Smt Arpitha Maram Reddy

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

AT BANSWADA

PRESENT: Smt.Arpitha Maram Reddy,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, 

Banswada.

Dated this the 28th day of April, 2017

C.C. No.60 OF 2017

Between: The State represented by Sub­Inspector of Police, P.S. Pitlam. 

..Complainant.

AND

A1Pandhiri Swamy S/o Madhu, Age: 27 years, Caste: Bestha, Occ: Labour, R/o Kamareddy Town A4Pujari Shankerappa S/o Narsappa, age: 40 years, Caste: Kurma, Occ: Scrap Business, R/o Near Check Post, Medchal village and mandal. 

..Accused.

This case coming before me on this day for final hearing and disposal in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri M.A. Khaleel, Legal Aid Counsel for A1; Sri K. Ramakanth Rao, Advocate for A2 and having heard and stood over for consideration, till this day the court delivered the following: 

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of police, Police station, Pitlam has filed the charge sheet in Crime No.167/2016 for the offence punishable under

Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code against A1 and A4.

2.The brief allegations of the prosecution are as follows :

On 28.10.2016 at 6.00 pm, PW.1 came to Police Station and lodged a complaint stating that on the same day, one B. Naga bhushanam informed that he found transformers SS No.51 of his fields and transformer SS.52 belongs to Jambiga Sangaram, situated at Pitlam sivar in their fields, were fallen down, and copper wire and 2CC.60 of 2017 oil were committed theft from said transformers. Hence, he requested to take action.

Basing on the said report, PW.10 registered a case in Crime

No.167/2016 U/sec.379 IPC and investigated into. During course of investigation, he examined and recorded statement of PW.1, visited scene of offence, recorded statement of PW.2 and LW.3, conducted panchanama in presence of PW.3 and PW.4 and drew rough sketch.

On 10.1.2017 G.Shoban Babu, Sub Inspector of Police Kamareddy (LW.11) arrested A1, on his confession, it reveals that he sold the stolen property to A4, he recorded confession panchanama. On 10.2.2017 at 5.10 pm A4 was arrested and on interrogation, he confessed his guilt, stolen property was seized in the presence of mediators and they both were produced before the Court for judicial custody. After completion of investigation, the Investigating officer laid charge sheet for the offence U/sec.379 IPC against A1 and

Sec.411 IPC against A4.

3.The case was taken on file under Sections 379 IPC against A1 and Sec.411 IPC against A4.

4.On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to them as required U/sec. 207 Cr.P.C. and were examined u/s 239

Cr.P.C and charge U/s.379 of IPC against A1 and charge U/sec.411

IPC against A4 were framed, read over and explained in vernacular for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 10 and exhibited Exs.P1 to P5 and marked MO.1.

3CC.60 of 2017

6.After completion of prosecution evidence the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C and they denied the incriminating evidence against them in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and reported no defence evidence.

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

8.Now the point for determination is 

Whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts for the offence under Sections 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code against A1 and A4 respectively?

POINT :­

9.The facts of the prosecution are that on 26.10.2016 some unknown offenders committed theft of copper coil worth of

Rs.10,000/­ in Transformer No.51 and 52, which is situated in the agricultural field of PW.2 and LW.2 J. Sangram. Hence, PW.1 requested to take action.

10.PW.1, who is complainant, deposed that he is lineman in

Pitlam. On 26.10.2016 PW.2 and LW.2 informed him that some unknown offenders committed theft of copper coil at SS.No.51 and 52, situated at Kalher Vaagu. Worth of stolen property is

Rs.10,000/­, as such he lodged Ex.P1. 32 kgs copper coil lump is marked as MO.1. In his cross­examination, he admitted that he did not reflected in Ex.P1 from whose land MO.1 was subjected to theft.

He also admitted that neither he collected any document to show that

LW.2 J. Sangram possess transformer in his agricultural field. 

11.PW.2, who is victim, testified that on 26.10.2016 he went to agricultural field at Kalher Vaagu and found that transformer was fell 4CC.60 of 2017 down and it was in damaged stage. On verification, he found that some unknown offenders committed theft of oil and wire. In respect of the same, police examined him. In his cross­examination, he admitted that he did not given written complaint to PW.1. Neither police examined him regarding Survey number nor he filed any allotment of transformer before the Court.

12.PW.3 and 4, who are scene panchas admitted the contents of scene of offence panchanamas as such same are marked as Ex.P2 and P3.

13.PW.5, who is confession panch, admitted that A1 and A2 confessed to have committed theft of copper wire at Pitlam sivar.

Police recovered 3 copper coils from A4 which are weighing about 31 kgs, 25 kgs and 25 kgs. In his cross­examination, he deposed that police recovered copper coil regarding Banswada Police station crimes and A1's scrap shop is un numbered.

14.PW.6, who is another confession panch, turned hostile as such his signature is marked as Ex.P4.

15. PW.7 and 8, who are confession panchas deposed in one voice that on 19.01.2017, on enquiry, A1 confessed that he committed theft of copper wire from transformer near Pitlam Shivar. A1 confessed that he sold copper wire to one person at Mechal, but police did not recover any property from him. PW.7 admitted that he does not know the contents of confession panchanama.

5CC.60 of 2017

16.PW.9, who is Investigating officer, deposed that basing on interrogation, accused confessed that he sold the theft property to A4 at Medchal as such he recorded the confession panchanama in the presence of PW.5 and 6. On the same day, by securing same panchas, along with A1 they proceeded to Medchal check post. There, in the presence of PW.5 and 6, he conducted confession panchanama of A4, which is marked as Ex.P5 and also shown 31 kgs, 32 kgs, 10 kgs, 21 kgs an 25 kgs of copper coil as such the same was recovered which is marked as MO.1.

17.PW.10, who is Investigating officer, deposed that basing on

Ex.P1, he registered Ex.P6, examined witnesses, conducted scene of offence panchanama. As he came to know that accused confessed the guilt in the present case, he filed PT warrant against the accused, on execution of same, he was produced before the Court for judicial custody. After completion of investigation, charge sheet is filed. In his cross­examination, he admitted that except PW.1, other witnesses did not lodge any complaint and PW.1 is a Government employee.

Neither Ex.P1 discloses that PW.1 lodged said complaint through proper channel nor enquired in which Survey number, the theft was occurred. He submitted that except Ex.P1, PW.1 did not file any documentary evidence to show that the theft occurred in SS.No.51 and 52 K.V.A .

18.On careful perusal of the prosecution testimony, it reflects that on the date of incident, some unknown offenders committed theft of

MO.1 at eastern side of Manguluru and the same was supported by

PW.1 and 2 and in respect of the same, police conducted scene of 6CC.60 of 2017 offence panchanama which is also supported by PW.3 and 4. In the present case, there is no direct evidence to prove the charge offence as such, the prosecution relied upon PW.5 and 6 (confession­cum­ recovery panchas) and Investigating officer. PW.7 who is confession panch deposed that he nows A1 and A4, they confessed their guilt that they committed theft of copper wire at Pitlam and police recovered 3 copper coil from A4 which are weighing 31 kgs, 25 kgs and 25 kgs. But in his cross­examination, he stated that confession­ cum­recovery was conducted at A4's scrap shop which is Medchal. If the said confession­cum­recovery was conducted at Medchal what prevented PW.5 to disclose the said fact that A1 confessed the guilt at

Pitlam and upon his information, they went to Medchal scrap shop of

A4. PW.7 who is another confession­cum­recovery deposed in his chief examination that A1 confessed that he committed theft of MO.1 from one transformer near Pitlam Shivar and the same was sold to one person at Medchal. But in his cross­examination, witness admitted that frequently, he will attend Police station in his official duties. Moreover, he stated that he does not know the contents of confession of A1.

19.PW.6, who is another confession panchanama failed to support the prosecution and turned hostile. PW.7 and 8 who are official witnesses supported the prosecution to extent that A1 confessed the guilt. But as there is no recovery, the said statement cannot be looked into. The crux of the case is depend upon PW.5 as he stated that there is recovery of property to prove circumstantial evidence, all links of the chain has to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. In 7CC.60 of 2017 the present case, PW.5 has admitted recovery but failed to state in his cross examination that recovery was made at A4's scrap shop which is unnumbered. Except PW.5, there is no incriminating evidence against the accused but his statement lacks credence, confession panchanama was took place at one place and recovery made at another place. The prosecution testimony even though supported to the extent of commission of crime but creates a reasonable doubt against PW.5 ocular evidence as he failed to disclose the place of confession­cum­recovery panchanama. It is established principle that when the two favourable statements, the statement which is favourable to the accused has to be looked into. Even though PW.7 and 8 admitted in one voice that A1 confessed the guilt as the recovery part has not proved, by adducing cogent and convincing evidence. Moreover, as the confession panchas evidence is inconsistent and possess minor discrepancies. As such this Court opines that inspite of conducting elaborate trial, basing on prosecution testimony, it is not safe to conclude the case in their favour. Hence, the prosecution failed to prove the charge and guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt as such accused are entitled for acquittal.

20.In the result, A1 and A4 are found not guilty and they are acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. A1 shall be set at liberty. The bail bonds of A2 shall stand discharged after expiry of appeal time. MO.1 shall be returned to PW.1 after expiry of appeal time. 

8CC.60 of 2017

Typed to my dictation by Steno, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 28th day of April, 2017.

Sd/­

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Banswada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW.1: Amber Singh ­NIL­ PW.2: B. Nagabhushanam PW.3: Santosh PW.4: J. Sangaram PW.5: G. Thirmal Reddy PW.6: G. Narayana PW.7: Bhanu Chander PW.8: M. Sai Kumar PW.9: Md. Naseeruddin, IO PW.10: B. Srikanth Reddy, IO

EXHIBITS MARKED

PROSECUTION DEFENCE 

Ex.P1 : Complaint lodged by PW.1. ­NIL­ Ex.P2 : Scene of offence panchanama at SS.51 Ex.P3 : Scene of offence panchanama at SS.52 Ex.P4 : Signature of PW.6 on Confession­cum­recovery panchanama Ex.P5 : Confession panchanama of A1 Ex.P6 : First Information Report 

MATERIAL OBJECTS

MO.1: 32 Kgs copper piece

Sd/­

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Banswada.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

AT BANSWADA

PRESENT: Smt.Arpitha Maram Reddy,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, 

Banswada.

Dated this the 28th day of April, 2017

C.C. No.61 OF 2017

Between: The State represented by Sub­Inspector of Police, P.S. Pitlam. 

..Complainant.

AND

A1Pandhiri Swamy S/o Madhu, Age: 27 years, Caste: Bestha, Occ: Labour, R/o Kamareddy Town A4Pujari Shankerappa S/o Narsappa, age: 40 years, Caste: Kurma, Occ: Scrap Business, R/o Near Check Post, Medchal village and mandal. 

..Accused.

This case coming before me on this day for final hearing and disposal in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri M.A. Khaleel, Legal Aid Counsel for A1; Sri K. Ramakanth Rao, Advocate for A2 and having heard and stood over for consideration, till this day the court delivered the following: 

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of police, Police station, Pitlam has filed the charge sheet in Crime No.224/2016 for the offence punishable under

Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code against A1 and A4.

2.The brief allegations of the prosecution are as follows :

On 29.12.2016 at 6.00 pm, PW.1 came to Police Station and lodged a complaint stating that on the same day, one Kummari

Ramulu informed that the transformers SS.13 and SS 88 were fallen on the ground, near the fields of Kummari Ramulu and Jadipally 2

CC.61 of 2017

Laxmareddy respectively, and oil and wire from the transformers were committed theft. Hence, he requested to take action.

Basing on the said report, PW.10 registered a case in Crime

No.224/2016 U/sec.379 IPC and investigated into, he examined and recorded statement of PW.1, visited scene of offence, recorded statement of PWs.2 and 3, conducted panchanama in presence of

PWs.4 and 5 and drew rough sketch. On 10.1.2017 G.Shoban Babu,

Sub Inspector of Police Kamareddy (LW.11) arrested A1, on his confession, it reveals that he sold the stolen property to A4, he recorded confession panchanama. On 10.2.2017 at 5.10 pm A4 was arrested and on interrogation, he confessed his guilt, stolen property was seized in the presence of mediators and they both were produced

before the Court for judicial custody. After completion of

investigation, the Investigating officer laid charge sheet for the offence

U/sec.379 IPC against A1 and Sec.411 IPC against A4.

3.The case was taken on file under Sections 379 IPC against A1 and Sec.411 IPC against A4.

4.On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to them as required U/sec. 207 Cr.P.C. and were examined u/s 239

Cr.P.C and charge U/s.379 of IPC against A1 and charge U/sec.411

IPC against A4 were framed, read over and explained in vernacular for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 11 and exhibited Exs.P1 to P6 and marked MO.1.

3

CC.61 of 2017

6.After completion of prosecution evidence the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C and they denied the incriminating evidence against them in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and reported no defence evidence.

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

8.Now the point for determination is 

Whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts for the offence under Sections 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code against A1 and A4 respectively ?

POINT :­

9.The facts of the prosecution are that on 29.12.2016 PW.1 found that some unknown offenders committed theft of copper coil worth of

Rs.10,000/­ in Transformer No.13 and 88 of PW.2 and 3 in their agricultural field. Hence, PW.1 requested to take action.

10.PW.1, who is complainant, deposed that on 28.10.2016, PW.3 informed him through phone that some unknown offenders committed theft of copper coil at SS.No.13 and 88, situated at eastern side of Mangalur road. Worth of stolen property is Rs.10,000/­, as such he lodged Ex.P1. In his cross­examination, he admitted that he did not reflect in Ex.P1 in which land MO.1 was subjected to theft.

Neither he collected any document to show that PW.3 possess transformer in his agricultural field. 

11.PW.2 deposed the same lines of PW.1. stating that PW.3 informed that on the date of incident, he went to his agricultural fields and found that transformer was damaged, copper wire was 4

CC.61 of 2017

subject to theft by unknown offenders. In respect of the same, police examined him. 

12.PW.3, who is the circumstantial witness, deposed that on 29.12.2016 he went to his field to attend work as his motor was not working, he checked transformer and found that the same was damaged and copper oil was subjected to theft by unknown offenders.

He also observed the damage of transformer in PW.2's field.

13.PW.4 and 5, who are scene panchas admitted the contents of scene of offence panchanamas as such same are marked as Ex.P2 and P3.

14.PW.6, who is confession panch, admitted that A1 and A2 confessed to have committed theft of copper wire at Pitlam sivar.

Police recovered 3 copper coils from A4 which are weighing about 31 kgs, 25 kgs and 25 kgs. In his cross­examination, he deposed that police recovered copper coil regarding Banswada Police station crimes and A1's scrap shop is un numbered.

15.PW.7, who is another confession panch, turned hostile as such his signature is marked as Ex.P4.

16. PW.8 and 9, who are confession panchas deposed in one voice that on 19.01.2017, on enquiry, A1 confessed that he committed theft of copper wire from transformer near Pitlam Shivar. A1 confessed that he sold copper wire to one person at Mechal, but police did not recover any property from him. PW.8 admitted that he does not know the contents of confession panchanama.

5

CC.61 of 2017

17.PW.10, who is Investigating officer, deposed that basing on interrogation, accused confessed that he sold the theft property to A4 at Medchal as such he recorded the confession panchanama in the presence of PW.6 and 7. On the same day, by securing same panchas, along with A1 they proceeded to Medchal check post. There, in the presence of PW.6 and 7, he conducted confession panchanama of A4, which is marked as Ex.P5 and also shown 31 kgs, 32 kgs, 10 kgs, 21 kgs an 25 kgs of copper coil as such the same was recovered which is marked as MO.1.

18.PW.11, who is Investigating officer, deposed that basing on

Ex.P1, he registered Ex.P6, examined witnesses, conducted scene of offence panchanama. As he came to know that accused confessed the guilt in the present case, he filed PT warrant against the accused, on execution of same, he was produced before the Court for judicial custody. After completion of investigation, charge sheet is filed. In his cross­examination, he admitted that except PW.1, other witnesses did not lodge any complaint and PW.1 is Government employee.

Neither Ex.P1 discloses that PW.1 lodged said complaint through proper channel nor enquired in which Survey number, the theft was occurred. He submitted that except Ex.P1, PW.1 did not file any documentary evidence to show that the theft occurred in SS.No.13 and 88 K.V.A .

19.On careful perusal of the prosecution testimony, it reflects that on the date of incident, some unknown offenders committed theft of

MO.1 at eastern side of Manguluru and the same was supported by

PW.1 to 3 and in respect of the same, police conducted scene of 6

CC.61 of 2017

offence panchanama which is also supported by PW.4 and 5. In the present case, there is no direct evidence to prove the charge offence as such, the prosecution relied upon PW.6 and 7 (confession­cum­ recovery panchas) and Investigating officer. PW.6 who is confession panch deposed that he knows A1 and A4, who confessed their guilt that they committed theft of copper wire at Pitlam and police recovered 3 copper coil from A4 which are weighing 31 kgs, 25 kgs and 25 kgs. But in his cross­examination, he stated that confession­ cum­recovery was conducted at A4's scrap shop which is Medchal. If the said confession­cum­recovery was conducted at Medchal what prevented PW.6 to disclose the said fact that A1 confessed the guilt at

Pitlam and upon his information, they went to Medchal scrap shop of

A4. PW.8 who is another confession­cum­recovery deposed in his chief examination that A1 confessed that he committed theft of MO.1 from one transformer near Pitlam Shivar and the same was sold to one person at Medchal. But in his cross­examination, witness admitted that frequently, he will attend Police station in his official duties. Moreover, he stated that he does not know the contents of confession of A1.

20.PW.7, who is another confession panchanama failed to support the prosecution and turned hostile. PW.8 and 9 who are official witnesses supported the prosecution to extent that A1 confessed the guilt. But as there is no recovery, the said statement cannot be looked into. The crux of the case is depend upon PW.6 as he stated that there is recovery of property to prove circumstantial evidence, all links of the chain has to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. In 7

CC.61 of 2017

the present case, PW.6 has admitted recovery but failed to state in his cross examination that recovery was made at A4's scrap shop which is unnumbered. Except PW.6, there is no incriminating evidence against the accused but his statement lacks credence, confession panchanama was took place at one place and recovery made at another place. The prosecution testimony even though supported to the extent of commission of crime but creates a reasonable doubt against PW.6 ocular evidence as he failed to disclose the place of confession­cum­recovery panchanama. It is established principle that when the two favourable statements, the statement which is favourable to the accused has to be looked into. Even though PW.8 and 9 admitted in one voice that A1 confessed the guilt as the recovery part has not proved, by adducing cogent and convincing evidence. Moreover, as the confession panchas evidence is inconsistent and possess minor discrepancies. As such this Court opines that inspite of conducting elaborate trial, basing on prosecution testimony, it is not safe to conclude the case in their favour. Hence, the prosecution failed to prove the charge and guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt as such accused are entitled for acquittal.

21.In the result, A1 and A4 are found not guilty and they are acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. A1 shall be set at liberty. The bail bonds of A2 shall stand discharged after expiry of appeal time. MO.1 shall be returned to PW.1 after expiry of appeal time. 

8

CC.61 of 2017

Typed to my dictation by Steno, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 28th day of April, 2017.

Sd/­

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Banswada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW.1: Mamilwar Gangadhar ­NIL­ PW.2: Jadipally Laxmareddy PW.3: Kummari Ramulu PW.4: K. Narayana PW.5: Kummari Sairam PW.6: G. Thirmal Reddy PW.7: G. Narayana PW.8: Bhanu Chander PW.9: M. Sai Kumar PW.10: Md. Naseeruddin, IO PW.11: B. Srikanth Reddy, IO

EXHIBITS MARKED

PROSECUTION DEFENCE 

Ex.P1 : Complaint lodged by PW.1. ­NIL­ Ex.P2 : Scene of offence panchanama at SS.13 Ex.P3 : Scene of offence panchanama at SS.88 Ex.P4 : Signature of PW.7 on Confession­cum­recovery panchanama Ex.P5 : Attested copy of Confession confession­cum­recovery panchanama of A1 Ex.P6 : First Information Report 

MATERIAL OBJECTS

MO.1: 25 Kgs copper piece

Sd/­

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Banswada.

1 CC 229 of 2013

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

BANSWADA

Present: Smt.Arpitha Maram Reddy, Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Banswada.

Dated this the 28h day of April, 2017. 

CC No. 229 OF 2013

Between:­ The State through PS. Banswada. …Complainant AND

Katika Harilal S/o Parvaji, Age: 53 years, Caste: Katika, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Ibrahimpet village of Banswada mandal.

..Accused

This case is coming on this day before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for State and Sri D. Ram Reddy, Advocate for accused, having heard and having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:­

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. Banswada filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.126/2013 for the offence U/sec.324 of IPC.

2.The brief case of the prosecution is that : On 31.05.2013 at 10.30 am, PW.1 came to Police station and lodged Ex.P1 stating that from the last 2 years, there was land dispute between her father

Mohammed Ismail and accused Katike Harilal, in that regard cases were filed and ended in their favour. Keeping above all disputes in mind, on 30.05.2013 at about 11 am, in Boigally of Ibrahimpet, accused picked up quarrel with her father PW.2, and beat him with shaft of axe due to which her father sustained bleeding injury on head. PW.2 was admitted in hospital for treatment as such delay caused in lodging report.

JFCM BSW

2 CC 229 of 2013

Basing on the complaint, PW.5 registered case in Crime

No.126/2013 for the offence U/sec.324 of IPC, examined and recorded the statement of PW.1, visited scene of offence, recorded the statements of other witnesses, conducted scene of offence panchanama in presence of mediators, drew rough sketch, seized axe.

On 1.6.2013 PW.5 examined the injured in Government hospital,

Nizamabad. On 4.6.2013 PW.5 apprehended the accused and produced before the Court for judicial custody. After receipt of wound certificate and on completion of entire investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused person.

3.The case was taken on file for the offence punishable U/s.324 of IPC against the accused. On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as required U/sec. 207 Cr.P.C. and were examined u/s 239 Cr.P.C and charge U/sec. 324 of IPC was framed against accused, read over and explained in vernacular for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.During the course of trial the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 4 and exhibited Exs.P1 to P4 and marked MO.1.

5.After completion of prosecution evidence the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C and he denied the incriminating evidence against him in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and reported no defence evidence.

6.Heard both sides.

7. Point for determination is:­

JFCM BSW

3 CC 229 of 2013 “Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of accused for the offence punishable U/s. 324 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

POINT:­

8.The case of prosecution is that on the date of incident, due to land dispute accused beat PW.2 and the same was witnessed by

PW.2 and LW.3 C. Hanmandlu, due to which PW.2 sustained bleeding injury on head. In respect of the same PW.1 lodged report. 

9.PW.1 deposed that there are land dispute between PW.2 and accused. On 30.05.2013 when PW.2 proceeding towards agricultural field, accused beat him with axe stick on head due to which PW.2 sustained bleeding injury. Immediately, she took PW.2 to

Government Hospital. After treatment on the same day, she lodged petition which is marked as Ex.P1. Police examined and recorded her statement. In her cross­examination, she admitted that PW.2 was admitted for 8 days in Government hospital and Ex.P1 was scribed by police personnels. She further deposed that accused does not possess agricultural field.

10.PW.2, deposed that on the date of incident, when he was proceeding towards agricultural fields, at that time, Accused picked up quarrel stating that agricultural land belongs to him. Further, accused threatened him that there is no use of filing civil suits and gave blows to him with axe stick due to which he sustained head injury. In his cross­examination, he admitted that Sy.No.106 contain extend of Ac .1­10 guntas neither he filed any document to show that

JFCM BSW

4 CC 229 of 2013 he possess agricultural field in Sy.No.106. The said incident was witnessed by himself, PW.2 and 3.

11.PW.3 deposed that on the date of incident, when he was going to his house, he witnessed that accused and PW.2 were quarrelling and accused hit PW.2 with stick on right leg. Again he tried to beat him. Thereafter, the matter was subsided. PW.2 also sustained head injury. He admitted in his cross­examination that there were 10 to 15 persons were present at the scene of offence and on the date of his evidence, PW.2 accompanied him to the Court.

12. PW.4, who is scene panch admitted the contents of scene of offence panchanama and also deposed that police seized the axe stick (MO.1) from the scene of offence. As such, scene of offence panchanama is marked as Ex.P2. In his cross­examination, he admitted that Ex.P2 was scribed by police persons.

13.PW.5, who is Investigating officer, deposed that he examined

PW.1 to 3 and recorded their statements. He also conducted scene of offence panchanama, seizure panchanama and seized MO.1 which is procedural in nature. In his cross­examination, he admitted that there are land disputes between PW.1 and accused. Neither he enquired how much extent PW.1 and accused possess in the said survey number nor enquired the concerned the then Tahsildar and

VRO in respect of boundaries of disputed property, neither he collected any document to show that accused and PW.1 possess agricultural field nor PW.2's medical certificate was filed to show about PW.2 undergoing treatment at Hospital. He identified LW.9 K.

JFCM BSW

5 CC 229 of 2013

Bhaskar, Inspector of police as such First Information Report is marked.

14. On perusal of prosecution testimony, Pw.1, who is the daughter of Pw.2 deposed that on the date of incident when Pw.1 was proceedings to his agricultural field, accused due to land dispute beat him with axe stick on his head due to which he sustained bleeding injuries. Pw.2 came to house later Pw.1 took

Pw.2 to hospital. Pw.2 who is the victim cum eye witness to the incident deposed the same lines of Pw.1. In addition he stated that the said incident was witnessed by Lw.3 C. Hanmandlu and Pw.4, who sub side the matter thereafter he went for medication to

Government hospital, Banswada. His cross examination he admitted that he purchased the land from one Moulana and Sy.no.106 contains Ac.110 acres in proof of the same, he had filed documentary evidence. Pw.1 and 2 statements are consistent and corroborated but there is a minor discrepancy regarding referring

Pw.1 at Area hospital, banswada but the said discrepancy is cleared as Pw.3 , who is the eye witness to the incident clearly stated that when he was going to his house, he found accused and Pw.2 were quarreling and accused hit Pw.1 on his right leg and Pw.2 sustained bleeding injury on head. Even Pw.1 himself admitted that there are land dispute between him and accused.

Pw.1 and 3 ocular evidence is supported and substantiate Pw1.

Ocular evidence. Moreover Pw.4 , who is the scene panch also supported the prosecution as such Scene of offence and Mo1. Were marked. Pw.6 ocular evidence and Ex.P..3 medical evidence

JFCM BSW

6 CC 229 of 2013 coupled with Pw.1to 5 ocular evidence clearly establish that on the date of incident, accused hit Pw.1 with ax3e stick i.e. mo.1. The leaned defence counsel failed to discredit the testimony of the prosecution and extract favourable statement on behalf of accused.

As direct witnesses and circumstantial witness support the prosecution and their testimony is cogent and positive. Hence this

Court opines that the prosecution has successfully prove the charge offence and guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and guilt of accused.

15.In the result, the accused is found guilty and convicted

U/sec.248 (2) Cr.P.C. for the offence U/sec.324 of IPC.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 28th day of April, 2017. 

Sd/­ Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Banswada.

Heard the accused on the quantum of sentence for which he pleaded mercy and to take lenient view.

However, this Court is not inclined to apply the provisions of

Probation of Offenders Act and the accused is not entitled for lenient view. In view of the above reasons, the accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/­ (Rupees one thousand only) for the offence punishable under Sec.324 IPC, in default of payment of fine, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months.

The accused is appraised of his right of appeal against this judgment within limitation to the Hon’ble Court of Sessions,

JFCM BSW

7 CC 229 of 2013

Nizamabad, and also he can avail legal aid Counsel in preferring the appeal. MO.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 28th day of April, 2017. 

Sd/­ Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Banswada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

Prosecution Defence

PW­1: Kanees NONE PW­2: Ismail PW­3: J. Erra Boi PW­4: Pedda Sailoo

EXHIBITS MARKED

Prosecution Defence

Ex.P1: Complaint lodged by PW.1 ­Nil­ Ex.P2: Scene­cum­seizure panchanama Ex.P3: F.I.R. Ex.p4: Medical Certificate. 

M.Os.MARKED MO.1: Axe stick 

Sd/­ Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Banswada.

JFCM BSW

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

AT BANSWADA

PRESENT: Smt.Arpitha Maram Reddy,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, 

Banswada.

Dated this the 2nd day of May, 2017.

C.C.No. 323 OF 2016

Between:

The State represented by Sub­Inspector of Police, P.S. Birkur. 

..Complainant.

AND Gondla Raju S/o Chinna Anjaiah, Age: 23 years, Caste: Mudhiraj, Occ: Tractor Driver, R/o Barangedigi village and Mandal.

..Accused.

This case coming before me on this day for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri K. Ramakanth Rao, Advocate for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day the court delivered the following: 

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub­Inspector of police, police station, Birkur has filed the charge sheet in Crime No.164/2016 for the offences punishable under Section 337 and 304­A of IPC against the accused.

2.The brief allegations of the prosecution are as follows :

On 13.10.2016 at 7.20 pm, while deceased Lakkapally

Baswanth along with his friend PW.5 going to Birkur on motorcycle bearing No.TS16EC4867, on the way when they reached at

Barangedigi shivar near sub­station the driver of Tractor bearing

No.AP­25­X­9855 Trolly No.AP 25 AH 9741, drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the deceased, due to which, PW.5 2 CC.323 of 2016 sustained simple injuries, deceased sustained head injury and succumbed to the same. Hence, PW.1 sought for legal action. 

Basing on said report, Sub Inspector of Police registered a case in Crime No.164/2016 U/sec.304­A and 337 IPC, examined and recorded statement of PW.1, visited Government hospital, Banswada, held inquest in the presence of mediators, referred the dead body for

Post Mortem Examination, visited the scene of offence, conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of mediators and recorded the statements of other witnesses. On 20.10.2016, Sub

Inspector of Police arrested the accused and sent him to judicial custody. After completion of investigation, as well case found against the accused person, he laid charge sheet for the offences punishable

U/sec.337 and 304­A of IPC.

3.The case was taken on file against the accused under Section 337 and 304­A of IPC.

4.After appearance of the accused, the copies of the documents were furnished to him as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. He was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C., and the substance of accusation for the offence U/sec. 337 and 304­A of IPC, read over and explained to him for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 

5.During the course of trial the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P1 to P10. Inspite of conditional order, the prosecution has failed to produce the remaining witnesses, as such their evidence is closed.

3 CC.323 of 2016

6.As there is no incriminating material found against the accused in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the examination of accused

U/s. 313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with.

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

8.Now the points for determination are 

i) Whether due to rash and negligence of the accused, deceased succumbed to injuries and PW.5 sustained injuries ?

ii) Whether the prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offences U/s. 337 and 304­A of IPC?

POINTS 1 AND 2 :­

9.The case of prosecution is that while deceased along with PW.5 were going towards Birkur on motorcycle bearing No.TS16EC4867, when they reached Barangedigi shivar near sub­station, accused, driver of Tractor bearing No.AP­25­X­9855 Trolly No.AP 25 AH 9741, drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the deceased, due to which, PW.5 sustained simple injuries and deceased sustained head injury, thereafter he succumbed. Hence, PW.1 sought for legal action. 

PW.1, who is the complainant deposed that on 13.10.2016 he came to know through PW.3 that when deceased and his friend were going to Birkur on motorcycle No.TS 16 EC 4857, one tractor driver drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed his son's vehicle, due to which deceased and his friend fell down and 4 CC.323 of 2016 received bleeding injuries to his head, while shifting his son to

Government hospital, he succumbed. In respect of the same, he lodged petition. In the cross examination, he admitted that he received Rs.3,00,000/­ of amount. 

PW.2, wife of PW.1, deposed the same lines of PW.1 and she too admitted that they received Rs.3,00,000/­.

PW.3, circumstantial witness failed to support the prosecution case as such his 161 Cr.P.C. statement is marked as Ex.P­­

PW.4, who is eyewitness to the incident failed to support the prosecution as such his 161 Cr.P.C. statement is marked as Ex.P5. 

PW.5 who is victim­cum­eyewitness, deposed the same lines of

PW.1 and 2, but failed to identify the accused. As such his 161

Cr.P.C. statement is marked as Ex.P6.

PW.6 who is panch for scene­cum­inquest, admitted the proceedings of scene of offence and inquest, as such scene of offence and inquest marked as Ex.P7.

PW.7 who is another scene panch failed to support the prosecution.

10. On careful analysis of prosecution testimony, it reflects that on the date of incident, PW.1's son and PW.5 were proceeding to Birkur on motorcycle bearing No.TS­16­EC­4867, when they reached sub­ station, one tractor driver drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed their vehicle, due to which he and deceased suffered head injury. Thereafter, while deceased was shifting to

Nizamabad, he died. Even though medical officer was not examined, as PW.6 admitted the scene of offence and inquest panchanama of 5 CC.323 of 2016 the deceased, the death of the deceased is proved. It is clear from

PW.1 and 2 testimony that they received Rs.3,00,000/­ from accused.

Neither complainant nor eye witness have supported prosecution.

Moreover, PW.5 who is victim­cum­eyewitness failed to identify the accused in the open court. Even though prosecution has made effort by examining PW.1 to 7, exhibiting P8, no incriminating evidence was elicited from prosecution testimony. As it is aware that to prove the ingredients of Sec.304­A, the prosecution has to prove the identity of the accused, death of the deceased and through such rash and negligent act, the death must be caused. In the rpesent case, the prosecution successfully proved the death and rash and negligent act, but failed to prove the identity of the accused. Moreover, the prosecution failed to prove how accused is connected with the charge offence. As such this court opines that relying on prosecution testimony, it is not safe to conclude the case in favour of prosecution.

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

U/s.255(1) of Cr.P.C. for the offences U/s.337 and 304­A of IPC. The bail bonds of accused shall stand discharged after expiry of appeal time. 

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 2nd day of May, 2017.

Sd/­ Judl. Magistrate of First Class Banswada.

6 CC.323 of 2016

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW.1: Bheemagonda­NIL­ PW.2: L. Anjavva PW.3: G. Srinivas PW.4: B. Amruth PW.5: M. Vinod PW.6: M. Rajappa PW.7: N. Hanmandlu

EXHIBITS MARKED

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P1 : Signature of PW.1 on Complaint ­NIL­ Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1 Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2 Ex.P4 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.3 Ex.P5: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.4 Ex.P6: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.5 Ex.P7: Signature of PW.6 Scene of offence panchanama. Ex.P8: Signature of PW.6 on Inquest panchanama 

MATERIAL OBJECTS

­NIL­

Sd/­

 Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Banswada.

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

BANSWADA

Present: Smt.Arpitha Maram Reddy, Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Banswada.

Dated this the 2nd day of May, 2017. 

CC No.96 OF 2017

Between:­ The State through PS. Nizamsagar. …Complainant AND

Gurla Pandu S/o Sangaiah, Age: 28 years, Mudhiraj, Coolie, R/o Aredu village of Nizamsagar mandal, Dist. Kamareddy.

..Accused

This case is coming on this day before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State and Sri M.L. Khaleel, Legal Aid Counsel for accused, having heard and having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:­

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. Nizamsagar filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.29/2017 for the offences U/sec.457 and 380 IPC.

2.The brief case of the prosecution is that : On 15.02.2017 PW.1 and 2 left the village by locking their house, to attend a function and in their absence, accused broke open the lock of the house and broken the almirah and committed theft of net cash of Rs.21,000/­. In respect of the same,

PW.1 lodged Ex.P1. Police recovered only Rs.3,060/­.

Basing on the said report, Sub Inspector of Police registered a case in

Crime No.29/2013 U/sec.457 and 380 IPC, examined and recorded statement of PW.1, visited scene of offence, examined and recorded statements of witnesses, conducted panchanama in presence of mediators and drew rough sketch. On 17.03.2017 he apprehended the accused, he conducted confession­cum­recovery panchanama and recovered the case property, later the accused was produced before this Court for judicial custody. After completion of the investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/s.457 and 380 IPC.

3.The case was taken on file for the offences punishable U/sec.457 and 380 of IPC against the accused. On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as required U/sec. 207 Cr.P.C. and was examined u/s 239 Cr.P.C and charges U/sec.457 and 380 of IPC were framed against accused, read over and explained in vernacular for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.During the course of trial the prosecution examined PWs.1 to == and exhibited Exs.P1 to P4 and MO.1 is marked.

5.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined

U/sec. 313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which the accused denied the same and reported no defence on his behalf.

6.Heard both sides.

7. Point for determination is:­ “Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of accused for the offences punishable U/sec.457 and 380 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt? POINT:­

8.As per the prosecution case, on 15.02.2017 PW.1 and 2 left the village by locking their house, in their absence, unknown offenders broke open the lock of the house, broken the almirah and committed theft of net cash of

Rs.21,000/­. In respect of the same, PW.1 lodged Ex.P1.

3CC 96-17

PW.1, who is the complainant deposed that on 15.02.2017 he kept chit amount of Rs.21,000/­ in almirah and went to Bhavanipet village to attend a torn sere ceremony. After 15 days, he came to know through PW.4 that his house locks were break open. Immediately, PW.1 came to his house and found his house in a scattered stage. Further Rs.21,000/­ of net cash was subjected to theft by unknown offenders. thereafter, he received MO.1 under interim custody. 

PW.2, who is the wife of PW.1, deposed the same lines and supported his version.

PW.4, who is circumstantial witness, who supported PW.1 and 2 version and admitted that he informed that as he noticed PW.1's house lock was broken, he informed the same to PW.1. 

PW.3 and PW.8 who are the scene panch admitted in one voice the proceedings of scene of offence panchanama. As such Ex.P2 is marked. 

PW.5, who is the confession panch deposed that at the instance of police, he acted as confession panch, on enquiry, accused confessed that he committed theft of Rs.21,000­/ from house of PW.1, but no recovery was made. 

PW.6 and 7 who are investigating officers, deposed that basing on

Ex.P1, Ex.P3 was registered, examined the witnesses, conducted scene of offence panchanama. As accused confessed his guilt, PW.7 by securing

PW.5 and LW.6 C. Sailu, conducted confession­cum­recovery panchanama i.e.Ex.P4. After completion of investigation, PW.6 laid charge sheet against accused. 

9.On perusal of prosecution testimony, it reflects that some unknown offenders committed theft of Rs.21,000/­ from PW.1's almirah by broke opening the house locks, in support of the same, PW.1, 2 and 4 supported 4CC 96-17 the said fact, in respect of the same, police conducted scene of offence panchanama which is marked as Ex.P2. In the present case, there is no direct evidence to prove the charge offence, as such the prosecution has to rely upon circumstantial evidence, nevertheless to prove circumstantial evidence, all links to the charge offence has to be proved. Except PW.3 ocular evidence, there is no other testimony which incriminates the accused.

PW.3 clearly stated that on enquiry, accused confessed the guilt, but on the other fact, he stated that police did not recover any property. PW.7 testimony reflects that on accused confession, police recovered MO.1. If for a while we believe PW.3's testimony, what prevented him to disclose recovery part. Moreover, PW.7 testimony also reflect that on accused confession, police recovered MO.1. PW.3 and PW.7 ocular evidence coupled with Ex.P3 creates doubt in the mind of court and inspire this court to disbelieve their testimony. as it is well established principle that when there are two favourable statements, statement which is favour to the accused shall be considered. Moreover, the links of charge offence fails to connect with each other. This court opines that even though prosecution has run long run trial by examining PW.1 to 7 and Exhibiting Ex.P1 to P3 and MO.1, failed to connect the accused with the charge offence. As such, this could held that the entire exercise done by prosecution has futile which leads to non­ fulfillment of charge offence beyond all reasonable doubt. 

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

U/sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. for the offences U/sec.457 and 380 IPC. Accused shall be set at liberty if he is not required in any other case/s. MO.1 shall hold good after expiry of appeal time.

5CC 96-17

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 2nd day of May, 2017. 

Sd/­ Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Banswada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

Prosecution Defence

PW­1 : Bharath Kumar­NONE­ PW­2 : Uma Rani PW­3 : N. Lachaiah PW­4 : H. Sailoo PW­5 : K. Ramulu PW­6 : S.N. Gandhi Goud PW­7 : N. Anthi Reddy PW­8 : V. Gangaram

EXHIBITS MARKED

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

Ex.P1 : Complaint lodged by PW.1 ­NIL­ Ex.P2 : Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P3 : First Information Report Ex.P4 : Relevant portion marked in confession­cum­recovery panchanama 

M.Os.MARKED

MO.1: Cash of Rs.3,060/­

Sd/­ Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Banswada.