Ms. B. Suryakala

C.C.No.667/2025 Page 1 of 15 AJFCM, CDM Dt.05.05.2026

APVS150007282025

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS

MAGISTRATE CHODAVARAM

Present : Ms.B.Suryakala

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) – cum

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Chodavaram

Tuesday, this the 5 th day of May, 2026

CALENDAR CASE No.667/2025

BETWEEN:

State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Butchiyyapeta Police Station. Complainant

AND:

1.Polamarasetti Durga Prasad, S/o. Mangaraju, aged 24 years, Rajupeta Village, Kotauratla Mandal, Anakapalli District.

2.Bheesetti Lokesh, S/o. Manikyala Naidu, aged 23 years, Cultivation, Rajupeta Village, Kotauratla Mandal, Anakapalli District.

... Accused

This case coming before me on 16-04-2026 for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri I.Ganesh, Legal aid counsel for Accused/A1 and A2 and having stood over for consideration on this day and this Court delivered the following: -

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Butchiyyapeta Police Station, filed charge sheet in this case in Crime No.39/2025 alleging that accused/A1 and

A2 have committed the offence punishable under Section 331(3), 305(A) of

C.C.No.667/2025 Page 2 of 15 AJFCM, CDM Dt.05.05.2026

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. (herein after BNS).

2.The facts of the prosecution case in brief are that:

LW.1/Padala Sankarrao is the defacto complainant. LW.1 possessed 5 tulas of gold ornaments i.e., 1) 2.5 tula gold chain, 2) 1.5 tula gold chain, 3) ½ tula gold ear rings, 4) ½ tula gold ring and cash of

Rs.20,000/- for his second daughter’s marriage. On 10-03-2025 at 8:00 hrs,

LW.1 to LW.3 (LW.2/Padala Rama Lakshmi and LW.3/Padala Gyaneswari) left for work as usual. At around 15:00 hrs, his second daughter/LW.3 returned home and found that unknown culprits had entered their house through the back side kitchen door. The intruders broke open the almirah door and stolen the above-mentioned gold ornaments and cash.

3.LW.11/A.Srinuvasa Rao, Sub-Inspector of Police, registered the report of LW.1 as a case in Cr.No.39/2025 under Section 331(3), 305(A) of

BNS of Butchiyyapeta Police Station and took up investigation. During investigation, LW.11 visited the scene of offence in the presence of

LW.6/Gadi Nagabhushanam and LW.7/Pragada Srinu and examined the witnesses and recorded their detailed statements. On 16-04-2025, LW.11 received a call from LW.10/S.Ramesh, Sub-Inspector, Kotarautla PS informing that they apprehended the accused along with the stolen property and they confessed to stealing stolen property in Cr.No.39/2025, under

Section 331(3), 305(A) BNS. As such LW.11 obtained attested copies of

FIR, accused confessional statement, arrest CD and stolen property and produced the accused under PT warrant. After completion of entire investigation, LW.11 filed charge sheet against accused/A1 and A2.

4.The case was taken on file for the offence under Section

C.C.No.667/2025 Page 3 of 15 AJFCM, CDM Dt.05.05.2026 331(3), 305(A) of BNS against accused/A1, A2.

5.On appearance of accused/A1, A2, the copies of case papers were furnished to them under Section 230 of BNSS. and they were examined under Section 262 of BNSS, for which they denied the commission of offence. Charges under Section 331(3), 305(A) of BNS were framed against accused/A1, A2, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On 24-04-2026, this court, in exercise of powers under section 239 BNSS, framed an alternative charge under section 317 BNS, as the facts emerging from the case prima facie attracted the said section. The said charge was read over and explained to the accused/A1 and A2 in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, the prosecution reported that it has no further evidence. The learned counsel for the accused/A1 and A2 submitted that he does not wish to recall or re-examine any witness.

6.In order to establish its case, prosecution has examined PW.1 to PW.6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5 and MOs. 1 to 3. The evidence of

Padala Rama Lakshmi (LW.2), Padala Apparao (LW.4), Kota

Satyanarayana (LW.5), Pragada Srinu (LW.7) and Surla Satish (LW.9) are given up by the prosecution. PW.1/Padala Sankarrao is the defacto complainant, PW.2/Padala Rama Lakshmi is the daughter of PW.1,

PW.3/Gadi Nagabhushanam is one of the mediators to the Scene

Observation Report, PW.4/Ramasala Pedanna Dora is of the mediator to the arrest and confession of the accused, PW.5/S.Ramesh is the Sub-

Inspector of Police, Kotauratla PS, PW.6/A.Srinuvasa Rao is the Sub-

Inspector of Police, Butchiyyapeta PS.

C.C.No.667/2025 Page 4 of 15 AJFCM, CDM Dt.05.05.2026

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, Accused/A1, A2 were examined under Section 351 of BNSS, with regard to the incriminating material appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which they denied and on enquiry, reported no defense evidence.

8. Heard learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for complainant and learned counsel for accused/A1, A2 and perused the material on record.

9.Now, the point that arise for determination is:-

Whether prosecution has proved the guilt

of accused/A1, A2 for the offences

punishable under Sections 331(3), 305(A) of

BNS beyond all reasonable doubt?

10.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, it has to be seen whether the evidence of PW.1 to PW.6 coupled with Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 and

MOs. 1 to 3 are sufficient to base the conviction of the accused for the offences under Sections 331(3), 305(A) or 317(2) of BNS after scrutinizing them with due care and caution.

11.For better appreciation of the evidence, it is appropriate to look at the relevant provisions, namely, Section 331(3), 305(A) and 317(2) of

BNS which read:

331(3) BNS -Punishment for house-trespass or house breaking - Whoever commits lurking house- trespass or house-breaking, in order to the committing of any offence punishable with imprisonment, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be

C.C.No.667/2025 Page 5 of 15 AJFCM, CDM Dt.05.05.2026 liable to fine; and if the offence intended to be committed is theft, the term of the imprisonment may be extended to ten years.

305(A) BNS – Theft in a dwelling house or means of transportation or place of worship etc - whoever commits theft (a) in any building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling or used for the custody of property; or

(b) of any means of transport used for the transport of goods or passengers; or

(c) of any article or goods from any means of transport used for the transport of goods or passengers; or

(d) of idol or icon in any place of worship; or

(e) of any property of the Government or of a local authority, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.

317 BNS – Stolen Property (2) - Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

12. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of Prosecution witnesses coupled with the documentary evidence on record, clearly and cogently proved the accusation leveled against the accused/A1 and A2 and prayed for their conviction.

C.C.No.667/2025 Page 6 of 15 AJFCM, CDM Dt.05.05.2026

13. On the other hand, the learned counsel for accused/A1 and A2 submitted that the prosecution witnesses do not entirely support the case of the prosecution and that PW.4 is a stock mediator and his evidence is not credible. He further submitted that there is no ounce of evidence on record to connect the accused/A1 and A2 with the case at hand and that the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case against ccused/A1 and A and prayed to acquit them.

14. PW.1 deposed that on 10-03-2025 at about 04:00 A.M., he along with his wife (LW.2 – Padala Rama Lakshmi), left their house to sell vegetables. At about 08:00 A.M, their daughter PW.2 left for the college after locking the house. Around 03:30 to 04:00 P.M, when PW.2 returned home, she found out the doors of the house wide open. Upon entering, she noticed that the house is in a pell mell state and on further inspection found out that the beruva in one of the bedroom was broken open and 2.5 tula of gold tali chain, 1.5 tula of gold chain, 0.5 tula of gold ring and 0.5 tula of gold ear rings along with cash of Rs.20,000/- were missing. Immediately PW.2 telephoned PW.1 and informed the entire ordeal who then lodged Ex.P1 report. He further deposed that during course of investigation, 2.5 tula of gold tali chain, 1.5 tula of gold chain and 0.5 tula of gold ring were recovered by the police and that he obtained interim custody of the same.

These items were marked as MO.1 to MO.3 respectively. PW.2, the daughter of PW1, deposed on similar lines.

15. During the cross examination of PW.1, it was elicited that he stated in his report that he purchased the gold for the purpose of marriage of

PW.2 who is not yet married. It is pertinent to note that in many households,

C.C.No.667/2025 Page 7 of 15 AJFCM, CDM Dt.05.05.2026 gold is purchased and preserved in anticipation of marriage of their daughters and there is nothing unusual in this practice. It was further elicited that PW.1 did not state before the police either in Ex.P1 or in his previous statement that PW.2 locked the house and beruva before she left for college. However, this court is of the opinion that the said omission is not a material one as it does not affect or undermines the credibility of the testimony of PW.1. Notably, the counsel for the accused did not cross examine PW.2 in detail except for suggesting that the police neither examined her nor recorded her statement on the alleged date of offence. It is also pertinent that no specific suggestion was put to either PW.1 or PW.2 to the effect that the stolen property did not belong to PW.1 or his family. In the present case, no material contradictions were elicited to impeach the credibility of PWs.1 and 2 or to discredit their respective testimonies. Their evidence remains consistent and cogent. Therefore, this court finds their testimony reliable for establishing the ownership of MO.1 to MO.3.

16.Further, the testimonies of PW.1 and PW.2 are consistent with regard to occurrence of the incident, lodging of Ex.P1 report and the subsequent recovery of part of the stolen property. However, it is admitted fact that none of the witnesses saw the accused/A1 and A2 committing the theft. Thus, the case of prosecution rests entirely on circumstantial evidence.

17.PW.3 deposed that he acted as a witness, at the request of police, when they examined the scene of offence and prepared Ex.P2 scene observation report. PW.6 is the investigating officer who deposed as to the procedural aspects of investigation. Though it was suggested during the

C.C.No.667/2025 Page 8 of 15 AJFCM, CDM Dt.05.05.2026 cross examination of PW.6 that no documentary proof of ownership of MO.1 to MO.3 was secured, this court is not inclined to accept the said contention in view of the credible testimony of PW.1 and PW.2.

18.With regard to the recovery, the prosecution asserts that part of the stolen property (MO.1 to MO.3) was seized from the accused/A1 and A2 by PW.5 under the cover of mediators report dt.16-04-2025 in the presence of mediators PW.4 and LW.9. PW.4 deposed that he was present when

Kotauratla Police apprehended accused/A1 and A2 and three others at

Rajupeta Junction near Kailasapatnam Village and that the accused/A1 and

A2 confessed to several offences including the present one and that 2.5 tula of gold tali chain, 1.5 tula of gold chain and 0.5 tula of gold ring were recovered from their possession. The relevant portion of the attested copy of mediator’s report dt.16-04-2025 has been marked by this court as admissible under section 23 proviso of BSA (Ex.P3). He further stated that the entire transaction was reduced into writing by the police in a laptop and that he and LW.9 subscribed their signatures on the mediator’s report after knowing its contents. He also identified Accused/A1 and A2 as the persons apprehended by the police with the stolen property. This identification establishes a direct link between accused/A1 and A2 and the stolen property.

19.During cross examination it was elicited that PW.4 is not the

VRO of Rajupeta Junction but of Sunkapuru Village and that one Anusha is the VRO of Rajupeta Juction who was not requested to act as mediator and that he acted as a mediator in four criminal cases at the request of police implying that he is a stock mediator. However, there is no legal requirement

C.C.No.667/2025 Page 9 of 15 AJFCM, CDM Dt.05.05.2026 that mediators must be local VROs. Merely because PW.4 has acted as mediator in other cases does not discredit his testimony especially when it is consistent and corroborated with material particulars.

20.The prosecution relied on the following judicial precedents

Achenavalli Suresh Vs State of AP dt.20-03-2025 and Ravi @ Kathalamuthu

Vs The State rep. by The Inspector of Police, South Police Station.

Thoothukudi dt. 25-06-2015 to contend that the evidence of PW.4 is trustworthy and that he is not a stock mediator. This court draws merit and places reliance in the said contention of the prosecution and is inclined to believe the evidence of PW.4 which materially corroborated with the evidence of PW.5 as the minor discrepancies does not warrant their evidence to be discredited when they are corroborate in the material aspects.

21.PW.5 the sub inspector of police, Kotauratla P.S who apprehended the accused at Rajupeta Juction on 16-04-2025 deposed in the lines similar to that of PW.4 regarding the apprehension of the accused/A1 and A2 and recovery of stolen property. During cross examination it was elicited that PC 2266 of Kotauratla P.S typed the mediators report and that his qualification is M.Sc. It was also suggested that PC 2266 is not technically qualified for typing Telugu without any expertise in Typewriting Higher High Speed (Telugu). Minor discrepancies such as who typed the mediators report or technical qualifications for typing are not of much significance when all the other elements are in order.

22.In these circumstances, this court draws a presumption under

C.C.No.667/2025 Page 10 of 15 AJFCM, CDM Dt.05.05.2026

Section 115, illustration (a) of BSA which provides that the court may presume that a person found in the possession of stolen goods after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for the possession. Applying this principle in the present case, the recovery of MO.1 to MO.3 from the possession of the accused/A1 and A2 in the circumstances described coupled with the evidence of PW.4 and PW.5, permits the court to draw such presumption.

No evidence brought on record by the defence to either offer any satisfactory explanation or rebut this presumption.

23.Given the consistent and credible testimony of witnesses, recovery of part of the stolen property MO.1 to MO.3 and the statutory presumption under Section 115, illustration (a) of BSA, the prosecution has successfully established, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused/A1 and A2 were in possession of the stolen property.

24.Although the charges were framed under Section 331(3) and 305A of BNS, the evidence on record does not establish the essential ingredients of those offences. However, the evidence on record clearly establishes the alternative charge framed under Section 317 of BNS. It is pertinent to mention at this juncture that prosecution placed reliance on the ruling of the Hon’ble High Court of AP., in Kolipaka Venkateswara Rao @

Babji Vs The State of AP., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, dt.16-06-2025 wherein the conviction of the accused under section 411 IPC (corresponding

Section 317 BNS) is upheld in a similar case. Therefore, the accused/A1 and A2 are ought to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 317(2) of BNS.

C.C.No.667/2025 Page 11 of 15 AJFCM, CDM Dt.05.05.2026

In the result, Accused/A1 and A2 are acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 331(3) and 305A of BNS. However, they are found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 317(2) BNS and are accordingly convicted under Section 271 BNSS.

When questioned regarding the quantum of sentence, the accused/A1 stated that he is eking his livelihood by doing coolie works, that he is the sole breadwinner of his family and that he has the responsibility of caring for his elderly and ailing mother. Whereas accused/A2 stated that he is eking his livelihood by working in a dairy farm, that he is the sole breadwinner of his family and that he has the responsibility of caring for his elderly and ailing parents. Hence, prayed for a lenient view.

25. This court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to invoke

Section 401 of BNSS or the provisions under Probation of Offenders

Act,1958 in view of the nature and gravity of offence, the criminal history of accused as per record and the circumstances established does not warrant such leniency.

26. Having regard to the fact and circumstances of the case, the submissions of the accused/A1 and A2 and nature of offence, this court is of the view that it is just and reasonable to take a lenient view in imposing the sentence against the accused/A1 and A2 instead of imposing maximum sentence prescribed for the offence under Section 317(2) of BNS.

27.Accordingly, the accused/A1 and A2 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of One year. MO.1 to MO.3 i.e., 2.5 tula of gold tali chain, 1.5 tula of gold chain and 0.5 tula of gold ring respectively which were given to PW.1for interim custody, shall continue to remain with

C.C.No.667/2025 Page 12 of 15 AJFCM, CDM Dt.05.05.2026 him after expiry of appeal time.

28. The remand period undergone by the accused/A1 from 09-05-2025 to till date i.e., 05-05-2026, is set off against the term of simple imprisonment for a period of One year, as per Section 468 BNSS. Similarly, the remand period undergone by the accused/A2 from 09-05-2025 to 25-11-2025, shall also be set off against the term of simple imprisonment for a period of One year, as per Section 468 BNSS. Further, the sentence imposed on Accused/A1 in the present case shall run concurrently with the sentence imposed in CC No.675 of 2025 on the file of this court

29.The accused/A1 and A2 have been appraised of their right to prefer an appeal against the judgment and sentence rendered by this court.

Free copy of judgment is given to the accused/A1 and A2.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 5 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- B.Suryakala

A.J.F.C. Magistrate, Chodavaram

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR COMPLAINANT:

PW.1Padala Sankara Rao

PW.2Padala Gyaneswari

PW.3Gaadi Nagabhushanam

PW.4Ramasala Pedanna Dora

PW.5S.Ramesh

C.C.No.667/2025 Page 13 of 15 AJFCM, CDM Dt.05.05.2026

PW.6A.Srinivasa Rao

FOR ACCUSED:NONE

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR COMPLAINANT:

Ex. P1: Report lodged by PW.1 with the Police

Ex. P2: Scene Observation Report dated 11-03-2025

Ex. P3: Relevant portion of attested copy of mediators report dated 16-04-2025 admissible under Section 23 Proviso of BSA

Ex. P4: Original First Information Report

Ex. P5: Rough Sketch

FOR ACCUSED:NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

FOR COMPLAINANT:

MO.1 : 2.5 tula gold thalli chain

MO.2 : 1.5 tula gold chain

MO.3 : 0.5 tula gold ring

FOR ACCUSED: NIL

Sd/- B.Suryakala

A.J.F.C. Magistrate, Chodavaram

C.C.No.667/2025 Page 14 of 15 AJFCM, CDM Dt.05.05.2026

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

CALENDAR CASE TRIED BY THE COURT OF A.J.F.C. MAGISTRATE AT

CHODAVARAM

Date of Offence: 10-03-2025 at 8:00 hrs to 15:00 hrs

Date of Report or Complaint: 10-03-2025

Date of apprehension of Accused: A1 and A2 :09-05-2025 : A1 is in judicial custody and A2 is Date of accused released on bail enlarged on bail on 25-11-2025

Date of Commencement of Trial: 27-11-2025

Date of Closure of trial: 31-03-2026

Date of sentence or order of Court: 05-05-2026

Explanation for Delay & Remarks: No such delay

Calendar Case No.: C.C.No.667/2025 : State represented by Sub-Inspector of Name & Address of complainant Police, Butchiyyapeta Police Station.

1.Polamarasetti Durga Prasad, S/o. Mangaraju, aged 24 years, Rajupeta Village, Kotauratla Mandal, Anakapalli District. Name and address of accused:

2.Bheesetti Lokesh, S/o. Manikyala Naidu, aged 23 years, Cultivation, Rajupeta Village, Kotauratla Mandal, Anakapalli District.

Section of law: Section 331(3), 305(A), 317(2) BNS

Accused/A1, A2 are found guilty for the Finding of Court:offence punishable under Section 317(2) BNS .

C.C.No.667/2025 Page 15 of 15 AJFCM, CDM Dt.05.05.2026

Sentence or Order of the Court : In the result, Accused/A1 and A2 are acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 331(3) and 305A of BNS. However, they are found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 317(2) BNS and are accordingly convicted under Section 271 BNSS and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of One year. The remand period undergone by the accused/A1 from 09-05-2025 to till date i.e., 05-05-2026, is set off against the term of simple imprisonment for a period of One year, as per Section 468 BNSS. Similarly, the remand period undergone by the accused/A2 from 09-05-2025 to 25-11-2025, shall also be set off against the term of simple imprisonment for a period of One year, as per Section 468 BNSS. Further, the sentence imposed on Accused/A1 in the present case shall run concurrently with the sentence imposed in CC No.667 of 2025 on the file of this court.The property i.e., MO.1, 2.5 tula gold thalli chain, MO.2, 1.5 tula Gold Chain and MO.3 0.5 tula gold ring which were already given to the PW.1 vide

Crl.M.P.1949/2025 for interim custody shall holds good and shall become

absolute after expiry of appeal time, subject to the result of any appeal, if preferred.

Sd/- B.Suryakala

A.J.F.C. Magistrate, Chodavaram

C.C.No.675/2025 Page 1 of 15 AJFCM, CDM Dt.05.05.2026

APVS150007892025

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS

MAGISTRATE CHODAVARAM

Present : Ms.B.Suryakala

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) – cum

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Chodavaram

Tuesday, this the 5 th day of May, 2026

CALENDAR CASE No.675/2025

BETWEEN:

State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Butchiyyapeta Police Station. Complainant

AND:

1.Polamarasetti Durga Prasad, S/o. Mangaraju, aged 24 years, Rajupeta Village, Kotauratla Mandal, Anakapalli District.

2.Maduthuri Surya, S/o. Late Atchanna, aged 21 years, Rajupeta Village, Kotauratla Mandal, Anakapalli District.

... Accused

This case coming before me on 10-04-2026 for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri I.Ganesh, Legal aid counsel for Accused/A1 and A2 and having stood over for consideration on this day and this Court delivered the following: -

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Butchiyyapeta Police Station, filed charge sheet in this case in Crime No.52/2025 alleging that accused/A1 and

A2 have committed the offence punishable under Section 331(3), 305(A) of

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. (herein after BNS).

C.C.No.675/2025 Page 2 of 15 AJFCM, CDM Dt.05.05.2026

2.The facts of the prosecution case in brief are that:

LW.1/Allu Narayanarao is the defacto complainant. Prior to 06-04-2025 half saree ceremony of LW.1’s daughter was held in his village i.e., Seethayyapeta village and during the event, LW.1 received a ¼ tula gold biscuit from LW.1’s relative on 10-03-2025 which he kept in his almirah.

Since then, the almirah had not been opened. However, on 06-04-2025, when LW.1 opened the almirah, he found that the gold biscuit was missing and he suspects that some unknown person might have entered his house in their absence and stolen ¼ tula gold biscuit worth Rs.3,750/-.

3.LW.11/N.Bhaskara Rao, Sub-Inspector of Police, registered the report of LW.1 as a case in Cr.No.52/2025 under Section 331(3), 305(A) of

BNS of Butchiyyapeta Police Station and took up investigation. During investigation, LW.11 examined LW.1 and recorded his statement. On 08- 04-2025, LW.12/A.Srinuvasa Rao, Sub Inspector of Police took up further investigation, visited the scene of offence in the presence of LW.6/Pragada

Chinamnaidu and LW.7/Pilla Kondalarao and examined the witnesses and recorded their detailed statements. On 16-04-2025, LW.12 received a call from LW.10/S.Ramesh, Sub-Inspector, Kotarautla PS informing that they apprehended the accused along with the stolen property and they confessed to stealing stolen property in Cr.No.52/2025, under Section 331(3), 305(A) BNS. As such LW.12 obtained attested copies of FIR, accused confessional statement, arrest CD and stolen property and produced the accused under PT warrant. After completion of entire investigation, LW.12 filed charge sheet against accused/A1 and A2.

4.The case was taken on file for the offence under Section

C.C.No.675/2025 Page 3 of 15 AJFCM, CDM Dt.05.05.2026 331(3), 305(A) of BNS against accused/A1, A2.

5.On appearance of accused/A1, A2, the copies of case papers were furnished to them under Section 230 of BNSS. and they were examined under Section 262 of BNSS, for which they denied the commission of offence. Charges under Section 331(3), 305(A) of BNS were framed against accused/A1, A2, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On 24-04-2026, this court, in exercise of powers under Section 239 BNSS, framed an alternative charge under Section 317 BNS, as the facts emerging from the case prima facie attracted the said section. The said charge was read over and explained to the accused/A1 and A2 in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, the prosecution reported that it has no further evidence. The learned counsel for the accused/A1 and A2 submitted that he does not wish to recall or re-examine any witness.

6.In order to establish its case, prosecution has examined PW.1 to PW.7 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5. The evidence of Kondapalli Satyarao (LW.4), Gali Govinda (LW.5), Vajrapu Srinu (LW.6), Pilla Kondalarao (LW.8), Surla Satish (LW.10) are given up by the prosecution. PW.1/Allu

Narayanarao is the defacto complainant, PW.2/Matta Mahalakshmi is the aunt of PW.1, PW.3/Allu Varalakshmi is the wife of PW.1, PW.4/Pragada

Chinamnaidu is one of the mediator to the scene observation,

PW.5/Ramasala Pedanna Dora is one of the mediator to the arrest of accused and confession, PW.6/S.Ramesh is the Sub-Inspector of Police,

Kotauratla PS and PW.7/A.Srinuvasa Rao is the Sub-Inspector of Police,

Butchiyyapeta PS.

C.C.No.675/2025 Page 4 of 15 AJFCM, CDM Dt.05.05.2026

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, Accused/A1, A2 were examined under Section 351 of BNSS, with regard to the incriminating material appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which they denied and on enquiry, reported no defense evidence.

8. Heard learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for complainant and learned counsel for accused/A1, A2 and perused the material on record.

9.Now, the point that arise for determination is:-

Whether prosecution has proved the guilt

of accused/A1, A2 for the offences

punishable under Sections 331(3), 305(A) of

BNS beyond all reasonable doubt?

10.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, it has to be seen whether the evidence of PW.1 to PW.7 coupled with Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 are sufficient to base the conviction of the accused for the offences under

Sections 331(3), 305(A) or 317(2) of BNS after scrutinizing them with due care and caution.

11.For better appreciation of the evidence, it is appropriate to look at the relevant provisions, namely, Section 331(3), 305(A) and 317(2) of

BNS which read:

331(3) BNS -Punishment for house-trespass or house breaking - Whoever commits lurking house- trespass or house-breaking, in order to the committing of any offence punishable with imprisonment, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if the offence intended to be committed

C.C.No.675/2025 Page 5 of 15 AJFCM, CDM Dt.05.05.2026 is theft, the term of the imprisonment may be extended to ten years.

305(A) BNS – Theft in a dwelling house or means of transportation or place of worship etc - Whoever commits theft, (a) in any building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling or used for the custody of property; or

(b) of any means of transport used for the transport of goods or passengers; or

(c) of any article or goods from any means of transport used for the transport of goods or passengers; or

(d) of idol or icon in any place of worship; or

(e) of any property of the Government or of a local authority, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.

317 BNS – Stolen Property (2) - Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

12. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of Prosecution witnesses coupled with the documentary evidence on record, clearly and cogently proved the accusation leveled against the accused/A1 and A2 and prayed for their conviction.

C.C.No.675/2025 Page 6 of 15 AJFCM, CDM Dt.05.05.2026

13. On the other hand, the learned counsel for accused/A1 and A2 submitted that the prosecution witnesses do not entirely support the case of the prosecution and that PW.5 is a stock mediator and his evidence is not credible. He further submitted that here is no ounce of evidence on record to connect the accused/A1 and A2 with the case at hand and that the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case against the accused/A1 and

A2 and prayed to acquit them.

14. PW.1 deposed that on 10-03-2025, half saree function of his daughter was conducted and his aunt named Matta Maha Lakshmi, W/o

Krishna (PW.2) gifted a ¼th tula gold biscuit and that he kept the said gold safely in his Biruva under lock and key in the house. On 06-04-2025, upon opening the Biruva, he found out that the gold biscuit was missing and lodged Ex.P1 report with the police. He further deposed that during course of investigation, the said gold was recovered by the police and that he obtained the interim custody of the same which is marked as MO.1.

15.PW.2, Matta Maha Lakshmi, is the aunt of PW.1 was examined by the prosecution pursuant to the orders dt.11-11-2025 in Crl.M.P.No.3481 of 2025. She deposed that on 10-03-2025, the half saree function of PW.1’s daughter was held at his house which she attended and gifted a ¼ th tula of gold biscuit. She further stated that later she came to know that the said gold was stolen. The testimony of PW.2 corroborates the evidence of PW.1 regarding the source of the gold. PW.3, the wife of PW.1, also deposed in similar lines.

16.During the cross examination of PW.1 and PW.3, it was elicited

C.C.No.675/2025 Page 7 of 15 AJFCM, CDM Dt.05.05.2026 that they were not given any receipt by PW.2 with respect to the gold gifted by her. PW.2 also, during her cross examination, admitted that she did not possess any receipt to show that she purchased the gold biscuit. Therefore, the defense argued that in the absence of documentary proof, ownership of

MO.1 is not established.

17.However, it is well settled that evidence can be either oral and documentary and one is not inherently superior than the other. If the oral evidence is credible and trustworthy, it can be relied upon even in the absence of any corroborating documentary evidence. In the present case, no material contradictions were elicited to impeach the credibility of PWs.1 to 3 or to discredit their respective testimonies. Their evidence is consistent and cogent and PW.2 has unequivocally stated that she gifted MO.1 at the function. Therefore, this court finds their testimony reliable in establishing the ownership of MO.1.

18.Further, the testimonies of PW.1 and PW.3 are consistent with regard to occurrence of the incident, lodging of Ex.P1 report and the subsequent recovery of the stolen property. However, it is admitted fact that none of the witnesses saw the accused/A1 and A2 committing the theft.

Thus, the case of prosecution rests entirely on circumstantial evidence.

19.PW.4 deposed that he acted as a witness, at the request of police, when they examined the scene of offence and prepared Ex.P2 scene observation report. PW.7 is the investigating officer who deposed as to the procedural aspects of investigation. Though it was suggested during the cross examination of PW.7 that no documentary proof of ownership of MO.1

C.C.No.675/2025 Page 8 of 15 AJFCM, CDM Dt.05.05.2026 was secured, this court is not inclined to accept the said contention in view of the credible oral evidence of PWs.1 to 3.

20.With regard to the recovery, the prosecution asserts that the stolen property (MO.1) was seized from the accused by PW.6 under the cover of mediators report dt.16-04-2025 in the presence of mediators PW.5 and LW.10. PW.5 deposed that he was present when Kotauratla Police apprehended accused/A1 and A2 and three others at Rajupeta Junction near Kailasapatnam Village and that the accused/A1 and A2 confessed to several offences including the present one and that ¼th tula of gold biscuit was recovered from their possession. The relevant portion of the attested copy of mediator’s report dt.16-04-2025 has been marked by this court as admissible under section 23 proviso of BSA (Ex.P3). He further stated that the entire transaction was reduced into writing by the police in a laptop and that he and LW.10 subscribed their signatures on the mediator’s report after knowing its contents. He also identified Accused/A1 and A2 as the persons apprehended by the police with the stolen property. This identification establishes a direct link between accused/A1 and A2 and the stolen property.

21.During cross examination it was elicited that PW.5 is not the

VRO of Rajupeta Junction but of Sunkapuru Village and that one Anusha is the VRO of Rajupeta Juction who was not requested to act as mediator and that he acted as a mediator in four criminal cases at the request of police implying that he is a stock mediator. However, there is no legal requirement that mediators must be local VROs. Merely because PW.5 has acted as mediator in other cases does not discredit his testimony especially when it is

C.C.No.675/2025 Page 9 of 15 AJFCM, CDM Dt.05.05.2026 consistent and corroborated with material particulars.

22.The prosecution relied on the following judicial precedents

Achenavalli Suresh Vs State of AP dt.20-03-2025 and Ravi @ Kathalamuthu

Vs The State rep. by The Inspector of Police, South Police Station.

Thoothukudi dt. 25-06-2015 to contend that the evidence of PW.5 is trustworthy and that he is not a stock mediator. This court draws merit and places reliance in the said contention of the prosecution and is inclined to believe the evidence of PW.5 which materially corroborated with the evidence of PW.6 as the minor discrepancies does not warrant their evidence to be discredited when they are corroborate in the material aspects.

23. PW.6 the Sub Inspector of Police, Kotauratla P.S who apprehended the accused/A1 and A2 at Rajupeta Juction on 16-04-2025 deposed in the lines similar to that of PW.5 regarding the apprehension of the accused/A1 and A2 and recovery of stolen property. During cross examination it was elicited that PC 2266 of Kotauratla P.S typed the mediators report and that his qualification is M.Sc. It was also suggested that PC 2266 is not technically qualified for typing Telugu without any expertise in Typewriting Higher High Speed (Telugu). Minor discrepancies such as who typed the mediators report or technical qualifications for typing are not of much significance when all the other elements are in order.

24.In these circumstances, this court draws a presumption under

Section 115, illustration (a) of BSA which provides that the court may presume that a person found in the possession of stolen goods after the

C.C.No.675/2025 Page 10 of 15 AJFCM, CDM Dt.05.05.2026 theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for the possession Applying this principle in the present case, the recovery of MO.1 from the possession of accused/A1 and

A2 in the circumstances described coupled with the evidence of PW.5 and

PW.6, permits the court to draw such presumption. No evidence brought on record by the defence to either offer any satisfactory explanation or rebut this presumption.

25.Given the consistent and credible testimony of witnesses, recovery of the stolen property MO.1 and the statutory presumption under

Section 115, illustration (a) of BSA, the prosecution has successfully established, beyond reasonable doubt, that accused/A1 and A2 were in possession of the stolen property.

26.Although the charges were framed under Section 331(3) and 305(A) of BNS, the evidence on record does not establish the essential ingredients of those offences. However, the evidence on record clearly establishes the alternative charge framed under Section 317 of BNS. It is pertinent to mention at this juncture that prosecution placed reliance on the ruling of the Hon’ble High Court of AP., in Kolipaka Venkateswara Rao @

Babji Vs The State of AP., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor dt.16-06-2025 wherein the conviction of the accused under section 411 IPC (corresponding

Section 317 BNS) is upheld in a similar case. Therefore, the accused/A1 and A2 are ought to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 317(2) of BNS.

In the result, Accused/A1 and A2 are acquitted for the offence

C.C.No.675/2025 Page 11 of 15 AJFCM, CDM Dt.05.05.2026 punishable under Section 331(3) and 305(A) of BNS. However, they are found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 317(2) BNS and are accordingly convicted under Section 271 BNSS.

When questioned regarding the quantum of sentence, the accused/A1 stated that he is eking his livelihood by doing coolie works, that he is the sole breadwinner of his family and that he has the responsibility of caring for his elderly and ailing mother. Whereas accused/A2 stated that he is eking his livelihood by doing coolie works, that he is the sole breadwinner of his family and that he has the responsibility of caring for his elderly and ailing parents as well as arranging the marriage of his two younger sisters.

Hence, prayed for a lenient view.

27. This court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to invoke

Section 401 of BNSS or the provisions under Probation of Offenders

Act,1958 in view of the nature and gravity of offence, the criminal history of accused as per record and the circumstances established does not warrant such leniency.

28. Having regard to the fact and circumstances of the case, the submissions of the accused/A1 and A2 and nature of offence, this court is of the view that it is just and reasonable to take a lenient view in imposing the sentence against the accused/A1 and A2 instead of imposing maximum sentence prescribed for the offence under Section 317(2) of BNS.

29.Accordingly, the accused/A1 and A2 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of One year. MO.1 i.e., 1/4th tula of gold biscuit which was given to PW.1for interim custody, shall continue to remain with him after expiry of appeal time.

C.C.No.675/2025 Page 12 of 15 AJFCM, CDM Dt.05.05.2026

30. The remand period undergone by the accused/A1 from 09-05-2025 to till date i.e., 05-05-2026, is set off against the term of simple imprisonment for a period of One year, as per Section 468 BNSS. Similarly, the remand period undergone by the accused/A2 from 09-05-2025 to 24-11-2025, shall also be set off against the term of simple imprisonment for a period of One year, as per Section 468 BNSS. Further, the sentence imposed on Accused/A1 in the present case shall run concurrently with the sentence imposed in CC No.667 of 2025 on the file of this court.

The accused/A1 and A2 have been appraised of their right to prefer an appeal against the judgment and sentence rendered by this court.

Free copy of judgment is given to the accused/A1 and A2.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 5 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- B.Suryakala

A.J.F.C. Magistrate, Chodavaram

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR COMPLAINANT:

PW.1Allu Narayana Rao

PW.2Matta Mahalakshmi

PW.3Allu Varalakshmi

PW.4Pragada Chinnamnaidu

PW.5Ramasala Pedanna Dora

PW.6S.Ramesh

PW.7A.Srinivasa Rao

C.C.No.675/2025 Page 13 of 15 AJFCM, CDM Dt.05.05.2026

FOR ACCUSED:NONE

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR COMPLAINANT:

Ex. P1: Report lodged by PW.1 with the Police

Ex. P2: Scene Observation Report dated 08-04-2025

Ex. P3: Relevant portion of attested copy of mediators report dated 16-04-2025 admissible under Section 23 Proviso of BSA

Ex. P4: Original First Information Report

Ex. P5: Rough Sketch

FOR ACCUSED:NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

FOR COMPLAINANT:

MO.1 : ¼th tula of gold biscuit

FOR ACCUSED: NIL

Sd/- B.Suryakala

A.J.F.C. Magistrate, Chodavaram

C.C.No.675/2025 Page 14 of 15 AJFCM, CDM Dt.05.05.2026

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

CALENDAR CASE TRIED BY THE COURT OF A.J.F.C. MAGISTRATE AT

CHODAVARAM

Date of Offence: Prior to 06-04-2025

Date of Report or Complaint: 06-04-2025

Date of apprehension of Accused: A1 and A2 :09-05-2025 : A1 is in judicial custody and A2 is Date of accused released on bail enlarged on bail on 25-11-2025

Date of Commencement of Trial: 04-11-2025

Date of Closure of trial: 31-03-2026

Date of sentence or order of Court: 05-05-2026

Explanation for Delay & Remarks: No such delay

Calendar Case No.: C.C.No.675/2025 : State represented by Sub-Inspector of Name & Address of complainant Police, Butchiyyapeta Police Station.

1.Polamarasetti Durga Prasad, S/o. Mangaraju, aged 24 years, Rajupeta Village, Kotauratla Mandal, Anakapalli District. Name and address of accused:

2.Maduthuri Surya, S/o. Late Atchanna, aged 21 years, Rajupeta Village, Kotauratla Mandal, Anakapalli District.

Section of law: Section 331(3), 305(A), 317(2) BNS

Accused/A1, A2 are found guilty for the Finding of Court:offence punishable under Section 317(2) BNS

C.C.No.675/2025 Page 15 of 15 AJFCM, CDM Dt.05.05.2026

Sentence or Order of the Court : In the result, Accused/A1 and A2 are acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 331(3) and 305(A) of BNS. However, they are found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 317(2) BNS and are accordingly convicted under Section 271 BNSS and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of One year. The remand period undergone by the accused/A1 from 09-05-2025 to till date i.e., 05-05-2026, is set off against the term of simple imprisonment for a period of One year, as per Section 468 BNSS, similarly, the remand period undergone by the accused/A2 from 09-05-2025 to 24-11-2025, shall also be set off against the term of simple imprisonment for a period of One year, as per Section 468 BNSS. Further, the sentence imposed on Accused/A1 in the present case shall run concurrently with the sentence imposed in CC No.667 of 2025 on the file of this court. The property i.e., MO.1, 1/4th tula of gold biscuit which was already given to the PW.1 vide Crl.M.P.3776/2025 for interim custody shall holds good and shall become absolute after expiry of appeal time, subject to the result of any appeal, if preferred.

Sd/- B.Suryakala

A.J.F.C. Magistrate, Chodavaram

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

CHODAVARAM

Present : Ms B.Suryakala,

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Chodavaram

Tuesday, this the 12 th day of May, 2026

CALENDAR CASE No. 18/2025

BETWEEN:

State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, A.Koduru Police Station.

... Complainant

AND: Nimidithalli Prasad, S/o. Demudu, aged 27 years, Coolie, Neelakantarajupuram village, Vepada Mandal, Vizianagaram District.

... Accused.

Prayer:

This is a case filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, A.Koduru Police Station in Crime No.62/2022 alleging that accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act.

Date of filing: 16.01.2025 Date of hearing:12.05.2026

O R D E R

Police filed memo along with photostat copy of DC of accused submitting that accused died on 23.08.2023. Tallied with particulars of accused on record. Hence, the proceedings against accused are abated in view of his death and the case is closed. Case property, if any, shall be destroyed.

Pronounced in open court, this the 12 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- B.Suryakala

A.J.F.C.MAGISTRATE

CHODAVARAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

NIL

Sd/- B.Suryakala

A.J.F.C.MAGISTRATE

CHODAVARAM

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

CHODAVARAM

Present : Ms B.Suryakala,

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Chodavaram

Mon day, this the 11 th day of May, 2026

CALENDAR CASE No. 491/2023

BETWEEN:

State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Kothakota Police Station.

... Complainant

AND: Golagani Peddiraju, S/o. Late Ramulu, aged 76 years, Dibbapalem Village, P.Ponnavolu Panchayat, Ravikamatham Mandal, Anakapalli District.

... Accused.

Prayer:

This is a case filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, Cheedikada Police Station in Crime No.20/2025 alleging that accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 7(B) r/w. 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition Act.

Date of filing: 11.07.2023 Date of hearing:11.05.2026

O R D E R

Police filed memo along with photostat copy of DC of accused submitting that accused died on 08.01.2024. Tallied with particulars of accused on record. Hence, the proceedings against the accused are abated in view of his death and the case is closed.

Pronounced in open court, this the 11 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- B.Suryakala

A.J.F.C.MAGISTRATE

CHODAVARAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

NIL

Sd/- B.Suryakala

A.J.F.C.MAGISTRATE

CHODAVARAM

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

CHODAVARAM

Present : Ms B.Suryakala,

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Chodavaram day, this the Fri 8 th day of May , 2026

CALENDAR CASE No. 17/2023

BETWEEN:

State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Cheedikada Police Station.

... Complainant

AND: Killi Pentayya, S/o. Late Nookalu, aged 57 years, Chinnakonam Village, Cheedikada Mandal, Anakapalli District.

... Accused.

Prayer:

This is a case filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, Cheedikada Police Station in Crime No.83/2022 alleging that accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 7(B) r/w. 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition Act.

Date of filing: 01.11.2022 Date of hearing:08.05.2026

O R D E R

Police filed photostat copy of DC of accused. Verified and tallied with particulars of accused on record. Hence, case against accused is abated.

Pronounced in open court, this the 8 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- B.Suryakala

A.J.F.C.MAGISTRATE

CHODAVARAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

NIL

Sd/- B.Suryakala

A.J.F.C.MAGISTRATE

CHODAVARAM