Sri Abdul Rahman Shaik

1 C.C.No.546/2019 XVI AMM/BML

IN THE COURT OF XVI ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

BHEEMUNIPATNAM

Present: ABDUL RAHMAN SHAIK

XVI Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate,

Bheemunipatnam.

CALANDER CASE NO.546 OF 2019

(Cr.No.471/2017 of PM Palem Police Station)

Friday, this the 20th day of March, 2020. BETWEEN:

State Represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, PM Palem P.S., Visakhapatnam city.

...Complainant.

AND:

Meda Gora Mesa, S/o Mesu Ditiya, age 35 years, caste by Aadivasi(S.T), R/o Gulbar village, Garbada Mandal.

...Accused

This case having come before me for fnal hearing on 17.03.2020 in the presence of Learned A.P.P. for the State and of Smt.D.Kanaka Maha Lakshmi, Learned Legal Aid Counsel for the accused, upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the counsel on either side, this Court delivers the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, PM Palem Police Station fled charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.471/2017 of PM Palem PS for the ofence under section 457, 380 r/w 511 IPC.

2.The following allegations in brief of charge sheet:

On 19.09.2017 at 7.00 pm, LW1 B.Simhachalam came to police station and presented a report stating that in the month of July Mandapati Gopal

Raju who is the owner to plot No.302 and also he said that the door were locked on yesterday i.e., 18.09.2017 at 8.00 pm, then immediately complainant went to his plot and found that some unknown culprits by broke entered into that house and committed theft, immediately he telephoned to the house owner and informed about theft occurrence but he replied that he did not put and valuable items in his house, he request to report to the police.

2 C.C.No.546/2019 XVI AMM/BML Basing on the report fled by defacto complainant, LW5 K.Lakshmana

Murthy has registered the case in Cr.No.471/2017 for the ofence u/sec.457, 380 r/w 511 IPC and endorsed the same to LW6 M.M.Naidu for further investigation. During the course of investigation, Inspector of police, Meerpet

PS, Cyberabad Commissonerate arrested the accused on 01.08.2018 and sent him judicial custody to Charlapally central jail, Hyderabad. On his confession LW8 A.V.Brahmam connected PT warrant against the accused on 10.09.2018 in Cr.No.63,65,232/2017 for the ofence u/sec.457, 380 IPC of

Duvvada PS and produced him before the Hon’ble Magistrate, Gajuwaka,

Visakhapatnam after than handed over to Central prison, Visakhapatnam for judicial custody, again Duvvada police took him into the police custody and recorded his confessional statement and the accused voluntarily confessed his guilt about PM Palem house burglary attempt ofence in Cr.No.471/2018.

LW9 G.Apparao connected PT warrant against accused on 12.12.2018 and he compared the chance prints with the accused prints and gave a report and after completion of investigation, he fled charge sheet.

3.Considering the material on record this court has took cognizance of ofence punishable U/Sec. 454, 380 r/w 511 IPC against the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused copies of case documents were furnished to him as contemplated U/sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

5.The accused is examined Under Section 239 Cr.P.C., Charges U/Sec.

457, 380 r/w 511 IPC are framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu.

The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.To bring home the guilt of the accused , prosecution examined PW1 to 9 and got marked Ex.P1 to P8. No evidence adduced on behalf of the defense.

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was called upon to explain the incriminating circumstances that he is appearing in the evidence 3 C.C.No.546/2019 XVI AMM/BML of prosecution witnesses as contemplated U/Sec.313of Cr.P.C. The accused person denied the same and reported no evidence in defense.

8.LW1 B.Simhachalam is examined as PW1. LW2 D.Surya Venkata

Satyanarayana Babu is examined as PW2. LW4 J.Koteswara Rao is examined as PW3. LW3 Shaik Thangela Peera is examined as PW4. LW7 T.Rama

Chandra Rao is examined as PW5. LW6 M.M.Naidu, Head constable is examined as PW6. LW9 G.Appa Rao, SI of police, PM Palem PS is examined as PW7. Lw8 A.V.Brhamam, SI of police, PM Palem is examined as PW8. Ex.P1 is the report of PW1. Ex.P2 is the signature on mediators report of PW3.

Ex.P3 is the mediators report dt.11.11.2018. Ex.P4 is the visiting report.

Ex.P5 is the comparison report along with photocopies of the chance prints E and J. Ex.P6 is the covering letter dt.01.11.2018. Ex.P7 is the rough sketch.

Ex.P8 is the FIR.

9.Heard arguments.

10.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has made out the case against

the accused for the ofence Under Section 457, 380 r/w

511 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

11.POINT:

B.Simhachalam deposed that on 19.09.2017, at about 6.00 am, the family members of LW2 came to his house and informed that accused committed theft in the house of Gopala Raju. He also informed that the main doors also broke opened. On the information, he went to the fat No. 302 and entered into the house and observed that the Iron Almyrah was broke opened. He furtehr deposed that he made a phone call to Gopala Raju to his abroad number and he informed that there are no valuable items in the Iron

Almyrah and asked him though there are no valuable items, to give Ex.P1 report to the police. Accordingly he gave a report to police.

12. PW2 D.Surya Venkata Satyanarayana Babu deposed that on 18.09.2017 in between 20.00 to 21.00 hrs, he noticed that Flat No. 302 4 C.C.No.546/2019 XVI AMM/BML which belongs to Gopala Raju. Then the said house was locked. On 19.09.2017, at about 6.00 am, he noticed that the locks of the doors of Flat

NO. 302 were broke opened. He further deposed that he noticed that the items in the house were scattered, due to doubt, he informed the same to

PW1 Simhachalam. Then PW1 telephoned Goapala Raju and informed about the theft to him, himself and PW1 entered into the house of Gopala Raju and observed that the Iron Almyrah was broke opened and the items were scattered in the house. PW1 gave a report to the police and the police also came to the house of Goapala Raju and also observed the house thoroughly and traced out fnger prints in fat no. 302.

13.PW3 J.Ram Koteswara Rao has turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. He simply deposed that on 11.11.2018 at about 7.00hrs, police called him to act as mediator, Yalamanda Bypass road,

Narasaraopet. He was residing near to Yalamanda Bypass. Along with him one Peera was also present. By the time they went to the place police arrested one person. Later police obtained his signatures on some papers.

He cannot identifed the person whom the police arrested. He do not know the contents of the said report. The signature shown to him in the mediators report belongs to him. Ex.P2 is my signature.

14.PW4 Shaik Tangella Peera deposed that on 11.11.2018 at about 7.00hrs, his Tahsildhar directed him to go to Yeramanda Bypass to act as mediator, From there himself and one police constable Rajesh went to the

Yeramanda bypass. By the time he went to the Yeramanda Bypass SI of police Brahmaiah and other police personnel were present at that place. He further deposed that there the accused was carrying a bag and on seeing the police tried to escape from the place and by the time he went to the place police caught hold him. Police verifed the bag and the police found gold and silver items in the bag. The SI of police asked him about the identity of the said person and also about the gold and silver articles in the bag. Then he 5 C.C.No.546/2019 XVI AMM/BML stated his name as Meda Gora Yesu and he do not know Telugu and he can speak only Hindi. He further deposed that one police constable by name

Rajesh of Narasaraopet Rural PS translated the words of the said person and the SI of police. The other home guard by name Lakshmaiah brought laptop, weighing machines. On the translation of Rajesh, the home guard

Lakshmaiah typed the confession of the accused and he stated that he committed thefts at Madhurawada of Visakhapatnam in the third week of

Septmber, 2017.

15.PW4 further deposed that but no property was stolen by him as he could not fnd any property. Later he further confessed that he committed thefts at Narasaraopet and other police station limits and he further stated that he has a team to commit thefts. Along with him one Ramsu Bhai and some others committed thefts at Madhurawada and could not succeed in the ofence. The SI of Police seized gold and silver items which are in the bag of the accused and he afxed slips on the said property and obtained their signatures. The SI of police noticed the said property as case propery of

Narasaraopet Rural PS. He further deposed that later police arrested the accused and seized the property in his presence under cover of Ex.P3 mediators report and obtained their sigantures. Along with him PW3

J.Koteswara Rao was also present and he can identify the said person and he identifed the accused in the open court hall.

16.During cross examination he deposed that he signed on Ex.P3 mediators report after going through its contents. He admitted that he did not go to the Yelamanda Bypass along with the police. Himself went to the place of arrest. His Tahsildhar orally instructed him to go to Yelamanda

Bypass. Many persons gathered at Yelamanda Bypass. He cannot say the number of persons who gathered there. He do not know the names of all the police constables who came to place of arrest. The accused belongs to

Gujarat State. He cannot say the number of papers typed by police. He put 6 C.C.No.546/2019 XVI AMM/BML only two signatures in Ex.P3 mediators report. Besides him Jupalli Koteswara rao(PW3) also signed on the mediators report.

17.PW4 admitted that the mediators report was signed in the police station but not at the place of arrest. Police also brought a printer to the place of arrest. Police didnot take any photographs of the property seized from the accused. He cannot say the specifc description of the property seized from the acused.

18.PW5 T.Rama Chandra Rao deposed that on 19.09.2017 at 7.00 pm, after receiving the telephone message from SHO, PM Palem PS, he along with clues team visited the scene of ofence in Cr.No.471/2017, u/sec.457 and 380 r/w 511 IPC for examination and developement of chance prints if any.

The I.O., concerned informed scene of ofence and developed 15 chance prints on various articles and marked them as A to O for the facility of photography. The chance prints marked ABCDEF and P were disclosed udner steel almyrah locker door. The chance prints marked G was dislcosed under plastic toy, H was disclosed under red colour plastic drinking glass. J was disclosed under main entrance door frame. K,L and M were dislcosed udner wooden almyrah right side door inthe main bed room. N and Q were disclosed on the main entrance door inside. The developed chance prints were got photographed by photographer clues team at the scene of ofence on the same day.

19. PW5 further deposed that the photographer clues team supplied photo copies of chance prints on 20.09.2017. He examined the clarity of the photo copies and found that except B the remaining chance prints are ft for comparison. He accompanied the ft chance prints with the fnger prints of inmate and they remained un identifed. The visiting report Ex.P4 sent to IO concerned on 20.09.2017 under intimation to Director Finger Print Bureau,

CID AP Mangalagiri and Commissioner of police, Visakhapatnam city for favour of information. He further deposed that he verifed the ft chance 7 C.C.No.546/2019 XVI AMM/BML prints on the fnger print data base of State Finger Print Bureau and on verifcation it is found that the ft chance prints are remained unidentifed.

He verifed the ft chance prints with the Papilon fnger print data base of

State Finger Print Bureau. On verifcation it is found that the chance print marked E is identifcal with left middle fnger impression marked S8 and the photocopy of the chance print marjed J is identical with left thumb fnger impression marked S6 and the fnger print slip marked S of the suspect by name Gora Mesu, of Gujarat State.

20.During cross examination he deposed that he has not received any written comminication from SHO, PM Palem PS. He went within one hour to the place of occurence after receiving the telephone message. He admitted that basing on the date base software, he identifed the fnger prints as belongs to the accused.

21. PW6 M.M.Naidu deposed that on 19.09.2017 at 7.00 pm, he received endorsed FIR in Cr.No.471/2017 for the ofence u/sec.457, 380 and 511 IPC, he took up investigation on the same day and he examined PW1 in the police in the police station and recorded his statement, later he along with Pw1 rushed to the scene of ofence, he telephoned to PW5 T.Ramachandra Rao and informed about the commission of ofence, PW5 came to the scene of ofence along with clues team and collected the fnger prints, he examined

PW2 D.S.Venkata Surya Narayana Babu and he prepared Ex.P7 rough sketch and later he handed over his investigation to LW9 G.Appa Rao.

22.During cross examination deposed that the clues team arrived at the sence of ofence after 30 minutes and within 45 minutes after he reached the place of occurence. He entered into the house in which the ofence was committed but he has not touched any articles. He has not taken any photographs of the scene of ofence. He admitted that he has not examined the neighbours of the scene of ofence.

8 C.C.No.546/2019 XVI AMM/BML

23. PW7 G.Appa Rao, SI of Police, deposed that on on 11.11.2018 he received record from PW6 M.M.Naidu. On 12.12.2018 he connected the accused in the present case under PT warrant and later after completion of investigation, he fled charge sheet.

24.During cross examination he deposed that he visited the scene of ofence but he has not examined any of the witnesses.

25. PW8 A.V.Brahmam deposed that on 11.11.2018 at about 7.00 hours on receiving credible information he secured the presence of PW3 and PW4 and along with his staf. He rushed to the Yalamanda Bypass junction and there the accused on seeing them tried to ran away. With suspecion he caught hold the accused with the assistance of his staf and he took the assistance of his constable Rajesh of Narasaraopeta Rural PS and enquired the accused in the presence of mediators.

26.PW8 furhter deposed that the accused confessed in presence of mediators that he committed thefts at Piduguralla, Narasaraopeta,

Rajamahendravaram, Visakhapatnam areas. In the third week of September, 2017 the accused tried to commit theft in an apartment at Madhurawada along with four others and he stated that he broke opened the locks of the apartments and he did not fnd any property in the house and returned from the house. He further deposed that he seized stolen property in

Cr.No.341/2018 of Narasaraopeta Rural PS from the possession of the accused in presence of the mediators. He arrested the accused in the presence of mediators under the cover of mediators report and produced accused before I Addl. Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Narasaraopeta and sent him to judicial remand and later he informed about the confession of the accused to the SHO, PM Palem PS and the SHO PM Palem PS informed the

Cr.No.471/2017 of PM Palem PS.

27.PW9 K.Lakshmana Murthy, Inspector of police, deposed that on 19.09.2017 at 7.00 pm, he received Ex.P1 report from PW1 B.Simhachalam.

9 C.C.No.546/2019 XVI AMM/BML He registered the same as a case in Cr.No.471/2017 for the ofence u/sec.457, 380 r/w 511 IPC and issued Ex.P8 FIR and endorsed the same to

PW6 M.M.Naidu for investigation.

28. The learned Asst. Public prosecutor argued that by examining PW1 to

PW9 and by marking Ex.P1 to P8 the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused and hence he is liable for conviction for the ofence U/sec.457, 380 r/w 511 IPC.

29.The learned legal aid counsel for accused argued that there is no direct evidence to say that the accused attempted to committed theft, there is no corroboration to the evidence of the mediators for arrest of the accused. Hence, she prays to acquit the accused by extending the beneft of doubt in favour of the accused.

30. On perusal of the entire prosecution evidence, there is no direct evidence at all, to say that the accused attempted to commit theft in the house of PW1. Even as per the evidence of PW1, he is not the direct witnesses to the attempt of theft made by the accused. The PW1 received information of attempt of theft from his neighbor PW2 D.Surya Venkata

Satyanarayana Babu and informed to the real owner of the house Mandapati

Gopal Raju. And on his directions he gave Ex.P1 report. PW2 D.Surya Venkata

Satyanarayana Babu deposed that on 19.09.2017, at about 6.00 am, he noticed that the locks of the doors of Flat No. 302 were broke opened. He further deposed that he noticed that the items in the house were scattered, due to doubt, he informed the same to PW1 Simhachalam. Then PW1 telephoned Gopala Raju and informed about the theft to him, himself and

PW1 entered into the house of Gopala Raju and observed that the Iron

Almyrah was broke opened and the items were scattered in the house. PW1 gave a report to the police and the police also came to the house of Gopala

Raju and also observed the house thoroughly and traced out fnger prints in fat no. 302.

10 C.C.No.546/2019 XVI AMM/BML

31.On perusal of the evidence of the PW1 and PW2, they are not the direct witnesses for the attempt of theft made by the accused in plot No.304.

The real owner is not examined by the investigating agency. Moreover according to them no property was lost in the house. As per the mediators, on the request of the police, they went to the place of arrest. PW3 Jupalli

Koteswara Rao, mediator turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. PW4 Shaik Tangella Peera, VRO though supported the version of the prosecution, but failed to speak manner of attempt made by the accused. The investigating ofcer PW8 A.V.Brahmam corroborated the evidence of the PW4 Shaik Tangella Peera. PW6 MM Naidu, Head constable only visited the scene of ofence and prepared rough sketch of the place of occurrence and he recorded the statements of the witnesses. PW7 G.Appa

Rao connected the accused under PT warrant and fled charge sheet. PW9

K.Lakshmana Murthy registered the FIR and endorsed the same to PW6 for investigation. Though the evidence of PW4 and PW8 is corroborating, para.6 of the charge sheet reveals that During the course of investigation, Inspector of police, Meerpet PS, Cyberabad Commissonerate arrested the accused on 01.08.2018 and sent him judicial custody to Charlapally central jail,

Hyderabad. On his confession LW8 A.V.Brahmam connected PT warrant against the accused on 10.09.2018 in Cr.No.63,65,232/2017 for the ofence u/sec.457, 380 IPC of Duvvada PS and produced him before the Hon’ble

Magistrate, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam after than handed over to Central

prison, Visakhapatnam for judicial custody, again Duvvada police took him into the police custody and recorded his confessional statement and the accused voluntarily confessed his guilt about PM Palem house burglary attempt ofence in Cr.No.471/2018. LW9 G.Apparao connected PT warrant against accused on 12.12.2018 and he compared the chance prints with the accused prints and gave a report and after completion of investigation, he fled charge sheet.

11 C.C.No.546/2019 XVI AMM/BML

32. On perusal of the same, it raises a suspicion that when the accused was arrested by the Meerpet PS, Cyberabad Commissionarate and when he was sent to judicial custody at Central Prison, Charlapalli Central Jail,

Hyderbad, and the LW8 connected the accused under PT warrant of Duvvada

PS and he was remaded to Central Prison, Visakhapatnam and again the

LW10 G.Appa Rao, SI of Police again connected the accused under PT warrant and sent him to judicial remand at Central Prison Visakhapatnam.

how the LW8 A.V.Brahmam, SI of Police of Narasaraopet Rural PS arrested the accused and produced him before the I Addl.Junior Civil Judge’s Court,

Narasaraopet and subsequently how the LW10 G.Appa Rao again connected the accused under PT warrant in the present case, when the accused is in judicial custody as per the charge sheet. How the accused can be connected under PT warrant in single case/crime on two or three occassions. This also raises a suspicion about the evidence of the PW5 T.Rama Chandra Rao inspected the place of occurrence and how he compared the fnger prints with the fnger prints unit of Guntur Rural District. The investigation appears to be shabby investigation and the charge sheet is fled without proper investigation.

33. Hence for the above discussion, it appears that there is every chance to fle a false case against the accused for closure of cases pending in the police station. In view of the above discussion I opined that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused, and the accused is entitled for acquittal.

34. In the result, the accused is found not guilty and he is acquitted under

Sec. 248(1) Cr.P.C. for ofences punishable U/sec. 457, 380 r/w 511 IPC. The

Superintendent, Central Prison, Visakhapatnam is directed to release the accused forthwith if his presence is not required in any other cases.

(Typed by the Stenographer Gr-II, to my dictation, after correction,

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 20th day of March, 2020).

XVI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam.

12 C.C.No.546/2019 XVI AMM/BML

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Complainant: For Defense:

PW-1: B.Simhachalam -None-

PW-2: D.Surya Venkata Satyanarayana Babu

PW-3: J.Ram Koteswara Rao

PW-4: Shaik Tangella Peera

PW-5: T.Rama Chandra Rao

PW-6: M.M.Naidu, SI of police

PW-7: G.Appa Rao, SI of police

PW-8: A.V.Brahmam, SI of polcie

Pw-9: K.Lakshmana Murthy, Inspector of police.

Exhibits marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1: is the report of PW1.

Ex.P2: is the signature on mediators report of PW3.

Ex.P3: is the mediators report dt.11.11.2018.

Ex.P4: is the visiting report.

Ex.P5: is the comparison report along with photocopies of the chance prints E and J.

Ex.P6: is the covering letter dt.01.11.2018.

Ex.P7: is the rough sketch.

Ex.P8 is the FIR.

For Defense:-Nil-

Material Object:-Nil-

XVI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam.

13 C.C.No.546/2019 XVI AMM/BML

CALENDER & JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF XVI ADDl METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

BHEEMUNIPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

CALANDER CASE NO.546 OF 2019

(Cr.No.471/2017 of P.M.Palem Police Station)

Date of ofence :18.09.2017

Date of Report or Complaint:19.09.2017

Date of Apprehension of the:12.12.2018 on execution of PT accused or Date of apperance of thewarrant. accused in the Court Date of Commencement of Trial:23.10.2019

Date of closure of Trial:16.03.2020

Date of Sentence on order:20.03.2020.

Explanation for delay or remarks:The delay is due to non-production of accused and witnesses from time to time, as such there is a delay. Name of the Complainant:State Represented by the sub Inspector of Police, PM Palem P.S., Visakhapatnam city. Name of the Accused:Meda Gora Mesa, S/o Mesu Ditiya, age35years,casteby Aadivasi(S.T), R/o Gulbar village, Garbada Mandal.

Ofences:U/sec.457, 380 r/w 511IPC.

Finding :Accused is found not guilty for the ofence U/Sec.457, 380 r/w 511 IPC.

Sentence:

In the result, the accused is found not guilty and he is acquitted under

Sec. 248(1) Cr.P.C. for ofences punishable U/sec. 457, 380 r/w 511 IPC. The

Superintendent, Central Prison, Visakhapatnam is directed to release the ac- cused forthwith if his presence is not required in any other cases.

d/-Smt.Shammi Parvin SuBegu

XVI Addl .Metropolitan Magistrate Bheemunipatnam

1

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL MAGISTRATE :: BHEEMUNIPATNAM

C.C.No.422/2015 (old CC 672/14)

Date of offence02-09-2014 Date of report or 02-09-2014 complaint Date of apprehension of 02-09-2014 the accused Date of appearance of 08-01-2015 accused Date of commencement 11-01-2017 of trial Date of close of trial02-06-2017 Date of sentence on 02-06-2017 order Explanation of delay or Due to Non-production of accused and witness from time to time, as such there remarks is a delay. Name of the State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, P.M Police Station in Cr.No.514 of 2014 Under Sections 447, Complainant 427 r/w 34 IPC Name of the accused 1. Peethala Pola rao, s/o late AppalaSwamy, 60 years, Yadava, R/O D.No.48-1-19,Srinagar, Visakhapatnam.

2. Ommi Adinarayana, S/O late Appa rao, 50 years, Yadava, R/O 13-2-2/1, Autonagar, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam.

3. Ommi Appayyamma, S/O late Appa rao, 50 years, Yadava, R/O 13-2-2/1, Autonagar, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam.

4. Patchipulusu Ramana @ Football Ramana, S/O China Appa Rao, 63 years, Gowda, R/O D.No.48-7-61, Rama Talkies, Visakhapatnam. OffencesUnder Sections 447, 427 r/w 34 IPC Finding Found not guilty. SentenceIn the result, the accused 1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offence under sections 447, 427 r/w 34 of IPC and they are acquitted under section 255(1) CrPC. The bail bonds of the accused 1 to 4 and their surety bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of judgment.

VII ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

FAC, SPECIAL MAGISTRATE,

BHEEMUNIPATNAM.

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: BHEEMUNIPATNAM

Friday, this the 2ND day of June, 2017 2

PRESENT: Sri.ABDUL RAHMAN SHAIK VII Metropolitan Magistrate, FAC Special Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam.

CALENDER CASE NO.422 / 2015 (old CC 672/14)

BETWEEN: State represented by the Inspector of Police, P.M.Palem Police Station, Visakhapatnam City.…Complainant

AND

1. Peethala Pola rao, s/o late AppalaSwamy, 60 years, Yadava, R/O D.No.48-1-19,Srinagar, Visakhapatnam.

2. Ommi Adinarayana, S/O late Appa rao, 50 years, Yadava, R/O 13-2-2/1, Autonagar, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam.

3. Ommi Appayyamma, S/O late Appa rao, 50 years, Yadava, R/O 13-2-2/1, Autonagar, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam.

4. Patchipulusu Ramana @ Football Ramana, S/O China Appa Rao, 63 years, Gowda, R/O D.No.48-7-61, Rama Talkies, Visakhapatnam. … Accused

This case coming up for final hearing on 19.05.2017 before me in the presence of the A.P.P for the State and of Sri.G.Ravi Kumar, Advocate for the accused, upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the counsel on either side, this Court delivered the following:

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

Accused 1 to 4 were tried for the offences under section 447 and 427 r/w 34 of IPC.

2.The Inspector of Police, P.M.Palem Police Station filed a report under section 173 of CrPC with the4 following allegations in brief.

3.LW.1 Yernagula Murali Krishna Rao, purchased a flat no.2 situated in survey no.303/2 at Bindra Nagar, Madhurawada from one Pothina Venkata Rao on 10-12-2002 for Rs.1,15,000/- and obtained registered sale deed bearing document no.3106/2002 at S.R.O, Madhurawada. Subsequently he got erected the compound wall around the site and fixed up an iron gate. On 02-09-2014 at 15.00 hours Lws 1 and 2 i.e., Yernagula Murali Krishna Rao and Rajana

Satyanarayana visited their flats and found that the compound wall was demolished and on enquiry the came to know that A1 to A4 were trespassed into flat no.s 1 and 2 in Survey No.303/2 at Bindra Nagar, Madhurawada and caused damage to the compound wall with an intention to grab the property. On receipt of report from LW.1 Yernagula Murali Krishna Rao, LW.6 – Ch.Tirupathi 3

Rao registered a case in Crime No.514/2014 under section 447, 427 of IPC and on 02-09-2014 and investigated into.

4.During the course of investigation LW.6 – Ch.Tirupathi rao visited the scene of offence and examined Lws 1 to 4 namely Yernagula Murali Krishna Rao,

Rajana Satyanarayana, Jaggurothu Somulamma, Gamala Rama Devi and recorded their statements and LW.6 – Ch.Tirupathi rao served a notice under section 41-A CrPC to accused and on completion of investigation LW.6

Ch.Tirupathi rao filed charge sheet. Hence, the charge.

5.In the meanwhile, this case was transferred from learned IV Metropolitan

Magistrate's Court, Bheemunipatnam to this Court as per the proceedings of

Hon'ble District Judge, Visakhapatnam in Dis No. 10222, dated 31-12-2014, for

disposal according to law.

6.Considering the material on record my predecessor officer took cognizance of offences punishable under section 447 and 427 r/w 34 of IPC against A1 to A4.

7.On appearance of accused 1 to 4 copies of case documents were furnished to them as contemplated under section 207 of CrPC. The accused 1 to 4 were examined under section 251 of CrPC with references to the offences under section 447 and 427 r/w 34 of IPC. The accused 1 to 4 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8.To bring the home the guilt of the accused 1 to 4 prosecution examined

Pws 1 to 5 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P18. On behalf of the accused no documents were marked. The evidence of LW.4 Ramadevi was given up by prosecution.

9.After closure of of prosecution evidence A1 to A4 were called upon to explain the incriminating circumstances that are appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses as contemplated under section 313 (1) (b) CrPC. Accused 1 to 4 denied the same and reported no evidence in defence.

10.PW.1 is the de-facto complainant, PW.2 is the neighboring flat owner,

PW.3 is the eye witness, PW.4 is the Sub-Registrar, Madhurawada; PW.5 is the investigating officer and Ex.P1 is the report given by Pw.1, Ex.P2 is the certified copy of the sale deed dated 10-12-2002 in favour of PW.1, Ex.P3 is the tax receipt, Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 are the electricity bills and Ex.P6 is the certified copy of 4 registered sale deed dated 14-09-1930 in favour of one P.Appala Swamy, Ex.P7 is the encumbrance certificate bearing no.931202, Ex.P8 is the certified copy of sale deed in favour of PW.2, Ex.P9 is the certified copy of sale deed dated 14- 09-1930, Ex.P10 is the encumbrance certificate, Ex.P11 and Ex.P12 are the electrical bills, Ex.P13 is the encumbrance certificate pertaining to Survey

No.303/2, Ex.P14 is the registered sale deed. Ex.P15 is the encumbrance certificate pertaining to Survey No.306/2, Ex.P16 is the covering letter, Ex.P17 is the FIR, Ex.P18 is the rough sketch.

11.Heard arguments

12.Now, the point for consideration is, Whether the prosecution has

made out the case against the accused for the offences punishable

under section 447 and 427 r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubts ?

POINT :-

13. PW.1 Y.Murali Krishna Rao is the de-facto complainant and he testified that in the year 2002 he purchased a site in flat no.2 which is an extent of 230

Square yards situated in survey no.303/2 in Bindra Nagar, Madhurawada in the name of his wife Raja Ratnam from one Pothina Venkata Rao, S/O Appala

Swamy and he got constructed a boundary wall to that site and he used to visit the land occassionally. On 02-09-2014 at about 3 PM PW.1 and PW.2

Satyanarayana who is the owner of flat no.1 and went to the site and found that the boundary wall was damaged and some of the trees in the site were cut down in flat no.1 and 2 and they also found that the iron gates erected by them were also missing. PW.3 Somulamma who is working as watchman for the house in construction in flat no.5 and LW.4 Ramadevi who is residing in a shed therein informed that one week prior to 02-09-2014, A1 to A4 along with 4 workers encroached into their site and damaged their boundary wall and cut down the trees and on 02-09-2014 he gave report to Police and Ex.P1 is his report.

During his cross-examination admitted that he did not file any plan to show that there is an iron gate to the boundary of his flat and he did not file any civil case against the accused for damages and that in Ex.P2 the property is shown as ancestral property of his vendor and further stated that there are no civil suits between himself and accused prior to this case. The PW.1 admitted 5 that the suit in O.S.113/2015 is pending between him and the accused on the file of the I Additional District Judge's Court, Visakhapatnam.

14.PW.2 R.Satyanarayanais the neighboring site owner of PW.1 and he testified that he know PW.1 and PW.3. In the year, 2002 he purchased flat no.1 which is an extent of 200 square yards in Survey No.303/2 in Brinda Nagar,

Madhurawada in the name of his wife R.Kanaka Durga from Pothina Venkata

Rao, S/O Appala Swamy and they got constructed a boundary wall to that site and erected an iron gate and he used to visit the land once in a month. On 02- 09-2014 at about 3 PM himself and PW.1 went to the site and found that the boundary wall was damaged and some trees were cut down and iron gates erected by them were also missing in flat no. 1 and 2. PW.3 Somulamma and

LW.4 Ramadevi who is working as watchmen in flat no.s 5 and 8, informed them that one week prior to 02-09-2014, A1 to A4 along with some workers encroached into their site and damaged boundary wall and cut down the Mango,

Neem, Papaya and Drum stick trees and caused damage to their property and on the same day PW.1 gave report to the Police.

During his cross-examination admitted that he did not file any complaint and to show that there is an iron gate to the boundary of his flat and he did not file any civil case against the accused for damages and that in Ex.P8 the property is shown as ancestral property of his vendor and further stated that there are no civil suits between himself and accused prior to this case. The PW.1 admitted that the suit in O.S.439/2015 is pending between him and the accused on the file of the I Additional District Judge's Court, Visakhapatnam.

15.PW.3 J.Somulamma who was cited as eye witness and she testified that she is working as watchman in the house of Ramakrishna, S.I.of Police and that she know Pws 1 and 2 and the accused. She further stated that at about 2 years back on one day at about 11.30 Am accused came to the site of Pws 1 and 2 along with 4 others and cleared the weeds and damaged the compound wall and when she asked them, A1 informed that the said site belongs to him.

During the examination she stated that she came to the court along with

PW.1 and she do not know whether the Pws 1 and 2 used to go to the house of her employer and PW.3 idenfied A-4 as A2 in the court hall.

6

16. PW.4 N.Anand kumar is the Sub-registrar and on 12-11-2014 on requisition from P.M.Palem P.S., he issued encumbrance certificate pertaining to the land in Survey No.306/2 of Tarakarama Nagar, Madhurawada. He also issued certified copies of registered sale deed dated 10-12-2012 executed in favour of

Y.Rajaratnam. Ex.P13 is the encumbrance certificate for the land in S.No.303/2,

Ex.P14 is the certified copy of the registered sale deed dated 10-12-2012 and

Ex.P15 is the encumbrance certificate for the land in S.No.306/2 and PW.4 sent those documents to S.H.O., P.M.Palem P.s., under Ex.P16 covering letter.

17.PW.5 Ch.Tirupathi Rao is the investigating officer and he testified that on 02-09-2014 at about 4 PM, Pw.1 came to the Police Station and presented Ex.P1 report and he registered the same as case in Crime No.514/2014 under section 447 and 427 r/w 34 of IPC and issued Ex.P17 FIR and on the same day PW.5 went to the scene of offence and recorded the statements of Pws 2, 3 and LW.4

G.Ramadevi and prepared rough sketch of scene of offence. Ex.P18 is the rough sketch of scene of offence and PW.5 served 41-A CrPC notice to the accused and after completion of investigation and obtaining attested copies from PW.4 and he filed charge sheet.

During the course of cross examination he stated that he did not file settlement Fair Adangal to show that the property in S.No.303/2 belongs to

Pothina family and he did not examine the M.R.O to prove that fact and that the

PW.1 and 2 did not stated before him that there are civil disputes between the accused and Pws 1 and 2 and he further stated that PW.3 did not stated before him that the accused came to the site along with 4 others and he also stated that he show the damages in the site in Ex.P18 and did not show debris in

Ex.P18.

18.The learned A.P.P argued that in Ex.P2 which speaks that the property belongs to PW.1 and there is no need to examine the M.R.O and that the accused did not file any documents to prove a title and due to lapse of time there is a possibility for lapse of memory and that PW.3 clearly stated that the accused along with 4 others came to the site and Pws 1 and 2 and cleared the weeds and damaged the compound wall and that the Ex.P1 to Ex.P18 and the evidence of Pws 1 to 3 clearly established the case of prosecution for the 7 offence under section 447 and 427 r/w 34 of IPC and prays to acquit the accused.

19.The learned counsel for the accused contended that the Pws 1 and 2 are not eye witnesses for the alleged offence and they are only hear say witnesses.

PW.3 is the alleged witness for the first time she stated that time that at about 11.30 AM, the accused trespassed into the site of Pws 1 and 2 and that in her 161 CrPC statement. LW-3 could not stated the time which is material omission and that PW-3 did not stated the exact date when the accused trespassed and damaged the property that the PW.3 in her 161 CrPC statement clearly stated the names of accused 1 to 4 but during the cross-examination she identified A4 as A2 and as such PW.3 is planted witness and that PW.5 investigating officer conducted table investigation as the real owners of this sites were not examined and they are not shown as list of witnesses in the charge sheet and that Ex.P18 rough sketch the debris was not shown and if really there is a damage the debris should have been shown in Ex.P18 and that the PW.4 deposed that the sites are situated in S.No.306/2 and that two suits in O.S.439/14 and O.S.113/15 are pending before the I Additional District Judge’s Court, Visakhapatnam and

PW.1 and 2 basing on the grudge they got foisted this false case against the accused by using police influence and prays to acquit the accused.

20.On going through the rival contentions and on perusal of entire evidence available on record it is evident that the PWs 1 and 2 were not eye witness for the alleged offence and they are only hearsay witnesses but came to know about the alleged offence through PW.3. PWs 1 and 2 did not mention the actual damage sustained by them in Ex.P1. PWs.1 and 2 testified that PW.3 and LW.4

Ramadevi informed about the alleged offence surprisingly PW.3 who cited as independent eye witness did not stated that she informed about the alleged offence to PWs 1 and 2. LW.4 Ramadevi another eye witness who was alleged tobe present at the time of alleged offence was not examined by the prosecution for the reasons best known to them and her evidence is given up by the prosecution. It appears that there is no independent corroboration in between the evidence PWs 1 to 3 regarding the source of information about the alleged offence. PWs 1 and 2 are only hearsay witnesses and there is no need to place very much reliance upon their evidence. The PW.3 stated that the 8 accused came to the site of PWs 1 and 2 along with 4 others and PW.3 identified

A-4 as A-2. According to PW.1 A1 to A4 along with 4 workers encroached into the property and according to PW.2 the A1 to A4 along with some workers encroached into the site and damaged the boundary wall and the trees. It clearly shows that PW.3 was not present at the time of alleged offence and for reasons best known to the prosecution she was cited as independent witness.

PW.5 is the investigating officer failed to seized the material objects in presence of elders at the scene of offence. It is admitted fact that PW.2 did not present any report to the police though he alleges that the A1 to A4 along with some others trespassed into his site and caused damage to the boundary wall and to the trees. PWs 1 and 2 did not categorically stated either before the PW.5 investigating officer or in Ex.P1 that they received information about the alleged offence through PW.3. PW.3 never stated either before the PW.5 investigating officer or before the court that she informed about the alleged offence to PWs 1 and 2. In these circumstances the evidence of PW.3 in the absence of independent corroboration is not inspiring the confidence and it is not safe to rely on her evidence. It is admitted fact that PW.5 is investigating officer and he is not an eye witness and he did not seize the damaged compound wall material and did not recovered the missing iron gates in this case. He did not file the

CD’s or negatives along with photographs relating tobe the scene of offence and he did not assess the actual damage sustained by PWs 1 and 2. He obtained

Ex.P2 and Ex.P8, Ex.P10, Ex.P13, Ex.P15 through PW.4 Sub-registrar. According to the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 the property is situated in S.No.303/2. Ex.P15 is the encumbrance certificate pertaining to the land situated in S.No.306/2.

Though the Ex.P2 to Ex.P14 shows the owner ship the prosecution has to establish the criminal intention of the accused in this case but not the owner ship of the property. Even if Ex.P2 to Ex.P14 are presumed to be true and genuine there is a dispute between the Pws 1 and 2 and A1 to A4 as in

O.S.113/15 and O.S.439/14 before the Honourable I Additional District Judge's

Court, Visakhapatnam seeking for declaration and as such it is not safe to come to a conclusion that the wive's of Pws 1 and 2 are the owners of the property.

The PW.5 investigating officer did not choose to examine the wife's of Pws 1 and 9 2 and not arrayed them as list of witnesses in the charge sheet. It appears that

PW.5 investigating officer did not investigate the case properly.

21.In the present case PW.1 presented Ex.P1 against A1 to A4 and 4 others,

PW-5 investigating officer registered Ex.P17 FIR against A1 to A4. PW.5 did not made any efforts to trace out the 4 others who alleged to be damaged the compound wall along with A1 to A4. PW.5 did not conduct test identification parade in this case to trace out the 4 others and not even mentioned in charge sheet about the deletion of other 4 accused. It appears that PW.5 mechanically conducted the investigation and mechanically filed charge sheet and did not seized any material object from the scene of offence that it shows that Pw.5 registered FIR and filed charge sheet at the influence of Pws 1 and 2.

22.Non-seizure of damaged compound wall material and not filing of CD's or negatives of the photographs pertaining to the scene of offence is fatal to the case of prosecution and moreover it is admitted fact that by the time of presenting Ex.P1, two suits are pending before the Honourable I Additional

District Judge's Court, Visakhapatnam between Pws 1 and 2 and the accused

and as such there is a chance for the Pws 1 and 2 to foist the false case against the accused to dictate the terms in O.S.113/15 and O.S.439/15 before the

Honourable I Additional District Judge's court, Visakhapatnam. To prove the

offence under section 447, 427 r/w 34 of IPC prosecution has to prove that A1 to

A4 with a common intention trespassed into the land of Pws 1 and 2 and committed the mischief by damaging the compound wall. In the instant case prosecution failed to examine the owners of the site and failed to seize damaged compound wall material and failed to file the CD or negative of the photographs of the scene of offence. In these circumstances, the sole evidence of PW.3 was not consistent and cogent and which lacks independent corroboration is not inspiring the confidence and it is a fit case to give the benefit of doubt in favour of A1 to A4.

23.Prosecution on whom burden lies to prove the guilt of the accused 1 to 4 failed to prove this case against A1 to A4 and A1 to A4 are entitled for acquittal on the ground of benefit of doubt.

24.In the result, the accused 1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offence under sections 447, 427 r/w 34 of IPC and they are acquitted under section 255(1) 10

CrPC. The bail bonds of the accused 1 to 4 and their surety bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of judgment.

(Dictated to the Stenographer and after correction, pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 2nd day of June, 2017).

VII ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

FAC SPECIAL MAGISTRATE

BHEEMUNIPATNAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE: PW1:Y.Murali Krishna Rao NIL PW2:R.Satyanarayana PW3:J.Somulamma PW4:N.Anand Kumar PW5:Ch.Tirupathi Rao..

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1 is Report given by Pw.1. Ex.P2 is the certified copy of the sale deed dated 10-12-2002 in favour of PW.1 Ex.P3 is the tax receipt. Ex.P4 is electricity bill. Ex.P5 is electricity bill. Ex.P6 is the certified copy of registered sale deed dated 14-09-1930 in favour of one P.Appala Swamy.

Ex.P7 is the encumbrance certificate bearing no.931202. Ex.P8 is the certified copy of sale deed in favour of PW.2. Ex.P9 is the certified copy of sale deed dated 14-09-1930. Ex.P10 is the encumbrance certificate. Ex.P11 is the electrical bill. Ex.P12 is the electrical bill. Ex.P13 is the encumbrance certificate pertaining to Survey No.303/2. Ex.P14 is the registered sale deed. Ex.P15 is the encumbrance certificate pertaining to Survey No.306/2. Ex.P16 is the covering letter. Ex.P17 is the FIR. Ex.P18 is the rough sketch.

11

VII AMM, FAC

Spl.Magistrate, BML

1 C.C.No.409/2017 XVI AMM/BML

IN THE COURT OF XVI ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

BHEEMUNIPATNAM

Present: ABDUL RAHMAN SHAIK

XVI Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate,

Bheemunipatnam.

CALANDER CASE NO.409 OF 2017

(Cr.No.577/2017 of PM Palem Police Station)

Friday, this the 20th day of March, 2020. BETWEEN:

State Represented by the Inspector of Police, PM Palem P.S., Visakhapatnam city.

...Complainant.

AND:

A-1: Kundrapu Hema Satya Durga, S/o Appala Naidu, 20 years, K.Velama, R/o D.No.2-4, Irrikpaka village, Jaggampeta mandal, East Godavari District.

A-2: Rongali Simhachalam, S/o Appa Rao, 23 years, K.Velama, R/o D.No.4-121-4, Pathivada village & Mandal, Eluru, West Godavari District.

A-3: Runku Krishnam Raju, S/o R.V.Srinivasa Rao, 30 years, ST Enetikondus, R/o D.No.1-61/6, FF-1, Kranthi Enclave, Tharakarama nagar Layout, PM Palem, Visakhapatnam.

...Accused 1 to 3.

This case having come before me for fnal hearing on 17.03.2020 in the presence of Learned A.P.P. for the State and of Sri M.V.Parthadaradhi, Learned Counsel for the accused 1 to 3 upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the counsel on either side, this Court delivers the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Inspector of Police, PM Palem Police Station fled charge sheet against the accused 1 to 3 in Cr.No.577/2017 of PM Palem PS for the ofence under section 420, 467, 471 r/w 120-B IPC.

2.The following allegations in brief of charge sheet:

On 20.11.2017 morning as per the instructions of LW6 G.Sudesh

Kumar, LW1 K.Sudakara Rao and LW2 S.Sanyasi Naidu conducted checking the APSRTC city bus bearing AP 11 Z 3298, route No.25-P, at Yendada junction on 20.11.2017 at 9.00 hours, by the time A1 and A2 showed student bus passes, when asked their educational college/school identity 2 C.C.No.409/2017 XVI AMM/BML cards, the accused A1 and A2 failed to show their educational identity cards.

On examination A1 and A2 stated that they are not studying in Sankethika college. Lws 1 and 2 asked them as to how they obtained Sankethika college

principal’s signature and college stamps. On that A1 and A2 stated that they

created forged AP online bus pass application and obtained Sankethika college Principal’s signatures and college stamps. A1 and A2 stated that they created forged AP online bus pass application by A3 who is a faculty in computer science department in Sankethika Engineering college, PM Palem,

Visakhapatnam. The bus passes were issued by MVP Bus station counter.

The A1 and A2 were not belonging to Sanketika Engineering college, PM

Palem and they created forged the documents, forged the signature of

Sankethika college, Principal and obtained Principal rubber stamps of the forged AP online student bus pass application by A3, used the forged documents as genuine and got the student bus pass and gained wrongful loss to APSRTC. A1 fraudulently obtained APSRTC student buspass by payihng only Rs.390/- for frst 3 months i.e., July, 2017 to October, 2017 and utilized the same and he also obtained the bus pass again for 3 months from

November 2017 to January, 2018 by paying Rs.390/- as there is exemption given by APSRTC to the students. As the A1 is not a student, he must have obtained general bus pass by paying Rs.850/- for every month. Thus he caused wrongful loss to the APSRTC to the tune of Rs.5,100/-. Similarly A2 also caused wrongful loss to APSRTC to the tune of Rs.5,100/- and total loss to APSRTC is Rs.10,200/- and A3 assisted the A1 and A2 in the commission of ofence.

Basing on the report fled by the defacto complainant, LW11

K.Lakshmana Murthy has registered the case in Cr.No.577/2017 for the ofence u/sec.420, 467, 471 r/w 120-B IPC. During the course of investigation, Lw11 K.Lakshmana Murthy has visited the scene of ofence, examined and recorded the statements of witnesses, arrested the A1 and A2 3 C.C.No.409/2017 XVI AMM/BML on 20.11.0217 at 2.30 pm, at PM Palem PS and arrested the A3 on 20.11.2017 at 4.00 pm, at Sankethika Polytechnic college, PM Palem

Visakhapatnam, got confessional statements and seized stamp impressions of Sankethika college principal and the accused were sent for judicial remand. After completion of investigation, LW11 K.Lalkshmana Murthy has fled charge sheet.

3.Considering the material on record this court has took cognizance of ofence punishable U/Sec. 420, 467, 471 r/w 120-B IPC against the accused 1 to 3.

4.On appearance of the accused 1 to 3 copies of case documents were furnished to them as contemplated U/sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

5.The accused 1 to 3 are examined Under Section 239 Cr.P.C., Charges

U/Sec. 420, 467, 471 r/w 120-B IPC are framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu. The accused 1 to 3 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.To bring home the guilt of the accused 1 to 3, prosecution examined

PW1 to 9 and got marked Ex.P1 to P11. No evidence adduced on behalf of the defense.

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, accused 1 to 3 were called upon to explain the incriminating circumstances that they are appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses as contemplated U/Sec.313of Cr.P.C. The accused persons denied the same and reported no evidence in defense.

8.LW1 K.Sudakara Rao is examined as PW1. LW2 S.Sanyasi Naidu is examined as PW2. LW3 K.Venkatesh is examined as PW3. LW4 G.Narasimha

Murthy is examined as PW4. LW7 A.Srinivas Hemanth Kumar is examined as

PW5. LW5 P. Vimal Kumari is examined as PW6. LW9 A.Rama Krishna,

Principal, Sankethika Polytechnic college, PM palem is examined as PW7.

LW10 Dr.C.Ganashyam, Principal, Sankethika Institute of Technology and

Management, PM Palem is examined as PW8. LW11 K.Lakshmana Murthy, 4 C.C.No.409/2017 XVI AMM/BML Inspector of police, PM Palem is examined as PW9. Ex.P1 is the report of

PW1. Ex.P2 is the section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1. Ex.P3 is the section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2. Ex.P4 is the section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of

PW3. Ex.P5 is the signature of PW5 on mediators report. Ex.P6 is the section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW6. Ex.P7 is the letter issued by PW7. Ex.P8 is the letter issued by PW8. Ex.P9 is the FIR. Ex.P10 is the mediators report dt.20.11.2017 at 1.00 pm. Ex.P11 is the mediators report dt.20.11.2017 at 3.00 pm.

9.Heard arguments.

10.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has made out the case against

the accused 1 to 3 for the ofence Under Section 420,

467, 471 r/w 120-B IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

11.POINT:

PW1 K.Sudhakara Rao turned hostile and he did not support the case of prosecution. He simply deposed that In the month of November, 2017 at about 10.30 am, Ticket checking staf of RTC , checked bus number 25P. While checking the tickets, the Ticket checking staf found that two passengers were caught with fake bus passes. M.Sudhabindu who is Deputy

Chief Trafc Manager informed them about the two passengers who are caught with fake bus passes in route No. 25 P at Yendada. The checking ofcials scribed a report and at their reeuest, he signed on the report. The signature shown to him on the report belongs to him. Ex.P1 is my report.

Police never examined him and not recorded his statement. He cannot identify the persons who travelled with the fake bus pases.

12.PW2 S.Sanyasi Naidu turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. He simply deposed that About 2 years back on one day, himself and Ticket inspecting staf and PW1 went near to zoo and conducted ticket checking of a city bus. Ticket inspecting staf informed him that two persons 5 C.C.No.409/2017 XVI AMM/BML are travelling with fake bus passes. As per the instructions of his superiors,

Pw1 gave a report to the police. He do not know the persons who travelled in the bus with fake bus passes and he cannot identify the persons who travelled in the bus with fake bus passes. Police never examined him and not recorded his statement.

13.PW3 K.Venkatesh also turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. He also simply deposed that he donot know A1 and A2. In the year 2017, police came to their college and eneuired about the procedure for issual of bus passes in their college to the students. He do not know who gave the identity cards to A1 and A2 for obtaining bus passes. Police never examined him and not recorded his statement.

14.PW4 G.Narasimha Murthy deposed that he is working in bus pass issue counter in MVP depot. On one day he came to know that the students forged the signatures and the stamps of an Engineering college and obtained the bus pass and subseeuently when the ticket Inspecting staf is checking for the bus tickets, identifed that the bus passes were forged and causing loss to the APSRTC.

15.During cross examination he deposed that he do not know whether the seal or the signature on the application is forged or not. He did not state the specifc names of the persons to the police and he used to issue upto 1000 passes per day. He admitted that the parents can also receive the bus passes on behalf of the students.

16.Pw5 A.Srinivas Hemanth Kumar turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. He simply deposed that Police never called him to act as mediator. Police never seized anything in his presence. The signature shown to him on mediators report belongs to him. At the reeuest of PW1, he put his signatures on mediators report and he do not know the contents of mediators report. Except himself no others were present when he put his signature. Ex.P5 is his signature and he never saw the accused.

6 C.C.No.409/2017 XVI AMM/BML

17.PW6 P.Vimala Kumari turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. She simply deposed that In the year 2017 she was on duty as a conductor for the bus route No. 25P bearing bus no. AP 9Z 3294. At about 100 passengers boarded the bus at Yendada. RTC authorities conducted special drive for the said bus. PW1 , PW2 conducted the ticket checking on the rear side of the bus. PW1 and PW2 caught two persons who are travelling with fake tickets without ID cards. PW1 and 2 made those two persons to get down from the bus. They did not ask anything to her. After they got down from the bus her bus moved forward to the destination. She cannot identify the said two persons who travelled without tickets and she do not remember their names.

18.PW7 A.Rama Krishna deposed that he have been working as Principal,

Sanketika Polytechnic college, PM Palem since 2016. He do not know A1 and

A2 and they are not his students. He know A3 R.Krishnam Raju and previously A3 worked in Sanketika Institute of Technology and Management and A3 is present in the court today. He never issued any certifcates to A1 and A2 and he never afxed his seal or signature on any certifcate for issual of student bus pass to A1 and A2. Police eneuired him and sent a reeuisition to him in the end of November, 2017 to inform whether A1 and A2 are studying in Sanketika Polytechic college or not. Basing on the reeuisition of the SHO PMPalem PS, he issued Ex.P7 letter to the SHO PM Palem PS stating that A1 andA2 are not studying in Sanketika Polytechnic college in any class or section what so ever.

19.During cross examination he deposed that there are 2400 students in the college. He admitted that directly he will not put his signatures on study certifcates for issual of bus passes. One Rajababu , Ofce Assistant will look after for the study certifcates. The application forwarded online. There will be his digital signature. He further admitted that after verifying the counter signature of his ofce Assistant, he will sign on study certifcates. Police only 7 C.C.No.409/2017 XVI AMM/BML sent a reeuisition to him for issual of information. He do not know to whom the signatures belongs to on the bus passes as police did not show bus passes to him. A3 worked as Systems Analyst in Sanketika Engineering college which belongs to same institute. He do not know whether A3 is related to issual of bus passes or not. Police did not record his statement.

20.PW8 Dr.C.Ghanshyam deposed that he has been working as Principal,

Sanketika Institute of Technology and Management, PM Palem since

November, 2016, he do not know A1 and A2 and they are not his students.

He know A3 R.Krishnam Raju and previously A3 worked in Sanketika Institute of Technology and Management as Systems Administrator. A3 is present in the court today and he never issued any certifcates to A1 and A2 and he never afxed his seal or signature on any certifcate for issual of student bus pass to A1 and A2. Police eneuired him and sent a reeuisition to him in the end of November, 2017 to inform whether A1 and A2 are studying in

Sanketika Institute of Technology and Management or not. Basing on the reeuisition of the SHO PMPalem PS, he issued Ex.P8 letter to the SHO PM

Palem PS stating that A1 andA2 are not studying in Sanketika Institute of

Technology and Management in any class or section what so ever.

21.During cross examination he deposed that police never recorded his statement. He admitted that his ofce staf prepared Ex.P8 and he signed on it. System Administrator is not related to issual of bus pass. HIs ofce

Assistant will look after the issual of student bus passes. Directly he will not put his signatures on study certifcates for issual of bus passes. The application forwarded online. There will be his digital signature. He further admitted that after verifying the counter signature of his ofce Assistant, he will sign on study certifcates. Police only sent a reeuisition to him for issual of information. He do not know to whom the signatures belongs to on the bus passes as police did not show bus passes to him. He do not know whether A3 is related to issual of bus passes or not.

8 C.C.No.409/2017 XVI AMM/BML

22. PW9 K.Lakshmana Murthy, Inspector of Police, deposed that on 20.11.2017 at 12.40 hrs, he received Ex.P1 report from PW1 K.Sudhakar Rao.

PW1 came to the police station along with A1 and A2. He registered Ex.P1 report as a case in Cr.No. 577/2017, for the ofence U/sec 420, 467, 471 IPC and issued Ex.P9 FIR. Later he examined PW1 in the police station and recorded his statement and he secured the presence of PW5 A.S.Hemanth

Kumar and LW8 Ch. Mohan Rao and proceeded to the place of occurrence located at Yendada Bus stop. He observed the scene and returned to the police station. He examined PW2 S.Sanyasi Naidu, PW3 K.Venkatesh in the police station and recorded their statements. He examined A1 and A2 in presence of the mediators and they confessed their guilt in presence of the mediators. He recorded the confession of A1 and A2 under cover of Ex.P10 mediators report. He further deposed that later basing on the inforamtion of

A1 and A2, he rushed to Sanketika engieering college and examined PW7

A.Rama Krishna and PW8 Dr. C.Ganshyam, Principal of Sanketika college, PM palem and recorded their statements. He secured the presence of A3 and also confessed his guilt and he was produced one stamp which was used for the commission of the ofence. He seized the stamp in presence of the

Ex.P11 mediators report under cover of mediators report. He arrested A1 to

A3 and sent them to judicial remand. On 24.11.2017, he examined PW4

G.Narasimha Murthy, PW6 P.Vimala Kumari, Lw6 G.Suresh Kumar and recorded their statements and after completion of investigation, he fled charge sheet against A1 to A3.

23.During cross examination he deposed that he has not sent the signatures of the Principal and also the signatures on the bus pass to the expert for comparison. He admitted that he cannot say whether the signatures on bus pass are genuine or not. He has not seized the SR from the conductor of the bus.

9 C.C.No.409/2017 XVI AMM/BML

24.On perusal of the material available on record, PW1 K.Sudhakara Rao turned hostile and he did not support the case of prosecution. He simply deposed that in the month of November, 2017 at about 10.30 am, Ticket checking staf of RTC, checked bus number 25P. While checking the tickets, the Ticket checking staf found that two passengers were caught with fake bus passes. M.Sudha bindu who is Deputy Chief Trafc Manager informed them about the two passengers who are caught with fake bus passes in route

No. 25 P at Yendada. The checking ofcials scribed a report and at their reeuest, he signed on the report. The signature shown to him on the report belongs to him. Ex.P1 is my report. Police never examined him and not recorded his statement. He cannot identify the persons who travelled with the fake bus pases. The other witnesses PW2, PW3, PW6 also turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. The PW5 A.Srinivas Hemanth

Kumar, who is the mediator for seizure of the fake bus passes from the A1 and A2 also turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. He deposed that at the reeuest of PW1, he put his signatures on mediators report and he do not know the contents of mediators report. Except himself no others were present when he put his signature. Ex.P5 is his signature and he never saw the accused. PW4 G.Narasimha Murthy is came to know witness and he has not witnessed the forged bus passes and also the accused. The PW7 and PW8 are principals of the Sanketika college and simply stated the police came to the college and eneuired whether the signature shown the bus pass belongs to him or not. During cross examination, they deposed that they will sign on huge number of study certifcates for issual of the bus passes. The investigating ofcer failed to send the signatures on the bus passes and the signatures of the principal, who alleged to have been issued the study certifcate to A1 and A2 for comparison and also failed to identify the person who impersonated the

Principal Sanketika Engineering College. Though the investigating ofcer

10 C.C.No.409/2017 XVI AMM/BML shown the A3 as the imposter, he failed to collect the specimen signatures of the A3 and to get compare the same with the signatures on the bus passes through the Hand writing expert. When the PW1 who conducted raid and caught hold the A1 and A2 failed to speak anything against the A1 and A2 and also failed identify them as the passengers, who travelled with fake and forged bus passes. He also failed to speak the loss caused by the A1 and A2 to the RTC authorities with the help of forged bus passes. The investigating ofcer also failed to seize the forged bus passes and not choose to produce them before the court for perusal. Moreover the investigating ofcer also failed to establish the relation in between the A1 to A3. In the circumstances of the case, it is difcult to come to a conclusion that the A1 to A3 forged bus passes and travelled without tickets and caused loss to the RTC authorities.

25.The prosecution on whom the burden lies to prove the guilt of the A1 to A3 failed to prove their guilt for the ofence u/sec.420, 468, 471 r/w 34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence A1 to A3 are entitled for aceuittal.

26.In the result, the A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the ofence punishable u/sec. 420, 468, 471 r/w 34 IPC and accordingly, they are aceuitted u/sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the A1 to A3 and thier sureties, shall stands cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

(Typed by the Stenographer Gr-II, to my dictation, after correction,

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 20th day of March, 2020).

XVI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Complainant: For Defense:

PW-1: K.Sudhakar Rao -None- PW-2: S.Sanyasi Naidu PW-3: K.Venkatesh PW-4: G.Narasimha Murthy PW-5: A.Srinivas Hemanth Kumar PW-6: P.Vimala Kumari PW-7: A.Rama Krishna PW-8: Dr.C.Ghanshyam PW-9: K.Lakshmana Murthy, Inspector of police.

11 C.C.No.409/2017 XVI AMM/BML

Exhibits marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1: is the report of PW1. Ex.P2: is the section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1. Ex.P3: is the section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2. Ex.P4: is the section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3. Ex.P5: is the signature of PW5 on mediators report. Ex.P6: is the section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW6. Ex.P7: is the letter issued by PW7. Ex.P8: is the letter issued by PW8. Ex.P9: is the FIR. Ex.P10: is the mediators report dt.20.11.2017 at 1.00 pm. Ex.P11: is the mediators report dt.20.11.2017 at 3.00 pm.

For Defense:-Nil-

Material Object:-Nil-

XVI ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

BHEEMUNIPATNAM

12 C.C.No.409/2017 XVI AMM/BML

CALENDER & JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF XVI ADDl METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

BHEEMUNIPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

CALANDER CASE NO.409 OF 2017

(Cr.No.471/2017 of P.M.Palem Police Station)

Date of ofence :20.11.2017 Date of Report or Complaint:20.11.2017 Date of Apprehension of the:21.11.2017 accused or Date of apperance of the accused in the Court Date of Commencement of Trial:03.10.2019 Date of closure of Trial:16.03.2020 Date of Sentence on order:20.03.2020. Explanation for delay or remarks:The delay is due to non-production of accused and witnesses from time to time, as such there is a delay. Name of the Complainant:State Represented by the Inspector of Police, PM Palem P.S., Visakhapatnam city. Name of the Accused:A-1: Kundrapu Hema Satya Durga, S/o Appala Naidu,20 years, K.Velama, R/o D.No.2-4, Irrikpaka village,Jaggampeta mandal, East Godavari District. A-2: Rongali Simhachalam, S/o Appa Rao, 23 years, K.Velama, R/o D.No.4-121-4, Pathivada village & Mandal, Eluru, West Godavari District. A-3: Runku Krishnam Raju, S/o R.V.Srinivasa Rao,30 years, ST Enetikondus, R/o D.No.1-61/6, FF-1, Kranthi Enclave, Tharakarama nagar Layout,PMPalem, Visakhapatnam. Ofences:U/sec.420, 467, 471 r/w 120-B IPC.

Finding :Accused 1 to 3 are found not guilty for the ofence U/Sec.420, 467, 471 r/w 120-B IPC.

Sentence:

In the result, the A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the ofence punishable u/sec. 420, 468, 471 r/w 34 IPC and accordingly, they are aceuitted u/sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the A1 to A3 and thier sureties, shall stands cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

d/-Smt.Shammi Parvin SuBegu

XVI Addl .Metropolitan Magistrate Bheemunipatnam

1 C.C.No.83/2018 XVI AMM/BML

IN THE COURT OF XVI ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

BHEEMUNIPATNAM

Present: ABDUL RAHMAN SHAIK

XVI Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate,

Bheemunipatnam.

CALANDER CASE NO.83 OF 2018

(Cr.No.50/2018 of PM Palem Police Station)

Friday, this the 20th day of March, 2020. BETWEEN:

State Represented by the Inspector of Police, PM Palem P.S., Visakhapatnam city.

...Complainant.

AND:

A-1: Bantupalli Suryanarayana, S/o (L) Satyam naidu, age 62 years, Kapu by caste, R/o D.No.31-9-23/1, Bangaramma metta, Allipuram, Visakhapatnam city.

A-2: Pilli Papa Rao, S/o late Appa Rao, age 58 years, Reddy by caste, R/o Block-9, F-7, JNNURM colony, IT Sez., Marikavalasa, Visakhapatnam city.

A-3: Dingi Narasinga Rao @ Babu, S/o late police Reddy, age 54 years,Reddy by caste, R/o Block-3, F-3, JNNURM colony, IT Sez colony, Visakhapatnam city.

A-4: Duvvi Venkata Ramana, S/o Appa Rao, age 31 years, Yadava by caste, R/o D.No.5-120/1, Marikavalasa Village, Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam.

...Accused 1 to 4.

This case having come before me for fnal hearing on 17.03.2020 in the presence of Learned A.P.P. for the State and of Smt.D.Kanaka Maha Lakshmi, Learned Legal Aid Counsel for the accused, upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the counsel on either side, this Court delivers the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Inspector of Police, PM Palem Police Station fled charge sheet against the accused 1 to 4 in Cr.No.50/2018 of PM Palem PS for the ofence under section 452, 323, 506(2) r/w 34 IPC.

2.The following allegations in brief of charge sheet:

LW1 M.Prakash presented a report stating that in the year government allotted house at JNNURM houses, block NO.4, fat No.6, of Paradesipalem to

LW1. Since then LW1 is residing in the said house with his family. In the 2 C.C.No.83/2018 XVI AMM/BML year 2012 his mother was sick and when they are moving for hospital treatment the accused A1 to A3 forcibly braked the lock of LW1 house and thrown away the all house hold articles and gave it the same to A4 for rent.

After knowing the same LW1 along with Lws 1 and 2 and wife went to their house and asked about their high handedness. On that all the accused beat him with hands and pushed outside and warned if LW1 come again they kill him.

Basing on the report fled by defacto complainant, LW6 K.Lakshmana

Murthy has registered the case in Cr.No.50/2018 for the ofence u/sec.452, 323, 506(2) r/w 34 IPC. During the course of investigation, LW6

K.Lakshmana Murthy has visited the scene of ofence, examined and recorded the statements of witnesses, he served section 41-A Cr.P.C. notice to the accused on 09.02.2018 and after completion of investigation, he fled charge sheet.

3.Considering the material on record this court has took cognizance of ofence punishable U/Sec. 452, 323, 506(2) r/w 34 IPC against the accused 1 to 4.

4.On appearance of the accused 1 to 4 copies of case documents were furnished to them as contemplated U/sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

5.The accused 1 to 4 are examined Under Section 239 Cr.P.C., Charges

U/Sec. 452, 323, 506(2) r/w 34 IPC are framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu. The accused 1 to 4 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.To bring home the guilt of the accused 1 to 4, prosecution examined

PW1 to 5 and got marked Ex.P1 to P5. No evidence adduced on behalf of the defense.

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, accused 1 to 4 were called upon to explain the incriminating circumstances that they are appearing in the 3 C.C.No.83/2018 XVI AMM/BML evidence of prosecution witnesses as contemplated U/Sec.313of Cr.P.C. The accused persons denied the same and reported no evidence in defense.

8.LW1 Majji Prakash is examined as PW1. LW4 Neelapu Appala Reddy is examined as PW2. LW3 Masipogu Kamala is examined as PW3. LW2 Majji

Rajamma is examined as PW4. LW6 K.Lakshmana Murthy, Inspector of police, PM Palem PS is examined as PW5. Ex.P1 is the report of PW1. Ex.P2 is the section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2. Ex.P3 is the section 161 Cr.P.C.

statement of PW3. Ex.P4 is the FIR. Ex.P5 is the rough sketch.

9.Heard arguments.

10.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has made out the case against

the accused 1 to 4 for the ofence Under Section 452,

323, 506(2) r/w 34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

11.POINT:

PW1 Majji Prakash deposed that the government allotted fat No.6 to him in block No.4 in the said JNNURM fats. In the year 2014, he resided in the said fats for a period of six months. After that he looked his house and went to his sister by name Bantupilli Narayanamma’s house at

Maddilapalem, Krishna college. After one month he came to know through

LW3 that his 6th fat in JNNURM fats were given to rent to A4 by A1 by breaking the lock. He further deposed that he along with his mother LW2 went to their fat No.6. There he found A4 along with his family and the family members informed him that the said house was given to him by A1 and A4 threatened him that he would beat him. At that time LW3 is present at the time of the incident. He went to PM Palem PS and gave an oral report but the police did not take any action. He further deposed that he went to

Commissioner Ofce, Visakhapatnam and lodged Ex.P1 report. The

Commissioner of Police, forwarded the same to PM Palem PS. The government gave house allotment papers and the said papers is with A1 as 4 C.C.No.83/2018 XVI AMM/BML he was the president of JNNURM fats. He further deposed that he was paying

Rs.1000/- per month to the State Bank of India, Jail road, Visakhapatnam. He paid the said Rs.1,000/- from past nine months. Three months ago his fat no.6 was handed over to him when A.C.P., Yendada sent a constable to fat

No.6. Presently he has obtained electricity connection to his fat No.6 and he can fle the receipts which he has paid in the bank.

12.During cross examination he deposed that police examined him and recorded his statement. He admitted that the area name is BSN Colony and that the colony is on the name of A1. A1 is the President of the said colony and A1 got sanctioned 243 houses in the said colony. He further deposed that as A1 got sanctioned 243 houses in the said colony, his name was put to the said colony. The residents of the said colony are from Allipuram,

Bangarumetta and Venkateswarametta. He further admitted that A1 is the then ward President of Allipuram, Bangarumetta and Venkateswarametta.

During the Government of Telugu desam party, A1 applied for sanction of 243 houses for his henchmen. He stated that the said houses were sanctioned during Congress Government. One Majji Adilaxmi is his wife and in Allipuram there is a house to his wife.

13. During further cross examination he deposed that he do not know whether A1 got fled a case against Majji Adilakshmi and her family members as she ran chit business and did not pay the amounts to the members. She do not know whether there is any case is pending against his wife before II

Town PS, Visakhahpatnam. He further deposed that he do not have any house at Allipuram in his name. He admitted that what he stated to the police as he was residing in house bearing D.No.31-34-69, Bangarumetta,

Allipuram and he stated that he was the tenant of the said house. He further deposed that he do not know whether one S.Kanaka got fled OS 1751/2014

before the Hon’ble I Addl. Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Visakhapatnam basing

on the promissory note against his wife Majji Adilakshmi and got attached 5 C.C.No.83/2018 XVI AMM/BML the house bearing D.No.31-34-69, Bangarumetta, Allipuram. He admitted that the allottee for the fat initially has to pay Rs.20,300/- to GVMC,

Visakhapatnam by way of challan and subsequently Rs.35,000/- to be paid in installments to GVMC, Visakhapatnam. He has not paid any amounts to

GVMC, Visakhapatnam.

14.PW1 further admitted that the fats allotted in JNNURM should not be mortgaged or should not be sold to anybody. He deposed that he did not sell away the fat or has not mortgaged the fat and he is in possession of the same and he can produce those documents. He has not submitted the original allotted papers either to the police or to the court. He admitted that if the occupant is out of possession for 3 months or if the occupant did not pay the installments for 3 months, GVMC will cancel the fat and will allot the same to others. He do not know Ommi Chinna, V.Chakravarthi, P.Ramu. He do not know whether the said Ommi Chinna, V.Chakravarthi, P.Ramu belongs to Congress party or not.

15.PW2 N.Appala Reddy and PW3 M.Kamala turned hostile and they did not support the case of prosecution. They simply deposed that they do not know anything about the case. Police never examined them and not recorded their statements.

16.PW4 M.Rajamma deposed that at about 6 years back she undergone

Cardiac surgery, as she was not feeling well her son PW1 has been residing with her since 6 years. In the absence of her son PW1, the A1

B.Suryanarayana broke open the locks and lent it to Ramana(A4) on rent. On coming to know about giving the house on rent, herself and her son PW1 went to the house in an auto. She noticed A4 and one lady in her house. She further deposed that she asked her about her presence, she stated to her that A1 Bantupalli Suryanarayana gave the said house on rent. She asked them to vacate the house. A1 Bantupalli suryanarayana informed the tenants not to vacate the house as PW1 is indebted to him. The tenants of the house 6 C.C.No.83/2018 XVI AMM/BML informed the same to her. Then she informed that they have no debt due to

A1, herself, and PW1 went to the house again after 10 days and asked tenants to vacate the house. After ten days she took another lock to the house, A1 and others broke the said lock. Then they gave a report to the police. The incident happened about 2 years back and she can identify A1

Bantupalli Suryanarayana and others.

17.During cross examination he deposed that the tenants of the house informed the same to her. Then she informed that they have no debt due to

A1. Herself and PW1 went to the house again after 10 days and asked tenants to vacate the house. After ten days she took another lock to the house. The A1 and others broke the said lock. Then they gave a report to the police. She admitted that A1 is son of her brother. At present they do not have the house at Allipuram. There are four foors in each block at

Marikavalasa and her house is situated in the second foor. She surther deposed that she saw the documents of PW1 allotting the house to him. She do not know where Venkata laxmi resides. Electrical service connection was provided to her house at Marikavalasa at about 2 years back. She further admitted that present one Nandini w/o Sannibabu is residing in the said house at marikavalasa on rent. She gave the said house on rent to said

Nandini.

18.PW5 K.Lakshmana Murthy, Inspector of Police, on 02.02.2018 at 10.00 hrs, he received Ex.P1 report from PW1 Majji Prakash, he registered the same as a case in Cr.No. 50/2018, for the ofence U/sec 452, 323, 506 (ii) r/w 34

IPC and issued Ex.P4 FIR. Later he examined PW1 in the police station and recorded his statement. Later he along with Pw1 rushed to the scene of ofence located at Flat No.F6, Block No.4, JNNURM houses, Paradesipalem and prepared Ex.P5 rough sketch of the scene of ofence. He further deposed that he examined PW4 Majji Rajamma, PW3 M.Kamala, PW2 N.Appala Reddy and LW5 B.Pallavi in the place of occurrence and recorded their statements.

7 C.C.No.83/2018 XVI AMM/BML On 09.02.2018 A1 to A4 surrendered before him and he served notice U/sec 41-A Cr.P.C. to A1 to A4. After completion of investigation, he fled charge sheet against A1 to A4.

19.During cross examination he admitted that he cannot say the exact number of blocks and number of foors in each block and number of fats in each foor in the place of occurrence. He has not examined the allotment authorities of GVMC and he has not secured the allotment register and he has not produced the same before the court to show that the fat is allotted to PW1. He further admitted that he has not examined on Ravayamma from whom the Pw1 and PW2 came to know about the ofence. As per the statements of PW1 and PW2 one Pallavi is residing in the house.

20. Sec. 452 IPC reads House-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint.—Whoever commits housetrespass, having made preparation for causing hurt to any person or for assaulting any person, or for wrongfully restraining any person, or for putting any person in fear of hurt, or of assault, or of wrongful restraint, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fne.

21.On reading of Sec.452 IPC, house trespass as described in Section 442,

Indian Penal Code, and made punishable as such in Section 448 is an aggravated form of trespass and the prosecution besides proving all the ingredients of criminal trespass must further prove that the trespass was committed upon in the ''building, tent or vessel" used as a human dwelling or as a place of worship or for the custody of property. In the present case, no question of trespass in a tent or vessel arises. The prosecution also has not come forward with a case that the building was in possession of the PW1

Majji Prakash. To constitute an ofence under Section 452, Indian Penal Code, there must be in the frst instance, a house trespass and there must be further evidence of preparation for causing hurt to any person. There is no 8 C.C.No.83/2018 XVI AMM/BML evidence of preparation is the present case. To constitute a house-trespass, the prosecution ought to have proved that the building upon which the ofence of trespass was committed is a building used as a human dwelling or used as a place of worship or as a place for the custody of the property and it is exclusive possession of PW1. Even on perusal of the evidence of the PW1 and PW2, thier evidence evidence is quiet contrary. According to PW1, he is residing at Allipuram, Visakhapatnam. But the PW2 stated that the PW1 has been residing at Maddilapalem along with her since 6 years due her ill health. Their evidence shows that the PW1 is out of possession of the house.

The case of the PW1 is that the GVMC allotted a house to him in JNNURM colony. During his absence the A1 broke open the locks and lent the same to

A4. On coming to know the same, the PW1 and PW2 went there and found one lady in the said house. But the said Lady B.Pallavi not examined by the prosecution. The investigating ofcer failed to examine the GVMC authorities to identify whether the PW1 is allotted any house in the JNNURM colony or not. The investigating ofcer also failed to secure any allotment letters or receipts from the PW1 to show that the house bearing No.F6 is allotted to

PW1 and he is in possession of the same. The independent witnesses PW2 and PW3 turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. They simply testifed that they do not know anything about the case.

22.The evidence of PW1 and PW2 is completely silent with regard to the ingredients of the ofence U/sec.323, 506(2) IPC. In the circumstances of the case, it is difcult to infer that the accused had made preparation for causing hurt to the PW1 Majji Prakash. Moreover the PW1 during cross examination, admitted that if the occupant is out of possession for 3 months or if the occupant did not pay the installments for 3 months, GVMC will cancel the fat and will allot the same to others. In the present case, the PW1 did not choose to fle any receipt paid by him or any allotment letter issued by GVMC in his favour. The investigating ofcer is also failed to investigate whether 9 C.C.No.83/2018 XVI AMM/BML the house is allotted to PW1 or not and whether the same is cancelled by

GVMC authorities for any reason or whether it is allotted to someone else or not. In the circumstances of the case, it is difcult to infer that the accused had made preparation for causing hurt to the PW1 Majji Prakash.

23.The prosecution on whom the burden lies to prove the guilt of the A1 to A4 failed to prove their guilt for the ofence u/sec.452, 323, 506(ii) r/w 34

IPC beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence A1 to A4 are entitled for acquittal.

24.In the result, the A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the ofence punishable u/sec. 452, 323, 506(ii) r/w 34 IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted u/sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the A1 to A4 and thier sureties, shall stands cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

(Typed by the Stenographer Gr-II, to my dictation, after correction,

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 20th day of March, 2020).

XVI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Complainant: For Defense:

PW-1: Majji Prakash -None- PW-2: N.Appala Reddy PW-3: M.Kamala PW-4: M.Rajamma PW-5: K.Lakshmana Murthy, Inspector of police

Exhibits marked

For Prosecution: Ex.P1: is the report of PW1. Ex.P2: is the section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2. Ex.P3: is the section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3. Ex.P4: is the FIR. Ex.P5: is the rough sketch.

For Defense:-Nil-

Material Object:-Nil-

XVI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam.

10 C.C.No.83/2018 XVI AMM/BML

CALENDER & JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF XVI ADDl METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

BHEEMUNIPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

CALANDER CASE NO.83 OF 2018

(Cr.No.471/2017 of P.M.Palem Police Station)

Date of ofence :18.01.2018 Date of Report or Complaint:02.02.2018 Date of Apprehension of the:--- accused or Date of apperance of the accused in the Court Date of Commencement of Trial:02.01.2019 Date of closure of Trial:16.03.2020 Date of Sentence on order:20.03.2020. Explanation for delay or remarks:The delay is due to non-production of accused and witnesses from time to time, as such there is a delay. Name of the Complainant:State Represented by the Inspector of Police, PM Palem P.S., Visakhapatnam city. Name of the Accused:A-1: Bantupalli Suryanarayana, S/o (L) Satyam naidu, age 62 years, Kapu by caste, R/o D.No.31-9-23/1, Bangaramma metta, Allipuram, Visakhapatnam city. A-2: Pilli Papa Rao, S/o late Appa Rao, age 58 years, Reddy by caste, R/o Block-9, F-7, JNNURM colony, ITSez.,Marikavalasa, Visakhapatnam city. A-3: Dingi Narasinga Rao @ Babu, S/o late police Reddy, age 54 years,Reddy by caste, R/o Block-3, F-3, JNNURM colony, IT Sez colony, Visakhapatnam city. A-4: Duvvi Venkata Ramana, S/o Appa Rao, age 31 years,Yadava by caste,R/oD.No.5-120/1, Marikavalasa Village, Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam. Ofences:U/sec.452, 323, 502(2) r/w 34 IPC. Finding :Accused 1 to 4 are found not guilty for the ofence U/Sec.452, 323, 506(2) r/w 34 IPC. Sentence: In the result, the A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the ofence punishable u/sec. 452, 323, 506(ii) r/w 34 IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted u/sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the A1 to A4 and thier sureties, shall stands cancelled after expiry of appeal time. d/-

Smt.Shammi Parvin SuBegu

XVI Addl .Metropolitan Magistrate Bheemunipatnam 11 C.C.No.83/2018 XVI AMM/BML

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, BHEEMUNIPATNAM.

C.C.326/2015

(old C.C.15/2014)

Date of offence :30-11-2013

Date of report/Complaint :01-12-2013

Date of apprehension of accused :30-11-2013 (by Police)

Date of appearance of the accused :11-02-2014

Date of commencement of trial :24-01-2017

Date of close of trial :26-04-2017

Date of sentence on order :05-05-2017

Explanation for delay/Remarks :Non production of accused and witness, time to time by police, inspite of specific directions.

Name of the Complainant: State, Represented by Inspector of Police, BheemunipanamPolice Station, Visakhapatnam City.

Name of the Accused: Bathula Jain Swarna Latha, W/o.Babu Lal, aged 53 yrs, Christian, Senior Assistant, D.E.O Office, Visakhapatnam, R/o. D.No:43-7-11, Railway New colony, Visakhapatnam

Offence:-: U/Sec.s 323, 341, 506 and 352 of IPC

Sentence:- In the result, the accused is not found guilty for the offence punishable Under Sections 323, 341, 506, 352 of IPC and consequently she is acquitted Under Section 255(1) Cr.PC. However the bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused if any, shall remain in force for a period of six months.

The bail bonds and that of his sureties shall stands cancelled.

VII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, FAC Special Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam.

2

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, BHEEMUNIPATNAM

Friday, this the 5th day of May, Two thousand and seventeen

PRESENT: SRI.ABDUL RAHMAN SHAIK VII Addl.Metropolitan Magistrate, FAC Special Magistrate,

BHEEMUNIPATNAM.

CALENDER CASE NO. 326 OF 2015

BETWEEN:

The State of AP through Station House Officer, Bheemili PS …Complainant

AND

Bathula Jain Swarna Latha, W/o.Babu Lal, aged 53 yrs, Christian, Senior Assistant, D.E.O Office, Visakhapatnam, R/o. D.No:43-7-11, Railway New colony, Visakhapatnam…Accused

This case having come before me for final hearing on 26.04.2017 in the presence of the A.P.P for the State and of Sri. K.S.M.Sudhakar, Advocate for the accused, upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the counsel on either side, this Court delivers the following:

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

The accused was tried for the offence U/Sec's. 323, 341, 506 and 352 of IPC.

2.The Station House Officer, Bheemili P.S. filed report U/Sec. 173 of

Cr.PC with the following allegations in brief:

LW1 Puvvada Parimala Devi is residing at Subash Street along with her husband and four sons and on 11.05.1994 her elder son

P.B.B.Balu Naik married the accused and some disturbances took place in his conjugal life and that her elder daughter-in-law behaving indescently by scratching with nails, beating and that they are residing separately and on 30.11.2013 at about 8.30AM while the de-facto 3 complainant (LW1) Puvvada Parimala Devi going from St.Anns Home to her house, on the way, the accused obstructed and pulled her tuft, scratched with nails, pushed her to ground and when she fell down on the ground, the accused kicked with legs indiscriminately. Threatened her with dire consequences and abused her, in the mean time, when

LW1 Puvvada Parimala Devi slowly standing, the accused took knife from bag and tried to stab her on seeing the same and that the surrounding people rushed there and rescued the LW1 Puvvada

Parimala Devi and that the accused warned LW1 Puvvada Parimala

Devi on next time, the LW1 Puvvada Parimala Devi will not be saved by anyone and also abused in filthy language and that LWs 2 to 5 witnessed the incident and LW1 Puvvada Parimala Devi reported the same to the LW8 for necessary action and that basing on the report

LW8 S.Lakshmana Murthy registered the same as a case in

Cr.No:485/2013 of Bheemunipatnam PS U/sec's.323, 341, 506, 352 of

IPC and investigated into and that during the course of investigation

LW8 went to scene of offence and examined LWs-1 to 5 witnesses and recorded their statements. On 18.12.2013, LW6 Dr.Y.Shyam Sundar issued wound certificate of the injured duly opined that the injuries sustained by the injured are simple in nature. On completion of investigation LW8 filed charge sheet against the accused.

3. Considering the material on record my learned predecessor in officer took cognizance of offences punishable U/Sec.323, 341, 506, 352 of IPC against the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were furnished to him as contemplated U/Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C 4

5.The accused was examined Under Section 251 of Cr.P.C with regard to the offence punishable U/Sec's. 323, 341, 506, 352 of IPC.

The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.To bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined

PWs-1 to 7 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex-P4. The evidence of LW8 investigating officer is given up by the prosecution.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was called upon to explain the incriminating circumstances that are appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses as contemplated U/Sec. 313 (1) (b) of Cr.P.C. The accused denied the same and reported no evidence in defence.

8.PW1 Puvvada Parimala Devi is the de-facto complainant, PW2 to

PW5 are the eyewitnesses to the incident and PW6 is the Medical

Officer and PW7 is Investigating Officer. Ex.P1 the report of PW1,

Ex.P2 is the wound certificate. Ex.P3 is the FIR, Ex.P4 is rough sketch .

9.Heard both sides.

10.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has made out the case

against the accused for the offences punishable

U/Sec.s 323,341,506 and 352 of IPC beyond all

reasonable doubt?

11. POINT:PW1 Puvvada Parimala Devi is the defacto complainant and she deposed in her evidence that the accuesed is her elder daughter-in-law on that on 30-11-2013 at about 8.30 to 9.00 AM while she was coming from her house to go to the house of her second 5 son at St.Anns home and by the time she reached her neighbors house near Masjid, the accused suddenly came there and pushed her on to the ground and due to that the stones fisted all over her body i.e., on her chest, waist and on back and on seeing the same the passers by came there and rescued her from the accused and they took her to the house of her second son and from there they went to Police Station and on advise of the police she went to Government Hospital,

Bheemili. The PW.1 further deposed that accused used to attack her whenever she attend to any functions or obsequies and that on 06-02- 2013 the PW.1 and her husband attend their marriage and while they were coming down the accused came to the steps and slapped her on right cheek and when her husband tried to rescue the accused also attacked him and the passers came and rescued both of them and accused was sent in an auto and that she gave a report to the Police for the incident on 30-11-2013, Ex.P1 is the report.

During Cross-examination the PW.1 deposed that the distance between house and masjid is 50 yards and the distance to St.Anns school is 100 yards and Nehrru school is within 50 yards from St.Anns

School and the galata took place infront of her house and there are disputes between her and the accused since 5 years prior to the incident and she do not know the PW.2 and his family affairs and that the Police Station is at a distance of one furlong to her house and that within one hour she went to Police Station and gave Ex.P1 at 9.30 AM 12.PW2 Ch.Naveen is the eye witness and he deposed that he know the PW.1 and the accused and on 30-11-2013 at 8.30 AM while he was going to school and reached Subash street he found that the accused pushed her on the ground and beat her and kicked her with legs and also threatened to kill PW.1. He further deposed that himself and PW.3 6

T.Guramma, PW.5 Pradeep kumar and one Ganesh rescued PW.1 from the hands of the accused and brought PW.1 to the house of her second son.

During his cross-examination he stated that he do not know

Parmiladevi and that he did not say about Parimaladevi to police and that he is residing at Nehru School near to the house of the second son of PW.1 and that he do not know the second son of Pw.1 and that he stated before the Police that the accused kicked PW.1 with legs and that the offence took place infront of the house of PW.1.

13.PW3 T.Guramma is the eye witness and she deposed that she know the PW.1 and the accused and on 30-11-2013 at 8.30 AM while she was going to well to fetch water she noticed that the accused beating PW.1 at the house of PW.1 and the accused also kicked PW.1 and that she and PW.2 and other boys interfered and rescued PW.1 from the hands of accused and taken PW.1 to the house of her second son.

During Cross-examination she stated that she do not know the name of PW.1 and the names of daughters-in-laws of Pw.1 and that she did not mention the names of the PW.1 of the accused at the time of examination by the police and that the distance between the well and the house of PW.1 is about 10 feet and that the police did not examine her on the date of alleged offence.

14.PW4 Abdul Ghani is the eye witness and he deposed that he know the PW.1 and the accused and on 30-11-2013 at about 8.30 AM while he was going to his shop he observed that the accused pushed

PW.1 at Ramalayam and that he advised PW.2 and PW3 to lift PW1 and handover her to her second son whose house is at Saibaba Temple.

7

During Cross-examination he stated that the distance between

Ramalayam and the house of PW.1 is one furlong and that he had facial acquaintance with the accused and that there are family disputes between accused and Pw1 and that he do not know whether the husband of accused was residing with her or not.

15.PW5 K.Pradeep Kumar is the eye witness and he deposed that he know the PW.1 and the accused and on 30-11-2013 at about 8.30

AM while he was going to school he noticed that the elder daughter of

Pw1 is beating PW1 and that himself and PWs 2 to 4 interfered and rescued PW1 while the accused slapping her on her cheeks and that the PW.3 brought PW1 towards Saibaba Temple.

During Cross-examination he stated that the offence took place infront of PW.4 and that he do not know the name of the accused and he do not know how many daughter-in-laws does PW1 had and he do not know who is elder daughter-in-law and younger daughter-in-law.

16. PW6 Y.Shyam Sundaris the Private Medical Practitioner and he deposed that he worked as Civil Assistant Surgeon at Community

Health Centre, Bheemunipatnam from 01-05-2013 to February, 2014 on 30-11-2013 at 01.40 PM he examined PW.1 and found the following injuries:

(1) An abrasion on the left flank (Waist) (2)An abrasion over lip.

(3)Pain in back region, small abrasion over back, cervical pain, pain at right side of abdomen.

He opined that the above injuries are simple in nature and he issued

Ex.P2 wound certificate.

8

During his cross-examination he stated that he did not mention the age of wound in Ex.P2 and he deposed that the injuries are mentioned in Ex.P2 are possible by self inflictions.

19. PW7 D.Kantham is the Woman Head constable of Bhimili P.S.

and she deposed that PW1 came to the PS and presented a Ex-P1 on 01.12.2013 at 1.30 AM and that LW8 registered the same as in

Cr.No:485/2013 U/sec.323, 341, 506, 352 IPC and issued Ex-P3 and that LW8 submitted the original FIR to the court and copies to the concerned authorities and that the LW8 handedover the investigation to her and that she examined and recorded the statement of PW1 at the police station and one same day at 8.30 AM went to the scene of offence at Subbaiah Street at Bhimili and prepared rough sketch of scene of offence. Ex-P4 is the rough sketch of scene of offence and that she recorded the statements of PWs 2 to 5 and on 02.12.2013, she arrested the accused and sent for remand and after completion of investigation LW8 filed charge sheet and she identified the signature of the LW8 Inspector of police.

During her cross examination, she stated that the after completion of entire investigation, she prepared charge sheet and handed over to LW8 and the offence took place on 30.11.2013 at 8.30

AM and that the Ex-P1 was received on 01.12.2013 at 1.30PM and that the reasons for the delay was not mentioned in Ex-P3 and she did not enquire about the delay and that she did not enquired about the previous incidents and that it is admitted by the PW7 that the accused pushed the PW1 on ground and that the accused fell down and that while the accused standing slowly, the accused took a knife from the bag and tried to stab her and that the PW2 to 5 stated to her that the incident took place near the steps of PW1 house and that also admitted 9 that though it is mentioned in Ex-P1 as a construction work is going on near the place of offence and two persons were present and witnessed the incident, the PW7 did not examine them and did not shown as prosecution witnesses. And that PW2 to 5 are produced before her by the PW1 and that the distance between the scene of offence and Rama

Mandir is at about 100 mtrs and distance between the scene of offence and the St.Anns Road is at about 150 mtrs and that the PW7 did not enquire about whether the accused attended the office or not on that day.

20.The Learned Counsel for the accused argued that there is delay in lodging the report and that the evidence of the witnesses is contrary in place of occurrence and also in the date and time of the occurance of the offence and that in the absence of independent corroboration, the evidence of PW1 cannot taken into consideration and prays to acquit the accused.

21.On the other hand, the Learned APP argued that the PW1 is the defacto-complainant and PW2 to PW5 are the independent witnesses and that they identified the accused and that their evidence is corroborated and that due to lapse of time, there may be minor contradictions such minor contradictions cannot be considered and that all the witnesses identified the accused in the open court and that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and prays this court to convict the accused.

22.On careful perusal of the entire evidence of PWs 1 and 5, it is very clear that the witnesses do not identified the accused and the evidence of PW 1 to 5 and 7 is contrary to each other in the place and 10 time of occurrence of offence. As the per the deposition of the PW1, the place of offence is at Masjid and as per the deposition of PW2, the place of offence is at Near school and as per the deposition of the PW4, the place offence is at Ramalayam. On perusal of the deposition of the

PW7, the place of offence is at the house of the PW1 and the distance between the place of offence and the Ramalayam is at about 100 mtrs and the distance between the place of offence and the St.Anns school is at about 150 mtrs on perusal of the Ex-P4, the offence took place

before the house of the PW4. As such the alleged incident would not

have taken place at the scene of offence setup by prosecution and in the manner it has pleaded. The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Moreover the in Ex-P1 it is stated that the accused tried to stab the PW1 by taking a knife from her bag when she fell. But the said fact is not deposed by the PW1 during her examination before the Court and none of the witnesses stated the same. On persual, the Ex-P1 is a typed one and there is a delay of 29 hours presenting the Ex-P1 to the Police station though the Police station is situated at half kilometer distance from the scene of offence and that it raises a considerable doubt regarding the veracity of the evidence. In Thulia Kali Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1973 SC 501, it was held that FIR is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence adduced at the trial and that the importance of the report can hardly be overestimated from the standpoint of the accused that the object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the report to the police in respect of commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of the actual culprits and the part played by them as well as the names of eye-witnesses present at the scene of occurrence and that delay in lodging the FIR 11 quite often results in embellishment which is a creature of afterthought. It was further held that on account of delay, the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated acccount or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation and that it is therefore essential that the delay in the lodging of the FIR should be satisfactorily explained.

On careful examination of evidence of the PW1 to PW5 and PW7, it is no use in the absence of independent corroboration and the evidence of the PW2 to PW5 not inspiring. PW.1 either in Ex.P1 or during her examination did not state about the presence of PWs 2 to 5 at the time of offence and moreover on perusal of the evidence of PW2 to PW5 none of the witnesses stated about the presence of other witnesses at the time of alleged offence at the scene of offence consistently and that it appears that they are planted witnesses. In the Ex.P1 it is stated that the accused tried to stab the PW.1 by taking a knife from her bag and that the surrounding people restrained the accused and rescued her. The PW.1 did not stated the same at the time of her examination before the court. The PW.7 investigating officer did not seize the said knife which is fatal to the case of prosecution. As such for the above reasons it is not safe to convict the accused basing on the evidence of the PW1 to PW7.

23.In view of the above discussion, it can be safely said that the prosecution failed to make out a case against the accused under

Sections 323, 341, 506, 352 of IPC and hence the accused is entitled for acquittal.

12

25. IN THE RESULT, the accused is not found guilty for the offence punishable Under Section 323, 341, 506, 352 of IPC and consequently she is acquitted Under Section 255(1) Cr.PC. However the bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused if any, shall remain in force for a period of six months.

(Typed by stenographer and after correction, pronounced by me in the open court on this the 5th day of May, 2017).

VII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, FAC Special Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE:

PW1:P.Parimala Devi - None – PW2:Ch.Naveen PW3:T.Guramma PW4:Abdul Ghani PW5:K.Pradeep Kumar PW6:Dr.Y.Shyam Sundar PW7: D.Kantham

EXHIBITED MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex-P1 is the report presented by PW1. Ex-P2 is the wound certificate of PW1 issued by PW.6. Ex-P3 is the FIR report of PW.7. Ex-P4 is the rough sketch of PW.7.

FOR DEFENCE: −NIL - MATERIAL OBJECTS: - Nil -

VII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, FAC Special Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam.