Sri B.R.Madhusudhan Rao

In the court of the I Additional District & Sessions Judge,

Chittoor.

Present:-B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO, I Additional District & Sessions Judge.

Monday, the 13th (Thirteenth) day of March , 2017.

I.E.S.C. No. 72 of 2016

Cr.No. 69/2016 and 96/2016 of Punganur Police station

Complainant The State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Punganur Police station

Accused 1. Avula Ramesh @ Mekala Ramesh @ Macha @ Murali, age 30 years, S/o Venkatappa @ Ramaiah, caste by Yerukula , Occu: Electrician and Gas Stove repairer R/o Pedballi, near Indian Bank, Puttaparthy Mandal N/o Bathalapalli town near MRO office, Ananthapur District.

2. Golla Surendra, age 25 years S/o Nettikallu, caste by Dasari, Occ: Coolie, R/o Indira colony, Gutthi Town and Mandal N/o Veerepalli Guthi Mandal, Ananthapur District.

3. Derangula Mohan, age 50 years, S/o Subbarayadu, caste by Vadde, Occ: Coolie R/o Indiramma colony, Ananthapur town, N/o Mydukur Town of Kadapa district.

4. Derangula Nagendra, age 26 years, S/o Subbarayadu, caste by Vaddi, Occ: Auto driver, R/o 7th Cross, Sai Nagar, Ananthapur town, N/o Mydukur town, Kadapa District.

5. Kadireppa Narasimhulu, age 35 years, S/o Late V. Kadireppa, caste by Valmiki, Occ: Coolie,R/oBandameedapalliH/o Thummarakunta, PTM Mandal, Chittoor District, N/o Chelooru, Bagepalli Taluk of Karnataka State.

The prosecution Sri K.S.Jayaram is conducted byAdditional Public Prosecutor.

The accused areSri P. Dayasekhar, counsel for A-1 defended bySmt. Swapna, counsel for A-2 to A-5

OFFENCEUnder Sec. 379, 411 I.P.C. and u/sec. 136(1)(a) of Indian Electricity Act. ChargesUnder section 136 (1) (a) or 136(1) (b) of Indian Electricity Act, 2003, Plea of the Not Guilty accused Finding of the A1 to A5 are found not guilty court

Sentence or In the result, the accused No. 1 to 5 are order found not guilty and they are acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under section 136 (1) (a) and alternate charge under section 136(1) (b) of Indian Electricity Act, 2003, Unmarked property if any , shall be returned to the concerned after appeal time is over. The accused No. 1 to 5 are in judicial custody. The Superintendent, District Jail, Chittoor is directed to release the accused No.1 to 5 forthwith if they are not required in any other case.

This case coming on 28-2-2017 before me for final hearing and upon perusing the charge sheet and other material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K.S.Jayaram, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri P. Dayasekhar, counsel for A.1, and of Smt. Swapna, counsel for A2 to A5, 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, Punganur police station filed charge sheet against the accused No. 1 to 5 for the offence punishable under sections 379 , 411 of I.P.C. and section 136(1)

(a) of Indian Electricity Act, 2003 in crime Nos. 69 of 2016 and 96 of 2016 of Punganur police station.

The case of the prosecution is as under :

2. On the intervening night of 10-3-2016 at the agricultural fields of B.G. Palli of Punganur Mandal, some unknown offenders have committed theft of transformer aluminum conductor winding wire worth Rs. 60,000/- by break opening three 15 KVA transformers belongs to APSPDCL.

3. On 12-5-2016 at the agricultural fields of B.G.Palli of Punganur Mandal, some unknown offenders have committed theft of copper conductor winding wire worth about

Rs. 60,000/- by break opening the same from three 15 KVA transformers belonging to APSPDCL.

4. P.W.1 has lodged Ex.P.1 complaint before G.

Anjappa. G. Anjappa after receipt of Ex.P.1 complaint has registered a case in crime No. 69 of 2016 under Ex.P.8. He examined P.W.1 and Venkatramana Reddy and recorded their statements in the police station, visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketches under Exs.P.9 to P.11. P.W.1 has lodged Ex.P.3 complaint before P.W.5. P.W.5 after receipt of

Ex.P.3 complaint, has registered a case in crime No. 96 of 2016 under Ex.P.12. He examined P.w.1 and another witness in the police station, visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketches under Exs.P.13 to P.15 and he also recorded the statement of other witnesses.

4. On 1-6-2016 at 9.00 A.M. P.W.3 has arrested accused No.1 to 5 at Maddinayanipalle cross, B. Kothakota road, Burakayalakota village of Molakalacheruvu mandal in crime No. 21 of 2016 in presence of P.W.2 and G. Narayana and he seized 441 kgs. of winding wire concerned in crime No. 21 of 2016 and other crimes under arrest cum seizure mahazar under Ex.P.5. P.W.5 received information about the arrest of the accused from P.W.3. He filed application before the Magistrate to issue P.T. warrant and after obtaining the same, he took custody of the accused on 9-6-2016. P.W.5 secured P.W.4 and

Sankar Reddy and interrogated the accused. Accused No. 1 to 5 have confessed that they have committed the theft and led them to Chandramakulapalle vanka near thorny bushes and produced the property. Confession statement of accused No.1 to 5 is prepared in the police station under Ex.P.6 and property is also seized under Ex.P.7. On 15-6-2016 he called p.W.1 to the police station to identify the stolen property . P.W.1 after identifying the property has issued Ex.P.2 certificate, after completing investigation he filed charge sheet.

5. The case is taken on file for the offence under section 136(1) (a) of Indian Evidence Act.

6. On appearance of accused, copies of documents are furnished to them.

7. After hearing the prosecution and the learned defence counsel charge under section 136 (1) (a) or 136 (1) (b) of Indian Electricity Act, is framed against the accused, read over and explained to them in Telugu and they pleaded not guilty.

8. Prosecution has examined PWs.1 to PW5 , got marked Exs.P-1 to Ex.P-15. Additional Public Prosecutor has given up Y. Venkatramana Reddy ( LW2), G. Venkata Reddy ( LW3), B. Subbakka ( LW4), K. Subramanyam Reddy (LW5),

G.Narayana ( LW7), A. Sankar Reddy ( LW9), and G. Anjappa ( LW11).

9. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C, explained the incriminating evidence appearing against them in Telugu, for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

10. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused. Perused the material on record.

11. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution could able to prove

the guilt of the

accused for the offence under section 136(1)

(a) or 136(1)(b) of

Indian Electricity Act, beyond reasonable

doubt ?

F.I.R. and scene of offence:

12. P.W.1 deposed that he came to know about the commission of offence through the villagers from

Kondasamudram, Kothapalle and Gudurpalli and also through his staff by name Y. Venkataramana Reddy. He visited the scene of offence along with Y. Venkataramana Reddy and confirmed about the theft. The property which is committed theft is copper winding wire and its weight is 120 kgs , worth Rs.

60,000/-. Place of offence is three scene of offences , and the property committed theft is from three 15 KVA transformers.

On 19-3-2016 he lodged Ex.P.1 complaint before G. Anjappa.

P.W.1 further deposed that he came to know through his staff by name Venkataramana Reddy that some unknown offenders have committed theft of copper winding wire by break opening electric transformers and committed theft of 120 kgs of copper wire worth Rs. 60,000/- from three 15 KVA transformers. On 17-5-2016 he lodged Ex.P.3 complaint before P.W.5. In his cross examination he stated that he did not receive written complaint from the villagers about the commission of offence , he did not mention the descriptive particulars of the property in

Exs.P.1 and P.3.

13. P.W.5 deposed that G. Anjappa Assistant Sub

Inspector of police has received Ex.P.1 from P.W.1 on 19-3- 2016. G. Anjappa basing on Ex.P.1 registered a cacse in crime

No. 69 of 2016 under Ex.P. 8. Anjappa examined P.W.1,

Venkataramana Reddy in the police and recorded their 161

Cr.P.C. statements. Anjappa has visited the scene of offence and prepared Exs.P.9 to P.11 and also examined other witnesses.

P.W.5 further deposed that on 17-5-2016 at about 1 P.M. while he was in the police station, he received Ex.P.3 complaint from

P.W.1. Basing on Ex.P.3 complaint, he registered a case in crime

No. 96 of 2016 under Ex.P.12. He examined P.W.1 and

Venkataramana Reddy in the police station and recorded their statements, visited the scene of offence and prepared Exs.P.13 to

P.15 and also examined other witnesses at the scene of offence.

In his cross examination he stated that there is a delay of 8 days in lodging complaint in crime No. 69 of 2016 under Ex.P.8. He further admitted that there is a delay of 3 days in lodging

Ex.P.3 by P.W.1 in crime No. 96 of 2016 under Ex.P.12 and

P.W.1 did not annex any documents to Exs.P.1 and P.3 while giving complaint to the police and he further stated that

P.W.1 did not annex any complaints given by the consumers to

Exs. P.1 and P.3 . He denied the suggestion that a false case is registered against the accused.

14. Ex.P.1 is the complaint lodged by P.W.1. On perusal of Ex.P.1 consumers of Kondasamudram, Gudurupalli,

Kothapalli have reported the matter to the section office contending that some unknown offenders have committed theft of winding wire on the mid night of 10-3-2016 from three 15

KVA transformers. As per Ex.P.1 the property which is committed theft is aluminum winding wire worth Rs. 60,000/-. But P.W.1 has lodged Ex.P.1 complaint on 19-3-2016 at about 4.30 p.m.

before Anjappa. G. Anjappa after receipt of Ex.P.1 complaint,

has registered a case in crime No. 69 of 2016 on 19-3-2016 under section 379 of I.P.C. and section 136(1) of Indian Electricity

Act against unknown offenders. The reasons mentioned for the delay in column No. 8 of Ex.P.8 is that they have searched for the stolen property. P.W.5 has admitted in his cross examination that there is a delay of 8 days in lodging Ex.P.1 complaint before

Anjappa. The reasons mentioned in column No. 8 of Ex.P. 8 is not satisfactory. P.W.1 did not depose in his chief examination about the delay caused in lodging Ex.P.1 complaint.

15. On perusal of Ex.P.3 consumers of

Kondasamudram, Gudurupalli, Kothapalli reported about the commission of offence in the section office on 16-3-2016 contending that on the mid night of 12-5-2016, some unknown offenders have committed theft of winding wire from three 15

KVA transformers. As per Ex.P.3 the stolen property is copper winding wire, worth Rs. 60,000/-. P.W.1 has lodged Ex.P.3 complaint before P.W.5 on 17-5-2016 at about 1.00 P.M. P.W.5 after receipt of Ex.P.3 complaint, has registered a case in crime No. 96 of 2016 on 17-5-2016 under section 379 of I.P.C.

and section 136(1) (a) of Indian Electricity Act against unknown offenders. P.W.5 has admitted in his cross examination that there is a delay of 3 days in lodging Ex.P.3 complaint in crime

No. 96 of 2016. As per Ex.P.3 commission of offence has taken place in the mid night of 12-5-2016, but there is a delay of 5 days in lodging Ex.P.3 complaint before P.W.5. In Ex.P.5 at column No. 8, the reasons for the delay is not mentioned. The admissions made by P.W.3 goes against the case of the prosecution. There is no explanation from P.W.1 or from P.W.5 why delay is caused in lodging Ex.P.1 complaint by P.W.1.

Admittedly Exs.P.8 and P.12 are registered against the unknown offenders. Prosecution has failed to explain the delay in lodging

Ex.P.1 and P.3 complaints. Hence, this point is answered accordingly.

Arrest , seizure and filing of the charge sheet:

16. In so far as arrest and seizure , prosecution is relying on the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.5.

16. P.W.2 deposed that on 1-6-2016 while he was in

M.R.O. office, Burakayalakota , at abut 8.30 a.m. along with

G. Narayana, one constable came to their office at about 9 a.m. stating that Sub Inspector of police, Molakalacheruvu is calling them. At the instance of Constable, they visited

Molakalacheruvu police station and during that time Sub Inspector of police, PTM, and Thambalapalle police were also present in the police station. They all left the police station and visited the Madinayanapalle cross situated at B. Kothakota road, by the time they reached the above said place, all the accused were holding eleven gunny bags, on seeing the police, accused tried to ran away. Police has caught hold all the accused and interrogated them and they have confessed that they have committed the offence at Peddamandyam,

Erravaripalyam, Bakarapeta, B. Kothakota, PTM, Thambalapalle and Molakalacheruvu and the gunny bags contains copper winding wire. Police have weighed the copper winding wire weighing about 441 kgs. police has taken the accused into custody and prepared arrest cum seizure mahazar under

Ex.P.5. Thereafter they have put their signatures. In his cross examination he stated that his office hours commences at 10.30 a.m. and police has not given any requisition to him to act as mediator to Ex.P.5, so also M.R.O. has not given any letter to him to act as mediator to Ex.P.5 and he visited the police station by 8.30 A.M. and the distance from the police station to the place of offence is about 8 K.Ms. Madinayanipalle cross roads leads to B. Kothakota to Madanapalle, he cannot say the

PC numbers with whom he accompanied. He further stated in his cross examination that it is not mentioned in Ex.P.5 how may persons are carrying the bags , so also it is not mentioned in Ex.P.5 that each bag is weighed and he cannot say the exact contents of Ex.P.5. On the dictation of Sub Inspector , one constable has prepared Ex.P.5 and he do not know his name. He further stated that it is not mentioned in Ex.P.5 that the copies are served on all the accused. In all the eleven bags there is copper winding wire, he cannot say the names of all the accused who are present in the court hall and he do not know the crime number mentioned in Ex.P.5. He denied the suggestion that Ex.P.5 is not prepared in his presence and at the instance of police, he signed the document at the police station and he is a stock witness to the police.

17. P.W.3 deposed that on 1-6-2016 he received credible information from Circle Inspector of police,

Molakalacheruvu. P.W.2 and another mediator, two Sub

Inspectors of police and other staff members went to

Madinayanapalle cross road which leads to B. Kothakota. There he has noticed five persons are standing with 11 urea gunny bags. On seeing them, they tried to ran away , on interrogation accused No.1 to 5 revealed their names and confessed that they have committed the offences at

Molakalacheruvu, Peddamandyam, B. Kothakota, PTM mandal,

Mandapalle, Punganur, Chinnagottigallu, Yerravaripalem and they also confessed that they were proceeding to Karnataka to sell the property which they have committed theft and he verified the 11 bags. He prepared arrest cum seizure mahazar under Ex.P.5 in the presence of P.W.2 and all the documents are given to the accused and they have put their signatures.

Himself, P.W.2 and another mediator have also signed on Ex.P.5.

In his cross examination he stated that he did not issue any letter to M.R.O. to depute two persons to act as mediators.

P.W.2 and another mediator came to the police station at about 8.30 a.m. Witness adds that when they were on their way to the scene of offence, they have picked up P.W.2 and another mediator at Kadiri road. He did not mention the specific location where the alleged accused were standing so also he did not mention in Ex.P.5 which accused is holding how many number of bags. He further stated in his cross examination that it is not mentioned in Ex.P.5 that the accused were standing with urea bags and he did not mention in Ex.P.5 that each bag is weighed, so also he did not mention in Ex.P.5 that he obtained signatures of the accused, P.W.2 and another mediator, affixed labels on 11 bags and all the 11 bags are similar in nature and he has no record to show that the property recovered by him is bag No. 3 to 11 belongs to different crimes of different police stations. He further stated in his cross examination that he did not secure any material pertaining to the crimes of different police stations and as per Ex.P.5 he has seized only copper wire from the alleged accused and he did not prepare separate mahazar. P.W.3 has denied the suggestion that he did not arrest all the accused nor prepared

Ex.P.5 in presence of P.W.2.

18. P.W.4 deposed that Punganur police has called him and A. Sankar Reddy to the police station at morning hours. He and Sankar Reddy has visited the police station at 11 a.m. and he has seen the accused No.1 to 5 in the police station on 13-6- 2016. Sub Inspector of police has interrogated the accused in the police station and t hey revealed that they have committed the offence at Punganur and Chowdepalli and he further confessed that they have hidden the property at

Chandramakulapalle vank near thorny bushes. Police has prepared confession mahazar under Ex.P.6 dated 13-6-2016 at 12.15 P.M. Accused has led them to Chandramakulapalle , near vanka and one of the accused went into the bushes and produced six gunny bags. Police has opened the gunny bags and found copper winding wire . Witness has voluntarily stated that two bags are containing winding wire about 60 kgs and third bag contains 70 kgs, fourth and sixth bag contains 50 kgs and another bag contains 30 kgs. Police has seized the property under seizure mahazar under Ex.P.7. He and Sankar

Reddy has signed on Ex.P.6 and P.7 and copies were also given to the accused and they have also put their signatures. In his cross examination he stated that by the time he reached police station, Sankar Reddy was present there at and he do not know the crime number mentioned in Ex.P.6 and P.7 so also he do not know the location where the property was seized under Ex.P.7.

He do not know the fathers names of the accused and he do not know the name of the constable who scribed Ex.P.6 and P.7. He further stated in his cross examination that there is no endorsement in Exs.P.6 and P.7 that the notices are served on the accused. He admitted that the descriptive particulars of gunny bags is not mentioned in Ex.P.7, he cannot say the correct weight of the each bag brought by the accused from the bushes and he denied that the accused did not confess that they have committed the offence under Ex.P.6 and he also denied the suggestion that the accused did not led them to

Chandramakulapalle and did not produce the property and seizure mahazar is not prepared and he is giving false evidence.

19. P.W.5 deposed that on 2-6-2016 he received information from P.W.3 about the arrest of accused No.1 to 5 in crime No. 21 of 2016. On4-6-2016 he sent one constable and received the relevant documents . On the same day he filed P.T.

warrant before the concerned Magistrate and obtained the proceedings. On 9-6-2016 he filed an application for custody of the accused and he obtained proceedings on 13-6-2016, he secured the presence of P.W.4 and Sankar Reddy and examined the accused . Accused have confessed that that they have committed the offence under Ex.P.6 and the accused have led them to Chandramakulapalle and produced six plastic gunny bags and he seized the property under Ex.P.7. The property concerned in crime No. 69 of 2016 is 70 kgs of aluminum winding wire of Punganur police station. The property concerned in crime No. 96 of 2016 is about 60 kgs copper winding wire .

On 15-6-2016 he called P.W.1 to the police station to identify the property. P.W.1 after identifying the property has got issued

Ex.P.2 certificate in respect of crime No. 69 of 2015 and Ex.P.4 certificate in respect of crime No. 96 of 2016 and after completing investigation , he filed charge sheet. In his cross examination he stated that he did not serve any notice to P.W.4 and Sankar Reddy to act as mediators to Exs.P.6 and P.7. He further stated that he did not prepare rough sketch at

Chandramakulapalle near vanka and he did not examine any other witnesses at Chandramakulapalle as it is a forest area and he further admitted that he did not mention the descriptive particulars of bags in Ex.P. 7. He further stated in his cross examination that he has no document to show the property which is committed theft and the property identified by P.W.1 under Exs. P.2 and P.4 are one and the same and t he weight of the property is not mentioned in Exs.P.1 and P.3. P.W.5 has denied the suggestion that Exs. P. 6 and P. 7 are false documents and accused have not confessed that they have committed the offence under Ex.P. 6 and they did not produce any property

before him and Ex.P. 7 is a false document.

20. Ex.P.1 does not contain the weight of the property .

As per Ex.P.1 the stolen property is aluminum winding wire worth

Rs. 60,000/-. Ex.P.2 is the certificate got issued by P.W.1 on 15- 6-2016 that he has identified the property in the police station.

The property identified by him is aluminum winding wire. P.W.4 did not depose whether the property in crime No. 69 of 2016 is a copper winding wire or aluminum winding wire. P.W.4 has admitted in his cross examination that he do not know the location where the property is seized under Ex.P.7. So also he do not know the fathers names of the accused and the descriptive particulars of the property is not mentioned in Ex.P.7.

If really, P.W.4 has participated in the seizure mahazar under

Ex.P.7, definitely he would have known the location where the alleged property is seized by P.W.5 under Ex.P.7. P.W.4 has admitted in his cross examination that they were eight persons when they visited Chandramakulapalle. P.W.5 has admitted in his cross examination that he did not examine any of the persons who were present at Chandramakulapalle. So also he did not serve any notice on P.W.4, A. Sankar Reddy. P.W.5 has admitted that he did not prepare rough sketch at Chandramakulapalle near Vanka and he also admitted that descriptive particulars of the bags are not mentioned in Ex.P. 7. As per Exs.P.3 and P.4 certificate the property is copper winding wire. Weight of the property is not mentioned in Exs.P.3 and P.4. P.W.4 has also not deposed that which bag is concerned to which crime number.

But he simply stated that particular bag contains particular weight. P.W.5 for the first time has deposed in his evidence that crime No. 96 of 2016 property is 60 kgs of copper winding wire. When the weight of the property is not mentioned in Exs.P. 3 and P.4 how can police has seized particular weight of the property from the possession of the accused. As per the evidence of P.W.1 the property which is committed theft is 120 kgs of copper winding wire worth of Rs. 60,000/- in crime

No. 69 of 2016 and he also deposed in his chief examination that the property which is committed theft in crime No. 96 of 2016 is weighing about 120 kgs. of copper winding wire. The evidence of P.W.1 is contra to Exs.P.1 and P.2 and the evidence of

P.W.5 is contra to the evidence of P.W.1 in respect of the weight of the property in crime No. 69 of 2016 and crime No. 96 of 2016. The admissions made by P.W.1, P.W.4 and P.W.5 destroys the case of the prosecution about the weight of the property which is committed theft under Exs. P.1 and P.3.

21. P.W.2 in his chief examination has stated that all the accused were holding 11 gunny bags. Whereas P.W.3 stated five persons are standing with 11 urea gunny bags. In so far as the presence of P.W.2 at the time of Ex.P.5 is concerned,

P.W.2 has deposed in his chief examination that one constable has visited his office at about 9 a.m., he and Narayana have accompanied them to the Molakalacheruvu police station and thereafter they have left the place. As per cross examination of

P.W.2, his office hours commences from 10.30 a.m. There is no explanation from P.W.2 or from P.W.3 how come P.W.2 was present in the office by 8.30 a.m. P.W.3 has stated in his cross examination voluntarily that when they were on their way to the scene of offence, they have picked up P.W.2 and another mediator at Kadiri road. There is inconsistency in the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 about P.W.2 this visiting police station. P.W.2 has stated in his cross examination that he cannot say the weight of each bag. Prosecution has not produced any record to show that the property which is seized by P.W.3 under Ex.P.5 is the property belongs to Electricity department.

22. P.Ws. 4 and 5 have admitted in their cross examination that each bag is not weighed. If that is the case, how come P.W.5 came to know that the property which is seized by him is part and parcel of present crimes. P.W.2 and 4 in their cross examination has gone to the extent of saying that he cannot say the names of all the accused who are present in the court hall so also their descriptive particulars as it is prepared long back and he also do not remember the crime number of the present case. The evidence of P.W.2 and the evidence of P.W.3 is contra to each other and at one stretch

P.W.2 deposed that he went to the police station when one constable visited his office, whereas P.W.3 has given evidence contra to that of the evidence of P.W.2. P.W.3 has picked up

P.W.2 and another mediator when they were on their way to the scene of offence. The property which is seized by P.W.5 under

Ex.P.7 is not produced before the court . Except Exs.P.2 and P.4 certificates, there is no other document produced by the prosecution. Exs.P.2 and P.4, are also silent with regard to weight of the property and its value. Accused No.1 to 5 in their 313

Cr.P.C. examination stated that police has taken them from their houses and foisted a false case against them. When each bag is not weighed by P.W.5 while seizing the property, how can he come to the conclusion that the property which is seized by him is pertaining to present case.Similarly Exs.P.2 and P.4 arealso silent to that effect. Prosecution has not given any explanation about the delay in lodging Exs. P.1 and P.3 complaints before the police. Hence, prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, benefit of doubt is given to the accused.

23. In the result, the accused No. 1 to 5 are found not guilty and they are acquitted under section 235(1)

Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under section 136 (1) (a) and alternate charge under section 136(1) (b) of Indian Electricity Act, 2003, Unmarked property if any , shall be returned to the concerned after appeal time is over. The accused No. 1 to 5 are in judicial custody. The Superintendent, District Jail, Chittoor is directed to release the accused No.1 to 5 forthwith if they are not required in any other case.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant and after

transcription by him, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 13th day of March, 2017.

Sd/ B.R. Madusudhan Rao

I Additional District & Sessions Judge,

Chittoor.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Prosecution : Defence: P.W.1 C. Sasidhar –Nil- P.W.2 D.Venugopal Reddy P.W.3 Eswaraiah P.W.4 P. Sudhakar P.W.5 Hari Prasad

EXHIBITS MARKED

Prosecution : Ex.P.1 … Complaint given by P.W.1 to the police in cr. No.69/2016 Ex.P.2 … Certificate given by P.W.1 in Cr.No. 69/2016 Ex.P.3 … Complaint given by P.W.1 to the police in cr. No. 96/2016 Ex.P.4 … Certificate given by P.W.1 in Cr. No. 96/2016 Ex.P.5 … Mahazar dt. 1-6-2016 Ex.P.6 … Mahazar dt. 13-6-2016 at 12.15 P.M. Ex.P.7 … Mahazar dt. 13-6-2016 at 3.00 P.M. Ex.P.8 … First Information Report in Cr. No. 69/2016 Ex.P.9 … Rough sketch Ex.P.10 … Rough sketch Ex.P.11 … Rough sketch Ex.P.12 … First Information Report in Cr. No. 96/2016 Ex.P.13… Rough sketch Ex.P.14 … Rough sketch Ex.P.15 … Rough sketch Defence : -Nil- Material Objects marked: -Nil-

Sd/ B.R. Madusudhan Rao

I Additional District & Sessions Judge,

Chittoor.

In the court of the I Additional District & Sessions Judge,

Chittoor.

Present:-B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO,

Additional District & Sessions Judge.

Monday, the 13th (Thirteenth) day of March , 2017.

I.E.S.C. No. 68 of 2016

Cr.No. 24/2016 and 25/2016 of B.Kothakota Police station

Complainant The State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, B.Kothakota Police station

Accused 1. Avula Ramesh @ Mekala Ramesh @ Macha @ Murali, age 30 years, S/o Venkatappa @ Ramaiah, caste by Yerukula , Occu: Electrician and Gas Stove repairer R/o Pedballi, near Indian Bank, Puttaparthy Mandal N/o Bathalapalli town near MRO office, Ananthapur District.

2. Golla Surendra, age 25 years S/o Nettikallu, caste by Dasari, Occ: Coolie, R/o Indira colony, Gutthi Town and Mandal N/o Veerepalli Guthi Mandal, Ananthapur District.

3. Derangula Mohan, age 50 years, S/o Subbarayadu, caste by Vadde, Occ: Coolie R/o Indiramma colony, Ananthapur town, N/o Mydukur Town of Kadapa district.

4. Derangula Nagendra, age 26 years, S/o Subbarayadu, caste by Vaddi, Occ: Auto driver, R/o 7th Cross, Sai Nagar, Ananthapur town, N/o Mydukur town, Kadapa District.

5. Kadireppa Narasimhulu, age 35 years, S/o Late V. Kadireppa, caste by Valmiki, Occ: Coolie,R/oBandameedapalliH/o Thummarakunta, PTM Mandal, Chittoor District, N/o Chelooru, Bagepalli Taluk of Karnataka State.

The prosecution Sri K.S.Jayaram is conducted byAdditional Public Prosecutor.

The accused areSri P. Dayasekhar, counsel for A-1 defended bySmt. Swapna, counsel for A-2 to A-5

OFFENCEUnder Sec. 379,427 I.P.C. or 411 I.P.C. and u/sec. 136(1)(a) of Indian Electricity Act. ChargesUnder section 136 (1) (a) or 136(1) (b) of Indian Electricity Act, 2003, Plea of the Not Guilty accused Finding of the A1 to A5 are found not guilty court

Sentence or In the result, the accused No. 1 to 5 are order found not guilty and they are acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under section 136 (1) (a) and alternate charge under section 136(1) (b) of Indian Electricity Act, 2003, Unmarked property if any , shall be returned to the concerned after appeal time is over. The accused No. 1 to 5 are in judicial custody. The Superintendent, District Jail, Chittoor is directed to release the accused No.1 to 5 forthwith if they are not required in any other case.

This case coming on 28-2-2017 before me for final hearing and upon perusing the charge sheet and other material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K.S.Jayaram, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri P. Dayasekhar, counsel for A.1, and of Smt. Swapna, counsel for A2 to A5, 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, Punganur police station filed charge sheet against the accused No. 1 to 5 for the offence punishable under sections 427, 379 or 411 of I.P.C. and section 136(1) (a) of Indian Electricity Act, 2003 in crime Nos. 24 of 2016 and 25 of 2016 of B.Kothakota police station.

The case of the prosecution is as under :

2. On the intervening night of 15-5-2016 in the fields situated at Ujarlapalli, Kommuvanibavi near Government college, PTM road, B.Kothakota, Gollapalli, Peddapalli, B.

Kothakota mandal, some unknown offenders have broke opened the transformers and committed theft of 135 kgs from five 15 KVA and three 25 KVA transformers . The worth of the property is Rs. 35,000/- belonging to APSPDCL.

3. On the intervening night of 16-5-2016 at the fields of

Chandramakulapalle, B.Kothakota, Vujarlapalli , Beerangi and

Mogasala- marri, B.Kothakota mandal, some unknown offenders have broke opened the transformers and committed theft of copper winding wire weighing about 115 kgs. from four 15

KVA, one 16 KVA and three 25 KVA transformers worth of Rs.

34,000/- belonging to APSPDCL.

4. P.W.1 has lodged Ex.P.1 complaint before P.W.4.

P.W.4 after receipt of Ex.P.1 complaint, has registered a case in crime No. 24 of 2016 under Ex.P.6. He examined P.W.1 in the police station , visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketches under Exs.P.7 to P.14. He examined P. Ravindra Reddy,

P. Ramadevi, P. Venkatesh, K. Ramana, K. VEnkatarayappa, R.

Suresh, R. Venkatesh, K. Khader Bee, E. Srinivasulu, E.

Gangulappa, S. Narasimhulu and D.V. Ramaiah and recorded their statements. P.W.1 has lodged another complaint before

P.W.5 under Ex.P.3. P.W.5 after receipt of Ex.P.3 complaint , has registered a case in crime No. 25 of 2016 under Ex.P.15. He examined P.W.1 in the police station, recorded his statement, visited the scene of offences and prepared rough sketches under Exs.P.16 to P.23 and he examined other witnesses.

5. On 1-6-2016 at about 9 A.M. P.W.3 has arrested accused No.1 to 5 at Maddinayanipalli cross, near

Burakayalakota village, Molakalacheruvu mandal in crime No. 21 of 2016 of Molakalacheruvu police station in presence of P.W.2 and prepared arrest cum seizure mahazar. P.W.6 has obtained attested copies of arrest mahazar and stolen property on 6-6- 2016. On 7-6-2016 he filed application for P.T. warrant . On 10- 6-2016 he produced accused No.1 to 5 before the Magistrate .

On 15-6-2016 he called P.W.1 to the police station to identify the property. P.W.1 after identifying the stolen property, has issued

Exs.P.2 and P.4 certificates. After completing the investigation he filed charge sheet in crime Nos. 24 of 2016 and 25 of 2016.

6. The case is taken on file for the offence under section 136(1) (a) of Indian Evidence Act.

7. On appearance of accused, copies of documents are furnished to them.

8. After hearing the prosecution and the learned defence counsel charge under section 136 (1) (a) or 136 (1) (b) of Indian Electricity Act, is framed against the accused, read over and explained to them in Telugu and they pleaded not guilty.

9. Prosecution has examined PWs.1 to PW6 , got marked Exs.P-1 to Ex.P-23. Additional Public Prosecutor has given up K. Adinarayana (LW2), P. Ravindranath Reddy ( LW3), P.

Ramadevi (LW4), T. Venkatesh (LW5), S. Masthan valli ( LW6),

K.Ramana (LW7), B. Venkatrayappa ( LW8), C. Gangaiah ( LW9), S.

Narasimhulu ( LW10), V. Ananda Reddy (LW11), D.Venkatramaiah (

LW12), K. Lakshmikar ( LW13), R. Suresh ( LW14), R. Venkatesh ( LW15), D. Ramakrishna Reddy (LW16), K.Kadhar Bee ( LW17), E.

Sreenivasulu ( LW18), E. Gangulappa (LW19), P. Krishna Reddy (LW20), Mekala Venkataramana ( LW21), Ganagani Kittanna ( LW22), Lavani Haffez Khan ( LW23), Guntipalli Sivasankarappa (

LW24), Gunthuri Venkatramana ( LW25), Kummara Mohan ( LW 26), Shaik Abeeda Parvin (LW27), Yerragunta Gangi Reddy ( LW28), S. Ashok Babu ( LW29), B. Manohar Reddy ( LW30),Y.

Krishna Reddy ( LW31), G. Narayana ( LW33).

10. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C, explained the incriminating evidence appearing against them in Telugu, for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

11. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused. Perused the material on record.

12. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution could able to prove

the guilt of the

accused for the offence under section 136(1)

(a) or 136(1)(b) of

Indian Electricity Act, beyond reasonable

doubt ?

F.I.R. and scene of offence:

12. P.W.1 deposed that on 16-5-2016 at about 8. 30 A.M.

he came to know through his staff and consumers that some unknown offenders have committed theft of copper winding wire from five 15 KVA and three 25 KVA transformers in the fields of

Ujarlapalle, Kommubavi, Ontillu, PTM road, near Junior college,

Painters colony and Badikayalapalle. The weight of the property is 95 kgs. and worth Rs. 35,000/-. He visited the scene of offence along with his staff, confirmed about the theft and lodged

Ex.P.1 complaint.

13. P.W.1 further deposed that on 17-5-2016 at about 9.00 A.M. while he was in his office, he came to know about the theft of copper winding wire from five 15 KVA and three 25 transformers in the fields of Chandramakulapalle, E.

Sadum cross, near HNSS canal , Beerangi Road, Mogasalamari,

Ujaralapalle cross by some unknown offenders, the weight of the winding wire is 90 kgs. and worth of Rs. 34,000/-. He visited the scene of offence along with his staff, confirmed about the theft and lodged Ex.P.3.

14. P.W.1 has lodged Ex.P.1 complaint before

P.W.4 and Ex.P.3 complaint before P.W.5. In his cross examination, he stated that he received complaints given by the consumers , but he has not handed over the same to the police and he did not give any documentary evidence to the police while lodging Ex.P.1 complaint and he did not mention the descriptive particulars of the stolen property in Exs.P.1 and

P.3.

15. P.W.4 deposed that on 16-5-2016 at about 4 P.M.

while he was in the police station, P.W.1 has lodged Ex.P.1 complaint , basing o n Ex.P.1 he registered a case in crime No.

24 of 2016 under Ex.P.6. He has examined P.W.1 in the police station , visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketches

Exs.P.7 to P.14 and also examined other witnesses. In his cross examination he admitted that P.W.1 did not annex any document to Ex.P.1 to show that the property committed theft belongs to Electricity department. He also stated that Ex. P.1 is silent with regard to weight of the property and P.W.1 did not annex any complaints given by the consumers while lodging

Ex.P.1 complaint. He denied the suggestion that he did not visit the scene of offences and has not prepared Exs.P. 7 to

P.14 nor examined the witnesses and for statistical purpose, he registered Ex.P.1.

16. P.W.5 deposed that on 17-5-2016 at about 4

P.M. he received Ex.P.1 complaint from P.W.1 , he registered a case in crime No. 25 of 2016 under Ex.P.15, he examined

P.W.1 and recorded his statement, he visited the scene of offence , prepared rough sketches under Exs.P.16 to P.23 and examined other witnesses. In his cross examination he admitted that weight of the property is not mentioned in Ex.P.3, so also

P.W.1 did not submit any complaints lodged by consumer along with Ex.P.3. He denied the suggestion that he did not visit the scene of offence nor examined P.Ws. 1 and 2 and other witnesses , nor prepared Exs.P.16 to P.23.

17. On perusal of Ex.P.1 commission of offence has taken place on 15-5-2016. It is also mentioned in Ex.P.1 that consumers have lodged complaints before P.W.1 on 16-5-2016 itself. P.W.1 after confirming the theft, has lodged Ex.P.1 on 16- 5-2016 at about 4 P.M. against unknown offenders. P.W.4 basing on Ex.P.1 has registered a case in crime No. 24 of 2016 on 16-5-2016 under section 136(1) (a) of Electricity Act, sections 427 and 379 of I.P.C. against unknown offenders.

Ex.P.3 is another complaint lodged by P.W.1. On perusal of

Ex.P.3 , commission of offence has taken place on 16-5-2016 and the same is mentioned in Ex.P.3. P.W.1 has lodged Ex.P.3 complaint on 17-5-2016 at about 4 P.M. P.W.5 basing on

Ex.P.3, has registered a case in crime No. 25 of 2016 o n 17-5- 2016 under section 427, 379 of I.P.C. and section 136(1) (a) of

Indian Electricity Act against unknown offenders.

18. As per the evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.5 , they have examined P.W. 1 in the police station and visited the scene of offences, prepared rough sketches under Exs. P. 7 to P.14, P.16 to

P.23. P.W.1 has admitted in his cross examination that he has received complaints from the consumers, but he did not hand over the same to the police while lodging Exs.P.1 and P.3 complaints. P.Ws. 4 and 5 have also admitted in their cross examination that P.W.1 has not annexed any complaints given by the consumers to prove that the property is committed theft at various places under Exs.P. 7 to P.14 and Exs.P.16 to P.23.

Admittedly Ex.P.6 and P.15 are registered against unknown offenders. There is no explanation from prosecution why P.W. 1 has not annexed the complaints given by consumers , so also prosecution has not examined the consumers who lodged complaints before P.W.1 for the best reasons known to them.

Hence, this point is answered accordingly.

Arrest , seizure and filing of the charge sheet:

16. In so far as arrest and seizure , prosecution is relying on the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.6.

17. P.W.2 deposed that on 1-6-2016 while he was in

M.R.O. office, Burakayalakota , at abut 8.30 a.m. along with

G. Narayana, one constable came to their office at about 9 a.m. stating that Sub Inspector of police, Molakalacheruvu is calling them. At the instance of Constable, they visited

Molakalacheruvu police station and during that time Sub Inspector of police, PTM, and Thambalapalle police were also present in the police station. They all left the police station and visited the Madinayanapalle cross situated at B. Kothakota road, by the time they reached the above said place, all the accused were holding eleven gunny bags, on seeing the police, accused tried to ran away. Police has caught hold all the accused and interrogated them and they have confessed that they have committed the offence at Peddamandyam,

Erravaripalyam, Bakarapeta, B. Kothakota, PTM, Thambalapalle and Molakalacheruvu and the gunny bags contains copper winding wire. Police have weighed the copper winding wire weighing about 441 kgs. police has taken the accused into custody and prepared arrest cum seizure mahazar under

Ex.P.5. Thereafter they have put their signatures. In his cross examination he stated that his office hours commences at 10.30 a.m. and police has not given any requisition to him to act as mediator to Ex.P.5, so also M.R.O. has not given any letter to him to act as mediator to Ex.P.5 and he visited the police station by 8.30 A.M. and the distance from the police station to the place of offence is about 8 K.Ms. . Madinayanipalle cross roads leads to B. Kothakota to Madanapalle, he cannot say the

PC numbers with whom he accompanied. He further stated in his cross examination that it is not mentioned in Ex.P.5 how may persons are carrying the bags , so also it is not mentioned in Ex.P.5 that each bag is weighed and he cannot say the exact contents of Ex.P.5. On the dictation of Sub Inspector , one constable has prepared Ex.P.5 and he do not know his name. He further stated that it is not mentioned in Ex.P.5 that the copies are served on all the accused. In all the eleven bags there is copper winding wire, he cannot say the names of all the accused who are present in the court hall and he do not know the crime number mentioned in Ex.P.5. He denied the suggestion that Ex.P.5 is not prepared in his presence and at the instance of police, he signed the document at the police station and he is a stock witness to the police.

18. P.W.3 deposed that on 1-6-2016 he received credible information from Circle Inspector of police,

Molakalacheruvu. P.W.2 and another mediator, two Sub

Inspectors of police and other staff members went to

Madinayanapalle cross road which leads to B. Kothakota. There he has noticed five persons are standing with 11 urea gunny bags. On seeing them, they tried to ran away , on interrogation accused No.1 to 5 revealed their names and confessed that they have committed the offences at

Molakalacheruvu, Peddamandyam, B. Kothakota, PTM mandal,

Mandapalle, Punganur, Chinnagottigallu, Yerravaripalem and they also confessed that they were proceeding to Karnataka to sell the property which they have committed theft and he verified the 11 bags. He prepared arrest cum seizure mahazar under Ex.P.5 in the presence of P.W.2 and all the documents are given to the accused and they have put their signatures.

Himself, P.W.2 and another mediator have also signed on Ex.P.5.

In his cross examination he stated that he did not issue any letter to M.R.O. to depute two persons to act as mediators.

P.W.2 and another mediator came to the police station at about 8.30 a.m. Witness adds that when they were on their way to the scene of offence, they have picked up P.W.2 and another mediator at Kadiri road. He did not mention the specific location where the alleged accused were standing so also he did not mention in Ex.P.5 which accused is holding how many number of bags. He further stated in his cross examination that it is not mentioned in Ex.P.5 that the accused were standing with urea bags and he did not mention in Ex.P.5 that each bag is weighed, so also he did not mention in Ex.P.5 that he obtained signatures of the accused, P.W.2 and another mediator, affixed labels on 11 bags and all the 11 bags are similar in nature and he has no record to show that the property recovered by him is bag No. 3 to 11 belongs to different crimes of different police stations. He further stated in his cross examination that he did not secure any material pertaining to the crimes of different police stations and as per Ex.P.5 he has seized only copper wire from the alleged accused and he did not prepare separate mahazar. P.W.3 has denied the suggestion that he did not arrest all the accused nor prepared

Ex.P.5 in presence of P.W.2.

19. P.W.6 deposed that on 20-5-2016 he received

C.D. file from P.W.4 in respect of crime No. 24 of 2016. He further deposed that on 20-5-2016 he received C.D. file from

P.W.5. He verified the investigation done by P.W.4 and P.W.5 and found it on correct lines. On 1-6-2016 he received information from P.W.3 about the arrest of the accused in crime No. 21 of 2016 of Molakalacheruvu police station, he obtained the attested copies of arrest mahazar and stolen property on 6-6-2016. On 7-6-2016 he filed the application for P.T. warrant. On 10-6- 2016 he obtained P.T. warrant from the concerned court and on the same day he produced the accused before the

Magistrate. On 15-6-2016 he called P.W.1 to the police station

to identify the property. P.W.1 after identifying the property got issued Exs. P.2 and P.4. After completing investigation, he filed charge sheet. In his cross examination he stated that P.W.3 has handed over the property and material documents and P.W.3 has not furnished any material to show that the property seized by him are pertaining to the crime No. 24 of 2016 and 25 of 2016. He further stated in his cross examination that P.W.1 has not furnished any document while identifying the property under Exs.P.2 and P.4 to prove that the property committed theft at different places is very same property identified by him while issuing Exs.P.2 and P. 4 certificates. He denied the suggestion that his investigation is table investigation and the property is planted for the purpose of the case.

20. P.W.1 in his cross examination stated that he did not receive any requisition from the police to identify the property and there is no material to show that the property which is identified by him under Ex. P.2 and P.4 belongs to the department. Witness has voluntarily stated that entire wire is dipped in oil and he can identify the property that it belongs to department. P.W.1 has further stated in his cross examination that he did not mention the descriptive particulars of the property stolen under Ex.P.1 and P.3. He denied the suggestion that he issued Exs.P.2 and P.4 certificates in a routine manner.

21. P.W.6 has also admitted in his cross examination that P.W.1 has not furnished any document while identifying the property under Exs.P.2 and P.4 to show that the property committed theft at different places is the very same property which is identified by him.

22. On perusal of Exs.P.1 and P.3 weight of the property is not mentioned. Exs.P.2 and P.4 certificates got issued by P.W.1 goes to show that he has received 135 kgs of copper winding wire from P.W.6 while he was called to the police station to identify the property. As per the evidence of P.W.3 sixth, seventh and eighth bag contains 135 kgs of copper wire which relates to B.Kothakota in crime No. 24 of 2016. Ninth, tenth and eleventh bag contains 1150 kgs of copper wire which relates to B. Kothakota in crime No. 25 of 2016. When the weight of the property is not mentioned in Exs. P.1 and P.3 how

P.W.6 has called P.W.1 and handed over the property to him.

Exs.P.2 and P.4 documents goes to show that 135 kgs of copper winding wire is handed over to P.W.1. The property identified by P.W.1 under Ex.P.4 is in respect of crime No. 25 of 2016 , it is contra to the evidence of P.W.3. There is no explanation from the prosecution how 135 kgs of property is taken by P.W.1 which is contra to his chief examination. P.W.6 has admitted that P.W.1 has not produced any document while identifying the property under Exs.P.2 and P.4. In absence of explanation from P.W.1, it can not be believed that the property committed theft under Exs.P.1 and P.3 is 135 kgs. each. The property is also not produced before the court for identification purpose.

23. P.W.2 in his chief examination has stated that all the accused were holding 11 gunny bags. Whereas P.W.3 stated five persons are standing with 11 urea gunny bags. In so far as the presence of P.W.2 at the time of Ex.P.5 is concerned,

P.W.2 has deposed in his chief examination that one constable has visited his office at about 9 a.m., he and Narayana have accompanied them to the Molakalacheruvu police station and thereafter they have left the place. As per cross examination of

P.W.2, his office hours commences from 10.30 a.m. There is no explanation from P.W.2 or from P.W.3 how come P.W.2 was present in the office by 8.30 a.m. P.W.3 has stated in his cross examination voluntarily that when they were on their way to the scene of offence, they have picked up P.W.2 and another mediator at Kadiri road. There is inconsistency in the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 P.W.2 this visiting police station. P.W.2 has stated in his cross examination that he cannot say the weight of each bag. Prosecution has not produced any record to show that the property which is seized by P.W.3 under Ex.P.5 is the property belongs to Electricity department.

24. P.Ws. 2 and 3 have admitted in their cross examination that each bag is not weighed. If that is the case, how come P.W.3 came to know that the property which is seized by him is part and parcel of present crimes. P.W.2 in his cross examination has gone to the extent of saying that he cannot say the names of all the accused who are present in the court hall so also their descriptive particulars as it is prepared long back and he also do not remember the crime number of the present case. The evidence of P.W.2 and the evidence of

P.W.3 is contra to each other and at one stretch P.W.2 deposed that he went to the police station when one constable visited his office, whereas P.W.3 has given evidence contra to that of the evidence of P.W.2. P.W.3 has picked up P.W.2 and another mediator when they were on their way to the scene of offence.

The property which is seized by P.W.3 under Ex.P.5 is not produced before the court . Except Exs.P.2 and P.4 certificates, there is no other document produced by the prosecution.

Accused No.1 to 5 in their 313 Cr.P.C. examination stated that police has taken them from their houses and foisted a false case against them. When each bag is not weighed by P.W.3 while seizing the property, how can he come to the conclusion that the property which is seized by him is pertaining to present case.Similarly Exs.P.2 and P.4 are also silent to that effect.

Prosecution has not given any explanation about the delay in lodging Exs. P.1 and P.3 complaints before the police. Hence, prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, benefit of doubt is given to the accused.

25. In the result, the accused No. 1 to 5 are found not guilty and they are acquitted under section 235(1)

Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under section 136 (1) (a) and alternate charge under section 136(1) (b) of Indian Electricity Act, 2003, Unmarked property if any , shall be returned to the concerned after appeal time is over. The accused No. 1 to 5 are in judicial custody. The Superintendent, District Jail, Chittoor is directed to release the accused No.1 to 5 forthwith if they are not required in any other case.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant and after

transcription by him, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 13th day of March, 2017.

Sd/ B.R. Madhusudhan Rao

I Additional District & Sessions Judge,

Chittoor.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Prosecution : Defence: P.W.1 J. David Sanjay –Nil- P.W.2 D.Venugopal Reddy P.W.3 Eswaraiah P.W.4 K. Masthan P.W.5 K. Mahadeva Naik P.W.6 B.V. Sivaprasad Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED

Prosecution : Ex.P.1 … Complaint given by P.W.1 to the police in cr. No.24/2016 Ex.P.2 … Certificate given by P.W.1 in Cr.No. 24/2016 Ex.P.3 … Complaint given by P.W.1 to the police in cr. No. 25/2016 Ex.P.4 … Certificate given by P.W.1 in Cr. No. 25/2016 Ex.P.5 … Confession and seizure Mahazar Ex.P.6 … First Information Report in Cr. No. 24/2016

Ex.P.7 … Rough sketch Ex.P.8 … Rough sketch Ex.P.11 … Rough sketch Ex.P.12 … Rough sketch Ex.P.13 … Rough sketch Ex.P.14 … Rough sketch Ex.P.15 … First Information Report in Cr. No. 25/2016 Ex.P.16… Rough sketch Ex.P.17 … Rough sketch Ex.P.18 … Rough sketch Ex.P.19 … Rough sketch Ex.P.20 … Rough sketch Ex.P.21 … Rough sketch Ex.P.22 … Rough sketch Ex.P.23 … Rough sketch Defence : -Nil- Material Objects marked: -Nil-

Sd/ B.R. Madhusudhan Rao

I Additional District & Sessions Judge,

Chittoor.

1

In the court of the I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Chittoor.

Present:-B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO,

Additional District & Sessions Judge.

Monday, the 13th (Thirteenth) day of March , 2017.

I.E.S.C. No. 65 of 2016

Cr.No. 59 of 2016 of Madanapalle Police station

Complainant The State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Madanapalle Taluk Police station

Accused 1.Avula Ramesh @ Mekala Ramesh @ Macha @ Murali, age 30 years, S/o Venkatappa @ Ramaiah, caste by Yerukula , Occu: Electrician and Gas Stove repairer R/o Pedballi, near Indian Bank, Puttaparthy Mandal N/o Bathalapalli town near MRO office, Ananthapur District.

2.Golla Surendra, age 25 years S/o Nettikallu, caste by Dasari, Occ: Coolie, R/o Indira colony, Gutthi Town and Mandal N/o Veerepalli Guthi Mandal, Ananthapur District.

3.Derangula Mohan, age 50 years, S/o Subbarayadu, caste by Vadde, Occ: Coolie R/o Indiramma colony, Ananthapur town, N/o Mydukur Town of Kadapa district.

4.Derangula Nagendra, age 26 years, S/o Subbarayadu, caste by Vaddi, Occ: Auto driver, R/o 7th Cross, Sai Nagar, Ananthapur town, N/o Mydukur town, Kadapa District.

5.Kadireppa Narasimhulu, age 35 years, S/o Late V. Kadireppa, caste by Valmiki, Occ: Coolie, R/o Bandameedapalli H/o Thummarakunta, PTM Mandal, Chittoor District, N/o Chelooru, Bagepalli Taluk of Karnataka State.

The prosecution is Sri K.S.Jayaram conducted byAdditional Public Prosecutor.

The accused are Sri P. Dayasekhar, counsel for A-1 defended bySmt. Swapna, counsel for A-2 to A-5

OFFENCE Under Sec. 379, 427 I.P.C. or 411 I.P.C. and u/sec. 136(1) of Indian Electricity Act. Charges Under section 136 (1) (a) or 136(1) (b) of Indian Electricity Act, 2003, Plea of the accused Not Guilty

Finding of the A1 to A5 are found not guilty court 2

Sentence or order In the result, the accused No. 1 to 5 are found not guilty and they are acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under section 136 (1) (a) and alternate charge under section 136(1) (b) of Indian Electricity Act, 2003, Unmarked property if any , shall be returned to the concerned after appeal time is over. The accused No. 1 to 5 are in judicial custody. The Superintendent, District Jail, Chittoor is directed to release the accused No.1 to 5 forthwith if they are not required in any other case.

This case coming on 28-2-2017 before me for final hearing and upon perusing the charge sheet and other material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K.S.Jayaram, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri P. Dayasekhar, counsel for A.1, and of Smt. Swapna, counsel for A2 to A5, 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, Madanapalle Taluk police station filed charge sheet against the accused No. 1 to 5 for the offence punishable under sections 379 , 427 of I.P.C. or 411 of I.P.C. and section 136(1) of

Indian Electricity Act, 2003 in crime No. 59 of 2016 of Madanapalle police station.

The case of the prosecution is as under :

2. Prior to 22-4-2016 at the agricultural fields of Chippili, Kothapalli and Vallasapalle villages of Madanapalle Mandal , P.W.1 came to know that some unknown offenders have committed theft of winding wire from three 25 KVA and two 16 KVA transformers by break opening the same and committed theft. Stolen property is weighing about 50 kgs, worth

Rs. 25,000/-. P.W.1 has lodged Ex.P.1 complaint before P.W.4. P.W.4 after receipt of Ex.P.1 complaint has registered a case in crime No. 59 of 2016 under section 379, 427 of I.P.C. and section 136(1) of Indian Electricity

Act of Madanapalle Taluk police station and investigated the case. P.W.1 has visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketches under

Exs.P. 5 to P.9 and also examined P.W.1 and other witnessed at the scene of offence, recorded their statements and thereafter handed over the file to B.Ravi Prakash Reddy ( P.W.5) for further investigation.

3. On 1-6-2016 at about 9-00 A.M. P.W.3 has arrested accused

No.1 to 5 at B.Kothakota cross, on B. Kothakota- Molakalacheruvu road concerned in crime No. 21 of 2016 under sections 379, 447, 427 I.P.C. and 3 section 136 (1) (a) of Electricity Act of Molakalacheruvu police station in presence of P.W.2 and G. Narayana and recovered the stolen property i.e.

50 kgs. of winding wire , worth Rs. 25,000/- in the present crime and also in various crimes from the possession of the accused and prepared Ex.P.3 arrest cum seizure mahazar. On 8-6-2016 P.W.5 has filed P.T. warrant and produced the accused before the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Madanapalle in the present crime. P.W.1 was called to the

police station and the seized property was shown to him, after receiving the property, P.W.1 has issued Ex.P.2 certificate. P.W.5 after completing the investigation, has filed charge sheet.

4. The case is taken on file for the offence under section 136(1)

(a) of Indian Evidence Act.

5. On appearance of accused, copies of documents are furnished to them.

6. After hearing the prosecution and the learned defence counsel charge under section 136 (1) (a) or 136 (1) (b) of Indian Electricity Act, is framed against the accused, read over and explained to them in Telugu and they pleaded not guilty.

7. Prosecution has examined PWs.1 to PW5 , got marked Exs.P-1 to Ex.P-9. Additional Public Prosecutor has given up S.M. Syam Sudhakar (LW2), Shaik Pyarijan ( LW3), Mogi Venkatramana ( LW4), A. Janardhana ( LW5) , Gorre Narasimhulu ( LW6), Mandala Sankara ( LW7) and G.

Narayana ( LW9).

8. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C, explained the incriminating evidence appearing against them in Telugu, for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

9. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused. Perused the material on record.

10. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution could able to prove the guilt of the

accused for the offence under section 136(1) (a) or 136(1)(b) of

Indian Electricity Act, beyond reasonable doubt ?

11. Prosecution is relying on the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.5 to prove the complaint i.e. Ex.P.1 and F.I.R. i.e. Ex.P.4. Ex.P.1 is the 4 complaint lodged by P.W.1 on 22-4-2016 at about 10.30 A.M. before

P.W.4. Ex.P.1 does not contain when the offence has taken place at two places in Chippili, two places at Kothapalli and Valasapalli. It is mentioned in Ex.P.1 that P.W.1 has received message from M. Syam

Sudhakar about the commission of offence. As per Ex.P.1, t he property which is committed theft is mentioned as “winding”. Ex.P.2 is the certificate got issued by P.W.1 . On perusal of Ex.P.2 , it does not contain the seal. P.W.1 for the first time has got mentioned in Ex.P.2 that offence has taken place on the mid night of 16-2-2016, 26-2-2016, 8-3-2016 and 7-3- 2016. Ex.P.2 does not contain whether the property which is received by him is a copper winding wire or aluminum winding wire.

12. Ex.P.4 is the F.I.R. got registered by P.W.4 against unknown offenders. It is mentioned in Ex.P.4 that winding wire is committed theft and the value of the property is Rs. 25,000/- and it is weighing about 50 kgs. Ex.P.1 also show that the weight of the property is 50 kgs. But

Ex.P.2 is silent that what is the weight of the property which he has received from P.W.4. P.W.1 in his cross examination admitted that he did not produce any document along with Ex.P.1 to show that the property which is committed theft by unknown offenders belongs to Electricity

Department and he further admitted that he has no material to s how that the property identified under Ex.P.2 belongs to Electricity department, so also he do not know whether the property covered under Ex.P.2 is easily available in the market or not. P.W.1 further admitted that he did not weigh the property.

13. P.W.4 is the person who registered F.I.R. under Ex.P.4 and visited the scene of offence , got prepared rough sketches under Exs.P.5 to P.7 and examined the witnesses . P.W.4 in his cross examination stated that P.W.1 did not mention in Ex.P.1 at which place the property committed theft , so also its descriptive particulars are not mentioned and

P.W.1 did not produce any document to show that the property is committed theft belongs to Electricity department. P.W.4 further admitted that P.W.1 has not produced any document while identifying the property to show that the property committed theft and the property identified by him is one and the same. As per Ex.P.2 first offence is committed on 16-2-2016, second offence is committed on 26-2-2016, third 5 offence is committed on 8-3-2016 and fourth offence is committed on 7-3- 2016, but Ex.P.1 is lodged on 22-4-2016 and there is a delay in lodging

Ex.P.1 complaint. In Ex.P.4 at column No. 8 the delay mentioned in the

F.I.R. is that P.W.1 , Line Inspector and farmers went for searching of stolen property, thereby delay has occurred. As per P.W.1 has received message from M. Syam Sudhakar. P.W.1 did not depose in the evidence about the message received from M. Syam Sudhakar . M.Syam Sudhakar is given up by the prosecution for the reasons best known to them Exs.P.5 to P.9 are the rough sketches to show the places of offence at which the property is committed theft . Other witnesses to the prosecution case are given up by the prosecution for the reasons known to them.

14. P.W.5 has called P.W.1 on 7-6-2016 to the police station to identify the property. P.W.1, after identifying the property, has got issued

Ex.P.2 certificate. In his cross examination he stated that P.W.1 has not furnished any document while identifying the property under Ex.P.2 that the property committed theft at different places is very same property identified by him while issuing Ex.P.2 certificate.

15. The evidence of P.W.1 and the evidence of P.W.4 coupled with Exs.P.1 , P.2 and P.4 to P.9 do not support the case of the prosecution in respect of the offence committed theft at different places.

Arrest , seizure and filing of the charge sheet:

16. In so far as arrest and seizure , prosecution is relying on the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.5.

17. P.W.2 deposed that on 1-6-2016 while he was in M.R.O.

office, Burakayalakota , at abut 8.30 a.m. along with G. Narayana, one constable came to their office at about 9 a.m. stating that Sub Inspector of police, Molakalacheruvu is calling them. At the instance of Constable, they visited Molakalacheruvu police station and during that time Sub

Inspector of police, PTM, and Thambalapalle police were also present in the police station. They all left the police station and visited the

Madinayanapalle cross situated at B. Kothakota road, by the time they reached the above said place, all the accused were holding eleven gunny bags, on seeing the police, accused tried to ran away. Police has caught hold all the accused and interrogated them and they have confessed that they have committed the offence at Peddamandyam, Erravaripalyam, 6

Bakarapeta, B. Kothakota, PTM, Thambalapalle and Molakalacheruvu and the gunny bags contains copper winding wire. Police have weighed the copper winding wire weighing about 441 kgs. police has taken the accused into custody and prepared arrest cum seizure mahazar under

Ex.P.3. Thereafter they have put t heir signatures. In his cross examination he stated that his office hours commences at 10.30 a.m. and police has not given any requisition to him to act as mediator to Ex.P.3, so also

M.R.O. has not given any letter to him to act as mediator to Ex.P.3 and he visited the police station by 8.30 A.M. and the distance from the police station to the place of offence is about 8 K.Ms. Madinayanipalle cross roads leads to B. Kothakota to Madanapalle, he cannot say the PC numbers with whom he accompanied. He further stated in his cross examination that it is not mentioned in Ex.P.3 how may persons are carrying the bags , so also it is not mentioned in Ex.P.3 that each bag is weighed and he cannot say the exact contents of Ex.P.3. On the dictation of Sub Inspector , one constable has prepared Ex.p.3 and he do not know his name. He further stated that it is not mentioned in Ex.P.3 that the copies are served on all the accused. In all the eleven bags there is copper winding wire, he cannot say the names of all the accused who are present in the court hall and he do not know the crime number mentioned in Ex.P.3. He denied the suggestion that Ex.P.3 is not prepared in his presence and at the instance of police, he signed the document at the police station and he is a stock witness to the police.

18. P.W.3 deposed that on 1-6-2016 he received credible information from Circle Inspector of police, Molakalacheruvu. P.W.2 and another mediator, two Sub Inspectors of police and other staff members went to Madinayanapalle cross road which leads to B.

Kothakota. There he has noticed five persons are standing with 11 urea gunny bags. On seeing them, they tried to ran away , on interrogation accused No.1 to 5 revealed their names and confessed that they have committed the offences at Molakalacheruvu, Peddamandyam,

B. Kothakota, PTM mandal, Mandapalle, Punganur, Chinnagottigallu,

Yerravaripalem and they also confessed that they were proceeding to

Karnataka to sell the property which they have committed theft and he verified the 11 bags. 5 th bag is pertaining to the present case which 7 is 50 kgs of copper winding wire, he prepared arrest cum seizure mahazar under Ex.P.3 in the presence of P.W.2 and all the documents are given to the accused and they have put their signatures. Himself,

P.W.2 and another mediator have also signed on Ex.P.3. In his cross examination he stated that he did not issue any letter to M.R.O. to depute two persons to act as mediators. P.W.2 and another mediator came to the police station at about 8.30 a.m. Witness adds that when they were on their way to the scene of offence, they have picked up P.W.2 and another mediator at Kadiri road. He did not mention the specific location where the alleged accused were standing so also he did not mention in Ex.P.3 which accused is holding how many number of bags.

He further stated in his cross examination that it is not mentioned in

Ex.P.3 that the accused were standing with urea bags and he did not mention in Ex.P.3 that each bag is weighed, so also he did not mention in

Ex.P.3 that he obtained signatures of the accused, P.W.2 and another mediator, affixed labels on 11 bags and all the 11 bags are similar in nature and he has no record to show that the property recovered by him is bag No. 3 to 11 belongs to different crimes of different police stations.

He further stated in his cross examination that he did not secure any material pertaining to the crimes of different police stations, and as per

Ex.P.3 he has seized only copper wire from the alleged accused and he did not prepare separate mahazar. P.W.3 has denied the suggestion that he did not arrest all the accused nor prepared Ex.P.3 in presence of

P.W.2.

19. P.W.5 deposed that on 6-6-2016 he received information from

P.W.3 about the arrest of the accused in crime No. 21 of 2016 of

Molakalacheruvu police station . He obtained attested copies of arrest mahazar and also received stolen property on 7-6-2016. ON 7-6-2016 he filed the application for obtaining P.T. warrant and thereafter he produced all the accused. In his cross examination he stated that except taking the property and documents from P.W.3 he did not investigate the case, and P.W.3 has not furnished any material to show that the property seized by him are pertaining to crime No. 59 of 2016. He denied the suggestion that his investigation is table investigation and filed a false charge sheet.

8

20. Ex.P.3 is the arrest cum seizure mahazar on 1-6-2016 at about 9 a.m. As per Ex.P.3 it is mentioned as under:

“ Five male persons were standing with white colour plastic bags”

21. P.W.2 in his chief examination has stated that all the accused were holding 11 gunny bags. Whereas P.W.3 stated five persons are standing with 11 urea gunny bags. In so far as the presence of P.W.2 at the time of Ex.P.3 is concerned, P.W.2 has deposed in his chief examination that one constable has visited his office at about 9 a.m., he and Narayana have accompanied them to the Molakalacheruvu police station and thereafter they have left the place. As per cross examination of

P.W.2, his office hours commences from 10.30 a.m. There is no explanation from P.W.2 or from P.W.3 how come P.W.2 was present in the office by 8.30 a.m. P.W.3 has stated in his cross examination voluntarily that when they were on their way to the scene of offence, they have picked up P.W.2 and another mediator at Kadiri road. There is inconsistency in the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 about P.W.3 visiting police station. P.W.2 has stated in his cross examination that he cannot say the weight of each bag. Prosecution has not produced any record to show that the property which is seized by P.W.3 under Ex.P.3 is the property belongs to Electricity department.

22. P.Ws. 2 and 3 have admitted in their cross examination that each bag is not weighed. If that is the case, how come P.W.3 came to know that the property which is seized by him is part and parcel of crime

No. 59 of 2016. P.W.2 in his cross examination has gone to the extent of saying that he cannot say the names of all the accused who are present in the court hall so also their descriptive particulars as Ex.P.3 is prepared long back and he also do not remember the crime number of the present case. The evidence of P.W.2 and the evidence of P.W.3 is contra to each other and at one stretch P.W.2 deposed that he went to the police station when one constable visited his office, whereas P.W.3 has given evidence contra to that of the evidence of P.W.2. P.W.3 has picked up P.W.2 and another mediator by name G. Narayana when they were on their way to the scene of offence. The property which is seized by

P.W.3 under Ex.P.3 is not produced before the court . Except Ex.P.2 certificate, there is no other document produced by the prosecution.

9

Ex.P.2 is also silent with regard to weight of the property and its value.

Accused No.1 to 5 in their 313 Cr.P.C. examination stated that police has taken them from their houses and foisted a false case against them.

When each bag is not weighed by P.W.3 while seizing the property, how can he come to the conclusion that the property which is seized by him in the present case is about 50 kgs. Similarly Ex.P.2 is also silent to that effect. Prosecution has not given any explanation about t he delay in lodging Ex.P.1 complaint before the police. Hence, prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, benefit of doubt is given to the accused.

23. In the result, the accused No. 1 to 5 are found not guilty and they are acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under section 136 (1) (a) and alternate charge under section 136(1) (b) of Indian Electricity Act, 2003, Unmarked property if any , shall be returned to the concerned after appeal time is over. The accused No. 1 to 5 are in judicial custody. The Superintendent, District Jail, Chittoor is directed to release the accused No.1 to 5 forthwith if they are not required in any other case.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant and after transcription by

him, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 13th day of March, 2017.

Sd/ B.R. Madusudhan Rao

I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Chittoor.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Prosecution : Defence:

P.W.1 Abdul Razack –Nil- P.W.2 D.Venugopal Reddy P.W.3 Eswaraiah P.W.4 Nagappa Naik P.W.5 Ravi Prakash Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED

Prosecution : Ex.P.1 … Complaint given by P.W.1 to the police in cr. No.59/2016 Ex.P.2 … Certificate given by P.W.1 Ex.P.3 … Mahazar Ex.P.4 … First Information Report 10

Ex.P.5 … Rough sketch Ex.P.6 … Rough sketch Ex.P.7 … Rough sketch Ex.P.8 … Rough sketch Ex.P.9 … Rough sketch

Defence : -Nil- Material Objects marked: -Nil-

Sd/ B.R. Madusudhan Rao

I Additional District & Sessions Judge,

Chittoor.

In the court of the I Additional District & Sessions Judge,

Chittoor.

Present:-B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO,

Additional District & Sessions

Judge.

Monday, the 13th (Thirteenth) day of March , 2017.

I.E.S.C. No. 66 of 2016

Cr.No. 22 of 2016 of PTM Police station

Complainant The State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, PTM Police station

Accused 1. Avula Ramesh @ Mekala Ramesh @ Macha @ Murali, age 30 years, S/o Venkatappa @ Ramaiah, caste by Yerukula , Occu: Electrician and Gas Stove repairer R/o Pedballi, near Indian Bank, Puttaparthy Mandal N/o Bathalapalli town near MRO office, Ananthapur District.

2. Golla Surendra, age 25 years S/o Nettikallu, caste by Dasari, Occ: Coolie, R/o Indira colony, Gutthi Town and Mandal N/o Veerepalli Guthi Mandal, Ananthapur District.

3. Derangula Mohan, age 50 years, S/o Subbarayadu, caste by Vadde, Occ: Coolie R/o Indiramma colony, Ananthapur town, N/o Mydukur Town of Kadapa district.

4. Derangula Nagendra, age 26 years, S/o Subbarayadu, caste by Vaddi, Occ: Auto driver, R/o 7th Cross, Sai Nagar, Ananthapur town, N/o Mydukur town, Kadapa District.

5. Kadireppa Narasimhulu, age 35 years, S/o Late V. Kadireppa, caste by Valmiki, Occ: Coolie,R/oBandameedapalliH/o Thummarakunta, PTM Mandal, Chittoor District, N/o Chelooru, Bagepalli Taluk of Karnataka State.

The prosecution Sri K.S.Jayaram is conducted byAdditional Public Prosecutor.

The accused areSri P. Dayasekhar, counsel for A-1 defended bySmt. Swapna, counsel for A-2 to A-5

OFFENCEUnder Sec. 379, 427 I.P.C. and u/sec. 136 of Indian Eelectricity Act. ChargesUnder section 136 (1) (a) or 136(1) (b) of Indian Electricity Act, 2003, Plea of the Not Guilty accused

Finding of the A1 to A5 are found not guilty court Sentence or In the result, the accused No. 1 to 5 are order found not guilty and they are acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under section 136 (1) (a) and alternate charge under section 136(1) (b) of Indian Electricity Act, 2003, Unmarked property if any , shall be returned to the concerned after appeal time is over. The accused No. 1 to 5 are in judicial custody. The Superintendent, District Jail, Chittoor is directed to release the accused No.1 to 5 forthwith if they are not required in any other case.

This case coming on 28-2-2017 before me for final hearing and upon perusing the charge sheet and other material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K.S.Jayaram, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri P. Dayasekhar, counsel for A.1, and of Smt. Swapna, counsel for A2 to A5, 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, PTM police station filed charge sheet against the accused No. 1 to 5 for the offence punishable under sections 379 , 427 of I.P.C. and section 136 of

Indian Electricity Act, 2003 in crime No. 22 of 2016 of PTM police station.

The case of the prosecution is as under :

2. On the intervening night of 14-5-2016 at

Gugglllapalle, DK Street, PTM, Maddaiahgaripalli villages of PTM mandal , some unknown offenders have break opened the transformers and committed theft of copper winding wire worth

Rs. 6,500/- from three transformers belonging to APSPDCL, P.TM.

mandal and escaped with booty. P.W.1 lodged Ex.P.1 complaint on 15-5-2016 at 11.00 a.m. before P.W.4. P.W.4 after receipt of

Ex.P.1 complaint , has registered a case in crime No. 22 of 2016 under section 427, 379 I.P.C. and section 136 of Indian Evidence

Act under Ex.P.4. He examined P.W.1 at the police station and recorded his statement, visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketches Exs. P. 5 to P. 7 and examined P.W.2,

P.Venkataramana (LW2), P. Yakub Saheb ( LW3) and S. Shafi ( LW4) and recorded their statements.

3. On 1-6-2016 at 9.00 A.M. accused No.1 to 5 were arrested by P.W.3 at Maddinayunipalle cross, B. Kothakorta road, Burakayalakota village. P.W.4 ha filed P.T. warrant and produced accused No.1 to 5 before the Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Thambalapalle on 6-6-2016. On 11-6-2016 P.W.1 was called to the police station and he identified the property concerned in the present case, got issued Ex.P.2 certificate.

P.W.4 after completing investigation, has filed charge sheet.

4. The case is taken on file for the offence under section 136(1) (a) of Indian Evidence Act.

5. On appearance of accused, copies of documents are furnished to them.

6. After hearing the prosecution and the learned defence counsel charge under section 136 (1) (a) or 136 (1) (b) of Indian Electricity Act, is framed against the accused, read over and explained to them in Telugu and they pleaded not guilty.

7. Prosecution has examined PWs.1 to PW4 , got marked Exs.P-1 to Ex.P-7. Additional Public Prosecutor has given up P. Venkataramana (LW2), P. Yakub Saheb (LW3), S. Shafi ( LW4) and G. Narayana (LW6).

8. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C, explained the incriminating evidence appearing against them in Telugu, for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

9. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused. Perused the material on record.

10. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution could able to prove

the guilt of the

accused for the offence under section 136(1)

(a) or 136(1)(b) of

Indian Electricity Act, beyond reasonable

doubt ?

11. Ex.P.1 is the complaint lodged by P.W.1 on 15-5- 2016 at about 11.00 a.m. contending that winding wire is committed theft at three places which is weighing about 50 kgs.

in total from one 25 KVA and two 16 KVA transformers worth of the property is Rs. 6,500/-. P.W.4 after receipt of Ex.P.1 complaint, has registered a case in crime No.22 of 2016 on the same day against unknown offenders under section 379, 427 and 136 of Electricity Act under Ex.P.4. P.W.4 has examined P.W.1 and other witnesses and visited the scene of offence and prepared Exs.P.5 to P.7 rough sketches. P.W.4 has called P.W.1 to the police station for identification of the stolen property and he identified the same and got issued Ex.P.2 certificate.

12. On perusal of Ex.P.1 it is mentioned that during night time some unknown culprits opened the top of the transformers , and stolen the winding wire. No specific date is given by P.W.1 in Ex.P.1 on which date the offence has taken place at Guggllapalli, DK Street and Maddiahgaripalli. As per

Ex.P.1, P.W.1 has received reports from Sarpanch of the Gram

Panchayat h/o Thummarakunta , from P. Yakub Sab, S. Shafi . The above said persons are not examined by the prosecution and they were given up for the reasons best known to them . P.W.1 in his cross examination has stated that he has produced documents to show that the property committed theft at three places belongs to their department. P.W.4 in his cross examination stated that P.W.1 did not submit the complaint lodged by consumers along with Ex.P.1 and he also admitted that

P.W.1 did not submit any documents along with Ex.P.1 complaint to show that the property which is committed theft belongs to

Electricity department, so also he did not submit any document while identifying the property and while issuance of Ex.P.2 certificate. As per Exs.P.5 to P.7 rough sketches , it goes to show that the offence has committed in the agricultural fields of the consumers, but the consumers were not examined. Ex.P.2 is the certificate got issued by P.W.1 on 1-6-2016. As per Ex.P.2,

P.W.1 has take possession of 50 kgs. of copper winding wire.

Ex.P.1 is silent whether the property which is committed theft is aluminum wire or copper wire and descriptive particulars of the property is not given in Ex.P.1.

13. P.W.4 has registered Ex.P.4 F.I.R. against unknown offenders and in Ex.P.4 in column No. 8 it shows there is no delay in lodging Ex.P.1 complaint by P.W.1 offence is registered against unknown offenders, hence this point is answered accordingly.

Arrest , seizure and filing of the charge sheet:

14. In so far as arrest and seizure , prosecution is relying on the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4.

15. P.W.2 deposed that on 1-6-2016 while he was in

M.R.O. office, Burakayalakota , at abut 8.30 a.m. along with

G. Narayana, one constable came to their office at about 9 a.m. stating that Sub Inspector of police, Molakalacheruvu is calling them. At the instance of Constable, they visited

Molakalacheruvu police station and during that time Sub Inspector of police, PTM, and Thambalapalle police were also present in the police station. They all left the police station and visited the Madinayanapalle cross situated at B. Kothakota road, by the time they reached the above said place, all the accused were holding eleven gunny bags, on seeing the police, accused tried to ran away. Police has caught hold all the accused and interrogated them and they have confessed that they have committed the offence at Peddamandyam,

Erravaripalyam, Bakarapeta, B. Kothakota, PTM, Thambalapalle and Molakalacheruvu and the gunny bags contains copper winding wire. Police have weighed the copper winding wire weighing about 441 kgs. police has taken the accused into custody and prepared arrest cum seizure mahazar under

Ex.P.3. Thereafter they have put t heir signatures. In his cross examination he stated that his office hours commences at 10.30 a.m. and police has not given any requisition to him to act as mediator to Ex.P.3, so also M.R.O. has not given any letter to him to act as mediator to Ex.P.3 and he visited the police station by 8.30 A.M. and the distance from the police station to the place of offence is about 8 K.Ms. Madinayanipalle cross roads leads to B. Kothakota to Madanapalle, he cannot say the

PC numbers with whom he accompanied. He further stated in his cross examination that it is not mentioned in Ex.P.3 how may persons are carrying the bags , so also it is not mentioned in Ex.P.3 that each bag is weighed and he cannot say the exact contents of Ex.P.3. On the dictation of Sub Inspector , one constable has prepared Ex.p.3 and he do not know his name. He further stated that it is not mentioned in Ex.P.3 that the copies are served on all the accused. In all the eleven bags there is copper winding wire, he cannot say the names of all the accused who are present in the court hall and he do not know the crime number mentioned in Ex.P.3. He denied the suggestion that Ex.P.3 is not prepared in his presence and at the instance of police, he signed the document at the police station and he is a stock witness to the police.

16. P.W.3 deposed that on 1-6-2016 he received credible information from Circle Inspector of police,

Molakalacheruvu. P.W.2 and another mediator, two Sub

Inspectors of police and other staff members went to

Madinayanapalle cross road which leads to B. Kothakota. There he has noticed five persons are standing with 11 urea gunny bags. On seeing them, they tried to ran away , on interrogation accused No.1 to 5 revealed their names and confessed that they have committed the offences at

Molakalacheruvu, Peddamandyam, B. Kothakota, PTM mandal,

Mandapalle, Punganur, Chinnagottigallu, Yerravaripalem and they also confessed that they were proceeding to Karnataka to sell the property which they have committed theft and he verified the 11 bags. 3 rd bag is pertaining to the present case which is 50 kgs of copper wire, he prepared arrest cum seizure mahazar under Ex.P.3 in the presence of P.W.2 and all the documents are given to the accused and they have put their signatures. Himself, P.W.2 and another mediator have also signed on Ex.P.3. In his cross examination he stated that he did not issue any letter to M.R.O. to depute two persons to act as mediators. P.W.2 and another mediator came to the police station at about 8.30 a.m. Witness adds that when they were on their way to the scene of offence, they have picked up P.W.2 and another mediator at Kadiri road. He did not mention the specific location where the alleged accused were standing so also he did not mention in Ex.P.3 which accused is holding how many number of bags. He further stated in his cross examination that it is not mentioned in Ex.P.3 that the accused were standing with urea bags and he did not mention in Ex.P.3 that each bag is weighed, so also he did not mention in Ex.P.3 that he obtained signatures of the accused, P.W.2 and another mediator, affixed labels on 11 bags and all the 11 bags are similar in nature and he has no record to show that the property recovered by him is bag No. 3 to 11 belongs to different crimes of different police stations. He further stated in his cross examination that he did not secure any material pertaining to the crimes of different police stations and as per Ex.P.3 he has seized only copper wire from the alleged accused and he did not prepare separate mahazar. P.W.3 has denied the suggestion that he did not arrest all the accused nor prepared

Ex.P.3 in presence of P.W.2.

17. P.W.4 deposed that on 1-6-2016 he came to know that the accused were arrested by P.W.3 in crime No. 21 of 2016 of Molakalacheruvu police station. He obtained attested copies from P.W.3 and obtained P.T. warrant and produced the accused

before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Thambalapalle and

after completing investigation he filed charge sheet. In his cross examination he admitted that after obtaining material documents from P.W.3, he did not conduct any further investigation and basing on which he obtained P.T. warrant and produced the accused before the concerned Magistrate. He denied the suggestion that for statistical purpose, case is registered and he falsely implicated the accused in this crime.

18. Ex.P.3 is the arrest cum seizure mahazar on 1-6-2016 at about 9 a.m. As per Ex.P.3 it is mentioned as under:

“ Five male persons were standing with white colour plastic bags”

19. P.W.2 in his chief examination has stated that all the accused were holding 11 gunny bags. Whereas P.W.3 stated five persons are standing with 11 urea gunny bags. In so far as the presence of P.W.2 at the time of Ex.P.3 is concerned,

P.W.2 has deposed in his chief examination that one constable has visited his office at about 9 a.m., he and Narayana have accompanied them to the Molakalacheruvu police station and thereafter they have left the place. As per cross examination of

P.W.2, his office hours commences from 10.30 a.m. There is no explanation from P.W.2 or from P.W.3 how come P.W.2 was present in the office by 8.30 a.m. P.W.3 has stated in his cross examination voluntarily that when they were on their way to the scene of offence, they have picked up P.W.2 and another mediator at Kadiri road. There is inconsistency in the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 about P.W.2 visiting police station. P.W.2 has stated in his cross examination that he cannot say the weight of each bag. Prosecution has not produced any record to show that the property which is seized by P.W.3 under Ex.P.3 is the property belongs to Electricity department.

20. P.Ws. 2 and 3 have admitted in their cross examination that each bag is not weighed. If that is the case, how come P.W.3 came to know that the property which is seized by him is part and parcel of crime No. 22 of 2016. P.W.2 in his cross examination has gone to the extent of saying that he cannot say the names of all the accused who are present in the court hall so also their descriptive particulars as it is prepared long back and he also do not remember the crime number of the present case. The evidence of P.W.2 and the evidence of P.W.3 is contra to each other and at one stretch

P.W.2 deposed that he went to the police station when one constable visited his office, whereas P.W.3 has given evidence contra to that of the evidence of P.W.2. P.W.3 has picked up

P.W.2 and another mediator by name G. Narayana when they were on their way to the scene of offence. The property which is seized by P.W.3 under Ex.P.3 is not produced before the court . Except Ex.P.2 certificate, there is no other document produced by the prosecution. Ex.P.2 is also silent with regard to weight of the property and its value. Accused No.1 to 5 in their 313 Cr.P.C. examination stated that police has taken them from their houses and foisted a false case against them. When each bag is not weighed by P.W.3 while seizing the property, how can he come to the conclusion that the property which is seized by him in the present case is about 50 kgs. Similarly Ex.P.2 is also silent to that effect. Prosecution has not given any explanation about t he delay in lodging Ex.P.1 complaint before the police. Hence, prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, benefit of doubt is given to the accused.

21. In the result, the accused No. 1 to 5 are found not guilty and they are acquitted under section 235(1)

Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under section 136 (1) (a) and alternate charge under section 136(1) (b) of Indian Electricity Act, 2003, Unmarked property if any , shall be returned to the concerned after appeal time is over. The accused No. 1 to 5 are in judicial custody. The Superintendent, District Jail, Chittoor is directed to release the accused No.1 to 5 forthwith if they are not required in any other case.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant and after

transcription by him, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 13th day of March, 2017.

Sd/ B.R. Madhusudhan Rao

I Additional District & Sessions Judge,

Chittoor.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Prosecution : Defence: P.W.1 Ramalakshman –Nil- P.W.2 D.Venugopal Reddy P.W.3 Eswaraiah P.W.4 D. Srinivasulu

EXHIBITS MARKED

Prosecution : Ex.P.1 … Complaint given by P.W.1 to the police in cr. No.22/2016 Ex.P.2 … Certificate given by P.W.1 Ex.P.3 … Mahazar Ex.P.4 … First Information Report Ex.P.5 … Rough sketch Ex.P.6 … Rough sketch Ex.P.7 … Rough sketch Defence : -Nil- Material Objects marked: -Nil-

Sd/ B.R. Madhusudhan Rao

I Additional District & Sessions Judge,

Chittoor.

1

In the court of the I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Chittoor.

Present:-B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO,

Additional District & Sessions Judge.

Monday, the 13th (Thirteenth) day of March , 2017.

I.E.S.C. No. 67 of 2016

Cr.No. 21 of 2010 of Molakalacheruvu Police station

Complainant The State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police,Molakalacheruvu Police station

Accused 1.Avula Ramesh @ Mekala Ramesh @ Macha @ Murali, age 30 years, S/o Venkatappa @ Ramaiah, caste by Yerukula , Occu: Electrician and Gas Stove repairer R/o Pedballi, near Indian Bank, Puttaparthy Mandal N/o Bathalapalli town near MRO office, Ananthapur District.

2.Golla Surendra, age 25 years S/o Nettikallu, caste by Dasari, Occ: Coolie, R/o Indira colony, Gutthi Town and Mandal N/o Veerepalli Guthi Mandal, Ananthapur District.

3.Derangula Mohan, age 50 years, S/o Subbarayadu, caste by Vadde, Occ: Coolie R/o Indiramma colony, Ananthapur town, N/o Mydukur Town of Kadapa district.

4.Derangula Nagendra, age 26 years, S/o Subbarayadu, caste by Vaddi, Occ: Auto driver, R/o 7th Cross, Sai Nagar, Ananthapur town, N/o Mydukur town, Kadapa District.

5.Kadireppa Narasimhulu, age 35 years, S/o Late V. Kadireppa, caste by Valmiki, Occ: Coolie, R/o Bandameedapalli H/o Thummarakunta, PTM Mandal, Chittoor District, N/o Chelooru, Bagepalli Taluk of Karnataka State.

The prosecution is Sri K.S.Jayaram conducted byAdditional Public Prosecutor.

The accused are Sri P. Dayasekhar, counsel for A-1 defended bySmt. Swapna, counsel for A-2 to A-5

OFFENCE Under Sec. 379, 427,447 I.P.C. and u/sec. 136(1)(a) of Indian Electricity Act. Charges Under section 136 (1) (a) or 136(1) (b) of Indian Electricity Act, 2003, Plea of the accused Not Guilty

Finding of the A1 to A5 are found not guilty court 2

Sentence or order In the result, the accused No. 1 to 5 are found not guilty and they are acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under section 136 (1) (a) and alternative charge under section 136(1) (b) of Indian Electricity Act, 2003, Unmarked property if any , shall be returned to the concerned after appeal time is over. The accused No. 1 to 5 are in judicial custody. The Superintendent, District Jail, Chittoor is directed to release the accused No.1 to 5 forthwith if they are not required in any other case.

This case coming on 28-2-2017 before me for final hearing and upon perusing the charge sheet and other material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K.S.Jayaram, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri P. Dayasekhar, counsel for A.1, and of Smt. Swapna, counsel for A2 to A5, 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, Molakalacheruvu police station filed charge sheet against the accused No. 1 to 5 for the offence punishable under sections 447, 427, 379 of I.P.C. and section 136(1) of Indian Electricity

Act, 2003 in crime No. 21 of 2016 of Molakalacheruvu police station.

The case of the prosecution is as under :

2. On the intervening night of 14-5-2016 at abut 12 noon some unknown offenders have criminally trespassed into the consumers cultivation fields at Danduvaripalli, Molakalacheruvu rural,

Dasireddygaripalli and Kadhirinathunikota villages and damaged three 25 KVA and o ne 16 KVA electrical transformers and committed theft of 75 kgs of winding wire worth Rs. 49,000/-. P.W.1 lodged Ex.P.1 complaint

before P.W.3. P.W.3 after receipt of Ex.P.1 complaint, has registered a

case in crime No. 21 of 2016 under Ex.P.4. He recorded the statement of

P.W.1, visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketches under Exs.P.5 to P.8 and also examined K. Nagaraju, Rasool Saheb, Lakshminarayana and B. Venkataramana and recorded their statements.

3. On 1-6-2016 at 9,00 A.M. he received credible information about the accused , he collected P.W.2, G. Narayana , visited B. Kothakota road, Burakayalakota village and arrested accused No.1 to 5 at

Maddinayunipalli cross roads and also seized 11 white colour plastic bags containing 441 kgs of winding wire involved in the present crime and other crimes. He prepared arrest cum seizure mahazar in the presence 3 of P.W.2 under Ex.P.3. On 2-6-2016 P.W.3 has produced accused No.1 to 5 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Thambalapalle. On 7-6- 2016 P.W.3 handed over the case property to P.W.1 and he issued Ex.P.2 certificate. After completing investigation, he filed charge sheet.

4. The case is taken on file for the offence under section 136(1) (a) of Indian Evidence Act.

5. On appearance of accused, copies of documents are furnished to them.

6. After hearing the prosecution and the learned defence counsel charge under section 136 (1) (a) or 136 (1) (b) of Indian Electricity Act, is framed against the accused, read over and explained to them in Telugu and they pleaded not guilty.

7. Prosecution has examined PWs.1 to PW3 , got marked Exs.P-1 to Ex.P-8. Additional Public Prosecutor has given up K. Nagaraja (LW2),

V. Rasool Saheb (LW3), K. Lakshminarayana ( LW4), B. Venkatramana (LW5), D. Kesava Reddy (LW6), P. Munwar Basha ( LW7), A. Aruna (LW8), M. Ramachandra Reddy ( LW9), G. Narayana (LW11), I. Naresh (LW12) and D. Srinivasulu ( LW13).

8. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C, explained the incriminating evidence appearing against them in Telugu, for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

9. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused. Perused the material on record.

10. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution could able to prove the guilt of the

accused for the offence under section 136(1) (a) or 136(1)(b) of

Indian Electricity Act, beyond reasonable doubt ?

11. P.W.1 has lodged Ex.P.1 complaint contending that 49 kgs of winding wire is committed theft from Dansuvaripalli, Molakalacheruvu,

Dasireddygaripalli and Kadhirinathunikota from three 25 KVA and one 16 KVA electrical transformers worth of the property is Rs. 49,000/- and the offence has taken place on 13-5-2016. P.W.1 has lodged Ex.P.1 complaint before P.W.3 o n 14-5-2016. P.W.3 after receipt of Ex.P.1 complaint, has registered a case in crime No. 21 of 2016 on the same day 4 under section 136(1) (a) of Indian Electricity Act against unknown offenders.

12. P.W.1 stated in his cross examination that he has no record to show that the property which is committed theft belongs to their department. He denied the suggestion that consumers have not lodged any complaints before him.

13. P.W.3 deposed that on 14-5-2016 at about 12 noon he received

Ex.P.1 complaint from P.W.1, basing on Ex.P.1, he registered a case in crime No. 21 of 2016 under Ex.P.4. He examined P.W.1 and other witnesses and recorded their statements, visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketches under Exs.P.5 to P.8. In h is cross examination he stated that P.W.1 has not produced any document while lodging Ex.P.1 complaint to show that the property which is committed theft by unknown offenders belongs to Electricity department. So also, P.W.1 has also not produced any document while identifying the property under

Ex.P.2 that it belongs to Electricity department and he also admitted that

P.W.1 did not annex any complaints lodged by the consumers to Ex.P.1.

14. As per Ex.P.1 consumers of Danduvaripalli, Mulakala cheruvu, Dasireddigaripalle and Kadirinathunikota have lodged complaints

before P.W.1. Prosecution has given up the consumers who lodged

complaints before P.W.1. P.W.3 has admitted in his cross examination that P.W.1 did not annex any complaints to Ex.P.1. which were lodged by the consumers. Though there is no delay in lodging Ex.P.1, but no material is placed by the prosecution to show that the property which is committed theft at the places of offence and the property which is identified by P.W.1 on 7-6-2016 is one and the same. To that effect P.W.1 and P.W.3 have mad admissions in their cross examination that they did not produce any documents, and F.I.R. is registered against unknown offenders. Hence this point is answered accordingly.

Arrest , seizure and filing of the charge sheet:

15. In so far as arrest and seizure , prosecution is relying on the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3.

16. P.W.2 deposed that on 1-6-2016 while he was in M.R.O. office,

Burakayalakota , at abut 8.30 a.m. along with G. Narayana, one constable came to their office at about 9 a.m. stating that Sub Inspector 5 of police, Molakalacheruvu is calling them. At the instance of Constable, they visited Molakalacheruvu police station and during that time Sub

Inspector of police, PTM, and Thambalapalle police were also present in the police station. They all left the police station and visited the

Madinayanapalle cross situated at B. Kothakota road, by the time they reached the above said place, all the accused were holding eleven gunny bags, on seeing the police, accused tried to ran away. Police has caught hold all the accused and interrogated them and they have confessed that they have committed the offence at Peddamandyam, Erravaripalyam,

Bakarapeta, B. Kothakota, PTM, Thambalapalle and Molakalacheruvu and the gunny bags contains copper winding wire. Police have weighed the copper winding wire weighing about 441 kgs. police has taken the accused into custody and prepared arrest cum seizure mahazar under

Ex.P.3. Thereafter they have put t heir signatures. In his cross examination he stated that his office hours commences at 10.30 a.m. and police has not given any requisition to him to act as mediator to Ex.P.3, so also

M.R.O. has not given any letter to him to act as mediator to Ex.P.3 and he visited the police station by 8.30 A.M. and the distance from the police station to the place of offence is about 8 K.Ms. Madinayanipalle cross roads leads to B. Kothakota to Madanapalle, he cannot say the PC numbers with whom he accompanied. He further stated in his cross examination that it is not mentioned in Ex.P.3 how may persons are carrying the bags , so also it is not mentioned in Ex.P.3 that each bag is weighed and he cannot say the exact contents of Ex.P.3. On the dictation of Sub Inspector , one constable has prepared Ex.p.3 and he do not know his name. He further stated that it is not mentioned in Ex.P.3 that the copies are served on all the accused. In all the eleven bags there is copper winding wire, he cannot say the names of all the accused who are present in the court hall and he do not know the crime number mentioned in Ex.P.3. He denied the suggestion that Ex.P.3 is not prepared in his presence and at the instance of police, he signed the document at the police station and he is a stock witness to the police.

17. P.W.3 deposed that on 1-6-2016 he received credible information from Circle Inspector of police, Molakalacheruvu. P.W.2 and another mediator, two Sub Inspectors of police and other staff 6 members went to Madinayanapalle cross road which leads to B.

Kothakota. There he has noticed five persons are standing with 11 urea gunny bags. On seeing them, they tried to ran away , on interrogation accused No.1 to 5 revealed their names and confessed that they have committed the offences at Molakalacheruvu, Peddamandyam,

B. Kothakota, PTM mandal, Mandapalle, Punganur, Chinnagottigallu,

Yerravaripalem and they also confessed that they were proceeding to

Karnataka to sell the property which they have committed theft and he verified the 11 bags. First and second bags are pertaining to the present case which is 75 kgs of copper wire, he prepared arrest cum seizure mahazar under Ex.P.3 in the presence of P.W.2 and all the documents are given to the accused and they have put their signatures.

Himself, P.W.2 and another mediator have also signed on Ex.P.3. In his cross examination he stated that he did not issue any letter to M.R.O. to depute two persons to act as mediators. P.W.2 and another mediator came to the police station at about 8.30 a.m. Witness adds that when they were on their way to the scene of offence, they have picked up P.W.2 and another mediator at Kadiri road. He did not mention the specific location where the alleged accused were standing so also he did not mention in Ex.P.3 which accused is holding how many number of bags.

He further stated in his cross examination that it is not mentioned in

Ex.P.3 that the accused were standing with urea bags and he did not mention in Ex.P.3 that each bag is weighed, so also he did not mention in

Ex.P.3 that he obtained signatures of the accused, P.W.2 and another mediator, affixed labels on 11 bags and all the 11 bags are similar in nature and he has no record to show that the property recovered by him is bag No. 3 to 11 belongs to different crimes of different police stations.

He further stated in his cross examination that he did not secure any material pertaining to the crimes of different police stations and as per

Ex.P.3 he has seized only copper wire from the alleged accused and he did not prepare separate mahazar. P.W.3 has denied the suggestion that he did not arrest all the accused nor prepared Ex.P.3 in presence of

P.W.2.

18. Ex.P.3 is the arrest cum seizure mahazar on 1-6-2016 at about 9 a.m. As per Ex.P.3 it is mentioned as under:

7 “ Five male persons were standing with white colour plastic bags”

19. P.W.2 in his chief examination has stated that all the accused were holding 11 gunny bags. Whereas P.W.3 stated five persons are standing with 11 urea gunny bags. In so far as the presence of P.W.2 at the time of Ex.P.3 is concerned, P.W.2 has deposed in his chief examination that one constable has visited his office at about 9 a.m., he and Narayana have accompanied them to the Molakalacheruvu police station and thereafter they have left the place. As per cross examination of

P.W.2, his office hours commences from 10.30 a.m. There is no explanation from P.W.2 or from P.W.3 how come P.W.2 was present in the office by 8.30 a.m. P.W.3 has stated in his cross examination voluntarily that when they were on their way to the scene of offence, they have picked up P.W.2 and another mediator at Kadiri road. There is inconsistency in the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 about P.W.2 visiting police station. P.W.2 has stated in his cross examination that he cannot say the weight of each bag. Prosecution has not produced any record to show that the property which is seized by P.W.3 under Ex.P.3 is the property belongs to Electricity department.

20. P.Ws. 2 and 3 have admitted in their cross examination that each bag is not weighed. If that is the case, how come P.W.3 came to know that the property which is seized by him is part and parcel of crime

No. 21 of 2016. P.W.2 in his cross examination has gone to the extent of saying that he cannot say the names of all the accused who are present in the court hall so also their descriptive particulars as Ex.P.3 is prepared long back and he also do not remember the crime number of the present case. The evidence of P.W.2 and the evidence of P.W.3 is contra to each other and at one stretch P.W.2 deposed that he went to the police station when one constable visited his office, whereas P.W.3 has given evidence contra to that of the evidence of P.W.2. P.W.3 has picked up P.W.2 and another mediator by name G. Narayana when they were on their way to the scene of offence. The property which is seized by

P.W.3 under Ex.P.3 is not produced before the court . Except Ex.P.2 certificate, there is no other document produced by the prosecution.

Ex.P.2 is also silent with regard to weight of the property and its value.

Accused No.1 to 5 in their 313 Cr.P.C. examination stated that police 8 has taken them from their houses and foisted a false case against them.

When each bag is not weighed by P.W.3 while seizing the property, how can he come to the conclusion that the property which is seized by him in the present case is about 75 kgs. Similarly Ex.P.2 is also silent to that effect. Hence, prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, benefit of doubt is given to the accused.

21. In the result, the accused No. 1 to 5 are found not guilty and they are acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under section 136 (1) (a) and alternate charge under section 136(1) (b) of Indian Electricity Act, 2003, Unmarked property if any , shall be returned to the concerned after appeal time is over. The accused No. 1 to 5 are in judicial custody. The Superintendent, District Jail, Chittoor is directed to release the accused No.1 to 5 forthwith if they are not required in any other case.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant and after transcription by

him, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 13th day of March, 2017.

Sd/ B.R. Madhusudhan Rao

I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Chittoor.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Prosecution : Defence:

P.W.1 Reddy Kumar –Nil- P.W.2 D.Venugopal Reddy P.W.3 Eswaraiah

EXHIBITS MARKED

Prosecution :

Ex.P.1 … Complaint given by P.W.1 to the police in cr. No.21/2016 Ex.P.2 … Certificate given by P.W.1 Ex.P.3 … Mahazar Ex.P.4 … First Information Report Ex.P.5 … Rough sketch Ex.P.6 … Rough sketch Ex.P.7 … Rough sketch Ex.P.8 … Rough sketch

Defence : -Nil- 9

Material Objects marked: -Nil-

Sd/ B.R. Madhusudhan Rao

I Additional District & Sessions Judge,

Chittoor.