Smt Arpitha Maram Reddy

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS

MAGISTRATE AT KALWAKURTHY

PRESENT: Smt.Arpitha Maram Reddy, Prl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kalwakurthy. FAC: Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Kalwakurthy.

Wednesday, this the 26th day of February,2020

C.C. No.123 of 2015 

Between:

The State through SI of Police, P.S.Midjil. …Complainant.

AND

1. Jogi Shekar s/o Bala Masaiah, Age 20 years, occ: Driver of the tractor no.AP­22­S­3116, r/o Munnanur vg., of Midjil mandal.

2. Antharam Dasharatham s/o Anjaiah, Age 32 years, occ: Agril, R/o Midjil village and mandal.

...Accused A1 and A2.

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 Sri Mohammed Jameel Ahmed, Advocate for the accused A1 and 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, Midjil has filed the charge sheet in Crime No.115/2013 for the offence punishable under

Section 379 IPC, Sec.27/35 AP Walta Act and Sec.3 and 4 of PDPP Act and sec.181 of MV Act against accused A1 and A2.

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

On 13.07.2013, at 0400 hours, SI received a petition from B.Laxmi

Narayana Reddy, VRO Midjil that on 13.07.2013 at about 0200 hours on intimation of SIP Midjil, he along with SIP Midjil went to Wadiyal got at 2

Midjil vg., and mandal, he found one tractor no.AP­22­S­3115 and trolley no., which sand loaded tractor, he stopped the tractor and asked about the driver about the permits of sand then the driver told that he has not valid permission and fled away from the place, he handed over the tractor to PS for necessary action.

Basing on the complaint lodged by complainant, L.W.8 SI registered a case in crime no.115 of 2013 u/s 379 IPC and took up investigation. During course of investigation, L.W.8 examined and recorded the statements of L.Ws. 1 to 3 viz., B.Laxmi Narayana Reddy,

M.Gopal Reddy and Syed Yaseen. Then L.W.8, SI secured the presence of two panchas i.e., L.Ws. 4 and 5 viz., K.Venkataiah and D.Bhupal Reddy conducted the seizure panchanama and seized the crime vehicle no.AP­ 22­S­3115. On 4.12.2013 L.W.8 arrested A1 in the presence of L.W.6 and 7 conducted the confessional panchanama and sent him to judicial custody. According his confession owner of the tractor was N.Vijaya but the A1 is not known actual owner of the tractor. On 7.3.2014, L.W.9 released the crime vehicle as per the orders of the Hon’ble court. On 20.08.2014 Antharam Dasharatham was surrendered before this court.

After surrender L.W.9 collected the documents of tractor and verified the same. On 26.08.2014, L.W.9 requested the PP to give her opinion about the actual owner of the tractor to file charges. On 27.09.2014, L.W.10 SI of police Midjil PS assumed the charge and after receipt of CD file, he verified and found the investigation done by the former I.O., and it is proper lines and not contacted the witnesses they reveals the same facts no variations reported in this regard, he could not re­recorded their statements. On 1.10.2014 collected opinion from APP and on verification it reveals that A2 is the owner of the crime vehicle. During the investigation, he verified the owner of the said tractor and on enquiry A1 3 confessed that the trolley no is blank, but the said trolley is not having any registration number and chasis number. Thus the A2 is not painted registration number on his tractor trolley irregularly he using the vehicle.

Basing on this reason, L.W.10 is added the sec of law sec.177 (9), 181 of

MV Act and after completion of investigation laid charge sheet against A1 and A2.

3.The case was taken on file under Section 379 IPC and Sec.3 of

PDPP Ac against accused.

4.On appearance of accused copies of documents were furnished to them as required U/sec. 207 Cr.P.C. and was examined u/s 239 Cr.P.C and charge U/s. 379 IPC, Sec.27/35 AP Walta Act and Sec.3 and 4 of

PDPP Act and sec.181 of MV Act against accused and charges were framed, read over and explained in vernacular for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial the prosecution examined PW1 to PW9 and exhibited Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 were marked.

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 Section 379 IPC, Sec.27/35 AP Walta Act and Sec.3 and 4 of PDPP Act and sec.181 of MV Act against accused ?

POINT :

9.The facts of the prosecution are that on the date of incident the accused transporting the sand illegally.

4

10.P.W.1 Laxmi Narayana Reddy testified that on 13.07.2013 at about 1.00 p.m., when he was at Kothur road, received a phone call from police and caught hold the sand loaded tractor at Vadyala stage. Immediately he rushed to Vadyala vg., and found one tractor loaded with sand.

Thereafter police brought the said tractor to PS he lodged Ex.P1 report.

He was turned hostile pertaining to identification of the accused. During course of cross examination by APP he deposed that he was scribed

Ex.P1 and the contents of the Ex.P1 and mentioned about the identity of the accused and enquiry any valid permit with accused for transportation of sand. He also denied the suggestion that he enquired the accused on scene of offence day and identity of the accused. At the time of cross examination of counsel for accused, he deposed that nobody accompanied him on scene of offence day. He denied the suggestion that he was not went to the scene and not found the sand loaded tractor.

11.P.W.2 Venkat Reddy and P.W.6 Sudershan, who are panch witnesses for confessional panchanama and he turned hostile and his signature is marked as Ex.P2 and P4

12.P.W.5 Bhupal Reddy, who is panch witnesses for seizure panchanama and he turned hostile and his signature is marked as

Ex.P3.

13.P.W.3 Syed Yaseen, PC deposed that on 13.07.2013, P.W.1 informed their SI regard to the illegal transportation of sand at Wadyala vg., at around 2.00 a.m., then their SI instructed him and L.W.2 join

P.W.1. then they joined P.W.1 and went to Wadyala gate and found one tractor no.AP­22­S­3115 trolley no.AP­22­S­3116 fully loaded with sand.

By seeing them the tractor driver fled from the scene. Then with the help 5 of the other driver they brought the said tractor and handed over to SI.

Thereafter P.W.1 lodged report.

14.During course of cross examination he cannot say the name of the driver who brought the crime vehicle to PS and not stated in 161 Cr.P.C statement full details of the accused. He was not seen the driver from furlong distance. He also denied the suggestion that he was not seen the driver of crime vehicle of scene of offence day. He cannot say where sand loaded in the crime vehicle and not conducted seizure panchanama near the scene. In 2013, he was acted as court constable. He also denied the suggestion that he not went along with P.W.1 and L.W.2 to Vadyala vg., and not seen the crime vehicle and driver and not brought the crime vehicle to PS. 

15.P.W.4 M.Gopal Reddy, ASI deposed that on 13.07.2013, he along with P.W.1, P.W.3 and L.W.8 went to patrolling duty at Wadyala gate at around 2.00 a.m., while they are performing their duties they found one tractor no.AP­22­S­3115 and trolley no.AP­22­S­3116 loaded with sand…………………… …………….

16. 27.11.2013, as per the instructions of MRO, he along with L.W.1,

L.W.3 and L.W.4 viz., N.Shashidhar Rao, K.Ashok Kumar and M.Shiva

Kumar to Jayaprakashnagar colony road, Kalwakurthy at 9.30 while they are doing patrolling duty, they noticed one lorry come from

Jayaprakashnagar outskirts of Kalwakurthy proceeding from

Devarkonda road, then they stopped the lorry bearing no.AP­29­TB­7605 and found as it was loaded with sand, they enquired with the driver name stated as Veeresh and stopped the lorry there and escaped from there, driver stated that he bring the sand illegal from Dindichinthapally vagu and sell the said sand in Hyderabad.

6

During course of cross examination, he do not know names of the 

PC who came along with him on scene of offence day and not stated to police that as per instructions of MRO, he went patrolling duty and also statement stating that driver fled away from the scene. He denied the suggestion that they not went to patrolling duty along with L.W.1, L.W.3 and L.W.4 viz., N.Shashidhar Rao, K.Ashok Kumar and M.Shiva Kumar and not found the lorry, driver not fled away from the scene.

17.P.W.2 Shashidhar Rao, RI testified that on 28.11.2013, as per the instructions of MRO, he along with P.W.1, L.W.3 and 4 viz., K.Ashok

Kumar and M.Shiva Kumar went to the JP Nagar, Kalwakurthy regard to the illegal transportation of sand, while they are performing their duties at 5.30 a.m., they found one lorry which was proceed from Devarkonda to Kalwakurthy bearing lorry no.AP­29­TB­7605, they found fully loaded sand. On enquiry driver revealed name as Neelesh, then they brought the lorry and accused to PS and handed over to SI and lodged Ex.P1 complaint. 

18.P.W.3 Shiva Kumar, PC testified that on 27.11.2013, as per the instructions of their SI, L.W.8 K.Naveen Kumar SI, himself, L.W.3

K.Ashok Kumar, along with P.W.1 to 3 went to patrolling duty at

Jayaprakashnagar road, outskirts of Kalwakurthy at night hours, while they are performing their duties on 28.11.2013, at 5.30 a.m., they found one lorry which was proceeding from Deverkonda to Hyderabad side in night hours at Jayaprakashnagar road, outskirts of Kalwakurthy. On enquiry they came to know from the driver, that he said sand was transporting from Deverkonda to Hyderabad not have any legal permit or way bill of the said sand was overloaded. Lorry was loaded with sand and its no.AP­29­TV­7605. The driver revealed particulars. The said lorry and driver brought to the Kalwakurthy PS and handed over to SI.

7

19.P.W.4 and 5 viz., Srinivas Reddy and Krishnaiah, panch witnesses for seizure and confessional panchanama of A1, they turned hostile and their signatures marked as Ex.P2 and P3.

P.W.6 Ashok Kumar, eye witness deposed the same lines of P.W.1 20.

to 3 and he was partly hostile to the extent of lorry number. During course of cross examination, he deposed that they are going to patrolling duty and they entered about duties particulars in the Beat book. The person A1 revealed that he brought the sand loaded in the lorry in

Chinthapalli vagu. He was admitted that Chinthapalli vagu comes under the limits of Vangur PS., and not enquired regard the licence of A1 to him. He denied the suggestion that he along with P.W.1 to 3 not went to the scene of offence and not found the crime vehicle and not brought the same to PS along with A1 and deposing false. 

21.P.W.7 K.Veerababu, SI of police deposed that on 28.11.2015 at 7.10 hours, P.W.2 came to PS and lodged complaint. Basing on that he registered a case and issued Ex.P4 FIR. He examined L.W.1 to 4 viz.,

N.Shashidhar Rao, E.Srinu, K.Ashok Kumar and M.Shiva Kumar at PS.

Further by securing L.W.5 and 6 viz., D.Srinivas Reddy and

V.Krushnaiah, he conducted confession cum seizure panchanama, where A1 confessed the guilt without possession the valid licence his transporting the sand. As such the lorry no.AP­29­TB­7605 was seized under cover of confession cum seizure panchanama. Thereafter he arrested A1 and produced him to judicial custody and handed over CD file to L.W.8 K.Naveen Kumar, SI for further investigation. On 5.1.2014,

A2 voluntarily surrendered before L.W.8 K.Naveen Kumar, SI by furnished copy of Anticipatory bail granted by Hon’ble High Court and after completion of investigation L.W.8 K.Naveen Kumar, SI laid charge sheet.

8

During course of cross examination, P.W.7 deposed that he was not filed any record pertaining to prohibition of transportation and lifting sand in Mahabubnagar and RR Dist. He was not transfer FIR to Vangur

PS. As per Ex.P1 offence was occurred Dindi Chinthapally vagu, the same false under Vangur PS limits. He was not seized any documents of the seized property. He also admitted that Ex.P1 and 161 statement of

L.W.1 and 2 viz., N.Shashidhar Rao and E.Srinu does not wish who assisted P.W.2 to scene of offence. He denied the suggestions that A1 and A2 are no way concerned with the said offence for stastical purpose and at the instance of revenue officials he foisted false case and also stated that neither conducted confessional panchanama of A1 nor seized any property and not examined L.W.1 to 3 viz., N.Shashidhar Rao,

E.Srinu and K.Ashok Kumar. He also denied suggestion that charge sheet not disclosed where sand was deposited and accused never lifted any sand.

A careful analysis of prosecution whisper following lacunas:­

I)VRO being complainant failed to identify driver of the crime vehicle . 

II)Pw3 P.C depose in his cross examination that from far long distance he observed driver of the crime vehicle and admittedly the offence was occur at 2 AM in early hours and it will dark at that time . unless they are any light at scene offence but no such instances has establish by prosecution as such identification of accused at 2 AM and that to from far long. Pw4 other P.C also depose that at the time of incident it was dark. Eye witness testimonials doesn’t inspire this Court that there is every possibility to identified the driver(A1) on the date of incident. 

9 [III] Except police officials none of the independent witness have supported the prosecution.

[IV] No record is placed to show that the crime vehicle no.AP­22­S­ 3115 belongs to Accused no.2.

[V] source of sand was not enquired.

[VI] IO failed disclosed boundaries of seizure panchanama.

[VII] No record is seized from Accused no.1 in respect of driving licence.

Moreover there is no record to connected the A2 with the charge offence, in as much, driving licence of A1 was not secured. Apart from it vehicle trip sheet and other particulars of the crime vehicle disclosed.

Even though police officials identity the accused No.1 and supported the prosecution, without corroboration of any other independent witness solely basing upon police officials this court finds that it is not safe to conclude the case in favour of prosecution. Hence, Accused No.1 and 2 entitled for Acquittal.

In the result, accused A1 and A2 are found not guilty and acquitted U/s.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. for the offence U/s. 379 IPC, Sec.27/35

AP Walta Act and Sec.3 of PDPP Ac. The bail bonds of accused shall stand discharge after expiry of appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 24th day of February,2020.

Prl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kalwakurthy. FAC: Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Kalwakurthy.

10

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE 

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

PROSECUTION

PW.1: Srinu

PW.2: Shashidhar Rao

PW.3: Shiva Kumar 

PW.4: Srinivas Reddy 

PW.5: Krishnaiah

PW.6: Ashok Kumar

PW.7: K.Veerababu, SI

DEFENCE

­NIL

EXHIBITS MARKED

PROSECUTION

Ex.P1: is complaint.

Ex.P2: is signature of P.W.4 on seizure and confessional panchanama 

Ex.P3: is signature of P.W.5 on seizure and confessional panchanama

Ex.P4: FIR

Ex.P5: confession cum seizure panchanama

DEFENCE

­NIL­

MATERIAL OBJECTS

­N I L ­

Prl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kalwakurthy. FAC: Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Kalwakurthy.

1

CC.635 of 2016Dt:26.02.2020.

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

AT KALWAKURTHY

PRESENT: Smt.Arpitha Maram Reddy, Prl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kalwakurthy. FAC: Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Kalwakurthy.

Wednesday, this the 26th day of February,2020

C.C. No.635 of 2016 

Between:

The State through SI of Police, P.S.Kalwakurthy. …Complainant.

AND

Vemula Ashok s/o Jangaiah, Age 48 years, occ: Business, R/o Thimmarasipally village.

...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 Sri K.V.Ramana, Advocate for the accused 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, Kalwakurthy has filed the charge sheet in Crime No.130/2016 for the offence punishable under Section 34 (a) A.P.Excise Act, 1968 against accused.

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

On 20.06.2016 evening the L.W.5 M.Ram Murthy, PSI received reliable information that liquor is being sold in a Kirana shop in Thimmarasipally vg., illegally without having any valid permission from the Government. On such information, he and PSI along with staff conducted raid on a Kirana shop of

Vemula Ashok and on search in the shop, the police party found the following liquor bottles i.e., [1] 24 knockout beers, [2] 22 King fisher beers, [3] 51

MC.Dowells whisky quarter bottles, [4] 11 Imperial blue quarter bottles [5] 48 2

CC.635 of 2016Dt:26.02.2020.

officer choice quarter bottles, [6] 28 Mini knock out beers. Further the PSI secured the presence of two panchas i.e., L.Ws. 3 and 4 viz., M.Venkat Reddy and B.Sreenu and informed them the facts of this case and recorded the confessional statement of above person. At the request of PSI, when the panchas enquired with the said person, he disclosed his particulars and also confessed that for a last few days he has been purchasing liquor and selling it in his kirana shop without having any valid permission from the Government to get wrongful gain. On 20.06.2016 evening while he was selling liquor in his kirana shop, in the meantime, the police party of Kalwakurthy PS conducted raid on his shop and caught him and his liquor. Further he showed liquor bottles to the panchas and stated that he is selling the said liquor in his kirana shop. The L.W.5 M.Ram Murthy, PSI collected samples from the said liquor for onward transmission to the FSL for its analysis and seized entire liquor bottles under cover of seizure panchanama duly affixing panch chits and also took the accused into custody. 

Basing on the confession and seizure panchanama, the L.W.5 M.Ram

Murthy, PSI registered a case in crime no.130 of 2016 u/s 34 (a) of A.P.Excise

Act, 1968 and tookup investigation. During course of investigation, L.W.5

M.Ram Murthy, PSI examined and recorded the statements of L.Ws. 1 and 2 viz., K.Ashok Kumar and G.K.Vijay Kranthi. On 20.06.2016, the L.W.5

M.Ram Murthy, PSI served a notice u/s 41 (a) Cr.P.C., to accused for compliance. In compliance of the said notice, on 21.06.2016 the accused appeared before L.W.5 M.Ram Murthy, PSI. on furnishing the sureties the accused was released on bail. One N.Raja Goud, PC deposited the material objects to FSL for its analysis and report. L.W.6 D.Jalandhar Reddy, SI took up further investigation of this case and perused the investigation so far done by the L.W.5 M.Ram Murthy, PSI and found it to be in proper lines. The case property is deposited before this court vide C.P.No.813 of 2016. After receipt of FSL report, L.W.6 D.Jalandhar Reddy, SI filed charge sheet against the 3

CC.635 of 2016Dt:26.02.2020.

accused. 

3.The case was taken on file under Section 34 (a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968 against accused.

4.On appearance of accused copies of documents were furnished to them as required U/sec. 207 Cr.P.C. and was examined u/s 239 Cr.P.C and charge U/s. 34 (a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968 against accused and charges were framed, read over and explained in vernacular for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial the prosecution examined PW1 to PW5 and exhibited Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 and M.O.1 were marked.

6.After completion of prosecution evidence the accused was 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 Section 34 (a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968 against accused ?

POINT :

9.The facts of the prosecution are that on the date of incident the accused was is in illegal possession and sale of ID liquor.

10.P.W.1 G.K.Vijaya Babu, PC deposed that on 20.06.2016 as per the instructions of their SI, he along with L.W.2 G.K.Vijay Kranthi went to patrolling duty at Thimmarasipally vg., while they are performing the duty he received a phone call from SI that one person named as V.Ashok was selling

ID liquor in his Kirana shop at Thimmarasipally vg., without valid permission.

Then they checked the shop and found beer bottles and 20 quarter bottles, then they informed the same to their SI, L.W.6 D.Jalandhar Reddy, SI and 4

CC.635 of 2016Dt:26.02.2020.

secured the presence of L.Ws. 3 and 4 viz., M.Venkat Reddy and B.Sreenu and conducted seizure panchanama and seized the contraband, the same was brought to the PS along with accused and handed over the L.W.6 D.Jalandhar

Reddy, SI. on enquiry accused failed to show any valid permit for sale of above said contraband.

11.During course of cross examination, he went to the scene on bike and not stated the cell phone number that he received the information from SI the contraband will be available in other wine shops. He did not issue the search memo to accused. He denied the suggestion that only for stastical purpose he filed false case against the accused and he was not mentioned the exact time when they went to the house of accused.

12.P.W.2 and 3 viz., Venkat Reddy and Srinu, who are panch witnesses for seizure and confessional panchanama turned hostile and their signatures are marked as Ex.P1 and P2.

13.P.W.4 Ashok Kumar, PC 2599 deposed the same lines of P.W.1.

14.P.W.5 M.Ram Murthy, SI testified that on 28.06.2016, he received credible information pertaining illegal possession and sale of ID liquor at accused Kirana shop at Thimmarasipally village. As such, he along with his staff went to accused kirana shop. On search, he found Knockout beers 24,

King fisher beers 22, MC Dowel whisky bottles 51, Imperial blue quarter bottles 11, officer choice quarter bottles 48, Mini Knockout beers 28. As such by securing L.W.3 and 4 viz., M.Venkat Reddy and B.Sreenu the said property was seized by drawing 2 sample bottles under cover of seizure panchanama

Ex.P3., along with accused and seized property and he came to PS and registered a case in crime no.130 of 2016 and issued Ex.P4 FIR. He examined

L.W.1 and 2 viz., K.Ashok Kumar and G.K.Vijay Kranthi. On 28.06.2016, he served 41­a notice to accused. On compliance of the same, he was not arrested. He was deposited contraband before the court with a requisition to send the same for analysis. Sample bottle is marked as M.O.1. Thereafter he 5

CC.635 of 2016Dt:26.02.2020.

handed over the CD file to L.W.6 D.Jalandhar Reddy, SI for further investigation, who received CME Ex.P5 and found investigation on proper lines and laid charge sheet.

15.During course of cross examination on police jeep he visited scene of offence on the date of incident. Kirana shop does not bear the number or name. he was not filed any record to show that the seizure place belongs to accused and not issued search memo prior to conducting Ex.P3. M.O.1 can easily available in the market. He was not enquired source of M.O.1. he was not examined any buyer of liquor bottles at scene of offence. He was not examining L.W.1 and 2 viz., K.Ashok Kumar and G.K.Vijay Kranthi. He was also denied suggestion that accused is no way concerned the said offence for stastical purpose he foisted false case against the accused.

Point for consideration:

The crux of the case is whether on the date of incident the accused illegal

possession and sale of ID liquor in his house. The prosecution testimony suffers

from the below lacunas:

1.No record is placed that accused is either owner nor possessor of the seizure

place.

2. No record is placed to show that accused is resident of Thimmarasipally

village.

3. Source of Mo.1 was not enquired .

4. Search memo was not issued, as it is mandatory procedure by I. O as seizure

place is closed premises .

5. Buyer of contraband was not examined.

Basing on the above said flaws, solely basing on police testimony which is

not corroborated are consistent with any other independent witness. In as much

non compliance of section 100 cr.p.c is a major fatal . As such this court opion the testimony let by the prosecution is not safe and suffice to conclude the case 6

CC.635 of 2016Dt:26.02.2020.

in his favour.

In the result, accused found not guilty and acquitted for the offense U/s. 248 (1) of Cr.P.C.for the offence U/s. 34 (a) of A.P.Excise

Act, 1968. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled and M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 26th day of February,2020.

Prl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kalwakurthy. FAC: Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Kalwakurthy.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE 

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

PROSECUTION

PW.1: G.K.Vijaya Babu

PW.2: Venkat Reddy

PW.3: Srinu

PW.4: Ashok Kumar

PW.5: M.Ram Murthy, SI 

DEFENCE

­NIL

EXHIBITS MARKED

PROSECUTION

Ex.P1:is signature of P.W.2 on seizure and confessional panchanama.

Ex.P2 : is signature of P.W.3 on seizure and confessional panchanama. 

Ex.P3 seizure panchanama.

Ex.P4 PCOR

Ex.P5 CME Report.

DEFENCE

­NIL­ 7

CC.635 of 2016Dt:26.02.2020.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

­M.O.1 sample bottle ­

Prl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kalwakurthy. FAC: Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Kalwakurthy.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT NAGARKURNOOL.

Dated on this the 28th day of February, 2020

Present:-Smt.Arpitha Maram Reddy, Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Kalwakurthy. F.A.C.Junior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool.

O.S.No.264 of 2019

Between:-

Katravath Narya S/o Katravath Bicha, age 38 years, Occ: Agril., R/o Jampla thanda H/o Buddaram village of Goplapet mandal, Wanparthy District.

.. Plaintiff.

And

1: Mudavath Dhansingh S/o Mudavath Sakru, age 50 years, Occ: Agril., Occ: Agriculture, R/o Laxmi Thanda H/o Buddaram Village of Gopalpet Mandal 2: Mudavath Bodka S/o Mudavath Sakru, age 45 years, Occ: Agril., Occ: Agriculture, R/o Laxmi Thanda H/o Buddaram Village of Gopalpet Mandal

..Defendants

Claim:-Suit for grant of permanent injunction decree in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants.

****

THIS suit is coming before me for final disposal in the presence of Sri

S.Sreenivasulu, Advocate for the plaintiff and the Defendants are made as set ex-parte and having been stood over for consideration till this day the court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1)This is a suit filed by the Plaintiff against the defendants for grant of permanent injunction decree in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants.

restraining them from interfering and obstructing in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule land situated at

Buddaram village of Gopalpet Mandal.

2) The brief averments of the plaint are that the plaintiff is absolute owner and possessor in respect of suit schedule land bearing No. 780/2 extent Ac.1-10 gts., dry land situated at Buddaram village of Gopalpet mandal which is acquired through his ancestors and the revenue authorities were also pleased to mutate the name of the plaintiff. Thus the plaintiff has became as absolute it owner and possessor in respect of the suit schedule lands by way of succession and enjoying the same for the past several years.

That on dated 12-10-2019 the defendants without having any manner of right or title illegally tried to disposes the plaintiff from his lawful possession and enjoyment forcibly by colluding with some un-social elements in the village with their supporters. However, the plaintiff by the help of his family members with great difficulty resisted their illegal interference of the defendants and since there is an imminent danger to protect the lawful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff from the hands of the defendants at any movement, the plaintiff is constrained to approach before this court.

3) Having gone through the docket sheet proceedings dated. 31- 10-2019, it is disclosing that though ample opportunity is given, the defendants could not able to appear before this court to contest the suit claim, hence the defendants are made as set ex-parte.

4)The plaintiff himself is examined as Pw-1 and got marked

Ex.A1 to Ex-A3 and closed the evidence on behalf of him.

5) Heard the arguments of Plaintiff.

6) The point for consideration is whether the Plaintiff is entitled for grant of permanent injunction decree against defendants over the suit schedule property as prayed for?

7) On careful scrutiny of Ex.,A.1 i.e., 1-B Namuna ROR extract,

dt. 01-10-2019 it reveals that the suit schedule land bearing Sy.No.780/2

extent Ac.1-10 gts., situated at Buddaram village shivar of Gopalpet mandal is standing in the name of plaintiff. Likeso, Ex-A2 i.e., CC of pattedar pahani copy Falsi No.2017, dt.01-10-2019 goes to show that the suit schedule land is standing in the name of plaintiff. Ex-A3 i.e., R.I. report, dt. 05-10-2019. That the documents filed by the plaintiff are supporting suit claim and he has been in actual and continuous possession and enjoyment in respect of the suit schedule property without having any kind of interruptions.

8)On consideration I found that the evidence of Pw-1 and the document marked as Ex.A1 to Ex-A3 are not remained unchallenged, inasmuch as the Defendants were made as set ex-parte, resulting which the evidence of Pw-1 clearly supported Ex.A1 to Ex-A3 to prove his claim. This is a suit filed for grant of injunction simplicitor and the plaintiff has proved the claim that she is in actual and continuous possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property by the date of presentation of the suit into court.

Thus this court is of the opinion that the plaintiff has clearly established his case and he is entitled for having grant of permanent injunction decree against the defendants in respect of suit schedule property.

9)In the result , the suit is decreed, with costs, by granting permanent injunction decree in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants, their men and supporters from causing interfering and obstruction with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

Dictated to Typist corrected and pronounced by me in the

open court on this the 28th day of February, 2020.

Junior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFFOR DEFENDANTS

PW-1: Katravath Narya Ex-Parte

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFFFOR DEFENDANTS

Ex-A1: CC of ROR- Nil -

Ex-A2: CC of pahani Fasli 2017

Ex-A3: Copy of R.I.report

Junior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT NAGARKURNOOL.

Dated on this the 28th day of February, 2020

Present:-Smt.Arpitha Maram Reddy, Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Kalwakurthy. F.A.C.Junior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool.

O.S.No.303 of 2018

Between:-

1. Kasi Reddy Lalithamma W/o Late Malla Reddy, age 58 years, Occ: Agril.,

2. Kasi Reddy Srikanth Reddy S/o Late Malla Reddy, age 29 years, Occ: Private Job.,

3. Kasi Reddy Ashok Reddy S/o Late Malla Reddy, age 27 years, Occ: Agril.,

All R/o Marepally village of Thimmajipet mandal.

.. Plaintiff.

And

Kasi Reddy Yadhi Reddy S/o Late Thirupathi Reddy, age 53 years, Occ: Agril., R/o Marepally village of Thimmajipet mandal.

..Defendant

Claim:-Suit for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule lands situated at Marepally village of Thimmajipet mandal.

****

THIS suit is coming before me for final disposal in the presence of Sri

B.Rajashekar, Advocate for the plaintiff and the Defendants are made as ex- parte and having been stood over for consideration till this day the court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1)This is a suit filed by the Plaintiff against the defendants seeking for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule lands into two equal shares and for allotment of one such share i.e., 1/2 share in favour of the plaintiff with metes and bounds situated at Marepally village of Thimmajipet mandal.

2) The brief averments of the plaint are that the defendant Nos.2 & 3 are the sons of D1 who born through his first wife by name Laxmi and whereas the plaintiff is also son of D1 who born through his second wife

Saileela. Originally the suit schedule land bearing Sy.Nos.20, 61,160, 163 total extent Ac.5-13 gts, all are situated at Gouthampally and Ananthasagar village of Telkapally mandal are belongs to deceased grandfather of plaintiff by name Chinna Balakistaiah which was fallen to his share in family partition.

The said Chinna Balakistaiah died leaving the D1 & D4 as his legal heirs.

Thus the plaintiff and defendants are being legal heirs of Chinna

Balakistaiah, entitled to get shares over the suit schedule lands being they are undivided Hindu joint family ancestral properties. It is also further pleaded that the suit schedule lands were not divided among the parties to the suit sofar, but they are jointly cultivating in which the plaintiff is entitled to get 1/4th share with metes and bounds however the defendants are denying to allot the share of the plaintiff. Finally, that on dated 12-12-2017 and on 10-1-2018, the plaintiff demanded the defendants to allot his due share over the suit schedule lands with metes and bounds, but denied, hence this suit.

3) Having gone through the docket sheet proceedings dated.

20-02-2018, it is disclosing that though ample opportunity is given, the defendants could not able to appear before this court to contest the suit claim, hence the defendants are made as set ex-parte.

5)The plaintiff himself is examined as Pw-1 and got marked

Ex.A1 to A4 and closed the evidence on behalf of him.

6) Heard the arguments of Plaintiff.

7) The point for consideration is whether the Plaintiff is entitled seeking for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule lands into four equal shares and for allotment of one such share i.e., 1/4th share in favour of the plaintiff with mets and bounds situated at Gouthampally village and

Ananthasage village of Telkapally mandal as prayed for?

8) On careful scrutiny of Ex.A1 to A4 i.e., CC of pahanies for the years 2006-07, 2007-08, 2010-11 and ROR extract it clearly goes to show that the suit schedule lands bearing Sy.Nos.20, 61,160, 163 total extent Ac.5-13 gts, all are situated at Gouthampally and Ananthasagar village of Telkapally mandal are belongs to deceased grandfather of plaintiff by name Chinna

Balakistaiah.

9)On consideration I found that the evidence of Pw-1 and the document marked as Ex.A1 to A4 are not remained unchallenged, inasmuch as the Defendants are made as set ex-parte, resulting which the evidence of

Pw-1 clearly supported the suit claim. On perusal of Ex.A1 to A4 i.e., CC of pahanies and ROR extract, the name of deceased Chinna Balakistaiah S/o

Balaiah who is ancestor of the plaintiff is reflecting. Thus this court is of the opinion the plaintiff has clearly established his case and he is entitled for having grant of preliminary decree against the defendants in respect of suit schedule lands for allotment of 1/4th share with metes and bounds.

10)In the result, the suit is preliminary decreed, with costs, by granting partition of the suit schedule lands into four equal shares and for allotment of one such share i.e., 1/4th share with metes and bounds.

Dictated to Typist corrected and pronounced by me in the

open court on this the 24th day of January, 2020.

Junior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFFOR DEFENDANTS

PW-1: Kasireddy Lalithamma Ex-Parte

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFFFOR DEFENDANTS

Ex-A1: CC of old ROR- Nil - Ex-A2: CC of pahani for the year 1985-86, Ex-A3: CC of ROR Ex-A4: CC of pahani Fasli 2017

Junior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS: AT: KALWAKURTHY .

Friday, the 30 th day of November, 2018

Present:- Smt.Arpitha Maram REddy, Prl.JCJ-cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kalwakurthy. FAC Addl.JMFC, Kalwakurthy

CC No.565 of 2014

Between:- State through Police S.H.O., Police Station, Talakondapally

...Complainant.

And

Paladi Anjaiah s/o Venkataiah, 45 yrs, Occ: Tailor r/o Chandradana vg. Talakondapally Ml.

...Accused

-0o0-

This case is coming up before me on this day for final hearing in the presence of learned A.P.P. for the State and Sri S.Bhaskar Reddy, learned

Counsel for the accused, upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day this Court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1. It is the case of prosecution that on 1.8.2014 at 11.00 PM, while the injured Manche Chennaiah was coming to his house, on the way near the house of Danndad Chennaiah, the accused waylaid the injured wrongfully restrained him keeping the lod grudges in mind and beat him with iron rod on his hand, thigh causing bleeding injury to his right hand. Basing on the report, SI of Police registered a case in Cr.No.89/2014 u/s 341 and 324 IPC and issued FIR. During the course of investigation, examined and recorded the statements of witnesses, referred the injured to Government hospital for treatment and visited the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama and on 28.8.2014 arrested the accused, recorded the confessional statement of accused and seized the iron road from his possession, sent him to court for judicial remand and after completion of investigation, the SI of Police filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences U/Secs.341 and 324 IPC.

2

2. This court has taken cognizance against the accused for the offences

U/Secs.341 and 324 IPC.

3. After receiving of the summons the accused was present before this court and copies furnished as per sec. 207 of Cr.P.C.

4. Later the accused is examined under section 239 Cr.P.C. he denied the accusation levelled against him in the charge sheet and pleaded not guilty, on consideration charge U/Secs.341 and 324 IPC is framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu for which the accused denied and claimed to be tried.

5. On behalf of the prosecution PW.1 to PW.11 are examined and exhibits

P1 to P12 and MO.1 were marked and on behalf of the defence none examined and no documents were marked.

6. After completion of trial accused was examined u/sec. 313 Cr.PC and all the incriminating material available against him were explained in Telugu and he denied the same and reported no evidence on his behalf.

7. Now the point for determination is that whether the prosecution could able establish the guilt of the accused for the offences U/Secs.341 and 324 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.

Heard both sides.

8. POINT:-

In order to prove the case of the prosecution, it relies on the oral evidence of PW.1 to PW.11 and exhibits P1 to P12 and MO.1.

PW.8 Venkatamma, defacto complainant and mother of the injured deposed that about four years back when her son was coming from old house to new house at about 10.30 to 11.00 PM, the accused kept personal grudges i.e.

his daughter has closeness with her son i.e. LW.2, the accused restrained and beat LW.1 with iron rod on different parts of the body and caused injuries to his right hand, right thigh and waist. The incident was witnessed by PWs.1 to 5.

LW.5 after witnessing the incident rushed to her house and informed that the accused is bearing LW.2 severely, then she reached to the scene and they have disclosed about the incident before the village elders, as they did not conclude 3 the matter, she filed complaint before police. Ex.P8 is complaint. LW.2 was died after 7 to 8 months after the incident due to injuries sustained to him at the time of galata.

In cross examination admitted that rape case was booked on LW.4 for coming rape on the daughter of Goda Yadagiri, who belongs to her village. She denied a suggestion that the deceased LW.2 used to have bad habits of roaming with ladies and keeping illicit relationship with them and died due to ill-health.

Pw.9 Anjaiah deposed that, LW.2 is his son about 4 years back at 10.30

AM himself and PW.8 were in their house, PW.5 informed them that accused beat LW.2 with iron rod on his head, legs and waist due to which the deceased sustained bleeding injury and the same was witnessed by her, immediately they went to market and found LW.2, shifted him to Talakondapally Govt. Hospital while taking medication within 3 months the deceased died.

In cross examination admitted that criminal case is lodged u/s 376 IPC against LW.2 on the file of District Court, Mahabubnagar, accused is one of the witness for the said case.

PW.10 Dr. D.Swarnalath deposed that on 2.8.2014 at 12.30 PM, she received requisition from SHO, PS Talakondpally to examined the injured

M.Chennaiah, found the mentioned mention in Ex.P9 MC, the age of injury was one day.

In cross examination she admitted that there is possibility if a person skid from the bike with high speed.

PW.11 M.Venkatram Naik, investigating officer, deposed about the chronological events of investigation.

In cross examination admitted that he has not seized any property at the time of conducting scene of offence and the medical certificate does not contain the crime number.

The alleged eye witnesses to the incident examined as PWs.1, 2 and 5 did not support the prosecution and completely turned hostile stating that they do not know anything about the case.

4

The panch for scene of offence and panch for confession and seizure examined as PWs.3, 4,6 and 7 also did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile stating that police never conducted any panchanama in their presence.

In this case, the injured LW.2 Manne Chebnnaiah died and the prosecution filed death certificate of the injured.

Point:

It is the case of prosecution on 1.8.2014 at 11.00 PM, while the injured (deceased) Manche Chennaiah was coming to his house, on the way near the house of Danndada Chennaiah, the accused waylaid the injured wrongfully restrained him keeping the old grudges in mind beat him with iron rod on his hand, thigh causing bleeding injury to his right hand.

The alleged eye witnesses to the incident have completely turned hostile and they did not support the prosecution case. The injured person died as such the prosecution could not adduce his evidence. Now there remains the evidence of PW.8 and PW.9, who are the parents of the injured. Admittedly they are not eye witnesses to the occurrence, they reached the scene on information by PW.5 that the accused is beating the injured. There is no whisper that by the time they reached the scene the accused was present or the accused beating the injured.

In this case the alleged incident occurred on 1.8.2014 at 11.00 PM, in the night, but the complaint is lodged on the next day i.e. on 2.8.2014 at 5.20 PM and the

FIR is reached the court on 4.8.2014 with a delay of more than 2 days.

Admittedly a case was registered against the injured for rape and the accused is one of the witness to the said case. PW.9 has categorically admitted that a panchayat pertaining to rape case was convened, where the PWs.8 and 9 demanded that accused should depose in favour of injured-LW.2, however, the

PW.9 denied the suggestion that they have made compromise talks that if accused given evidence in favour of LW.2, they will withdraw the present case.

Surprisingly PW.9 feigned ignorance that he do not know the compromise talks between PW.8 and accused. PW.8 is none other than the wife of PW.9 and 5 mother of injured-LW.2. In the above facts and circumstances, in view of the inconsistent evidence of PWs.8 and 9, in the absence of evidence from the independent witnesses, in view of non-examination of the crucial witness i.e.

injured-LW.2 as he died and in view of the differences between the accused and injured-LW.2, the evidence of PWs.8 and 9, who are not eye witnesses to the occurrence is not inspiring the confidence of the court to base conviction against the accused and the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt.

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Secs.341 and 324 IPC and he is acquitted u/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. The

MO.1 in CP No.625/14 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 30 th day of November, 2018.

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kalwakurthy

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESS EXAMINED)

For Prosecution:- PW.1: Chennaiah PW.2 Venkatesh PW.3: Ramulu Pw.4: Jangaiah Goud PW.5: Jangamma Pw.6: Raghava Chary PW.7: Ram Reddy PW.8: Venaktamma PW.9: Anjaiah PW.10: Dr.D.Swarnalatha PW.11: M.Venaktram Naik For defence: None.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: Exs.P1 and P2: 161 Cr.P.C. statements of PWs.1 and 2 Ex.P3: Signature of PW.3 on scene panchanama Ex.P4: Signature of PW.4 on scene panchanama Ex.P5: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.5 Ex.P6: Signature of PW.6 on confession and seizure panchanama Ex.P7: Signature of PW.7 on confession and seizure panchanama Ex.P8: Complaint Ex.P9: Medical Certificate Ex.P10:FIR Ex.P11:Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P12:Copnfessional and Seizure panchanama

For defence: NIL

MOs marked: MO.1 iron rod. Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kalwakurthy.

CC No.71 of 2015 1 Dt:2.03.2020

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL., JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:

AT: KALWAKURTHY.

Monday, this the 2 nd day of March, 2020.

Present:- Smt. B. Bhavani, Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kalwakurthy.

CC No.71 of 2015

Between:-

State through Sub-Inspector of Police, Kalwakurthy PS.

...Complainant.

And

Maska Buchaiah s/o Lalaiah, Age 38 years, occ: Business/Driver of Vehicle no.AP-22-TA-4274, r/o Jangareddipally village.

...Accused.

Nature of Offence : Sand theft without permission of Government and damage to the Public property. Section of Law : 379 IPC, 27/35 of A.P Walta Act, 3 of PDPP Act. Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the Court : Found not guilty

Sentence or Order : The accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Secs.379 IPC and Section 27/35 of AP Walta Act and Sec.3 of PDPP Act and he is acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C otherwise not required in any other case. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after expiry of the appeal time. The interim custody given to owner deposited vide C.P No.52/2015 shall be made absolute after appeal time is over.

This case is coming up before me on 02-03-2020 for final hearing in the presence of learned A.P.P. for the State and Sri C.Krishnaiah, learned Counsel

for the accused, and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over

for consideration till this day this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, Kalwakurthy Police Station has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Sections 379 IPC, 27/35 of A.P

Walta Act and Sec.3 of PDPP Act.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 16.12.2014 at 800 hours, the SI of police, Kalwakurthy named Md.Maqdoom Ali received a report

CC No.71 of 2015 2 Dt:2.03.2020

from VRO Kalwakurthy named Gangamoni Ramesh s/o Mallesh, stating that at early hours on 16.12.2014 he received credible information through phone about transportation of sand illegally from Turkalapalli vagu to Kalwakurthy by a vehicle bearing no.AP-22-TA-4274. By receiving the said information he along with VRA

Kummari Anjaneyulu s./o Ramulu proceeded towards Nagarkurnool road and found a vehicle no.AP-22-TA-4274 at Parthasarathi Theatre while transporting the sand, then they asked the driver to show valid permission for transportation of sand, the said driver fled away by leaving the vehicle. Thereafter they brought the sand loaded tractor to the PS and informed the same to the SI of

Police, Kalwakurthy and requested for necessary legal action against the driver of the crime vehicle.

3. As per the contents of the above report, Lw.7, S.I of Police has registered a case in Cr.No.251/2014 for the offence under Sections 379 of IPC, 27/35 of

A.P Walta Act and Section 3 of PDPP Act and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, examined and recorded the statement of LWs.1 and 2 viz., G.Ramesh and K.Anjaneyulu at police station and secured two mediators

Lws.3 and 4 viz., N.Chiranjeevi and P.Vishnu and seized the sand loaded vehicle no.AP-22-TA-4274 under cover of panchanama. On 26-12-2014 at 10.30 p.m., the accused came to police station and surrendered before him and secured the presence of two mediators Lws.5 and 6 viz., P.Hanuma Naik and P.Parvathalu and recorded his confessional statement, where the accused admitted his guilt.

After completion of investigation laid charge sheet against the accused for the offences U/Secs.379 IPC, Section 27/35 of AP Walta Act and Section 3 of PDPP

Act.

4. This court has taken cognizance for the offences 379 IPC, 27/35 of Walta

Act and Section 3 of PDPP Act against the accused.

5. After receiving of the summons the accused was present before this court and copies furnished as per Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

CC No.71 of 2015 3 Dt:2.03.2020

6. Later the accused examined under section 239 Cr.P.C he denied the accusation leveled against him in the charge sheet and pleaded not guilty, on consideration charges U/Secs.379 IPC, Section 27/35 of AP Walta Act and

Section 3 of PDPP Act are framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu for which the accused denied and claimed to be tried.

7. On behalf of the prosecution PWs.1 to 4 are examined and Exhibits P1 to

P6 and M.O.1 were marked.

8. After completion of trial the accused examined u/sec. 313 Cr.P.C by putting incriminating material available against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses he denied the same and reported no evidence on his behalf.

9. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution could able to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence U/Secs.379 IPC, Section 27/35 of AP Walta Act and Section 3 of PDPP Act beyond all reasonable doubt.

10. Heard both sides.

11. POINT:-

In order to prove the case of the prosecution, it relies on the oral evidence of Pws.1 to Pw.4 and Exs.P1 to P6 and M.O.1.

12. Pw.1 Ramesh testified in his evidence that after receiving the information from L.W.2 K.Anjaneyulu regard to illegal transportation of sand at Turkalapalli vagu, went with L.W.2 K.Anjaneyulu near the ParthaSarathi Theater, Kalwakurthy and found one TATA ACE vehicle no.AP-22-TA-4274 loaded with sand, as they stopped the said vehicle the driver without passing any information fled away from the scene. As such they brought the said vehicle and handed over the same to P.W.4 and lodged report Ex.P1.

13. P.W.2 and 3 viz., Parvathalu and Chiranjeevi panch for seizure and confession respectively not stated any incriminating material against the accused and they completely denied of conducting seizure and confessional in their

CC No.71 of 2015 4 Dt:2.03.2020

presence. Their signatures were marked as Ex.P2 and P3 on seizure and confessional panchanama respectively.

14. P.W.4 Md.Maqdum Ali, SI testified in his evidence that after receiving the complaint from P.W.1 on 16.12.2014, at 800 hours, he registered a case in crime no.251 of 2014 u/s 379 IPC, 27 r/w 35 of AP Walta Act and Sec.3 of PDPP Act

Ex.P4. later examined P.W.1 and L.W.2 K.Anjaneyulu and secured the presence of P.W.3 and L.W.4 P.Vishnu, thereafter conducted seizure panchanama by seizing the sand loaded vehicle bearing no. AP-22-TA-4274 Ex.P5. Further as accused surrendered before him and confessed his guilt, conducted confessional panchanama and deposited the crime vehicle before the Hon’ble court vide

C.P.No.15 of 2014, M.O.1., and after completion of investigation, laid charge sheet.

15. Point for consideration:

The evidence of Pw.1 on record shows that he went along with L.W.2

K.Anjaneyulu after receiving the credible information about illegal transportation of sand from Turkalapalli vagu to Kalwakurthy on 16.12.2014 at 7.00 a.m., further they both together went to Parthasarathi Theater, Kalwakurthy where they found vehicle of TATA Ace bearing no. AP-22-TA-4274 loaded fully with sand.

However P.W.1 not stated anything about the identity of the driver or his particulars in the evidence. Moreover to corroborate with the evidence of P.W.1 whether L.W.2 K.Anjaneyulu accompanied with him, the evidence of L.W.2

K.Anjaneyulu was not recorded as died. Furthermore P.W.2 and 3 panch for seizure and confession not supported the prosecution case in any means and totally denied of conducting seizure and confessional panchanama. In deed the evidence of P.W.4 went in chronological way and the evidence not revealed anything which favour the prosecution. Perhaps the confessional panchanama recorded by the P.W.4 is of no value which hit Sec.25 of Indian Evidence Act as confession by accused before the police is inadmissible before the law. Mere depositing of the crime vehicle M.o.1 is not sufficient to prove that the alleged

CC No.71 of 2015 5 Dt:2.03.2020

accused was the person who transported the sand illegally on scene of offence day and P.W.1 brought the crime vehicle from the scene when accused fled away from the scene. Accordingly by the above evidence on record and through perusal, it is noticed that there is no sufficient evidence to conclude that the accused committed the offence. Further there is no identity of the accused on record. Thus it is viewed that the prosecution has miserably failed to put-forth evidence against the accused to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Accordingly, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable

U/Secs.379 IPC, Section 27/35 of AP Walta Act and Sec.3 of PDPP Act and he is acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C otherwise not required in any other case. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after expiry of the appeal time. The interim custody given to owner deposited vide C.P No.15/2014 [M.O.1] shall be made absolute after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist on computer system, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, on this the 2nd day of March, 2020.

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kalwakurthy.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESS EXAMINED)

For Prosecution:-

Pw.1 Ramesh

Pw.2 Parvathalu

Pw.3 Chiranjeevi

Pw.4 Md.Maqdum Ali, SI

For defence:

- None –

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1 Report

Ex.P2 Signature of Pw.2 on confessional panchanama

Ex.P3 Signature of Pw.3 on seizure panchanama

Ex.P4 FIR

Ex.P5 seizure panchanama

CC No.71 of 2015 6 Dt:2.03.2020

Ex.P6 Confession panchanama

For defence: Nil. MOs marked:

M.O.1 Crime vehicle

Addl., Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kalwakurthy.