Smt C.M.Rajya Lakshmi

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE:

JANGAON: WARANGAL DISTRICT.

Present: SMT.C.M. RAJYA LAKSHMI, 

JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

JANGAON.

Dated this the 1st day of May, 2017.

C. C. NO: 289 OF 2011

Between: ­

The State of Telangana, through the Sub­Inspector of Police, P.S. Jangaon.

...Complainant.

And

1. Nimmala Dasharath, S/o. Sathaiah, Age: 30 years, Golla, R/o. Chinnagudem, Muripala Village, Athmakur Mandal, Nalgonda District.

2. Muppidi Swamy, S/o. Lachaiah, Age: 28 years, Madiga, R/o. Muripala Village, Athmakur Mandal, Nalgonda District

...Accused

This case is coming before me, for final hearing and disposal on this day in the presence of Sri Nagaraju M, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri Sreeram Srinivas, Advocate for the accused; upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following.

J U D G M E N T

The Sub­Inspector of Police, P.S. Jangaon, filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 394 of I.P.C., in Crime No. 220/2011 of P.S. Jangaon.

2.The brief averments of the case of the prosecution are that on 07­08­2011 at about 2100hrs, the PW­1 (Kurnala Anil KumarZ) lodged a written complaint before the Police, 

Jangaon, stating that on 07­08­2011 at about 1900hrs, the complainant went to the house of his customer at Pembarthy and after completing his work while he was returning home on his way near B.Ed College at about 1940hrs the accused A1 and A2 stopped the complainant and asked for lift. They called him to road side saying that they are police and took him 100metres distance from the road in to the cotton fields and beat him up with a stick and robbed two tulas gold chain and two rings each of which is one tula worth 

Rs.80,000/­ along with a cell phone bearing No. 9849078213 of Samsung Company and decamped with the booty on their motorcycle. Thereafter PW1 made a written complaint with the police requesting the police to take necessary action against the accused.

3.On the strength of the written complaint of PW­1, a case in Crime No. 220/2011 under Section 394 of I.P.C., was registered by the Police,Jangaon who investigated into the offence and after completion of investigation, Police filed charge sheet against the accused.

4.The case was taken on file for the offence punishable under Section 394 of I.P.C., against the accused.

5.On appearance of the accused, the copies of documents were furnished u/Sec.207 

Cr.P.C. The accused was examined u/Sec.239 Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable under 

Section 394 of IPC., and explained the substance of accusation against him, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined PWs 1 to 5 and got marked 

Exs.P­1 to P­13.

7.After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined u/Sec.313 

Cr.P.C., and incriminating evidence is read over and explained to him. Having understood the same, the accused denied the incriminating evidence and reported no defence evidence.

8.Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence punishable u/Section 394 of I.P.C.?

9.The gravamen of the charge against the accused is that on 07­08­2011 at about 1900hrs, the complainant went to the house of his customer at Pembarthy and after completing his work while he was returning home on his way near B.Ed College at about 1940hrs the accused A1 and A2 stopped the complainant and asked for lift. They called him to road side saying that they are police and took him 100metres distance from the road in to the cotton fields and beat him up with a stick and robbed two tulas gold chain and two rings each of which is one tula worth Rs.80,000/­ along with a cell phone bearing No. 

9849078213 of Samsung Company and decamped with the booty on their motorcycle. 

Thereafter PW1 made a written complaint with the police requesting the police to take necessary action against the accused.

10.The plea of the accused is one of total denial and false implication. He did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence in support of his defence.

11.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor in support of their case examined as many as five witnesses as PW1 to PW5 and argued that the prosecution could successfully prove the guilt of accused in commission of offence beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, he prays the 

Court to convict the accused as per law.

12.On the other hand, the learned defence counsel has strenuously argued that the evidence of prosecution witnesses is inconsistent and incorroborative and does not inspire confidence to base conviction of the accused and sought for acquittal of the accused.

13.Heard both sides. Perused the case record.

14.To bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined PWs 1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P­1 to P­13. PW­1 who is the complainant and victim deposed that on 07­08­ 2011 at about 1900hrs, the complainant went to the house of his customer at Pembarthy and after completing his work while he was returning home on his way near B.Ed College at about 1940hrs the accused A1 and A2 stopped the complainant and asked for lift. They called him to road side saying that they are police and took him 100metres distance from the road in to the cotton fields and beat him up with a stick and robbed two tulas gold chain and two rings each of which is one tula worth Rs.80,000/­ along with a cell phone bearing No. 9849078213 of Samsung Company and decamped with the booty on their motorcycle. Thereafter PW1 made a written complaint with the police which is marked under Ex.P1 requesting the police to take necessary action against the accused. He further stated that he received summons from court at Warangal to participate in the Test identification Parade and accordingly he went to the prison and identified the accused A1 and A2. He also identified the accused in the court hall and stated that A1 and A2 robbed his gold ornaments and his cell phone but he obtained the gold and cell phone through interim custody. He also brought the Gold ornaments which he obtained through interim custody from the court and the gold neck chain is marked as MO1 weighing two tulas, two gold rings weighing two tulas are marked as MO2 and both are returned to PW1 after marking the same. PW­1 in his cross­examination admitted that the offence took place on a highway and the accused persons were wearing masks on their faces but the witness added that he saw their faces while scuffling with them when he pulled the masks from their faces. He admitted that it was about 7pm and it was dark and the accused were not in police uniform. Further he denied to the allegations that the accused did not commit theft and did not beat PW1 and the accused are innocent and police planted the gold items and cell phone for the purpose of this case.Witness added that he received injuries on his hands and oh his back. He further denied to the suggestions that he cannot identify the accused and he identified them with the instigation of police. Witness admitted that he mentioned the physical features of the accused in his statement. He also denied to the statement that he did not scribe the complaint Ex.P1.

16. PW2, who is the panch for scene of offence and in his chief examination, he stated that on 08­08­2011 at about 06.15am, the police Jangaon called him near Ekashila B.Ed College at housing board colony on the Hyderabad highway where the C.I of police was present and he observed the scene of offence in my presence and in the presence of LW3 and he prepared rough sketch and conducted CDF Panchanama marked under Ex.P2 on which he signed along with LW3. In his cross examination he admitted that PW1 is his brother in law and that the scene of offence is a highway and there will be flow of public . He further denied to the suggestion made that no CDF was conducted in his presence though he could not tell what was mentioned in the column No.11 of Ex.P2 and the survey No. in which 

CDF was conducted. He further denied to the suggestion that he was deposing false.

17. Pw3, who is the panch for confession and seizure stated in his chief examination that on 27­08­2011 at about 09.15hours while he was proceeding towards Nagaram and Kallem road, Jangaon police called him and another one person and when I went neat the RTA 

Office, Jangaon, I saw two persons in the custody of police and the accused 1 and 2 are the persons who were in their custody. He further stated that he enquired the accused persons on the instructions of police upon which the accused persons disclosed their names as 

Dasharatha and Swamy and they further confessed before him that about five days back, they went to weavers colony and found one lady in the house and that they entered the house and snatched away her pusthela Thadu, mattilu, ear studds and they further confessed that they sprinkled chilli powder on her face so that she should not identify them. 

They further stated that they also opened the almarah and committed theft of one gold ring. A1 further confessed that the stolen gol articles are kept in his house at Chinnagudem 

Village of Nalgonda District. They also confessed that they also stopped one lady who was going on her scooty near Nagaram village and that they snatched her gold chain and also snatched two gold rings from another person on the Hyderabad highway. Accordingly the accused produced one pulsar bike and one pusthela thadu and two gold rings, the police seized the same under cover of confession cum seizure panchanamas. Later he stated that the accused led them to the house of A1 at Chinnagudem village and produced gold articles cover from the rice tin and produced the gold neck chain, two gold rings marked under 

MO1 and 2 and police recorded seizure panchanama and obtained our signatures. Later he stated that A2 led them to his house at Muripala Village and then A2 brought a pusthela thadu from his house and produce before us. Accordingly the police recorded another seizure panchanama and that he along with another signed on the panchanamas. Ex.P3 and P4 are confession cum recovery panchanamas of A1 and A2. Ex.P5 and P6 are the seizure panchanamas of A1 and A2. He stated that the police further seized two motorbikes ie., Passion Pro and Pulsar marked under Ex.MO3 and 4. In his cross examination he clearly denied to all the suggestions made to him regarding the non commission of offence, and non confession of the accused persons before them and also denied to the suggestion that the witness was not taken to the house of accused persons by the accused persons.Except for suggestions that were denied nothing material could be elicited from 

PW3.

18. PW4 is the Junior Civil Judge who conducted test identification parade and the officer in her chief examination stated that on 19­09­2011, she had visited Warangal Central prison to conduct test identification parade of suspects by name Dasharath and Swamy in 

Cr.No.95/2011 of PS Jangaon and recorded the statement of victim Anil Kumar and he identified the accused A1 and A2. She stated that she also recorded the statements of suspects. She further stated that she had taken all the precautions while conduction TI parade as required and the Test identification proceeding is marked as Ex.P8 while the proceedings of the officer is marked under Ex.P7. In her cross examination she denied to the allegation made that no proper precaution was taken while conducting TI parade.

19. PW5 is the investigating officer and in his chief examination he stated that he received a written report from PW1 on 07­08­2011 at 2130hrs and on the strength of the same he registered a case in crime No.220/2011 and issued FIR under Ex.P9. He stated that he further examined and recorded the statements of PW1 and then visited the scene of offence on 08­08­2011 situated at the outskirts of Jangaon town near agriculture fields of one 

Sathyanarayana Reddy and there he drafted CDF in the presence of Lws 2 and 3 which is marked under Ex.P2. He further stated that while the investigation is in progress, on 27­08­ 2011 on suspicious circumstances he apprehended the accused at Kallem road, Jangaon. 

That on his enquiry the accused confessed commision of offence pertaining to this case along with two other cases. That he secured the presence of Lws 4 and 5 and recorded confession panchanama pertaining to this case along with other two cases under Ex.P10 and P11 of A1 and A2. He also stated in pursuance of confession panchanama he visited the house of A1 and A2 at Chinnagudem of Nalgonda District and there he seized the gold and silver ornaments under cover of panchanama under Ex.P12 and P13 in the presence of the same mediators. He stated that after he returned to PS he arrested the accused A1 and A2 and produced them before the Hon'ble Court for judicial remand. In his cross examination nothing in specific could be elicited except for denying suggestions put to him with regard to non commission of offence by the accused and conducting of improper investigation and improper panchanama by not vising scene of offence and using of stock witnesses.

20. From the evidence on record, it is seen that Pw1 has identified the accused persons in open court hall and even in the cross examination and further cross examination he impressed upon the fact that he can identify the accused persons A1 and A2 who robbed gold ornaments from him along with the cell phone. In his cross examination nothing else could be elicited apart from denying suggestions put to him. In addition to this the evidence of PW3 who is the confession cum seizure panch clearly stated that both the accused persons have confessed commission of offence before him and aldo had taken him to their house and from there the gold and silver ornaments have been seized. From the evidence of 

PW3 it is evident that the accused persons have not only committed the offence in the present case but they have also confessed commission of two other offences which reveals the behavior of the accused that they are very much habitual in committing the offences of theft and robbery. The evidence of PW3 clearly made out the guilt of the accused persons in committing the offences with which they are charged. Another crucial evidence in this case is the evidence of Hon'ble V Addl JCJ, Warangal who had conducted the Test Identification in this case wherein also the victim clearly identified both the accused persons and by this the guilt of the accused is proved beyond reasonable doubt. In the cross examination of both the witnesses PW3 and PW4 nothing could be elicited except for putting suggesstions to then to which they denied. Further in this case, PW5 who is the investigating officer deposed that he went to the house of A1 and A2 in view of confession about commission of offence made by them and he seized gold and silver ornaments from the house of A1 and 

A2. There is no single instance wherein the accused are entitled to benefit of doubt as all the witnesses clearly established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. On examining Ex.P1 to P13 also the case on record is made out. 

20. In view of the aforesaid discussion of oral and documentary evidence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has proved the charge under Section 394 of 

I.P.C. and this court sees no reason to take a lenient view against the accused persons herein.

Accordingly, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 394 of 

I.P.C.

(Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 1sth day of May, 2017.)

Sd/­XXXXXXXXXX­

JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRAT

JANGAON.

ORDER ON THE POINT OF SENTENCE

Accused is questioned about the quantum of sentence, for which he submitted that he is having old aged parents, wife and children and he hails from poor family and requested this Court to take a lenient view.

Taking in to account the above mitigating circumstances put­forth by the accused, a lenient view can be taken in awarding sentence and this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met, if the accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/­ for the offence punishable under 

Section 394 I.P.C., and in default of payment of fine he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months.

33. In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 394 of I.P.C., accordingly, he is convicted under Section 248(2) Cr.P.C., and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three year and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/­ for the offence punishable under Section 394 I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months.

The period of remand undergone by the accused, if any, shall be given set off under 

Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 

He is also apprised of his right to have legal aid to prefer an appeal before the 

Hon’ble Court of Sessions, if he has no sufficient means to engage his Advocate before the 

Hon’ble Court of Sessions.

Sd/­XXXXXXXXXX­

JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

JANGAON.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW­1: Anil Kumar – Complainanat ­None­

PW­2: J Samba Shiva Rao – Panch Witness

PW­3: Y Somi Reddy – Panch for Confession cum Seizure

PW­4: M Aruna – V Addl JCJ, Warangal and conducted TI parade

PW­5: M Jithender – Investigating Officer 

EXHIBITS MARKED

< FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P­1 : Signature of PW­1 on Complainanat

Ex.P­2 :CDF

Ex.P­3 :Confession cum Recovery Panchanama of A1 and A2

Ex.P­4 : Confession cum Recovery Panchanama of A1 and A2

Ex.P­5 :Seizure Panchanamas of A1 and A2

Ex.P­6 :Seizure Panchanamas of A1 and A2

Ex.P­7 :Proceedings of Vth Addl JCJ who conducted TI Parade

Ex.P­8 :TI Parade proceedings

Ex.P9: FIR

Ex.P10:Confession Panchanama

Ex.P11:Confession Panchanama

Ex.P12:Seizure Panchanama

Ex.P13 Seizure Panchanama

FOR DEFENCE:

­ Nil ­

:MATERIAL OBJECTS:

­Nil­

JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

JANGAON.

// TRUE COPY //

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, JANGAON, 

WARANGAL DISTRICT.

PRESENT: SMT. C.M. RAJYA LAKSHMI,

JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

JANGAON.

Monday this the 1st day of May, 2017

C.C.No. 288 of 2011

Between: 

The State of Telangana, through the Inspector of Police, P.S. Jangaon.

...Complainant.

And

A­1 Nimmala Dasharath, S/o: Sathaiah, Age: 30 yrs, Caste: Golla, R/o Chinnagudem, H/o: Murpirala village of Athmakur mandal of Nalgonda District. A­2 Muppidi Swamy, S/o: Lachaiah, Age: 28 yrs, Caste: Madiga, R/o: Muripirala village, Athmakur mandal of Nalgonda District.

...Accused

­o0o­

This case is coming before me for hearing on this day in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri Sreeram Srinivas, Advocate for the accused; upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following.

J U D G M E N T

The Inspector of Police, Jangaon Rural, filed the charge sheet against both the accused for the offence punishable u/S 394 of I.P.C., in Crime No.95/2011 of 

P.S. Jangaon.

2.The brief averments of the case of the prosecution are as follows:

On 16/04/2011 at 11­30 hours when the complainant LW1/ Karre Shirisha was alone in her house at that time A1 and A2 gained entrance into her house, closed her mouth and snatched away the gold ornamnets from her and one of them searched the keys of almarah, which was situated in the kitchen, opened the same, committed theft of gold and silver ornaments worth Rs.50,000/­. After committing 2 the offence, the offenders sprinkled chilli powder on her and decamped with the booty.

 On the same day at 03­30 p.m., LW1/ Karre Shirisha lodged a complaint 

before LW11/M. Jithender, Inspector of Police, P.S. Jangaon, who registered a case 

in Cr. No.95/2011 u/Ss 454 and 380 IPC and took up investigation.

During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of witnesses, visited the scene of offence situated at Weavers colony, 

Jangaon, where he drafted the rough sketch in the presence of mediators LW6 

Kodimayala Somaiah and LW7 Kodimala Dasharatam.

On 27/08/2011 A1 and A2 were apprehended under suspicious circumstances and they confessed before the mediators LW8 Mudurukolla Ravi and 

LW9 Yalapati Somi Reddy about commission of offence by them. Basing on their confession, LW11 seized 2 ½ tulas gold pustela tadu which was stolen by A1 and 

A2, on 08­05­2011 at the outskirts of Nagaram village, along with 2 tulas of gold chain, 2 gold rings weighing about 1 tula in Cr. No.220/2011, which was stolen on 07/08/2011. Later, both the accused led the police and panchas to the house of 

A1 situated at Muripirala village and produced a Hero Honda Passion Pro motorcycle bearing No.AP­24­AD­5284 in Cr. No.37/2011 of Lingalaghanpur P.S., they produced Tali bottu weighing about 5 grams, 3 tulas of gold pusthela thadu two lines, silver leg chians weighing about 21 tulas, one pair of ear studs weighing about ¼ tula, Matees ¼ tula, ¼ tula gold ring pertaining to this case from the possession of A1. Later, A2 led police and panchas to his house situated at 

Muripirala village and produced a gold Gopi Tadu weighing about 2 ½ tuals pertaining to Cr. No.37/2011 of P.S. Lingalaghanpur and sent them to judicial custody and after completion of investigation, filed the charge sheet.

4.The case was taken on file for the offence punishable u/S 394 I.P.C., against both the accused.

3

5.On appearance of both the accused, the copies of documents were furnished u/sec.207 Cr.P.C to them. The accused No­1 and 2 were examined u/Sec.239 

Cr.P.C., and was framed a charge u/S 394 I.P.C., read over and explained to them in Telugu language, for which they denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.The prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 6 and marked Exs.P­1 to P­12 and 

MOs1 to 6.

7.After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused No­1 and 2 were examined u/Sec.313 Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, for which the accused denied the incriminating evidence against them and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard arguments. 

9.Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond

reasonable doubt for the offence punishable u/Section 394 I.P.C. ?

10. POINT:

It is the allegation of the prosecution against both the accused that on 16/04/2011 at 11.30 a.m., while LW1 Karre Shirisha was alone in her house, both of them gained enterance into the house, closed her mouth, snatched the gold ornaments from her, and committed theft of gold and silver ornaments worth 

Rs.50,000/­ from her almariah and while they leaving the place they sprinkled chilly powder in her eyes.

To prove the case, the prosecution has examined as many as six witnesses and got marked 12 exhibits so also it marked the stolen property as MOs1 to 6.

PW1 is the complainant­cum­victim herein. PWs2 and 3 are the panch­ witnesses for scene of offence. PWs4 is the panch­witnesses for confession­cum­ 4 seizure panchanama. PW 5 is the Judicial Ist Class Magistrate, Warangal, who conducted T.I. Parade. PW6 is the investigating officer.

Ex.P1 is the complaint. Ex.P2 is the signature of PW2 on crime details form. Ex.P3 is the signature of PW3 on crime details form. Ex.P4 is the confesional­ cum­recovery panchanama of A1 & A2. Ex.P5 is the confessional­cum­covery panchanama of A1 & A2. Ex.P6 is the seizure panchanama of A1 and A2. Ex.P7 is the seizure panchanama of A1 and A2. Ex.P8 is the proceedings of CJM, Warangal, dt.03/09/2011. Ex.P9 is the proceedings of TI parade. Ex.P10 is the FIR. Ex.P11 is the crime details form. 

MO­1 gold ear studs one pair weighing about 3.300 gms. MO2 gold pusthela thadu weighing about 14.13 gms. MO3 Gold pusthela thadu weighing about 24 milligrams. MO4 is gold mattess weighing about 3.600 gms (2 in number). MO5 is the gold right 1.490 gms and MO6 is one pair of silver leg chains weighing about 204.00 gms. 

Pw1 deposed that on 16­04­2011 while she was alone in her house at about 11.30 a.m., two persons came and covered her mouth by putting hands and snatched the ear gold ornaments and also thalibattu. Among them one person opened the almariah with the help of key and took away the gold pusthelathadu, kammalu, mettalu, one gold ring, silver anklets and leg chains. Before leaving the house, the said two persons sprinkled chili powder in her eyes and ran away. 

Immediately, she went crying to nearby rice mill and informed the same to the persons there. The said persons came to her house and verified the missing gold ornaments, worth Rs.50,000/­. She specifically stated that she can identify those persons i.e., A1 and A2 and also indentified them, who were standing in the Court are that the said persons who snatched away the gold ornaments. After the arrival of her family members, she informed the incident and later went to P.S. Jangaon and lodged Ex.P1 complaint. She took the stolen gold ornamnets through interim 5 custody i.e., MO­1 gold ear studs one pair weighing about 3.300 gms. MO2 gold pusthela thadu weighing about 14.13 gms. MO3 Gold pusthela thadu weighing about 24 milligrams. MO4 is gold mattess weighing about 3.600 gms (2 in number). MO5 is the gold right 1.490 gms and MO6 is one pair of silver leg chains weighing about 204.00 gms. 

PWs2 and 3 who are the the panch­witnesses for crime details form turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution except admitting their signatures on some papers. At this stage, the learned APP sought permission to treat the witness hostile and cross­examined them with the permission of Hon'ble 

Court. In their cross­examination, the above said witnesses completely had given go­bye to their earlier statements, which were recorded before the police u/S 161 

Cr.P.C. marked under Ex.P2 and Ex.P3.

PW4 deposed that on 27­08­2011 at about 09.15 hours, he was called by police while he was proceeding towards Nagaram and Kallem road. He went near to RTA office, Jangaon, where he found three persons in the custody of police, who disclosed their identity on enquiry as Dasharatha and Swamy. Further disclosed that about 5 days ago they went to Weavers Colony and found one lady was in the house and they entered into the house and snatched the gold ornaments i.e. gold pusthela thadu, matilu, ear studs from her and sprinkled chilli powder on her face and also opened the almarah and committed theft of one gold ring and all are kept in their house at Chinnagudem village of Nalgonda district. They further confessed that they stopped one lady who was coming on scooty near Nagaram village and that they snatched her gold chain and also snatched two gold rings from another person near petrol pump on Hyderebad high way. Accordingly, the accused produced one pulsar bike and one pusthela thadu and two gold rings and the same were seized under cover of panchanama. Later, both the accused led them to Chinnagudem village where the house of A1 is situated, and that they 6 seized gold pusthela thadu, matilu, rings, leg chains (MOs1 to 6) on production by 

A1 and then A2 led to his house which is situated at Muripirala village, where they seized pusthela thadu and recorded their confessional­cum­recovery panchamas respectively under Ex.P4 to 7.

PW5 deposed that as per ExP8 proceedings of Chief Judicial Magistrate, 

Warangal, dt.03/09/2011 on 13/09/2011 she conducted T.I. Parade at Central 

Prison, Warangal at 3­50 p.m., and the witness K. Shirisha identified the suspects 

N. Dasharath and N. Swamy.

PW6 is the investigating officer deposed that on 16/04/2011 at 03/30 p.m., on receiving Ex.p1 from PW1, he registered a case in Cr. No.95/2011 and issued Ex.P10 FIR. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of witnesses, visited the scene of offence, wherein he drafted Ex.P11 CDF in the presence of LWs6 and 7 and that on 27/08/2011 he apprehended the accused at Kallem road, Jangaon,who confessed before him in the presence of LWs8 and 9 and seized the gold and silver ornaments in the presence of said mediators.

From the entire evidence on record and from the evidence of crucial witnesses i.e. PW1, PW4 and PW5 where PW1 specifically deposed in her chief examination that she can identify the accused persons and identified A1 and A2 standing in the court and stated that they were the same persons who snatched the gold ornaments and further deposed that she also identified the accused in the test identification proceedings. In her cross­examination she denied the suggestions put to her that police had shown the phtographs of the accused before Test of 

Identification Parade and that the accused did not commit the offence and that she has not seen the accused and that only on the photographs showed by the police, she has identified the accused and that the accused are no way concerned with this case. She was further re­cross examined but nothing could be elicited in her re 7 cross­examination. PW4 was also cross­examined at length but nothing could be elicited in his cross­examination. The evidence of PW5, who is the Judicial Officer, who conducted Test Identification Parade, was cross­examined by putting suggestions only and the same were denied by her. But, in her chief examination she clearly stated that PW1 identified the suspects N. Dasharath and N. Swamy. 

The evidence of PW6, who is the investigating officer supported the version of PW1 as well as PW4 and 5 as he seized the stolen articles from the house of A1 and A2 in the presence of witnesses. Therefore, on perusal of the record, it is found that the accused persons are habitual persons to committ robbery as they confessed other offences besides this offence. The evidence of PWs1, 4, 5 and 6 coupled with the document evidence i.e. Ex.P4 to Ex.P9 established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 

In view of aforesaid discussion of oral and documentary evidence, this Court is of the considered opinon that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable u/S 394 IPC and this Court sees no reason to take a lenient view against the accused persons herein. Accordingly, the accused is found guilty for the offence u/S 394 IPC. 

In the result, A1 and A2 are found guilty for the offence u/S 394 IPC and accordingly, they are convicted u/s 248 (2) of Cr.P.C.

(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 1st day of May 2017.)

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Jangaon.

When A1 and A2 are questioned with regard to the quantum of sentence, 

A1 stated that he is the sole breadwinner to his entire family and also has old aged parents and small children. If he is sent to jail, his family members will be put 8 irreperable loss and requested the Court to take lenient view with regard to the sentence to be imposed against him.

A2 also stated that he is the sole breadwinner to his entire family and also has old aged parents and small children. If he is sent to jail, his family members will be put to irreperable loss and requested the Court to take lenient view with regard to the sentence to be imposed against him. Basing on the facts and circumstances of the case and on considering the submissions made by the accused, this Court is inclined to sentence both the accused A1 and A2 to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two (2) years each and to a pay fine of Rs.5,000/­ (Rupees five thousands only) each. Total amount of fine of Rs.10,000/­ (Rupees ten thousands only). In default of payment of fine they shall under go S.I. for a period of three (3) months each.

Both the sentences in C.C.No.289/2011 and in this case i.e. 

C.C.No.288/2011 shall run concurrently. 

 The period of detention from 28­08­2011 to 14­09­2011 which was any already undergone by the accused A1 and A2 shall be given set off u/S 428 Cr. P.C.

MOs­1 to 6, which were already given to PW1 towards interim custody vide Crl. M.P.No.989/2011, dt.08/09/2011, shall be retained with her. After expiry of appeal time, she made absolute owner over the same. 

They are also apprised of their right to have legal aid to prefer an appeal before the Hon’ble Court of Sessions, if they have no sufficient means to engage their Advocate before the Hon’ble Court of Sessions.

Sd/­ XXXXX­

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Jangaon.

9

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

Prosecution: Defence:

PW.1: K. Shirisha ­None­

PW.2: K. Somaiah

PW.3: K. Dasarath

PW.4: Y. Somi Reddy

PW.5: M. Aruna 

PW.6: M. Jithendher 

DOCUMENTS MARKED

Prosecution: Defence:

Ex.P1 is the complaint. 

Ex.P2 is the signature of PW2 on crime details form. 

Ex.P3 is the signature of PW3 on crime details form.

Ex.P4 is the confesional­cum­recovery panchanama of A1 & A2.

Ex.P5 is the confessional­cum­covery panchanama of A1 & A2.

Ex.P6 is the seizure panchanama of A1 and A2 

Ex.P7 is the seizure panchanama of A1 and A2.

Ex.P8 is the proceedings of CJM, Warangal, dt.03/09/2011. 

Ex.P9 is the proceedings of TI parade. 

Ex.P10 is the FIR.

Ex.P11 is the crime details form. 

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO­1 GOLDEARSTUDSONEPAIRWEIGHINGABOUT 3.300 GMS. 

MO2 GOLDPUSTHELATHADUWEIGHINGABOUT 14.13 GMS. 

MO3 GOLDPUSTHELATHADUWEIGHINGABOUT 24 MILLIGRAMS.

MO4 ISGOLDMATTESSWEIGHINGABOUT 3.600 GMS (2 INNUMBER). 

MO5 ISTHEGOLDRIGHT 1.490 GMSAND

MO6 ISONEPAIROFSILVERLEGCHAINSWEIGHINGABOUT 204.00 GMS.

Sd/­ XXXXX­ 

JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

JANGAON.

//TRUE COPY//

1 Of 4 OS No.187 OF 2015/PJCJ, Jangaon.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AT

JANGAON.

Thursday, the 13th day of April, 2017.

Present: Smt. C.M. Rajyalakshmi,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Jangaon.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.187 OF 2015.

Between:

Kambala Laxmaiah

...Plaintiff

AND

1. Chiliveru Krishna Murthy

2. Chiliveru Shobhan Babu

...Defendants

This suit is coming before me on this day for final hearing in the presence of

Sri T. Narsi Reddy, counsel for the plaintiff and the defendant remained absent and set-exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered

the following:

J U D G M E N T

This suit is a suit filed for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their family members, servants, associates, workmen, agents, relatives, friends and assignees etc., from entering into or interfering in any manner or otherwise causing any hindrance into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule land.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

The plaintiff submits that he is the absolute owner, possessor and pattedar of the agricultural dry land measuring Acs.3-15 guntas in survey

No.546/A and Acs.3-21 guntas in survey No.547/D totalling to an extent of

Acs.6-36 guntas situated in Mutharam village, Palakurthy revenue mandal, 2 Of 4 OS No.187 OF 2015/PJCJ, Jangaon.

Warangal district and that the same is acquired by him by virtue of Gift settlement deed executed in his favour by his maternal grandfather-

Chiluveru Ramaiah vide document No.1183/1989, dated 30-10-1989. the plaintiff submits that since the date of execution of the registered Gift settlement deed, he has been in physical possession of the same and has been enjoying the suit land uninterruptedly without anybody's interference.

Subsequently, he was also issued pattedar pass book and title deed to that effect. He submits that he has filed original Gift deed and mee-seva pahanies for the year Fasli 1422 to 1425 along with 1-B namuna.

The plaintiff submits that the defendants without having any manner of right over the suit land tried to grab the suit land being neighbouring land owners and in pursuance of the same, the defendants No.1 and 2 try to encroach upon the suit land on 12.8.2015 and made futile attempts to occupy the same but the plaintiff could resist their attempt. As the plaintiff apprehends danger to the suit land by the defendants, he filed the present suit.

3.The defendants though appeared through an Advocate, did not choose to file written statement within the stipulated time. As such, they remained exparte.

4.The plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exts.A1 to A9.

5.Now, the point for consideration is:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual

injunction, as prayed for ?”

6. POINT:-It is the case of the plaintiff that he is the absolute owner, possessor and pattedar of the agricultural dry land measuring Acs.3-15 guntas in survey No.546/A and Acs.3-21 guntas in survey No.547/D, totaling to an extent of Acs.6-36 guntas situated in Mutharam village, Palakurthy revenue mandal, Warangal district and that the same is acquired by him by 3 Of 4 OS No.187 OF 2015/PJCJ, Jangaon.

virtue of Gift settlement deed executed in his favour by his maternal grandfather-Chiluveru Ramaiah vide document No.1183/1989, dated 30-10- 1989 and he further submits that since the date of execution of the registered Gift settlement deed, he has been in physical possession of the same and has been enjoying the suit land uninterruptedly without anybody's interference.

7.To prove the suit claim, the plaintiff himself got examined as PW-1 and reiterated the plaint averments. In support of his evidence Exs.A-1 to

A9 are marked. On examining Exts.A1 to A9 in detail, it is seen that Ex.A1 is the pattedar pass book of the plaintiff showing that he is the pattedar of the suit schedule property. Exts.A2 to A7 and Ex.A9 are mee-seva pahanies for Fasli years 1420 to 1425 and the pahanies clearly show that the plaintiff is the pattedar of the suit schedule property. Ex.A8 is the registered Gift settlement deed vide document No.1183/1989, dated 30-10-1989 which shows that the gift deed was executed in favour of the plaintiff by his grandfather-Chiluveru Ramaiah and that the gift deed is in respect of the suit schedule property along with land to an extent of Ac.0-27 guntas in survey No.381.

8.In view of Exts.A1 to A9, it is clearly established that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property and therefore, the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff. No costs.

(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 13th day of April, 2017.)

Sd./-

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

JANGAON.

4 Of 4 OS No.187 OF 2015/PJCJ, Jangaon.

APPENDIX OF EVDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF:FOR DEFENDANTS: PW.1 K. Laxmaiah-None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:FOR DEFENDANTS: Ex.A1 Original Pattedar pass book-Nil- Ex.A2 Meeseva pahani for the year 1420 Fasli Ex.A3 Meeseva Pahani for the year 1421 Fasli Ex.A4 Meeseva Pahani for the year 1422 Fasli Ex.A5 Meeseva Pahani for the year 1423 Fasli Ex.A6 Meeseva Pahani for the year 1424 Fasli Ex.A7 Meeseva Pahani for the year 1425 Fasli Ex.A8 Original Gift settlement registered document vide No.1183/1989. Ex.A9 1-B Namuna

Sd./-

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

JANGAON.

// TRUE COPY //

1 Of 4 OS No.213 of 2016/PJCJ, Jangaon.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AT

JANGAON.

Thursday, the 13th day of April, 2017

Present: Smt. C.M. Rajyalakshmi,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Jangaon.

O. S. No. 213 of 2016

Between:

Pedduri Srinivas...Plaintiff

And

1. Jalagam Karre Somaiah

2. Jalagam Sugunamma

3. Jalagam Ashok

4. Jalagam Ramesh

... Defendants

This suit is coming before me on this day for final hearing in the presence of

Sri M. Jan Reddy, counsel for the plaintiff and the defendant remained absent and set- exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the

following:

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for grant of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their family members, their workmen, servants, relatives, associates, friends, agents and assignees etc., from entering into or otherwise interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule land.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

The plaintiff submits that he is the absolute owner and exclusive possessor of agricultural dry land measuring Ac.1-11 guntas covered by survey No.647/ఊ situated at Dardepally village of Palakurthy revenue mandal, Warangal district which is subject matter of the suit. The plaintiff 2 Of 4 OS No.213 of 2016/PJCJ, Jangaon.

submits that he succeeded the suit schedule property from his father P.

Mallaiah @ Banjara Mallaiah after his demise and that his name was also mutated in the revenue records. In support of his case, he filed ROR, pattedar pass book and title deed along with certified copies of Pahanies for the years 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 1420 Fasli to 1426 Fasli which clearly shows that the plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the suit schedule property.

It is submitted by the plaintiff that while he was cultivating and enjoying the suit schedule land, the defendants with a malafide intention to grab the suit land came upon the land on 14.8.2016 and caused obstruction to the agricultural work of plaintiff. The plaintiff however, could resist the defendants for time being but as he apprehends danger of dispossession from the suit land in the hands of the defendants, he approached this Court as he had no other option. Hence the suit.

3.The defendants though appeared through an Advocate, did not choose to file written statement within the stipulated time. As such, they remained ex-parte.

4.The plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and Exs.A-1 to A-12 are marked in support of his contention.

5.Now, the point for consideration is:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual

injunction, as prayed for ?”

6.POINT:-It is the case of the plaintiff that he is the absolute owner and exclusive possessor of agricultural dry land measuring Ac.1-11 guntas covered by survey No.647/ఊsituated at Dardepally village of Palakurthy revenue mandal, Warangal district which is subject matter of the suit. The plaintiff submits that he succeeded the suit schedule property from his 3 Of 4 OS No.213 of 2016/PJCJ, Jangaon.

father P. Mallaiah @ Banjara Mallaiah after his demise and that his name was also mutated in the revenue records.

7.In support of his case, he got examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exts.A1 to A12. On examining the documents filed by the plaintiff in detail, it is seen that Ex.A1 is original ROR pattedar pass book belonging to the plaintiff P. Srinivas and it reveals that plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of agricultural dry land measuring Ac.1-11 guntas covered by survey No.647/ఊand Ex.A2 is 1-B namuna showing that the plaintiff is the pattedar to the suit schedule property. So also, Exts.A3 to A5 which are pahanies for the years 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07 showing father of the plaintiff as the pattedar and possessor of the suit schedule land. Exts.A6 to

A12 are Meeseva pahanies for 1420 Fasli to 1426 Fasli which clearly shows that the plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the suit schedule property.

On perusal of the Exts.A1 to A12, it is established that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property.

8.In the result, the suit is decreed. No costs.

(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 13th day of April, 2017.)

Sd./-

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

JANGAON.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS:

PW-1: Pedduri Srinivas-None- 4 Of 4 OS No.213 of 2016/PJCJ, Jangaon.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR THE DEFENDANTS: Ex.A1 Original ROR pattedar pass book-NIL- of plaintiff No.185142. Ex.A2 CC of 1-B of ROR dt.2.8.2016. Ex.A3 CC of Pahani for the year 2004-05 dt.2.8.2016. Ex.A4 CC of Pahani for the year 2005-06 dt.2.8.2016 Ex.A5 CC of Pahani for the year 2006-07 dt.2.8.2016. Ex.A6 CC of Pahani for the year 1420 Fasli dt.15.8.2016 Ex.A7 CC of Pahani for the year 1421 Fasli dt.15.8.2016. Ex.A8 CC of Pahani for the year 1422 Fasli dt.15.8.2016 Ex.A9 CC of Pahani for the year 1423 Fasli dt.15.8.2016. Ex.A10 CC of Pahani for the year 1424 Fasli dt.15.8.2016. Ex.A11 CC of Pahani for the year 1425 Fasli dt.15.8.2016. Ex.A12 CC of Pahani for the year 1426 Fasli dt.15.8.2016.

Sd./-

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

JANGAON.

// TRUE COPY //

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

AT JANGAON.

Thursday, the 6 th day of April, 2017.

Present: Smt. C.M. Rajyalakshmi,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Jangaon.

O. S.No. 229 of 2015

Between:

Manga Somaiah...Plaintiff

And

1. Gigiri Shiva

2. Balamina Siddulu ... Defendants

This suit is coming before me on this day for final hearing in the presence of Sri A. Siddi Ramulu, Counsel for the plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2 remained exparte; upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing and having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

This is a suit for recovery of money of Rs.50,000/- filed by the Plaintiff against the defendants.

2.The brief averments, in the plaint, are that the plaintiff and defendants are acquainted with each other, due to the said acquaintance, on the request of the defendant No.1, the plaintiff advanced a sum of Rs.30,000/- on 02-03-2013, for his family necessities and the defendant No.1 executed demand promissory note for Rs.30,000/- in favour of the plaintiff, promising to repay the same with interest @ 2% per month as and when demanded by the plaintiff and defendant No.2 stood as surety for repayment of the said amount, but the defendants failed to pay the said amount despite several demands.

2

It is further pleaded by the plaintiff that he got issued a legal notice

dated 23-07-2015 through his advocate but in spite of receiving the same by

the defendant No.1 neither paid the loan amount nor given any reply.

Hence, the suit.

3.The defendants having been served with summons did not choose to appear before the Court and they remained exparte.

4.The plaintiff got examined himself as PW-1 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-5 to substantiate his claim. Ex.A-1 is the original Promissory Note dated 02-03-2013, Ex.A-2 is the Office copy of Legal Notice dated 23-07-2015,

Ex.A-3 is Postal Receipt dated 23-07-2015, Ex.A-4 is Postal Acknowledgment

Card dated 25-07-2015 and Ex.A-5 is Returned Postal Cover.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff. Perused the record.

6.The point for consideration is:

“Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim, as prayed for?”

7.POINT :-The unchallenged and unrebutted testimony of PW-1 coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-5 would amply prove the suit claim that the defendant No.1 borrowed a sum of Rs.30,000/- on 02-03-2013 and executed promissory note-Ex.A-1 promising to repay the same with interest @ 2% per month and the defendant No.2 stood as surety for repayment of said hand loan and they failed to pay the amount despite the repeated demands and legal notice dated 23-07-2015-Ex.A-2, which was served on the defendant

No.1 under Exs.A-3 and A-4 and not served on the defendant No.2 under

Ex.A-5. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount, as prayed for.

8.In the result, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs directing the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the plaintiff with costs and 3 interest @ 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the

principal sum of Rs.30,000/-.

(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 6th day of April, 2017.)

Sd./-

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Jangaon.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff:For Defendants:

PW1: Manga Somaiah -None-

Exhibits Marked

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A-1:Original Promissory Note dated 02.03.2013

Ex.A-2:Office copy of legal notice dated 23.07.2015,

Ex.A-3: Postal Receipt dated 23.07.2015

Ex.A-4:Postal acknowledgment Card dated 25.07.2015 of Defendant No.1

Ex.A-5: Returned unserved Registered Postal Cover of Defendant No.2.

For Defendants:

-Nil- Sd./-

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Jangaon. // TRUE COPY //