20 Kgs of copper winding wire worth Rs.10,000/- belongs to the APSPDCL, Pakala. On the complaint of

T.Mohan (PW1) a case in Cr.No.20/2015 was registered and investigated.

(b) During the course of investigation on 10.05.2015 at 1.00 pm on information Inspector of Police, Pakala arrested 6 persons at bus shelter,

Pachipalli village on Chittoor – Kadapa road in Cr.No.41/2015, recovered stolen property in this case and other cases under the cover of mahazarnam in the presence of S.Mohammad Nazir (PW2) and G.Subramanyam (LW8).

A1, A2 and A4 to A6 were produced before the Court and A3 was remanded to Juvenile Home. Subsequently, A1, A2 and A4 to A6 were produced in this case on execution of PT warrant and they were remanded to judicial custody. Subsequently PW1 identified the recovered stolen property and issued certificate. Hence, the charge.

3. The case is taken on file for the offence U/Sec.427, 379 or 411 IPC and

Sec.136 (1) (a) of Electricity Act, 2003 against A1, A2, A4 to A6.

4. On production of A1, on appearance of A2, A4 to A6, they were furnished with case documents and were examined U/Sec.228 Cr.P.C. A charge U/Sec.136 (1) (b) of Electricity Act, 2003 is framed, read over 3 explained to them for which, they denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

5. Prosecution in order to establish the guilt of the accused examined

PW1 to PW3 and got marked Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-10 documents and MO1.

6. On conclusion of trial, accused were examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C, explained the incriminating evidence adduced by prosecution against them, for which they denied the evidence and stated that they have no defence evidence.

7. Now the points for determination are: -

1. Whether A1, A2, A4 to A6 committed theft of copper winding wire

worth Rs.10,000/- from two 25 KVA and two 16 KVA transformers

situated in the village fields of Thotapalle, Achamma Agraharam,

Adenapalle village of Pakala Mandal on the intervening night of

22/23.02.2015?

2. Whether A1, A2, A4 to A6 were apprehended by PW3 in the presence

of mediators on 10.05.2015 and recovered stolen property in this case

and other cases?

3. Whether prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the offence

under Sec.136 (1) (b) of Electricity Act, 2003 beyond all reasonable

doubt?

8. POINTS No.1 to 3:-

PW1 stated on the morning of 23.2.2015 while he was in the office

P.Chandra Babu of K.Voddepalle informed that consumers complained to him that some unknown offenders damaged transformers situated in the fields of Thotapalle, Achammagraharam-2, Pulivethuvaripalle and committed theft of copper winding wire of 20 kgs from four 16 KVA transformers. Then he went to the scene of offences, confirmed the theft and damage and presented the complaint on 28.2.2015 under Ex.P1. PW1 admitted the wire similar to the stolen wire available in the open market.

9. PW2 stated on 10.5.2015 at 12.00 noon while he and G.Subramanyam were in the MRO office, Pakala, one constable approached him with a request to come to police station. Thereafter he along with the other 4 mediator, staff consisting of 15 members went in three jeeps to

Pathipativaripalle bus shelter which is at a distance of 15 kmgs from pakala

Police station on Chittoor – Kadapa road, they found 6 persons. On seeing the police jeeps all the 6 persons trying to escape but they were detained by police. Inspector of Police, Pakala examined all the accused independently and all the accused admitted that they had committed the offences.

Accused also stated that they will show the place where they have concealed the property. All of them lead to the house of A1. A1 produced two bags containing copper winding wire weighing 9 kgs in one bag and 5 kgs in another bag and the same was seized. Again they lead to the house of

A2 and police seized 15 kgs of copper wire in one bag. Subsequently, all the 6 persons lead them to the bushes which is at a distance of 2 km from the house of Rajasekhar and they have shown 4 sticks used in commission of offence and they were seized. PW2 admitted that he is residing at a distance of one furlong in the same street where Pakala police station is situated. He also admitted ST colony in the Gundlapalle is within the jurisdiction of Irala Mandal. There are about 50 houses in Pathipativaripalle village but there is a distance of one furlong from bus shelter and

Pattipativaripalle village. He did not observe the door numbers of the houses of A1 and A2 but there are 30 houses in ST colony. He might have given evidence in Tirupati Court about 10 cases but it is the first time to come to Chittoor to give evidence. Identity slips containing his signatures and accused were not affixed on the seized property.

10. PW3 stated on the complaint of T.Mohan (PW1) at 1.00 pm on 28.02.2015, the then SI of Police, P.Dileep Kumar (LW10) registered a case in

Cr.No.20/2015 and investigated. He also further stated that during the course of investigation in Cr.No.41/2015 he arrested A1, A2, A4 to A6 and

Ramakrishna, Juvenile in conflict with law at the bus shelter of

Pathipattivaripalle village. All of them voluntarily confessed about the commission of offences. After recording their confession statement he seized one cell phone from possession of A1. On the same day on the confession of accused he also seized one cell phone and 3 iron hooks used to commit dacoits and also seized 2 bags of copper winding wire concealed from the house of A1 containing 5 kgs and 9 kgs. A2 also produced one bag 5 containing copper of 15 kgs and same was seized under the cover of panchanama in the presence of mediators. He also seized 4 ticks from the road side bushes at furlong stonel No.2 on Chittoor – Kadapa national

Highwa near Gundlaguttapalle of Pakala Mandal concerned in

Cr.No.41/2015 of Pakala PS. According to PW3 there is no door number to the house of A1. There are 20 houses in ST colony. He has not requested any person from that colony to act as mediators. Bus shelter is an isolated place so there is no possibility in securing independent mediators at bus shelter. He affixed identity slips containing the signatures of the accused on the property seized.

11. Prosecution has not examined any person to prove that these accused are the persons who damaged the transformers and stolen copper winding wire from the transformers. PW1 only stated that some unknown offenders had committed theft of copper winding wire after damaging the transformers.

12. The case with regard to the recovery of stolen copper winding wire is depend on the evidence of PW2 and PW3. So the evidence of PW2 and PW3 has to be carefully scrutinized with regard to the recovery of copper winding wire.

13. According to PW3 accused lead them to the house of A1 and recovered two bags of copper wire from the house of A1. The weight of two bags is 5 kgs and 9 kgs respectively concerned in Cr.No.54/2015 of

Penumur PS. The arrested persons also lead them to the house of A2 and

PW3 recovered a bag of containing 15 kgs of copper wire concerned in

Cr.No.20/2015 of Pakala PS. PW3 in his cross examination stated that he affixed identity slips containing the signatures of the accused on the property seized. Whereas, PW2 stated that no identity slips containing their signatures and signatures of accused were affixed on the seized property.

PW3 stated that there is no door number to the house of A1. Whereas, PW2 stated that he did not observe the door number of the house of A1 and A2.

According to PW2 there are 30 houses in ST colony. But according to PW3 there are 20 houses in ST colony. Admittedly no person from the ST colony 6 is associated for the recovery of copper winding wire from the houses of A1 and A2. The descriptive particulars of the houses of A1 and A2 was also not stated by PW2 and PW3. No rough sketch of the houses of A1 and A2 was prepared and filed into the court. According to PW3 the copper wire will not available in the open market. But according to PW1 who is working as

A.E., stated in his cross examination that wire similar to the recovered stolen wire will be available in the open market. PW1 is the competent person to speak about the availability of copper winding wire in the open market. Admittedly identity slips containing signatures of the accused and mediators were not affixed on the seized copper wire. There are no specific identity marks on the recovered wire. There is no supporting evidence on the record to show that the stolen wire and recovered wire is one and the same. Prosecution has to prove the case against accused beyond all reasonable doubt. If there is any deficiency in the case of prosecution, the benefit shall go to accused.

14. In view of the above infirmities, prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and accused are entitled for acquittal and the property can be returned to APSPDCL

Authorities concerned after obtaining photographs of the property to keep the same in the file under proper acknowledgment.

The points are answered accordingly.

15. In the result, A1, A2, A4 to A6 are found not guilty for the offence u/s 136 (1) (b) of Electricity Act, 2003 and they are acquitted for the said offence u/s 235 (1) Cr.P.C.

MO1 shall be returned to A.E., (Operations) APSPDCL, Pakala

Mandal after appeal time is over.

A1 shall be released forthwith if, he is not required in any other case.

The bail bonds of A2, A4 to A6 shall continue to be in force for a period

of 6 months as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 9th day of March, 2016.

Sd/-A.Jagadeesh Chandra Rao.

I Additional Sessions Judge, Chittoor.

7

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For prosecution: For defence PW1: T.Mohan - AE. NIL. PW2 : S.Mohammad Nazeer - mediator PW3 : D.Challan Dora – Inspector of Police.

Exhibits marked For prosecution: Ex.P-1 : Complaint given by PW1 Ex.P-2 : Admissible portion in confession mahazar Ex.P-3 : Seizure mahazar dt.10.5.2015 at 4.30 pm Ex.P-4 : Seizure mahazar dt.10.5.2015 at 5.00 pm Ex.P-5 : Seizure mahazar dt.10.5.2015 at 6.15 pm Ex.P-6 : FIR in Cr.No.20/2015 of Pakala PS. Ex.P-7 to Ex.P10: Rough sketches 4 in numbers.

For defence NIL Material Objects: MO1: 15 Kgs of copper wire.

Sd/-A.Jagadeesh Chandra Rao.

I Additional Sessions Judge, Chittoor.

1

In the court of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Chittoor.

Present:- Sri A. JAGADEESH CHANDRA RAO I Additional Sessions Judge.

Wednesday, the 9 th day of March, 2016.

IESC No.59 of 2015

Cr.No.37 of 2014 of Puthalapattu PS.

Complainant The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Puthalapattu PS. Accused 1. Eruvaram Raju, aged 23 years, S/o late E.Narasimhulu, Chennuru Village and Mandal, YSR Kadapa District – A1.

2.Pulikallu Raja Sekhar @ T.Vijay, aged 21 years, S/o Kondaiah, Gundlapalle ST Colony, H/o Gundlapalle, Irala Mandal, Yanadhi by caste – A2.

3.Pulikallu Bala Krishna, aged 20 years, S/o Venkatesh, Gundlapalle ST Colony, H/o Gundlapalle, Irala Mandal, Yanadhi by caste – A4

4.Eruvaram Naresh, aged 23 years, S/o Venkatesh, Gundlapalle ST Colony, H/o Gundlapalle, Irala Mandal, Yanadhi by caste – A5.

5.Sarakanti Ravi, aged 30 years, S/o S.Chengalrayulu, Gundlapalle ST Colony, H/o Gundlapalle, Irala Mandal, Yanadhi by caste – A6.

The prosecution is Sri K.S.Jayaram conducted byAdditional Public Prosecutor. The accused are Sri. K.Murali, advocate for accused. defended by OFFENCE Under Sec.427, 379 IPC and Sec.136 (1) (A) of Electricity Act, 2003. Charges Under Sec.136 (1) (b) of Electricity Act, 2003.

Plea of the accused Not Guilty Finding of the Found not guilty court Sentence or order In the result, A1, A2, A4 to A6 are found not guilty for the offence u/s 136 (1) (b) of Electricity Act, 2003 and they are acquitted for the said offence u/s 235 (1) Cr.P.C. MO1 shall be returned to A.E., APSPDCL, Puthalapattu Mandal after appeal time is over. A1 shall be released forthwith if, he is not required in any other case. The bail bonds of A2, A4 to A6 shall continue to be in force for a period of 6 months as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

2

This case coming before me for final hearing on 01.03.2016 and upon perusing the charge sheet and other material papers on record and upon perusing the written arguments of Sri K.S.Jayaram, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri. K.Murali, advocate for 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, Puthalapattu PS filed charge sheet against A1, A2, A4 to A6 for the offences U/Secs.379 or 411 IPC and Sec.136 (1) (a) of Electricity Act, 2003 in Cr.No.37/2014.

2. (a) Briefly the averments of the charge sheet are that on the intervening night of 27.02.2014 some unknown offenders damaged the electric transformers in the fields of Chitipiralla, Kutamvaripalle and

Karinipalli villages of Puthalapattu Mandal and has stolen copper winding wire worth of Rs.35,000/-. Basing on the complaint of C.Raghu (PW1) a case in Cr.No.37/2014 was registered on 01.03.2014 and investigated.

(b) During the course of investigation on 10.05.2015 at 1.00 pm on information Inspector of Police, Pakala arrested 6 persons at bus shelter,

Pachipalli village on Chittoor – Kadapa road in Cr.No.41/2015, recovered stolen property in this case and other cases under the cover of mahazarnam in the presence of S.Mohammad Nazir (PW2) and G.Subramanyam (LW7).

A1, A2 and A4 to A6 were produced before the Court and A3 was remanded to Juvenile Home. Subsequently, A1, A2 and A4 to A6 were produced in this case on execution of PT warrant and they were remanded to judicial custody. Hence, the charge.

3. The case is taken on file for the offence U/Sec.379 or 411 IPC and

Sec.136 (1) (a) of Electricity Act, 2003 against A1, A2, A4 to A6.

4. On production of A1, on appearance of A2, A4 to A6, they were furnished with case documents and were examined U/Sec.228 Cr.P.C. A charge U/Sec.136 (1) (b) of Electricity Act, 2003 is framed, read over explained to them for which, they denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

3

5. Prosecution in order to establish the guilt of the accused examined

PW1 to PW4 and got marked Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-11 documents and MO1.

6. On conclusion of trial, accused were examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C, explained the incriminating evidence adduced by prosecution against them, for which they denied the evidence and stated that they have no defence evidence.

7. Now the points for determination are: -

1. Whether A1, A2, A4 to A6 committed theft of copper winding wire

worth Rs.35,000/- from the 25 KVA transformers situated in the

village fields of Chitipiralla, Kutamvaripalle and Karinipalli

villages of Puthalapattu Mandal on the intervening night of

27.02.2014?

2. Whether A1, A2, A4 to A6 were apprehended by PW3 in the presence

of mediators on 10.05.2015 and recovered stolen property in this case

and other cases?

3. Whether prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the offence

under Sec.136 (1) (b) of Electricity Act, 2003 beyond all reasonable

doubt?

8. POINTS No.1 to 3:-

PW1 stated on 1.3.2014 at 9.00 am, while he was in the office consumers of Chittipiralla, Kutamvaripalle and Karnipalle villages approached him and informed that some unknown offenders damaged four 25 KVA transformers and stolen copper winding wire worth Rs.35,000/-.

Then he went to the scene of offences, confirmed the theft, came to his office and presented complaint Ex.P1. On 21.5.2015 he went to police station and identified the recovered the stolen property belongs to their department and issued Ex.P2.

9. PW2 stated on 10.5.2015 at 12.00 noon while he and G.Subramanyam were in the MRO office, Pakala, one constable approached him with a request to come to police station. Thereafter he along with the other mediator, staff consisting of 15 members went in three jeeps to

Pathipativaripalle bus shelter which is at a distance of 15 kmgs from pakala

Police station on Chittoor – Kadapa road, they found 6 persons. On seeing 4 the police jeeps all the 6 persons trying to escape but they were detained by police. Inspector of Police, Pakala examined all the accused independently and all the accused admitted that they had committed the offences.

Accused also stated that they will show the place where they have concealed the property. All of them lead to the house of A1. A1 produced two bags containing copper winding wire weighing 9 kgs in one bag and 5 kgs in another bag and the same was seized. Again they lead to the house of

A2 and police seized 15 kgs of copper wire in one bag. Subsequently, all the 6 persons lead them to the bushes which is at a distance of 2 km from the house of Rajasekhar and they have shown 4 sticks used in commission of offence and they were seized. PW2 admitted that he is residing at a distance of one furlong in the same street where Pakala police station is situated. He also admitted ST colony in the Gundlapalle is within the jurisdiction of Irala Mandal. There are about 50 houses in Pathipativaripalle village but there is a distance of one furlong from bus shelter and

Pattipativaripalle village. He did not observe the door numbers of the houses of A1 and A2 but there are 30 houses in ST colony. He might have given evidence in Tirupati Court about 10 cases but it is the first time to come to Chittoor to give evidence. Identity slips containing his signatures and accused were not affixed on the seized property.

10. PW3 stated that during the course of investigation in Cr.No.41/2015 he arrested A1, A2, A4 to A6 and Ramakrishna, Juvenile in conflict with law at the bus shelter of Pathipattivaripalle village. All of them voluntarily confessed about the commission of offences. After recording their confession statement he seized one cell phone from possession of A1. On the same day on the confession of accused he also seized one cell phone and 3 iron hooks used to commit dacoits and also seized 2 bags of copper winding wire concealed from the house of A1 containing 5 kgs and 9 kgs.

A2 also produced one bag containing copper of 15 kgs and same was seized under the cover of panchanama in the presence of mediators. He also seized 4 ticks from the road side bushes at furlong stonel No.2 on Chittoor –

Kadapa national Highwa near Gundlaguttapalle of Pakala Mandal concerned in Cr.No.41/2015 of Pakala PS. According to PW3 there is no door number to the house of A1. There are 20 houses in ST colony. He has 5 not requested any person from that colony to act as mediators. Bus shelter is an isolated place so there is no possibility in securing independent mediators at bus shelter. He affixed identity slips containing the signatures of the accused on the property seized.

11. PW4 stated that on the complaint of PW1 he registered a case, investigated. Subsequently on his transfer, his successor on receipt of information obtained PT warrant against A1, A2, A4 to A6 and thereafter completion of investigation, laid charge sheet.

12. Prosecution has not examined any person to prove that these accused are the persons who damaged the transformers and stolen copper winding wire from the transformers. PW1 only stated that some unknown offenders had committed theft of copper winding wire after damaging the transformers.

13. The case with regard to the recovery of stolen copper winding wire is depend on the evidence of PW2 and PW3. So the evidence of PW2 and PW3 has to be carefully scrutinized with regard to the recovery of copper winding wire.

14. According to PW3 accused lead them to the house of A1 and recovered two bags of copper wire from the house of A1. The weight of two bags is 5 kgs and 9 kgs respectively concerned in Cr.No.54/2015 of

Penumur PS. The arrested persons also lead them to the house of A2 and

PW3 recovered a bag of containing 15 kgs of copper wire concerned in

Cr.No.20/2015 of Pakala PS. PW3 in his cross examination stated that he affixed identity slips containing the signatures of the accused on the property seized. Whereas, PW2 stated that no identity slips containing their signatures and signatures of accused were affixed on the seized property.

PW3 stated that there is no door number to the house of A1. Whereas, PW2 stated that he did not observe the door number of the house of A1 and A2.

According to PW2 there are 30 houses in ST colony. But according to PW3 there are 20 houses in ST colony. Admittedly no person from the ST colony is associated for the recovery of copper winding wire from the houses of A1 6 and A2. The descriptive particulars of the houses of A1 and A2 was also not stated by PW2 and PW3. No rough sketch of the houses of A1 and A2 was prepared and filed into the court. Though PW2 and PW3 denied the suggestion that the copper winding wire will not be available in the open market but they have not adduced any documentary evidence to show that the stolen wire and recovered wire is one and the same. Admittedly identity slips containing signatures of the accused and mediators were not affixed on the seized copper wire. There are no specific identity marks on the recovered wire. There is no supporting evidence on the record to show that the stolen wire and recovered wire is one and the same. Prosecution has to prove the case against accused beyond all reasonable doubt. If there is any deficiency in the case of prosecution, the benefit shall go to accused.

15. In view of the above infirmities, prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and accused are entitled for acquittal and the property can be returned to APSPDCL

Authorities concerned after obtaining photographs of the property to keep the same in the file under proper acknowledgment.

The points are answered accordingly.

16. In the result, A1, A2, A4 to A6 are found not guilty for the offence u/s 136 (1) (b) of Electricity Act, 2003 and they are acquitted for the said offence u/s 235 (1) Cr.P.C.

MO1 shall be returned to A.E., APSPDCL, Puthalapattu Mandal

after appeal time is over.

A1 shall be released forthwith if, he is not required in any other case.

The bail bonds of A2, A4 to A6 shall continue to be in force for a period

of 6 months as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 9th day of March, 2016.

Sd/-A.Jagadeesh Chandra Rao.

I Additional Sessions Judge, Chittoor.

7

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For prosecution: For defence PW1: C.Raghu - AE. NIL. PW2 : S.Mohammad Nazeer - mediator PW3 : D.Challan Dora – Inspector of Police. PW4 : V.Nageswara Rao – Sub-Inspector of Police.

Exhibits marked For prosecution: Ex.P-1 : Complaint given by PW1 Ex.P-2 : Property Identification certificate issued by PW1. Ex.P-3 : Admissible portion in confession mahazar Ex.P-4 : Seizure mahazar dt.10.5.2015 at 4.00 pm Ex.P-5 : Seizure mahazar dt.10.5.2015 at 5.00 pm Ex.P-6 : Seizure mahazar dt.10.5.2015 at 6.15 pm Ex.P-7 : FIR in Cr.No.37/2014 of Puthalapattu PS. Ex.P-8 to Ex.P11: Rough sketches 4 in numbers.

For defence NIL Material Objects: MO1 5 Kgs of copper wire.

Sd/-A.Jagadeesh Chandra Rao.

I Additional Sessions Judge, Chittoor.