Ms B.Sirisha

1

IN THE COURT OF THE 1st ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS-CUM-

1st ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VIZIANAGARAM

Present: Miss. B.Sirisha, 1st Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, -cum- 1st Addl.Junior Civil

Judge, Vizianagaram

Tuesday, this the 25th day of June,2019.

C.C.No.350 of 2015

Between: State, represented by the Sub-Inspector of police, II Town Police Station, Vizianagaram.

...Complainant.

And.

A.1 Gadesi Jaya Laxmi, w/o.Gopi, 31 years, H.No.27-11-5, Golla Veedhi, Dasannapeta, Vizianagaram.

A.2 Yerra Seetharatnam, w/o. Late Apparao, 65 years, Golla Veedhi, Dasannapeta, Vizianagaram.

...Accused.

This case is coming on 17.06.2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State and of Sri

M.Yogeswara Rao, learned Counsel for accused 1 and 2 and upon hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of police, Vizianagaram II Town Police Station filed a charge sheet against the above Accused 1 and 2 in Crime

Nos.17/2015 under section 324,323, r/w 34 of I.P.C.

The brief facts of this case :-

2)On 28.01.2015 at 9.30 p.m., L.W.1/Ambati Annapurna and her son

L.W.2/Ambati Kalyan were at their house at that time the accused 1 and 2 and Child conflict with Law by name Yerra Chinna came to the house of

L.W.1/Ambati Annapurna and shouted on L.W.1 /Ambati Annapurna, when she came out from her house, both the accused and CCL picked up quarrel with

L.W.1/Ambati Annapurna, where A.1 armed with a wooden plank (Padu) beat

L.W.1 on her head and she also bitten on the left forearm of L.W.1. A.2 and

CCL beat L.W.1/Ambati Annapurna with hands. On seeing it when L.w.2 2 /Ambati Kalyan, tried to rescue L.w.1, the CCL fisted him with hands as a result, L.W.2 received swelling injuries on the left eyebrow, L.ws.1 and 2 admitted at Headquarter Hospital, Vizianagaram.

Basing on the report of L.W.1/Ambati Annapurna, L.W.8/V.Sreeramulu, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Vizianagaram II Town Police Station registered a case in Cr.No.17/2015, u/sec.324,323, r/w 34 of IPC on 29.01.2015 at 11.00 a.m, and investigated into. During the course of investigation he visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch of scene, examined and recorded the statements of witnesses in detail under section 161 (3) Cr.P.C statements. Seized crime weapon from L.W.1/Ambati Annapurna, at the time of her examination. L.W.6/Dr.R.Sashidar provided treatment to L.W.1/Ambati

Annapurna and Ambati Kalyan and issued wound certificates , wherein he opined that the injuries are simple in nature. L.w.9/Y.K.K.Kumar served notice under section 41(1) Cr.P.C on 29.01.2015 at 1.05 p.m to accused. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the Accused.

3)During the course of Trial, prosecution examined Pws 1 to 7 and exhibits P.1 to P.9 were marked on behalf of prosecution. M.O.1 Wooden plank were marked on behalf of prosecution.

4)In order to prove the case, prosecution examined the complainant/injured as P.W.1, and son of P.W.1 and injured is examined as

P.W.2, P.Ws.3 and 4 are eye witnesses, P.w.5 is medical officer and P.W.6 is

Head constable, who recorded the statement of P.W.1 on receiving MLC from

Government Hospital, Vizianagaram, P.W.7 is Investigating officer,

5)Ext.P.1 is the statement given by PW.1, Exts.P.2 and 3 are 161

Cr.P.C statements of P.Ws.2 and 3 , Ex.P.4 is wound certificate of P.W.1, Ex.P.5 is wound certificate of P.W.2, Ex.P.6 is Hospital intimation,Ex.P.7 is original

FIR, Ex.P.8 is rough sketch, and P.9 is scene observation report. M.O.1 is wooden plank.

6)After completion of the prosecution evidence,the Accused 1 and 2 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C and the incriminating 3 circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses is read over and explained to them in Telugu, and the Accused 1 and 2 are denied the same and did not adduce any defence evidence.

7)Heard the Arguments of both sides.

8)Perused the material on record.

9)Now the point for determination of this court is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the Accused for the offences under Sections 324,323, r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubts?

10)POINT:

It is the case of prosecution that causing simple hurt to P.ws.1 and 2 with a wooden plank which is a deadly weapon. To prove the charges u/sec.

324,323, r/w.34 of IPC. The prosecution is required to prove that

a) accused Nos.1 and 2 voluntarily caused hurt to P.W.1 and P.W.2 with dangerous weapon.

b) Accused Nos.1 and 2 caused simple hurt to P.ws.1 and 2 by beating them with hands.

c) such hurt is caused otherwise than in grave and sudden provocation.

d) Accused Nos.1 and 2 caused simple hurt with a common intention.

11.The learned A.PP argued that from the evidence of P.ws.1 to 7 the prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused 1 and 2 are liable for punishment u/sec. 324,323,r/w.34 of IPC. She also argued that one Yerra Chinna was not added as accused in this case as he is a Juvenile and separate proceedings are going on against him.

12. On the other hand, the case of defence is that of total denial. The learned counsel for the accused contended that there is inconsistency in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and P.W.2 was not present at the time of incident as he went to tution, and it is a false case foisted against accused because of disputes between accused and P.w.1 with regarding to gold ornaments.

4

13.According to P.w.1 Ambati Annapurna on 28.01.2015 at 9.30 p.m while she was in her house A.1 who is sister and A.2 who is the mother of

P.W.1 came to her house and called her with a filthy language . When she came out A.1 and A.2 started quarreling with her. A.1 caught hold tuft of her hair and dragged her outside and bitten on her left hand near wrist and that she sustained a bleeding injury, when she cried loudly A.1 beat her with a wooden plank on her body in the meanwhile P.W.2 her son came from house then A.2 caught hold the tuft of hair of P.w.2 and Yerra Chinna fisted her son on his eyes and stomach, immediately they went to Government hospital and out post P.S Government hospital recorded her statement, which is marked as Ex.P.1. During her chief examination she was shown two wooden planks by prosecution but she denied those two wooden planks with which

A.1 beat her on the day of incident.

During the cross-examination she admitted the relation between herself and accused and also admitted about the disputes between herself and accused with regarding to gold ornaments. She stated that the age of

A.2 is 70 years and she denied the suggestions posed by counsel for accused.

It is the evidence of P.W.2 who is none other than son of P.W.1, he deposed that on the day of incident he was present in his house and taking dinner and on hearing the cries of his mother he went to rescue her in that incident he received injuries in the hands of A.1 and A.2 with wooden planks on his head and body and later he and his mother went to Hospital.

During his cross-examination he admitted about the family disputes between his family and accused family and he also admitted that A.2 is his maternal grand-mother at present who is suffering from Paralysis.

Even though prosecution cited P.ws.3 and 4 as eye witnesses in the present case but both were turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution.

5

It is the evidence of Medical officer who treated P.ws.1 and 2 immediately after the incident he found the injuries on P.W.1 :1) A laceration injury on right side parietal region of the scalp, (2) A bitten mark at left medieval aspect of forearm and he issued Ex.P.4 wound certificate of P.w.1 and he found the injuries on P.w.2: (1) A contusion on lateral aspect of left eye, size 2x1 cms, (2) A contusion above the right eye-brow, size 2x 1 cms and he issued Ex.P.5 wound certificate of P.w.2.

P.w.6 is the Head constable who recorded the statement of P.W.1 on receiving MLC intimation from Government Hospital,.Vizianagaram immediately after the incident.

It is the evidence of P.w.7 who is the investigating officer in this case who deposed about the registration of this case and his visit to scene of offence and seizure of MO.1 under the cover of Ex.P.9 scene observation report and recording the statements of witnesses, obtaining wound certificates of P.Ws.1 and 2, arrest of accused Nos.1 and 2 in this case.

14.As seen from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 the over-tacts of accused No.1 are corroborated with the evidence of P.W.5 Medical Officer who issued Ex.P.4 and P.5 wound certificates of P.,Ws.1 and 2. Pw-1 deposed that A.1 dragged her by caught holding the tuft of her hair and bitten on her left hand wrist. Pw-5 the medical officer who treated Pw-1 immediately after incident found and mentioned in Ex-P.4 that injury no.1 is a lacerated injury, second injury is bitten injury on the left fore arm of Pw-1. The oral evidence of Pw-1 and the documentary evidence Ex-P1 and Ex-P4 are corroborating with each other and also with the evidence of corroborative witness ie

Medical Officer. The injuries on the body of Pw-2 were also corroborating with the evidence of medical officer under Ex.P5. The evidence of P.ws.1 and 2 is relevant and inspires the confidence of this Court with regarding to involvement of A.1. Even though the counsel for accused disputed the presence of P.w.2 at the time of incident but P.ws.1 and 2 deposed that at 6 one mouth at the time of incident P.W.2 is inside of the house and he is taking dinner.

15. It is also the contention of the counsel for accused that the injuries of Pw-1 are self inflicted because of disputes for gold. He tried to elicit the injuries are self inflicted, he was succeeded to an extent that those may possible but not with certainty, more over there is no single suggestion to Pw-1 by the counsel for accused that those injuries are self inflicted. From the evidence of P.ws.1 and 2 and from Ex.P.1 report and also from the evidence of medical officer with regarding to injuries mentioned in

Ex.P.4 and P.5 of P.ws.1 and 2 the prosecution succeeded in proving the fact that the accused No.1 caused injuries to P.ws.1 and 2 otherwise than on grievous and sudden provocation.

16.In order to prove the charge u/sec. 324 IPC prosecution is required to prove the using of dangerous weapon M.O.1 wooden plank by accused NO.1 which was recovered from the scene of offence under the cover of Ex.P.9 scene observation report. The learned counsel for the accused draw the attention of this court with regard to inconsistency in the evidence of witnesses about M.O.1. He contended that Pw-1 denied the M.O1 but the investigating officer Pw-7 deposed M.O1 is the weapon used by the

A.1 for commission of offence. On seeing the record M.O1 was recovered under the cover of Ex.P9 by Pw-7 and was marked through Pw-7 only. Except

Pw-7’s evidence there is other evidence for recovery of M.O.1 as Ex.P.9 does not contain any signatures of mediators. But here those irregularities are not sufficient to brush aside the entire evidence of P.w.1 it is strong enough to prove all the ingredients for the offence u/sec. 324 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. The discrepancies if any in between the evidence of

P.wsl.1 and 2 are very natural and they are not sufficient to discard their evidence in to-to. In this case as alleged by the prosecution that A-1 used the wooden plank to beat P.ws.1 and 2, but P.W.1 herself denied the wooden plank with which A.1 beat her on the day of incident . Without proving the 7 use of M.O.1 by the accused for causing the injuries to P.Ws.1 and 2 it is not possible to prove the charge u/sec. 324 of IPC as the use of deadly weapon is highly doubtful. Hence, there is no sufficient evidence to prove the charge against the accused 1 and 2 u/sec.324 of IPC

17.coming to the other charge U/sec. 323 of IPC is sufficiently proved that the accused No.1 beat P.w.1 and 2 and caused injuries mentioned in Ex.P.4 and P.5 which inspires the confidence of this Court. When any falsity is mixed in the evidence of prosecution witnesses it is the duty of court to separate the grain from chaff. In this regard this court deems it most appropriate to the refer the judgment in Honourable Apex Court Boorsingh and another Vs State of Punjab ,2009(1) ALD (Crl.)45 (SC) in which “It is the duty of Court to separate the grain from the chaff, where the chaff can be separated from the grain, it would be open to the Court to convict an accused notwithstanding the fact that evidence has been found to be deficient to prove guilt of other accused person. Falsity of particular material witness or material particular would not ruin it from the beginning to end. The maxim “Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus’ has not application in India and the witnesses cannot be branded as liars. The maxim “falsus in uno falsus in omnibus’ has not received general acceptance nor has this maxim come to occupy the status of a rule of law….

‘The aforesaid dictum is not a sound rule for the reason that one hardly comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggeration, embroideries or embellishment.”..

In the above authority the Hon’ble Apex Court cautioned the courts to separate the grain from chaff where ever it is possible. this feel it is profitable to go through the relevant para… “An attempt has to be made to, as noted above, in terms of felicitous metaphor, separate the grain from the chaff, truth from falsehood. Where it is not feasible to separate truth from falsehood, because grain and chaff are 8 inextricably mixed up, and in the process of separation an absolutely new case has to be reconstructed by divorcing essential details presented by the prosecution completely from the context and the background against the which they are made, the only available course to be made is to discard the evidence in toto.”

18.Therefore, even by excluding the said omissions and contradictions in the evidence of Pws.1 and 2 the rest of their evidence with regard to over-tacts of A.1 and her involvement in causing injures to P.ws.1 and 2 inspires the confidence of this Court.

19.As per Section 3 of Indian Evidence Act in interpretation clause the word “Proved” is defined as follows:

“Proved:- A fact is said to be proved when , after considering the

matter before, it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers

its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the

circumstances of the particular case,to act upon the supposition

that it exists”.

20.From the above reading it is clear that the standard of believe it is ordinary prudence. Hence, in the present case no material contradictions are brought on record and proved to doubt the testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2 against A.1 with regard to charge of u/sec.323 of IPC. Though the crime weapon M.O.1 wooden plank is not proved beyond all reasonable doubt but causing bitten injury by the accused no.1 is sufficiently proved and it is sufficient to prove the charge u./sec. 323 of IPC. Therefore the prosecution succeeded in proving the case u/sec. 323 of IPC against A.1. Even though the evidence of P.ws.2 and 3 not supported the case of prosecution but the evidence of injured/ eye wittinesses ie., P.ws.1 and 2 is corroborated with the evidence of medical officer P.W.5 to prove the charge u/sec. 323 of IPC against A.1.

9

21. From the entire evidence of Prosecution it discloses that the presence of A.2 at scene of offence who is aged about 70 years. But the specific over­tacts against A.2 were not proved by the prosecution.

22.From entire record it is sufficiently established that the prosecution proved the guilt of A.1 for the offence u/sec.323 of IPC only. The prosecution failed to prove the charges u/sec. 324 ,r/w 34 of IPC against A.1 and charges u/sec. 324, 323,r/w.34 of

IPC against A.2. Here, the point is answered accordingly. 

23.In the result, Accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence u/sec.

324, r/w.34 of IPC, and accordingly they are acquitted u/sec. 248(1) Cr.P.C and A.2 is found not guilty for the offence u/sec. 323 of I.P.C and accordingly A.2 is acquitted u/sec. 248(1) Cr.P.C. The Accused No.1 found guilty for the offence u/sec. 323 of IPC and she is convicted u/sec. 248(2) Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court, this the 25th day of June,2019.

Sd/­ Miss. B.Sirisha I Addl, Judicial Magistrate of I Class­ ­cum­ Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram.

On questioning for question of sentence A.1 submitted that she has not committed any offence and she is having two small children they are dependents on her and requested Court to take lenient view.

On questioning for question of sentence the learned A.P.P submitted nothing is there to submit.

On considering the nature of offence it is not a fit case to invoke provision of

Prohibition and Offenders Act. However, considering submissions of A.1 this Court feels the following sentence would served purpose of meets and ends of justice.

In the result, this Court convicted Accused No.1 u/sec.248(2) Cr.P.C and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/­(Rupees One thousand only) for the offence u/sec.323 of IPC in default of payment of fine the accused No.1 shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month. M.O.1 wooden plank shall be destroyed after lapse of 10 appeal period. Since A.1 is not awarded any imprisonment set off u/sec.428 of Cr.P.C does not arise. Accused No.1 not detained any judicial custody in this case. A.1 has right to prefer appeal to the Hon’ble Sessions Court and from legal Aid through Hon’ble

District Legal Services Committee, if she has no means to engage Advocate. The office is directed to serve free copy of judgment to A.1 forthwith. If A.1 has not paid fine amount the office is directed to prepare conviction warrant accordingly.

Typed to my dictation, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court, this the 25th day of June,2019.

Sd/­ Miss. B.Sirisha I Addl, Judicial Magistrate of I Class­ ­cum­ Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined For Prosecution:­For Defence:­ 

P.W.1: Ambati Annapurna..­ None ­ P.W.2: Ambati Kalyan P.W.3: Pinninti Uma. P.W.4: Barla Parvathi. P.w.5: Dr.R.Sasidhar.,CIS. P.W.6:Vempatapu Satyam, Sub­Inspector of Police. P.W.7: V.Sreeramulu, Retired S.I of Police. 

Exhibits Marked For Prosecution:­

Ext.P.1 is the Statement given by PW.1, Ext.P.2 is 161 Cr.P.C statements of P.W.2 Ex.P.3 is 161 Cr.P.C statements of P.W.3 , Ex.P.4 is wound certificate of P.W.1, Ex.P.5 is wound certificate of P.W.2 and Ex.P.6 is Hospital intimation.

For defence : ­Nil­ M.Os.Marked ­NIL_

Sd/­ Miss. B.Sirisha I Addl, Judicial Magistrate of I Class­ cum­ Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram 11

Calendar and Judgment

Calendar cases tried by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of the I Class, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of offence: 28.01.2015 Date of report or complaint : 29.01.2015 Date of apprehension of accused : 05.02.2015. Date of release, if any on bail : 05.02.2015 Issued 41(A) Cr.P.C Notice. Date of commencement of trial : 01.04.2019 Date of close of trial : 09.05.2019 Date of sentence or order : 25.06.2019. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Explanation for delay and remarks:- The prosecution did not produce its witnesses from time to time, and hence the delay in disposal of the case.

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.350/2015 on the file of the Addl., Judicial

Magistrate of I the Class, Vizianagaram.

Complainant:- State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, II Town Police Station in Cr.No.17/2015. Particulars of the accused. AA.1 Gadesi Jaya Laxmi, w/o.Gopi, 31 years, H.No.27-11-5, Golla Veedhi, Dasannapeta, Vizianagaram. A.2 Yerra Seetharatnam, w/o. Late Apparao, 65 years, Golla Veedhi, Dasannapeta, Vizianagaram. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Offence:- Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means under section 324 IPC. Voluntarily causing hurt punishable under section 323 IPC with common intention u/sec.34 IPC.

Finding:- Accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence u/sec. 324, r/w.34 of IPC, and accordingly they are acquitted u/sec. 248(1) Cr.P.C and A.2 is found not guilty for the offence u/sec. 323 of I.P.C and accordingly A.2 is acquitted u/sec. 248(1) Cr.P.C. The Accused No.1 found guilty for the offence u/sec. 323 of IPC and she is convicted u/sec. 248(2) Cr.P.C

Sentence:- Accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence u/sec. 324, r/w.34 of IPC, and accordingly they are acquitted u/sec. 248(1) Cr.P.C and A.2 is found not guilty for the offence u/sec. 323 of I.P.C and accordingly A.2 is acquitted u/sec. 248(1) Cr.P.C. The Accused No.1 found guilty for the offence u/sec. 323 of IPC and she is convicted u/sec. 248(2) Cr.P.Cand A.1 sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/­(Rupees One thousand only) for the offence u/sec.323 of IPC in default of payment of fine the accused No.1 shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month. M.O.1 wooden plank shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal period. Since A.1 is not awarded any imprisonment set off u/sec.428 of Cr.P.C does not arise. Accused No.1 not detained any judicial custody in this case. A.1 has right to prefer appeal to the

Hon’ble Sessions Court and from legal Aid through Hon’ble District Legal Services

Committee, if she has no means to engage Advocate. The office is directed to serve free copy of judgment to A.1 forthwith. If A.1 has not paid fine amount the office is directed to prepare conviction warrant accordingly.

Sd/­ Miss. B.Sirisha 1st Add. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, -cum-Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE 1st ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS­CUM­

1st ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VIZIANAGARAM

Present: Miss. B.Sirisha, 1st Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, ­cum­ 1st Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram

Thursday, this the 20th day of June,2019.

C.C.No. 1805 of 2017

Between: State, represented by the Sub­Inspector of police, I Town Police Station, Vizianagaram.

...Complainant.

And.

Dumpa Ramesh Reddy@ Datla Rameshreddy, s/o.Byragireddy, 32 years, Native of Parvathipuram village, Ganjam district, Odisha State, Migrated to Aguru Veedhi, Nelimarla village and mandal, Vizianagaram district, presently residing at Sali Veedhi, Kottapeta, Vizianagaram.

...Accused.

This case is coming on this day ie, on 20.06.2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for State and of Sri S.Jagannadham Naidu,

Legal Aid Counsel for accused and upon hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1. The Sub­Inspector of police, Vizianagaram I Town Police Station filed a charge sheet against the above Accused in Crime Nos.84/2017 under section 454 and 380 IPC.

The brief facts of this case :­

2)On 03.05.2017 at 11.30 a.m., Kenguva Adinarayana and Kenguva Gurunaidu went to Beach, Visakhapatnam after locking the doors of their house situated at VUDA

Colony, Phase­IV, Vizianagaram and at about 1.30 p.m., Kenguva Parvathi who is the mother of Kenguva Adinarayana came to their house and noticed that the window grills were removed and found some unknown culprits gained entrance into their house and committed theft of gold jewellery i.e., 1). Gold necklace wg. About 1 ½ tulas, 2).

2

Gold chain with locket wg. About 2 ½ tulas and 3). Gold ring wg. About ½ tula from iron almyrah.

Basing on the report of L.W.1/Kenguva Adinarayana, L.w.8/S.Dhanunjaya, Sub­ inspector of Police registered a case in crime no. 84/2017, u/sec.380, 454 of IPC. During the course of investigation, on 31.10.2017 at 4.00 p.m., on credible information

L.W.9/GAV Ramana – SI of Police secured the presence of L.W.6/Chandaka Vasu and

L.w.7/Gedda Mahesh, arrested at KP temple junction, Vizianagaram while the accused is trying to abscond on seeing police and on enquiry, the accused voluntarily confessed commission of offence in this case as well as in crime no. 268/2017 and 74/2017 u/Sec.

379 IPC of I town Poice Station, Vizianagaram. The accused took L.w.7 and his staff to his house and handed over the stolen property pertaining to this case and also in other crimes. On 10.11.2017 the accused was produced before this Court on execution of PT

Warrant and sent him for Judicial remand. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the Accused.

4)Since the Accused submitted that he has no means to engage an Advocate to defend his case before this Court, this Court was appointed Sri S. Jagannadham

Naidu, Legal Aid Counsel to defend the case of the Accused. Subsequently the accused was released on bail on 17.11.2017.

5. On the next appearance accused was furnished with copies of documents as contemplated U/S. 207 Cr.P.C.

 6. On the next hearing, the accused was examined U/Sec. 239 Cr.P.C. Upon hearing charges have been framed against the accused for the offences under section 454,380 and 411 of IPC.. The charges were read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5)During the course of Trial, prosecution examined Pws 1 to 7 and exhibits

P.1 to P.14 and M.O.1 to M.O.3 were marked on behalf of prosecution.

3

6)During the Trial, PW.1 complainant, P.W.2 is neighbour of P.W.1, P.W.3 is father of P.W.1. P.Ws.4 and 5 are mediators, P.W.6 and 7 are investigating officers.

7)Ext.P.1 is the report given by PW.1 and Ext.P.2 is the scene observation report, Ex.P.3 is signature of P.W.4 on mediators report dated 31.10.2017 at 4.00 p.m.

Ex.P.4 is signature of P.W.4 on mediators report dated 31.10.2017 at 6.00 p.m, , Ex.P.5 is signature of P.W.4 on property identification report dated 01.11.2017. Ex.P.6 is signature of P.W.5 on mediators report dated 31.10.2017 at 4.00 p.m, Ex.P.7 is signature of P.W.5 on mediators report dated 31.10.2017 at 6.00 p.m, Ex.P.8 is signature of P.W.5 on property identification report dated 01.11.2017. Ex.P.9 is the original F.I.R. Ex.P.10 is rough sketch. Ex.P.11 is mediators report dated 31.10.2017 at 4.00 p.m. Ex.P.12 is mediators report dated 31.10.2017 at 6.00 p.m. Ex.P.13 is property identification report dated 01.11.2017.

8)After completion of the prosecution evidence, the Accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C and the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses is read over and explained to him in Telugu, and the accused denied the same and did not adduce any defence evidence.

9)Heard the Arguments of both sides.

10)Perused the material on record.

11)Now the point for determination of this court is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the Accused for the offences under Sections 454, 380 IPC or 411 IPC beyond all reasonable doubts?

12)POINT:

It is the case of the prosecution that the Accused committed theft of gold jewellery i.e., 1). Gold necklace wg. About 1 ½ tulas, 2). Gold chain with locket wg.

About 2 ½ tulas and 3). Gold ring wg. About ½ tula from the almarah at the house of 4

PW.1 . On the report given by P.w.1, a case in Crime No 84/2017 was registered under

Section 454 and 380 of IPC . During the course of investigation, Accused was arrested by PW.7 on 31.10.2017 in the presence of mediators Pws.4 and 5 and stolen property

M.Os 1 to 3 were recovered form the possession of the Accused by PW.7 under the cover of Ex.P.11 and P.12. 

13)The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that from the evidence of

Pws 1 to 7 the prosecution could prove its case against the Accused for the offences under Section 454 and 380 or 411 of IPC and he is liable for punishment.

14)On the other hand the case of defence is total denial. The learned Legal

Aid Counsel argued that PW.1 to 3 do not know who committed theft and there is no direct evidence for the theft. The mediators P.Ws.4 and 5 who were present at the time of recovery of stolen property but they did not support the case of the prosecution and

PW.4 and 5 failed to identify the Accused and not corroborated with the avernments of confession and mediator report. P.W.1 not furnished any receipts to show the ownership of M.Os 1 to 3 and no descriptive particulars mentioned in Ext.P.1.

Prosecution not produced any identification slips of seized property .

15)As can be seen from the evidence on record, PW.1 is Defacto complainant,

P.W.3 is father of P.W.1 and who do not know who committed the theft and do not know when it was committed. PW.1 admitted in his cross examination that he did not handover any bill or receipt to the police to show that the stolen property belongs to him. Since PW.1 and 2 are not a direct witnesses to the alleged theft, their evidence will not helpful to the charge against the Accused, their evidence is not sufficient to connect the accused with the Case. P.W.2 who is neighbour of P.W.1 who support the case with regarding to commission of theft by unknown culprits in the house of P.W.1 and his evidence at the time of drafting of scene observation report under Ex.P.2.

Hence, there is no direct evidence for the house breaking or theft in dwelling house.

As stated above, P.Ws.1 and 3 do not know who committed the said theft and their 5 evidence is helpful, except for proving theft of M.Os 1 to 3 from their house by some unknown offenders, nothing else is elicited from their evidence. Therefore, no one witnessed the occurrence of the actual theft said to have been committed by the

Accused herein. There is no direct evidence to prove that the Accused committed the said theft. As there is no direct evidence for the theft, the entire prosecution cases rests upon the alleged confession of the Accused stated to be given to the police and the prosecution tried to prove its case through the said confession and recovery of the stolen property from the possession of Accused.

As per the prosecution evidence P.W.4 and 5 are the mediators who were present at the time of recovery of M.Os.1 to 3 from the possession of accused under the cover of

Exts.P.11 and P.12.

Now the evidence of Pw.6 who is one of the investigating officer deposed that on 03.05.17 when he was in I town P.S., PW.1 came to and presented ExP.1 report, basing on the contents of Ex.p.1, he registered a case in Cr.No.84/17 u/s. 454, 380 IPC and issued FIR, and he examined and recorded the statement of PW.1 in P.S. u/s. 161

CrPC. Later, he visited scene of offence situated at VUDA colony i.e. the house of

PW.1. There, he examined and recorded the statements of PW.3 and LW.3­K.Parvathi.

There, he secured the presence of PW.2 and LW.5­B.Pentayya and in their presence, he observed the scene and prepared Ex.P.2­scene observation report(already marked), he also prepared rough sketch of the scene.

P.W.7 who is one of the investigating officer deposed that on 30.10.2017, he resumed investigation in this case, during the course of his investigation, on 31.10.2017, he received credible information about offenders, then he secured the presence of mediators i.e. PW.4 and PW.5 and proceeded to Polyster House Junction,

Vizianagaram at 04:00 p.m. On seeing the police jeep, accused tried to skulk away.

Then, he caught hold the accused with the help of his staff and accused confessed about the commission of theft of gold ornaments in Crime No. 268/2017 of I town P.S., 6

Vizianagaram, then, he seized the golden nuptial thread from his possession which is the stolen property in Cr.No.268/2017, on his further questioning, the accused disclosed about the commission of theft at Mayuri Junction, and also about the commission of theft of one gold neck­lace, one gold chain with locket, one gold ring pertaining to this case at VUDA colony, Phase­4 in the month of May,2017 and accused. further revealed that he kept the stolen property in this case at his house, if they follow him, he will show the same to them, there he got drafted a mediator report dt.31.10.2017 at 4:00 pm to 5:30 pm, he obtained signatures of mediators i.e. PW.4 and P.W.5 and also signatures of accused, he also obtained the signatures of my staff who accompanied with him on that day and on verifying one packet, they found one gold chain(1 & 1/2 tula) pertaining to Cr.No.74/17 of their P.S and on verifying another paper packet, they found MO.1 to MO.3 in this case, then he identified MO.1 to MO.3 are pertaining to this case. Then he seized all the the gold property under the cover of mediators report got drafted then and there on 31.10.17 at 6:00 p.m. at the house of accused, he the signatures of PW.4, PW.5 and accused and also obtained the signatures of his staff and he arrested the accused and produced before this court for judicial custody and on the next day he got conducted property identification parade in the presence of PW.4 and

PW.5 through PW.1. Ex.P.11 is property identification report dt.01.11.2017 at 10:00 a.m.

17)The evidence of Pws.6 and 7 proves that the presenting of Written Report by PW.1 , registration of the same as FIR examination of witnesses. 

18) The evidence of PW.7 shows that the Accused confessed about the commission of theft in this case before him in the presence of PW.4 and 5 and their further confession reveals about the recovery of M.O.1 to 3 under the cover of Ex.P.4 is signature of P.W.4 mediators report dated 31.10.2017 at 6.00 p.m, , Ex.P.5 is signature of P.W.4 on property identification report dated 01.11.2017 at 10.00 .am. Ex.P.6 is signature of P.W.5 mediators report dated 31.10.2017 at 4.00 p.m, Ex.P.7 is signature 7 of P.W.5 mediators report dated 31.10.2017 at 6.00 p.m, Ex.P.8 is signature of P.W.5 on property identification report dated 01.11.2017 and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

19) On perusal of entire evidence on record, P.W.1 to 3 did not depose that accused is the person who committed theft in his house, Therefore, there is no direct evidence on the record to show that accused is the person who entered into the house of

P.W.1 and committed theft of M.Os 1 to 3. The Investigating Officer not produced any instrument to show that the accused committed lurking house trespass, or, house breaking in order to commit offence. Hence, the point is answered in favour of accused and against to prosecution. This point is answered accordingly. 

20.POINT NO.2:­ To prove the charge under Sec.411 IPC, the prosecution has to prove that the property should be in possession of accused and such property must be the stolen property and the accused received the same knowingly, or, having reason to believe the same to be a stolen property and accused failed to account for possession of it.

21. To prove the offence u/sec.411 of IPC, against the accused, the prosecution relied upon the testimonies of P.Ws 4 and 5 but they failed to support the case of the prosecution with regard to the recovery of M.Os 1 to 3 from the possession of accused by the Investigating Officer in their presence, and they denied their presence and contents of Ex.P..11 and Ex.P.12/mediators reports under which M.Os 1 to 3 were said to have been recovered from the possession of the accused. As such, the main ingredients of Sec.411 of IPC i.e., possession and recovery of M.Os 1 to 3 from the possession of accused, were not proved by the prosecution.

22.Therefore, it is well settled of law that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. As already stated prosecution failed to prove recovery of M.Os 1 to 3 from the possession of accused . Hence, the mediator report filed in this case is suspicious and not fit to be relied on and there is no clinching evidence on 8 record to prove the guilt of accused . Prosecution failed to prove the case against accused as it failed to prove the recovery of M.Os 1 to 3 from the possession of accused and the prosecution failed to connect the accused with the offence.

23. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to adduce cogent and convincing evidence to prove the guilt of accused for the charges leveled against him and therefore, accused is entitled for acquittal. Hence, the point is answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

24. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under

Sections 454, 380 and 411 of IPC and accordingly he is acquitted under section 248(1)Cr.P.C. M.Os.1 to 3 were already given to P.W.1 vide Crl.MP. No.8214/2017 ,dated 05.12.2017 the said order holds good after expiry of appeal period. The accused is directed to execute bond for Rs.5,000/­ (Rupees five thousand only) U/s.437­A Cr.P.C, to appear before Appellate Court, if any appeal is preferred.

Typed to my dictation, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court, this the 20th day of June,2019.

Sd/­B.Sirisha,

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, ­cum­Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution:­ For Defence:­ 

P.W.1: Kenguva Adinarayana.­ None ­ P.W.2: Bobbadi Santosh. P.W.3: Kenguva Guru Naidu. P.W.4: Gedda Mahesh. P.W.5:Chandra Vasu Babu. P.W.6: S.Dhanunjaya Rao. S.I of Police. P.W.7: G.A.V.Ramana, S.I of Police, Exhibits Marked For Prosecution:­

Ext.P.1 is the report given by PW.1 and Ext.P.2 is the scene observation report. Ex.P.3 is signature of P.W.4 on mediators report dated 31.10.2017 at 4.00 p.m. 

9

Ex.P.4 is signature of P.W.4 on mediators report dated 31.10.2017 at 6.00 p.m, , Ex.P.5 is signature of P.W.4 on property identification report dated 01.11.2017. Ex.P.6 is signature of P.W.5 on mediators report dated 31.10.2017 at 4.00 p.m, Ex.P.7 is signature of P.W.5 onmediators report dated 31.10.2017 at 6.00 p.m, Ex.P.8 is signature of P.W.5 on property identification report dated 01.11.2017. Ex.P.9 is the original F.I.R. Ex.P.10 is rough sketch. Ex.P.11 is mediators report dated 31.10.2017 at 4.00 p.m. Ex.P.12 is mediators report dated 31.10.2017 at 6.00 p.m. Ex.P.13 is property identification report dated 01.11.2017.

For defence : ­Nil­ M.Os.Marked

MO.1 : Gold Necklace 

MO.2 : Gold ring engraved with Lord Vinayaka.

MO.3 : Gold ring with green stone.

Sd/­B.Sirisha, Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, ­cum­Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram.

10

Calendar and Judgment

Calendar cases tried by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of the I Class, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District. ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Date of offence : 03.05.2017 Date of report or complaint : 03.05.2017 Date of apprehension of accused : 10.11.2017 on P.T.Warrant. Date of release, if any on bail : 17.11.2017 Date of commencement of trial : 17.07.2018 Date of close of trial : 20.06.2019 Date of sentence or order : 20.06.2019. ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Explanation for delay and remarks:­ The prosecution did not produce its witnesses from time to time, and hence the delay in disposal of the case.

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.1805/2017 on the file of the Addl., Judicial 

Magistrate of I the Class, Vizianagaram.

Complainant:­ State represented by the Sub­Inspector of Police, I Town Police Station in Cr.No. 84/2017. Particulars of the accused. Dumpa Ramesh Reddy@ Datla Rameshreddy, s/o.Byragireddy, 32 years, Native of Parvathipuram village, Ganjam district, Odisha State, Migrated to Aguru Veedhi, Nelimarla village and mandal, Vizianagaram district, presently residing at Sali Veedhi, Kottapeta, Vizianagaram. .

Offence:­ Lurking house­trespass or house­breaking in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment: U/Sec.454 of IPC. Theft in dwelling house, etc u/S. 380 IPC Dishonestly receiving stolen property u/S. 411 IPC.

Finding:­ Not guilty for the offences u/Sec. 454, 380 , but he found guilty u/sec. 411 IPC.

Sentence:­ The accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 454, 380 and 411 of IPC and accordingly he is acquitted under section 248(1)Cr.P.C. M.Os.1 to 3 were already given to P.W.1 vide Crl.MP. No.8214/2017 ,dated 05.12.2017 the said order holds good after expiry of appeal period. The accused is directed to execute bond for Rs.5,000/­ (Rupees five thousand only) U/s.437­A Cr.P.C, to appear

before Appellate Court, if any appeal is preferred.

Sd/­B.Sirisha, 1st Add. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, ­cum­Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram. 

1

IN THE COURT OF THE 1st ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS­CUM­

1st ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VIZIANAGARAM

Present: Miss. B.Sirisha, 1st Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, ­cum­ 1st Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram

Thursday, this the 20th day of June,2019.

C.C.No. 1805 of 2017

Between: State, represented by the Sub­Inspector of police, I Town Police Station, Vizianagaram.

...Complainant.

And.

Dumpa Ramesh Reddy@ Datla Rameshreddy, s/o.Byragireddy, 32 years, Native of Parvathipuram village, Ganjam district, Odisha State, Migrated to Aguru Veedhi, Nelimarla village and mandal, Vizianagaram district, presently residing at Sali Veedhi, Kottapeta, Vizianagaram.

...Accused.

This case is coming on this day ie, on 20.06.2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for State and of Sri S.Jagannadham Naidu,

Legal Aid Counsel for accused and upon hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1. The Sub­Inspector of police, Vizianagaram I Town Police Station filed a charge sheet against the above Accused in Crime Nos.84/2017 under section 454 and 380 IPC.

The brief facts of this case :­

2)On 03.05.2017 at 11.30 a.m., Kenguva Adinarayana and Kenguva Gurunaidu went to Beach, Visakhapatnam after locking the doors of their house situated at VUDA

Colony, Phase­IV, Vizianagaram and at about 1.30 p.m., Kenguva Parvathi who is the mother of Kenguva Adinarayana came to their house and noticed that the window grills were removed and found some unknown culprits gained entrance into their house and committed theft of gold jewellery i.e., 1). Gold necklace wg. About 1 ½ tulas, 2).

2

Gold chain with locket wg. About 2 ½ tulas and 3). Gold ring wg. About ½ tula from iron almyrah.

Basing on the report of L.W.1/Kenguva Adinarayana, L.w.8/S.Dhanunjaya, Sub­ inspector of Police registered a case in crime no. 84/2017, u/sec.380, 454 of IPC. During the course of investigation, on 31.10.2017 at 4.00 p.m., on credible information

L.W.9/GAV Ramana – SI of Police secured the presence of L.W.6/Chandaka Vasu and

L.w.7/Gedda Mahesh, arrested at KP temple junction, Vizianagaram while the accused is trying to abscond on seeing police and on enquiry, the accused voluntarily confessed commission of offence in this case as well as in crime no. 268/2017 and 74/2017 u/Sec.

379 IPC of I town Poice Station, Vizianagaram. The accused took L.w.7 and his staff to his house and handed over the stolen property pertaining to this case and also in other crimes. On 10.11.2017 the accused was produced before this Court on execution of PT

Warrant and sent him for Judicial remand. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the Accused.

4)Since the Accused submitted that he has no means to engage an Advocate to defend his case before this Court, this Court was appointed Sri S. Jagannadham

Naidu, Legal Aid Counsel to defend the case of the Accused. Subsequently the accused was released on bail on 17.11.2017.

5. On the next appearance accused was furnished with copies of documents as contemplated U/S. 207 Cr.P.C.

 6. On the next hearing, the accused was examined U/Sec. 239 Cr.P.C. Upon hearing charges have been framed against the accused for the offences under section 454,380 and 411 of IPC.. The charges were read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5)During the course of Trial, prosecution examined Pws 1 to 7 and exhibits

P.1 to P.14 and M.O.1 to M.O.3 were marked on behalf of prosecution.

3

6)During the Trial, PW.1 complainant, P.W.2 is neighbour of P.W.1, P.W.3 is father of P.W.1. P.Ws.4 and 5 are mediators, P.W.6 and 7 are investigating officers.

7)Ext.P.1 is the report given by PW.1 and Ext.P.2 is the scene observation report, Ex.P.3 is signature of P.W.4 on mediators report dated 31.10.2017 at 4.00 p.m.

Ex.P.4 is signature of P.W.4 on mediators report dated 31.10.2017 at 6.00 p.m, , Ex.P.5 is signature of P.W.4 on property identification report dated 01.11.2017. Ex.P.6 is signature of P.W.5 on mediators report dated 31.10.2017 at 4.00 p.m, Ex.P.7 is signature of P.W.5 on mediators report dated 31.10.2017 at 6.00 p.m, Ex.P.8 is signature of P.W.5 on property identification report dated 01.11.2017. Ex.P.9 is the original F.I.R. Ex.P.10 is rough sketch. Ex.P.11 is mediators report dated 31.10.2017 at 4.00 p.m. Ex.P.12 is mediators report dated 31.10.2017 at 6.00 p.m. Ex.P.13 is property identification report dated 01.11.2017.

8)After completion of the prosecution evidence, the Accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C and the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses is read over and explained to him in Telugu, and the accused denied the same and did not adduce any defence evidence.

9)Heard the Arguments of both sides.

10)Perused the material on record.

11)Now the point for determination of this court is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the Accused for the offences under Sections 454, 380 IPC or 411 IPC beyond all reasonable doubts?

12)POINT:

It is the case of the prosecution that the Accused committed theft of gold jewellery i.e., 1). Gold necklace wg. About 1 ½ tulas, 2). Gold chain with locket wg.

About 2 ½ tulas and 3). Gold ring wg. About ½ tula from the almarah at the house of 4

PW.1 . On the report given by P.w.1, a case in Crime No 84/2017 was registered under

Section 454 and 380 of IPC . During the course of investigation, Accused was arrested by PW.7 on 31.10.2017 in the presence of mediators Pws.4 and 5 and stolen property

M.Os 1 to 3 were recovered form the possession of the Accused by PW.7 under the cover of Ex.P.11 and P.12. 

13)The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that from the evidence of

Pws 1 to 7 the prosecution could prove its case against the Accused for the offences under Section 454 and 380 or 411 of IPC and he is liable for punishment.

14)On the other hand the case of defence is total denial. The learned Legal

Aid Counsel argued that PW.1 to 3 do not know who committed theft and there is no direct evidence for the theft. The mediators P.Ws.4 and 5 who were present at the time of recovery of stolen property but they did not support the case of the prosecution and

PW.4 and 5 failed to identify the Accused and not corroborated with the avernments of confession and mediator report. P.W.1 not furnished any receipts to show the ownership of M.Os 1 to 3 and no descriptive particulars mentioned in Ext.P.1.

Prosecution not produced any identification slips of seized property .

15)As can be seen from the evidence on record, PW.1 is Defacto complainant,

P.W.3 is father of P.W.1 and who do not know who committed the theft and do not know when it was committed. PW.1 admitted in his cross examination that he did not handover any bill or receipt to the police to show that the stolen property belongs to him. Since PW.1 and 2 are not a direct witnesses to the alleged theft, their evidence will not helpful to the charge against the Accused, their evidence is not sufficient to connect the accused with the Case. P.W.2 who is neighbour of P.W.1 who support the case with regarding to commission of theft by unknown culprits in the house of P.W.1 and his evidence at the time of drafting of scene observation report under Ex.P.2.

Hence, there is no direct evidence for the house breaking or theft in dwelling house.

As stated above, P.Ws.1 and 3 do not know who committed the said theft and their 5 evidence is helpful, except for proving theft of M.Os 1 to 3 from their house by some unknown offenders, nothing else is elicited from their evidence. Therefore, no one witnessed the occurrence of the actual theft said to have been committed by the

Accused herein. There is no direct evidence to prove that the Accused committed the said theft. As there is no direct evidence for the theft, the entire prosecution cases rests upon the alleged confession of the Accused stated to be given to the police and the prosecution tried to prove its case through the said confession and recovery of the stolen property from the possession of Accused.

As per the prosecution evidence P.W.4 and 5 are the mediators who were present at the time of recovery of M.Os.1 to 3 from the possession of accused under the cover of

Exts.P.11 and P.12.

Now the evidence of Pw.6 who is one of the investigating officer deposed that on 03.05.17 when he was in I town P.S., PW.1 came to and presented ExP.1 report, basing on the contents of Ex.p.1, he registered a case in Cr.No.84/17 u/s. 454, 380 IPC and issued FIR, and he examined and recorded the statement of PW.1 in P.S. u/s. 161

CrPC. Later, he visited scene of offence situated at VUDA colony i.e. the house of

PW.1. There, he examined and recorded the statements of PW.3 and LW.3­K.Parvathi.

There, he secured the presence of PW.2 and LW.5­B.Pentayya and in their presence, he observed the scene and prepared Ex.P.2­scene observation report(already marked), he also prepared rough sketch of the scene.

P.W.7 who is one of the investigating officer deposed that on 30.10.2017, he resumed investigation in this case, during the course of his investigation, on 31.10.2017, he received credible information about offenders, then he secured the presence of mediators i.e. PW.4 and PW.5 and proceeded to Polyster House Junction,

Vizianagaram at 04:00 p.m. On seeing the police jeep, accused tried to skulk away.

Then, he caught hold the accused with the help of his staff and accused confessed about the commission of theft of gold ornaments in Crime No. 268/2017 of I town P.S., 6

Vizianagaram, then, he seized the golden nuptial thread from his possession which is the stolen property in Cr.No.268/2017, on his further questioning, the accused disclosed about the commission of theft at Mayuri Junction, and also about the commission of theft of one gold neck­lace, one gold chain with locket, one gold ring pertaining to this case at VUDA colony, Phase­4 in the month of May,2017 and accused. further revealed that he kept the stolen property in this case at his house, if they follow him, he will show the same to them, there he got drafted a mediator report dt.31.10.2017 at 4:00 pm to 5:30 pm, he obtained signatures of mediators i.e. PW.4 and P.W.5 and also signatures of accused, he also obtained the signatures of my staff who accompanied with him on that day and on verifying one packet, they found one gold chain(1 & 1/2 tula) pertaining to Cr.No.74/17 of their P.S and on verifying another paper packet, they found MO.1 to MO.3 in this case, then he identified MO.1 to MO.3 are pertaining to this case. Then he seized all the the gold property under the cover of mediators report got drafted then and there on 31.10.17 at 6:00 p.m. at the house of accused, he the signatures of PW.4, PW.5 and accused and also obtained the signatures of his staff and he arrested the accused and produced before this court for judicial custody and on the next day he got conducted property identification parade in the presence of PW.4 and

PW.5 through PW.1. Ex.P.11 is property identification report dt.01.11.2017 at 10:00 a.m.

17)The evidence of Pws.6 and 7 proves that the presenting of Written Report by PW.1 , registration of the same as FIR examination of witnesses. 

18) The evidence of PW.7 shows that the Accused confessed about the commission of theft in this case before him in the presence of PW.4 and 5 and their further confession reveals about the recovery of M.O.1 to 3 under the cover of Ex.P.4 is signature of P.W.4 mediators report dated 31.10.2017 at 6.00 p.m, , Ex.P.5 is signature of P.W.4 on property identification report dated 01.11.2017 at 10.00 .am. Ex.P.6 is signature of P.W.5 mediators report dated 31.10.2017 at 4.00 p.m, Ex.P.7 is signature 7 of P.W.5 mediators report dated 31.10.2017 at 6.00 p.m, Ex.P.8 is signature of P.W.5 on property identification report dated 01.11.2017 and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

19) On perusal of entire evidence on record, P.W.1 to 3 did not depose that accused is the person who committed theft in his house, Therefore, there is no direct evidence on the record to show that accused is the person who entered into the house of

P.W.1 and committed theft of M.Os 1 to 3. The Investigating Officer not produced any instrument to show that the accused committed lurking house trespass, or, house breaking in order to commit offence. Hence, the point is answered in favour of accused and against to prosecution. This point is answered accordingly. 

20.POINT NO.2:­ To prove the charge under Sec.411 IPC, the prosecution has to prove that the property should be in possession of accused and such property must be the stolen property and the accused received the same knowingly, or, having reason to believe the same to be a stolen property and accused failed to account for possession of it.

21. To prove the offence u/sec.411 of IPC, against the accused, the prosecution relied upon the testimonies of P.Ws 4 and 5 but they failed to support the case of the prosecution with regard to the recovery of M.Os 1 to 3 from the possession of accused by the Investigating Officer in their presence, and they denied their presence and contents of Ex.P..11 and Ex.P.12/mediators reports under which M.Os 1 to 3 were said to have been recovered from the possession of the accused. As such, the main ingredients of Sec.411 of IPC i.e., possession and recovery of M.Os 1 to 3 from the possession of accused, were not proved by the prosecution.

22.Therefore, it is well settled of law that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. As already stated prosecution failed to prove recovery of M.Os 1 to 3 from the possession of accused . Hence, the mediator report filed in this case is suspicious and not fit to be relied on and there is no clinching evidence on 8 record to prove the guilt of accused . Prosecution failed to prove the case against accused as it failed to prove the recovery of M.Os 1 to 3 from the possession of accused and the prosecution failed to connect the accused with the offence.

23. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to adduce cogent and convincing evidence to prove the guilt of accused for the charges leveled against him and therefore, accused is entitled for acquittal. Hence, the point is answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

24. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under

Sections 454, 380 and 411 of IPC and accordingly he is acquitted under section 248(1)Cr.P.C. M.Os.1 to 3 were already given to P.W.1 vide Crl.MP. No.8214/2017 ,dated 05.12.2017 the said order holds good after expiry of appeal period. The accused is directed to execute bond for Rs.5,000/­ (Rupees five thousand only) U/s.437­A Cr.P.C, to appear before Appellate Court, if any appeal is preferred.

Typed to my dictation, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court, this the 20th day of June,2019.

Sd/­B.Sirisha,

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, ­cum­Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution:­ For Defence:­ 

P.W.1: Kenguva Adinarayana.­ None ­ P.W.2: Bobbadi Santosh. P.W.3: Kenguva Guru Naidu. P.W.4: Gedda Mahesh. P.W.5:Chandra Vasu Babu. P.W.6: S.Dhanunjaya Rao. S.I of Police. P.W.7: G.A.V.Ramana, S.I of Police, Exhibits Marked For Prosecution:­

Ext.P.1 is the report given by PW.1 and Ext.P.2 is the scene observation report. Ex.P.3 is signature of P.W.4 on mediators report dated 31.10.2017 at 4.00 p.m. 

9

Ex.P.4 is signature of P.W.4 on mediators report dated 31.10.2017 at 6.00 p.m, , Ex.P.5 is signature of P.W.4 on property identification report dated 01.11.2017. Ex.P.6 is signature of P.W.5 on mediators report dated 31.10.2017 at 4.00 p.m, Ex.P.7 is signature of P.W.5 onmediators report dated 31.10.2017 at 6.00 p.m, Ex.P.8 is signature of P.W.5 on property identification report dated 01.11.2017. Ex.P.9 is the original F.I.R. Ex.P.10 is rough sketch. Ex.P.11 is mediators report dated 31.10.2017 at 4.00 p.m. Ex.P.12 is mediators report dated 31.10.2017 at 6.00 p.m. Ex.P.13 is property identification report dated 01.11.2017.

For defence : ­Nil­ M.Os.Marked

MO.1 : Gold Necklace 

MO.2 : Gold ring engraved with Lord Vinayaka.

MO.3 : Gold ring with green stone.

Sd/­B.Sirisha, Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, ­cum­Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram.

10

Calendar and Judgment

Calendar cases tried by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of the I Class, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District. ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Date of offence : 03.05.2017 Date of report or complaint : 03.05.2017 Date of apprehension of accused : 10.11.2017 on P.T.Warrant. Date of release, if any on bail : 17.11.2017 Date of commencement of trial : 17.07.2018 Date of close of trial : 20.06.2019 Date of sentence or order : 20.06.2019. ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Explanation for delay and remarks:­ The prosecution did not produce its witnesses from time to time, and hence the delay in disposal of the case.

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.1805/2017 on the file of the Addl., Judicial 

Magistrate of I the Class, Vizianagaram.

Complainant:­ State represented by the Sub­Inspector of Police, I Town Police Station in Cr.No. 84/2017. Particulars of the accused. Dumpa Ramesh Reddy@ Datla Rameshreddy, s/o.Byragireddy, 32 years, Native of Parvathipuram village, Ganjam district, Odisha State, Migrated to Aguru Veedhi, Nelimarla village and mandal, Vizianagaram district, presently residing at Sali Veedhi, Kottapeta, Vizianagaram. .

Offence:­ Lurking house­trespass or house­breaking in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment: U/Sec.454 of IPC. Theft in dwelling house, etc u/S. 380 IPC Dishonestly receiving stolen property u/S. 411 IPC.

Finding:­ Not guilty for the offences u/Sec. 454, 380 , but he found guilty u/sec. 411 IPC.

Sentence:­ The accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 454, 380 and 411 of IPC and accordingly he is acquitted under section 248(1)Cr.P.C. M.Os.1 to 3 were already given to P.W.1 vide Crl.MP. No.8214/2017 ,dated 05.12.2017 the said order holds good after expiry of appeal period. The accused is directed to execute bond for Rs.5,000/­ (Rupees five thousand only) U/s.437­A Cr.P.C, to appear

before Appellate Court, if any appeal is preferred.

Sd/­B.Sirisha, 1st Add. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, ­cum­Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram. 

1

IN THE COURT OF THE 1st ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS-CUM- 1st

ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VIZIANAGARAM

Present: Miss. B.Sirisha, 1st Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, -cum- 1st Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram

Wednesday, this the 26th day of June,2019.

C.C.No. 1559 of 2017

Between: State, represented by the Inspector of police, I Town Police Station, Vizianagaram.

...Complainant.

And.

A.1 Chukka Venu, s/o. Paparao, 28 years, Kantubukta veedhi, Vizianagaram

A.2 Vanapalli Suribabu, s/o. Late Narayana, 28 years, Old Bus Stand, Medara Veedhi, Vizianagaram.

...Accused.

This case is coming on 25.06.2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of

Assistant Public Prosecutor for State and of Sri S.Jagannadham Naidu, Legal Aid Counsel

for accused and upon hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for

consideration, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1. The Sub-Inspector of police, Vizianagaram I Town Police Station filed a charge sheet against the above Accused in Crime No.46/2017 under section 392 , r/w 34 and 411 of IPC.

The brief facts of this case :-

2) On 07.03.2017 G.Venkta Nagesh has received an amount of Rs.3,800/- from the owner of Babai Dabha, towards his salary out of which he spent an amount of

Rs.1,800/- for his personal needs. On the same day at about 11.00 p.m he came to 3 lamps junction, Vizianagaram and while proceeding towards his sister’s house by foot through BT road running from 3 lamps junction to Fort junction, all of sudden, the accused and his friend came to G.Venkata Nagesh (LW.1) beat with hands at Students

Emporium Books shop. In that juncture, A.2 robbed an amount of Rs.2,000/- from the left pocket of the pant. On that when G.Venkata Nagesh ( LW.1 ) raised cries, Chelumuri

Sekhar (LW.2) rushed there. On seeing the arrival of said Chelurmuri Sekhar( LW.2), A.2 2 called A.1 as Suribabu and induced to flee away as somebody seemed to be coming and the two fled away with his cash. While both the accused and their friend are fleeing away, Chelumuri Sekhar (LW.2) has witnessed and identified both the accused.

Basing on the report of L.w.1/G.Venkata Nagesh L.w.8/P.Sobhanababu, Inspector of Police, I Town P.S, Viziangaram registered the same as a case in Cr.No.46/2017

U/sec.392 IPC. On 8.3.2016 at 05:00 hrs and investigated. During the course of investigation, The SHO of I town PS., Viziangaram has inspected the scene of offence prepared rough sketch of it, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements, and arrested the accused and his friend on 8.3.2017 at 17:00 hours at Prakasam park gate,

Vizianagaram on the identification by G.Venkata Nagesh (LW.1) in the presence of

Vanakapalli Dharma and Elutu Raju (LWs. 5 & 6) and recorded the confessional statements of accused and seized the robbed amount of Rs.2,000/- from their possession (Rs.1,000/- from each one) under the cover of their confessional statements which was commenced from 17:00 hours and concluded by 18:00 hours on 8.3.2017 and produced the accused before the Honourable Court on 9.3.2016 and sent the accused for remand. Dr.PVK Sharma (LW,7) rendered treatment to the G.Venkata Nagesh (LW.1) and issued Wound Certificate wherein he opined that the injuries are simple in nature.

After completion of investigation, LW.9 has prepared charge sheet.

4)Since the Accused submitted that they have no means to engage an

Advocate to defend their case before this Court, this Court was appointed Sri S.

Jagannadham Naidu, Legal Aid Counsel to defend the case of the Accused,who are produced from Sub-Jail, Vizianagaram.

5. On the next appearance accused was furnished with copies of documents as contemplated U/S. 207 Cr.P.C.

6. On the next hearing, the accused 1 and 2 were examined U/Sec. 239 Cr.P.C. Upon hearing charges have been framed against the accused for the offences under sections 392, r/w 34 and 411 of IPC. The charges were read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3

5)During the course of Trial, prosecution examined Pws 1 to 5 and exhibits P.1 to P.8 and M.Os.1 and M.O.2 cash of Rs.1,000/- + Rs.1,000/- total cash of RS.2,000/- were marked on behalf of prosecution.

6)To prove the case of the prosecution, Pws.1 to 4 were eye witnesses and hearsay witnesses, P.W.5 is investigating officer.

7)Exts.P.1 and P.2 are 161 Cr.P.C statements of P.Ws.1 and 2, Ex.P.3 is signature of P.W.4 on mediators report dated 08.03.2017. Ex.P.4 is report given by

L.W.1/G.V.Nagesh, Ex.P.5 is the original F.I.R. Ex.P.6 is the scene observation report,

Ex.P.7 is rough sketch. Ex.P.8 is mediators report dated 08.03.2017 at 5.00 p.m.

8)After completion of the prosecution evidence, the Accused 1 and 2 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C and the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses is read over and explained to them in Telugu, and the accused are denied the same and did not adduce any defence evidence.

9)Heard the Arguments of both sides.

10)Perused the material on record.

11)Now the point for determination of this court is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the Accused for the offences under Sections 392, r/w 34 and 411 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubts?

12)POINT:

It is the case of the prosecution that the the accused and his friend came to

G.Venkata Nagesh (LW.1) beat with hands at Students Emporium Books shop. In that juncture, A.2 robbed an amount of Rs.2,000/- from the left pocket of the pant. On that when G.Venkata Nagesh ( LW.1 ) raised cries, P..W.1/Chelumuri Sekhar rushed there. On seeing the arrival of said Chelurmuri Sekhar/P.W.2, A.2 called A.1 as Suribabu and induced to flee away.

13)The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that from the evidence of

Pws 1 to 5 the prosecution could prove its case against the Accused for the offences under Section 392, r/w 34 and 411 of IPC and he is liable for punishment.

4

14)On the other hand the case of defence is total denial. The learned Legal Aid

Counsel argued that PW.1 to 4 do not know who committed theft and there is no direct evidence for the theft. The mediators P.Ws.4 and L.w.6/Eluru Raju, who were present at the time of recovery of stolen property but they did not support the case of the prosecution and P.Ws.4 and L.w.6 failed to identify the Accused and not corroborated with the avernments of confession and mediator report. P.W.1 not furnished any receipts to show the ownership of M.Os 1 and 2 and no descriptive particulars mentioned in

Ext.P.4. Prosecution not produced any identification slips of seized property .

15)As can be seen from the evidence on record, PWs.1 and 3 are is hearsay witnesses, P.Ws.3 and 4 are hearsay witnesses and who do not know who committed the theft and do not know when it was committed. P.Ws.1,3 and 4 turned hostile and they did not support the case of the prosecution. Since PW.1 and 2 are not a direct witnesses to the alleged theft, their evidence will not helpful to the charge against the Accused, their evidence is not sufficient to connect the accused with the Case. . Hence, there is no direct evidence for commission of theft. As stated above, P.Ws.1 and 3 and 4 do not know who committed the said theft and their evidence is helpful, except for proving theft of M.Os 1 and 2 committed by some unknown offenders, nothing else is elicited from their evidence. Therefore, no one witnessed the occurrence of the actual theft said to have been committed by the Accused herein. There is no direct evidence to prove that the

Accused committed the said theft. As there is no direct evidence for the theft, the entire prosecution cases rests upon the alleged confession of the Accused stated to be given to the police and the prosecution tried to prove its case through the said confession and recovery of the stolen property from the possession of Accused.

As per the evidence of P.w.2,who is medical officer deposed that on 8.3.2017, at 01:10 pm, I examined LW.1-G.Venkata Nagesh and found the following injuries:- (1) Left peri orbital contusion, bluish-red in colour was present below at left eye and measuring about 1 cm diameter and he opined that the above injury was of simple in nature, would have been caused as alleged at the alleged time.. P.w.2 issued Wound Certificate/Ex.P.2 of LW.1-G.Venkata Nagesh/complainant.

5

As per the prosecution evidence P.W.4 and L.W.6 are the mediators who were present at the time of recovery of M.Os.1 and 2 from the possession of accused under the cover of Ext. P.3.

Now the evidence of Pw.5 who is one of the investigating officer deposed that on 8.3.2017, at 5:00 a.m., while he was in P.S., LW.1-Gadagamma Venkata nagesh came to the P.S. and presented a written report to him. Basing on the contents of the said report,

Iheregistered a case in Cr.No. 46/2017 u/s. 392 IPC and issued FIR. he examined and recorded the statement of LW.1-G.V.Nagesh u/s. 161 CrPC and he send him to MR

Hospital for treatment. On the same day, at 02:00 p.m., he proceeded to scene of offence situated near 3 Lamps Junction, Vizianagaram along with LW.1-G.V.Nagesh and he also secured the mediators i.e. PW.4 , LW.6-Yeluru Raju. There, he observed the scene of offence and prepared scene observation report/Ex.P.6 and also prepared rough sketch/Ex.P.7 Then, he caught hold both the 2 persons and on his questioning, they confessed about the commission of extortion from LW.1-G.V.Nagesh, in this case and he seized Rs.1,000/- each from both the accused under the cover of mediators report dt.8.3.2017 at 05:00 p.m. and produced them before this Court, after taking finger prints.

LW.9-V.Chandrasekhar, my successor, filed charge sheet against accused.

During his cross-examination P.w.5 admitted that LW.1 not stated before him the denominations of cash of Rs.2,000/- and even he did not mention the same in his report and he admitted that he have not examined the persons who were shown in rough sketch and admitted that he has not mentioned the exact scene of offence in Ex.P.6. P.w.5 admitted that Ex.P.6 does not contain the details of mediators and does not contain the name of scribe and he has not secured any documentary proof to show that LW.1-

G.V.Nagesh drawing salary of Rs.3,800/-. P.w.5 admitted that Ex.P.8 does not contain the details of mediators and does not contain the name of scribe and also the signatures of his staff. P.w.5 admitted that he has not mentioned the name of accused from whom he obtained thumb mark on 3rd page of Ex.P.8 and he has not secured any local persons as mediators and admitted that he has not mentioned in Ex.P.8 the numbers of currency note.

17)The evidence of Pw5 proves that the presenting of Written Report by LW.1 , registration of the same as FIR examination of witnesses but the complainant did examine by the prosecution..

6

18) The evidence of PW.5 shows that the Accused confessed about the commission of theft in this case before him in the presence of PW.4 and L.W.6 and their further confession reveals about the recovery of M.O.1 and 2 under the cover of Ex.P.3 is signature of P.W.4 mediators report dated 08.03.2017 and Ex.P.8 is mediators report

dated 08.03.2017 and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

19) On perusal of entire evidence on record, P.W.1 , 3 and 4 did not depose that accused is the person who committed theft in his house, Therefore, there is no direct evidence on the record to show that accused is the person who committed cash from

L.W.1 and committed theft of M.Os 1 and 2. The Investigating Officer not produced any instrument to show that the accused committed lurking house trespass, or, house breaking in order to commit offence. Hence, the point is answered in favour of accused and against to prosecution. This point is answered accordingly.

20.POINT NO.2:- To prove the charge under Sec.411 IPC, the prosecution has to prove that the property should be in possession of accused and such property must be the stolen property and the accused received the same knowingly, or, having reason to believe the same to be a stolen property and accused failed to account for possession of it.

21. To prove the offence u/sec.411 of IPC, against the accused, the prosecution relied upon the testimonies of P.Ws 4 and L.W.6 but they failed to support the case of the prosecution with regard to the recovery of M.Os 1 and 2 from the possession of accused by the Investigating Officer in their presence, and they denied their presence and contents of Ex.P..8/mediators reports under which M.Os 1 and 2 were said to have been recovered from the possession of the accused. As such, the main ingredients of Sec.411 of IPC i.e., possession and recovery of M.Os 1 and 2 from the possession of accused, were not proved by the prosecution.

22.Therefore, it is well settled of law that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. As already stated prosecution failed to prove recovery of

M.Os 1 and 2 from the possession of accused 1 and 2 . Hence, the mediator report filed in this case is suspicious and not fit to be relied on and there is no clinching evidence on record to prove the guilt of accused . Prosecution failed to prove the case against accused 7 as it failed to prove the recovery of M.Os 1 and 2 from the possession of accused and the prosecution failed to connect the accused with the offence.

23. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to adduce cogent and convincing evidence to prove the guilt of accused for the charges leveled against him and therefore, accused is entitled for acquittal. Hence, the point is answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

24. In the result, the accused 1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 392 , r/w 34 of IPC or 411 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted under section 248(1)Cr.P.C. Either the complainant nor any person not come forward to claim M.Os.1 and 2 cash of Rs.1,000/- + Rs.1,000/- total Rs.2,000/-. Hence, the cash of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) shall be confiscated to the State.

The accused No. 1 is directed to execute bond for Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) U/s.437-A Cr.P.C, to appear before Appellate Court, if any appeal is preferred.

Accused No.2 shall be released forthwith if his detention is not required in any other case.

Typed to my dictation, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court, this the 26th day of June,2019.

Sd-Ms.B.Sirisha,

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, -cum-Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution:- For Defence:-

P.W.1: Chelumuri Sekhar. .- None - P.W.2: Dr.D.V.K.Sarma. P.W.3: Burra Harish.. P.W.4: Vanapalli Dharma Rao.. P.W.5:P.Sobhana Babu,, S.I of Police, Exhibits Marked For Prosecution:-

Exts.P.1 and P.2 are 161 Cr.P.C statements of P.Ws.1 and 2, Ex.P.3 is signature of P.W.4 on mediators report dated 08.03.2017. Ex.P.4 is report given by L.W.1/G.V.Nagesh, Ex.P.5 is the original F.I.R. Ex.P.6 is the scene observation report, Ex.P.7 is rough sketch. Ex.P.8 is mediators report dated 08.03.2017 at 5.00 p.m.

For defence : -Nil- M.Os.Marked 8

M.Os.1 cash of Rs.1,000/.

M.O.2 cash of Rs.1,000/-

Sd/- B.Sirisha,

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, -cum-Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram.

9

Calendar and Judgment

Calendar cases tried by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of the I Class, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District. --------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------- Date of offence : 03.05.2017 Date of report or complaint : 03.05.2017 Date of apprehension of accused : 10.11.2017 on P.T.Warrant. Date of release, if any on bail : 17.11.2017 Date of commencement of trial : 17.07.2018 Date of close of trial : 20.06.2019 Date of sentence or order : 20.06.2019. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------- Explanation for delay and remarks:- The prosecution did not produce its witnesses from time to time, and hence the delay in disposal of the case.

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.1805/2017 on the file of the Addl., Judicial Magistrate of I the Class, Vizianagaram.

Complainant:- State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, I Town Police Station in Cr.No. 84/2017. Particulars of the accused. Dumpa Ramesh Reddy@ Datla Rameshreddy, s/o.Byragireddy, 32 years, Native of Parvathipuram village, Ganjam district, Odisha State, Migrated to Aguru Veedhi, Nelimarla village and mandal, Vizianagaram district, presently residing at Sali Veedhi, Kottapeta, Vizianagaram..

Offence:- Lurking house-trespass or house-breaking in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment: U/Sec.454 of IPC. Theft in dwelling house, etc u/S. 380 IPC Dishonestly receiving stolen property u/S. 411 IPC.

Finding:- Not guilty for the offences u/Sec. 454, 380 , but he found guilty u/sec. 411 IPC.

Sentence:- The accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 454, 380 and 411 of IPC and accordingly he is acquitted under section 248(1)Cr.P.C. M.Os.1 to 3 were already given to P.W.1 vide Crl.MP. No.8214/2017 ,dated 05.12.2017 the said order holds good after expiry of appeal period. The accused is directed to execute bond for Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) U/s.437-A Cr.P.C, to appear

before Appellate Court, if any appeal is preferred.

Sd/-Ms.B.Sirisha,

1st Add. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, -cum-Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram.

1

 IN THE COURT OF THE 1st ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS­

CUM­1st ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VIZIANAGARAM Present: Ms.Boora Sirisha, 1st Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class ­cum­ 1st Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram

Wednesday, this the 31st day of October, 2018.  C.C.No.1174/2018

Between:

State, represented by the Sub­Inspector of police, II Town Police Station, Vizianagaram.

...Complainant.

And.

Malledu Narayana Rao, S/o.late Venkata Rao, age 30 years, Resident of Yenugula Thota, Golla Veedhi, Dasannapeta, Vizianagaram.

...Accused.

This case coming on 24­10­2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State and of Sri

S.Jagannadhamnaidu, Legal Aid Counsel for accused and upon hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

The State represented by the Sub­Inspector of police, II Town Police

Station, Vizianagaram filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.

92/2017 u/Sec.457, 427, 380 r/w 511 IPC.

2. The brief facts of the case is as follows:

The defacto­complainant­Mahanthi Bhanu Prakash is working as Head

Master of Maharaja Government Sanskrit High School, Vizianagaram, due to summer vacation of the school daily he and Kethireddy Venkata Ramana used to stay in the school from 9.00 a.m to 1.00 p.m and 4.00 pm to 7.00 pm and they used to lock the office room. Like wise on 26.05.2018 after 7.00 p.m they locked the office room and went away. On 27.05.2018 at about 7.00 a.m, Kalyanapu 2

Pydiraju sweeper informed him over phone that while he is cleaning the school he noticed that the office room back window broken opend by some unknown offenders forcibly with a crowbar, immediately the defacto­complainant­

Mahanthi Bhanu Prakash, went to the office, opened main door lock and went into the office room and found the locks of 4 iron safes were forcibly opened with a crowbar and all files are thrown away in peal­meal state on the floor, the unknown offenders are also opened the another iron safe in the staff room and the records were thrown away on the floor in peal­meal state and also damaged the biometric device in the office, on that he reported the matter to police

Thereafter, basing on the report of defacto­complainant­Mahanthi Bhanu

Prakash, Sri V.Ashok Kumar, Sub­inspector of Police registered a case in crime

No.92/2018 u/sec.427, 457, 380 ,r/w 511 IPC of II town PS, Vizianagaram and condcuted investigation. During the course of investigation he examined

Mahanthi Bhanu Prakash, Kethireddy Venkata Ramana and Kalyanapu

Pydiraju, recorded their statements in Police Station, visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch of the scene. During the course of investigation on information on 27.06.2018 Sri I.Durga Prasad, Sub­Inspector of Police arrested the accused at 11.00 am at Ashoknagar junction and interrogated him in the presence of mediators viz.,Shaik Ali and Bangari

Chakradhar on enquiry the accused confessed about the commission of offence in this case, he arrested the accused under the cover of confession cum mediators report and send him for judicial custody. After completion of investigation I.Durga Prasad, Sub­Inspector of Police filed charge sheet. Hence the charge.

3

3. The cognizance of offence was taken under sections 427, 457, 380 r/w 511 IPC against the accused.

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

5. On the next hearing, the accused was examined U/Sec. 239 Cr.P.C., and upon hearing charges have been framed against the accused for the offences u/S. 427,457, 380, r/w 511 IPC., read over and explained to the accused in

Telugu, for which he denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to establish the case of the prosecution examined Pws 1 to 4 and

Exs.P.1 to P.4 were marked.

7. After the closure of prosecution side evidence,the accused was examined

U/s.313 Cr.P.C and the incriminating evidence appearing against him was put to him for which he denied the same and reported no defence.

8. Heard arguments on both sides and perused the record on hand.

9. The point for determination is, the charges have been framed against the accused for the offences u/s. 427,457, 380, r/w 511 IPC. To prove the guilt of accused for the above said offences, the prosecution has to prove the essential ingredients of Section 427,457, 380, r/w 511 IPC viz.,

1) Whether the accused committed lurking trespass at Maharaja

Sanskrit High School at Vakkalanka Vari street,

Vizianagaram by break opening the back window of the office room forcibly with a crowbar which is punishable u/sec. 457, 380 and 511 IPC?

2) Whether the accused committed mischief by damaging the biometric device in the office room of

Maharaja Sanskrit High School at Vakkalanka Vari 4 street, Vizianagaram which is punishable under sec.427

IPC?

3) Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence under sections 457,427,380,r/w 511 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT Nos. 1 to 3 :

10. To prove the above said points, the prosecution examined Pws 1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.4. P.W.1 is the defacto­complainant in this case he reported that some unknown offenders trespassed into office room with crow­ bar of Maharaja Sanskrit High School at Vakkalanka Vari street,

Vizianagaramu by break opening of the back window of the office room and also damaged biometric device and P.W.1 presented a written report to police.

During his cross­examination he admitted that he did not hand over the records or the broken biometric device to the police along with report and he also admitted that he did not file any documents along with report vide Ex.P.1 to show that there is a biometric device in their office, and he denied the suggestion made by the defence counsel.

11.P.W.2 Shaik Ali John, who is one of the mediators deposed that on 27.06.2018 when he was present at Kata Veedhi, Vizianagaram at about 11.00 a.m the Sub­inspector of police, II Town Police Station, Vizianagaram called him along with Bangari Chakdradhar (L.W.5) to the Police station, from there they went to II town Police Station, Vizianagaram from there they proceeded to

Ashok Nagar junction and they found the accused, later police took him to the police station and further he deposed that in their presence the accused confessed about the commission of offence in this case ie., office room back window broke open by him forcibly with a crowbar and damaged the biometric 5 device. He identified the accused in the open court. Further he signed on Ex.P.2 ie., confession cum mediators report. Further he deposed that the mediators report (Ex.P.2) prepared by police. During the cross­examination P.w.2 admitted that he does not know the contents of the mediators report and he signed on the mediators report only in the police station and he also deposed that there are two junctions called as Ashok Nagar junctions and he denied the suggestion made by the defence counsel .

12. P.w.3 who is one of the investigating officers, deposed that he took up investigation in this case and on 27.06.2018 credible information he secured the presence of mediators ie., P.w.3 and L.W.5/Bangaru Chakradhara Rao and proceeded to Ashok Nagar, Vizianagaram and there they found one person, who tried to skid away on the motorcycle bearing No.AP 35 N 7261 on seeing the police, on that the police personnel caught hold him and enquired him and the said person confessed about commission of theft of crime vehicle in

Cr.NO.111/2018, under section 379 of IPC of II Town Police Station and he further confessed about trespass into Maharaja Sanskrit High School and opened the office room back window with crowbar and scattered all the files in pell­mell condition and further confessed that he damaged biometric device in the staff room of the said college and the same was drafted into proceedings cum mediators report(Ex.P.2). He further deposed that no property was committed to theft in this case in Maharaja Sanskrit College, Vizianagaram, but only some records and biometric machine were destroyed and the theft property of motorcycle, which was recovered from the accused under Ex.P.2 mediators report pertaining to Cr.No.111/2018 of II Town Police Station,

Vizianagaram, after completion of his investigation in this crime he filed charge 6 sheet. In his cross­examination P.W.3 admitted that they neither seized nor recovered any records or registers or registers pertaining to said biometric machine or other records from college of P.W.1 and he also admitted that the destroyed biometric machine was also not seized by him and he deined all the formal suggestions made by defence counsel as the accused did not commit any offence.

13. P.W.4 is another investigating Officer in this case deposed that he registered a case in Cr.No.92/2018 under sections 427,457, 380, r/w 511 of IPC,

Ex.P.3, basing on written report given by P.W.1 and he examined P.W.1 in the police station and recorded his detailed statement, later he proceeded to scene of offence ie., Sanskrit Government High school, Vizianagaram, observed scene of offence and prepared rough sketch Ex.P.4 and also examined Kedireddi

Venkata Ramana(L.W.2) and Kalyanam Pydiraju(L.W.3). Later he handed over the investigation material to his successor ­P.W.3. During his cross­ examination P.W.4 admitted that he did not receive any documents pertaining to damaged biometric from P.w.1 and he also admitted that he did not seize said biometric device, he deposed that he took photographs in this case. He admitted that he does not know whether those photos were filed in this case or not, along with charge sheet in this case and he also admitted that as per the charge sheet no such photographs damaged biometric device filed before this

Court.

The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the evidence on record was proved the guilt of the accused and therefore he is liable for punishment. 

7

14. The case of the accused is one of the total denial and it was contended that the present case was falsely foisted against the accused. The learned counsel for the accused contended that the prosecution failed to prove the offence under section 380, 457 and 511 IPC as there is no identification of the accused while he was committed the offence as P.W.1 deposed that some unknown offenders committed the offence and P.W. 3 admitted in his chief examination that no property was committed to theft in this case in Maharaja

Sanskrit College, Vizianagaram and admittedly none of the witnesses examined by the prosecution deposed that they witnessed the accused who committed theft for the offence under section 380 of IPC., and the accused trespassed into

Maharaja Sanskrit College, Vizianagaram and damaged biometric. Hence, the offence under section 380 IPC is not made out against the accused and not proved. As per the evidence of prosecution witnesses unknown offender entered into Maharaja Sanskrit College, Vizianagaram and broke open office room back window with a crow­bar, but as per the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 they did not seized any crowbar or any broken iron grill, to prove ingredients of section 457

IPC to prove the accused trespassed into Maharaja Sanskrit College,

Vizianagaram. Hence, Section 457 IPC ingredients were also not made out against the accused.

15. Admittedly all the prosecution witnesses deposed that the biometric device in the college was damaged. As per the evidence of P.w.1 he deposed that the biometric device in the college was damaged by some unknown offenders, but they did not deposed how much loss is caused to the Maharaja Sanskrit

College, Vizianagaram, because of the destruction of the biometric device. To prove the guilt of the accused under section 427 IPC as a mischief by damaging 8 the property. P.Ws.3 and 4 also deposed that they are not even seized the damaged biometric device and not produced the same before this Court. All the prosecution witnesses not stated that how much loss is caused, because of the damage of the biometric device in the Maharaja Sanskrit College,

Vizianagaram, which is key ingredients of section 427 IPC. Hence, section 427

IPC is not made out against the accused. Except confession report there is no evidence to connect the accused with crime ,which is in admissible under section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. 

16. The learned Legal Aid counsel for the accused raised a point that P.W.4 took photographs of the scene of offence, but those are not filed before the Court and even there is no mentioning of the same in the charge sheet and admittedly no photographs filed in this case. As per the above discussion the charges against the accused was not made out in this case. Even the attempt is also not made out under section 511 of IPC against the accused through the above discussion.

17. Admittedly in this case, there is no direct evidence to show that the accused committed house breaking Maharaja Sanskrit College, Vizianagaram of Pw1 by breaking open grills and committed theft, trespass and caused mischief’. Hence the prosecution could not prove the guilt of the accused for the offences u/Sec. 427,457, 380, r/w 511 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. 

18. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 457,427, 380,r/w.511 IPC and he is acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. for the above said offences. The accused is ordered to be released forthwith if his detention is not required in any other cases. No case property produced before the court, hence there is no order regarding case property. The 9 bail bonds and sureties of the accused be in force for a period of six months and directed to execute bond for Rs.5,000/­ (Rupees five thousand only) in view of

Section 437­A Cr.P.C., to appear before Appellate Court, if any appeal is preferred. 

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 31st day of October,2018.

Sd­Boora Sirisha 1st Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, ­cum­1st Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution:­ For Defence:­ None.

P.W.1: Mahanthi Vbhanu Prakash. P.W.2: Shaik Ali John. P.W.3: I.Durga Prasad.Sub­Inspector of Police. P.W.4: V.Ashok Kumar. Sub­Inspector of Police.

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution:­

Ex.P.1: Report of Pw1 given to Police. 

Ex.P.2: Confession cum mediators report dated 27.6.2018.

Ex.P.3: FIR in crime no.92/2018, of II Town P.S. dt.27.05.2018

Ex.P.4: Rough sketch in crime no.92/2017 of II Town PS, dt.27.5.2018.

For defence: Nil.

M.Os.Marked ­NIL­

Sd­Boora Sirisha 1st Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, ­cum­1st Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram.

10

Calendar and Judgment Calendar cases tried by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of the I Class, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District. ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Date of offence : 26.05.2018 Date of report or complaint : 26.05.2018 Date of apprehension of accused : 27­06­2018 Date of release, if any on bail : In jail Date of commencement of trial : 25­07­2018 Date of close of trial: 09­10­2018 Date of sentence or order : 31­10­2018 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Explanation for delay and remarks:­ The prosecution did not produce its witnesses from time to time, and hence the delay in disposal of the case. Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No. 1174/2018 on the file of the Addl., Judicial 

Magistrate of I the Class, Vizianagaram.

Complainant:­ State represented by the Sub­Inspector of Police, II Town Police Station in Cr.No.92/2018 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Name of the Accused Age Father’s Name ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Malledu Narayana Rao 30 years late Venkata Rao ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Calling Religion Residence Mandal ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ – Hindu Vizianagaram Vizianagaram ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Offence :­ Lurking house­trespass or house­breaking by night in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment u/sec.457 IPC Mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees U/Sec.427 IPC. Theft in dwelling house, etc u/S. 380 IPC Punishment for attempting to commit offences punishable with imprisonment for life or other imprisonment U/Sec.511 of IPC.

 Finding:­ Not guilty for the offences u/Sec.457, 427, 380 and r/w 511 IPC Sentence:­ In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 457,427, 380 and r/w.511 IPC and he is acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. for the above said offences. The accused is ordered to be released forthwith if his detention is not required in any other cases. No case property produced before the court, hence there is no order regarding case property. The bail bonds and sureties of the accused be in force for a period of six months and directed to execute bond for Rs.5,000/­ (Rupees five thousand only) in view of Section 437­A Cr.P.C., to appear before Appellate Court, if any appeal is preferred. Sd­Boora Sirisha 1st Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, ­cum­1st Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram.