Smt. A. Sunitha Rani

1

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS::

KHAMMAM.

Present: Smt. A. Sunitha Rani, B.A., B.L., II A.J.M.F.C, Khammam.

Friday, this the 15th day of May, 2015

C.C. No: 400/2012

[Cr.No.217 of 2012, P.S.Khammam Rural]

Between: The State, Through S.H.O,

Khammam rural P.S. ... Complainant

And

1. Allika Padma, W/o Narasaiah, 25 yrs, Yadava, Coolie,

2. Allika Seethamma, W/o Venkatappaiah, 60 yrs, Yadava, Coolie,

3. Allika Venkateswarulu, S/o Venkatappaiah, 40 yrs, Yadava, Agriculture, All are R/o Gudurupadu of Khammam Rural Mandal. … Accused * * *

This case came before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Learned A.P.P for the state and Sri. O.Seshagiri Rao, Learned Advocate for the accused, upon hearing on both sides, stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1) The S.H.O of Khammam rural P.S filed charge sheet against the above accused for the offence punishable U/secs. 325, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C in Cr.No:

217/2012 with a prayer to punish the above accused.

2) Brief facts: Complainant Dasu Padma (P.W.1) is resident of Gudurupadu of

Khammam Rural Mandal and A.1 to A.3 also resident of same village. There is a open place between the houses of P.W.1 and accused persons. Taking the advantage of open place, the accused persons used to dump garbbage (pettakuppa) in that place, due to which snakes are moving and foul smell is coming from the said land.

In this regard, P.W.1 requested accused many times not to dump the garbbage in the said land, but the accused paid deaf ear. Upon that, P.w.1 decided to construct wall between the open plot to cover her house. On that on 27.08.2012 morning at about 8.30 a.m, P.W.1 called the village elders i.e., PWs.2 & 3 and marked the boundary line with white powder. In the mean time, A.1 & A.2 came there picked up 2 quarrel with P.W.1 with regard to marking boundary and A.1 hit with a stone on the head of P.W.1, resulting she received bleeding injury. Then P.Ws.2 to 4 intervened and rescued P.W.1, later P.W.5, who is the son of P.W.1 came and and while enquiring into the matter A.3 beat him with hands and also threatened with dire consequences.

2.1) On the same day of incident at about 1030 hours, P.W.1 placed written report with the police basing on which police registered F.I.R in Cr.No: 217/2012

U/secs. 324, 506 of I.P.C. During the course of investigation, police recorded the statements of witnesses, visited the scene of offence, prepared C.D.F. On 02-08- 2012, P.W.9 arrested A.1 to A.3 and produced before the court for judicial remand.

P.W.8, Dr. K. Sandhya Rani, medical officer issued wound certificate opined that the injuries received by P.W.1 are grievous & simple in nature. After completion of investigation P.W.9 came to the conclusion that the accused persons committed an offence punishable U/secs. 325, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C and filed charge sheet. Hence, the case.

3) Basing on the charge sheet and material on record, case was taken on file

U/secs.325, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C. In response to that, accused entered their appearance and they were provided with the copies of documents on which the prosecution is proposed to prove guilt, in compliance to section 207 of Cr.P.C.

4) During the course of first examination U/Sec. 239 of Cr.P.C a charge

U/sec. 325, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C were framed and the same was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Upon invitation for trial, the prosecution, in order to bring home the accusation leveled against the accused examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and got marked

Exs.P.1 to P.8 documents.

5) After completion of prosecution evidence accused were examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C by explaining the available incriminating material against them for which they denied the same. The defence not chosen to adduce any evidence on its behalf except availing the opportunity of cross examination of prosecution witnesses.

6) Heard the arguments of both sides.

7) The point that arise for consideration is:- “Whether the evidence on record is sufficient to sustain the conviction

against the accused herein for the offence punishable U/Secs. 325, 506 r/w 34

of I.P.C.?” 3

8)P O I N T: As stated supra, the defence not chosen to adduce any evidence, thus the evidence of prosecution alone is on record. On the side of prosecution, nine witnesses were examined and eight documents were marked. P.W.1 is the complainant-cum-Injured, P.Ws.2 to 5 are eye witnesses, P.w.6 is panch for CDF,

P.w.8 is Medical officer, P.W.s.7 & 9 are investigating officers. With regard to documents, Ex.P.1 is report of P.W.1, Exs.P.2 to P.4 are 161 Cr.P.C statements of

P.W.2 to 4, Ex.P.5 is Signature of P.W.6 on CDF, Ex.P.6 is FIR, Ex.P.7 is CDF,

Ex.P.8 is Wound certificate of P.W.1.

9) Evidence available on record:- It is the version of P.W.1 that Accused are her neighbours. The accused used to throw garbbage in front of her house, due to which bad smell is coming and snakes are moving in the said land. In this regard,

P.W.1 asked the accused not to throw the garbagge in the said land, but the accused paid deaf ear. Then she informed the same to the village elders and marked the boundary with white sunnam. In the mean time, A.1 and A.2 came and picked up quarrel with her and pelted stone on her head, resulting she sustained injuries on her head and lost her two upper teeth. P.Ws.2 & 3 came to the spot and rescued her. After that P.W.5, who is the son of P.W.1 came to the spot, then A.3 beat P.W.5 with hands, further all the accused threatened P.W.1 with dire consequences. She further deposed about lodging of report in the police station which was marked as

Ex.P.1.

In the cross examination by the learned defence counsel, she deposed that A.1 to A.3 are her close relatives. She further deposed that she did not give any complaint to grampachyat about the nuisance caused to P.W.1 by the accused in the above said land. She further deposed that she did not give any documents to the police to show that the alleged scene of offence belongs to P.W.1.

9.1) P.Ws.2 to 4, who are projected as an eye witnesses, not supported the prosecution case and turned hostile. P.W.5, who is also said to be an eye witness and son of P.W.1 corroborated the version of P.W.1. In the cross examination by the learned defence counsel, he deposed that her mother gave complaint to grampanchayat stating that the accused are dumping garbagge infront of her house.

P.W.6, who is the panch for CDF, did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile. Learned APP cross examined the witness with the permission of the court as he did not support his earlier version, but nothing was elicited from his cross examination to suggests that he speaks falsehood.

9.2) P.W.8 is medical officer deposed about treatment given to P.W.1 and issuance of Wound certificate. P.Ws.7 & 9 are Investigating officers and they clearly 4 deposed about registration of F.I.R, conducting of investigation and filing of charge sheet.

10) Learned A.P.P. submitted that there is a running thread throughout the evidence of the prosecution with regard to the implication of A.1 to A.3. The evidence of injured person P.W.1 was corroborated by medical evidence and the eye witnesses i.e., P.W.5 also supported the case of the prosecution and as a whole, the prosecution proved the case against A.1 to A.3 beyond reasonable doubt and that prayed to punish the accused persons accordingly. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused submitted that the witnesses exaggerated their versions in the evidence and no material objects which were alleged to be used for commission of offence were not seized by the police and in Ex.P.8, medical certificate of P.W.1, the name of injured is mentioned as Dasu Pochammam and not Dasu Padma (P.W.1), further the independent eye witnesses not supported the prosecution version, accordingly all these facts clouds the prosecution case and that prayed for acquittal.

11) Now it has to be seen whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of accused for the alleged offences through its evidence. As stated supra, the crucial witnesses in this case are P.ws.1 to 5. P.W.1 is injured and P.Ws.2 to 5 are eye witnesses to the alleged incident. The injured witness is neighbour to accused and admittedly both are close relatives. It is appearing that there are previous disputes between the accused on one side and the material witness on the other side with regard to the alleged scene of offence. It is not the case of the prosecution that none were witnessed the incident and it is the case of the prosecution that P.Ws. 2 to 5 witnessed the incident. The witnesses i.e., P.ws.2 to 4 who were projected as an independent eye witnesses to the incident are turned hostile and not supported the version of prosecution. P.W.2 & P.W.5, who are the mother and son supported the prosecution version, whereas, P.Ws.2 to 4, who are the independent eye witnesses did not support the prosecution case. Therefore, this court feels that except the interested witnesses, no other independent witness supported the prosecution case.

12) There is another important aspect in this case is that prior disputes between the parties. The evidence of independent witnesses who were claimed to be an eye witness were turned out to be non corroboration. Therefore, for the alleged receiving of injuries there is no corroboration from the independent eye witnesses.

When there is admitted enmity between the parties it is not safe to rely upon the uncorroborated testimony of injured to decide the guilt. 'The HON'BLE HIGH

COURT OF A.P' in a recent decision of similar case reported in '2012(1) A.L.D (Crl.) 88 A.P' 'P.Tirupathi Vs State of A.P and others' held that “It is not as though in every case, the uncorroborated testimony of the victim deserves to be ignored. The 5 uncorroborated testimony of a victim nevertheless can form the basis of a conviction, so long as the same is inspiring. In the present case, it is not as though PW.2 claimed that no one was present at the time of the attack on him by A.1 to A.4. It is his case that PWs.3 and 4 witnessed the incident. The evidence of PWs.3 and 4, consequently, is not a case of non-corroboration but a case of rejection of the case of PW.2. That apart, admittedly, there is enmity between the accused on the one side and PWs.1 and 2 on the other side. Thus, where there is admitted enmity between the accused on the one side and the PWs.1 and 2 on the other side, it is not safe at all to record a conviction on the basis of the uncorroborated testimony of PW.2.”

13) Therefore, as already pointed out, the evidence of injured person is the evidence of an interested witness. She is interested in the conviction of the accused on account of her previous enmity with the accused. The evidence of such a witness, therefore, may not be accepted without sufficient corroboration. As repeatedly pointed out, there is no corroboration for the evidence of injured witness from independent witnesses, regarding receiving of injuries. There is no cogent and reliable evidence to implicate the complicity of the accused in commission of the offence. The material produced by the prosecution is not sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Thereby, the point is decided in favour of the defence.

14) IN THE RESULT, A.1 to A.3 are found not guilty for the offence under sections 325, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C, accordingly acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.p.c.

The bail bonds of accused and their sureties shall stands cancelled after expiry of six months. Police seized no material objects during the course of investigation, and that no order as to disposal of property.

Typed to my dictation by stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 15 th day of May, 2015.

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I class,

KHAMMAM.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined for

For prosecution: P.W.1: D.Padma P.W.2: D.Pitchaiah P.W.3: Ch.Seetharamulu P.W.4: B.Kondaiah P.W.5: D.Arun Kumar P.W.6: G.Babu P.W.7: Sk.Osman Ali, I.O P.W.8: Dr.K.Sudha Rani P.W.9: K.Naga Raju, I.O 6

For defence: -None-

Documents marked:

For prosecution: Ex.P.1: Report of P.W.1 Ex.P.2 to 4: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.Ws.2 to 4 Ex.P.5: Signature of P.W.6 on CDF Ex.P.6: F.I.R Ex.P.7: C.D.F. Ex.P.8: M.C of P.W.1.

For defence: -Nil-

Material objects marked:

-Nil-

II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class,

Khammam.

Page No. 1 of 6 C.C.No.204/11

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

AT KHAMMAM.

Present: Smt.A.Sunitha Rani, B.A.,B.L., II A.J.M.F.C, Khammam.

Friday, this the 15th day of May, 2015.

C.C. No. 204/2011

[Cr. No. 37 of 2011 of Mudigonda P.S.] Between: The State, Through S.I of Police, Mudigonda P.S. . . . Complainant.

And

Bathini Radhamma, W/o Venkata Rathnam, 63 yrs, House-hold, N/o Laxmipuram, R/o Subhashnagar, Yellandu. . . . Accused.

-o0o-

This case came before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Learned A.P.P, for the State, and Sri. I.Venkateswarulu, Learned counsel for Accused, upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of both sides, 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, Mudigonda P.S, filed charge sheet in

Cr.No.37/2011 with a prayer to punish the above accused alleging that she committed offence punishable U/sec. 447, 427 of I.P.C.

[2.] Briefly stated the case of prosecution is like this:- The defacto complainant (P.W.1) Bathini Narayanamma is resident of New

Laxmipuram village. Accused is cousin to P.W.1 and resident of Yellandu.

In the year 2010, the Government has assigned house site measuring 250 yards to P.W.1 at Laxmipuram Colony. The accused and her husband claiming that the said house site belongs to them, for that P.W.1 approached the Hon'ble court and obtained interim orders in her favour and subsequently, she started construction of a small room and build up the walls with cement bricks up to door level. On 31.03.2011 night at about 1900 hours, in the absence of P.W.1, the accused criminally trespassed into the above said land and dismantled the construction of the

Page No. 2 of 6 C.C.No.204/11 wall and caused loss to a tune of Rs.4,000/- and escaped from that place.

At that time, P.W.2, who is the daughter-in-law of P.W.1 and her neighbours i.e., P.Ws.4 to 6 witnessed the incident.

[3.] On 01-04-2011 P.W.1 lodged a written report with the police basing on which F.I.R in Cr. No. 37/2011 was registered. During the course of investigation I.O examined and recorded the statements of P.W.1, 2, 4 to 6, I.O drawn C.D.F at the scene of offence in the presence of P.W.3 and L.W.7, Syed Khasim. No material objects were seized during the course of investigation. Further, on 28-04-2011 I.O apprehended the Accused and effected her arrest and upon her production she was remanded to judicial custody and later enlarged on bail. After completion of investigation, I.O came to the conclusion that Accused committed an offence punishable

U/sec. 447, 427 of I.P.C and filed charge sheet to that effect. Hence, the accusation.

[4.] Considering the charge sheet and material on record, this court took the case on file for the offence punishable U/sec. 447, 427 of I.P.C and issued process. In response to the process, Accused entered her appearance and she was provided with the copies of documents upon which the prosecution relied to prove the proposed guilt.

[5.] During the examination U/sec. 251 of Cr.P.C, the substance of accusation which constitutes an offence U/sec. 447, 427 of I.P.C was read over and explained, for which Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Upon invitation for trail the prosecution examined SEVEN witnesses as P.W.1 to 7 and exhibited as many as FIVE documents as Ex.P.1 to P.5.

[6.] After completion of prosecution side evidence, Accused was examined U/sec. 313 of Cr.P.C where-under the available incriminating material against her was explained, for which she denied the same. The defence not chosen to adduce any evidence on its behalf.

[7.] Heard arguments of both sides.

[8.] Now, the point that arises for consideration is that:-

“ Whether the evidence on record is sufficient to record a

conviction against Accused for the offence punishable U/sec. 447, 427 of I.P.C.?”

Page No. 3 of 6 C.C.No.204/11 [9.] DISCUSSION, DECISION AND REASONS THEREOF: In nutshell, the accusation of prosecution is that on 31.03.2011 night at about 1900 hours, in the absence of P.W.1, the accused criminally trespassed into the above said land and dismantled the construction of the wall and caused loss to a tune of Rs.4,000/- to P.W.1.

[9-A.] In a criminal trial, one has to start with the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused which is also regarded as human right because no one can be convicted and punished merely on the ground of suspicion, however strong it may be. Every person has a profound right not to be convicted of an offence which is not established by the evidential standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Though this standard is a higher standard, there is, however, no absolute standard. What degree of probability amounts to “proof” is an exercise particular to each case. The prosecution is required to prove offence beyond reasonable doubt. Here in this case, the claim of defence of accused is that one of total denial. In the first examination conducted U/sec. 251 of Cr.P.C and even in the second examination which was conducted after completion of evidence of prosecution U/sec. 313 of Cr.P.C by explaining the available incriminating material against her, the accused stood strongly on the claim that she is innocent of the alleged accusation.

[9-B.] Before proceeding with the point that whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused beyond doubt, it is appropriate to see the nature of evidence produced and the gist of testimonies of witnesses. As already stated the defence adduced no evidence on its behalf. With regard to prosecution, it has examined P.W.1 to 7 and exhibited Ex.P.1 to P.5.

P.W.1 is defacto complainant cum victim, P.W.2, 4 to 6 are eye witnesses,

P.W.3 is panch witness for drafting of C.D.F, P.W.7 is investigating officer.

With regard to documents, Ex.P.1 is report of P.W.1, Ex.P.2 is CDF, Ex.P.3 & Ex.P.4 are 161 Cr.P.C statements of P.W.5 & 6, Ex.P.5 is F.I.R.

[9-C.] P.W.1 evidence is that accused is her co-sister. Twenty years back, government assigned house site to an extent of 250 sq.yards to

P.W.1. About two years back, P.W.1 constructed a house in the said land, then the husband of accused demolished the said house, then she approached the Hon'ble court and obtained injunction orders and again constructed the house up to door levels. One day, the accused criminally

Page No. 4 of 6 C.C.No.204/11 trespassed into the said land and demolished the wall and caused loss to a tune of RS.4,000/- to P.W.1. At that time, P.W.s.2, 4 to 6 witnessed the incident. She further deposed about lodging of report in the police station, which was marked as Ex.P.1.

In the cross examination by the learned defence counsel, she admitted that she filed a suit against the husband of accused and obtained injunction orders in her favour and subsequently, the said suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 18.7.2013. She further admitted that at the time of demolishing her house, P.W.1 was not present and she came to know about the incident from P.Ws.2 , 5 & 6.

[9.D] P.W.2 , who is projected as an eye witness deposed that P.W.1 is her mother-in-law. About two years back, one day about 6.00 p.m the accused criminally trespassed into the land of P.W.1 and demolished the house. The accused and P.W.1 are having disputes regarding the scene of offence land. In the cross examination by the learned defence counsel, she denied the suggestion that no alleged incident was happened and accused never committed any offence and as P.W.1 is her mother-in-law, P.W.2 is deposing false only to support P.W.1. P.W.4, who is also projected as eye witness deposed as on the same lines as that of P.W.2 with regard to the alleged incident. She further deposed that P.W.1 and accused are having disputes with regard to the alleged scene of offence. P.W.3, who is the panch for CDF, deposed about conducting of CDF in his presence.

[9.E.] P.W.s.5 & 6, who are also projected as an eye witnesses did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile. Learned APP sought permission to cross examine the witnesses, but nothing was elicited to suggests that they speaks false hood. P.W.7 is the investigating officer and he deposed about registration of F.I.R, conducting of investigation including arrest of accused, and also about filing of charge sheet.

[9-F.] Now it has to be seen whether the prosecution is able to prove commission of offence by the accused. P.W.7 is investigating officer and he deposed about conducting of investigation. Evidence of P.W.7 assumes importance only when the evidence of material witnesses is cogent and reliable.

Page No. 5 of 6 C.C.No.204/11 [9-G.] Thus the material witnesses are P.W.1, 2, 4 to 6. P.W.1 is victim in this case and according to her she was informed about the incident by P.W.2, 5 & 6 and after knowing the information she visited the scene of offence. When we examine the evidence of P.W.2, 5 & 6, except

P.W.2, remaining eye witnesses i.e., P.Ws..5 & 6 turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution. Admittedly, P.W.2 is the daughter-in- law of P.W.1, therefore she is an interested witness. P.W.4, who is also said to be an eye witness deposed that on hearing the hues and cries of P.W.2, she went to the spot, whereas P.W.1 did not deposed about the said fact.

[9.-H] On careful perusal of the material available on record, P.W.7, who is the investigating officer, admitted that he did not file any documents to show that the alleged place of offence belongs to P.W.1 and she is in lawful possession and further there are discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution as stated supra. Section 447 IPCattracts only when a person enters into or upon the property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence. Further, on perusal of the material available on record, except the oral evidence, there is no documentary evidence to prove that the P.W.1 is in possession of the alleged scene of offence, which is one of the main ingredients to prove the offence against the accused. Moreover, there is no material on record to prove the damaged caused to P.w1 as alleged, hence Sec.427 IPC also not proved. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.

1 to 7 coupled with the documentary evidence of Exs.P .1 to P. 5 do not inspire any confidence in the mind of the court about the commission of offence by the accused.

[9-I.] In a criminal case prosecution has to stand on its own legs. It has to prove every ingredient of an offence beyond any doubt against the accused. It is cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that accused is presumed to be innocent. Burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. This general burden never shifts, it always rests on the prosecution. Now coming to the present case, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond doubt.

The material produced by the prosecution is hardly sufficient to brought home the guilt of the accused persons beyond doubt. Thereby, the point is decided in negative.

Page No. 6 of 6 C.C.No.204/11 [10.] IN THE RESULT, Accused is found not guilty for the offence

U/sec. 447, 427 of I.P.C, and accordingly she is acquitted U/sec. 255(1) of

Cr.P.C. The Bail bonds of the accused and her sureties shall stands cancelled after the expiry of six months. There is no order as to property.

Typed to my dictation by the stenographer. The judgment is delivered and operative part of the same is pronounced by me in the open court, today, this the 15 th day of May, 2015, under the hand and seal of this court.

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

KHAMMAM.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined: For prosecution: For defence: P.W.1: B.Narayanamma -None- P.W.2: B.Sujatha P.W.3: K.Satyam P.W.4: K.Uma P.W.5: P.Venkateswarulu P.W.6: Y.Sai Baba P.W.7: B.Raja Gopal, I.O.

Documents marked: For prosecution: For defence: Ex.P.1: Report of P.W.1. -Nil- Ex.P.2 : C.D.F Ex.P.3 & 4: 161 Cr.P.C Statements of P.Ws.5 & 6. Ex.P.5: F.I.R.

Material objects marked: -Nil on either side-

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

KHAMMAM.

IN THE COURT OF

II Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- II Additional Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Khammam

(PROSECUTION):

KHAMMAM

VERSUS ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APP for State }: APPO, -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

ORDER

Accused produced from District Jail, Khammam. He is examined U/sec. 239 Cr.P.C. A charge U/sec. 420 of IPC is framed. The substance of charge read over and explained in Telugu. Having understood the same, Accused pleaded guilty by submitting that he committed the offence. It is informed to the accused that he is not bound to make any admission, and if made it can be used against him to decide the guilt. One hour time has been given for reflection. \ \ Accused again produced before me after period provided for reflection. When questioned, accused stick to his admission and submitted that his plea of admission is a voluntary one. This court satisfied that the plea of guilt tendered by Accused is voluntary, free from threat and coercion. Accordingly plea of admission tendered by Accused is accepted. \ \ Resultantly, Accused is convicted U/sec. 241 CrPC for the offence U/sec. 420 IPC. When questioned with regard to quantum of sentence, Accused pleaded mercy of the court by submitting that he is a poor man and his entire family is depending on his earnings. The property involved in this case is cash of Rs.3,50,000/- and the same was already returned to owner for interim custody, and on the other hand the accused is a U.T prisoner and he is in judicial custody since 19-03-2013 to 25-8- 2014 and from 14-03-2015 to till date. Having regard to the submissions made by Accused and also by considering his remand period, his social status, and property involved in the present offence, it would be just and proper to take a lenient view in imposing the sentence and this court is of the view that the following sentence would meet the ends of justice. \ \ In the result, Accused is sentenced to undergo for the remand period already undergone. The bail bonds of Accused and his sureties if any shall stands cancelled. \ \ Jail authorities are hereby directed to set at liberty Accused, if his presence is not required in any other case or crime. \ \ The unmarked case property involved in this case i.e., cash of Rs.3,50,000/- Rupees three lakhs and fifty thousand only which was already given to Owner L.W.1 for interim custody as per the orders in Crl.M.P.No.428 of 2013, dated 17.04.2013 shall holds good and final.

II Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- II Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Khammam

Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services ” from Android or iOS

IN THE COURT OF

II Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- II Additional Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Khammam

(PROSECUTION):

KHAMMAM

VERSUS ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APP for State }: APPO, -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

ORDER

Accused produced from District Jail, Khammam. He is examined U/sec. 239 Cr.P.C. A charge U/sec. 379 of IPC is framed. The substance of charge read over and explained in Telugu. Having understood the same, Accused pleaded guilty by submitting that he committed theft. It is informed to the accused that he is not bound to make any admission, and if made it can be used against him to decide the guilt. One hour time has been given for reflection. \ \ Accused again produced before me after period provided for reflection. When questioned, accused stick to his admission and submitted that his plea of admission is a voluntary one. This court satisfied that the plea of guilt tendered by Accused is voluntary, free from threat and coercion. Accordingly plea of admission tendered by Accused is accepted. \ \ Resultantly, Accused is convicted U/sec. 241 CrPC for the offence U/sec. 379 of IPC. When questioned with regard to quantum of sentence, Accused pleaded mercy of the court by submitting that he is a poor man and his entire family is depending on his earnings. \ \ The stolen property involved in this case is 20 kgs of chilly bag worth Rs.1,600/-, and on the other hand the accused is a U.T prisoner and he is in judicial custody since 18-04-2015 to till date. Having regard to the submissions made by Accused and also by considering his remand period, his social status, and property involved in the present offence, it would be just and proper to take a lenient view in imposing the sentence and this court is of the view that the following sentence would meet the ends of justice. \ \ In the result, Accused is sentenced to undergo for the remand period already undergone. The bail bonds of Accused and his sureties if any shall stands cancelled. \ \ Jail authorities are hereby directed to set at liberty Accused, if his presence is not required in any other case or crime. \ \ Police did not recovered the case property i.e., 20 kgs of chilly bag in this case, as the accused sold out the said property to known person and spent the money, hence there is no order as to property.

II Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- II Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Khammam

Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services ” from Android or iOS

IN THE COURT OF

II Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- II Additional Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Khammam

(PROSECUTION):

KHAMMAM

VERSUS ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APP for State }: APPO, -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

ORDER

Accused produced from District Jail, Khammam. He is examined U/sec. 239 Cr.P.C. A charge U/sec. 379 of IPC is framed. The substance of charge read over and explained in Telugu. Having understood the same, Accused pleaded guilty by submitting that he committed theft. It is informed to the accused that he is not bound to make any admission, and if made it can be used against him to decide the guilt. One hour time has been given for reflection. \ \ Accused again produced before me after period provided for reflection. When questioned, accused stick to his admission and submitted that his plea of admission is a voluntary one. This court satisfied that the plea of guilt tendered by Accused is voluntary, free from threat and coercion. Accordingly plea of admission tendered by Accused is accepted. \ \ Resultantly, Accused is convicted U/sec. 241 CrPC for the offence U/sec. 379 of IPC. When questioned with regard to quantum of sentence, Accused pleaded mercy of the court by submitting that he is a poor man and his entire family is depending on his earnings. \ \ The stolen property involved in this case is one Ox worth Rs.50,000/-, and on the other hand the accused is a U.T prisoner and he is in judicial custody since 18-04-2015 to till date. Having regard to the submissions made by Accused and also by considering his remand period, his social status, and property involved in the present offence, it would be just and proper to take a lenient view in imposing the sentence and this court is of the view that the following sentence would meet the ends of justice. \ \ In the result, Accused is sentenced to undergo for the remand period already undergone. The bail bonds of Accused and his sureties if any shall stands cancelled. \ \ Jail authorities are hereby directed to set at liberty Accused, if his presence is not required in any other case or crime. \ \ The unmarked case property involved in this case i.e., one Ox worth Rs.50,000/- shall be returned to the owner forthwith on his claim.

II Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- II Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Khammam

Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services ” from Android or iOS