Miss. B S N Suma Bala

C.C.No.617/2017

Dt:12.05.2026

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:

AT SATHUPALLY

Present :- Ms. B. Sai Naga Suma Bala,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Sathupally.

(Dated this the 12th day of May, 2026)

C.C.No.617 of 2017

(Cr.No.353/2017 of PS Sathupalli) Between : The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Sathupalli. …Complainant.

AND

Madiki Prasad, S/o.Nageswara Rao (Late), Age.35 years, Occ.Driver of TATA ACE Vehicle bearing No.TS 04 UA 2589, R/o.Gandhinagar Road No.9, Sathupalli.. … Accused.

This case is coming on this day before me for final disposal in the presence of Learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri.N.Vijay Kumar and Sri.Sadu Krishnaiah, Learned Counsels for the Accused and having heard both sides and upon perusal of material available on record, this court made the following:

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

1) The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Sathupally filed charge sheet against the

Accused vide Cr.No.353/2017 alleging that the Accused committed the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC.

2) The factual matrix of the prosecution’s case is that:-

I. On 13.12.2017 at about 8:30 PM, the de facto complainant, namely

Issampalli Chakradhar Rao, appeared before the Police Station and lodged a written complaint in Telugu stating that the accused was working as a driver on a TATA ACE vehicle bearing No. TS 04 LIA 2589 belonging to

Professional Courier, Sathupalli, on daily wage basis. It is alleged that the

C.C.No.617/2017

Dt:12.05.2026

2 accused was entrusted with the duty of transporting courier parcels from

Professional Courier, Sathupalli to the Professional Courier Office at

Khammam. It is further alleged that, independently, the accused was also transporting courier parcels of World Fast Courier Agency, Khammam, to its Sathupalli branch in the same vehicle for monetary gain. The complainant further alleged that on 19.08.2017, the accused committed theft of two parcels containing seven Samsung mobile phones worth

Rs.1,14,412/-, which were sent from the Khammam Agency to Sathupalli.

It is also alleged that on 24.11.2017, the accused committed theft of another parcel containing four Samsung mobile phones worth Rs.56,160/-.

Therefore, the complainant requested the police to take necessary action against the accused in accordance with law.

II.Basing on the report, LW7/J.Vasanth Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police,

P.S.Sathupally registered a case in Cr.No.353/2017, against the accused under Section 379 of IPC and took up the investigation and during the course of investigation, LW7 examined and recorded the statement of

LW.1/Issampalli Chakradhar Rao.

III.Later, LW7 visited the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama and also drew rough sketch and prepared Crime Details Form in the presence of LW3/Kallipally Rambabu and LW4/Meerja John Pasha and examined and recorded the statement of LW2/Nallamada Balaraju.

IV.On 16.11.2017, LW7 arrested the accused and during the course of investigation, accused confessed his guilt and basing on his statement,

C.C.No.617/2017

Dt:12.05.2026

3 police recovered the stolen property pertaining to this case from his possession under the cover of panchanama in the presence of

LW5/Yadapally Nageswara Rao and LW6/Dokka Gopi. After completion of investigation, LW.7 filed charge sheet against the Accused for the offence under section 379 of IPC.

3) This court took cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC against the accused. On appearance of the Accused, copies of the charge sheet and the documents were furnished to him as contemplated under section 207 of

Cr.P.C.

4) Accused was examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C, for charges under Section 379 of IPC against him, read over and explained to him in Telugu language, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5)In order to bring home the guilt of the Accused for the offences arrayed against him, the prosecution examined LWs.1, 2, 4, 3, 5, 6 and 7 as PWs.1 to 7 and marked

Exs.P1 to P8.

6) Accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating material available against him, for which the Accused person pleaded that all such evidence is false and reported no Defense evidence.

7) Heard the arguments of both sides. Perused the record.

8) Now the points of determination is:“ WHETHER PROSECUTION

BROUGHT HOME THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED BEYOND

REASONABLE DOUBT, FOR THE OFFENSE PUNISHABLE UNDER

SECTION 379 of IP C ?

C.C.No.617/2017

Dt:12.05.2026

4 Point :

9) The prosecution contends that the accused, while working as a driver for

Professional Courier, committed theft of courier parcels containing Samsung mobile phones entrusted to him for transportation. To prove its case, prosecution examined PW1 to PW7.

10)PW.1 deposed in his chief-examination that he has been working in World

First Courier, Sathupally since 2014. He stated that the accused was working as a driver in the said courier office and used to transport courier parcels from

Khammam to Sathupally in an auto. He further stated that on 19.08.2017, seven new mobile phones contained in two parcels were found missing and again on 24.11.2017, four mobile phones contained in another parcel were also found missing. Suspecting the accused, they kept watch over his activities and upon enquiry came to know that the accused had committed theft of the said mobile phones, causing a loss of about Rs.1,70,000/-. Thereafter, on 13.12.2017, they lodged Ex.P1 complaint before P.S. Sathupally against the accused. He further deposed that they obtained interim custody of the seized 11 mobile phones through orders passed in Crl.M.P.No.7/2018 dated 03.01.2018. In his cross examination, he stated that the accused is not the employee of World First

Courier, Sathupally nor Khammam and that no document is filed to this court or to the police to show that 11 cell phones are entrusted to the custody of the accused. He also admitted that he did not mention the IMEI numbers of those 11 cell phones and also the cost of each cell phone in ExP1 and also parcel numbers which contained those 11 cell phones in ExP1.

C.C.No.617/2017

Dt:12.05.2026

5

11)PW2 deposed his chief examination on similar lines as that of PW1. In cross examination, he stated that there is a delay of 2 months as they took time to confirm the suspicion on the accused. He also admitted that the accused is not the employee of World First Courier, Sathupally (or) Khammamand that no document is filed to this court or to the police to show that 11 cell phones are entrusted to the custody of the accused. He also admitted that he did not mention the IMEI numbers of those 11 cell phones and also parcel numbers which contained those 11 cell phones in section 161 Cr.P.C Statement.

12) P.W.3 deposed that in the year 2017, police prepared a panchanama in World

First Courier Branch, Sathupalli and observed boundaries and drawn rough sketch in his presence and in the presence of LW3 and after they took his and

LW3 signatures on CDF. In cross examination, he rejected formal suggestions.

13)PW4 who is panch for CDF and PW5, PW6 who are panch witnessess for confession cum seizure panchanama did not support the case of the prosecution and are turned hostile.

14) PW7 deposed his chief examination on similar lines with the charge sheet. In cross examination, he stated that no document is furnished by PW1 to him to show that the accused is the employee of World First Courier, Sathupally. So also to show that 11 cell phones are entrusted to the custody of the accused and also the parcel numbers which contained those 11 cell phones. He rejected formal sug- gestions.

APPRECIATION:

15) From the entirety of the oral and documentary evidence brought on record, this Court is required to examine whether the prosecution has succeeded in es-

C.C.No.617/2017

Dt:12.05.2026

6 tablishing, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the accused committed theft of courier parcels containing mobile phones while such property was allegedly en- trusted to him in the course of transportation. It is trite that in a criminal trial the burden always rests upon the prosecution and never shifts.

16) To establish an offence under Section 379 IPC, the prosecution must neces- sarily prove that movable property was dishonestly taken out of the possession of another without consent and with intention to cause wrongful gain or wrongful loss. However, the evidence on record falls substantially short of satisfying such foundational requirement. The evidence of PW1 and PW2 constitutes the princi- pal basis of the prosecution case. The admission by PW1 and PW2 that the ac- cused was not an employee of the World First Courier Agency, coupled with the conspicuous absence of any documentary evidence to demonstrate that the spe- cific parcels containing eleven mobile phones were entrusted to the custody of the accused, creates a doubt.

17) More importantly, PW1 admitted that Ex.P1 complaint does not mention the

IMEI numbers of the alleged stolen mobile phones, the individual value of the phones, or even the parcel numbers in which they were allegedly transported.

PW2 made similar admissions. Failure to mention such particulars creates a se- rious doubt as to whether the seized phones and the allegedly missing phones are one and the same. In absence of identifiable particulars, the prosecution failed to establish nexus between the alleged missing property and the property allegedly recovered.

18) The unexplained delay in lodging the complaint also assumes significance. Ac- cording to the prosecution, the first alleged theft occurred on 19.08.2017 and the

C.C.No.617/2017

Dt:12.05.2026

7 second on 24.11.2017, whereas the complaint came to be lodged only on 13.12.2017. PW2 attempted to explain the delay by stating that they took time to confirm suspicion against the accused. Such explanation does not inspire confi- dence. If valuable mobile phones worth more than Rs.1,70,000/- were genuinely found missing in a commercial courier business, ordinary human conduct would demand immediate reporting to the police and immediate internal verification.

19) The prosecution has also relied upon alleged recovery pursuant to confession of the accused. However, the evidentiary value of such recovery is substantially diluted in the present case. It is well settled under Sections 25 and 26 of the Evi- dence Act that confessional statements made to police officers are inadmissible except to the limited extent permitted under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The prosecution was therefore required to establish, through trustworthy and inde- pendent evidence, that discovery of material objects was in fact made pursuant to information furnished by the accused while in police custody. The panch wit- nesses to the alleged confession-cum-seizure panchanama, namely PW5 and

PW6, have not supported the prosecution case and were declared hostile. Like- wise, PW4 also did not support the prosecution case. Thus, the alleged recovery remains unsupported by independent corroboration.

20) Though the testimony of an investigating officer is not to be discarded merely because panch witnesses turned hostile, prudence demands careful scrutiny where recovery constitutes a vital link in the chain of circumstances. In the present matter, there is no independent material establishing the place from where the phones were recovered, the circumstances of such recovery, or the iden- tity of the recovered articles with the allegedly stolen property. The prosecution

C.C.No.617/2017

Dt:12.05.2026

8 has also not produced any purchase invoices, ownership documents, stock records or IMEI verification reports linking the recovered phones to the complainant agency. In absence of such connecting evidence, mere production of certain mobile phones before the Court cannot establish that they were stolen property recovered from the accused.

21) Further, the prosecution case is entirely bereft of evidence showing exclusive possession or conscious possession of the alleged stolen property by the accused.

No customer from whom the parcels originated was examined. No official from the dispatching courier office at Khammam was examined to prove dispatch par- ticulars. No consignment tracking records were placed before the Court. The pros- ecution thus failed to establish the chain of custody of the parcels from dispatch till alleged disappearance. In a case resting substantially on circumstantial evi- dence, every incriminating circumstance must be firmly established and all cir- cumstances so proved must form a complete chain pointing only towards the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with any hypothesis of innocence. The present case falls far short of such standard.

22) The evidence of PW7, the Investigating Officer, does not cure these defects.

On the contrary, in his cross-examination he admitted that PW1 did not furnish any document showing that the accused was employee of World First Courier or that the disputed eleven cell phones were entrusted to his custody. He further ad- mitted absence of parcel numbers relating to the alleged missing phones. These admissions by the Investigating Officer strike at the root of the investigation it- self. Investigation appears to have proceeded merely on suspicion entertained by the complainant without collection of objective and legally admissible evidence.

C.C.No.617/2017

Dt:12.05.2026

9 Criminal conviction cannot rest upon conjectures, presumptions or investigative assumptions unsupported by substantive evidence.

23) The cumulative effect of the aforementioned circumstances creates substan- tial and reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution story. The prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed theft of the alleged courier parcels or that the recovered mobile phones were connected with the alleged occurrence. The evidence adduced does not attain the degree of cer- tainty required for recording conviction in a criminal trial. Benefit of doubt, therefore, must necessarily enure to the accused. Accordingly, this Court holds that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the of- fence punishable under Section 379 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. Hence point is answered against the prosecution.

24) In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 379of IPC and is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The Bail bonds and Surety Bonds, if any shall stand canceled after the expiry of appeal period. The property/properties given in interim custody shall become absolute.

The unmarked properties if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, Corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the day of 12 th day of May, 2026)

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Sathupally

C.C.No.617/2017

Dt:12.05.2026

10

::APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE::

EXAMINED WITNESSES

Prosecution: PW.1: Isampalli Chakradar Rao PW.2: Nallamada Balaraju PW.3 : Meerja Janpasha PW.4: Kollipalli Rambabu PW.5: Yadlapalli Nageswar Rao PW.6: Dokka Gopi PW.7: J.Vasanth Kumar

Defence : --Nil--

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: Ex.P1: Original Complaint, dt.13.12.2017. Ex.P2: CDF dt.14.12.2017. Ex.P3: Signature of PW4 on CDF dt.14.12.2017. Ex.P4: Signature of PW5 on Confession and Seizure Panchanama, dt.16.12.2017. Ex.P5: Signature of PW6 on Confession and Seizure Panchanama, dt.16.12.2017. Ex.P6: Original FIR, dt.13.12.2017. Ex.P7: Attested copy of Confession-cum-seizure panchanama, dt.16.12.02017. Ex.P8: Form – 60 dt.26.12.2017.

For Defence: --NIL --

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

--NIL---

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Sathupally.

C.C.No.618/2017

Dt:12.05.2026

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:

AT SATHUPALLY

Present :- Ms. B. Sai Naga Suma Bala,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Sathupally.

(Dated this the 12th day of May, 2026)

C.C.No.618 of 20 17

(Cr.No.356/2017 of PS Sathupalli) Between: The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Sathupalli. …Complainant.

AND

Madiki Prasad, S/o.Nageswara Rao (Late), Age.35 years, Occ.Driver of TATA ACE Vehicle bearing No.TS 04 UA 2589, R/o.Gandhinagar Road No.9, Sathupalli.. … Accused.

This case is coming on this day before me for final disposal in the presence of Learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri.N.Vijay Kumar and Sri.Sadu Krishnaiah, Learned Counsels for the Accused and having heard both sides and upon perusal of material available on record, this court made the following:

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

1) The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Sathupaly filed charge sheet against the

Accused vide Cr.No.356/2017 alleging that the Accused committed the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC.

2) The factual matrix of the prosecution’s case is that:-

I. On 15.12.2017 at about 6:00 PM, the de facto complainant, namely

Nallamada Balaraju, appeared before the Police Station and lodged a written complaint in Telugu stating that the accused was working as a driver on TATA ACE vehicle bearing No. TS 04 LIA 2589 belonging to Professional Courier, Sathupally, on daily wage basis. It

C.C.No.618/2017

Dt:12.05.2026

2 is alleged that the accused used to transport courier parcels from

Professional Courier, Sathupally to the Professional Courier Office at

Khammam and was also independently transporting parcels of

World Fast Courier Agency, Khammam, to World Fast Courier

Centre, Sathupally in the same vehicle for monetary consideration.

The complainant further alleged that on 05.11.2017, the accused collected a parcel box containing four Samsung mobile phones, two OPPO mobile phones and one VIVO mobile phone worth about Rs.1,08,794/- from World

Fast Courier Agency, Khammam, for delivery at World Fast Courier

Centre, Sathupally. However, instead of delivering the parcel, the accused allegedly hatched a plan to commit theft of the said mobile phones, taking advantage of the absence of any transaction document or acknowledgment signature, and directly went to his house at Gandhinagar, Sathupally and concealed the parcel box there for further disposal. Therefore, the complainant requested the police to take necessary action against the accused in accordance with law.

II.Basing on the report, LW7/J.Vasanth Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police,

P.S.Sathupally registered a case in Cr.No.356/2017, against the accused under Section 379 of IPC and took up the investigation and during the course of investigation, LW7 examined and recorded the statement of

LW.1/Nallamada Balaraju.

III.Later, LW7 visited the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama and also drew rough sketch and prepared Crime Details Form

C.C.No.618/2017

Dt:12.05.2026

3 in the presence of LW3/Chavani Siva Kumar and LW4/Kanumuri

Verendranadh and examined and recorded the statement of

LW2/Issampalli Chakradhar Rao.

IV.On 16.11.2017, LW7 arrested the accused and during the course of investigation, accused confessed to have committed this offence also and recovered the stolen property pertaining to this case from his possession under cover of panchanama in the presence of LW5/Yadapally Nageswara

Rao and LW6/Dokka Gopi. After completion of investigation, LW.7 filed charge sheet against the Accused for the offence under section 379 of IPC.

3) This court took cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC against the accused. On appearance of the Accused, copies of the charge sheet and the documents were furnished to him as contemplated under section 207 of

Cr.P.C.

4) Accused was examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C, for charges under Section 379 of IPC against him, read over and explained to him in Telugu language, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5)In order to bring home the guilt of the Accused for the offences arrayed against him, the prosecution examined LWs.2, 1, 3, 5, 6, and 7 as PWs.1 to 6 and marked Exs.P1 to P6. The evidence of LW4 is given up by prosecu- tion.

6) Accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating material available against him, for which the Accused person pleaded that all such evidence is false and reported no Defense evidence.

7) Heard the arguments of both sides. Perused the record.

C.C.No.618/2017

Dt:12.05.2026

4

8) Now the points of determination is:“ WHETHER PROSECUTION

BROUGHT HOME THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED BEYOND

REASONABLE DOUBT, FOR THE OFFENSE PUNISHABLE UNDER

SECTION 379 of IP C ?

Point :

9) The prosecution contends that the accused, while working as a driver for

Professional Courier, dishonestly committed theft of a parcel containing Samsung,

OPPO and VIVO mobile phones worth Rs.1,08,794/- entrusted to him for transportation from Khammam to Sathupally. To prove its case, prosecution examined PW1 to PW6.

10)PW1 deposed in his chief examination that he has been working in World

First Courier, Sathupally since 2014. He stated that the accused was working as a driver in the said courier office and used to transport courier parcels from

Khammam to Sathupally in an auto. He further stated that on 24.11.2017, seven new mobile phones belonging to Samsung, OPPO & VIVO Company, contained in two parcels were found missing. Suspecting the accused, they kept watch over his activities and upon enquiry came to know that the accused had committed theft of the said mobile phones, causing a loss of about Rs.1,20,000/-. Thereafter, on 15.12.2017, they lodged complaint before P.S. Sathupally against the accused. In cross examination, he stated that there is a delay of 2 months as they took time to confirm the suspicion on the accused. He also admitted that the accused is not the employee of World First Courier, Sathupally nor Khammam and that no document is filed to this court or to the police to show that 07 cell phones are

C.C.No.618/2017

Dt:12.05.2026

5 entrusted to the custody of the accused. He also admitted that he did not mention the IMEI numbers of those 07 cell phones and also parcel numbers which contained those 07 cell phones in section 161 Cr.P.C Statement.

11) PW2 deposed in the similar lines as that of PW1. In his cross examination, he stated that the accused is not the employee of World First

Courier, Sathupally, or Khammam and that no document is filed to this court or to the police to show that cell phones are entrusted to the custody of the accused.

He also admitted that he did not mention the IMEI numbers of those cell phones and also the cost of each cell phone in ExP1 and also parcel numbers which contained those cell phones in ExP1.

12)P.W.3 in his chief examination deposed that in the year 2017, police prepared a panchanama in World First Courier Branch, Sathupalli and observed boundaries and drawn rough sketch in his presence and in the presence of LW4 and after they took his and LW4 signatures on CDF.

13)PW4 and PW5 who are panch witnesses for confession and seizure panchanama did not support the case of the prosecution and are turned hostile.

14) PW6 deposed his chief examination on similar lines with the charge sheet. In cross examination, he stated that no document is furnished by PW1 to him to show that the accused is the employee of World First Courier, Sathupally. So also to show that cell phones are entrusted to the custody of the accused and also the parcel numbers which contained those cell phones. He rejected formal sugges- tions.

C.C.No.618/2017

Dt:12.05.2026

6 APPRECIATION:

15) The entire edifice of the prosecution case rests upon the allegation that the accused, while allegedly transporting courier parcels from Khammam to Sathu- pally, dishonestly removed and concealed certain mobile phones contained in par- cel boxes entrusted to him in the course of transit. The charge framed against the accused is one under Section 379 of IPC and, therefore, the prosecution is bound to establish beyond all reasonable doubt the foundational ingredients constituting “theft” as defined under Section 378 IPC, namely, that the movable property in question was in possession of another person; that the accused moved such prop- erty out of such possession without consent; and that such moving was accompa- nied by dishonest intention. Unless each of these ingredients is proved by legally admissible, cogent and reliable evidence, conviction cannot be sustained merely on suspicion, however grave it may appear.

16) At the outset, it is to be noted that the prosecution case suffers from inherent infirmities striking at the very root of the allegation of entrustment and subse- quent dishonest removal. The evidence of PW1 and PW2, who are the material witnesses upon whom the prosecution principally relies, does not inspire the con- fidence of the Court. Both witnesses admitted in unequivocal terms during cross- examination that the accused was not an employee of World First Courier, Sathu- pally. Once the witnesses themselves admit that the accused was not an em- ployee of the concerned courier office, the burden squarely lay upon the prosecu- tion to establish by independent documentary or oral evidence the precise nature of the arrangement under which the accused allegedly came into possession of the

C.C.No.618/2017

Dt:12.05.2026

7 parcels. No such evidence is forthcoming. The parcel numbers nor the IMEI num- bers of the alleged mobile phones were furnished either in Ex.P1 complaint or during investigation. PW1 and PW2 categorically admitted these omissions. Un- der Sections 101 and 102 of the Indian Evidence Act, the burden lies squarely upon the prosecution to prove the facts asserted by it.

17) According to the prosecution, the alleged occurrence pertains to parcels said to have gone missing on 24.11.2017, whereas the complaint came to be lodged only on 15.12.2017. PW1 attempted to explain the delay by stating that they were confirming their suspicion against the accused. Such explanation is neither satis- factory nor legally convincing. The silence maintained for several weeks without initiating any documented internal inquiry creates a legitimate doubt regarding the genuineness of the accusation itself.

18) The Court is conscious that delay in lodging FIR is not always fatal. However, when the prosecution case is otherwise fragile and unsupported by independent evidence, unexplained delay assumes importance because it affords room for em- bellishment, consultation and afterthought. The delayed complaint in the present case substantially weakens the spontaneity and credibility of the prosecution ver- sion.

19) The prosecution further sought to rely upon the alleged confession and recov- ery. However, the evidentiary value of such recovery is rendered wholly doubtful in view of the conduct of PW4 and PW5, the mediators to the alleged confession and seizure panchanama, who turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. Once the independent mediators disowned the prosecution version, the al-

C.C.No.618/2017

Dt:12.05.2026

8 leged recovery becomes unsafe to rely upon unless strongly corroborated by inde- pendent circumstances. No such corroboration exists.

20) It is trite that under Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act, confession made to police officers or while in police custody is inadmissible except to the limited extent permissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Even for attracting Sec- tion 27, the prosecution must establish that discovery of a fact was made pur- suant to information voluntarily furnished by the accused and that such discov- ery is proved through reliable evidence. In the present case, the mediators them- selves have not supported the alleged seizure. Further, the prosecution has not established the identity of the recovered property by producing IMEI numbers, invoices, ownership particulars or parcel identifiers. In the absence of proof con- necting the recovered mobile phones with the alleged missing consignment, the recovery loses all incriminating value.

21) The evidence of PW3 is merely formal in nature relating to scene observation and preparation of rough sketch. His testimony does not advance the prosecution case insofar as the actual commission of theft by the accused is concerned. Like- wise, the testimony of PW6, the Investigating Officer, is only derivative in nature.

Investigation, however sincere, cannot fill the substantive lacunae in proof. The

Investigating Officer himself admitted during cross-examination that no docu- ment was furnished to show that the accused was an employee of the courier of- fice or that the parcels containing mobile phones were entrusted to him. Thus, the investigation itself proceeded without collection of the primary material nec- essary to establish the charge.

C.C.No.618/2017

Dt:12.05.2026

9

22) The Court is mindful of the settled principle that criminal jurisprudence pro- ceeds on the presumption of innocence. Unless the prosecution discharges its bur- den by evidence of unimpeachable character establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt as a matter of right and not of concession. The chain of circumstances projected by the prosecution is incomplete and incapable of leading to the sole inference of guilt. This Court is also guided by the salutary principle embodied in Section 3 of the Evidence Act that a fact can be said to be proved only when the Court either believes it to exist or consid- ers its existence so probable that a prudent man would act upon such supposi- tion. Tested on this touchstone, the prosecution evidence falls considerably short of the standard required in criminal trials. Consequently, this Court holds that the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed theft of the alleged mobile phones as charged under Section 379 IPC.

Accordingly, the point is answered against the prosecution.

23) In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 379of IPC and is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The Bail bonds and Surety Bonds, if any shall stand canceled after the expiry of appeal period. The property/properties given in interim custody shall become absolute.

The unmarked properties if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, Corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the day of 12 th day of May, 2026)

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Sathupally

C.C.No.618/2017

Dt:12.05.2026

10

::APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE::

EXAMINED WITNESSES

Prosecution: PW.1: Isampalli Chakradar Rao PW.2: Nallamada Balaraju PW.3 : Chavani Shiva Kumar PW.4: Yadlapalli Nageswar Rao PW.5: Dokka Gopi PW.6: J.Vasanth Kumar

Defence : --Nil--

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: Ex.P1: Original Complaint, dt.15.12.2017. Ex.P2: CDF dt.16.12.2017. Ex.P3: Signature of PW4 on Confession and Seizure Panchanama, dt.16.12.2017. Ex.P4: Signature of PW5 on Confession and Seizure Panchanama, dt.16.12.2017. Ex.P5: Original FIR, dt.15.12.2017. Ex.P6: Attested copy of Confession-cum-seizure panchanama, dt.16.12.02017. Ex.P7: Form – 60 dt.26.12.2017.

For Defence: --NIL --

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

--NIL---

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Sathupally.

PRC.No.03/2025

Dt:15.05.2026

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:

AT SATHUPALLY

Present :- Ms. B. Sai Naga Suma Bala,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Sathupally.

(Dated this the 15th day of May, 2026)

PRC.No.3 of 2025

(Cr.No.151 of 2024 of PS Vemsoor)

Between : The State through Sub Inspector of Police, PS Vemsoor. …Complainant

AND

Bollipogu Naga Raju, S/o.Pedda Krishna, Age.36 years, Occ.Coolie, R/o.Jayalaxmipuram Village of Vemsoor Mandal. … Accused This case is coming on this day before me for final disposal in the presence of Learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri.J.V.Narendra, Counsel for the Accused and having heard both sides and upon perusal of material available on record, this court made the following:

O R D E R :

1) The Sub Inspector of Police, PS Vemsoor filed charge sheet against the sole Accused in Cr.No.151/2024, for the offences Under Sections 74, 75, 296(b), 115(2), 351(3)of BNS.

2) The brief facts of the case are that:-

I.On 26.12.2024 at 11.00 hours, the complainant/LW1/Tadikamalla

Lakshmi, W/o.Late Kannaiah, Age:30 years Occ:Coolie,

R/o.Jayalakshmipuram Village of Vemsoor Mandal, came to the police station and lodged a Telugu written complaint and stated that she is residing at Jayalaxmipuram village by eking livelihood by means coolie works and that she had two daughters and a son

PRC.No.03/2025

Dt:15.05.2026

2 and that they all are married. One year back her husband expired and she is staying alone at her home. In this order her villager/accused often comes to her house when she is alone home and harasses her to satisfy his sexual desire. Even though she tells his family members and reprimands them, there is no change in his behavior. In this order on 26.11.2024 in the early morning about 05.00 hours while she was sleeping alone at home. Accused entered in her home and caught her hand and forcibly grabbed her hand and asked her to fulfill his sexual desire. When she screamed loudly, he threatened to kill her and bet with hands if she screamed, on hearing her screams the neighbor LW3/Bhasker Rao came, on seeing him accused ran way. Later when her son

Lw2/Sivaji went and questioned the accused, he bet him with hands and threatened him with dire consequence. When they placed the matter before village elders LW4/Gadaparthy Srinu and

LW5/Mamidi Samuel, but accused replied rudely. Finally she requested to taking necessary action.

II. Basing on the complaint LW9/N.Jayababu, ASI, of PS Vemsoor registered a case in Cr.No.151/2024 Under Sections 74, 75, 296(b), 115(2), 351(3) of BNS and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, LW9 examined and recorded statement of victim under Section 180 BNSS. Later on the same day, visited the scene of offence situated at Jayalaxmipuram Village at a

PRC.No.03/2025

Dt:15.05.2026

3 distance of 19 Kms towards West direction fkrom PS Vemsoor and drafted the CDF and rough sketch in the presence of LW6/Ravuri

Rama Rao and LW7/Khammampati Ravi and examined and recorded the statements of LW2/Tadikamalla Shivaji,

LW3/Thadikamalla Bhaskar Rao, LW4/Gadiparthy Srinu,

LW5/Karumanchi Samuel @ Mamidi Samuel and LW6/Ravuri

Rama Rao and subsequently LW10/S.Veera Prasad, S.I of Police,

PS Vemsoor took up the further investigation.

III.Later LW10 filed a requisition to the Hon’ble Court court with a prayer to record the statement of LW1 under Section 183 BNSS and on 18.01.2025, LW8/Smt.Vaddi Lavanya, Hon’ble Addl.Junior

Civil Judge-cum-Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sathupally

examined and recorded the statement of victim and issued proceeding of the statement under Section 183 BNSS.

IV.On 22.01.2025 accused surrendered before LW10 and voluntarily admitted his guilt of offence and LW10 instructed him to attend

before the Hon’ble Prl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court,

Sathupally. After completion of investigation, LW10 filed charge sheet against Sole accused for the offence under sections 74, 75, 296(B), 115(2), 351(3) of BNS.

3) This case was taken on file against the sole accused for the offences under

Section 74, 75(2), 296(b), 115(2), 351(3) of BNS in which the offences

PRC.No.03/2025

Dt:15.05.2026

4 u/sec.75(2) of BNS alleged against the accused is exclusively traible by

Hon’ble court of Sessions. Therefore this case is committed to the Hon’ble

Prl.District and Sessions Judge, Khammam for trail under section 232 BNSS.

4) Accused was remanded to Judicial Custody on 05.05.2026 as he failed to furnish committal bonds and sureties.

5)The accused submitted that he has means to engage a counsel at

sessions court. Therefore, the record and the case property, if any, be

submitted to the Hon’ble Sessions Court under section 232(c) BNSS.

6)In the result, the case is committed to the Hon'ble Principal District and Sessions Judge, Khammam under section 232(a) BNSS. Notify the

Public Prosecutor about the committal of this case to the Hon'ble Principal

District and Sessions Court, Khammam as required under section 232(d)

Cr.P.C.

(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 15th of May, 2026).

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Sathupally.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

-NIL-

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Sathupally.

IN THE COURT OF

I Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sathupally

AT SATHUPALLY ,KHAMMAM

CC/100275/2015 (PROSECUTION): Siddamsetti Madhusudhana Rao Through Police Station Officer , Kalluru village and mandal

SATHUPALLY KHAMMAM

Siddamsetti Madhusudhana Rao VERSUS : Panchakarla Srinivasa Rao Age: 43 Occupation : Rangambanjara villge, Tallada mandal ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APP for State }: , Advocate for appearing for Panchakarla Srinivasa Rao Advocate appearing for , respectively. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence punishable under : 190 of NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT,

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 29-01-2026)

ORDER

Complainant Called present. Accused Called present. Judgment pronounced in the open Court (VSO) In the result, accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act and is convicted under section 255 (2) Cr.P.C At this stage, the accused is questioned with regard to quantum of sentence to be awarded to him. Accused stated that “ I have not committed any crime. The complainant intentionally filed this case against me. I am dependent on my daily income and my family is depend on me. I am also suffering from health issues. Due to my health issues, my wife is attending coolie work. My children are studying and are dependent on me. Hence to reduce sentence”. Having regard to the nature of the offence which pertains to dishonour of cheque, this court is of the opinion that this is not a fit case to invoke the provisions of probation of offenders Act or the provisions of Sec.360 of Cr.P.C. However, this court is intending to take a lenient view after considering the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 12 MONTHS. Accused is also sentenced to pay fine of Rs 4,50,000/-. The total fine amount of Rs.4,50,000/- shall be paid to the complainant as compensation under section 357 of Cr.P.C. In default, accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for 01 MONTH. Simple imprisonment of 12 MONTHS and another Simple imprisonment of 01 MONTH shall run consecutively. Further the accused is directed to deposit the Compensation amount today. The accused is not in Judicial remand at any point of time. As such there is no period for set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. The accused is informed of his right to prefer an appeal to the appellate court against the Judgment passed by this court and his right to seek legal aid if he has no means to engage an advocate to prefer an appeal to the Hon’ble District court. The copy of judgment is given to the accused at free of cost in compliance of Sec.363 of Cr.P.C.

Date : 29-01-2026 (Miss. B S N SUMA BALA)

I Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- I

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sathupally

IN THE COURT OF

I Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sathupally

CC/138/2024 (PROSECUTION):

SHO PS KALLURU

Through Police Station Officer Kalluru 153, Kalloor Sathupally Circle Igp, Warangal Region Khammam

SATHUPALLY KHAMMAM

SHO PS KALLURU

VERSUS : . Koteswar Rao Thippineni Age: 50 Occupation : 1- 42Chennuru ,Chennuru ,Chennuru,Chennuru ,Kallur,KHAMMAM,TELANGANA 2:.Nirmala Thippineni Age: 44 Occupation : 1-42Chennuru Chennuru Chennuru Chennuru Kallur

KHAMMAM

TELANGAN

----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APP for State }: , Advocate for appearing for . Koteswar Rao Thippineni Advocate appearing for , 2 respectively.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence punishable under : 427 of INDIAN PENAL CODE, 294-B of INDIAN PENAL CODE, 324 of INDIAN PENAL CODE,

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 28-01-2026)

ORDER

In view of daily Lok Adalat, the case is suomotto advanced today. Accused No. 1 and 2 and Defacto complainant present. Learned APP, police are present. Record goes to show that the offence involved in this case is under Section 294(b), 324, 427, and 506 r/w 34 IPC against accused persons. The Learned APP filed a petition under section 321 Cr.P.C on behalf of complainant for withdrawing section 294b of IPC and the same is permitted. The Learned APP also filed petition to alter the offence punishable under section 324 of IPC to section 323 of IPC and compound the offence punishable under section 323 of IPC, as both sides reported compromised the matter and reported the same on inquiry. Hence, compromise is recorded. Accordingly, Award is passed under section 320(1) of Cr.P.C. Vide separte Award (VSA). In the view of compromise accused persons are acquitted under section 320(1) of Cr.P.C for the offence under section 323, 427 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC. The personal bonds surety bonds bail bonds (if any ) shall stands cancelled. The summons warrants if any shall stands cancelled. Unmarked property if any shall be destroyed.

Date : 28-01-2026

I Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- I

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sathupally