1
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, ANANTHAPURAMU.
Present: Sri A. Omkar,
I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Ananthapuramu.
FAC Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Ananthapuramu.
Thursday, this the 21 st day of April, 2022.
Calendar Case No. 231 of 2022
(Crime Number 83 of 2021 of Ananthapuramu I Town Police Station)
Between:
The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Inspector of Police, Ananthapuramu I Town Police
Station. ..Complainant
And
Thiruveedhula Mahesh @ Chenna Mahesh, aged 33 years, S/o Late Chenna Keshavulu, R/o Seetha Nagar, Parwaigunta, 1st lane,
Guntur Town and District, Andhra Pradesh State....Accused
* * * * * This case came on 19.04.2022 before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the
Complainant and of Kum. V.Vijaya, Legal Aid Counsel for the Accused and upon hearing and having stood over for consideration to this day, the court delivers the following:
:: J U D G M E N T ::
1.The State of Andhra Pradesh represented through I. Ravi Sankar
Reddy(PW6/LW13), the Inspector of Police, Ananthapuramu I Town Police
Station filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.83 of 2021 of
Ananthapuramu I Town Police station, for the offences punishable under
Sections 457, 380 or 411 of Indian Penal Code with the following allegations:
On 26.02.2021 at 2.20 Pm., Penukonda Gurumurthy
Rao(PW1/LW1) and Penukonda Shyamala Devi(PW2/LW2) locked their house
2
and went to Bukkarayasamudram Village and Mandal to attend chariot festival along with family members. After completion of the festival, on 28.02.2021 at about 2.30 Pm., they returned to their house and noticed that the locks of the house were broken and some unknown offenders gained entry into their house bearing D.No.MIG 284 situated at Housing Board
Colony, Ananthapuramu Town and committed theft of gold, silver articles,
Oppo A53 Model cell phone IMEI No.865024051392474 worth of ₹.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand Only), one Micro Max tab IMEI
No.911424000247163 worth of ₹.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand Only) and cash of ₹.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh Only) belongs to PW1 and escaped with booty.
In this connection, basing on the report of PW1, Sri R. Prathap
Reddy(PW5/LW12), the then Inspector of Police, Ananthapuramu I Town
Police station registered a case in Crime No.83 of 2021 under Sections 457 and 380 of Indian Penal Code on 28.02.2021 at 04.00 P.m. He issued First
Information Report and submitted its copies to all concerned officers and examined five witnesses, recorded their statements, inspected the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch of the scene. On 24.10.2021
LW10/G.Veera Swamy, Inspector of Police, Jadcherla Police Station,
Telangana State arrested the accused in Cr.No.434/2021 under Sections 457, 380 of Indian Penal Code of Jadcherla Police Station and sent the accused to judicial custody, in which the accused confessed about his involvement in their case as well as in this case and the accused confessed that he was cheated by his friend/co-accused by name Akula Rajender with regard to selling of stolen articles. Later, the Ithwara police have seized some of the stolen properties relating to this case from the possession of the accused.
Basing on the confession made by the accused, on 02.11.2021
R.Prathap Reddy(PW5/LW12), the then Inspector of Police, Ananthapuramu I
Town Police Station produced the accused before the Court on execution of
3
Prisoner’s Transit Warrant. As per orders in Crl.M.P.No.238/2021, dated 12.11.2021 he took the accused into police custody, recorded his confession statement in the presence of two mediators i.e., Sake
Sreenivasulu(PW3/LW4) and Akumalla Subahan(PW4/LW5) the accused revealed that Ithwara Police seized the stolen articles in this case and handed over him to Guntur Police. Then, he deployed LW11/G.Jayapal Reddy, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ananthapuramu I Town Police Station to Ithwara
Police Station along with staff and accused. LW11/G.Jayapal Reddy, the Sub-
Inspector of Police, Ananthapuramu I Town Police Station visited Ithwara
Police Station and obtained NCR vide No.75/2021 under Section 124 of
Maharashtra Police Act of Ithwara Police Station. On perusal of the same,
LW8/Dattatreya Narahari Kale, Station House Officer, Ithwara Police Station,
Nanded city, Maharashtra State apprehended the accused and produced him before LW9/Sahebrao Dagdobe Narwade, Inspector of Police, Ithwar
Police Station, Nanded City, Maharashtra State, then he seized the said stolen properties and registered a case vide NCR No.75/2021 under Section 124 of Maharashtra Police Act. Later, he handed over the stolen articles to
LW11/G.Jayapal Reddy, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ananthapuramu I Town
Police Station, who in turn produced before the LW12/R.Prathap Reddy,
Inspector of Police, Ananthapuramu I Town Police Station. On 15.11.2021 recorded the confession statement of the accused and seized stolen articles in this case under the cover of mahazarnama in the presence of same mediators with the assistance of translator i.e., LW7/Mane Bharath @
Umejaram. LW6/Kuruba Rojamma, Village Revenue Officer, Ananthapuramu
Urban conducted identification of stolen articles on 31.01.2022 under cover of identification proceedings, in which PW1 identified MO1 to MO7 as his stolen articles from his house. Later, PW6 took up further investigation and after completion of his investigation, he filed charge sheet against the
4
accused. Therefore, accused has committed the offences punishable under
Sections 457, 380 and 411 of Indian Penal Code.
3.On 22.02.2022, this Court took cognizance of case against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 457, 380 or 411 of
Indian penal Code.
4.On 25.02.2022, accused is produced from District Jail,
Ananthapuramu. Copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code.
5.On 28.02.2022, accused is produced from District Jail,
Ananthapuramu and he was examined under Section 239 of Criminal
Procedure Code in Telugu, for which he denied. After hearing both sides and on perusing the entire case records, charges for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of Indian Penal Code and an alternative charge for the offence punishable under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code were framed against the accused. The said charges were read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he denied the same, pleaded not guilty and also claimed to be tried. Thus, the case was posted for trial.
6.During the course of trial, prosecution has examined LWs.1, 2, 4, 5, 12, 13 and 6 as PWs 1 to 7 respectively and got marked Exs.P1 to P10 besides MO1 to MO7. The learned Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the remaining evidence i.e., LW3/Karanam Prahalada Rao,
LW7/Mane Bharath @ Umejaram(translator), LW8/Dattatreya Narahari Kale,
SHO, Itwar Police Station, Nanded City, Maharashtra State, LW9/Sahebrao
Dagdobe Narwade, Inspector of Police, Itwar Police Station, Nanded City,
Maharashtra State, LW10/G.Veera Swamy, Inspector of Police, Jadcherla
Police Station, Telangana State and LW11/G.Jayapal Reddy, Sub-Inspector of
5
Police, Ananthapuramu I Town Police Station. Accordingly, the prosecution side evidence was closed.
7.On 18.04.2022, after closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code by explaining the incriminating prosecution evidence in question form in Telugu, for which he denied and reported that there is no defence evidence.
8.Heard arguments of the learned Senior Assistant Public
Prosecutor and learned defence counsel (legal aid counsel). Perused the entire record.
9.Now, the points for determination are as follows:
(i) Whether the prosecution is able to establish that between 26.02.2021 at 2.20 Pm., to 28.02.2021 at 2.30 Pm., M.Os 1 to 7 were stolen from the house/possession of PW1 or not?
(ii) Whether the prosecution is able to establish that M.Os 1 to 7 were recovered from the possession of accused, beyond the reasonable beyond the reasonable doubt?
(iii) Whether the prosecution is able to establish that the accused had dishonestly received or retained the said stolen properties, i.e., M.Os 1 to 7 by knowing or having reason to believe that those articles are stolen
properties beyond the reasonable doubt?
(iv) Whether the prosecution is able to establish that the accused had committed lurking house trespass by night, in order to commit theft in the house of PW1 and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 457 of
Indian Penal Code, beyond the reasonable doubt?
(v) Whether the prosecution is able to establish that the accused had dishonestly taken away the movable properties i.e. M.O.1 to 7 of PW1 from the house of PW1, without his consent for unlawful gain or to cause loss to PW1 and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 380 of Indian Penal Code, beyond the reasonable doubt?
(vi) Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the accused for offence punishable under Section 411 of
Indian Penal Code, beyond the reasonable doubt?
6
10. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution has examined
Seven witnesses out of thirteen listed witnesses as PWs1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P1 to P10 besides MO1 to MO.7. PW1 is the defacto complainant. Ex.P1 is typed complaint given by PW1, dated 28.02.2021.
PW2 is wife of PW1. PW3 and PW4 are mediators, who are said to have accompanied by the Police at the time of confession of the accused and seizure of stolen properties (MO1 to MO7). Ex.P2 to P5 are the signatures of
PW3 and PW4 on confession and seizure mahazarnamas, dated 13.11.2021 at 2.45 Pm., and 15.11.2021 at 7.45 Am., respectively. PW5 is the Inspector of Police, Ananthapuramu I Town Police Station, who registered the case in
Cr.No.83/2021 of Ananthapuramu I Town Police Station. Ex.P6 is the Original
First Information Report, dated 28.02.2021. Ex.P7 is the rough sketch of the scene of offence. Ex.P8 is the police proceedings, dated 31.01.2022. Ex.P9 is the confession mahazarnama of the accused during police custody, dated 13.11.2021. Ex.P10 is the seizure mahazarnama disclosing receiving of
NCR (Non Cognizable Report) and translation into Telugu, dated 15.11.2021 at 6.30 Am., M.O.1 is one Gold chain weighing about 13 grams. MO.2 is
One pair of Gold jumky weighing about 10 grams. MO.3 is One ladies Gold ring weighing about 2 grams. MO.4 is One Gold ring weighing about 3 grams. MO.5 is Two Silver ear studs weighing about 2 grams. MO.6 is One
Silver and black colour MI Company tab. MO.7 is Cash of ₹.62,000/- (Rupees
Sixty two thousand Only.
11.The stand of the accused is of total denial. He contended by way of suggestion that the police foisted a false case against him for disposal of undetected case. No evidence was adduced on his behalf.
12.The learned Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of PW1, supported by PW2, PW5 and PW6 coupled with the contents of Ex.P1/complaint establishes that MOs1 to 7 were stolen from the
7
possession of PW1 and that the evidence of PW2, PW5 and PW6 further establishes that the accused has stolen the same and had dishonestly retained the said stolen properties for wrongful gain and therefore, the accused is liable for conviction under Sections 457, 380 or 411 of Indian
Penal Code.
13.On the other hand, the learned defence counsel argued that there is no direct and circumstantial evidence to establish that the accused has committed theft of MOs1 to 7/stolen articles from the possession of PW1 and further, non-examination of the official witnesses i.e., LW8/Dattatreya
Narahari Kale, SHO, Ithwara Police Station, LW9/Sahebrao Dagdobe
Narwade, Inspector of Ithwara Police Station, LW10/G.Veera Swamy,
Inspector of Police, Jadcherla Police Station, Telangana State, who arrested the accused and seized the stolen properties from his possession and furthermore, PW7 failed to collect the CC footage of the scene of offence or the place of seizure i.e., Itwara City, Nanded and as, he failed to follow the procedure laid under law at the time of arrest and seizure, the accused is entitled for the benefit of doubt.
14.In view of these rival contentions, the entire evidence is perused.
15.Point No.(i):
Herein the case, the unchallenged evidence of PW1, the defacto complainant goes to show that on 26.02.2021 at about 2.20 Pm., all his family members went to Bukkrayasamudram for occasion of chariot festival.
After completion of chariot festival, they came back on 28.02.2021 at about 2.30 Pm., they found his house locks and door are forcibly opened and committed theft of 1) One gold long chain weighing about 30 grams; 2) Six gold necklaces weighing about 60 grams; 3) Two gold non-chain pathakamu weighing about 65 grams; 4) One gold black beads chain weighing about 39
8
grams; 5) Four plain gold chain weighing about 40 grams; 6) Two gold stoned bangles weighing about 20 grams; 7) Eight gold finger rings weighing about 30 grams; 8)15 sets of gold ear rings weighing about 30 grams; 9)One gold single row chain weighing about 10 grams; 10)One gold atukula chain weighing about 12 grams; 11)One raw gold weighing about 20 grams; 12)
One OPPO A53 model cell phone worth of ₹.15,000/- IMEI
No.865024051392474; 13) One Micro Max tab worth of ₹.10,000/- IMEI
NO.911424000247163f and 14) Cash of ₹.1,00,000/-. Then, he went to I town Police Station and gave Ex.P1 written report. After eight moths, he came to know that the police recovered those properties. He identified
MOs1 to 7 i.e., One gold chain weighing about 13 grams(MO.1), One pair of gold jumky weighing about 10 grams (MO.2), One ladies gold ring weighing about 2 grams(MO.3), One gold ring weighing about 3 grams(MO.4), Two silver ear studs weighing about 2 grams(MO.5), One silver and black colour
MI Company tab(MO.6) and Cash of ₹.62,000/- (Rupees Sixty two thousand
Only) before the Court as some of the articles which were stolen from his house.
Later, as per the orders of this Court in Crl.M.P.No.87/2022, dated 08.03.2022 MO.1 to MO.7 are already given to PW1 for interim custody. No inconsistencies were elicited, to suspect the credibility of PW1 evidence. His evidence is corroborative to the contents of Ex.P1 complaint. So, the Court finds no reason to disbelieve his evidence.
16.The evidence of PW2 also goes in the same lines. PW2 also identified MO.1 to MO.7 as the properties are stolen from their house. Her evidence also remained unchallenged.
17.Further, the evidence of PW5, the Inspector of Police,
Ananthapuramu I Town Police station, goes to show about the receiving of report (Ex.P1) from PW1 on 28.02.2021 at 4.00 Pm., registration of the same
9
as First Information Report (Ex.P6) in crime No.83 of 2021 under Sections 457 and 380 of Indian Penal Code. His evidence also shows about examination of PWs1 and 2 and LW3/K.Prahaladarao, recording of their statements and preparation of rough sketch of the scene (Ex.P7). There is no delay in lodging the report. His evidence further shows about his investigation such as utilization of service of District Clues Team and collection of chance prints from the scene of offence for getting clues. On 01.03.2021 the Inspector of Police, Finger print unit, Ananthapuramu informed him through Radio Message in C.No.28/V/SOC/FPU/ATP/2021, dated 01.03.2021 that the finger print of accused were tallied with the chance prints and arrest of accused by LW10/G.Veeraswamy, Inspector of Police,
Jadcherla Police Station, Mahaboobnagar, Telangana State in Cr.No.434/2021 under Sections 457, 380 of Indian Penal Code. He produced the accused
before the Court on execution of Prisoner’s Transit Warrant. Further, he took
police custody of the accused and on interrogation of the accused in the presence PW3 and PW4 and recorded his confession under cover of confession mahazarnama(Ex.P9). He deputed LW11/G.Jayapal Reddy and his team to visit Nanded along with the accused and they ascertained the stolen properties were seized in the above case at Ithwara Police Station, Nanded
City, Maharasthra State as unclaimed property under cover of mahazarnama, dated 15.11.2021(Ex.P10). He accorded permission from the
Court to receive the seized properties mentioned in NCR No.75/2021 of
Ithwara Police Station and take over the seized case properties through PC
No.2556 S.Mahammad. Later, the further investigation done by PW6. Thus, the evidence of PW5 corroborates the version of PW1 regarding the commission of theft in the house of PW1.
18.Further, the evidence of PW6, the Inspector of Police,
Ananthapuramu I Town Police Station, goes to show about the stolen
10
properties identification conducted by the PW7. He send a requisition to
Tahsildar, Ananthapuramu request to depute Village Revenue Officer to act as mediator to conducting property identification, who in turn deputed
PW7/K.Rojamma, Ward Revenue Secretary, Municipal Corporation,
Ananthapuramu, on 31.01.2022 conducted property identification vide Ex.P8 proceedings, in which PW1 identified stolen properties i.e., MO.1 to MO.7 as stolen articles from his house. After completion of his investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused.
19.Moreover, no dissimilarities were elicited by the learned legal aid counsel with regard to the description of the material objects (M.Os 1 to 7), in order to suspect that MOs 1 to 7 are not the properties stolen from the house of PW1. Moreover, both PW1 and PW2 identified those articles before the Court as some of the properties stolen from the house of PW1.
Therefore, Court finds no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW1, PW2 and
PW5 to the extent that some one committed theft of MOs. 1 to 7 from the house of PW1, by committing house breaking by night.
20.Further, no one including the accused disputed that PW1 is owner of the said Gold articles, cellphone, tab and Cash (MO1 to MO7) or claimed the said properties as their own. In such circumstances, the Court is of the view that the evidence of PW1 and PW2 coupled with the contents of
Ex.P1/ complaint clinchingly establishes that MO1/One gold chain weighing about 13 grams, MO2/One pair of gold jumky weighing about 10 grams,
MO3/One ladies gold ring weighing about 2 grams, MO4/One gold ring weighing about 3 grams, MO5/Two silver ear studs weighing about 2 grams,
MO6/One silver and black colour MI Company tab and MO7/Cash of ₹.62,000/- (Rupees Sixty two thousand Only) belongs to PW1 and the same was stolen from his possession, prior to the alleged recovery made on
11
15.11.2021, beyond the reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the point No.(i) is answered in favour of the prosecution and against the accused.
21. Point No.(ii) :-
Now, it has to be seen as to whether the prosecution is able to establish that the said stolen properties i.e., MOs.1 to MO.7 were recovered from the possession of the accused as alleged. To prove the same, the prosecution has examined PW3 to PW5 and got marked Ex.P9 and P10.
Among them, PW3 and PW4 are the independent mediators. PW5 is the
Investigation Officer. According to PW5, the Inspector of Police,
Ananthapuramu I Town Police station on 28.02.2021 at about 4.00 Pm., while himself present at police station, PW1 came and presented Ex.P1 complaint and then, he along with other staff left the police station and inspected the scene of offence i.e., house of PW1, he utilized the service of District Clues
Team. The District Clues Team visited the scene of offence and collected chance prints from the scene of offence to know whether the thumb impressions of the suspects will be matched with the chance prints to getting clues. On 01.03.2021 the Inspector of Police, Finger Print Unit,
AnanthapuramuinformedhimthroughRadioMessagein
C.No.28/V/SOC/FPU/ATP/2021, dated 01.03.2021 that the finger prints of
the accused were tallied with the chance prints collected from the
scene of offence, who is an old offender. During the course of investigation, he came to know about arrest of the accused by
LW10/G.Veeraswamy, Inspector of Police, Jadcherla Police Station, Mahaboob
Nagar, Telangana State in Cr.No.434/2021 under Sections 457, 380 of Indian
Penal Code and the accused confessed about his involvement in their case as well as in this case. Further, deposed about the production of the accused before the Court on execution of Prisoner’s Transit Warrant and on his requisition he took police custody of the accused and on interrogated
12
him in the presence PW3 and PW4 and recorded his confession under cover of confession mahazarnama(Ex.P9). Basing on the confession of the accused, he confessed that he gave stolen properties to his friend/co- accused by name Akula Rajesh, due to some differences between them the said Akula Rajesh took some gold ornaments from the stolen properties. The
Ithwara Police apprehended the said Akula Rajesh and seized remaining gold ornaments from him. Then, PW5 deputed LW11/G.Jayapal Reddy and his team to visit Nanded along with the accused and they ascertained the stolen properties were seized in the above case at Ithwara by Ithwara Police as unclaimed property under cover of seizure mahazarnama, dated 15.11.2021(Ex.P10). He accorded permission from the Court to receive the seized property in NCR No.75/2021 of Ithwara Police Station and take over the seized case property through PC No.2556 S.Mahammad.
22.On perusal of the evidence of PW3 and PW4 categorically deposed that the police never arrested the accused and never seized any property in their presence. The police obtained their signatures on some written papers. They do not know the contents of those papers. Even though, PW3 and PW4 identified their respective signatures i.e., Ex.P2 to
Ex.P5 on mahazarnamas(Ex.P9 and P10), they categorically deposed that they did not know the contents of the same and the purpose for which, their signatures were obtained by the police. As discussed above, PW3 and PW4 also did not support the version of PW5. As PWs 3 and 4 did not support the prosecution version, the learned Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor has declared them as hostile and cross examined them with the permission of the Court. Nothing was elicited from the evidence of PWs 3 and 4 which helps the prosecution to prove their presence at the time of recording of confession and seizure. Thus, the evidence of PW3 and PW4 would not help
13
the prosecution to prove the material allegations levelled against the accused.
23.On summing up of the entire evidence, the evidence of PW5 and
PW6 coupled with the contents of confession and seizure mahazarnamas,
dated 13.11.2021 and 15.11.2021 respectively (Ex.P9 and P10), clinchingly
reveals that accused had dishonestly retained the MO1 to MO7 in his possession. As discussed above, the evidence of PW5 is convincing, cogent, credible and reliable with regard to the recovery of MO1 to MO7 from the possession of the accused. Therefore, the Court holds that the prosecution is able to establish that MO1 to MO7 were recovered from the possession of the accused by the Itwara police, beyond the reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, point No. (ii) is answered in favour of the prosecution and against the accused.
24.Point No. (iii):-
As discussed in point No.(ii), the prosecution proved that the stolen properties i.e., M.Os1 to 7 were recovered from the possession of the accused by Ithwara Police. As rightly argued by the learned Senior Assistant
Public Prosecutor, it is well settled law that when once, the prosecution establishes that accused was found in possession of the stolen properties, it is the burden of the accused to account for his possession as per Section 114(a) of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
25. Here in the case, the accused did not make any effort to account for the possession and also failed to rebut the prosecution evidence with regard to the recovery of stolen properties from his possession. It is not the case of the accused that he had purchased the said properties without having knowledge that the same are stolen properties. Except denying that
MOs 1 to 7 were seized from his possession, the accused failed to establish that he had no knowledge that the said properties are stolen properties. In
14
such facts and circumstances, the Court has no hesitation to hold that the accused was found in possession of M.Os1 to 7 by knowing that the said properties are stolen properties. Accordingly, point No.(iii) is answered in favour of prosecution and against the accused.
26.Point No.(iv) and (v):-
On coming to the allegations leveled against the accused that he committed lurking trespass by night and also committed theft of M.Os1 to 7, the learned Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of
PW5 and PW6 clinching reveals that the accused confessed about commission of theft and so, the accused is liable for punishment. Per contra, the learned legal aid counsel submitted that in absence of any direct or circumstantial evidence, accused cannot be convicted on the basis of inadmissible confessional statement.
27. In the present case on hand, the prosecution is able to establish the factum of recovery of stolen properties from the possession of accused by the Ithwara Police, Nanded with cogent and convincing evidence of PW5,
the finger prints of the accused were tallied with the chance prints
collected from the scene of offence, who is an old offender. The identification of MO1 to MO7 by PW1 as the properties stolen from the house of PW1, before the Court is unchallenged. But, as far as the commission of theft and lurking house trespass, apparently, there is no whisper in the evidence of P.W.s1 and 2 about the involvement of accused as thief. The contents of Ex.P1/Complaint are also silent about the details of accused as thief. Admittedly, finger prints of accused were secured at the scene of offence and the same was tallied with chance prints of the accused. Thus, there is no direct or circumstantial evidence to establish the connectivity of accused with the alleged theft. Further, the alleged recovery was not so
15
immediate to the said commission of theft and it is not the stand of the prosecution that accused was found in possession of the stolen properties near the scene of offence. Therefore, the Court finds no convincing evidence to hold that the accused had committed lurking trespass by night and also committed theft of M.Os1 to 7 from the house of PW.1. Hence, the Court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of accused for offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of Indian Penal
Code, beyond the reasonable doubt. Accordingly, point No. (iv) and (v) are answered against the prosecution.
28.Point No.(vi):-
In view of the above discussion and findings in points (i) to (iii), the prosecution is able to establish that MOs. 1 to 7 were stolen out of the house of PW1, prior to the recovery on 15.11.2021 and that accused had dishonestly retained those properties (MOs. 1 to 7) by knowing that those properties are stolen properties and he failed to account for the possession.
Hence, the Court holds that the prosecution is able to establish all the ingredients of Section 411 of Indian Penal Code, to bring home the guilt of the accused for the said offence. Accordingly, point No.(vi) is answered in favour of the prosecution and against the accused.
29. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences
punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of Indian Penal Code.
Therefore, accused is acquitted under Section 248 (1) of Criminal
Procedure Code for the said offences. But the accused is found
guilty for the offence punishable under Section 411 of Indian Penal
Code. Therefore, the accused is convicted under Section 248 (2)
Criminal Procedure Code for the said offence.
16
As per the orders of this Court in Crl.M.P.87/2022, dated 08.03.2022, MO1 to MO7 were already given to the interim custody of PW1.
Hence, the said interim custody of case property shall holds good and become absolute and MO1 to MO7 are ordered to be retained by PW.1, after expiry of appeal time.
Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court this the 21 st day of April, 2022.
Sd/- A.Omkar,
I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ananthapuramu FAC Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ananthapuramu.
When the accused is questioned about the sentence, he stated that he is having old aged mother and he is the only person to look after her welfare and thus, he pleaded mercy while imposing sentence and to set off the detention period.
On considering the facts of the case, the Court is of the view that it is not a fit case to apply the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act. However, in view of the submissions of the accused with regard to condition of his family, the Court is inclined to take balanced view while imposing sentence.
Therefore, accused is sentenced to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of SIX MONTHS for the offence punishable Under Section 411 of
Indian Penal Code.
The detention period undergone by accused for the period from 01.11.2021 to till date i.e., 21.04.2022 (both days inclusive) shall be set off under Section 428 Criminal Procedure Code against his sentence of imprisonment.
As per orders of this Court in Crl.M.P.87/2022, dated 08.03.2022 MO1 to MO7 were already given to the interim custody of PW1/Penukonda
Gurumurthy Rao. Hence, the said interim custody of case property shall holds good and becomes absolute and MO1 to MO7 vide CPR No.31/2022 is ordered to be retained by PW1, after expiry of appeal time.
17
Accused is informed of his right to prefer an appeal against the
Calendar and Judgment of this Court. When he is asked about his means to prefer an appeal, he stated that he does not need legal aid.
Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court this the 21 st day of April, 2022.
Sd/- A.Omkar,
I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ananthapuramu FAC Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ananthapuramu. Contn.
APPE NDIX OF EVIDENCE
witnesses examined
For Prosecution: For Defence:
P.W.1 Penukonda Gurumurthy Rao. None P.W.2P. Shyamala Devi. P.W.3Sake Sreenivasulu (mediator). P.W.4Akumalla Subahan (mediator). P.W.5R. Rapthap Reddy, Inspector of Police, Ananthapuramu I Town Police Station. P.W.6I. Ravi Sankar Reddy, Inspector of Police, Ananthapuramu I Town Police Station. P.W.7K. Rojamma, Village Revenue Officer.
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For prosecution:
ExhibitsDescription Ex.P1Complaint of PW1, dated 28.02.2021. Ex.P2Signature of PW3 on confession Mahazarnama, dated 13.11.2021. Ex.P3Signature of PW3 on seizure Mahazarnama, dated 15.11.2021. Ex.P4Signature of PW4 on confession Mahazarnama, dated 13.11.2021. Ex.P5Signature of PW4 on seizure Mahazarnama, dated 15.11.2021. Ex.P6Original First Information Report, dated 28.02.2021. Ex.P7Rough sketch of the scene of offence.
18
Ex.P8Police proceedings, dated 31.01.2022. Ex.P9Confession Mahazarnama of the accused during police custody, dated 13.11.2021. Ex.P10Seizure Mahazarnama disclosing receiving of NCR(Non Cognizable Report) and translation into Telugu through LW7/M.Bharath @ Umejaram, dated 15.11.2021 at 6.30 Am.,
For Defence: Nil
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
For prosecutionFor defence MO1:Ond gold chain weighing about 13 grams.Nil MO2:One pair of gold jumky weighing about 10 grams. MO3:One ladies gold ring weighing about 2 grams. MO4:One gold ring weighing about 3 grams. MO5:Two silver ear studs weighing about 2 grams. MO6:One silver and black colour MI Company tab. MO7: Cash of ₹.62,000/- (Rupees Sixty two thousand Only)
Sd/- A.Omkar,
I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ananthapuramu. FAC Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ananthapuramu.
//True copy//
I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Ananthapuramu.
FAC Judicial Magistrate of First Class
Ananthapuramu.
19
CALENDAR CASES TRIED
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, ANANTHAPURAMU.
Calendar Case No.231 of 2022
Complainant : Inspector of Police, Ananthapuramu I Town Police Station Crime No.83 of 2021 of Ananthapuramu I Town Police Station.
Thiruveedhula Mahesh @ Chenna Mahesh, aged 33 years, S/o Late Chenna Keshavulu, R/o Seetha Nagar, Parwaigunta, 1st lane, Guntur Town and District, Andhra Pradesh State.
Date of Report or Apprehen Released Commen Close of Sentence
Offence Complaint sion/ on bail cement of trial Order
Appearan trial
ce of accused Prior to28.02.2021 25.02.2022----08.03.2022 18.04.202221.04.2022 28.02.2021
Offence :-Under Sections 457, 380 or 411 of Indian Penal Code.
Finding :- Found guilty for the offence 411 of Indian Penal Code only.
Sentence of Order:-In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of Indian Penal Code.
Therefore, accused is acquitted under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C for the said offences.
But the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable
under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the accused is
convicted under Section 248 (2) Criminal Procedure Code for the
said offence.
Therefore, accused is sentenced to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of SIX MONTHS for the offence punishable Under Section 411 of
Indian Penal Code.
The detention period undergone by accused for the period from 01.11.2021 to till date i.e., 21.04.2022 (both days inclusive) shall be set off under Section 428 Criminal Procedure Code against his sentence of imprisonment.
As per orders of this Court in Crl.M.P.87/2022, dated 08.03.2022
MO1 to MO7 were already given to the interim custody of PW1/Penukonda
Gurumurthy Rao. Hence, the said interim custody of case property shall
20
holds good and becomes absolute and MO1 to MO7 vide CPR No.31/2022 is ordered to be retained by PW1, after expiry of appeal time.
Accused is informed of his right to prefer an appeal against the
Calendar and Judgment of this Court. When he is asked about his means to prefer an appeal, he stated that he does not need legal aid.
Sd/- A.Omkar,
I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ananthapuramu. FAC Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ananthapuramu. Copy Submitted :-
1. The Hon’ble First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu.
2. The Superintendent of Police, Ananthapuramu.
//True copy//
I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Ananthapuramu.
FAC Judicial Magistrate of First Class
Ananthapuramu.
DIS.No.228, Dt.21.04.2022.