Sri. A. Veeraiah

1 Of 37 S.C.No.161 of 2017

FORM-A

IN THE COURT OF THE FAST TRACK SPECIAL SESSIONS COURT FOR

EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT

CASES, AT JAGTIAL.

Present: Sri.A.Veeraiah, I Addl. Sessions Judge, Jagtial

FAC: SPL.Judge (POCSO cases), Jagtial.

MONDAY, THE 27th DAY OF MARCH, 2023.

SESSION CASE No. 161 OF 2017

(Cr.No. 261 of 20 16 of PS . Jagtial Town )

ComplainantSub Divisional Police Officer, Jagtial

REPRESENTED BY

Smt.C.Bala Tripura Sundari, Special Public Prosecutor

ACCUSEDArumulla Rajesh @ Rajesham @ Bittu, S/o. Rajaiah, Age: 19 years, Goondla, R/o. H.No. 7-3-39, Near Annapurna Talkies, Jagtial.

REPRESENTED BY

Sri. S. Ravinder, counsel for Accused persons.

FORM-B Date of Offence12.12.2016 Date of FIR12.12.2016 Date of Charge sheet06.12.2017 Date of Framing of Charges25.10.2021 Date of Commencement of evidence01.09.2022 Date on which judgment is reserved 15.03.2023 Date of the Judgment27.03.2023 Date of the Sentencing Order, if any 27.03.2023

Accused Details:

2 Of 37 S.C.No.161 of 2017

RanName ofDateDate ofOffenceWhetherSentence ImposedPeriod of Detention k ofAccusedofReleasesAcquitted Undergone theArreson Bailchargedor during Accutwithconvicted Trial for sed purpose of section 428 Cr.P.C

Sole Arumulla31.1208-03-363, Convicted(a)Undergosimple68-days underimprisonment for a period of AccuRajesh @.20162017354, sections 354one year and to pay a fine of sedRajesham509 of and 509 IPCRs.1000/- (Rupees one and underthousand Only) and in @ BittuIPC and sections 3 (1)default to suffer simple Sec. 12 (w)(i)(ii) and 3imprisonment for a period of (2) (va) ofone month for the offence of SC/ST POApunishable under Section POCSO Act-2015354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Act and Sec.

(b)Undergosimple 3(1)(w)imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine

(i)(ii), of Rs.500/- (Rupees five 3(2)(va) hundred Only) and in default to suffer simple of imprisonment for a period of SC/ST one month for the offence punishable under Section (POA) 509 IPC. Act

(c) Undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred Only) and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 3 (1)(w)(i)(ii) of SC/ST POA Act -2015.

(d) Undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand Only) and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 3 (2) (va) of SC/ST POA Act- 2015 * * *

This case is coming before me on 15.03.2023 for a final hearing

before me in the presence of Smt.C.Bala Tripura Sundari, Special Public

Prosecutor for the State/complainant and of Sri S. Ravinder, Counsel for 3 Of 37 S.C.No.161 of 2017

Accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

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

1.The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Jagtial filed a charge sheet in

Cr.No.261 of 2016 for the offence punishable under sections 354 IPC and

Section 8 of POCSO Act and Section 3(1)(w)(i) of SC/ST (POA) Act against the accused.

2.The brief case of the prosecution as disclosed from the charge sheet is that:

(i) On 12.12.2016 at 2130 hours, the complainant PW1 came to PS and lodged a complaint stating she was studying Inter first year in

Shanthi Junior College and that on 12-12-2016 at 1 PM, she went to college to attend the English Exam, after completion of the study hour, she along with her friends started from college on foot to proceed her house and when they reached Annapurna Chowrastha at about 7 PM, meantime the accused, came on his auto along with passengers and asked her to sit in the auto, stating that, he would drop her at her house and as such she boarded the auto and that in the midway all the passengers got down from the auto near Mission Compound and that, they went to some distance, the accused turned to backside, dragged the chunni of PW1 and tried to outrage her modesty for which she afraid, she 4 Of 37 S.C.No.161 of 2017 jumped from the auto as a result she sustained injuries to her right forearm and right side lumbar and she requested to take necessary action.

(ii)Based on the complainant of PW1, PW-20 registered a case in

Cr.No. 261/2016 under section 354 IPC, section 8 of POCSO Act section 3

(i) (w) (i) of SC/STs POA Act-2015 and referred the PW1/victim to the

Govt. Area Hospital, Jagtial for treatment and medical certificate.

(iii)Thereafter, PW21/P. Karunakar the then SDPO., took up the investigation and summoned PW-10 D.Rajasri woman head constable to examine and record the statement of the PW1. PW-10 examined and recorded the statement of PW-1 in the presence of PW-2 under cover of

Videography with help of PW-11. Later, PW21 visited the scene of offence i.e. at Mission Compound, Jagtial and observed the scene minutely and incorporated the crime particulars in the Crime Details Form and drawn a rough sketch of the scene of offence in the presence of PW-16 and PW-

18. Later, secured the presence of other eye witnesses i.e., PW-2 to PW-11 and PW20 and recorded their statements, thereafter, he sent a requisition to the PW-18 for issuing the caste particulars of the PW-1 and accused.

Later, he collected MC of PW-1, from the PW-19, in which he opined that the injuries are "Simple in nature".

(iv) PW19 issued caste certificate of the PW-1 stating that the PW-1 is resident of Chithravenigudem H/o Thalladharmaram (v), of Beerpur (m) 5 Of 37 S.C.No.161 of 2017 and belongs to Gondu by caste which is Scheduled Tribe. PW-18 issued the caste certificate of the accused stating that the accused is resident of

Annapurna Chowrastha, Jagtial and belongs to Gangaputhra (bestha) by caste which is other than SC/ST community.

(v)On 31-12-2016 at 0700 hours, the PW-21 along with his staff apprehended the accused while conducting vehicle checking near SKNR

College, Vijayapuri, Jagtial and interrogated him. On interrogation, the accused voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence, he recorded the confession and recovery panchanama and seized the yellow colour

Bajaj Auto B. No. AP-1-U-7980 which was used in the commission of the offence in the presence of Lws 17/Sirimalla Rajashekar & PW-16. Later, he produced the accused before the Hon’ble Court for judicial remand.

(iv)Later, PW-21 collected date of birth certificate of the PW-1 from the

PW-12, who issued a date birth certificate of victim girl, as it is 30-12- 2000, according her age 16 yrs 18 days and that he examined and recorded his statement.

(v)Later, the PW-21 filed a requisition before the Hon'ble II Addl. JFCM court, Jagtial to get record the statement of the PW-1. LW22 recorded the statement of victim U/Sec. 164 Cr.P.C.

(vi)Upon the transfer of PW-21, PW-22 took up the investigation of this case and verified the investigation done by him and later, he summoned 6 Of 37 S.C.No.161 of 2017 the LW-13/M. Rajani and PW13 to his office, examined and recorded their statements and later, he filed the charge sheet against the accused under section 354 IPC, section 8 of POCSO Act section 3 (i) (w) (i) of SC/STs

POA Act-2015.

3. Cognizance of the offence taken by the Hon’ble I Additional District &

sessions Judge, Karimnagar for the offence punishable 354 of IPC and

Sec. 8 of POCSO Act and Sec. 3(1)(w)(i) of SC/ST (POA) Act against the accused which is a Special Court designated under the provisions of the

Protection of children from sexual offences Act, 2012 and issued summons to the accused. Copies of documents furnished to accused person on his appearance. The case was transferred from I Addl. District

Judge, Karimangar to the learned IV Addl.District & Sessions Judge,

Karimnagar vide proceedings in Dis.No.1255, dated 20.02.2020 of Hon’ble

Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar and the learned IV Addl.

District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar has examined the accused

U/sec.228 of Cr.P.C and charges framed U/sec. 363, 354, 509 of IPC and

Sec. 12 of POCSO Act and Sec. 3(1)(w)(i)(ii), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act against the accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu and the accused denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Subsequently, as per the orders of the Hon’ble Principal District and

Sessions Judge, Karimnagar in Dis. No.1766 dated: 14.03.2022 this case

transferred to this court for disposal according to the law in view of establishment of this court at Jagtial.

7 Of 37 S.C.No.161 of 2017

4.In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 22 and got marked Exs.P1 to P14 and Mo.1 out of PWs 1 to 22:

PW1 is the victim, PW2 and PW3 are the parents of the victim, PW4 is the brother of victim, PW5 is the sister of victim, PW7 is the eye witness, PW6, PW8,

PW13 are the circumstantial witness, PW9 is the police constable, PW10 is the woman head constable,

PW11 is the videographer, PW12 is the principal, who issued the date of birth certificate of the victim, PW14 and PW15 are the panch witnesses for crime detail form, PW16 is the panch witness for confession and recovery panchanama, PW17 and PW18 are the

Tahsildar’s, who issued caste particulars of accused and victim, PW19 is the medical officer, who examined the victim and issued medical certificate, PW20 is police officer who issued F.I.R., PW21 is the first investigating officer and PW22 is the second investigating officer, who filed charge sheet.

Ex.P1 to P14 are marked on behalf of prosecution:

which are Ex.P1 is the report, Ex.P2 is the CD (compact disk) issued by PW11, Ex.P3 is the requisition for date of birth certificate of victim, Ex.P4 is date of birth certificate of victim, Ex.P5 is the signature of PW14 on crime detail form, Ex.P6 is the crime detail form, Ex.P7 is the signature of PW16 on panchanama, Ex.P8 is the requisition given by SDPO,

Ex.P9 is the letter dated 30.12.2016, Ex.P10 is requisition by PW18, Ex.P11 is the letter addressed by

PW18 to SDPO, Ex.P12 is the medical certificate 8 Of 37 S.C.No.161 of 2017 issued by PW19, Ex.P13 is the First information report and Ex.P14 is the confession and recovery panchanama of the accused.

MO.1 is the Bajaj Auto B. No. AP-1-U-7980.

5.The learned Special Public Prosecutor gave up the evidence of LW14 (Matte Rajani), LW17 (Samalla Rajashekar) and LW22 (M. Satish Kumar).

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material brought on record against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which the accused denied the same and reported that he has no defence evidence.

7.Heard the arguments from both sides and perused the record.

8.The learned Spl.Public Prosecutor has argued that, when the victim reached Annapurna Chowrastha, the accused came with his auto and asked the victim to board his auto stating that, he was going towards her house and that he would drop at her house and some of the passengers got down from the auto near Mission Compound and the accused took the auto to another side and pulled her chunni and misbehaved with the victim and that, the victim afraid and jumped from the auto. She further argued that, PW1 deposed against the accused, PWs 2 to 5 supported the case of prosecution. She further argued that, PW6 deposed that, the accused came to the PW1 and asked the PW1 to board the auto and PW1 boarded the auto of accused. She further argued that PW7 eye witness 9 Of 37 S.C.No.161 of 2017 deposed about the incident. PW8 who is the friend of PW1 supported the case of prosecution. She further argued that, PW9 received phone call from dial 100. She further argued that, PWs 10 to 21 supported the case of prosecution. She finally argued that, the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused and the accused is liable for conviction.

9.On the other hand, the learned counsel for accused has argued that, the contents of report does not attract section 7 r/w 8 of POCSO Act.

He further argued that in the F.I.R at column no. 14 there is no signature of complainant. He further argued that, the prosecution not examined the person who made phone call to dial 100. He further argued that PW1 deposed exaggerated version, which is quite contradictory with her statement under 161 Cr.P.C and 164 Cr.P.C. He further argued that, there is doubt about the time of incident and all the witnesses deposed that,

PW1 was at college till 07.00 PM. He further argued that, F.I.R. reached on the next day at 10.30 PM and it gives doubt. He further argued that,

PWs 1 to 5 are family members and their evidence is not believable. He further argued that, PW1 improved her version and versions of the witnesses are different in respect of lodging report and going to hospital.

He further argued that, the evidence of PWs 1 to 5 are contradictory with each other. He further argued that, the prosecution not examined the persons from Meenakshi Hospital. He further argued that, I.O not collected any documents from PWs 6, 8 and 13 to say that they are 10 Of 37 S.C.No.161 of 2017 students of same college. He further argued that, PW7 is not truthful witness. He further argued that the prosecution not examined one

Raghupathi Reddy.

10.The learned counsel for accused further argued that, before registration of crime PW20 examined the witnesses and it is against the procedure. He further argued that, PW11 gave evidence in number of cases and PW11 is a stock witness. He further argued that, the I.O. not filed SSC memo of PW1 and the evidence of PW12 cannot be considered.

He further argued that, PWs 14 and 15 gave different versions and their evidence is not believable. He further argued that, PW16 and PW17 panch witnesses for seizure of auto gave different versions and their evidence is not believable and PW16 is not Mathiri Naresh. He further argued that,

PW1 foisted false case as the accused refused the proposal of love by PW1 and PW1 sustained injuries in some other way and foisted a false case. He further argued that, the age of injuries not mentioned by the medical officer and medical officer also not mentioned how the PW1 sustained injuries. He relied upon judgment between Hanuman Vs. State of

Hariyana AIR 1977 SC 1614. He further argued that, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

11.Now the points that arises for determination are:

1Whether the Prosecution has proved victim girl was a child within the meaning of Sec. 2(1) (d) of POCSO Act?

2Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under section 363 11 Of 37 S.C.No.161 of 2017

IPC beyond all reasonable doubt ?

3Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under section 354

IPC beyond all reasonable doubt ?

4Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under section 509

IPC beyond all reasonable doubt ?

5Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under section 12 of POCSO Act beyond all reasonable doubt ?

6Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under section 3(1)

(w)(i)(ii), of SC/ST (POA) Act beyond all reasonable doubt ?

7Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under section 3(2) (va) of SC/ST (POA) Act beyond all reasonable doubt ?

12.POINT No.1:

The case of the prosecution is that at the time of incident the victim was a minor girl. PW-1 deposed that, on 12.12.2016, she was studying intermediate first year. PWs 2 and 5 deposed that, PW1 was studying intermediate first year. PW12.K. Srinivas, the principal of Shanthi junior college deposed that, on 25-10-2017 DSP, Jagtial gave requisition to him for furnishing date of birth certificate of PW1, he issued date of birth certificate of PW1 on 26-10-2017 under Ex.P4. PW1 studied in their 12 Of 37 S.C.No.161 of 2017 college during the years 2017-2018. He deposed that, as per the SSC record the date of birth of PW1 is issued, and the date of birth of Pw1 is 30-12-2000. He deposed that, he issued date of birth certificate as per admission record. PW12 in his cross examination deposed that police not examined him. They have study certificates of PW-1 from 1st class to 10th class and 10th class memo in the college and he did not issue attested copy of SSC memo along with Ex.P4.

13.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jarnail Singh Vs State of Haryana 2013 (7) SCC 263 held that JJ Act and Rules apply to determine the age for both a victim as well as accused person. Rule 12(3) of JJ Rules as under “ (3) in every case concerning a child or juvenile in conflict with law, the age determination inquiry shall be conducted by the court or the

Board or, as the case may be, the Committee by seeking evidence by obtaining- (a) (i) the matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available; and in the absence whereof; (ii) the date of birth certificate from the school (other than a play school) first attended; and in the absence whereof; (iii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat; (b) and only in the absence of either (I), (ii) or

(iii) of clause (a) above, the medical opinion will be sought from a duly constituted Medical Board, which will declare the age of the juvenile or child. In case exact assessment of the age cannot be done, the Court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee, for the reasons to be recorded by them, may, if considered necessary, give benefit to the child or 13 Of 37 S.C.No.161 of 2017 juvenile by considering his/her age on lower side within the margin of one year, and while passing orders in such case shall, after taking into consideration such evidence as may be available, or the medical opinion, as the case may be, record a finding in respect of his age and either of the evidence specified in any of the clauses (a)(i), (ii), (iii) or in the absence whereof, clause (b) shall be the conclusive proof of the age as regards such child or the juvenile in conflict with law.

14.The certificate produced by the prosecution is not issued by the joining school. The prosecution not filed SSC memo. Therefore,

Ex.P4/certificate cannot be relied on. Thus the prosecution failed to prove that the victim was minor at the time of alleged incident.

Accordingly, the point is answered.

POINT NO.5 :

15.Since, the prosecution failed to prove that the victim was minor as on the date of alleged incident, the section 12 of POCSO Act not applicable to the facts of the case. Thus the prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of section 12 of POCSO Act. Accordingly, the point is answered.

POINT NO. 2 :

16.Section 363 IPC reads as under; Punishment for kidnapping.—

Whoever kidnaps any person from [India] or from lawful guardianship, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term 14 Of 37 S.C.No.161 of 2017 which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. In Ex.P1 report it is mentioned that, the accused, who is known to the PW1 came in auto along with passengers and stopped her and asked her that, he was going towards her house and he will drop her and that, she boarded the auto of accused. PW1 did not depose that the accused kidnapped her by force. There are no ingredients of kidnapping of the victim. Therefore the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 363 IPC. Accordingly, the point is answered.

POINTS NO.3 and 4 :

17.PW1 victim deposed that, on 12-12-2016, while she was studying intermediate 1st year at Shanthi Junior College, Jagtial, on that date she attended English exam and thereafter she attended study hour and after completion of study hour, while she was going to her house on foot at about 7 pm, when she reached Annapurna chourastha, the accused came across her in auto and stated to her that he was going to house and asked her to accompany him. She further deposed that, She boarded the auto of the accused as he said that he was going towards her house and there are passengers in the auto. She further deposed that, the passengers in the auto got down at machine compound and the accused took her to another street, but not the street of victim, after moving some distance, the accused turned back and pulled her chunni and asked her to give a kiss to him and that the accused with one hand driving the auto and with another hand he caught PW1 hand and asked her to give a kiss and 15 Of 37 S.C.No.161 of 2017 misbehaved with her and due to the act of the accused, she got fear and she jumped from the running auto.

18.PW1 further deposed that, By that time she gained conscious she was at her house and was taken by the police to her house. She received injuries on her right hand elbow and right side of the waist. She gave statement before the police and one madam recorded her statement in the presence of her parents and photographer. She was taken to the hospital by the police. She lodged the report with police. Ex.P1 is the report. She gave 164 Cr.P.C statement before the magistrate at Jagtial.

19.PW2. Who is the mother of the victim deposed that, her daughter

PW1 was going to college and studying intermediate 1st year. After writing exam while she was coming to house at Annapurna chowrasta, her daughter boarded the auto of the accused and two persons got down at

Mission compound from the auto and the accused being auto driver took the auto into another lane and her daughter jumped from the auto. She further deposed that, the accused instead of taking her daughter to their street took the auto to another street and her daughter due to fear jumped from the auto and someone made phone call to police, the Police brought her daughter to her house and thereafter the police took her daughter to hospital, thereafter took to the police station and she came to know the name of the driver as Raju.

20.PW3, who is the father of the victim deposed that, on 12.12.2016 his daughter went to college to attend the exam and started at home at 16 Of 37 S.C.No.161 of 2017 1.00PM and on that date his daughter PW1 along with her two friends who were coming on foot from college, when they reached Annapurna chowrasta her friends went away and his daughter was alone, the accused got forcibly boarded his daughter into his auto even though she refused and thereafter at Mission compound the two passengers got down from the auto. He further deposed that, the accused took auto into other street and pulled the chunni of PW1 and due to the fear of the accused and misbehaviour of the accused, his daughter thrown her bag and thereafter she jumped from the auto and his daughter fell on the ground and someone made phone call to police and police came. He further deposed that, his daughter sustained injuries on her right elbow and right side of the body. Police made phone call to him and he went to the scene and thereafter they went to his house and thereafter went to police station and they traced the the accused and thereafter his daughter was taken to hospital for treatment.

21.PW4, who is the brother of victim deposed that, on 12-12-2016,

PW1 went to college at about 1 pm, she had exam on the day and thereafter she attended study hour and was coming at about 7 pm, his sister and her two friends were coming on foot and when his sister reached annapurna chaurastha, her friends went away and his sister was alone and the accused asked his sister to board the accused auto and

Pw1 refused to board the auto of the accused. The accused sated to Pw1 that he knows their father and also their sister and asked Pw1 to board 17 Of 37 S.C.No.161 of 2017 the auto and there were 2 or 3 passengers in the auto and Pw1 boarded the auto of the accused. Thereafter the passengers got down at mission compound. PW4 further deposed that, the accused instead of taking the auto to their house took the auto to other wrong route, Pw1 asked to stop the auto, but the accused did not stop the auto and he pulled the chunni of PW1, PW1 scared and thrown the bag and jumped from the auto. PW1 sustained injuries on her hand, the passers by made phone call to police and thereafter to his father.

22.PW5 who is the sister of the victim deposed that, on the same lines of PW4.

23.PW6/D. Sudheepa deposed that, she knows the accused person and on 12-12-2016 she went to the college, by that time there were exams in the college and the 1st year students were having English exam and the same was completed by 1 pm. On the day herself, Pravalika, Anudeepika,

Rajani and Pw1 went to college and attended study hours and study hours completed at 7 pm and thereafter while they were returning from college on foot and came to Annapurna talkies, the auto driver Bittu @

Rajesh came there and asked the PW1 whether she wants to board the auto as he was going to the house of PW1. Thereafter the PW1 boarded the auto of accused and then on the next day, she came to know that the 18 Of 37 S.C.No.161 of 2017 auto driver misbehaved with PW1 and PW1 jumped from the auto and sustained injuries.

24.PW7. P. Rajendra Prasad, deposed that, on 12-12-2016 at about 7 pm while he was talking with some one in front of his shutters situated at Dharmapuri road one girl by shouting jumped from the running auto and fell on the ground, the auto was going on left side of the main road and the residents of near by the houses came and lifted her, then he also lifted her and they asked her what happened, she revealed that the the auto driver misbehaved with her and that she jumped from the auto and the auto driver caught her chunni. When they asked PW1 why he caught her chunni, for that she stated that the auto driver asked for a kiss and misbehaved with her. The auto driver thrown away the college bag of the said girl.

25.PW8 M. Anudeepika deposed on the same lines of the PW6.

26.PW9. G. Parsharamulu deposed that, on 12-12-2016, he was on duty at police station at Jagtial town at 7.00 pm, he received one phone call from dial 100 stating that one offence took place at mission compound Jagtial. That their incharge head constable Gopal Reddy took him and they went to the place of incident. They found one girl with injuries on her hand. Incharge head constable enquired her what 19 Of 37 S.C.No.161 of 2017 happened and she stated that while she was coming from the college after study hours, the accused coming in auto with passengers and stopped the auto and got boarded her in the auto as she knows the accused and she stated the name of the accused as Armula Rajesh @ Bittu and known person to her stating that he will drop her at her house and that after some time at CIS church passengers got down from the auto and that when she was alone in the auto and the accused asked her to give a kiss and she refused and that he pulled her chunni and she scared by the act of the accused, she jumped from the auto.

27.PW10. D. Rajasri deposed that, on 16-12-2016, while she was at

Mallapur police station, their SI of police sent her to Jagtial to the SDPO office to record the statement of PW1. As per the instructions of their SI she went to Jagtial and recorded the statement of PW1 at the office of

SDPO. She further deposed that, PW1 gave statement before her stating that on 12-12-2016 at 7.00 pm when PW1 was coming along with her friends, when she reached Annapurna theater, the accused /Armula

Rajesh @ Bittu being auto driver came from her back side with passengers and asked PW1 to board the auto of the accused stating that he was going towards her house and that she boarded the auto as she knows the accused and that when the auto reached CIS church,

Dharmapuri road the passengers in the auto got a down from the auto and she was alone and after passing some distance, the accused pulled 20 Of 37 S.C.No.161 of 2017

PW1 chunni and caught her hand and asked her to give a kiss and that she scared by the act of the accused, she jumped from the auto and she sustained bleeding injuries on her waist and other parts of the body.

PW10 further deposed she recorded the statement of victim/Pw1 in the presence of Ravula Narsingarao videographer.

28.PW11. Ravula Narsinga Rao deposed that, on 16-12-2016, he videogrpahed the statement recorded by the Rajasri head constable in the presence of victim mother. After taking videographey and photographs he handed over the CD under Ex.P2 to the police.

29.PW13. B. Pravalika deposed on the same lines of PW6.

30.PW14.Chintha Narsaiah deposed that, About 6 years back the

Police came to SVLR garden mission compound, Dharmapuri road and he saw one girl fell down on the ground. The police obtained his signatures on some written papers. Ex.P5 is his signature on the crime detail form.

The police obtained his signatures at Dharmapuri road. The boundaries of the Dharmapuri road and SVLR garden, one one side there is mission compound.

31.PW15. CH. Suresh, deposed that, in the year 2015 or 2016 in the month of December, the Police Jagtial town came to his shop and 21 Of 37 S.C.No.161 of 2017 enquired about the falling of one girl there prior to 3 days, further he stated that the one girl fallen from the auto and auto did not trace out.

The police drafted some panchanama proceedings and drafted sketch.

Ex.P6 is crime detail form.

32.PW16. Myathari Mahesh deposed that, on 31-12-2016 the police called him to SKNR degree college, Jagtial at 7.00 AM. The police was seizing one auto in the presence of DSP. When he asked the police, the police informed him that they were seizing auto and that the accused who is the auto driver misbehaved with one girl and the accused person was caught and they were seizing the auto. The police interrogated the accused, by name Armula Rajesh and the police stated that the accused involved in the case and asked him sign and he signed on the panchanama. Ex.P7 is his signature on the panchanama. The last 4 digits of auto is 7980. He knows the accused present in the court hall.

33.PW19. Dr. Ch. Subhashkumar deposed that, on 12.12.2016, he examined PW1 and found the following injuries No.1- abrasion of size 3x 2cm on right elbow joint, No.2- abrasion of size 3x2cm on right ankle,

No.3- abrasion of size 3x4cm on left ankle which are caused by blunt object which are simple in nature. Ex.P12 is Medical report of PW1.

22 Of 37 S.C.No.161 of 2017

34.PW20. E.Gopal Reddy, the then head constable deposed that, on 12.12.2016 when he was on duty at Police Station at about 1920 hours, he received 100 dial call stating that one girl fell from the auto by jumping from auto at Mission compound and received injuries. Then, he took PC 1063 by name Parusharam and we went to Mission compound. They observed that one girl was there with injuries on her right hand and abdomen right side and was sitting. Then he enquired her what happened, for that known person/Arumulla Rajesh got boarded his auto

Annapurna chowrasta stating that the accused were going towards her house and asked her to board the auto. He further deposed that, when the auto reached at Mission Compound the other passengers in the auto got down and that the accused the auto driver Arumulla Rajesh took the auto to some distance and stopped the auto and pulled the chunni of her who was sitting on the back and that the accused also misbehaved with her and that the said girl jumped from the auto and the accused thrown away her bag and left the place.

35.PW20 further deposed that, he took phone numbers of her parents and called the parents of the girl and from there, he took the girl to the police station and got received petition from her and registered FIR in

Cr.No.261/2016 u/s 354 IPC, Sec 8 of POCSO Act & Sec 3 (i)(w) (i) SC/ST

POA Act-2015. Ex.P13 is the FIR. Then he sent the PW1 to the Govt.

Hospital, Jagtial for treatment.

23 Of 37 S.C.No.161 of 2017 36PW21. P. Karunakar, the then SDPO deposed that, On 16-12-2016, he summoned PW10/WHC to his office and recorded the statement of

PW1 in the presence of her mother under cover of videography by PW11.

On 16-12-2016, he visited the scene of offence and observed the scene of offence and incorporated details in crime detail form in the presence of mediators PW14 and PW15 under Ex.P6. He further deposed that, he sent requisition to Tahsildar for cast particulars of LW1 and accused. Later, he collected the medical certificate from PW19, he also collected caste certificate of victim and the accused from PW17 and PW18 and on 31-12- 2016, he apprehended the accused at SKNR college, Vijayapuri, Jagtial.

He summoned LW17 and LW18 and recorded confession and seizure panchanama and seized auto bearing no. AP 1 U 7980 which was used in the commission of offence by the accused the accused. Ex.P14 is confession and seizure panchanama of the accused the accused, he produced the accused before the Hon’ble court for judicial remand. Later,Later, he filed requisition before the Hon’ble II Addl. JFCM court, Jagtial forhe filed requisition before the Hon’ble II Addl. JFCM court, Jagtial for recording 164 Cr.P.C. Statements of victim.recording 164 Cr.P.C. Statements of victim.

37.37.PW22. K. Bhadraiah, the then SDPO, Jagtial deposed that, onPW22. K. Bhadraiah, the then SDPO, Jagtial deposed that, on 05.11.2017, he took up investigation from PW21 and verified the05.11.2017, he took up investigation from PW21 and verified the investigation filed by him and found it on correct lines. On 10.11.2017, heinvestigation filed by him and found it on correct lines. On 10.11.2017, he secured the presence of PW13/Pravalika, LW14/M. Rajini examined andsecured the presence of PW13/Pravalika, LW14/M. Rajini examined and 24 Of 37 S.C.No.161 of 2017 recorded their statements under sec. 161 Cr.P.C. After completion ofrecorded their statements under sec. 161 Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet on 05.12.2017. The Auto was given toinvestigation, he filed charge sheet on 05.12.2017. The Auto was given to safe custody. MO.1. is auto bearing no. AP 1 U 7980. safe custody. MO.1. is auto bearing no. AP 1 U 7980.

38.The learned counsel for the accused cross examined the PWs 1 to

22. PW1 in her cross examination deposed that, the police came to the place where she jumped from the auto and the incident occurred in between 07.00 PM to 7.30 PM and she drafted the report under Ex.P1 at police station. She admitted that, there is no signature of her on FIR at column no.14.

39.PW2 who is the mother of victim in her cross examination deposed that, her daughter was brought to the house by the police in a jeep and that from her house, the PW1 was taken to hospital and from there to police station.

40.PW3 who is the father of the victim deposed that, the distance between his house to Annapurna chowrasta is about 1 ½ Kilometers. He can’t say how many persons were present at the time he reached the scene, when the police made phone call and he admitted that, he can’t say the place where daughter jumped from the auto.

41.PW4 who is the brother of victim in his cross examination deposed that, he is not an eye witness to the incident and that he came to know about the incident through Pw1. He admitted that he was not present at 25 Of 37 S.C.No.161 of 2017 his house when the Pw1 was taken to their house by the police and he did not accompany to the hospital with the PW1.

42.PW5 in her cross examination deposed that the special class will be concluded at 7 pm. She denied suggest that she did not state before police the accused while running the auto with one hand and pulled the chunni of Pw1 with the another hand.

43.PW6 D. Sudheepa in her cross examination deposed that, she did not hand over any certificate to the police to say that she was studying at

Shanthi junior college and she admitted that, she studied intermediate

CEC course and cannot say the number of auto.

44.PW7 P.Rajendra Prasad in his cross examination deposed that, he cannot say the number of the auto and one of the class mate of PW1 was also in the auto and some one made phone call by taking the phone number. He was talking with one Shashi, Haricharan by that time and they also witnessed the same.

45.PW8 M.Anudeepika in her cross examination deposed that, she cannot say the number of auto, herself and other inmates of Pw1 not boarded the auto.

46. PW9 G.Parsharamulu in his cross examination deposed that, on 12- 12-2016 while he was attending duties at 7.20 pm, he received 100 phone call. He received 100 phone call at 7.20 pm but not at 7.00 pm. He deposed that, Gopal Reddy head constable received the petition and sent 26 Of 37 S.C.No.161 of 2017 the injured girl to the hospital. He admitted that he is not an eye witness to the incident.

47.PW10 D. Raja Sri. Woman police constable in her cross examination deposed that, she recorded the statement of Pw1 at 12 noon on 16-12-2016. She admitted that she never handed over my GD entry of her duty passport to SDPO.

48.PW11 Ravula Narsinga Rao in his cross examination admitted that, on Ex,P2 there is no signature of him and seal of Bharath photo studio and also the seal of police station.

49.PW13 B. Pravilika in her cross examination deposed that, she cannot say the number of the auto and the study hours were scheduled upto 7 pm.

50.PW14 in his cross examination admitted that in his presence the police not drawn the sketch map.

51.PW15 in his cross examination deposed that, he cannot say the number of auto.

52PW16 in his cross examination deposed that, his name is Mathari

Mahesh, but not Mathari Naresh.

53. PW18 in his cross examination admitted that, he did not mention the age of injuries and he did not enquire the PW1, how she sustained the injuries.

54.PW20 in his cross examination deposed that, the phone call received at about 1920 hours. He admitted that, he did not obtain the 27 Of 37 S.C.No.161 of 2017 signature of PW1 on column no.14 of F.I.R. He admitted that in Ex.P1 report, the auto number not mentioned.

55.PW21 in his cross examination admitted that, he did not examine the person who made phone call to Dial 100. He admitted that in Ex.P14 panchanama last lines the time is kept blank.

56. PW22 in his cross examination admitted that, he did not collect any certificates from the college to show that, Pravalika and M. Rajini studying in the said college.

57. PW1 deposed that, she boarded the auto of the accused. The same was corroborated by PW6, PW8 and PW13. The contention of the counsel

for accused is that the I.O. not collected the certificates of PW6, PW8 and

PW13 to prove they are also students of same college is not tenable. There is no ill-will or motive to depose against the accused by PW 6, PW8 and

PW13. As per Ex.P1 the accused pulled the chunni of victim and misbehaved and she afraid and jumped from the auto and sustained injuries. Though, in Ex.P1, it is not mentioned that the accused asked the victim to give kiss, however PW1 in the statement given to woman head constable PW-10 stated the same. Even the PW1 in her 164 Cr.P.C statement stated the same. Therefore, the contention of the counsel for accused that, PW1 gave exaggerated version is not tenable. The judgment relied by the learned counsel of the accused between “Hanuman vs. state of Hariyana AIR 1977 SC 1614” is not applicable to the present facts of 28 Of 37 S.C.No.161 of 2017 the case. The version of PW1 was supported by PW9, PW20. The another contention that investigating officer not obtain the signature of victim in column no.14 is not fatal to the case of prosecution. The another contention of the counsel for accused that, the F.I.R reached on 13.12.2016 at 10.30 hours and there is delay in reaching the F.I.R. to the court is also not a tenable as the incident reported to police on 12.12.2016 at 21.30 hours. The another contention raised by the counsel

for accused is that the PWs 2 to 5 are the family members and their

evidence is not believable. PWs 2 to 5 are not eye witnesses to the incident, but after the incident PW2, PW3 went to the scene of offence, thereafter came to their house and went to the police station. PW16 deposed that the police interrogated the person, whose name is Armula

Rajesh. Ex.P14 confession panchanama drafted by PW21 and MO.1 marked though PW22. EX.P14 panchanama drafted at 07.10 hours on 31.12.2016. On careful examination of the evidence of witnesses, the prosecution able to prove that the accused pulled the chunni of PW1 and asked her to give kiss to him and misbehaved with her. Thus the prostitution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 354 and 509 IPC. Accordingly, these points are answered.

POINTS NO.6 & 7 :

58.Section 3 (1) (W) (i) reads as under:

Whoever intentionally touches a woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, knowing that she belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a 29 Of 37 S.C.No.161 of 2017

Scheduled Tribe, when such act of touching is of a sexual nature and is without the recipient’s consent;

(ii) uses words, acts or gestures of a sexual nature towards a woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, knowing that she belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe.

Explanation.––For the purposes of sub-clause (i), the expression “consent” means an unequivocal voluntary agreement when the person by words, gestures, or any form of non-verbal communication, communicates willingness to participate in the specific act: Provided that a woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe who does not offer physical resistance to any act of a sexual nature is not by reason only of that fact, is to be regarded as consenting to the sexual activity:

Provided further that a woman’s sexual history, including with the offender shall not imply consent or mitigate the offence; shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine.’;

59.Section 3 (2) (va) reads as under:

Whoever commits any offence specified in the Schedule, against a person or property, knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member, shall be punishable with such punishment as specified under the Indian Penal

Code for such offences and shall also be liable to fine.” 30 Of 37 S.C.No.161 of 2017

60.PW17. P. Madhusudhan, Dist. Minority welfare officer, Karimnagar deposed that, on 16-12-2016 he received requisition from SDPO, Jagtial for furnishing caste particulars of two persons i.e, PW1 and accused. On 30-12-2016, he addressed letter under Ex.P9 to the SDPO furnishing the details of PW1 that her caste cannot confirmed as she migrated from

Beerpur mandal and the accused caste furnished as BC-A (Gangaputhra).

61.PW18. PC. Hanmanth Reddy, Rtd. Tahsildar deposed that, On 30- 12-2016, he received requisition from SDPO, Jagtial for furnishing caste particulars of PW1. After he got enquire with village revenue officer and

MRI, he addressed a letter to the SDPO furnishing the caste particulars of PW1. Ex.P10 is the requisition given by SDPO and Ex.P11 is the letter addressed by him to SDPO furnishing the caste particulars of PW1 and

PW1 belongs to gondu (ST caste).

62.The learned counsel for accused cross examined them. PW17 in his cross examination denied suggestion that, Ex.P9 is not at all a caste certificate and that, he issued Ex.P9 at the instance of SDPO. PW18 in his cross examination admitted that, Ex.P11 is not in the prescribed proforma of caste.

63.On perusal of Ex.P9, it shows that the accused belongs to BC-A

Gangaputra and PW1 victim belongs to Gondu (ST). The accused pulled 31 Of 37 S.C.No.161 of 2017 the chunni of PW1 and asked her to give a kiss and caught the hand of

PW1 and misbehaved as such, the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offences under sections 3 (1)(w)(i) and (ii) and 3 (2) (va) of

SC/ST POA Act-2015. Accordingly, these points are answered.

64.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.363 of IPC and Sec.12 of POCSO Act, 2012 and is acquitted for the above charges. However, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable u/sec. 354 and 509 IPC and sections 3 (1)(w)(i) (ii) and 3 (2) (va) of SC/ST POA Act-2015 and is convicted u/s.235 (2) of

Cr.P.C. The M.O1 shall be confiscated to state after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 27th day of March, 2023.

Sd/-

I Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Jagtial. FAC: SPL.Judge (POCSO cases), Jagtial.

65.The accused is heard with regard to the quantum of sentence to be imposed against him for the above offences for which the accused stated that he has no father, having mother and younger sister and he has to maintain his family and he is suffering with epilepsy (fits) and pleaded mercy of the court. The learned counsel for accused has represented to release the accused by applying probation of offenders act, but the PO Act is not applicable to the SC/ST POA Act. By taking the plea of the accused 32 Of 37 S.C.No.161 of 2017 and circumstances of the case by taking lenient view the accused is sentenced to

(a) Undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand Only) and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,

(b) Undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred Only) and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 509 IPC.

(c) Undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred Only) and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 3 (1)(w)(i)(ii) of SC/ST POA Act -2015.

(d) Undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand Only) and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 3 (2) (va) of SC/ST POA Act-2015

66.The accused shall be given set-off u/s.428 of Cr.P.C against the substantial sentence of imprisonment imposed against him. The substantial sentences imprisonment imposed against the accused shall run concurrently. The default sentences shall run consecutively. The accused is informed of his right to file an appeal against the judgment 33 Of 37 S.C.No.161 of 2017 and also regarding availability of free legal services for filing the appeal.

The office is directed to furnish copy of the judgment to the accused immediately.

67.Sec.33 (8) of POCSO Act says that in appropriate cases the special court may in addition to the punishment, direct payment of such compensation as may be prescribed to the child. Considering the nature of the offence, this court recommends to the District Legal Services

Authority, Jagtial district to award a compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to the victim from and out of victim compensation fund within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 27th day of March, 2023.

Sd/-

I Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Jagtial. FAC: SPL.Judge (POCSO cases), Jagtial.

FORM-C LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT WITNESSES

A. Prosecution

RANKNAMENATURE OF EVIDENCE

(EYE WITNESS, POLICE

WITNESS, EXPERT WITNESS,

MEDICAL WITNESS, PANCH

WITNESS, OTHER WITNESS

34 Of 37 S.C.No.161 of 2017

PW1Victim details not disclosed asVictim it is POCSO case PW2Mother of victim girl- witness Mother of the victim details not disclosed as PW3 is family member of victim in POCSO case PW3Father of victim girl- witness Father of victim details not disclosed as PW3 is family member of victim in POCSO case

PW4Brother of victim girl- witnessBrother of victim details not disclosed as PW3 is family member of victim in POCSO case PW5Sister of victim girl- witness Sister of victim details not disclosed as PW3 is family member of victim in POCSO case PW6Dhooda SudeepaCircumstantial witness

PW7P. Rajendra PrasadEye witness

PW8Mittapalli Anudepika Circumstantial witness

PW9G. ParsharamuluPolice constable

PW10D. RajasreeWoman head constable, who recorded the statement of victim,

PW11Ravula NarsingaraoPhotographer

PW12Katroju SrinivasPrincipal, who issued date of birth certificate of victim,

PW13Bharathapu PravalikaCircumstantial witness

PW14Chintha NarsaiahPanch witness for Crime Detail

Form

PW15Choutaplli SureshPanch witness for Crime Detail

Form

PW16Myathri MaheshPanch witness for confession and 35 Of 37 S.C.No.161 of 2017 recovery panachanama.

PW17 P. MadhusudanTahsildar, Who issued caste certificate of Accused.

PW18 P. Hanmantha ReddyTahsildar, who issued caste certificate of victim.

PW19. Dr. Subash KumarMedical officer, who examined victim

PW20 E. Gopal ReddyHead Constable, who issued F.I.R

PW21P. KarunakarFirst Investigating officer,

PW22K. BhadraiahSecond investigating officer, who filed the charge sheet.

B. Defence witnesses, if any:

RANKNAMENATURE OF EVIDENCE

(EYE WITNESS, POLICE

WITNESS, EXPERT WITNESS,

MEDICAL WITNESS, PANCH

WITNESS, OTHER WITNESS

NilNilNil

C. Court witnesses , if any:

RANKNAMENATURE OF EVIDENCE

(EYE WITNESS, POLICE

WITNESS, EXPERT WITNESS,

MEDICAL WITNESS, PANCH

WITNESS, OTHER WITNESS

NilNilNil

LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT EXHIBITS

A. Prosecution:

36 Of 37 S.C.No.161 of 2017

Sl.No.ExhibitDescription Number 1P1/PW1Report lodged by PW1.

2P2/PW11CD (Compact disc) 3P3/PW12Requisition issued by DSP.

4P4/PW12Date of birth certificate of victim 5P5/PW14Signature of PW14 on Crime Detail Form 6P6/PW15Crime detail form 7P7/PW16Signature of PW16 on panchanama.

8P8/PW17Requisition given by SDPO 9P9/PW17Letter dated 30.12.2016 10P10/PW18 Requisition given by SDPO 11P11/PW18 Letter addressed by PW18 to SDPO 12P12/PW19 Medical certificate by PW19 13P13/PW20 First Information Report

14.P14/PW21 Confession and Seizure panchanama of accused.

B. Defence:

Sl.No.ExhibitDescription Number NilNilNil

C. Court Exhibits

Sl.No.ExhibitDescription Number NilNilNil 37 Of 37 S.C.No.161 of 2017

D. Material Objects

Sl.No.MaterialDescription Object Number 1MO.1Auto B. No. AP-1-U-7980.

Sd/-

I Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Jagtial. FAC: SPL.Judge (POCSO cases), Jagtial.

Page 1 of 39 S.C.No.208 of 2022

FORM­A

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE :: AT

JAGTIAL.

Present: Sri.A.Veeraiah, I Addl. Sessions Judge, Jagtial

Monday, this the 10th day of April, 2023

SESSIONS CASE No. 208 of 20 22

(Cr.No. 07 of 2022 of PS . Medipali )

(PRC No.10 of 2022 committed by Learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Korutla on 20­06­2022) ComplainantCircle Inspector of Police, Korutla.

Sri.K.Mallesham, Addl. Public 

REPRESENTED BY

Prosecutor

ACCUSEDAde Chandu S/o. Late Murali, Age: 28 years, Caste: Yadava, R/o. Kalwakota village of Medipally mandal of Jagtial District.

Sri.P.Sathish, Legal aid Counsel for

REPRESENTED BY

Accused.

FORM­B Date of Offence17­01­2022

Date of FIR18­01­2022 Date of Charge sheet05­05­2022

Date of Framing of Charges12­01­2023 Date of Commencement of evidence 13­02­2023

Date on which judgment is reserved 04­04­2023 Date of the Judgment10­04­2023

Date of the Sentencing Order, if any 10­04­2023

Accused Details:

Page 2 of 39 S.C.No.208 of 2022

RankName ofDate ofDate ofOffenceWhetherSentence ImposedPeriod of of theAccusedArrestReleassAcquittedDetentio Accue onchargedorn sedBailwithconvictedUndergo ne during Trial for purpose of section 428 Cr.P.C

(a) Undergo rigorous imprisonment 302, 323 for a period of life and to pay a fine IPCConvicted of Rs.500/­ (Rupees five hundred 23.01.2022 Only) and in default to suffer (24­01­2022 Sole Ade­ simple imprisonment for a period 443 produced AccusChandu of one month for the offence­days

before court)

ed punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, 

(b) Undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/­ (Rupees 498­A Acquitted five hundred Only) and in default IPC to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, ­ * * *

This case is coming before me on 04.04.2023 for a final hearing

before me in the presence of Sri.K.Mallesham, Addl. Public Prosecutor for

the State/complainant and of Sri P. Sathish, Legal Aid counsel for Accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:­

Page 3 of 39 S.C.No.208 of 2022

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1.The Circle Inspector of Police, Korutla filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.07/2022 of P.S. Medipalli for the offences punishable under sections 302, 323 and 498­A IPC. 

2.Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that: On 18­01­2022 at 08:00 hours, PW1­Ade Ravinder came to PS Korutla and filed a

Telugu written complaint under Ex.P1 stating that, the accused has been torturing his wife PW7­Ade Madhu Priya and mother PW6 –

Ade Gangu for the last two years and in the same manner, he abused and beat their villager Goda Venkati (Caste­SC) last year due to which Goda Venkati received bleeding injury on his head and also the accused abused him in the name of caste and was sent to jail for three months and that on 17­01­2022 afternoon, the accused bet his wife PW7 with a stick due to which she left the home and on the same day at 5 PM., the accused abused his mother PW6 and bet her and she escaped from there and took shelter in another house and that he became furious at this and at about 6 PM, the accused approached his grandfather Ade Mallaiah, who was sitting at Grampanchayat office, abused him beat him with hands, lifted him up and beaten him to the ground due to which he

Page 4 of 39 S.C.No.208 of 2022 received bleeding injury over his right eye and that, he kicked

Mallaiah on his stomach with his right leg forcibly and then the accused took a stone from the proximity and hit the deceased Ade

Mallaiah with the stone on his chest at abdomen portion in the mean time the Grampanchayat workers PW­2 Tharala Laxman, and

PW3­Edla Shanker tried to stop him and PW1, Ade Gangaram and

LW5­Anjigoud, who were at short distance from Grampanchayat approached the Malliah and on seeing them, the accused warned them seriously that if anybody touches Malliah, he would kill them and left the scene on his hike to his house and Mallah was laid there in serious condition, while they were all there, the accused returned there after some time lifted Mallaiah and took him on his bike and that on the same day at about 6.30 PM, PW1­Ade

Gangaram and Rajam went to the house of the accused and found the body of Ade Malliah laying in front of Chandu's house on a mat and Mallaiah was died and that the accused used to behave like a sadist and beat his mother and wife frequently due to which they left home and in such sadism, he bet his grandfather Malliah and due to which Ade Mallaiah died.

3.(i) Based on the report of PW1, PW­14­CH.Sudeer Rao, the

Sub Inspector of Police Medipally PS has registered a case in Cr. No.

Page 5 of 39 S.C.No.208 of 2022 07/2022 U/s 302 IPC and issued FIR and handed over CD file to

PW15­K. Rajashekar Raju. PW15­ took up investigation, during the course of investigation, he proceeded to the Govt Maternity Hospital

Korutla and conducted the Inquest under Ex.P7,over the body of the deceased in the presence of the mediators PW11­Mohammad Gazi pasha and LW13­G. Gangadhar and obtained the photographs of the body of the deceased through PW10­Gandham Nagesh. During the Inquest,he examined and recorded the statements of PWs­1, 2, 4,5 6,and 7. During the inquest over the body of the deceased, he has seized, a blood stained light yellow colour Dhothi., a blood stained white colour full hands shirt and a blood stained white colour banian. Later on the same day, he sent a requisition to

PW12­Dr. Sharavan, CAS, Govt Maternity Hospital Korutla with a request to conduct the PME over the dead body of the deceased and that PW12 conducted PME over the body of the deceased and the report is kept pending. On the same day at 14:00 hours,PW15 visited the scene of offence along with the same mediators, observed the scene minutely, drafted the Crime Detailed Form under Ex.P8 and drew a rough sketch in the presence of the same mediators.

During the course of Crime Detail Form, PW15 examined and recorded the statement of PW3­Edla Shankar and LW5­P.Anji Goud.

Page 6 of 39 S.C.No.208 of 2022

The scene of offence is located Near the Grampanchayat office,

Kalawakota Village.

(ii)During the course of further investigation, while the efforts are in progress to apprehend the accused, on 23­01­2022 at about 11:30 Hours, PW14 received reliable information about the presence of the accused in the out skirts of Medipalli village, near Durgamma

Temple adjacent to the bridge to Korutla. Basing on the information,

PW14 along with the staff rushed there and apprehended the accused and informed the same to PW15 over phone, immediately

PW15 procured the presence of two mediators ie.,PW13­Dasari

Devaiah and LW15­M. Rajashekar, by making a requisition to

Thasildar, Medipalli over phone, proceeded to the place, took the custody of accused on the same day at 12:30 Hours, and questioned the accused before the mediators and recorded the confessional statement of the accused and seized the material objects i.e., One

Black colour Hero HF Deluxe Motor cycle with white and silver stickers bearing No TS 02 ED 9404," a Light Blue colour T­shirt containing blood stains on the left front shoulder, a blue colour jeans pant containing blood stains on the right and left thigh portions at the instance of the accused, duly obtaining the photographs through PW­10. After the completion of arrest

Page 7 of 39 S.C.No.208 of 2022 formalities, PW15 sent the arrested accused for Medical examination to Govt. Civil Hospital Korutla under proper escort and later produced before the Hon'ble court for judicial remand.

(iii)The accused was earlier involved in Cr.No:128/2020 U/s,294

(b),506,324 IPC Sec.3(1) (r),3 (2) (Va) of SC/ST POA ACT­2015 of PS

Medipally where,accused abused the villager by name Goda Venkati in the name of caste,beat him to a wall and caused bleeding injury over his head. During the course of the further investigation on 28.01.2022, PW15 prepared Letter of advice along with requisition and the same was sent to SDPO Metpalli with a prayer to issue authorization letter for forwarding the seized material to the director, RFSL Karimnagar for expert examination and report and obtained authorization letter from the SDPO Metpalli to RFSL

Karimnagar for chemical analysis and report vide RFSL receipt No.

RFSL (KNR)/212/SER/42/2022, Dt: 29.01.2022. During the course of the further investigation on 08­02­2022, PW15 has received the

PME report, where in medical officer who conducted the Autopsy over the body of deceased has opined that the cause of death of the deceased "Polytruma with internal Hamorrhage, leading to

Hypovolemic Shock". During the course of the further investigation, on 10­02­2022, PW15 secured the Presence of PW8­Boddu Mahesh

Page 8 of 39 S.C.No.208 of 2022 and PW9­ Deekonda Venkataramana examined them and recorded their Statements. On 14.02.2022, PW15 filed a requisition before the Principal Judical Magistrate of First Class Court at Jagityal with a prayer to record the statements of LW1­Ade Ravindhar, LW2­

Tharala Laxman, LW3­Edla Shanker, LW4­Ade Gangaram, LW5­

Palli Anji goud, under 164 Cr.P.C. On 11­03­2022, PW15 received the expert opinion from LW17­K. Narsimha who examined the

Material objects and opined that the Items 1,2,3,4, 5, 6, and 7 are analysed and Human blood is detected on items 1,2,3,4,6 and 7 and the blood group of blood stains in Items 1,2,3,6 and 7 is of "A" blood group and the blood group of blood stains on item 4 could not be determined and Blood is not detected on item 5 which is received a control for item 4.

(iv)On 22.03.2022, the Hon'ble te JFCM at Metpally has recorded the statements of LW1­Ade Ravindhar, LW2­Tharala Laxman, LW3 ­Edla Shanker, LW4­Ade Gangaram, LW5­Palli Anji goud, LW8­ Ade

Madhu Priya Chandhu, under Section 164 Cr.PC. The accused Ade

Chandu S/o Late Murali, 28yrs, Yadava R/o Kalwakota village of

Medipally Mandal, has therefore committed an offence punishable

U/S 302,323 498­A, IPC.

Page 9 of 39 S.C.No.208 of 2022

4. Cognizance of the offence taken by the learned JMFC, Korutla, vide P.R.C No.10/2022. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Korutla furnished copies to the accused and committed the case to the Hon’ble Sessions, Jagtial on 20­06­2022. 

5.The Hon’ble Prl. Sessions Judge, Jagtial took cognizance under sections 302, 323 and 498­A IPC and registered as SC

No.208/2022 and made over the same to the this court for disposal according to law.

6.After production of accused from the jail, after hearing both sides, the accused was examined under section 228 Cr.P.C and charges under sections 302, 323 and 498­A IPC have been framed against accused, read over and explained to him in telugu and the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.To substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 15 and got marked Exs.P1 to P15 beside

Mos. 1 to 9. Out of Pws 1 to 15:

PW1 is the complainant and eye witnesses, PW2 is the eye witnesses, PW3 is the eye witnesses,

PW4 is the eye witnesses,PW5 is circumstantial witnesses, PW6 is mother of accused and

Page 10 of 39 S.C.No.208 of 2022 circumstantial witnesses, PW7 is wife of accused and witnesses, PW8 gave shelter to PW6, PW9 called the ambulance, PW10 is photographer,

PW11 is Panch witnesses for inquest panchanama, PW12 is the medical officer conducted autopsy, PW13 is panch witnesses for confession and seizure panchanama of accused,

PW14 is the IO issued FIR and PW15 is the IO conducted investigation and filed charge sheet.

Exs.P1 to P18 marked on behalf of prosecution:

which are; Ex.P1 is report lodged by PW1, Ex.P2 is four photographes containing the photo of deceased, Ex.P3 two photographs containing big stone, Ex.P4 is CD containing photographs of inquest, Ex.P5 is CD containing photographs of scene of offence as well as photographs of confession and recovery panchanama, Ex.P6 is six photographs pertaining to confession and recovery panchanam of accused,Ex.P7 is inquest panchanama, Ex.P8 is crime detail form, Ex.P9 is requisition, Ex.P10 is post Morten examination

Report of A. Mallaiah dated: 18­01­2022, Ex.P11 is confession and seizure panchanama, Ex.P12 is

FIR, Ex.13 is letter addressed by PW15 to SDPO,

Ex.P14 is requistion field before Hon’ble JFCM,

Metpalli and Ex.P15 is FSL Report.(Due to mistake Exhibits P9 to P11 not marked and the

Page 11 of 39 S.C.No.208 of 2022 exhibits P12 to P18 marked to be read as Exhibits

P9 to P15)

MO1 is stone with cement, MO2 is sample earth, MO3 is blood stained earth, MO4 is banian of deceased, MO5 is shirt of deceased, MO6 is dhoti, MO7 is T­Shirt, MO8 is jeans pant and

MO9 is motor bike bearing No.TS­ED­9404. 

8. The learned Addl.P.P gave up the evidence of LWs. 5, 13, 15, 16 and 17 and reported that prosecution evidence is closed.

9.After completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material brought on record against him, for which, he denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses and reported that he has no defence evidence. Ex.D1 is marked on behalf of defence.

10.Heard arguments from both sides. 

11.The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has argued that the accused bet his wife and mother on 17­01­2022 and that his wife

PW7 went to her parents house and PW6 who is mother of accused went to the house of PW8 as accused bet her. He further argued

Page 12 of 39 S.C.No.208 of 2022 that the accused at about 6.PM., came to the Gram Panchayat office, abused and bet his grand father Ade mallaiah with hands and kicked with legs and the accused thrown a stone on the chest and abdomen of his grand father and that the grand father sustained injuries. He further argued that the accused warned people near by the scene of offence and went to his house and again came to the scene of offence and took his grand father to his house on his motor bike and thereafter his grand father died. He further argued that PW1 lodged a report on the next day morning as it became night. He further argued that medical officer conducted

PME Report over the dead body of deceased and issued opinion. He further argued that investigation officer examined the witnesses and conducted investigation and drafted Crime detail form and also conducted confession and seizure panchanama of accused and seized material objects. He further argued that all the witnesses supported the case of prosecution and the accused is liable for convection for the offence under Section 302, 323 and 498­A of

IPC.

12.On the other side the learned counsel for accused argued that, there is delay in lodging report. He further argued that the deceased

Page 13 of 39 S.C.No.208 of 2022 was aged about 85 years and the deceased himself fell on the road and sustained injuries and died that the accused never bet the deceased A. Mallaiah. He further argued that prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused person for the charges leveled against them. He finally argued to acquit the accused. 

13.Now the points that arise for determination are:

1Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.302 of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt? 2Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.323 of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt? 3Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.498A of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINTS 1 TO 3:

14.It is the case of the prosecution that the accused on 17­01­ 2022 afternoon the accused bet his wife Madhupriya Pw7 with a stick and she left the home and on the same day at 5.PM., he abused his mother PW6 bet her and she took shelter in another house and at 6.PM., the accused went to his grand father who was sitting at Gram panchayat office, abused him, bet him, and kicked on the stomach of his grand father and thereafter, he took stone hit on the chest, abdomen of his grand father and went away and

Page 14 of 39 S.C.No.208 of 2022 thereafter, he came to scene of offence and took his grand father to his house on his motor bike and at 6.30 PM, PW1 and Rajam went to the house of accused and found the dead body of Ade Mallaiah.

15.According to PW1­Ade Ravinder, who is the defacto complainant and eye witness to the incident deposed that on 17.01.2022 in the morning hours, accused quarreled with his wife

LW8­A.Madhu Priya, beat her and also beat his mother LW7­Ade

Gangu and LWs.7 and 8 went away from the house due to fear of accused. He further deposed that at about 06.00 PM., he was near

Grampanchayat office and was speaking with LW4­Ade Gangaram,

LW5­P.Anjaiah Goud, LW6­Ade Laxmirajam, by the time the deceased Ade Mallaiah sat on cement bench at Grampanchayat office and he was talking with LW2­Tarala Laxman and Lw3­Edla

Shankar, in the meantime,the accused came there on his splendor motor bike near where the deceased was sat and the accused abused the deceased and beat him and lifted him and thrown him on cement road. PW1 further deposed that thereafter, the accused kicked the deceased on stomach of deceased with his legs, LWs.2 and 3 tried to stop the accused, even though the accused pushed them and accused took one baiti rai (Basement Stone) and thrown on the stomach of the deceased and again hit on his chest. Then

Page 15 of 39 S.C.No.208 of 2022 himself, LW4­Ade Gangaram, LW5­Anjaiah Goud and LW6­

Laxmirajam went to the deceased, by seeing them, accused fled away from the scene. PW1 deposed that again accused came there, took the deceased/Ade Mallaiah on his motorbike to his house, thereafter, himself, LW4­Ade Gangaram, LW6­Ade Laxmirajam went to accused house, by the time the deceased was laid on a mat and they observed that Ade Mallaiah died and as it is became night,on the next day at about 8.00 AM., he went to police station and lodged a report under Ex.P1. He further deposed that accused previously beat one Mala person by hitting to a wall and as a result the said

Mala person sustained head injury and accused was sent to Jail in that issue.

16.The learned Counsel for accused cross examined PW1. PW1 asserted that, he himself scribed Ex.P1 report. He asserted that he saw the incident about 11 AM., when the accused bet his wife. PW1 denied suggestion that the deceased Mallaiah aged about 80 to 85 years and due to his low vision, he fell on the road and accused did not thrown stone on the stomach and the chest of the deceased and he gave report against the accused. The evidence of PW1 is believable and Exhibit P1 report proved through PW1.

Page 16 of 39 S.C.No.208 of 2022

17.The prosecution examined PW2­Tharala Laxman, who is the grampanchayat worker and eye witness deposed that at about one year back, accused abused his grand father Ade Mallaiah by saying that he will take his grand father to his house and beat Ade

Mallaiah and lifted him and thrown on the ground, when they tried to rescue, accused did not stop and they stood aside, thereafter,accused took one baiti routu (Basement Stone) and thrown on Ade Mallaiah stomach and again accused came to the scene and took Ade Mallaiah on his motorcycle. At the time, PW1,

LW4­Ade Gangaram, LW5­Palli Anjaiah and LW3­Edla Shankar,

Goundla Venkatramana, LW6­A. Laxmirajam were present and witnessed the incident. Thereafter, the said Ade Mallaiah died. The learned counsel for accused cross examined PW2. PW2 in his cross examination admitted that he did not state before the police that the accused since two years beating and abusing his wife and mother without any reason. Exhibit D1 relevant portion in 161Cr.P.C statement marked. He denied suggestion that accused never bet the deceased and that the deceased fell himself on the ground due to his low vision. Nothing was elicited in the cross examination of PW2.

PW2 corroborated the version of PW1.

Page 17 of 39 S.C.No.208 of 2022

18.PW3­Edla Shankar, who is another eye witness to the incident in his chief examination deposed that at about one year, one month (13 months) ago at about 06.00 pm, he went to hotel to have tea at grampanchayat office, the deceased Ade Mallaiah sat on the cement bench, the deceased called him and when he stated that he will go, the deceased asked him to wait some time and himself, PW2 and deceased were talking, in the meantime,the accused came there and stated as “Lanjakoduka Naduvu” and by abusing, the accused beat

Ade Mallaiah and dragged him to the road and the accused spinned

Mallaiah on the road and kicked on the chest of Mallaiah and went to house and again the accused came and took one baiti rai (Basement Stone) and hit on the chest of Mallaiah and took Ade

Mallaiah on his motorcycle to his house. At the time, the said

Mallaiah was alive, thereafter the said Mallaiah died. The learned counsel for accused cross examined PW3 . PW3 in his cross examination denied suggestion that the accused never bet the deceased and the deceased himself has fallen on the road and sustained injuries.

19. PW4­Ade Gangaram deposed that at about 1 year ago at about 5­5.30 PM, himself, PW1­Ade Ravinder, LW5­Palle Anjaiah,

Page 18 of 39 S.C.No.208 of 2022

PW2­Tharala Laxman, PW3­Edla Shankar were present near grampanchayat, by the time, Ade Mallaiah was sat on the cement bench, the accused came there by abusing and beat Ade Mallaiah and Tharala Laxman PW2 and PW3­Edla Shankar tried to stop accused, he was present at some distance and accused thrown them and they stood at a side, thereafter, the accused put one stone (banda rai) and thrown on the chest and stomach of Ade Mallaiah and left from there, stating that no one should come to his grandfather, PW4 further deposed that the accused went to his house on his bike. After sometime, the accused again came to the scene and took grand­father on his motor bike. Thereafter, he along with PW1, LW6­Ade Laxmirajam went to the accused house and by that time the said Ade Mallaiah was laid on a mat and he died. The learned counsel for accused cross examined PW4 and nothing was elicited during the cross examination PW4.

20. PW5­Ade Laxmirajam, who is the circumstantial witness in his chief examination deposed that on 17.01.2022 at about 6 or 6.30 PM, he was present at his fields, PW1 made phone call to him stating that the accused beat his grand father Ade Mallaiah, kicked him with legs and lifted him thrown and accused thrown one stone

Page 19 of 39 S.C.No.208 of 2022 on the stomach at Grampanchayat and thereafter, he went to the house of accused and saw that Ade Mallaiah was laid on a mat and when he tried to call ambulance, they stated that Ade Mallaiah died.

PW5 in his cross examination deposed that he is not eye witness to the incident and he came to know about incident through PW1.

21.The prosecution examined PW6­Ade Gangu, mother of accused, who deposed that about 1 year back, accused was used to quarrel with her and his wife/LW8­Madhu Priya in their house, and accused did not attend any work and used to move in the village with their monies, accused used to beat her and his wife and also used to abuse them and the accused did not care anyone and that on that date, the accused beat his wife, his wife went to her parents house, the accused threatened them that, he will kill her and his wife and his son accused tried to beat her, she went to the house of one kapu family and she sat there,the accused also came there and beat her severally. She further deposed that she went to the house of one Boddu Mahesh­LW9 and hidden there. Thereafter, she came to know through the villagers, that when her father­in­law was sat at Grampanchayat, the accused went to him and pulled his legs and spinned him roundly and thrown on the ground and thereafter, the

Page 20 of 39 S.C.No.208 of 2022 accused thrown banda (big stone) on him. PW6 further deposed that thereafter, she heard that her father­in­law died. She did not go to her house. PW6 in her cross examination admitted that she did not give report when the accused beat her and as well his wife. She denied such that the accused never committed any offence.

22.PW7­Ade Madhupriya, who is wife of the accused deposed that on 17.01.2022 at afternoon hours, the accused abused her and beat her and as such, she took her son and went to her parents home at

Mohanraopet, the accused also beat her mother­in­law­PW6 and she went to the house of LW9­Boddu Mahesh, she came to know through her villagers over phone, that her husband accused beat his grandfather/Ade Mallaiah when he sat at Grampanchayat and killed him by throwing a stone on him and hit him with stone and by lifting him and throwing him on the road. PW7 further deposed that, on 18­01­2022, she went to Government hospital, Korutla and saw the dead body of her grand father Ade Mallaiah. On 19­01­ 2022, she went to Kaluvakota village after the police took accused.

PW7 in her cross examination deposed that they did not give any report when the accused beat her as well as her mother­in­law.

Nothing was elicited during the cross examination of PW7.

Page 21 of 39 S.C.No.208 of 2022

23.The Prosecution examined PW8­Boddu Mahesh who gave shelter to PW6 and according to him on 17.01.2022, PW6 Ade

Gangu came to her Kirana shop by weeping at about 4­4.30 PM,

When, he asked her what happened, PW6 stated to her that, the accused beat her and threatened her that he would kill her, then he asked her to come inside the house and sit in the house. Thereafter, he came to know through the customers that, Ade Mallaiah died due to beating of accused with a stone at Grampanchayat. PW8 in his cross examination admitted that he is not an eye witnesses to the incident.

24.PW9­Deekonda Venkata Ramana, who is the villager in his chief examination deposed that on 17.01.2022, at about 5.30 to 5.45 PM, when he went to grampanchayat office at the house of Palli

Anjaiah Goud LW5, to talk with him and when they spoke with each other and thereafter, they came out from his house and palli

Anjaiah goud was going to Mallaiah as Mallaiah was fallen on the ground and that he also went along with Anjaiah, by the time PW1,

PW2­Tharala Laxman, PW4 and PW3­Edla Shankar were present,

When, he enquired, they informed him that the accused Chandu

Page 22 of 39 S.C.No.208 of 2022 beat Mallaiah and lifted him and thrown on the cement road and thereafter a big stone thrown on him. Then, he made phone call to

Ambulance. Thereafter the accused returned to the scene with his bike and warned them not to touch Ade Mallaiah. PW9 in his cross examination admitted he is not an eye witnesses and he came to know through about the incident.

25. The prosecution examined photographer as PW10, PW10 ­

Gandam Nagesh, in his chief examination deposed that at about 1 year ago, he went to Mortuary of Govt. Hospital Korutla and took photographs of dead body of old age person. Thereafter, he went along with CI to Kaluvakota to take photo of scene of offence at grampanchayat office Kaluvakota and he found one big stone and took the photograph of the said Banda Rayi (big stone) which is having blood stains. Later, he gave photographs and CD to the police. He further deposed that after 4 or 5 days the police called him to Mohanrao pet village there the accused was there with the police and he took the photographs.

26. The learned counsel for accused cross examined PW10. PW10 in his cross examination deposed that he did not issue any bill to the

Page 23 of 39 S.C.No.208 of 2022 police. He denied suggestion that the photographs taken by the police and is deposing false hood at the instance of police. 

27. PW11 – Mohd Gaxi Pasha who is Panch witness for the inquest and crime detail form in his chief examination deposed that at about 1 year ago, he went to Korutla Govt. Hospital mortuary, he saw the dead body of Ade Mallaiah and along with him one Boda

Gangadhar LW13 was also present, he observed the dead body and the deceased wearing shirt, chenetha bunian and white dothi, he also observed injuries of 2 inches on left kanthi above the eye. He also observed scratch injury on his left cheek. He also observed injury on his abdomen. The police drafted inquest panchana in their presence. He further deposed that thereafter, they went to kaluvakota village at grampanchayat at about 2.00 PM, there they found one stone at scene of offence, the stone is basement stone having cement, he also observed blood stains on the stone, there the police drafted scene of offence panchanama and also drawn sketch map in it and the police seized the said stone. Himself and

Gangadhar signed on crime detail form. Through PW11 Mos 1 to 6 are marked.

Page 24 of 39 S.C.No.208 of 2022

28.The learned counsel for accused cross examined PW11. PW11 in his cross examination admitted that if any stone like Mo.1 thrown on any person, the body will become crush. He denied suggestion that the injuries not occurred due to Mo.1. Nothing was elicited during the cross examination of PW11 in favor of defence.

29.PW12­Dr.V.Shravan, C.A.S., Korutla, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased in his chief examination deposed that on 18.01.2022, he started the autopsy at 02.45 pm and found the following injuries over the dead body of the deceased/Ade

Malliah: 1) Stab injury of ½ x ½ x 1 cm over the right iliac fossa. 2)

Stab Injury of ½ x ½ x ½ cm over the right Pareto­temporal region of the scalp approximately 8 cms above the right eyebrow. 3)

Laceration 1 x 3 cms over the right eyebrow. 4) 2 x 2 cms contusion over the right chest region over the lower ribs 6th and 7th ribs. 5)

Abrasion 3 x 1 cm over the back. 6) Contusion 10 x 10 cms over the abdomen in the umbilical and right iliacfossa and there is a bleeding clot of approximately 500 ml in the peritoneal cavity. He further deposed that all the above mentioned injuries are ante­ morterm injuries and cause of death due to polytrauma with

Page 25 of 39 S.C.No.208 of 2022 internal haemorrage leading to hypovolemic shock. The post­ morterm examination completed at 03.45 pm.

30.PW12 in his cross examination by the learned counsel for accused deposed that the injuries Nos. 1 and 2 are not possible if any persons fall on the ground, whereas there are possibilities of injuries 3 to 6, if any person falls on the ground. He deposed that, if any basement stone thrown upon the person, there is possibilities of breaking of bones and internal organs.

31.PW13 ­ Dasari Devaiah, panch witness for confession and recovery panchanama deposed that on 23.01.2022 at about 12.40 pm, their MRO, deputed him and LW15­Rajashekar, V.R.A to go to tin­shed near Durgamma Gudi at Mohanraopet, then, himself and

LW15­Rajashekar went there and found C.I of Police and they found the accused/Ade Chandu in their custody. The C.I of Police asked them to enquire why the accused was in the custody of the police, then they enquired the accused what was the reason for his custody in the hands of police. Then the accused stated his name and particulars and further stated that he got marriage with Madhu

Priya and blessed with one son namely Vignyan aged about 5 years

Page 26 of 39 S.C.No.208 of 2022 and that his father died 4 years ago and that the family burden was on him and that there were disputes between him and his wife and also disputes between him and his mother and that the accused used to beat his wife now and then and his wife used to go to her parents house and that he used to threat his mother to bring his wife back and that his mother used to bring his wife. He further deposed that the accused further stated that he dashed one Buffallo of Goda Venkati with his two wheeler bike at Kalvakota village and as such the said Goda Venkati warned him to go slowly, for that the accused became anger and beat him with hands and kicked with his legs and hit the head of Goda Venkati to a wall and that Goda

Venkati sustained injuries on his head and that the sister of Goda

Venkati by name Gangu lodged a complaint at P.S.Medipalli and the a case was registered against the accused and he was remanded to judicial custody and after three months in the jail and he was release on bail.

32.PW13 further deposed that the accused further stated after release from the bail, he used to quarrel with his wife and mother and that when he beat his wife and the accused moved here and there and came to his house and found his wife was not present and

Page 27 of 39 S.C.No.208 of 2022 asked his mother about his wife and that his mother replied to search his wife and that he abused and beat and brought her into the street by catching her hair and that his mother went away somewhere and that in the angry, the accused thought that his grand father/Mallaiah was responsible for all these issues and he went to search for his grand father and that he found his grand father was sitting on the cement bench at Grampanchayat of

Kalvakota and he kept his bike aside and beat his grand father with hands and legs and lifted his grand father and thrown on the ground and when two persons namely Puly Anjagoud and one another interfered, he pushed them and warned them if anyone comes to rescue of his grand father he will kill them and thereafter, in the same angry the accused lifted one Basement stone and thrown on the chest of his grand father and went to his house, again, after 10 minutes he came to his grand father and found his grand father on the road and took him to his house on his two wheeler.

33.PW13 further deposed that the accused further stated that he laid one mat and kept his grand father on the mat and his caste persons, one woman and two men came and stated to him that his

Page 28 of 39 S.C.No.208 of 2022 grand father died and that he fled away from there on his two wheeler towards Vallampalli and that he moved in the surrounding villages for 4 or 5 days and that he had no amounts and he came to shed near Durgamma Temple to ask someone to some amounts, in the meantime, the C.I of Police and police caught him. He further deposesd that the police drafted these things and the police seized the accused two wheeler and cloths i.e., T.Shirt, Jeans Pant and he found blood stain marks on the left hand T Shirt and Jeans Pant at upper part (Thighs part) and the police gave another cloths to the accused and seized the cloths of the accused. The police drafted panchanama in their presence and knowing the contents of panchanama they signed on it.

34.The learned counsel for accused cross examined PW13. PW13 in his cross examination admitted that there is no written order issued by MRO. He deposed that they reached temple at 12.00 Noon by the time CI of police, SI of police and accused were present. He denied suggestion that, he signed on the papers prepared by the police at police station and accused did not confess anything before them.

Page 29 of 39 S.C.No.208 of 2022

35. PW14 ­ Ch.Sudheer Rao, the S.I of Police, Medipalli who issued FIR in his chief examination deposed that, on 18­01­2022 at 0800 hrs, PW1­Ade Ravinder came to police station and filed telugu written complaint under Ex.P1. Basing on the complaint of PW1, he registered a case in Cr.No.7/2022 for the offence under sec. 302 IPC and issued express FIR.

36.PW14 in his cross examination admitted that, the distance between scene of offence to police station is 7 KMs and one can reach the police station within 10­15 minutes. He admitted that, there is delay of 14 hours in lodging report. He deposed that due to fear of accused and threatening of accused, there was a delay.

37. PW15 ­ K.Rajashekar Raju, the then C.I of Police, Korutla in his chief examination deposed that on 18­01­2022, he received CD file in Cr.No.7/2022 of P.S. Medipalli from PW14. Later, he proceeded to Govt. Maternary Hospital, Korutla and secured the presence of mediators PW11­Md. Gazi pasha and LW13­Goda

Gangahdar and conducted inquest under Ex.P7 over the body of the deceased in their presence. During the inquest, he examined and recorded the statements of PW1, PW2,PW4, PW5, PW6, PW7, he got

Page 30 of 39 S.C.No.208 of 2022 the inquest process photographed by PW10 and there he recovered one blood stained light yellow color dothi, one blood stain white full hand shirt and blood stained white bunian (Mos. 6, 5, 4). Later, he filed requisition under Ex.P12 before medical officer

PW12/Dr.Sravan and got the body subjected to postmortem examination. He further deposed that, on the same day at 02.00

PM, he visited the scene of offence situated near Kalvakota near

Grampanchayat office and observed the scene and drafted the crime detail form under Ex.P8 in presence above said mediators and seized seized one stone (MO.1), Control Earth (MO.2), Mo.3 blood stained earth from the scene of offence in the presence of mediators and there examined and recorded the statements of PW3­Edla

Shankar and LW5­Palli Anji Goud. On 23.01.2022, at 11.30 AM, he along with sufficient force apprehended the accused at the outskirts of Medipalli near Durgamma temple, he secured the presence of mediators PW13 and LW15­Metta Rajashekar, he recorded confession cum recovery panchanama of the accused and under the photography of PW10 and recovered on black color Hero HF Deluxe motor cycle B.No. TS 02 ED 9404 (MO.9), a light blue color T­Shirt (MO.7) with blood stains on left front shoulder and a blue color

Page 31 of 39 S.C.No.208 of 2022

Jeans pant (MO.8) with blood stains on the right and left thigh portions. 

38.PW15 further deposed that later, he brought the accused to

P.S. Medipalli at 03.10 PM, on the same day, affected his arrest and produced him before the Hon’ble JFCM, Korutla on 24­01­2022 for judicial remand. Later, he forwarded the material objects along with the letter of advice through SDPO, Metpalli to RFSL, Karimnagar for examination and report. On 08­02­2022, he received the PME report from PW12. Further, on 10.02.2022, he secured the presence of the witness of PW8­Boddu Mahesh and PW9­Deekonda Venkataramana and examined and recorded their statements. He further deposed that as per the requisition of PW15, on 22.03.2022, the Hon’ble

JFCM­LW16, Metpalli recorded the 164 Cr.P.C statements of PWs 1 to 4 and LW5. On 11.03.2022, he received expert opinion from K.

Narsimha­LW17. After completion of investigation and after collecting relevant documents, he filed charge sheet in this case on 02­05­2022. He further deposed that during his investigation, It is revealed, that the accused was earlier involved in Cr.No. 128/2020 under sec. 294B, 506 and 324 IPC and Sec. 3 (1)(r), 3 (2)(va) of

SC/ST POA Act 2015 of P.S. Medipalli. As per the RFSL report, the

Page 32 of 39 S.C.No.208 of 2022 blood group of blood stains found in item Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7 is of “A” blood group. The item Nos. 1,2,3 belongs to the deceased and item Nos.6 and 7 are seized from the accused during the confession and recovery panchanama.

39.PW15 in his cross examination admitted that the incident taken place on 17.01.2022 at about 06.00 PM and report received on 18.01.2022 at 08.00 AM and there is a delay of 14 hours in lodging report. He deposed that, he got one dress from their staff for exchange of dress of accused. He admitted that, he did not examine

Chirutha Laxmi, B. Sharadha whose names mentioned in the Crime

Detail Form. He admitted that in F.I.R., it is mentioned that the delay in lodging report as due to late night. He denied suggestion that, deceased Ade Mallaiah was aged about 85 years and due to his low vision, he fallen on the road suddenly and he sustained the injuries and the accused is no way concerned with the incident. He denied suggestion that the accused never confessed his guilt of offence in the presence of mediators.

40.The evidence of PW12 shows that, the deceased Ade Mallaiah died due to polytramua with internal hemorrhage leading to

Page 33 of 39 S.C.No.208 of 2022 hypovolemic shock. PW12 deposed that injuries are not possible, if any persons falls on the ground. The injuries suffered by the deceased indicates that, the death of the deceased was not natural.

As seen from the inquest report and the evidence of witnesses, the deceased death occurred due to injuries sustained by him. The photographs under Ex.P2 shows injuries on head above eye temporal region, on the back. The contention of the learned counsel

for accused that the accused fell on the ground himself and

sustained injuries is not at all believable. The opinion of the doctor and other evidence lead by the prosecution shows that, the deceased sustained injuries and the death of deceased was homicidal.

41.The prosecution exhibited FSL report, which shows that, the item Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 containing human blood and of “A” – group. The prosecution by examining PW1 proved that the Ex.P1 report. F.I.R., proved through PW14. Inquest panchanama proved through PW11 and PW15 and Crime Detail Form proved through

PW11 and PW15 and Ex.P2 inquest photographs proved through

PW10 and Ex.P3 scene of offence photographs proved through

PW10. Confession and seizure panchanama proved through PW13

Page 34 of 39 S.C.No.208 of 2022 and PW15 and photographs of confession panchanama and seizure of bike also proved through PW10.

42.On careful examination of the evidence of PWs 1, 2, 3 and 4, the prosecution proved that the accused beat his grand father Ade

Mallaiah, kicked him with his legs and lifted him and thrown him on the ground and thrown one stone on the chest and stomach of

Ade Mallaiah and Ade Mallaiah received injuries and the accused took Ade Mallaiah on his motor cycle to his house and laid on the mat and Ade Mallaiah died. The evidence of PW6 shows that the accused bet her. The evidence of PW7 shows that, accused abused her and bet her. However, the evidence of PW7 does not attract the ingredients of section 498­A IPC. Thus, the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under section 302 and 323 IPC. The prosecution failed to prove the the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 498­A IPC.

Accordingly, these points are answered.

43In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence u/sec.498­A IPC and he is acquitted for the above charge. However,

Page 35 of 39 S.C.No.208 of 2022 the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under sections 302 and 323 IPC and he is convicted u/s.235 (2) of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 10th day of April, 2023.

Sd/­ I Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Jagtial.

44.The accused is heard with regard to the quantum of sentence to be imposed against him for the above offences for which the accused stated that he has wife and children and mother and he has to maintain them and he pleaded mercy of the court. By taking the plea of the accused and circumstances of the case the accused is sentenced to

(a) Undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/­ (Rupees five hundred Only) and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, 

(b) Undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/­ (Rupees five hundred Only) and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month for

Page 36 of 39 S.C.No.208 of 2022 the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,

The accused shall be given set­off u/s.428 of Cr.P.C against the substantial sentence of imprisonment imposed against him.

The substantial sentences imprisonment imposed against the accused shall run concurrently. The accused is informed of his right to file an appeal against the judgment and also regarding availability of free legal services for filing the appeal. The office is directed to furnish copy of the judgment to the accused immediately. 

The MOs. 1 to 8 shall be destroyed after the expiry of the appeal time and Mo.9 shall be confiscated to the state after expiry of the appeal time. 

Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 10th day of April, 2023.

Sd/­ I Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Jagtial.

FORM­C LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT WITNESSES

A. Prosecution

RANKNAMENATURE OF EVIDENCE

(EYE WITNESS, POLICE WITNESS,

EXPERT WITNESS, MEDICAL

WITNESS, PANCH WITNESS, OTHER

WITNESS

Page 37 of 39 S.C.No.208 of 2022

PW1A. RavinderComplainant and Eye witnesses 

PW2Tharala LaxmanEye witnesses

PW3Edla ShankarEye witnesses PW4Ade GangaramEye witnesses

PW5Ade LaxmirajamCircumstantial witnesses PW6Ade GangaMother of accused/Victim and circumstantial witnesses PW7Ade Madhu PriyaWife of accused/Victim and Circumstantial witnesses PW8 Boddu MaheshGave shelter to PW6

PW9Deekonda VenkataramanaCalled the Ambulance PW10Gandam NageshPhotographer

PW11Mhd. Gazi PashaPanch witnesses for inquest panchanama and Crime Detail Form PW12Dr.V.ShravanMedical Officer conducted PME

PW13Dasari DevaiahPanch witnesses for confession and seizure panchanama

PW14Ch. Sudheer RaoI.O, Issued FIR PW15K. Rajashekar RajuI.O Conducted Investigation , Filed Charge Sheet

B. Defence witnesses, if any:

RANKNAMENATURE OF EVIDENCE

(EYE WITNESS, POLICE WITNESS,

EXPERT WITNESS, MEDICAL

WITNESS, PANCH WITNESS,

OTHER WITNESS

1D1Relevant portion in 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2.

C. Court witnesses , if any:

RANKNAMENATURE OF EVIDENCE

(EYE WITNESS, POLICE WITNESS,

EXPERT WITNESS, MEDICAL

WITNESS, PANCH WITNESS,

Page 38 of 39 S.C.No.208 of 2022

OTHER WITNESS

NilNilNil

LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT EXHIBITS A. Prosecution:

Sl.No.ExhibitDescription Number 1P1/PW1Report lodged by PW1 2P2/PW10Four Photographs containing deceased 3P3/PW10Two Photographs containing big stone.

4P4/PW10CD containing photographs of inquest. 5P5/PW10CD containing photographs of scene of offence and signature on confession and seizure panchanama 6P6/PW10Six photographs pertaining to confession and recovery of panchanama. 7P7/PW11Inquest Panchanama 8P8/PW11Crime Detail Form 9P9/PW12Is the requisition 10P10/PW12 PME Report of Ade Mallaiah Dated 18­01­2022 11P11/PW13 Confession and Seizure panchanama 12P12/PW14 FIR 13P13/PW15 Letter addressed to SDPO 14P14/PW15 Requisition filed before Hon’ble JFCM, Metpalli 15P15/PW15 FSL Report.

B. Defence:

Sl.No.ExhibitDescription Number

NilNilNil

C. Court Exhibits

Sl.No.ExhibitDescription

Page 39 of 39 S.C.No.208 of 2022

Number

NilNilNil

D. Material Objects

Sl.No.MaterialDescription Object Number 11Stone with Cement 22Sample Earth 33Blood Stain Earth 44Banian of the deceased 55Shirt of Deceased 66Dhoti of the deceased 77T­Shirt 88Jeans Pant 99Motor bike bearing No.TS­ED­9404

Sd/­ I Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Jagtial.

Page 1 of 25 C.C.No.14 of 2022

FORM-A

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE :: AT

JAGTIAL.

Present: Sri.A.Veeraiah,

I Addl. Sessions Judge, Jagtial

Monday, this the 17th day of April, 2023

CALENDAR CASE APT No.14 of 20 22

(Old CC No.73 of 2018)

(Cr.No. 6782 of 2018 of PS . Vigilance & APTS P.S. Karimnagar )

ComplainantInspector of Police, Vigilance & APTS P.S. Karimnagar

Sri. Kasarapu Mallesham, Addl.

REPRESENTED BY

Public Prosecutor

ACCUSEDNagunuri Narsa Goud S/o Rama Goud, Age: 38 years, Caste: Goud, Occ:Correspondent,Vagdevi Primary School, R/o H.No.1-68, Buggaram village and mandal. (Regd.ConsumerS.C.No. 2150201395, Cat-II).

Sri.M.Bhaskar, Counsel for Accused.

REPRESENTED BY

FORM-B Date of Offence11-09-2018 Date of FIR11-09-2018 Date of Charge sheet27-11-2018 Date of Framing of Charges25-01-2023 Date of Commencement of evidence22-02-2023 Date on which judgment is reserved 13-04-2023 Date of the Judgment17-04-2023 Date of the Sentencing Order, if any 17-04-2023

Page 2 of 25 C.C.No.14 of 2022

Accused Details:

RankName ofDateDate ofOffencesWhetherSentence ImposedPeriod of ofAccusedofReleasechargedAcquitteDetentio theArreston Bailwithd orn AccuconvicteUndergo seddne during Trial for purpose of section 428 Cr.P.C SoleNagunuNilNilSec.135 ConvicteTheaccusedisNil ri Narsa(1) (a) of d sentenced to pay a fine A.P Goud ElectricityofRs.64,122/- Act (Rupees Sixty Four ThousandOne Hundred and Twenty Two Rupees only) and in default, he shall suffersimple imprisonment for six months under section 135 (1)(a) of Electricity Act.

* * *

This case is coming before me on 13.04.2023 for a final hearing

before me in the presence of Sri.Kasarapu Mallesham, Addl. Public

Prosecutor for the State/complainant and of Sri M.Bhaskar, counsel for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

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

Page 3 of 25 C.C.No.14 of 2022

1.The Inspector of Police, Vigilance & APTS P.S. Karimnagar filed a charge sheet in Cr.No.6782/2018 against the accused for the offence punishable under section 135 (1) (a) of A.P Electricity Act.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case as disclosed from the charge sheet are as follows: On 11.09.2018 at 1930 hours, PW1-

Bonkuri Ramulu, A.A.E/DPE-II/Karimnagar lodged a report stating that on the same day at 0930 hours, he along with PW2-Gurram Srinivas and

PW5-Manala Prasad inspected the premises of SC No.21502-01395, Cat-

II, situated within the premises of tin-shed bearing H.No.1-68, Buggaram village and mandal of Jagtial district standing in the name of accused-

Nagunuri Narsa Goud in the presence of LW4-Nagunoori Rama Goud accused father and found that the accused was utilizing power supply by means of PVC insulated aluminum service wire by directly tapping from nearby LT over head lines and using for domestic purpose, even after the power supply was under disconnection (with no display) due to non payment of CC charges of Rs.40,934/-. The total connected load at the time of inspection was found to be 360-Watts and the loss sustained by the company due to theft of energy was estimated at Rs.10,687/-.

Previously also a case was registered against the accused in APTS, Police

Station, Karimnagar vide FIR No.8379/2017 for indulging in theft of energy. Thereafter, the scene of offence panchanama was conducted by

PW1 in the presence of two mediators i.e., PW7-V.Brahmaji and PW8-

Page 4 of 25 C.C.No.14 of 2022

B.Sanjeev and PW1 seized about (16) meters of Black Colour service wire under the said panchanama. PW1 recorded the inspection process and scene of offence with his mobile phone. Later, he filed complaint with the

APTS Police along with original inspection notes and requested to take necessary action.

3.On receipt of report of PW1, PW9-G.Mahesh Babu, Inspector of police, Vig & APTS, P.S.Karimnagar registered a case in Crime

No.6782/2018 under section 135 (1) (a) of Electricity Act, issued FIR.

During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of PWs.1 and 2. Later, he visited the scene of offence situated at Buggaram village and mandal, prepared rough sketch of the scene with the help of PW5 and there he examined and recorded the statements of

PW5-Manala Prasad and LW4-Nagunuri Rama Goud. Thereafter, on the same day, PW9 visited the Sub Division Office, Jagtial Rural and there he examined PW3-Bhukya Thirupathi, the then ADE, Jagtial Rural and

PW6-V.Girmaji, the then Line Inspector Rachpalli and recorded their statements. PW6 collected copy of the disconnection notice from Section office, Nerella and handed over the same to PW9. On 17.09.2018, PW9 served a notice u/s.41-A Cr.P.C upon the accused with a direction to appear before the Hon’ble Court as and when required. On 19.09.2018,

PW9 collected DCB/EBS data of the accused from PW4-Asst. Accounts

Officer, ERO/Jagtial Rural. On 28.09.2018, PW9 collected information

Page 5 of 25 C.C.No.14 of 2022 pertaining to the school i.e., i) Recognition Permission, (ii) Certificate of the Registration of Sri Vagdevi Vidyalayam UPS, Buggaram and (iii) the

Correspondent and Principal of the school is Nagunuri Narsa

Goud/accused through LW8-B.Bhoomaiah, Mandal Education Officer,

Buggaram mandal and later PW9 examined and recorded the statement of

LW8. After completion of investigation, PW9 filed the charge sheet against the accused.

4. Cognizance of the offence taken by the Hon’ble I Additional District &

Sessions Judge, Karimnagar which is designated court against the

accused for the offence U/Sec.135 (1) (a) of Electricity Act. Copies were furnished to him. Thereafter, as per the orders of the Hon’ble I Addl.

District and Sessions Court, Karimnagar vide Dis.No.854, dated 08.06.2022, the case is transferred to this court for disposal according to law.

5.After appearance of the accused, the accused was examined and a charge for the offence punishable U/sec.135 (1) (a) of Electricity Act framed, read over and explained to him in his vernacular language and he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P15. Out of Pws 1 to 9:

Page 6 of 25 C.C.No.14 of 2022

PW1 is the complainant, Pws.2 and 5 who accompanied PW1, PW3 is the circumstantial witness who registered first offence against the accused, PW4 is the Asst. Accounts Officer, who issued DCB Data of the service of accused, PW6 is the circumstantial witness who issued disconnection notice, Pws.7 and 8 are the panch witnesses for scene of crime and seizure of wire and PW9 is the Investigating Officer who filed charge sheet. Exs.P1 to P15 marked on behalf of prosecution: which are; Ex.P1 is theft of energy complaint, Ex.P2 is LT inspection report, Ex.P3 is assessment calculation, Ex.P4 is inspection notes,

Ex.P5 is certificate, Ex.P6 is CD, Ex.P7 panchanama,

Ex.P8 is letter dated 19.09.2018 along with DCB data particulars, Ex.P9 is disconnection notice dated 17.11.2017, Ex.P10 is signature of PW8 on the panchanama, Ex.P11 is First Information Report,

Ex.P12 is sketch map, Ex.P13 is Attested copy of school recognition certificate dated 21.02.2012,

Ex.P14 is attested copy of certificate of registration of

Buggaram Sri Sri Rama Educational Society, dated 12.07.2007 and Ex.P15 is the attested copy of

Aaadhar card of accused and endorsement made by accused.

7. The learned Addl.P.P gave up the evidence of LW4-Nagunuri Goud and LW8-B.Bhoomaiah and reported that prosecution evidence was closed.

Page 7 of 25 C.C.No.14 of 2022

8.After completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material brought on record against him, for which, he denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses and reported that he has no defence evidence.

9.Heard the arguments from learned Addl.Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused.

10.The learned Addl. P.P. has argued that the accused who is the correspondent of the Vagdevi primary school failed to pay the arrears of

Rs.40,934/- and his service connection was disconnected and the accused utilized the supply by means of PVC insulated aluminum wire directly tapping from the near by LT over head lines and the PW1 seized 16 meters of wire and conducted panchanama in the presence of PWs 7 and 8. He further argued that the accused earlier involved in first offence vide FIR No. 8379/2017, dated 28-09-2017 and this is second time theft of energy and that the accused caused loss of energy to an extent of

Rs.10,687/-. He further argued that, the evidence of PW1 is supported by

PW2 and PW3. He further argued that, PW4, 5, 6, 7, 9 supported the case of prosecution. He further argued that, the accused is liable for conviction for the offence punishable under section 135 (1) (a) of Electricity Act.

11.On the other hand, the learned counsel for accused has argued that, the prosecution not filed any documentary evidence to show that as on 11-09-2018, the school was running. He further argued that, there is

Page 8 of 25 C.C.No.14 of 2022 no renewal for the school and the school closed in the month of

March/April-2018. He further argued that, the prosecution not examined any villager or any staff of the school to say that the school was running. He further argued that, the prosecution not marked electric wire allegedly seized by PW1 and pole number not mentioned. He further argued that, the prosecution not examined LW4- father of the accused. He further argued that, PW7 is department person and his evidence is not believable. He further argued that, PW8 not supported the case of prosecution. He further argued that, the prosecution not filed ownership certificate. He further argued that, PW1 in his cross examination admitted that, accused was not present at the time of inspection and PW1 has no prior acquittance and PW1 identifying the accused is not believable. He further argued that, PW1 deposed that, 38 to 40 service connections checked, whereas PW5 deposed that only one service connection checked therefore, their evidence is not believable.

PW1 did not test the service wire with multimeter and the same not videographed. He further argued that, PW5 not signed on the sketch map.

He further argued that, PW7 in his cross examination admitted that, he was taken to Buggaram to act as witness. He further argued that, when

PW1 seized wire, how PW9 shown the service wire in the sketch map is not explained. He further argued that, PW9 not obtained the signature of witnesses on rough sketch. He finally argued that a false case foisted

Page 9 of 25 C.C.No.14 of 2022 against the accused and the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt. He finally argued to acquit the accused.

12.Now the point that arises for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.135 (1) (a) of

Electricity Act, beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

13.It is the case of the prosecution that on 11.09.2018, the accused committed theft of energy for second time by availing power supply by directly tapping from nearby LT overhead lines by means of PVC insulated wire and using for domestic purpose, even after the power supply was disconnected due to non-payment of CC charges of Rs.40,394/-.

14.PW1-B.Ramulu, who is the defacto complainant, in his chief examination deposed that on 11-09-2018 at about 09.30 AM, himself and

LW2 went to Buggaram village for inspection of service connections and while conducting inspections, they found wires were hanging on the LT over head lines and they followed the wires and the same were connected to the house of accused and they observed that without any meter, the said wires connected to DP switch board. He further deposed that they observed that 6 fans were running and at that time, the accused was not present, but father Rama Goud was present. They observed the meter was

Page 10 of 25 C.C.No.14 of 2022 disconnected bearing service no. 01395 and the same was disconnected in the month November, 2017 and there were arrears of Rs.40,934/-, then he explained to his father as already one case booked earlier and taking electricity is wrong when the meter was disconnected and that first time case already registered and with the help of LW3-Manala Prasad, he videographed the scene in his mobile and disconnected the service wire of 16 meters and seized the same in the presence of father of accused, LW9-

Brammaji and LW10-Sanjeev. He further deposed that, he drafted panchanama and inspection notes and obtained the signatures of panchas and seized wire and went to Karimnagar office and they entered the particulars in the online MATS and after preparing, theft complaint under Ex.P1, assessment calculation, under Ex.P3 and LT inspection report under Ex.P2, inspection notes under Ex.P4, Ex.P5 certificate and

Ex.P6 CD (Compact disc) and handover to APTS police station,

Karimnagar on 13-09-2018.

15.PW2-G.Srinivas, the then A.E/DPE, who accompanied PW1 deposed that on 11-09-2018 at 09.30 hours, himself, PW1, LW3-Prasad went to Buggaram village for routine checking of service inspection, when they were checking the connections, they found one tapping of electricity from LT lines with hooks and wire and the same was connected to the house of Narsaiah, they observed that, meter was disconnected and the service wire was connected to one switch board directly without meter

Page 11 of 25 C.C.No.14 of 2022 connection and they found the wires were connected to 6 fans and they came to conclusion that it was not connected with the meter. He further deposed that PW1 prepared inspection notes and cut the wire of 16 meters and seized the same in the presence of the father of the accused and two panch witnesses namely Bramaji and Sanjeev LWs 9 and 10.

PW1 also videographed the unauthorized connection in his phone and he does not know when the meter was disconnected.

16.PW3- B. Jawaharlal Naik, the then ADE, Rural Jagtial, deposed that on 19-09-2017 at 12.00 noon, he went to Buggaram village for revenue collections and was attending defaulters list and he observed arrears service connections. At location A9 pole, he observed under disconnection service was running service number 1395 Cat-II, which is private school. The consumer name is Narsa Goud. The consumer was using the disconnected service connection by reconnecting the same to through the meter and using the electricity, he inspected the same and dis connected the same and at the time father of accused was present. He assessed the loss of theft of energy at Rs.5600/-. There were arrears of

Rs.34,026/- on that service connection. He lodged report against the consumer with the APTS police, Karimnagar. APTS police issued FIR. At present, he has no idea about the crime number and he does not know whether the said case was compounded or not.

Page 12 of 25 C.C.No.14 of 2022

17.PW4-G.Bhoomaiah, the then Asst. Accounts Officer, Jagtial in his chief examination deposed that on 12-09-2018, he received a letter from

CI of police APTS Karimangar-LW11, for furnishing DCB Data particulars of service connection no. 21502-01395. Accordingly, he issued DCB data particulars from December 2013 to August 2018 under Ex.P8.

18.PW5-Manala Prasad, the then Sub Engineer, Nerella who accompanied PW1 in his chief examination deposed that in the year 2018, on the instructions of AE-Ravi, he went to Buggaram village, there he went to LW6-V. Girimaji. Then himself and LW6 went to the house of accused on the instructions of PWs 1 and 2. He further deposed that the accused using electricity bypassing the meter. In the year 2017, the service connection 1035 was disconnected and the service connection was disconnected due to non payment of arrears of Rs.40,934/- and the accused using electricity for the school namely Vagdevi school. He further deposed that they disconnected the connection and PWs 1 and 2 seized 15 to 20 meters service wire. Thereafter, they gave information to the accused and also wife of accused. On the next day, the CI of police/LW11 came to Buggaram to the house of accused and LW11 inspected the same in the presence of him and LW6. The CI of police drafted sketch map.

19.PW6 - V. Girimaji, the then Line Inspector at Rachpalli in his chief examination deposed that in the year 2014, he worked at Buggaram as

Page 13 of 25 C.C.No.14 of 2022 line man, himself and Sub engineer PW5-Prasad went to the house of accused and disconnected the service connection, as there were arrears of 40,000/-. Ex.P9 is disconnection notice, dated 17-11-2017.

20.PW7-V.Brahmaji, panch witness for panchanama in his chief examination deposed that on 11-09-2018, their AE took him to act as witness to Buggarm village to the house of accused, they observed that there were hooks hanging on the over head lines and AE removed the wires from the over head lines and took his signature under Ex.P7 as witness and seized the wire.

21.PW8-B. Sanjeev, panch witness for panchanama in his chief examination deposed some years ago, on one day, while he was going to village, line man asked him to put a signature and he subscribed his signature and he asked them why they need his signature and they stated to him that a case was registered and obtained his signature under

Ex.P10.

22.PW9-G.Mahesh Babu, the then Inspector of Police in his chief examination deposed that on 11.09.2018 19.30 hours, PW1-B. Ramulu

AAE DPE-II, Karimnagar lodged the complaint against the accused and also he gave one CD and Certificate and seized wire, LT Inspection report,

Theft energy complaint, Inspection notes and panchanama. Basing on the report, he registered a case in Cr.No.6782/2018 for the offence under

Page 14 of 25 C.C.No.14 of 2022 section 135 (1)(a) of Electricity Act and issued F.I.R under Ex.P11. Later, he recorded the statements of PW1 and PW2 at APTS police station,

Karimanagar and recorded their statements. He further deposed that, on 12.09.2018, he proceeded to the scene of offence at Nerella village of

Buggaram mandal and observed the scene of crime and prepared rough sketch in the presence of Manala Prasad-PW5 under Ex.P12. Later, he examined and recorded the statement of PW5, LW4-N. Rama goud and

PW3 and PW6.

23.PW9 further deposed that the scene of crime is Sri. Vagdevi

Vidhyalayam which is tin shed in which meter was fixed. On 17-09-2018, he issued 41A Cr.P.C notice to the accused with the direction to appear

before the Hon’ble Court. On 19-09-2019, he collected the DCB data from

PW4 through a letter and recorded the statement. Later on 28.09.2018, he recorded the statement of MEO LW8-B. Bhoomaiah and collected the school recognition copies of Sri. Vagdevi Vidyalayam and also collected the disconnected certificate from PW6 as per the copies given by MEO, the accused is running the school. He further deposed that during the serving of 41A Cr.P.C, he collected Aadhar Card of accused. Later, he has collected the challan vide no. 43199, dated 27.12.2017 for Rs.1000/- from

DTO, Karimnagar of the first offence under Cr.No.8379/2017. Later, he filed charge sheet on 29-09-2018 against the accused.

Page 15 of 25 C.C.No.14 of 2022

24. In the instant case PW8 not supported the case of prosecution. The learned Addl. PP has cross examined PW8. PW8 in his cross examination denied suggestion that, PW1 conducted panchanama on 11-09-2018 at 09.30 AM, in the house of accused about unauthorized usage of electricity and PW1 disconnected the service wire and seized about 16 meters of wire.

25. The learned counsel for accused cross examined PWs.1 to 7 and 9.

PW1 in his cross examination admitted that the accused was not present at the time of their inspection. He deposed that they inspected 38-40 service connections on that date, they entered into Buggaram village at 0815 AM and returned at 11.30 AM. He deposed that there is no pole number for the connection of accused as such, he did not mention the pole number. He got disconnected the wire with the help of LW3 and he did not mention in Ex.P1 report. He deposed that the service connection of the accused was hanging with hooks on the LT over lines. He deposed that he does not know about the arrears of amounts of the year 2017 and whether the accused has paid the arrears of amounts in the year 2017 ie., on 03-12-2017, the accused has paid Rs.6,000/- and he does not know whether on 27-12-2017, the accused has paid Rs.1000/- towards arrears and he does not know whether the Rs.1000/- shown as compound fee in the first case. He deposed that himself and LW3 together disconnected the wire. He admitted that in Ex.P4 at column 6-B FR kept blank and date kept blank. He denied the suggestion that in order to

Page 16 of 25 C.C.No.14 of 2022 collect the arrears of amounts from the accused, they registered first offence as well as second offence against the accused intentionally.

26.PW2 in his cross examination deposed that he accompanied PW1 and he did not do anything, they removed the hooks of wire from LT line with a stick. He deposed that the line men removed the wire from LT line.

He deposed that it took half an hour to 45 minutes for conducting entire proceedings and except this case no cases were registered on that date. He denied the suggestion that the father of the accused was also not present at the time of their inspection and that they summoned the father of the accused to Nerella office and got his signatures on the inspection notes.

27.PW3 in his cross examination denied the suggestion that he registered a false case against the accused as there were huge arrears pending on the said service connection.

28.PW4 in his cross examination deposed that as per the record, he submitted DCB data particulars to inspector APTS. He admitted that as per data particulars, in the month of June 2014 Rs.5000/-, August 2014

Rs.2000/-, August 2015 Rs.5000/-, September 2015 Rs.2000/-, August 2016 Rs. 10,000/- and December 2017 Rs.6000/- paid by the consumer.

29.PW5 in his cross examination deposed that he knows the accused prior to this case and he knows the accused as there were dues from him and using that period, the accused did not pay the electricity arrears. He

Page 17 of 25 C.C.No.14 of 2022 deposed that he does not know from which date the accused was due of arrears. He deposed that he was present along with PWs 1 and 2 from the starting, LW6-V. Girimaji removed the hooks of service wire form the over head lines, they checked the service wire with multimeter, he brought the multimeter. He deposed that PW1 and 2, LW6 and himself went to the house of accused and inspected the same, he has no idea whether he signed on the rough sketch prepared by LW11 on the next day. He deposed that the accused was present at his house on that date and they informed the disconnection to the accused, he attested the panchanama.

30.PW6 in his cross examination deposed that he disconnected on 17- 11-2014, by the time Rs.40,000/- arrears were there. He deposed that the data issued by the assistance accounts officer is correct, he stated before

LW11 the disconnection notice was issued to the accused and he cannot say the exact date, when he issued disconnection notice to the accused.

He deposed that he did not obtain the signature of accused on disconnection notice.

31.PW7 in his cross examination admitted that he was taken to

Buggaram to act as witness. He deposed that he signed at the house of accused. He denied the suggestion that no panchanama was conduced at

Buggaram village and that he signed at Nerella office as his brother was also working in the same department and that in order to support the

Page 18 of 25 C.C.No.14 of 2022 department officials he is deposing falsehood and that no panchanama was conducted in his presence.

32.PW9 in his cross examination deposed that as per the DCB data issued by PW4-G. Bhoomaiah and also disconnection notice issued by

PW6-V. Girimaji, the accused was having arrears. He deposed that he has no idea how the disconnection was made by the officials. He deposed that he did not mention in the charge sheet that the part payments made by the accused, but he only mentioned total arrears amount as Rs.40,934/- and he also did not mention in the charge sheet about the part payments made by the accused for department in the month of June, 2014, August 2014, August 2015, September 2015, August 2016 and December 2017.

He deposed that he did not enquire about whether the school was renewed or not and further adds that, at the time of inspection, the school was running. He deposed that the school renewal was from 2013- 2014 to 2017-2018 academic year. He deposed that he did not file any renewal document after 2017 to 2018 and further adds that, in Ex.P13 month not mentioned. He deposed that Ex.P12 rough sketch drawn by him. He admitted that he did not obtain the signatures of witnesses in the sketch map. He denied the suggestion that in the collection of arrears, they foisted first and second case against the accused and that at the time of lodging report by PW1 the school was not at all running and the school recognition is not valid. He deposed that he did not examine any villagers.

Page 19 of 25 C.C.No.14 of 2022

He denied the suggestion that due to non payment of arrears the electricity department disconnected the service connection and thereafter, the school not at all running and in order to recover the arrears amounts, they foisted false case against the accused.

33. In the instant case, all the witnesses supported the case of prosecution except PW8. On perusal of Ex.P1 theft of energy complaint, it shows that the PW1 lodged complaint on 11-09-2018 at 1930 hours. It is further mentioned that the service was under disconnection due to non payment of CC charges of Rs.40,934/-. It is further mentioned that, the total connected load at the time of inspection was found to be 360 Watts and the loss sustained by the company due to theft of energy was estimated Rs.10,687/-. Ex.P2 LT inspection report shows that the total load was 360 Watts. Ex.P3 assessment calculation shows the assessment total amount shown as Rs.10,687/-. Ex.P4 inspection notes shows that, the name and address of consumer as Nagunoori Narsa Goud S/o. Rama goud and Rama Goud who is father of accused signed in Ex.P4 at the time of inspection. The contention of the counsel for accused that the prosecution not examined the father of accused. Non examination of the father of the accused is not fatal to the case of prosecution. On perusal of

Ex.P4 at column no.9 the father of accused signed. It is further mentioned that first case FIR No.8379/2017, dated 28-09-2017 was registered. On perusal of Ex.P7, PW1 seized about 16 meters of wire.

Exs.P1 to P7 proved through PW1. Ex.P7 was also proved through PW7.

Page 20 of 25 C.C.No.14 of 2022

Ex.P8 proved through PW4 and Ex.P9 proved through PW6. Ex.P11 F.I.R and Ex.P12 Sketch map proved through PW9. The contention of the counsel for accused that PW8 not supported the case of prosecution as such the accused is entitled for acquittal is not tenable as PW8 admitted his signature and PW8 deposed that they stated to him that a case was registered. Ex.P5 certificate issued by PW1 to say that, he recorded the scene of crime with his mobile phone and converted the mobile phone recording into CD. Ex.P9 disconnection notice, dated 17-11-2017 marked through PW6, which shows that, the service number 1395 was disconnected on 17-11-2017 for non payment of charges and meter reading shown 4224. Ex.P8 DCB particulars shows as on August 2018

Rs.40,934/- arrears shown. The learned counsel for accused has argued that the accused paid amounts and the amounts were shown in Ex.P8.

The another contention raised by the counsel for accused, that the school was not running. Ex.P13 shows the school renewed from 2013-2014 to 2017-2018. Ex.P14 shows that, Buggaram Sri. Sri Rama Educational

Society registered under register of societies. Ex.P15 shows that, attested copy issued by Mandal Educational Officer shows that Nagnoori Narsa

Goud working as principal and correspondent of Sri. Vagdevi vidyalayam

Buggaram.

34.The evidence of PW1 is supported by PW2 in all aspects. The evidence of PW 3 shows about registration of first F.I.R., the evidence of

Page 21 of 25 C.C.No.14 of 2022

PW4 shows about the arrears of amounts payable by the registered consumer Nagunoori Narsa Goud for service connection number 2150201395. The evidence of PW5 shows that, he accompanied PWs 1 and 2 and they disconnected the connection.

35.The evidence of PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW5 who are public servants cannot be discarded and there is no reason for them to falsely implicate the accused in this case. Merely PW8 not supported the case of prosecution, the evidence of official witnesses cannot be discarded.

Moreover, PW7 supported the case of prosecution. The contention of the accused counsel that accused was not present is not tenable as Ex.P4 inspection notes signed by the father of the accused.

36.It is the duty of the PWs. 1 and 2 to conduct inspection to find out the pilferage of energy and to prevent loss to department. Therefore, the evidence of Pws.1, 2, 3 and 5 shows that the accused indulged in theft of energy for the second time. The another contention alleged by the counsel

for accused that the prosecution not marked the service wire. However,

the case property was deposited and returned to SHO for safe custody and non production of service wire is not fatal to the case of prosecution, in view consistent evidence of PW1, PW7 and PW9.

Page 22 of 25 C.C.No.14 of 2022

37.On careful examination of the entire oral and documentary evidence on record, this court is of opinion that the prosecution has successfully established the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 135 (1)(a) of Electricity Act and as such the accused is found guilty for the said offence and he is accordingly convicted under sec. 248 (2) of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the point is answered.

38.In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable

U/sec. 135 (1)(a) of Electricity Act and accordingly he is convicted under sec. 248(2) Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 17th day of April, 2023.

I Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Jagtial.

39.The accused is questioned with regard to quantum of sentence to be imposed against him. The accused has stated that he has kids and parents and he has to look after his entire family and he pleaded mercy of the court. Considering the plea of accused and taking into account the nature of the offence committed by him under sec. 135 (1)(a) of the

Electricity Act and in the interest of justice, this court of view that the accused is sentenced to pay a fine which is of six times to the estimated amount of pilferage as shown in Ex.P3 which is Rs.64,122/- (10,687 X 6 times = 64,122/-) (Rupees Sixty Four Thousand One Hundred and

Twenty Two Rupees only). The accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.

64,122/- (Rupees Sixty Four Thousand One Hundred and Twenty Two

Page 23 of 25 C.C.No.14 of 2022

Rupees only) and in default, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for six months under section 135 (1)(a) of Electricity Act.

The unmarked case property, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 17th day of April, 2023.

I Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Jagtial.

FORM-C LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT WITNESSES

A. Prosecution

RANKNAMENATURE OF EVIDENCE

(EYE WITNESS, POLICE

WITNESS, EXPERT WITNESS,

MEDICAL WITNESS, PANCH

WITNESS, OTHER WITNESS

PW1B.RamuluComplainant, the then A.A.E/DPE, Karimnagar PW2G.SrinivasThe then A.E.DPE, Karimnagar who accompanied PW1 PW3B.Jawaharlal NaikThe then ADE, Rural, Jagtial. PW4G.BhoomaiahThe then Asst.Accounts Officer, ERO, Jagtial PW5Manala PrasadThe then Sub Engineer, Nerella who accompanied PW1. PW6V.GirimajiThe then Line Inspector, who issued disconnection notice. PW7V.BrahmajiPanch witness.

PW8B.SaanjeevPanch witness

PW9G.Mahesh BabuThe then Inspector of Police, I.O. who filed Charge sheet

Page 24 of 25 C.C.No.14 of 2022

B. Defence witnesses, if any:

RANKNAMENATURE OF EVIDENCE

(EYE WITNESS, POLICE

WITNESS, EXPERT WITNESS,

MEDICAL WITNESS, PANCH

WITNESS, OTHER WITNESS

NilNilNil

C. Court witnesses , if any:

RANKNAMENATURE OF EVIDENCE

(EYE WITNESS, POLICE

WITNESS, EXPERT WITNESS,

MEDICAL WITNESS, PANCH

WITNESS, OTHER WITNESS

NilNilNil

LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT EXHIBITS A. Prosecution:

Sl.No.ExhibitDescription Number 1P1/PW1Theft of Energy Complaint.

2P2/PW1LT Inspection report.

3P3/PW1Assessment Calculation.

4P4/PW1Inspection Notes 5P5/PW1Certificate 6P6/PW1CD 7P7/PW1Panchanama 8P8/PW4Letter, dated 19.09.2018 along with DCB

Page 25 of 25 C.C.No.14 of 2022 particulars.

9P9/PW6Disconnection Notice dated 17.11.2017.

10P10/PW8Signature of PW8 on the panchanama.

11P11/PW9First Information Report.

12P12/PW9Sketch Map. 13P13/PW9Attested copy of School Recognition Certificate

dated 21.02.2012.

14P14/PW9Attested copy of certificate of registration of Buggaram Sri Sri Rama Education Society dated 12.07.2007 15P15/PW9Attested copy of Aadhar card of accused and endorsement made by the accused.

B. Defence:

Sl.No.ExhibitDescription Number NilNilNil

C. Court Exhibits

Sl.No.ExhibitDescription Number NilNilNil

D. Material Objects

Sl.No.MaterialDescription Object Number NilNilNil

Sd/-

I Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Jagtial.

Page 1 of 19 S.C.No.47 of 2021

FORM-A

IN THE COURT OF THE FAST TRACK SPECIAL SESSIONS COURT

FOR EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO

ACT CASES, AT JAGTIAL.

Present: Sri.A.Veeraiah, I Addl. Sessions Judge, Jagtial

FAC: SPL.Judge (POCSO cases), Jagtial.

Wednesday, this the 29th day of March, 2023

SESSION CASE(POCSO) No.47 of 2021

(Cr.No. 5 4 of 2019 of PS . Jagtial town )

ComplainantSubInspectorofpolice, P.S.Jagtial Town

REPRESENTED BY

Smt.C.Bala Tripura Sundari, Special Public Prosecutor

ACCUSEDA2 Riyasath Baig S/o Rayeez Baig, 55 years, Muslim, R/o 228 – Saidpur, Hawkins, Barelly Izzath Nagar, Uttarpradesh, 243122.

Sri. K.Sriram, counsel for accused

REPRESENTED BY

FORM-B Date of Offence22-02-2019 Date of FIR22-02-2019 Date of Chargesheet28-11-2019 Date of Framing of Charges23-09-2022 Date of Commencement of evidence27-10-2022 Date on which judgment is reserved21-03-2023 Date of the Judgment29-03-2023 Date of the Sentencing Order, if any Nil

Page 2 of 19 S.C.No.47 of 2021

Accused Details:

RanName ofDate ofDate ofOffenceWhetherSentencPeriod k ofAccusedArrestRelease onsAcquittedeof theBailchargeorImposedDeten Accud withconvictedtion sedUnder gone durin g Trial for purpo se of sectio n 428 Cr.P.C A2Riyasath07.05.201912.09.2019 366 AcquittedNil129 - Baig r/w days 109 IPC

and

Sec. 17 of POCSO Act.

* * *

This case is coming for a final hearingbefore me on 21-03-2023 in the presence of Smt. C. Bala Tripura Sundari, Special Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant, and of Sri K.Sriram, Counsel for the Accused No.2 and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

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

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S.Jagtial Town filed a charge sheet in

Cr.No. 54 of 2019 of P.S. Jagtial Town for the offence punishable under sections 366 r/w 109 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against the accused

No.2.

Page 3 of 19 S.C.No.47 of 2021

2. The brief case of the prosecution as disclosed from the charge sheet is that:On 22.02.2019 at 19:00 hours, the defacto complainant/PW1/mother of victim girl came to Police station and lodged a written complaint stating that, she has two sons and two daughters, her 2nd daughter/victim/PW3 studying 8th class in old high school, Jagtial and she used to drop PW3 at school at 9.00 am and pickup her at 5.00 pm and as usual on 22.02.2019 at 9.00 am, she dropped PW3 at school and when she went to school at 5.00 pm to pickup PW3 but her daughter/PW3 was not present. When PW1 enquired with teachers, they informed to her that PW3 was not come to class, later she searched in their relatives houses and also enquired with her friends but she was not traced. PW1 suspected that her daughter is moving freely with one

Imran/A1 S/o Riyasath/A2 r/o Uttarpradesh state now at Krishnanagar,

Jagtial and that she finally requested to take necessary action.

3.(i) Based on the report lodged by PW1. PW9/B.Gajender, Head

Constable has registered a case in Cr. No.54/2019 U/Head Girl Missing and issued First Information Report. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of Pws.1 and 2. On the next day, PW9 visited the scene of offence, secured the presence of

LW6/Macha Siddi Ramulu & PW6, Kasturi Rajashekar drew rough sketch of the scene of offence and prepared crime detail form.

Page 4 of 19 S.C.No.47 of 2021

(ii)Later, on 25.02.2019, LW11, P.Althaf Khan, S.I of Police took up further investigation of this case, verified the investigation done by PW9 and found it on correct lines. During the course of investigation, LW11 re- examined and re-recorded the statements of Pws.1 and 2. Later, LW11 secured the presence of Pws.4 and 5, examined them and recorded their statements. Later, LW11 collected the date of birth certificate of the victim from the old high school, Jagtial. On 05-05-2019 at 11.30 hours,

PW3/victim girl came to PS along with her parents and stated that “one

Imran/A1 was frequently comes to their house and informed her that he is loving her and wants to marry her, upon which she believed his version and one day evening, she went to Imran’s/A1 room and at that time A1 was alone in the room and that A1 lured her that he was loving her and wanted to marry her and used to develop physical contacts with her once only, meantime, the father of Imran i.e., A2/ came to the room at Jagtial upon which A1 informed their matter to his father/A2 for which he agreed and also stated to him that took her to their house at Bareli of

Uttarpradesh and that on 22.02.2019 at 15.30 hours, Accused No.1 took away to Uttarpradesh through Manchirial Railway Station and stay with his father/A2 but they did not participate in sexual act and thereafter, she phoned to her parents and informed her address where she was and later her father came to Bareli of Uttarpradesh and took her to Jagtial.”

Later, LW11 got recorded the statement of the victim girl/PW3 through

PW8/D.Raja Sree, Woman Police Constable under the videography of

Page 5 of 19 S.C.No.47 of 2021

PW7/R.Narsinga Rao. Later, based on the statement of the victim girl,

LW11 altered the section of law from Girl Missing to Sec.366 IPC.

(iii) During the course of investigation, on 07-05-2019 at 09:30 hours, the LW11 has apprehended the accused No.2 at New Bus Stand, Jagtial and on interrogation, he voluntarily confessed to have committed the offence along with his son/A1 and later, the LW-11 brought the accused to PS Jagtial Town and produced him for judicial custody. Hence, the charge.

4.Cognizance of the offence taken by the Hon’ble I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar for the offence punishable under section 366 r/w 109 of the IPC and Section 17 of the POCSO Act, 2012 against the accused No.2, which is a Special Court designated under the provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act, 2012.

On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents furnished to the accused. As per the orders of the Hon’ble Principal District and Sessions

Judge, Karimnagar, in Dis. No. 1766, dated 14.03.2022, this case was

transferred to this court for disposal according to the law in view of the establishment of this court at Jagtial and on 23-09-2022, the accused

No.2 was examined under Section 228 of the Cr.P.C., and charges framed under Section 366 r/w 109 of the IPC and Sec.17 of the POCSO Act 2012 against him, read over and explained to him in Hindi. The accused No.2 denied the charge, pleaded not guilty, and claimed to be tried.

Page 6 of 19 S.C.No.47 of 2021

5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined PWs. 1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P9. Out of Pws.1 to 9:

PW1 is the defacto complainant/mother of victim, PW2 is the father of victim, PW3 is the victim, Pws.4 and 5 are the circumstantial witnesses, PW6 is the panch witness for crime detail form, PW7 is the photographer, PW8 is the Woman Police constable who recorded the statement of victim and PW9 is the

Investigating Officer who issued FIR.

Ex.P1 to P9 are marked on behalf of the prosecution, which are Ex.P1 is the report, Exs.P2 to P4 are the 161 Cr.P.C statements of Pws.3 to 5 respectively, Ex.P5 is the signature of

PW6 on Crime Detail Form, Ex.P6 is the CD (Compact Disk),

Ex.P7 is the certificate, Ex.P8 is the First Information Report and Ex.P9 is the Crime Detail Form.

6. The learned Special Public Prosecutor gave up the evidence of LW6 (Macha Siddi Ramulu) and LW11 (P.Althaf Khan) and reported that prosecution evidence is closed.

7. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code by explaining the incriminating material brought on record against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which the accused denied the same and reported that he had no defence evidence.

8.Heard the arguments from both sides.

Page 7 of 19 S.C.No.47 of 2021

9. Now the points that arises for determination are:

1. Whether the Prosecution has proved victim girl was a child within the meaning of Sec. 2(1) (d) of POCSO

Act?

2. Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/ Sec. 366 r/w 109 of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt?

3. Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/ Sec. 17 of the

Protection of the Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINTS No.1 to 3:

10.The case of the prosecution is that on 22.02.2019 at about 15:30 hours, the accused No.1 Imran Baig kidnapped the victim girl by saying deceitful words that he would marry her and took her to Bareli of

Uttarpradesh State and stayed for two months and that, the accused no.2 herein being the father of A1, abetted A1.

11.PW1-Mother of the victim deposed that, she knows the accused person, LW5 is her daughter, her daughter was studying 8th class in girls school at Jagtial and she was aged about 16 years by the time. She used to drop her daughter at the school at 9 am and used to bring her daughter at evening 5 pm from the school and on the day also, she dropped her daughter at the school and at evening when she went to the school, the school teachers informed her that her daughter not attended the school. Thereafter, she searched for her daughter at the houses of her

Page 8 of 19 S.C.No.47 of 2021 friends and also neighboring houses but she did not find her daughter.

On the same day at 5 PM, she went to police station and lodged report as her daughter was missing under Ex.P1. She further deposed that after lodging report, they got suspicion over the workers of Srinivas who were working muggam work, they summoned the Srinivas and Srinivas came to PS and Srinivas made phone call to the person working under him and who took her daughter and Srinivas informed them, the worker took her daughter and her daughter was at Uttar Pradesh. She further deposed that after 2 months, her daughter made phone call to her husband and by weeping she disclosed her address and that she further stated that she was confined in the room and they were not allowing her to go to outside and not giving phone to her. Her husband took the police from here and went to UP and brought her daughter to their house.

12.PW2-Father of victim, deposed that, he knows the accused person, whose son took her daughter to Barely. On 22-02-2019 his wife made phone call to him at 5 pm and informed him that their daughter is not found and on receiving phone call, he went to the school and enquired madams and sirs about their daughter, they informed them that his daughter not attend the school in the morning hours. He further deposed that his wife informed them that she herself dropped her daughter at the school, thereafter they searched for their daughter at the houses of her friends, relatives upto 6.30 pm and thereafter they went to police station and report lodged by his wife. He further deposed that the police enquired

Page 9 of 19 S.C.No.47 of 2021 them whether they have any suspicion against anyone and they got suspicion over the son of accused. They gave phone number of the son of accused to the police and the police made phone call to that number and that mobile was switched off. Thereafter, the police summoned the owner of the son of accused. The house owner made phone call to the accused and asked about the son of accused and the accused stated that his son not came to his house. The police asked them to come on the next day morning and the police stated that the phone was switched on and the location of the son of accused and after 2 days he made phone call to accused and on his enquiry the accused stated to him that his son took his daughter to his house and his son is in the house and the accused threatened him over the phone when he asked the accused to give phone to his daughter to speak with her.

13.He further deposed that the accused threatened him that he will perform his daughter marriage with his son and that they will keep his daughter with them and threatened him to what he can do, he can. He further deposed tha the police stated to him that they will locate the accused. Thereafter, on 05-05-2019 his daughter made phone call to him and stated to him that they confined her in a room and Imran used her and in the nights by taking alcohol the said Imran committed rape on his daughter by removing her dress and used to lock the room in the morning and confined her and harassed her. After 2 days again, his daughter made phone call to him and asked him to come to there as she was confined in

Page 10 of 19 S.C.No.47 of 2021 the room and to take her to his house and she further stated that when his daughter asked for water the accused who is the father of the Imran beat her.

14.He further deposed that thereafter, the police asked him to come to

PS to go to Barely thereafter himself, SI of police and one constable went to Barely and they stayed at Barely for a period of one week. Thereafter, he came to know that the accused by knowing their visit sent his daughter along with his son to Bombay or other place by beating his daughter.

Thereafter, the Imran and the accused hidden his daughter in one house.

They came to know the place and found the accused and Imran escaped, the accused brought one advocate there and threatened them and the police took the accused to the PS of Barely and they brought their daughter and the police apprehended the accused and brought to police station, Jagtial. Thereafter, he took his daughter to his house.

15.PW3-Victim Girl in her chief examination deposed that, she does not know the accused person, nothing was happened to her, she does not know whether her mother lodged a report before police about her missing, police not examined her, she does not know whether Women constable examined her and the same was videographed by the videographer and she did not lodge any report with the police. She denied the signature on the report dated 05.05.2019.

Page 11 of 19 S.C.No.47 of 2021

16.Pws.4 and 5 who are the circumstantial witnesses in their chief examination deposed that they do not know the accused and they do not know anything about the facts of the case.

17.PW6-K.Raja Shekar, panch witness for crime detail form in his chief examination deposed that, he does not know anything about the facts of the case, when he went to police station on his work, the police obtained his signatures on blank papers, about 4 years back. He admitted his signature on crime detail form.

18.PW7-Ravula Narsinga Rao, Photographer in his chief examination deposed that, In the year 2019 the police Jagtial town called him to P.S.

Jagtial town to take videography of one victim girl. Accordingly, he went to

P.S. Jagtial town there, he videographed the statement of one victim girl, when the victim girl was examined by Rajasree Woman Head Constable.

At that time, victim, himself and Woman head constable were present and he knows the name of the victim girl. He recorded videography in video camera, he converted the same into CD at his photostudio and then handed over the CD to the police.

19.PW8-D.Raja Sri, Woman Head constable in her chief examination deposed that, on 05-05-2019, the SI of police, Jagtial town called her and she came from Mallapur P.S. to Jagtial town police station and she examined and recorded the statement of victim PW3 in the presence of videographer Narsingarao and he videographed the same. She further

Page 12 of 19 S.C.No.47 of 2021 deposed that the victim stated before her that one Imran came to the school of the victim on 22-02-2019 and took her to Baroli Uttarpradesh on the name of love and the victim further stated that, the victim made phone call to her parents and her father came to UP and brought her.

20.PW9-B.Rajender, the then Head Constable, P.S.Jagtial Town in his chief examination deposed that, on 22-02-2019, PW1 came to the police station and lodged report that her daughter PW3 was missing and based on the report of PW1, he registered a case in Cr.No. 54/2016 U/H. Girl missing and issued FIR under Ex.P8, later, he examined and recorded the statements of PW1 and PW2. On 23-02-2019, he went to scene of offence

Krishna Nagar, Jagtial there, he drafted crime detail form in the presence of panchas namely Maccha Siddiramulu and Kasthuri Rajashekar under

Ex.P9.

21.The case of the prosecution is that at the time of incident the victim was a minor girl. The prosecution filed date of birth certificate of victim, however, the prosecution not exhibited the date of birth certificate of the victim girl/PW3. The prosecution not cited the head mistress, who issued date of birth certificate. Thus the prosecution failed to prove that the victim was minor at the time of alleged incident. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of section 17 of POCSO Act.

22.Now the prosecution has to prove, whether the accused has committed offence U/sec. 366 r/w 109 IPC.

Page 13 of 19 S.C.No.47 of 2021

23. In the instant case, Pws.3 to 6 not supported the case of prosecution and they turned hostile to the case of prosecution. The learned Spl. PP cross examined them. PW3 victim in her cross examination denied suggestion that, she stated before police as in Ex.P2 that she got acquaintance with accused no.1 and that he stated to her that he was loving her and marry her and that she used to go to the room of Imran and he had physical contacts with her and also stated that he will marry her and taking her somewhere else and in the meantime the father of Imran the accused came and Imran stated her that the accused consented to take him to Bareli and on 22.02.2019 when her mother dropped her at school at about 3.30 PM the accused Imran came to her and took her to Mancherial Railway station and from there to Bareli of

Uttarpradesh and to his house and that the accused Imran forced her for physical contacts and she refused and the father of Imran the accused also residing there and then she made phone call to her parents and she came to know that her parents filed missing case and that she informed her parents about her address and that her father came to Bareli and brought her to Jagtial on 05.05.2019 and now she is deposing falsehood to help the accused due to compromise.

24.Pws.4 and 5 in their cross examination denied suggestion that, they stated before police as in Exs.P3 and P4 in their 161 Cr.P.C statements.

PW6 in his cross examination denied suggestion that on 23.02.2019 at 11 hours, the Head Constable, P.S.Jagtial Town conducted scene of offence

Page 14 of 19 S.C.No.47 of 2021 panchanama and drafted crime detail form and also sketch map and knowing the contents of the same, he signed on it and now he is deposing falsehood.

25.The learned counsel for accused cross examined PW1, PW2, Pws.7 to 9. PW1 in her cross examination deposed that she does not remember whether she lodged report before the Police. At present her children are with her and no inconvenience caused to her children and she does not know the contents of Ex.P1 report. She admitted that on 27.10.2022, she gave evidence as per the instructions of Police. She admitted that none were kidnapped her daughter. She deposed that her daughter was married and she is pregnant and her daughter marriage held with one

Saleem and that she does not know the facts of the case and the accused is no way concerned with the offence.

26.PW2 in his cross examination deposed that he does not know anything about the facts of the case. He admitted that on 27.10.2022, he gave evidence as per the instructions of Police and his chief examination is not correct and that none were kidnapped his daughter. He deposed that his daughter was married and she is pregnant and her daughter marriage held with one Saleem and that he does not know the facts of the case and the accused is no way concerned with the offence. As Pws.1 and 2 turned hostile in the cross examination, the learned Spl.Public

Prosecutor cross examined them. Pws.1 and 2 in their cross examination by the learned Spl.P.P admitted that they gave evidence on 27.10.2022

Page 15 of 19 S.C.No.47 of 2021 and they denied the suggestion that now they are deposing falsehood to help the accused due to compromise.

27.PW7 in his cross examination denied the suggestion that he did not go to police station and that he did not took videography of the victim girl and he simply signed at police and at the instance of police. PW8 in her cross examination deposed that she did not file duty passport before this court to say that she was deputed to go to Jagtial town police station. She denied the suggestion that she simply signed on the statement prepared by the police and that she did not record the statement of the victim and that she does not know anything about the facts of the case and at the instance of higher officer, she is deposing falsehood.

28.PW9 in his cross examination deposed that the offence took place at

Jagtial government school on 22-02-2019 and on the same day evening the PW1 came to police station and lodged report. PW1 lodged report at 19 hrs, in the report it is not mentioned the time of offence. He admitted that in the FIR the G.D. Number not mentioned and that in the FIR the signature of complaint not obtained at column number 14. He deposed that he registered FIR on the instructions of CI of police, he did not examine any witnesses at government primary school Vidhyanagar. He denied the suggestion that PW1 never came to police station and never lodged report and that he simply registered case and he did not conduct any investigation in this case.

Page 16 of 19 S.C.No.47 of 2021

29. Though, Pws.1 and 2 in their chief examination supported the case of prosecution, however, Pws.1 and 2 in their cross examination by the learned counsel for the accused admitted that none were kidnapped her daughter and they do not know the facts of the case and the accused is noway concerned with the offence. The victim/PW3 not supported the case of prosecution. Pws.4 to 6 also not supported the case of prosecution. Therefore, the evidence of Pws.1 and 2 is not believable. The evidence of Pws.7 to 9 is formal in nature. Therefore, the accused No.2 is entitled for benefit of doubt. Hence the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused No.2 for the offences punishable under sections 366 r/w 109 of IPC and Sec. 17 of POCSO Act and as such the accused is entitled for acquittal for the charges leveled against him. Accordingly these points are answered.

30. In the result, the accused No.2 is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.366 r/w 109 of IPC and Sec. 17 of POCSO Act.

Accordingly he is acquitted U/sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of six months U/sec.437

Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 29th day of March, 2023.

Sd/-

I Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Jagtial. FAC: SPL.Judge (POCSO cases) Jagtial.

Page 17 of 19 S.C.No.47 of 2021

FORM-C LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT WITNESSES

A. Prosecution

RANNAMENATURE OF EVIDENCE

K(EYE WITNESS, POLICE

WITNESS, EXPERT WITNESS,

MEDICAL WITNESS, PANCH

WITNESS, OTHER WITNESS

PW1Mother of victim girl-witnessComplainant/Mother of victim. details not disclosed as PW1 is family member of victim In POCSO case PW2Father of victim girl-witnessMother of victim details not disclosed as PW2 is family member of victim In POCSO case PW3Victim details not disclosed as it isVictim POCSO case PW4Vadlakonda SrinivasCircumstantial witness. PW5V.KalyaniCircumstantial witness.

PW6K.RajashekarPanch witness for Crime Detail form. PW7Ravula Narsinga RaoPhotographer

PW8D.RajasriWoman Police Constable, who recorded the statement of victim PW9B.RajenderI.O., who issued FIR.

B. Defence witnesses, if any:

RANKNAMENATURE OF EVIDENCE

(EYE WITNESS, POLICE

WITNESS, EXPERT WITNESS,

MEDICAL WITNESS, PANCH

WITNESS, OTHER WITNESS

NilNilNil

Page 18 of 19 S.C.No.47 of 2021

C. Court witnesses , if any:

RANKNAMENATURE OF EVIDENCE

(EYE WITNESS, POLICE

WITNESS, EXPERT WITNESS,

MEDICAL WITNESS, PANCH

WITNESS, OTHER WITNESS

NilNilNil

LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT EXHIBITS A. Prosecution:

Sl.No.ExhibitDescription Number 1P1/PW1Report lodged by PW1.

2P2/PW3Sec.161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW3 3P3/PW4Sec.161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW4 4P4/PW5Sec.161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW5 5P5/PW6Signature of PW6 on crime detail form.

6P6/PW7C.D.

7P7/PW7Certificate.

8P8/PW9First Information Report 9P9/PW9Crime Detail Form.

B. Defence:

Sl.No.ExhibitDescription Number NilNilNil

Page 19 of 19 S.C.No.47 of 2021

C. Court Exhibits

Sl.No.ExhibitDescription Number NilNilNil

D. Material Objects

Sl.No.MaterialDescription Object Number NilNilNil

Sd/-

I Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Jagtial. FAC: SPL.Judge (POCSO cases), Jagtial.

Page 1 of 20 C.C.No.12 of 2022

FORM-A

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE :: AT

JAGTIAL.

Present: Sri.A.Veeraiah,

I Addl. Sessions Judge, Jagtial

Monday, this the 10th day of April, 2023

CALENDAR CASE APT No.12 of 20 22

(Old CC No.61 of 2018)

(Cr.No. 5319 of 2018 of PS . Vigilance & APTS P.S. Karimnagar )

ComplainantInspector of Police, Vigilance & APTS P.S. Karimnagar

Sri. Kasarapu Mallesham, Addl.

REPRESENTED BY

Public Prosecutor

ACCUSEDEllutapu Naresh S/o Narsimhulu, Age: 54 years, Occ: Real Estate Business, R/o H.No.4-1-379/1, Korutlatownandmandal. (S.C.No.2280113964, under Cat-I).

Sri S.Ravinder and Sri.G.Gopi

REPRESENTED BY

Counsels for Accused.

FORM-B Date of Offence12-07-2018 Date of FIR13-07-2018 Date of Chargesheet04-09-2018 Date of Framing of Charges08-02-2023 Date of Commencement of evidence22-02-2023 Date on which judgment is reserved 06-04-2023 Date of the Judgment10-04-2023 Date of the Sentencing Order, if any 10-04-2023

Page 2 of 20 C.C.No.12 of 2022

Accused Details:

RankName ofDateDate ofOffencesWhetherSentence ImposedPeriod of ofAccusedofReleasechargedAcquitteDetentio theArreston Bailwithd orn AccuconvicteUndergo seddne during Trial for purpose of section 428 Cr.P.C SoleEllutapu19.07.02.08.2Sec.135 ConvicteTheaccusedis 15-days Naresh 2018018(1) (a) of dsentenced to pay a fine A.P ofRs.33,552/- Electricity(Rupees Thirty Three Act ThousandFive Hundred and Fifty Two only) and in default, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for six months under section 135(1)(a)of Electricity Act.

* * *

This case is coming before me on 06.04.2023 for a final hearing

before me in the presence of Sri.Kasarapu Mallesham, Addl. Public

Prosecutor for the State/complainant and of Sri S.Ravinder and Sri G.Gopi, counsels for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

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

1.The Inspector of Police, Vigilance & APTS P.S. Karimnagar filed a charge sheet in Cr.No.5319/2018 against the accused for the offence punishable under section 135 (1) (a) of A.P Electricity Act.

Page 3 of 20 C.C.No.12 of 2022

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case as disclosed from the charge sheet are as follows: On 13.07.2018 at 1015 hours, PW1-

Bonkuri Ramulu, the then A.A.E/DPE-II, Karimnagar lodged a report stating that on 12.07.2018 at 1430 hours, he along with PW2-Sandilla

Anjani Prasad inspected the premises of SC No.22801-13964 standing in the name of accused/Regd.Consumer Ellutapu Naresh to his house No.4- 1-379/1, Bilalpura village, Korutla town of Jagtial district and found that the service was still under disconnection with a final reading-4172 due to non payment of CC charges of Rs.22,480/- but the accused was unauthorizedly reconnected to the meter and utilizing power for domestic purpose. The present reading of the meter is 4705. The total connected load at the time of inspection was found to be 1096-Watts and the loss sustained by the company due to theft of energy was estimated at

Rs.5,592/-. Previously also i.e., on 22.11.2017, the PW3-Basa Pradeep

Kumar, the then AE/OP/Korutla inspected above said premises and found that the said service was under disconnection since 28.10.2017 with a final reading 3300 due to non-payment of CC charges of

Rs.15,930/- and a case was registered against the accused in APTS,

Police Station, Karimnagar vide FIR No.10353/2017 for indulging in theft of energy and the accused paid compounding fee of Rs.1,000/- vide challan No.5311 dated 08.05.2018 in DTO, Karimnagar. Thereafter, the scene of offence panchanama was conducted by PW1 in the presence of

Page 4 of 20 C.C.No.12 of 2022 two mediators i.e., PW5-M.Ravi and PW6-Ch.Srikanth and PW1 seized about (15) meters of Black Colour service wire under the said panchanama. PW1 recorded the inspection process and scene of offence with his mobile phone. Later, he filed complaint with the APTS Police along with original inspection notes and requested to take necessary action.

3.On receipt of report of PW1, PW7, G.Mahesh Babu, Inspector of police, Vig & APTS, P.S.Karimnagar registered a case in Crime

No.5319/2018 under section 135 (1) (a) of Electricity Act, issued FIR.

During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statement of PW1. Later, he visited the scene of offence at Korutla along with PW2 and prepared rough sketch of the scene and there, he examined and recorded the statements of PW2 and LW3-Ellutapu Laxminarayana, younger son of the accused. Later, PW7 visited Section Office, OP, Korutla

Town and there, he examined and recorded the statement of PW3 who spoke about the booking of first offence against the accused and PW3 handed over Residence Proof Certificate, Property Tax Demand Bill to him. Later, PW7 collected DCB/certificate data in respect of SC

No.22801-13964 of the accused from PW4-Asst.Accounts Officer,

ERO/Korutla. On 19.07.2018 at 0815 hours as per the directions of

PW7, H.C.1981 and his team arrested the accused at his house at

Bilalpura, Korutla town and produced before PW7 and on interrogation,

Page 5 of 20 C.C.No.12 of 2022 the accused voluntarily confessed to have committed the offence for 2nd time and the accused was remanded to judicial custody. After completion of investigation, PW7 filed the charge sheet against the accused.

4. Cognizance of the offence taken by the Hon’ble I Additional District &

Sessions Judge, Karimnagar which is designated court against the

accused for the offence U/Sec.135 (1) (a) of Electricity Act. Copies were furnished to him. Thereafter, as per the orders of the Hon’ble Principal

District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar vide Dis.No.3597, the case is transferred to this court for disposal according to law.

5.After appearance of the accused, the accused was examined and a charge for the offence punishable U/sec.135 (1) (a) of Electricity Act framed, read over and explained to him in his vernacular language and he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P1 to P10. Out of Pws 1 to 7:

PW1 is the complainant, PW2 is the then ALM, OP,

Karimnagar who accompanied PW1, PW3 is the then

AE/OP/Karimnagar who lodged first offence against the accused, PW4 is Asst.Accounts Officer who issued

DCB Data service of the accused, Pws.5 and 6 are the panch witness for scene of offence panchanama and

Page 6 of 20 C.C.No.12 of 2022 seizure panchanama and PW7 is the Investigating

Officer who filed charge sheet. Exs.P1 to P10 marked on behalf of prosecution: which are; Ex.P1 is theft of energy complaint, Ex.P2 is LT inspection report, Ex.P3 is assessment calculation, Ex.P4 is inspection notes,

Ex.P5 is certificate, Ex.P6 is CD, Ex.P7 panchanama,

Ex.P8 is DCB data particulars of service connection

No.22801-13964 on 16.07.2018, Ex.P9 is First

Information Report and Ex.P10 is sketch map.

7. The learned Addl.P.P gave up the evidence of LW3-Ellutapu

Laxminarayana and reported that prosecution evidence was closed.

8.After completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material brought on record against him, for which he denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses and reported that he has no defence evidence.

9.Heard the arguments from learned Addl.Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused.

10.The learned Addl P.P. has argued that Pws.1 to 7 supported the case of the prosecution and that accused committed theft of energy for 2nd time, as such the accused is liable for conviction. On the other hand, the learned counsel for accused has argued that there is no corroboration between Pws.1 to 5 about visiting of the house of accused. He further argued that PW1 not issued notice before the inspection of the house and

Page 7 of 20 C.C.No.12 of 2022 the location of the metre and metre reading not mentioned. He further argued that statement of consumer is also kept blank in Ex.P4. He further argued that the other witnesses not signed on the panchanama notes of inspection to say that they also accompanied PW1. He further argued that the prosecution story is that they seized 15 metres wire whereas PW3 deposed that in the year 2017, he seized 10 metres of the service wire and there is contradiction in the evidence of PW1 and 3. He further argued that the I.O in the sketch map shown service wire and when the PW1 seized service wire, how PW7 shown the service wire is not explained and it creates a doubt. He further argued that the evidence of

PW1 is not believable that he inspected 50 service connections and again says 51 connections. He further argued that PW4 not issued 65-B certificate along with DCB particulars. He further argued that PW1 not collected the inhabitants of the scene of offence as panchas and that the panchas are employees of Electricity Department and their evidence is not believable. He further argued that the accused has paid entire due amounts to the department and there are no dues by the date of trial. He further argued that Pws.1 to 3 not followed the mandatory provisions and that the PW1 planted service wire and PW7 created a false case against the accused. He further argued that I.O did not collect any document to show that PW1 is authorized to lodge complaint. He further argued that earlier crime number not mentioned in the charge sheet and that the

Page 8 of 20 C.C.No.12 of 2022 prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused and that the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt. He finally argued to acquit the accused.

11.Now the point that arise for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.135 (1) (a) of

Electricity Act, beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

12.It is the case of the prosecution that on 12.07.2018 at 1430 hours, the accused committed theft of energy by unauthorizedly reconnecting the disconnected service wire and using for domestic purpose, even after the power supply was disconnected due to non-payment of CC charges of

Rs.22,480/-.

13.PW1, B.Ramulu, who is the defacto complainant in his chief examination deposed that on 12-07-2018, he along with LW2 went to

Bilalpura, Korutla town to the house of accused for verification of service connection and after verifying the service connection, they reached the house of accused at about 02.30 PM., and there they found the disconnected service connection no. 13964 unauthorizedly reconnected from the pole to the meter by laying hooks over LT over head line. He further deposed that on 01-04-2018, the said service connection was dis- connected as there was due of Rs.22,480/-, he informed the accused that, he unauthorizedly using of electricity is wrong and he got disconnected

Page 9 of 20 C.C.No.12 of 2022 the service wire with the help of LW2 and noted down the meter reading.

The meter reading was 4705. The accused used 533 units unauthorizedly and the assessment value of theft of energy is Rs.10,000/-. He further deposed that he prepared inspection notes and seized the electricity service wire in the presence of mediators LW6 and LW7. Thereafter, they went to Karimnagar office and they entered the particulars in the online

MATS, after preparing inspection notes under Ex.P4, theft complaint under Ex.P1, assessment calculation under Ex.P3 and LT inspection report under Ex.P2 and Ex.P5/certificate and Ex.P6/C.D and Ex.P7- panchanama, he handover to LW8 APTS police station, Karimnagar on the next day ie., on 13.07.2018 and his statement was typed by LW8.

14.PW2, S.Anjani Prasad, the then Asst.Line men deposed that on 12- 07-2018, PW1, himself and LW5 went to inspection for defaulters list and when they reached the house of accused at about 2 or 02.30 PM., they found the meter was running, which was disconnected earlier for non payment of dues and they observed that the service wire laid on LT over head lines unauthorizedly, which was disconnected. The service connection number is 13964. He further deposed that they disconnected the service wire stating that the disconnected meter cannot be used, he disconnected the wire and PW1 took the same. PW1 took videography when he was disconnecting the service wire in the presence of two persons namely, Ravi and Srikanth (Lws 6 and 7).

Page 10 of 20 C.C.No.12 of 2022

15.PW3, B.Pradeep Kumar, the then A.E.Korutla deposed that, he knows the accused and he knows PW1 and PW2. On 22-11-2017, he has inspected the house of accused and by the time of his inspection, the service connection of accused was disconnected prior to one month. On their inspection, they found that the accused utilizing the power supply even though his service connection was disconnected and as such, he booked a case and handed over to APTS. The accused has paid Rs.1000/- as compound fee for the first offence.

16.PW4, A.Bheemaiah, the then A.A.O.Metpalli deposed that on 14.07.2018 APTS, CI of Police, Karimnagar issued a requisition for DCB particulars of SC No.22801-13964 from January, 2017 to July, 2018.

Accordingly, he furnished DCB (Demand Collection Balance) data particulars of service connection number No.22801-13964 on 16.07.2018 under Ex.P8.

17.PW5, M.Ravi, panch witness for scene of offence and seizure panchanama deposed that he knows the accused. In the year 2018, electricity department people disconnected the service connection and the accused illegally used the electricity by laying wires on the LT lines. He further deposed that the electricity department people removed the wire having hooks and seized the wire and conducted panchanama and obtained his signature. Along with him, LW7/Srikanth was also present

Page 11 of 20 C.C.No.12 of 2022 and the wire seized by the electricity department is about 15 to 20 meters.

18.PW6, Chenna Srikanth, panch witness for scene of offence and seizure panchanama deposed that at about 5 years back, AE Pradeep-

PW3 called him to the house of accused. Along with him PW5 also present. He further deposed that as the accused used electricity unauthorizedly, fine imposed by the AE and in the year 2018, a case was registered against the accused as the accused used the electricity illegally and they seized 15 meters of wire and a panchanama was prepared by

AE, himself and PW5 signed on the panchanama.

19.PW7, G.Mahesh Babu, the then Inspector of Police, APTS,

P.S.Karimnagar in his chief examination deposed that on 13-07-2018,

PW1 B. Ramulu AAE lodged the complaint against the accused Ellatapu

Naresh and also he gave one CD and seized wire approximately 15 meters.

Basing on the report, he registered a case under Cr.No.5319/2018 for the offence under section 135 (1)(a) of Electricity Act. Later, he recorded the statements of PW1 to PW4 and LW3-E.Laxminarayana. Later, he proceeded to the scene of offence at Bilalpur at Korutla and drafted the rough sketch in the presence of PWs.5 and 6 under Ex.P10. Later, on 13.07.2018, he issued section 41A Cr.P.C to the accused directing him to appear before him within one week, but the accused did not appear before

Page 12 of 20 C.C.No.12 of 2022 him. On 19-07-2018 at 10.25 AM, he apprehended the accused and sent him to the Hon’ble I ADJ, Karimnagar for judicial remand. Later, he collected the first offence challan receipt from STO office, Karimanagar.

Later, he collected DCB particulars from PW4-A.Bheemaiah. He deposited the case property before the Hon’ble I ADJ, Karimnagar. Later, he filed charge sheet against the accused on 25-08-2018.

20.The learned counsel for accused has cross examined Pws.1 to 7.

PW1 in his cross examination deposed that at the time of inspection accused is not present. He admitted that column No.5 and 8 kept blank under Ex.P4. He admitted that LW2 not signed in Ex.P7. He admitted that he did not mention pole number in the panchanama under Ex.P7.

He deposed that he videographed the scene in his mobile and got converted into C.D and he did not hand over his mobile phone to LW8.

He deposed that on the date they inspected 50 service connection. He admitted that the consumer paid amounts except compound fee of

Rs.2,000/-. He admitted that Ex.P1, complaint lodged on 13.07.2018 at 1015 hours and the delay is not explained in Ex.P1. He denied the suggestion that even though the accused paid entire due amounts for statistical purpose, they registered case against the accused person.

21.PW2 in his cross examination deposed that on that date, he accompanied with PW1 and inspected about 10 service connections. He

Page 13 of 20 C.C.No.12 of 2022 admitted that the houses of panchas are situated 2 Kms from the house of accused. He cannot say the pole number but it was at B location.

22.PW3 in his cross examination deposed that the APTS Police collected the compound fee. He has no idea whether the accused paid entire due amounts to the department except compound fee. He deposed that in the year 2017 at the time of his inspection, the accused laid 10 metres of service wire for connecting his metre.

23.PW4 in his cross examination deposed that he cannot say whether the accused has paid total due amounts. He deposed that the DCB data particulars generated form the computer system.

24.PW5 in his cross examination deposed that the accused was present at the time of conducting panchanama. He cannot say the house number of accused. He deposed that the house having 3 bed rooms. He denied the suggestion that accused having no dues and that the department people without inspection obtained his signatures on blank papers and that no panchanama was conducted by them in his presence.

He deposed that he gave evidence in one or two cases.

25.PW6 in his cross examination deposed that the distance between his house and house of accused is about 2 kms. He deposed that himself and PW5 are helpers in the electricity department. He denied the

Page 14 of 20 C.C.No.12 of 2022 suggestion that the electricity department people without inspection obtained his signatures on blank papers.

26.PW7 in his cross examination admitted that he did not examine any other witnesses at scene of offence except Pws.1 to 4 and LW3. He deposed that PW1 seized the wire. He deposed that he has no idea what was the distance between pole to metre at the time of first offence dated 22.11.2017. He denied the suggestion that the distance between pole to metre was only 10 metres but they foisted false case by planting 15 metres wire against the accused. He deposed that he has no idea whether accused has paid entire due amounts to the department. He deposed that he did not collect any document to say that PW1 is authorized person to lodge report. The witness adds that PW1 was working as District

Pilferage Energy Addl.Asst.Engineer II. He denied the suggestion that without conducting proper investigation, he filed false charge sheet against the accused.

27. In the instant case, all the witnesses supported the case of prosecution. On perusal of Ex.P4 inspection notes, it shows that PW1 conducted inspection notes in the house of Ellatapu Naresh (H.No.4-1- 379/1) and pole number mentioned P-1/8/8/1 and Ellatapu

Laxminarayana son of accused present and PW2 also signed on the inspection notes and at page No.3 of Inspection notes it is mentioned final

Page 15 of 20 C.C.No.12 of 2022 reading as 4172 at the time of disconnection and non payment of CC charges Rs.22,480/- and the present reading of the metre is 4,705. It is further mentioned about first offence FIR No.10353 of 2017 dated 30.11.2017 and this is second theft of energy. The statement of consumer/his representative recorded by the PW1. The main contention of counsel of accused that pole number not mentioned, final reading not mentioned is not tenable as the PW1 mentioned the details in Inspection

Notes. The contention of the accused counsel is that no notice was given to accused before inspection, however the PW1 obtained the signature of son of accused on Ex.P4. PW1 conducted panchanama under Ex.P7 which was proved through Pws.5 and 6. The learned counsel for accused has argued that Pws.5 and 6 evidence is not believable as they are working in Electricity Department. The contention of the counsel for accused is not tenable as there is no ill-will or motive to depose by the

Pws.5 and 6 against the accused person. The another contention raised by the counsel for the accused is that the PW1 did not collect local inhabitants at scene of offence. PW5 and 6 deposed that their house are situated at 2 kms away from the scene of offence. Even though, their evidence cannot be discarded on the ground that they are not immediate neighbors of accused. In Ex.P3, the assessment calculation the amount shown as Rs. 5,592/- and the connected load shown 1096-W and 533 units. In Ex.P2, LT inspection report, the total connected load shown as

Page 16 of 20 C.C.No.12 of 2022 1096-W. PW1 gave theft of energy complaint against the accused under

Ex.P1 and it shows about earlier FIR No.10353/2017 dated 30.11.2017 against the accused, the loss sustained by the company due to theft of energy is estimated at Rs.5,592/-. Based on Ex.P1, Ex.P9 FIR registered.

PW1 handed over C.D under Ex.P6 and certificate under Ex.P5 to PW7.

28.The evidence of PW1 is supported by PW2 in all aspects. The evidence of PWs 1 and 2 who are public servants cannot be discarded and there is no reason for them to falsely implicate the accused in this case.

The contention of the counsel for accused that PW1 is not authorized person to lodge report. However, PW1 is A.A.E SDII/DPE, Karimnagar and PW7 deposed that PW1 is competent to lodge report.

29.As per Ex.P1 complaint, it is mentioned that a first offence was registered against the accused in FIR No.10353/2017, dated 30.10.2017, but the accused again indulged in theft of energy and therefore the present case is registered against him under Ex.P9.

30.It is duty of the PWs. 1 and 2 to conduct inspection to find out the pilferage of energy and to prevent loss to department. Therefore, the evidence of Pws.1, 2, 5 and 6 shows that the accused indulged in theft of energy for the second time.

Page 17 of 20 C.C.No.12 of 2022

31.On careful examination of the entire oral and documentary evidence on record, this court is of opinion that the prosecution has successfully established the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 135 (1) (a) of Electricity Act and as such the accused is found guilty for the said offence and he is accordingly convicted under sec. 248 (2) of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the point is answered.

32.In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable

U/sec. 135 (1) (a) of Electricity Act and accordingly he is convicted under sec. 248(2) Cr.P.C

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 10th day of April, 2023.

I Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Jagtial.

33.The accused is questioned with regard to quantum of sentence to be imposed against him. The accused has stated that he has wife and children and that he is only earning member of the family and pleaded mercy of the court that he will pay fine amount. Considering the plea of accused and taking into account the nature of the offence committed by him under sec. 135 (1) (a) of the Electricity Act and in the interest of justice, this court of view that the accused is sentenced to pay a fine which is of six times to the estimated amount of pilferage as shown in

Ex.P3 which is Rs.5,592- (5,592 X 6 times = 33,552/-) (Rupees Thirty

Three Thousand Five Hundred and Fifty Two only). The accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 33,552/- (Rupees Thirty Three Thousand

Five Hundred and Fifty Two only) and in default, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for six months under section 135 (1) (a) of Electricity Act.

Page 18 of 20 C.C.No.12 of 2022

The unmarked case property, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 10th day of April, 2023.

Sd/-

I Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Jagtial.

FORM-C LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT WITNESSES

A. Prosecution

RANKNAMENATURE OF EVIDENCE

(EYE WITNESS, POLICE

WITNESS, EXPERT WITNESS,

MEDICAL WITNESS, PANCH

WITNESS, OTHER WITNESS

PW1B.RamuluComplainant, the then A.A.E/DPE, Karimnagar PW2S.Anjani PrasadThe then Asst.Linemen. PW3B.Pradeep KumarThe then A.E.Korutla PW4A.BheemaiahThe then A.A.O.Metpalli PW5M.RaviPanch witness

PW6Chenna SrikanthPanch witness

PW7G.Mahesh BabuThe then Inspector of Police, I.O. who issued F.I.R and filed Charge sheet

Page 19 of 20 C.C.No.12 of 2022

B. Defence witnesses, if any:

RANKNAMENATURE OF EVIDENCE

(EYE WITNESS, POLICE

WITNESS, EXPERT WITNESS,

MEDICAL WITNESS, PANCH

WITNESS, OTHER WITNESS

NilNilNil

C. Court witnesses , if any:

RANKNAMENATURE OF EVIDENCE

(EYE WITNESS, POLICE

WITNESS, EXPERT WITNESS,

MEDICAL WITNESS, PANCH

WITNESS, OTHER WITNESS

NilNilNil

LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT EXHIBITS A. Prosecution:

Sl.No.ExhibitDescription Number 1P1/PW1Theft of Energy Complaint.

2P2/PW1LT Inspection report.

3P3/PW1Assessment Calculation.

4P4/PW1Inspection Notes.

5P5/PW1Certificate.

6P6/PW1CD (Subject to objection) 7P7/PW1Panchanama.

8P8/PW4DCB data particulars of service connection number No.23801-13964 along with letter. 9P9/PW7First Information Report.

10P10/PW7Sketch Map.

Page 20 of 20 C.C.No.12 of 2022

B. Defence:

Sl.No.ExhibitDescription Number NilNilNil

C. Court Exhibits

Sl.No.ExhibitDescription Number NilNilNil

D. Material Objects

Sl.No.MaterialDescription Object Number NilNilNil

Sd/-

I Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Jagtial.