Sri Ch. K. Durga Rao

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

CHITTOOR.

Present:- Ch. K. DURGA RAO

Principal District & Sessions Judge.

FAC - I Addl. District & Sessions Judge.

Friday, the 21st (Twenty-First) day of April, 2017.

IESC No. 25 of 2014

Cr.No. 250/2013 and 251/2013 of 2013 of M.R. Palle Police Station

Complainant The State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, M.R.Palle Police station , Tirupati

1.G. Venkata Ramana @ Ramana, age 25 years, S/o Accused Basavaiah Diguva Vatallapalli, K.V.Palli Mandal, Balija caste.

2.D. Mahesh, age 23 years, S/o Sikindhar Shai, D.No. 12-11-456, Rajeev Gandhi colony, Tirupati, Dedekula by caste.

3.G. Devarajulu, age 35 years, S/o G. Mallaiah, Tippereddigaripalli Kothapalli, Chinnagottaikallu mandal, Jangam by caste.

4.K.Ravi, age 23 years, S/o Reddeppa, Chenchuramireddygaripalli, Rompicherla Mandal, Kamma by caste. The prosecution is Sri K.S.Jayaram conducted byAdditional Public Prosecutor. The accused are Sri L. Dhananjaya Naidu, counsel for accused. defended by OFFENCE Under Section 136 (1) (a) of Indian Electricity Act, 2003. Charges Under Section 136 (1) (a) of Indian Electricity Act, 2003.

Plea of the accused Not Guilty Finding of the court Found not guilty Sentence or order In the result, I find that accused are not guilty either for the offence under section 136(1) (a) or under section 136(1) (b) of Indian Electricity Act and accordingly, they are acquitted under section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of 6 months.

(i) It is ordered that the unmarked case property shall be returned to PW1 after appeal time.

This case coming before me for final hearing on 18-4-2017 and upon perusing the charge sheet and other material papers on record and upon perusing the written arguments of Sri K.S.Jayaram, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri L. Dhananjaya Naidu, counsel for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The State through the Sub-Inspector of Police, M.R.Palle Police station, Tirupati laid charge sheet in crime No. 250 of 2013 and 251 of 2013 of

M.R.Palle police station against the accused alleging the offences under section 379 IPC or 411 IPC and Sec. 136 (1) (a) of Indian Electricity Act, 2003 .

2

2. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is as follows:-

(i) On 1-10-2013 early hours some unknown offenders broke open the

SS-V, 25 KVA transformer situated in the fields of Sattarbailu village , Tirupati

Rural mandal and committed theft of copper winding wire worth Rs. 30,000/- belonging to APSPDCL. On a complaint lodged by Additional Assistant

Engineer, APSPDCL Tirupati Rural , a case in Cr. No. 250 of 2013 was registered and investigated into.

(ii) On 1-10-2013 early hours some unknown offenders broke open the

SS-VI, 25 KVA transformer situated in the fields of Sattarbailu village, Tirupati

Rural mandal and committed theft of copper winding wire worth Rs. 30,000/- belonging to APSPDCL. On a complaint lodged by Additional Assistant

Engineer, Tirupati Rural, a case in Cr. No. 251 of 2013 was registered and investigated into.

(iii) On 13-10-2013 at 11-00 A.M. at Regional Centre, on Cherlopalli

Bye pass road, Tirupati the Inspector of Police, Alipiri Police station apprehended the accused in Cr. No. 301 of 2013 in the presence of mediators under cover of

Mahazar and on their confession the property concerned in this case is also recovered. On P.T. warrant the accused were produced before the court and they were remanded to judicial custody. Hence the charge.

3. The case was taken on file for the offence under section 379 or 411

I.P.C. and under section 136(1) (a) of Indian Electricity Act, 2003.

4. On appearance of accused, copies of case documents were furnished to them.

5. After hearing the prosecution and the learned defence counsel a charge under section 136 (1) (a) of Indian Electricity Act, 2003 has been framed by my learned predecessor against the accused, read over and explained to them in Telugu and they pleaded not guilty.

6. In proof of its case, the Prosecution has examined PW1 to PW4 and marked Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-9 .

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

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C, explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against them.

They denied the evidence and stated that they have no defence evidence.

3

8. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel

for the accused.

9. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused

either for the offence under section 136 (1) (a) or under section

136 (1) (b) of Indian Electricity Act , 2003 beyond all reasonable

doubt ?

10. POINT:

The evidence of P.W.1, who is an official of A.P.S.P.D.C.L. shows that on information that some unknown offenders committed theft of copper winding wire from the transformers, he visited the said places, verified the same and found it to be correct and lodged Ex. P.1 and Ex.P2 reports. The evidence of

P.W.4 who is Sub-Inspector of Police, M.R.Palle police station shows that on the basis of Exs.P. 1 and Ex.P2 reports, he registered Ex.P.6 and Ex.P8 First

Information Reports, examined the witnesses, visited the scenes of offence and prepared Ex.P.7 and Ex.P9 rough sketches. So, the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 4 coupled with Exs.P.1 and Ex.P2 complaints, Ex.P.6 and Ex.P8 First Information

Reports and Ex.P7 and Ex.P9 rough sketches proves commission of theft of copper winding wire from the transformers by unknown offenders. There is no evidence connecting the accused herein with the commission of theft of said copper winding wire. Therefore, it cannot be said that prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 136 (1) (a) of Indian Electricity

Act.

11. Though there is no charge for the offence under section 136(1) (b) of Indian Electricity Act, since the gist of the charge already framed covers the allegation that the stolen properties involved in the crime were seized from the possession of the accused and the prosecution has adduced evidence in this regard also and the learned defence counsel has also cross examined the witnesses in that respect, it has to be seen whether prosecution has proved the alleged apprehension of the accused and recovery of the properties which were subject matter of theft.

(i) The evidence of P.W.3 the then Inspector of police, Alipiri police station and P.W.2 the then V.R.O. of Tirupati urban, who said to have been acted as one of the mediators for the alleged apprehension of the accused and seizure of the properties is relevant. I have carefully gone through their 4 evidence keeping in view not only the complaint lodged by the Electricity officials, but also the arrest cum seizure mahazar and the certificate given by

P.W.1 with regard to property and the contentions of both sides. A careful reading of their evidence shows that it is discrepant, inconsistent, unreliable and does not inspire confidence for the following reasons .

12. P.W.3 deposed that on 13-10-2013 at about 10.30 A.M. while he was in the police station, he received credible information and he along with his staff left the police station and proceeded to Regional Science Center,

Cherlopalle, Tirupati and en-route , secured the presence of mediators i.e. P.W.2 and another, reached the said place by about 11 A.M. and found seven persons proceedings towards Tirupati carrying urea bags with some material and on seeing the police party, they tried to escape and immediately on suspicion they surrounded them and caught hold of them. Whereas, P.W.2 deposed that on 13- 10-2013 while he was in the M.R.O. office, Tirupati at about 10.30 A.M., Inspector of Police, Alipiri Police Station called him over phone to come at Annarao circle and by the time he reached Annarao circle another mediator was also present along with the police and at the said place, three Sub-Inspectors of police and other staff in total 18 members were present in two jeeps and from there, police took him to Regional Science Center, Tirupati. So, it is evident that the very origin of the taking place of any such proceedings and manner of securing of mediators and going to the said place is inconsistent, inasmuch as, P.W.3 did not testify that he called P.W.2 and another mediator over phone, though P.W.2 testified to it. So also, though P.W.3 did not state that the mediators were present at Annarao circle as instructed by him by the time he went there and from the said Annarao circle they picked up the mediators and took them to

Regional Science Center, P.W.2 did not testify to it.

(i) Though P.W.3 stated that they found seven persons proceeding towards Tirupati side carrying urea bags with some material and did not initially state that they were accused herein concerned in several crimes, but

P.W.2 stated that they are accused who were going from Tirupati to Cherlopalle side by carrying gunny bags on their heads. Even the version of P.Ws. 2 and 3 as to from which side to which side the they were proceeding is inconsistent, since

P.W.3 stated that they were proceeding towards Tirupati side, whereas P.W.2 stated that they were proceeding towards Cherlopalle side. P.W.2 also did not testify that on interrogation, the said seven persons were found to have involved in several crimes and they have been identified as accused. Though P.W.3 stated 5 that he interrogated accused one by one and recorded their confessional statements separately, P.W.2 did not testify like that since he stated as if all the accused were interrogated at a time and all the accused at a time confessed about the commission of offences at various places.

13. It is significant to note that though P.W.3 deposed that accused were found carrying one bag each containing copper winding wire coils and they were weighed and the said coils were seized and though he did not state that seven accused possessed eight urea gunny bags and two plastic covers,

PW2 came forward deposing in his chief examination that police weighed eight gunny bags and two plastic covers and all the bags contain copper winding wire.

Though, P.W.3 deposed that he verified the bags with accused and weighed them and seized copper winding coil/ wire 20 kgs each from accused No.1 and 2 concerned in Crime No. 301 of 2013 of Alipiri police station, 30 kgs. from accused No.3 concerned in Crime No. 83 of 2013 of Gajulamandyam police station, 20 kgs from accused No. 4 concerned in Crime No. 111 of 2013 of

Yerpedu police station ( which is not at all concerned in the present batch case crimes), 30 kgs from accused No. 5 concerned in Crime No. 81 of 2013 of

Vadamalapeta police station ( which is not at all concerned in the present batch case crimes), 20 kgs from accused No. 6 concerned in Crime No. 245 of 2013 of

M.R.Palle police station and 40 kgs. from accused No.4 concerned in the present crimes i.e.,Cr.No.250 and 251 of 2013 of M.R.Palle police station and seized the same under cover of Ex.P.4 in the presence of mediators, P.W.2 did not testify like that and came forward with contradictory version stating that the weight of the stolen property is about 180 kgs. P.W.2 did not testify that the copper winding coils/ wire which were in different quantities having been identified as the property concerned in different crimes of different police stations were seized from the possession of the accused and thus has not corroborated with the evidence of P.W.3 in this regard. The evidence of P.W.3 that he seized different quantities of copper winding wire from the accused concerned in different crimes has not been categorically corroborated by P.W.2.

(i) So also, though P.W.3 deposed that subsequently in pursuance of confession of accused and when led by them, they had been to forest area located at some distance on southern side of A.P.Tourism garage on Tirupathi-

Cherlopalle bye pass road and when accused showed them 29 plastic urea bags containing copper winding coils, he verified the same and seized the said properties identifying the same as the property concerned in different crimes.

6

P.W.2 has not corroborated the said piece of evidence by stating that different quantities of copper winding wires were seized at the instance of accused from the said 29 urea bags, though PW2 deposed as if the entire wire in one quantity weighing about 1175 kgs was seized. The admissions of P.Ws. 2 to 4 show that the said place is a busy locality and there is 10 feet height barbed fencing to the

Tourism Garage and buses also run and there is high security at Regional

Science Center throughout the day and there is also a zoo park and staff of said

Tourism department are also present and there is also Bharathi Vidya Bhavan school and NCC Training Camp. P.W.3 did not choose to prefer any independent mediator for the alleged seizure of the property at the instance of the accused and the circumstances throw any amount of suspicion as regards alleged seizure of the properties. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.3 that he seized 15 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No. 43 of 2012 of

Tiruchanoor police station, 55 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime

No. 100 of 2011 of Chandragiri police station, 30 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No. 32 of 2012 of Chandragiri Police station, 15 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No. 40 of 2012 of Chandragiri police station, 15 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No. 58 of 2012 of Tiruchanoor police station, 20 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No. 50 of 2012 of Chandragiri police station, 15 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime

No. 198 of 2012 of Tiruchanoor police station , 100 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No.101 of 2012 of Srikalahasti Rural Police station, 20 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No. 67 of 2012 of R.C. Puram police station, 70 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No. 82 of 2012 of

Gajulamandyam police station , 20 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in

Crime No. 2 of 2012 of R.C. Puram police station, 70 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No. 3 of 2013 of Pakala police station , 30 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No. 6 of 2013 of Gajulamandyam police station, 30 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No. 11 of 2013 of

Renigunta police station, 20 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No.

60 of 2013 of B.N. Kandriga police station, 80 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No. 21 of 2013 of Vadamalapeta police station, 10 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No. 44 of 2013 of Yerpedu police station, 10 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No. 31 of 2013 of

Vadamalapeta police station, 40 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime

No. 38 of 2013 of Vadamalapeta police station, 15 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No. 128 of 2013 of Tiruchanoor police station, 80 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No. 51 of 2013 of Vadamalapeta police 7 station, 20 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No. 69 of 2013 of

Yerpedu police station, 60 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No. 72 of 2013 of Vadamalapeta police station, 10 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No. 56 of 2013 of R.C. Puram Police station, 110 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No. 137 of 2013 of Pakala police station, 90 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No. 210 of 2013 of Chandragiri police station, 45 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No. 92 of 2013 of Penumur police station, 35 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No.104 of 2013 of

Srikalahsti Rural police station and 45 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in

Crime No. 84 of 2013 of Vadamalapeta police station under cover of Ex.P.5 cannot be believed to be true.

14. So, as per the evidence of P.W.3, A4 was found in possession of 40 kgs of copper wire concerned in Crime Nos.250 and 251 of 2013 of M.R.Palle police station which is the present case crime. Even if the version of P.W.3 is believed to be true as it is for a moment, A1 to A3 cannot be found to be guilty for the offence under section 136(1) (b) of the Indian Electricity Act in this case crime inasmuch as, A4 could only be said to be guilty of the said offence.

However, in view of my finding that no reliance can be placed on the testimony of

PWS.2 and 4 with regard to alleged apprehension of accused and seizure of the property, A4 cannot also be said to be guilty of the said offence.

15 Moreover, there is no proper identification of the property. The evidence of P.W.1 shows that 35 kgs of copper winding wire from each transformer i.e., 70 kgs was committed theft of from two transformers, it is pertinent to note that P.w.1 in the cross examination admitted that he did not mention the weight of the said copper winding wire in Ex.P.1. So, even though according to P.W.1 and the case of prosecution 70 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in the present case crime was committed theft of and the property allegedly seized from the possession of accused is the said property, it is pertinent to note that quantity of property is varying inasmuch as, as already stated, the evidence of P.W.3 shows that he seized 40 kgs each from A4. Though

P.W.3 deposed that the said apprehension of accused and seizure of the properties took place on 13-10-2013 which is about ten days after lodging of Ex.P.1 report on 03.10.2013, P.W.1 deposed in his chief examination that after 15 days after lodging of Ex.P1 report, he was called to the police station to identify the stolen property and he identified the same and issued Ex.P.2 certificate which is 8 said to be an utter falsehood if recovery allegedly from the possession of A1 and

A2 was made on 13-10-2013. A perusal of Ex.P.3 shows that P.W.1 issued said acknowledgment certifying that he received the stolen property i.e. 40 kgs of copper winding coils concerned in the present case crime from the police. He did not categorically certify that the said property said to have been received from the police was the property that was committed theft of and both are one and the same. Moreover, a perusal of the said certificate also shows that it appears to have been issued for the purpose of the case since as admitted by P.W.1 it does not contain the date and office seal. Though the evidence of P.W.3 shows that he seized only 40 kgs of copper winding wire from A4 concerned in the present case crime, P.W.1 issued Ex.P.3 acknowledgment as if he received 20 kgs of winding wire. All the circumstances show that Ex.P.3 appears to have been issued for the purpose of the case without actually verifying and identifying the property. It is also pertinent to note that P.W.1 in the cross examination admitted that it might be true that the property which he has identified under

Ex.P.3 might be available in the market. So, it is evident that not only there is discrepancy as to the quantity of the property allegedly received by P.W.1 from the police, but also there are several suspicious circumstances about receiving of the said property by P.W.1 from the police and identification of the said property as the property involved in the commission of offence. In view of the same, no reliance can be placed on the testimony of P.Ws. 1 and 3 with regard to identification of the properties. Suffice it here to state that there is no proper identification of the property in accordance with the provisions of law and there is no reliable evidence to show that the property that was seized from the possession of the accused is the subject matter of the theft of present case crime.

In view of the same , it has to be held that prosecution has failed to prove the alleged apprehension of the accused and seizure of the property concerned in the present case crimes from any of the accused so as to render them guilty of the offence.

16. In view of my forgoing discussion, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused either for the offence under section 136(1)

(a) or under section 136 (1) (b) of Indian Electricity Act.

17. In the result, I find that accused are not guilty either for the offence under section 136(1) (a) or under section 136(1) (b) of Indian Electricity Act and accordingly, they are acquitted under section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of 6 months.

9

(i) As seen from the material on record, when the property was produced by the police, it was received by the court and entrusted the same to the said police for the purpose of interim custody with a direction to produce the same as and when required. In view of the same, police are supposed to retain the property with them and produce the same, whenever directed by the Court. But it appears as seen from Ex.P3 certificate and the evidence of PW1 police returned the said property to PW1 without any authority.

However, it is ordered that the unmarked case property shall be returned to PW1 after appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 21st day of April, 2017.

Sd/ Sri Ch. K. Durga Rao Prl. District & Sessions Judge, FAC -I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Chittoor.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For prosecution: For defence PW1 : V. Janardhan Rao - Complainant NIL. PW2 : Shivnarayana – VRO Mediator PW3 : Rajasekhar – Inspector of police, who seized the property. PW4 : K. Veeresh – I.O. who filed F.I.R.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For prosecution: Ex.P-1 : Complaint given by P.W.1 in Cr.No. 250/2013 Ex.P-2 : Complaint given by P.W.1 in Cr. No.251/2013 Ex.P-3 : Certificate given by P.W.1 in Cr. Nos. 250/2013 and 251/2013 Ex.P-4 : Arrest cum seizure mahazar Ex.P-5 : Seizure Mahazar Ex.P.6: First Information Report in Cr. No. 250/2013 Ex.P.7: Rough sketch in Cr.No. 250/2013 Ex.P.8: First Information Report in Cr. No. 251/2013 Ex.P.9: Rough sketch in Cr.No. 251/2013 For defence NIL Material Objects: -Nil-

Sd/ Sri Ch. K. Durga Rao Prl. District & Sessions Judge, FAC I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Chittoor.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

CHITTOOR.

Present:- Ch. K. DURGA RAO

Principal District & Sessions Judge.

FAC - I Addl. District & Sessions Judge.

Friday the 21st (Twenty-First) day of April, 2017.

IESC No. 27 of 2014

Cr.No. 82 of 2012 of Gajulamandyam Police Station

Complainant The State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Gajulamandyam Police station Accused 1.Orusu Gunasekharam, age 23 years, S/o Venkataramana , Nakkaladinne, Voddipalli, K.V.Palli Mandal, Chittoor District. Now at Sathyanarayanapuram, Tirupati.

2.Poojari Reddeppa, age 23 years, S/o P. Krishnaiah, Diguva Vagalla, Vaddipalli, K.V. Palli Mandal, Chittoor District. Now residing at Rajiv Gandhi colony, Tirupati Urban mandal.

3.Avulakonda Nagaraju, age 21 years, S/o Rajanna, Diguva Vaddipalli, K.V.Palli mandal.

4.Gandhola Venkataramana @ Ramana, age 25 years, S/o G. Baavaiah, Diguva Vagalla, K.V.Palli Mandal, Now at D.No. 8-47, Srinagar, 2nd Street, Jeevakona, Tirupati. The prosecution is Sri K.S.Jayaram conducted byAdditional Public Prosecutor. The accused are Sri L. Dhananjaya Naidu, counsel for accused. defended by OFFENCE Under Section 136 (1) (a) of Indian Electricity Act, 2003. Charges Under Section 136 (1) (a) of Indian Electricity Act, 2003.

Plea of the accused Not Guilty Finding of the court Found not guilty Sentence or order In the result, I find that accused are not guilty either for the offence under section 136(1) (a) or under section 136(1) (b) of Indian Electricity Act and accordingly, they are acquitted under section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of 6 months.

(i) It is ordered that the unmarked case property shall be returned to PW1 after appeal time.

This case coming before me for final hearing on 12-4-2017 and upon perusing the charge sheet and other material papers on record and upon perusing the written arguments of Sri K.S.Jayaram, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri L. Dhananjaya Naidu, counsel for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

2

J U D G M E N T

1. The State through the Sub-Inspector of Police, Gajulamandyam Police station laid charge sheet in crime No. 82 of 2012 of Gajulamandyam police station against the accused alleging the offences under section 379 IPC and 411 IPC and

Sec. 136 (1) (a) of Indian Electricity Act, 2003 .

2. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is as follows:

(i) On the night of 17-12-2012 some unknown offenders damaged the 4 DTR transformers i.e. 1. Allikesam SSIV HPC, NNP 25 KVA, 2. Allikesam IV,

HPC, A1435, 16 KVA, 3. Allikesam SS XII HPC, A 2417, 16 KVA and 4. G.

Mandyam SSVI, SFS, 10071500, 25 KVA at Allikesam and Gajulamandyam village fields, Renigunta mandal and committed theft of copper windings, transformer oil with core belonging to APSPDCL and escaped with booty. On a complaint lodged by Additional Assistant Engineer, APSPDCL, Renigunta Rural section the above crime was registered and investigated into.

(ii) On 13-10-2013 at 11.000 A.M. the Inspector of Police, Alipiri

Police station apprehended the accused in the presence of mediators M.

Sivanarayana (P.W.2) and A. Sudhakar Reddy ( LW9) under cover of mahazar and subsequently seized the stolen wire concerned in this case was recovered at 2.30 P.M. at Reserve Forest, near A.P. Tourism Garage, on Cherlopalli bye pass road, Tirupati under cover of mahazar in the presence of mediators and forwarded them to judicial custody. On P.T. warrant the accused were produced before the court and they were remanded to judicial custody. On 5- 11-2013 at 10-00 A.M. S. Bhupathi (LW10) V.R.O. Gajulamandyam village ,

Renigunta mandal conducted test identification over stolen property and the same was identified by Additional Assistant Engineer, APSPDCL , Rural Section,

Renigunta. Hence the charge.

3. The case was taken on file for the offence under section 379 or 411

I.P.C. and under section 136(1) (a) of Indian Electricity Act, 2003.

4. On appearance of accused, copies of case documents were furnished to them.

5. After hearing the prosecution and the learned defence counsel a charge under section 136 (1) (a) of Indian Electricity Act, 2003 has been framed by my learned predecessor against the accused, read over and explained to them in Telugu and they pleaded not guilty.

3

6. In proof of its case, the Prosecution has examined PW1 to PW4 and marked Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-9 .

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

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C, explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against them.

They denied the evidence and stated that they have no defence evidence.

8. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel

for the accused.

9. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused

either for the offence under section 136 (1) (a) or under section

136(1) (b) of the Indian Electricity Act , 2003 beyond all reasonable doubt ?

10. POINT:

The evidence of P.W.1, who is an official of A.P.S.P.D.C.L. shows that on information that some unknown offenders committed theft of copper winding wire from the transformers, he visited the said places, verified the same and found it to be correct and lodged Ex. P.1 report. The evidence of P.W.4 who is

Sub-Inspector of Police of Tirupati police station shows that on the basis of Ex.P.

1 report, he registered Ex.P.5 First Information Report, examined the witnesses, visited the scene of offence and prepared Ex.P.6 to Ex.P9 rough sketches. So, the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 4 coupled with Ex.P.1 complaint, Ex.P.5 First

Information Report and Ex.P.6 to Ex.P9 rough sketches proves that commission of theft of copper winding wire from the transformers by unknown offenders. There is no evidence connecting the accused herein with the commission of theft of said copper winding wire. Therefore, it cannot be said that prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 136 (1) (a) of Indian Electricity

Act.

11. Though there is no charge for the offence under section 136(1) (b) of

Indian Electricity Act, since the gist of the charge already framed covers the allegation that the stolen properties involved in the crime were seized from the possession of the accused and the prosecution has adduced evidence in this regard also and the learned defence counsel has also cross examined the witnesses in that respect, it has to be seen whether prosecution has proved the alleged 4 apprehension of the accused and recovery of the properties which were subject matter of theft.

(i) The evidence of P.W.3 the then Inspector of police, Alipiri police station and P.W.2 the then V.R.O. of Tirupati urban, who said to have been acted as one of the mediators for the alleged apprehension of the accused and seizure of the properties is relevant. I have carefully gone through their evidence keeping in view not only the complaint lodged by the Electricity officials, but also the arrest cum seizure mahazar and the certificate given by

P.W.1 with regard to property and the contentions of both sides. A careful reading of their evidence shows that it is discrepant, inconsistent, unreliable and does not inspire confidence for the following reasons .

12. P.W.3 deposed that on 13-10-2013 at about 10.30 A.M. while he was in the police station, he received credible information and he along with his staff left the police station and proceeded to Regional Science Center,

Cherlopalle, Tirupati and en-route, secured the presence of mediators i.e. P.W.2 and another, reached the said place by about 11 A.M. and found seven persons proceedings towards Tirupati carrying urea bags with some material and on seeing the police party, they tried to escape and immediately on suspicion they surrounded them and caught hold of them. Whereas, P.W.2 deposed that on 13- 10-2013 while he was in the M.R.O. office, Tirupati at about 10.30 A.M., Inspector of Police, Alipiri Police Station called him over phone to come at Annarao circle and by the time he reached Annarao circle another mediator was also present along with the police and at the said place, three Sub-Inspectors of police and other staff in total 18 members were present in two jeeps and from there, police took him to Regional Science Center, Tirupati. So, it is evident that the very origin of the taking place of any such proceedings and manner of securing of mediators and going to the said place is inconsistent, inasmuch as, P.W.3 did not testify that he called P.W.2 and another mediator over phone, though P.W.2 testified to it. So also, though P.W.3 did not state that the mediators were present at Annarao circle as instructed by him by the time he went there and from the said Annarao circle they picked up the mediators and took them to

Regional Science Center, P.W.2 did not testify to it.

5

(i) Though P.W.3 stated that they found seven persons proceeding towards Tirupati side carrying urea bags with some material and did not state initially that they were accused herein concerned in several crimes, but P.W.2 stated that they are accused who were going from Tirupati to Cherlopalle side by carrying gunny bags on their heads. Even the version of P.Ws. 2 and 3 as to from which side to which side the they were proceeding is inconsistent, since

P.W.3 stated that they were proceeding towards Tirupati side, whereas P.W.2 stated that they were proceeding towards Cherlopalle side. P.W.2 also did not testify that on interrogation, the said seven persons were found to have involved in several crimes and they have been identified as accused. Though P.W.3 stated that he interrogated accused one by one and recorded their confessional statements separately, P.W.2 did not testify like that since he stated as if all the accused were interrogated at a time and all the accused at a time confessed about the commission of offences at various places.

13. It is significant to note that though P.W.3 deposed that accused were found carrying one bag each containing copper winding wire coils and they were weighed and the said coils were seized and though he did not state that seven accused possessed eight urea gunny bags and two plastic covers,

PW2 came forward deposing in his chief examination that police weighed eight gunny bags and two plastic covers and all the bags contain copper winding wire.

Though P.W.3, deposed that he verified the bags with accused and weighed them and seized copper winding coil/ wire 20 kgs each from accused No.1 and 2 concerned in Crime No. 301 of 2013 of Alipiri police station, 30 kgs. from accused No.3 concerned in Crime No. 83 of 2013 of Gajulamandyam police station, 20 kgs from accused No. 4 concerned in Crime No. 111 of 2013 of

Yerpedu police station ( which is not at all concerned in the present batch case crimes), 30 kgs from accused No. 5 concerned in Crime No. 81 of 2013 of

Vadamalapeta police station ( which is not at all concerned in the present batch case crimes), 20 kgs from accused No.1 concerned in this crime and 40 kgs. from accused No. 7 concerned in Crime Nos. 250 and 251 of 2013 of M.R.Palle police station and seized the same under cover of Ex.P.3 in the presence of mediators,

P.W.2 did not testify like that and came forward with contradictory version stating that the weight of the stolen property is about 180 kgs. P.W.2 did not testify that the copper winding coils/ wire which were in different quantities having been identified as the property concerned in different crimes of different police stations were seized from the possession of the accused and thus has not corroborated with the evidence of P.W.3 in this regard. The evidence of P.W.3 6 that he seized different quantities of copper winding wire from the accused concerned in different crimes has not been categorically corroborated by P.W.2.

(i) So also, though P.W.3 deposed that subsequently in pursuance of confession of accused and when led by them, they had been to forest area located at some distance on southern side of A.P.Tourism garage on Tirupathi-

Cherlopalle bye pass road and when accused showed them 29 plastic urea bags containing copper winding coils, he verified the same and seized the said properties identifying the same as the property concerned in different crimes.

P.W.2 has not corroborated the said piece of evidence by stating that different quantities of copper winding wire were seized at the instance of accused from the said 29 urea bags, though PW2 deposed as if the entire wire in one quantity weighing about 1175 kgs was seized. The admissions of P.Ws. 2 to 4 show that the said place is a busy locality and there is 10 feet height barbed fencing to the

Tourism Garage and buses also run and there is high security at Regional

Science Center throughout the day and there is also a zoo park and staff of said

Tourism department are also present and there is also Bharathi Vidya Bhavan school and NCC Training Camp. P.W.3 did not choose to prefer any independent mediator for the alleged seizure of the property at the instance of the accused and the circumstances throw any amount of suspicion as regards alleged seizure of the properties. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.3 that he seized 15 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No. 43 of 2012 of

Tiruchanoor police station, 55 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime

No. 100 of 2011 of Chandragiri police station, 30 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No. 32 of 2012 of Chandragiri Police station, 15 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No. 40 of 2012 of Chandragiri police station, 15 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No. 58 of 2012 of Tiruchanoor police station, 20 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No. 50 of 2012 of Chandragiri police station, 15 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime

No. 198 of 2012 of Tiruchanoor police station , 100 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No.101 of 2012 of Srikalahasti Rural Police station, 20 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No. 67 of 2012 of R.C. Puram police station, 70 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No. 82 of 2012 of

Gajulamandyam police station (present case crime), 20 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No. 2 of 2012 of R.C. Puram police station, 70 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No. 3 of 2013 of Pakala police station , 30 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No. 6 of 2013 of

Gajulamandyam police station, 30 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in 7

Crime No. 11 of 2013 of Renigunta police station, 20 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No. 60 of 2013 of B.N. Kandriga police station, 80 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No. 21 of 2013 of Vadamalapeta police station, 10 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No. 44 of 2013 of

Yerpedu police station, 10 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No. 31 of 2013 of Vadamalapeta police station, 40 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No. 38 of 2013 of Vadamalapeta police station, 15 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No. 128 of 2013 of Tiruchanoor police station, 80 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No. 51 of 2013 of Vadamalapeta police station, 20 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No. 69 of 2013 of

Yerpedu police station, 60 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No. 72 of 2013 of Vadamalapeta police station, 10 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No. 56 of 2013 of R.C. Puram Police station, 110 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No. 137 of 2013 of Pakala police station, 90 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No. 210 of 2013 of Chandragiri police station, 45 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No. 92 of 2013 of Penumur police station, 35 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No.104 of 2013 of

Srikalahsti Rural police station and 45 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in

Crime No. 84 of 2013 of Vadamalapeta police station under cover of Ex.P.4 cannot be believed to be true.

14. So, as per the evidence of P.W.3, he did not find any propety concerned in the present case crime from any of the accused initially when he found all the accused and apprehended them. However, his evidence shows that when the accused led them and when they had been to A.P Tourism Garage Area and showed 29 bags, which include 70 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in present case crime No.82/2012 of Gajulamandyam Police Station, he seized the same. It is pertinent to note that in Ex.P1 complaint itself it is not stated how much quantity of copper winding wire was committed theft of. How, PW3 could identify the said 70 kgs as the property concerned in the present crime is not known. It is also not explained at the instance of which accused from among A1 to A4 the said property was seized. Moreover, in view of my finding that no reliance can be placed on the testimony of PWS.2 and 3 with regard to alleged apprehension of accused and seizure of the property, accused cannot also be said to be guilty of the said offence.

8

15. Moreover, there is no proper identification of the property. Either in

Ex.P1 report or during course of evidence PW1 did not state the quantity of copper winding wire that was committed theft of. However, during course of evidence PW1 came forward to state that copper winding wire worth Rs.8,000/- was committed theft of from four transformers. It is pertinent to note that P.w.1 in the cross examination admitted that he did not mention the weight of the said copper winding wire in Ex.P.1. Though P.W.3 deposed that the said apprehension of accused and seizure of the properties took place on 13-10-2013 which is about ten months after lodging of Ex.P.1 report on 18-12-2012, P.W.1 deposed in his chief examination that in the month of September, 2013, he was called to the police station to identify the stolen property and he identified the same and issued Ex.P.2 certificate which is said to be an utter falsehood if recovery allegedly from the possession of accused was made on 13-10-2013. A perusal of Ex.P.2 shows that P.W.1 issued said acknowledgment certifying that he received the stolen property i.e. 70 kgs of copper winding concerned in the present case crime from the police. He did not categorically certify that the said property said to have been received from the police was the property that was committed theft of and both are one and the same. Moreover, a perusal of the said certificate also shows that it appears to have been issued for the purpose of the case since as admitted by P.W.1 it does not contain the date and office seal.

All the circumstances show that Ex.P.2 appears to have been issued for the purpose of the case without actually verifying and identifying the property. It is also pertinent to note that P.W.1 in the cross examination admitted that it might be true that the property which he has identified under Ex.P.2 might be available in the market. So, it is evident that not only there is discrepancy as to the quantity of the property allegedly received by P.W.1 from the police, but also there are several suspicious circumstances about receiving of the said property by P.W.1 from the police and identification of the said property as the property involved in the commission of offence. In view of the same, no reliance can be placed on the testimony of P.Ws. 1 and 3 with regard to identification of the properties. Suffice it here to state that there is no proper identification of the property in accordance with the provisions of law and there is no reliable evidence to show that the property that was seized from the possession of the accused is the subject matter of the theft of present case crime. In view of the same, it has to be held that prosecution has failed to prove the alleged apprehension of the accused and seizure of the property concerned in the present case crimes from any of the accused so as to render them guilty of the offence.

9

16. In view of my forgoing discussion, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused either for the offence under section 136(1)

(a) or under section 136 (1) (b) of Indian Electricity Act.

17. In the result, I find that accused are not guilty either for the offence under section 136(1) (a) or under section 136(1) (b) of Indian Electricity Act and accordingly, they are acquitted under section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of 6 months.

(i) As seen from the material on record, when the property was produced by the police, it was received by the court and entrusted the same to the said police for the purpose of interim custody with a direction to produce the same as and when required. In view of the same, police are supposed to retain the property with them and produce the same, whenever directed by the Court. But it appears as seen from Ex.P2 certificate and the evidence of PW1 police returned the said property to PW1 without any authority.

However, it is ordered that the unmarked case property shall be returned to PW1 after appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 21st day of April, 2017.

Sd/ Sri Ch. K. Durga Rao Prl. District & Sessions Judge, FAC- I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Chittoor.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For prosecution: For defence PW1 : N. Ramu - Complainant NIL. PW2 : Shivnarayana – VRO , Mediator PW3 : Rajasekhar – Inspector of police, who seized the property PW4 : J. Mallesh Yadav – I.O. who filed F.I.R.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For prosecution: Ex.P-1 : Complaint given by P.W.1 to the police Ex.P-2 : Certificate given by P.W.1 Ex.P-3 : Arrest cum seizure mahazardt. 13-10-2013 at 11 A.M. Ex.P-4 : Seizure Mahazar dt. 13-10-2013 at 2.30 P.M. Ex.P.5: First Information Report Ex.P.6: Rough sketch Ex.P.7: Rough sketch Ex.P.8: Rough sketch Ex.P.9: Rough sketch For defence NIL Material Objects: -Nil- Sd/ Sri Ch. K. Durga Rao Prl. District & Sessions Judge, FAC I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Chittoor.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

CHITTOOR.

Present:- Ch. K. DURGA RAO

Principal District & Sessions Judge.

FAC - I Addl. District & Sessions Judge.

Friday, the 21st (Twenty-First) day of April, 2017.

IESC No.33 of 2014

Cr.No.301 of 2013 of Alipiri Police Station

Complainant The State represented by the Inspector of Police, Alipiri police station Accused 1.Orsu Gunasekhar, aged 23 years, S/o O. Venkataramana, Nakkaladinne Voddipalli, K.V.Palli Mandal, Chittoor District, presently residing at SAthyanarayanapuram, Tirupai . Vodde by caste.

2.Poojari Reddeppa, age 23 years, S/o P. Krishnaiah, Diguva Vagalla, Vaddipalli, K.V. Palli Mandal, Chittoor District. Now residing at Rajiv Gandhi Colony, Tirupati Urban mandal.

3.Avulakonda Nagaraju, age 21 years, S/o Rajanna, Diguva Vaddipalli, K.V.Palli Mandal, Chitoor District, Vodde by caste.

4.Gandholla Venkataramana @ Ramana, aged 25 years, S/o Basavaiah, Diguva Vatallapalli, K.V. Palli Mandal, Balija by caste.

5.Dudekula Mahesh, aged 23 years, S/o S. Sikindar Shaik, Door No. 12-11-456, Rajeevgandhi colony, Tirupati, Dudekula by caste.

6.Godhala Devarajulu, aged 35 years, S/o G. Mallaiah, Thippireddigaripalli Kothapalli, Chinnagottigallu Mandal, now at Sathyanarayanapuram, Tirupati. Jangam by caste.

7.Kondepialli Ravi, aged 23 years, S/o K. Reddeppa, Chenchamareddigari palli, Rompicherla Mandal, Chittoor District. Kamma by caste. The prosecution is Sri K.S.Jayaram

Additional Public Prosecutor.

conducted by The accused are Sri L. Dhananjaya Naidu, counsel for accused. defended by OFFENCE Under Section 136 (1) (a) of Indian Electricity Act, 2003. Charges Under Section 136 (1) (a) of Indian Electricity Act, 2003.

Plea of the accused Not Guilty

Finding of the court Found not guilty Sentence or order In the result, I find that accused are not guilty either for the offence under section 136(1) (a) or under section 136(1) (b) of Indian Electricity Act and accordingly, they are acquitted under section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of 6 months.

2

(i) It is ordered that the unmarked case property shall be returned to PW1 after appeal time.

This case coming before me for final hearing on 18-4-2017 and upon perusing the charge sheet and other material papers on record and on hearing the arguments of Sri K.S.Jayaram, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri L.Dhananjaya Naidu, counsel for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The State through the Inspector of Police, Alipiri Police station, laid charge sheet in crime No. 301 of 2013 of Alipiri police station against the accused alleging the offence under section 136 (1) (a) of Indian Electricity Act, 2003 .

2. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is as follows:-

(i) On the night of 10-8-2013 some unknown offenders by break opening two 25 KVA electric distribution transformers beside Swathi Nursing

College, on Karakambadi Road, Mangalam, Tirupati committed theft of 2 Nos of copper winding coils worth about Rs. 45,000/- and decamped with the booty.

On a complaint lodged by Additional Assistant Engineer, APSPDCL, Mangalam

Rural, Tirupati the above crime was registered and investigated into.

(ii) On 13-10-2013 at 11-00 A.M. at Regional Centre, on Cherlopalli

Bye pass road, Tirupati the Inspector of Police, Alipiri Police station apprehended the accused and recovered stolen property concerned in this crime and on their confession recovered the stolen property concerned in other crimes also in the presence of mediators under cover of Mahazar. The accused were produced

before the court and they were remanded to judicial custody. Hence, the charge.

3. The case was taken on file for the offence under section 136(1) (a) of

Indian Electricity Act, 2003.

4. On appearance of accused, copies of case documents were furnished to them.

5. After hearing the prosecution and the learned defence counsel a charge under section 136 (1) (a) of Indian Electricity Act, 2003 has been framed by my learned predecessor against the accused, read over and explained to them in

Telugu and they pleaded not guilty.

3 6. In proof of its case, the Prosecution has examined PW1 to PW4 and marked Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-6.

7. After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused were examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C, explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against them. They denied the evidence and stated that they have no defence evidence.

8. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel

for the accused.

9. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of

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

under Section 136 (1) (b) of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003

beyond all reasonable doubt?

10. POINT:-

The evidence of P.W.1, who is an official of A.P.S.P.D.C.L. shows that on information that some unknown offenders committed theft of copper winding wire from the transformers, he visited the said places, verified the same and found it to be correct and lodged Ex. P.1 report. The evidence of P.W.3 who is Head-Constable of Alipiri police station shows that on the basis of Ex.P1 report, she registered Ex.P.5 First Information Report, examined the witnesses, visited the scene of offence and prepared Ex.P.6 rough sketch. So, the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 3 coupled with Ex.P.1 complaint, Ex.P.5 First Information Report and Ex.P6 rough sketch proves commission of theft of copper winding wire from the transformers by unknown offenders. There is no evidence connecting the accused herein with the commission of theft of said copper winding wire. Therefore, it cannot be said that prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 136 (1) (a) of Indian Electricity Act.

11. Though there is no charge for the offence under section 136(1) (b) of

Indian Electricity Act, since the gist of the charge already framed covers the allegation that the stolen properties involved in the crime were seized from the possession of the accused and the prosecution has adduced evidence in this regard also and the learned defence counsel has also cross examined the witnesses in that respect, it has to be seen whether prosecution has proved the alleged 4 apprehension of the accused and recovery of the properties which were subject matter of theft.

(i) The evidence of P.W.4 the then Inspector of police, Alipiri police station and P.W.2 the then V.R.O. of Tirupati urban, who said to have acted as one of the mediators for the alleged apprehension of the accused and seizure of the properties is relevant. I have carefully gone through their evidence keeping in view not only the complaint lodged by the Electricity officials, but also the arrest cum seizure mahazar and the certificate given by P.W.1 with regard to property and the contentions of both sides. A careful reading of their evidence shows that it is discrepant, inconsistent unreliable and does not inspire confidence for the following reasons.

12. P.W.4 deposed that on 13-10-2013 at about 10.30 A.M. while he was in the police station, he received credible information and he along with his staff left the police station and proceeded to Regional Science Center, Cherlopalle,

Tirupati and en-route, secured the presence of mediators’ i.e. P.W.2 and another, reached the said place by about 11 A.M. and found seven persons proceeding towards Tirupati carrying urea bags with some material and on seeing the police party, they tried to escape and immediately on suspicion they surrounded them and caught hold of them. Whereas, P.W.2 deposed that on 13-10-2013 while he was in the M.R.O. office, Tirupati at about 10.30 A.M., Inspector of Police,

Alipiri Police Station called him over phone to come at Annarao circle and by the time he reached Annarao circle another mediator was also present along with the police and at the said place three Sub-Inspectors of police and other staff in total 18 members were present in two jeeps and from there, police took him to

Regional Science Center, Tirupati. So, it is evident that the very origin of the taking place of any such proceedings and manner of securing of mediators and going to the said place is inconsistent, inasmuch as, P.W.4 did not testify that he called P.W.2 and another mediator over phone, though P.W.2 testified to it. So also, though P.W.4 did not state that the mediators were present at Annarao circle as instructed by him by the time he went there and from the said Annarao circle they picked up the mediators and took them to Regional Science Center,

P.W.2 did not testify to it.

(i) Though P.W.4 stated that they found seven persons proceeding towards Tirupati side carrying urea bags with some material and did not state initially that they were accused No. 1 to 7 herein concerned in several crimes, 5 but P.W.2 stated that they are accused Nos. 1 to 7 who were going from Tirupati to Cherlopalle side by carrying gunny bags on their heads. Even the version of

P.Ws. 2 and 4 as to from which side to which side they were proceeding is inconsistent, since P.W.4 stated that they were proceeding towards Tirupati side, whereas P.W.2 stated that they were proceeding towards Cherlopalle side.

P.W.2 also did not testify that on interrogation, the said seven persons were found to have involved in several crimes and they have been identified as accused No.1 to 7. Though P.W.4 stated that he interrogated accused No.1 to 7 one by one and recorded their confessional statements separately, P.W.2 did not testify like that since he stated as if all the accused were interrogated at a time and all the accused at a time confessed about the commission of offences at various places.

13. It is significant to note that though P.W.4 deposed that accused

No.1 to 7 were found carrying one bag each containing copper winding wire coils and they were weighed and the said coils were seized and though he did not state that seven accused possessed eight urea gunny bags and two plastic covers, PW2 came forward deposing in his chief examination that police weighed eight gunny bags and two plastic covers and all the bags contain copper winding wire. Though, P.W.4 deposed that he verified the bags with accused

No.1 to 7 and weighed them and seized copper winding coil/ wire 20 kgs each from accused No.1 and 2 concerned in Crime No. 301 of 2013 of Alipiri police station, 30 kgs. from accused No.3 concerned in Crime No. 83 of 2013 of

Gajulamandyam police station, 20 kgs from accused No. 4 concerned in Crime

No. 111 of 2013 of Yerpedu police station ( which is not at all concerned in the present batch case crimes), 30 kgs from accused No. 5 concerned in Crime No. 81 of 2013 of Vadamalapeta police station ( which is not at all concerned in the present batch case crimes), 20 kgs from accused No. 6 concerned in Crime No.

245 of 2013 of M.R.Palle police station and 40 kgs. from accused No. 7 concerned in Crime Nos. 250 and 251 of 2013 of M.R.Palle police station and seized the same under cover of Ex.P.3 in the presence of mediators, P.W.2 did not testify like that and came forward with contradictory version stating that the weight of the stolen property is about 180 kgs. P.W.2 did not testify that the copper winding coils/ wire which were in different quantities having been identified as the property concerned in different crimes of different police stations were seized from the possession of the accused and thus has not corroborated the evidence of P.W.4 in this regard. The evidence of P.W.4 that he seized different 6 quantities of copper winding wire from the accused No.1 to 7 concerned in different crimes has not been categorically corroborated by P.W.2.

(i) So also though P.W.4 deposed that subsequently in pursuance of confession of accused and when led by them, they had been to forest area located at some distance on southern side of A.P.Tourism garage on Tirupathi-

Cherlopalle bye pass road and when accused showed them 29 plastic urea bags containing copper winding coils, he verified the same and seized the said properties identifying the same as the property concerned in different crimes.

P.W.2 has not corroborated the said piece of evidence by stating that different quantities of copper winding wires were seized at the instance of accused from the said 29 urea bags, though PW2 deposed as if the entire wire in one quantity weighing about 1175 kgs was seized. The admissions of P.Ws. 2 to 4 show that the said place is a busy locality and there is 10 feet height barbed fencing to the

Tourism Garage and buses also run and there is high security at Regional

Science Center throughout the day and there is also a zoo park and staff of said

Tourism department are also present and there is also Bharathi Vidya Bhavan school and NCC Training Camp. P.W.4 did not choose to prefer any independent mediator for the alleged seizure of the property at the instance of the accused and the circumstances throw any amount of suspicion as regards alleged seizure of the properties. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.4 that he seized 15 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No. 43 of 2012 of Tiruchanoor police station, 55 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No. 100 of 2011 of

Chandragiri police station, 30 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No.

32 of 2012 of Chandragiri Police station, 15 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No. 40 of 2012 of Chandragiri police station, 15 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No. 58 of 2012 of Tiruchanoor police station, 20 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No. 50 of 2012 of Chandragiri police station, 15 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No. 198 of 2012 of

Tiruchanoor police station , 100 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime

No.101 of 2012 of Srikalahasti Rural Police station, 20 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No. 67 of 2012 of R.C. Puram police station, 70 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No. 82 of 2012 of Gajulamandyam police station, 20 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No. 2 of 2012 of R.C.

Puram police station, 70 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No. 3 of 2013 of Pakala police station , 30 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime

No. 6 of 2013 of Gajulamandyam police station, 30 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No. 11 of 2013 of Renigunta police station, 20 kgs of copper 7 winding wire concerned in Crime No. 60 of 2013 of B.N. Kandriga police station, 80 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No. 21 of 2013 of

Vadamalapeta police station, 10 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime

No. 44 of 2013 of Yerpedu police station, 10 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No. 31 of 2013 of Vadamalapeta police station, 40 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No. 38 of 2013 of Vadamalapeta police station, 15 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No. 128 of 2013 of

Tiruchanoor police station, 80 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime

No. 51 of 2013 of Vadamalapeta police station, 20 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No. 69 of 2013 of Yerpedu police station, 60 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No. 72 of 2013 of Vadamalapeta police station, 10 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No. 56 of 2013 of R.C. Puram

Police station, 110 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No. 137 of 2013 of Pakala police station, 90 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No.

210 of 2013 of Chandragiri police station, 45 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No. 92 of 2013 of Penumur police station, 35 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No.104 of 2013 of Srikalahsti Rural police station and 45 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No. 84 of 2013 of

Vadamalapeta police station under cover of Ex.P.4 cannot be believed to be true.

14. So as per the evidence of P.W.4, accused No.1 and 2 were found in possession of one urea bag each containing 20 kgs of copper wire concerned in

Crime No. 301 of 2013 of Alipiri police station which is the present case crime.

Even if this version of P.W.4 is believed to be true as it is for a moment, accused

No. 1 to 7 cannot be found to be guilty for the offence under section 136(1) (b) of the Indian Electricity Act in this case crime inasmuch as, A1 and A2 could only be said to be guilty of the said offence. However, in view of my finding that no reliance can be placed on the testimony of PWS.2 and 4 with regard to alleged apprehension of accused and seizure of the property, A1 and A2 cannot also be said to be guilty of the said offence.

15. Moreover, there is no proper identification of the property. The evidence of P.W.1 shows that 45 kgs of copper winding wire was committed theft of from two transformers. It is pertinent to note that P.W.1 in the cross examination admitted that he did not mention the weight of the said copper winding wire in Ex.P.1. So, even though according to P.W.1 and the case of prosecution 45 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in the present case crime was committed theft of and the property allegedly seized from the possession of 8 accused No.1 and 2 is the said property, it is pertinent to note that quantity of property is varying inasmuch as, as already stated, the evidence of P.W.4 shows that he seized 20 kgs each from accused No.1 and 2. Though P.W.4 deposed that the said apprehension of accused and seizure of the properties took place on 13- 10-2013 which is about two months after lodging of Ex.P.1 report on 12-8-2013,

P.W.1 deposed in his chief examination that after one week after lodging of Ex.P1 report, he was called to the police station to identify the stolen property and he identified the same and issued Ex.P.2 certificate which is said to be an utter falsehood if recovery allegedly from the possession of A1 and A2 was made on 13- 10-2013. A perusal of Ex.P.2 shows that P.W.1 issued said acknowledgment certifying that he received the stolen property i.e. 22.500 kgs of copper winding coils 2 in Nos., making total of 45 kgs concerned in the present case crime from the police. He did not categorically certify that the said property said to have been received from the police was the property that was committed theft of and both are one and the same. Moreover a perusal of the said certificate also shows that it appears to have been issued for the purpose of the case since as admitted by P.W.1 it does not contain the date and office seal. Though the evidence of P.W.4 shows that he seized only 20 kgs each of copper winding wire from accused No.1 and 2 concerned in the present case crime, P.W.1 issued Ex.P.2 acknowledgment as if he received 22.500 kgs of copper winding coils 2 in nos. All the circumstances show that Ex.P.2 appears to have been issued for the purpose of the case without actually verifying and identifying the property. It is also pertinent to note that

P.W.1 in the cross examination admitted that it might be true that the property which he has identified under Ex.P.2 might be available in the market. So, it is evident that not only there is discrepancy as to the quantity of the property allegedly received by P.W.1 from the police, but also there are several suspicious circumstances about receiving of the said property by P.W.1 from the police and identification of the said property as the property involved in the commission of offence. In view of the same, no reliance can be placed on the testimony of P.Ws.

1 and 4 with regard to identification of the properties. Suffice it here to state that there is no proper identification of the property in accordance with the provisions of law and there is no reliable evidence to show that the property that was seized from the possession of the accused is the subject matter of the theft of present case crime.

16. In view of the same, it has to be held that prosecution has failed to prove the alleged apprehension of the accused and seizure of the property from any of the accused so as to render them guilty of the offence.

9

17. In the result, I find that accused are not guilty either for the offence under section 136(1) (a) or under section 136(1) (b) of Indian Electricity Act and accordingly, they are acquitted under section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of 6 months.

(i) As seen from the material on record, when the property was produced by the police, it was received by the court and entrusted the same to the said police for the purpose of interim custody with a direction to produce the same as and when required. In view of the same, police are supposed to retain the property with them and produce the same, whenever directed by the Court. But it appears as seen from Ex.P2 certificate and the evidence of PW1 police returned the said property to PW1 without any authority.

However, it is ordered that the unmarked case property shall be returned to PW1 after appeal time.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant and after transcription by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 21st day of April, 2017. Sd/ Sri Ch. K. Durga Rao Prl. District & Sessions Judge, I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Chittoor.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For prosecution: For defence PW1 : T. Sankaraiah– Complainant NIL. PW2 : Shivnarayana- V.R.O . Mediator PW3 : Rajeswari – Head Constable, who filed F.I.R. PW4 : Rajasekhar - Inspector of police, who seized the property

EXHIBITS MARKED

For prosecution: Ex.P-1 : Complaint given by P.W.1 to the police Ex.P-2 : Certificate given by P.W.1 Ex.P-3 : Arrest Mahazar dt. 13-10-2013 at 11 A.M. Ex.P-4 : Seizure Mahazar dt. 13-10-2013 at 2.30 P.M. Ex.P.5: First Information Report Ex.P.6: Rough sketch For defence NIL Material Objects: -Nil-

Sd/ Sri Ch. K. Durga Rao Prl. District & Sessions Judge, FAC I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Chittoor.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

CHITTOOR.

Present:- Ch. K. DURGA RAO

Principal District & Sessions Judge.

FAC - I Addl. District & Sessions Judge.

Friday, the 21st (Twenty-First) day of April, 2017.

IESC No. 28 of 2014

Cr.No. 6 of 2013 of Gajulamandyam Police Station

Complainant The State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Gajulamandaym Police station. Accused 1.Orusu Gunasekharam, age 23 years, S/o Venkataramana, Nakkaladinne, Voddipalli, K.V. Palli Mandal, Chittoor District , Now at Sathyanarayanapuram, Tirupati.

2.Poojari Reddeppa, age 23 years, S/o P. Krishnaiah, Diguva Vagalla, Vaddipalli, K.V. Palli Mandal, Chittoor District. Now residing at Rajiv Gandhi Colony, Tirupati Urban Mandal,

3.Avulakonda Nagaraju, age 21 years, S/o Rajanna, Diguva Vaddipalli, K.V. Palli Mandal. The prosecution is Sri K.S.Jayaram conducted byAdditional Public Prosecutor. The accused are Sri L. Dhananjaya Naidu, counsel for accused. defended by OFFENCE Under Section 136 (1) (a) of Indian Electricity Act, 2003. Charges Under Section 136 (1) (a) of Indian Electricity Act, 2003.

Plea of the accused Not Guilty Finding of the court Found Not guilty. Sentence or order In the result, I find that accused are not guilty either for the offence under section 136(1) (a) or under section 136(1) (b) of Indian Electricity Act and accordingly, they are acquitted under section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of 6 months.

(i) It is ordered that the unmarked case property shall be returned to PW1 after appeal time.

This case coming before me for final hearing on 18-4-2017 and upon perusing the charge sheet and other material papers on record and upon perusing the written arguments of Sri K.S.Jayaram, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri L. Dhananjaya Naidu, counsel for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The State through the Sub-Inspector of Police, Gajulamandyam Police station, laid charge sheet in crime No. 6 of 2013 of Gajulamandyam police station against the accused alleging the offences under section 379 IPC or 411 IPC and

Sec. 136 (1) (a) of Indian Electricity Act, 2003 .

2

2. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is as follows:-

(i) On 18-1-2013 night , some unknown offenders broke open one 63

KV transformer situated at Daiwik, near Harsha Toyoto show room , Renigunta mandal and committed theft of copper wire worth Rs. 4,000/- belonging to

APSPDCL and absconded with booty. On a complaint lodged by Additional

Assistant Engineer, APSPDCL, Renugunta , the above crime was registered and investigated into.

(ii) On 13-10-2013 at 11-00 a.m, at Regional Centre, on Cherlopalli Bye pass road, Tirupati the Inspector of Police, Alipiri Police station apprehended the accused in the presence of mediators under cover of mahazar. Subsequently seized the stolen property concerned in this case at 2.30 P.M. on 13-10-2013 at

Reserve Forest, near A.P. Torusim Garage, on Cherlopalli bye pass road, Tirupati under cover of mahazar in the presence of mediators and the accused were produced on P.T. warrant before the court and they were remanded to judicial custody. On 5-11-2013 at 11-00 A.M. S. Bhupathi (L.W.6), V.R.O.

Gajulamandyam village, Renigunta mandal conducted test identification over the stolen wire and the same was identified by P.W.1 . Hence the charge.

3. The case was taken on file for the offence under section 379 or 411

I.P.C. and under section 136(1) (a) of Indian Electricity Act, 2003.

4. On appearance of accused, copies of case documents were furnished to them.

5. After hearing the prosecution and the learned defence counsel a charge under section 136 (1) (a) of Indian Electricity Act, 2003 has been framed by my learned predecessor against the accused, read over and explained to them in Telugu and they pleaded not guilty.

6. In proof of its case, the Prosecution has examined PW1 to PW4 and marked Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-6 .

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

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C, explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against them.

They denied the evidence and stated that they have no defence evidence.

3

8. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel

for the accused.

9. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the

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

under Section 136 (1) (b) of the Indian Electricity Act,

2003 beyond all reasonable doubt?

10. POINT:

The evidence of P.W.1, who is an official of A.P.S.P.D.C.L. shows that on information that some unknown offenders committed theft of copper winding wire from the transformers, he visited the said places, verified the same and found it to be correct and lodged Ex. P.1 report. The evidence of P.W.4 who is

Sub-Inspector of Police, Gajulamandyam police station shows that on the basis of

Ex.P.1 report, he registered Ex.P.5 First Information Report, examined the witnesses, visited the scene of offence and prepared Ex.P.6 rough sketch. So, the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 4 coupled with Exs.P.1, Ex.P.5 First Information Report and Ex.P.6 rough sketch proves commission of theft of copper winding wire from the transformers by unknown offenders. There is no evidence connecting the accused herein with the commission of theft of said copper winding wire.

Therefore, it cannot be said that prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 136 (1) (a) of Indian Electricity Act.

11. Though there is no charge for the offence under section 136(1) (b) of Indian Electricity Act, since the gist of the charge already framed covers the allegation that the stolen properties involved in the crime were seized from the possession of the accused and the prosecution has adduced evidence in this regard also and the learned defence counsel has also cross examined the witnesses in that respect, it has to be seen whether prosecution has proved the alleged apprehension of the accused and recovery of the properties which were subject matter of theft.

(i) The evidence of P.W.3 the then Inspector of police, Alipiri police station and P.W.2 the then V.R.O. of Tirupati urban, who said to have been acted as one of the mediators for the alleged apprehension of the accused and seizure of the properties is relevant. I have carefully gone through their evidence keeping in view not only the complaint lodged by the Electricity officials, but also the arrest cum seizure mahazar and the certificate given by P.W.1 with regard to 4 property and the contentions of both sides. A careful reading of their evidence shows that it is discrepant, inconsistent, unreliable and does not inspire confidence for the following reasons.

12. P.W.3 deposed that on 13-10-2013 at about 10.30 A.M. while he was in the police station, he received credible information and he along with his staff left the police station and proceeded to Regional Science Center,

Cherlopalle, Tirupati and en-route , secured the presence of mediators i.e. P.W.2 and another, reached the said place by about 11 A.M. and found seven persons proceedings towards Tirupati carrying urea bags with some material and on seeing the police party, they tried to escape and immediately on suspicion they surrounded them and caught hold of them. Whereas, P.W.2 deposed that on 13- 10-2013 while he was in the M.R.O. office, Tirupati at about 10.30 A.M., Inspector of Police, Alipiri Police Station called him over phone to come at Annarao circle and by the time he reached Annarao circle another mediator was also present along with the police and at the said place, three Sub-Inspectors of police and other staff in total 18 members were present in two jeeps and from there, police took him to Regional Science Center, Tirupati. So, it is evident that the very origin of the taking place of any such proceedings and manner of securing of mediators and going to the said place is inconsistent, inasmuch as, P.W.3 did not testify that he called P.W.2 and another mediator over phone, though P.W.2 testified to it. So also, though P.W.3 did not state that the mediators were present at Annarao circle as instructed by him by the time he went there and from the said Annarao circle they picked up the mediators and took them to

Regional Science Center, PW2 did not testify to it.

(i) Though P.W.3 stated that they found seven persons proceeding towards Tirupati side carrying urea bags with some material and did not state initially that they were accused herein concerned in several crimes, but P.W.2 stated that they are accused who were going from Tirupati to Cherlopalle side by carrying gunny bags on their heads. Even the version of P.Ws. 2 and 3 as to from which side to which side the they were proceeding is inconsistent, since

P.W.3 stated that they were proceeding towards Tirupati side, whereas P.W.2 stated that they were proceeding towards Cherlopalle side. P.W.2 also did not testify that on interrogation, the said seven persons were found to have involved in several crimes and they have been identified as accused. Though P.W.3 stated that he interrogated accused one by one and recorded their confessional statements separately, P.W.2 did not testify like that since he stated as if all the 5 accused were interrogated at a time and all the accused at a time confessed about the commission of offences at various places.

13. It is significant to note that though P.W.3 deposed that accused were found carrying one bag each containing copper winding wire coils and they were weighed and the said coils were seized and though he did not state that seven accused possessed eight urea gunny bags and two plastic covers,

PW2 came forward deposing in his chief examination that police weighed eight gunny bags and two plastic covers and all the bags contain copper winding wire.

Though, P.W.3 deposed that he verified the bags with accused and weighed them and seized copper winding coil/ wire 20 kgs each from accused No.1 and 2 concerned in Crime No. 301 of 2013 of Alipiri police station, 30 kgs. from accused No.3 concerned in Crime No. 83 of 2013 of Gajulamandyam police station, 20 kgs from accused No. 4 concerned in Crime No. 111 of 2013 of

Yerpedu police station ( which is not at all concerned in the present batch case crimes), 30 kgs from accused No. 5 concerned in Crime No. 81 of 2013 of

Vadamalapeta police station ( which is not at all concerned in the present batch case crimes), 20 kgs from accused No. 6 concerned in Crime No. 245 of 2013 of

M.R.Palle police station and 40 kgs. from accused No.4 concerned in Cr.No.250 and 251 of 2013 of M.R.Palle police station and seized the same under cover of

Ex.P.4 in the presence of mediators. P.W.2 did not testify like that and came forward with contradictory version stating that the weight of the stolen property is about 180 kgs, P.W.2 did not testify that the copper winding coils/ wire which were in different quantities having been identified as the property concerned in different crimes of different police stations were seized from the possession of the accused and thus has not corroborated with the evidence of

P.W.3 in this regard. The evidence of P.W.3 that he seized different quantities of copper winding wire from the accused concerned in different crimes has not been categorically corroborated by P.W.2.

(i) So also, though P.W.3 deposed that subsequently in pursuance of confession of accused and when led by them, they had been to forest area located at some distance on southern side of A.P.Tourism garage on Tirupathi-

Cherlopalle bye pass road and when accused showed them 29 plastic urea bags containing copper winding coils, he verified the same and seized the said properties identifying the same as the property concerned in different crimes.

P.W.2 has not corroborated the said piece of evidence by stating that different quantities of copper winding wires were seized at the instance of accused from 6 the said 29 urea bags, though PW2 deposed as if the entire wire in one quantity weighing about 1175 kgs was seized. The admissions of P.Ws. 2 to 4 show that the said place is a busy locality and there is 10 feet height barbed fencing to the

Tourism Garage and buses also run and there is high security at Regional

Science Center throughout the day and there is also a zoo park and staff of said

Tourism department are also present and there is also Bharathi Vidya Bhavan school and NCC Training Camp. P.W.3 did not choose to prefer any independent mediator for the alleged seizure of the property at the instance of the accused and the circumstances throw any amount of suspicion as regards alleged seizure of the properties. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.3 that he seized 15 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No. 43 of 2012 of

Tiruchanoor police station, 55 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime

No. 100 of 2011 of Chandragiri police station, 30 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No. 32 of 2012 of Chandragiri Police station, 15 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No. 40 of 2012 of Chandragiri police station, 15 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No. 58 of 2012 of Tiruchanoor police station, 20 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No. 50 of 2012 of Chandragiri police station, 15 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime

No. 198 of 2012 of Tiruchanoor police station , 100 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No.101 of 2012 of Srikalahasti Rural Police station, 20 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No. 67 of 2012 of R.C. Puram police station, 70 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No. 82 of 2012 of

Gajulamandyam police station , 20 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in

Crime No. 2 of 2012 of R.C. Puram police station, 70 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No. 3 of 2013 of Pakala police station , 30 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No. 6 of 2013 of Gajulamandyam police station (which is present case crime), 30 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime

No. 11 of 2013 of Renigunta police station, 20 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No. 60 of 2013 of B.N. Kandriga police station, 80 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No. 21 of 2013 of Vadamalapeta police station, 10 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No. 44 of 2013 of

Yerpedu police station, 10 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No. 31 of 2013 of Vadamalapeta police station, 40 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No. 38 of 2013 of Vadamalapeta police station, 15 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No. 128 of 2013 of Tiruchanoor police station, 80 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No. 51 of 2013 of Vadamalapeta police station, 20 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No. 69 of 2013 of

Yerpedu police station, 60 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No. 72 7 of 2013 of Vadamalapeta police station, 10 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No. 56 of 2013 of R.C. Puram Police station, 110 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No. 137 of 2013 of Pakala police station, 90 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No. 210 of 2013 of Chandragiri police station, 45 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No. 92 of 2013 of Penumur police station, 35 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime No.104 of 2013 of

Srikalahsti Rural police station and 45 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in

Crime No. 84 of 2013 of Vadamalapeta police station under cover of Ex.P.4 cannot be believed to be true.

14. So, as per the evidence of P.W.3, accused were not found in possession of any copper wire concerned in the present case crime at the time of their apprehension on 13.10.2013 at 11.00 am. Though the evidence of PW3 shows that he said to have recovered 30 kgs of copper winding wire concerned in Crime

No.6 of 2013 of Gajulamandyam Police Station and seized the same under cover of

Ex.P4 on 13.10.2013 at 2.30 pm, it is not known how he could identify the said property as the property involved in the said crime. It is pertinent to note that etther in Ex.P1 complaint or in the statement of PW1 under Section 161 Cr.P.C he has not stated the quantity of the copper wire that was found committed theft of.

Moreover, in view of my finding that no reliance can be placed on the testimony of

PWs.2 and 3 with regard to alleged apprehension of accused and seizure of the property, accused cannot also be said to be guilty of the said offence.

15. Moreover, there is no proper identification of the property. As already stated, either in Ex.P1 or in 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1, he did not state the quantity of the copper wire said to have been committed theft of, the descriptive particulars of the said wire and also the value of the said wire.

However, in the charge sheet it is stated that the value of the stolen property is

Rs.4,000/- but the weight of the said wire is not mentioned. But peculiarly PW1 in his chief examination has stated that 30 kgs of copper winding wire was committed theft of from one transformer. It is pertinent to note that P.w.1 in the cross examination admitted that he did not mention the weight of the said copper winding wire in Ex.P.1. Moreover, even though P.W.3 deposed that the said apprehension of accused and seizure of the properties took place on 13-10-2013 which is about nine months after lodging of Ex.P.1 report on 19-01-2013, P.W.1 deposed in his chief examination that 20 days after lodging of Ex.P1 report, he was called to the police station to identify the stolen property and he identified the same and issued Ex.P.2 certificate which is said to be an utter falsehood if 8 recovery allegedly from the possession of accused was made on 13-10-2013. A perusal of Ex.P.2 shows that P.W.1 issued said acknowledgment certifying that he received the stolen property i.e. 30 kgs of copper winding coils concerned in the present case crime from the police. He did not categorically certify that the said property said to have been received from the police was the property that was committed theft of and both are one and the same. Moreover, a perusal of the said certificate also shows that it appears to have been issued for the purpose of the case since as admitted by P.W.1 it does not contain the date and office seal.

All the circumstances show that Ex.P.2 appears to have been issued for the purpose of the case without actually verifying and identifying the property. It is also pertinent to note that P.W.1 in the cross examination admitted that it might be true that the property which he has identified under Ex.P.2 might be available in the market. So, it is evident that there are several suspicious circumstances about receiving of the said property by P.W.1 from the police and identification of the said property as the property involved in the commission of offence. In view of the same, no reliance can be placed on the testimony of

P.Ws. 1 and 3 with regard to identification of the properties. Suffice it here to state that there is no proper identification of the property in accordance with the provisions of law and there is no reliable evidence to show that the property that was seized from the possession of the accused is the subject matter of the theft of present case crime. In view of the same, it has to be held that prosecution has failed to prove the alleged apprehension of the accused and seizure of the property concerned in the present case crime from any of the accused so as to render them guilty of the offence.

16. In view of my forgoing discussion, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused either for the offence under section 136(1)

(a) or under section 136 (1) (b) of Indian Electricity Act.

17. In the result, I find that accused are not guilty either for the offence under section 136(1) (a) or under section 136(1) (b) of Indian Electricity Act and accordingly, they are acquitted under section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of 6 months.

(i) As seen from the material on record, when the property was produced by the police, it was received by the court and entrusted the same to the said police for the purpose of interim custody with a direction to produce the same as and when required. In view of the same, police are supposed to retain the property with them and produce the 9 same, whenever directed by the Court. But it appears as seen from Ex.P2 certificate and the evidence of PW1 police returned the said property to PW1 without any authority.

However, it is ordered that the unmarked case property shall be returned to PW1 after appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 21st day of April, 2017.

Sd/ Sri Ch. K. Durga Rao Prl. District & Sessions Judge, FAC- I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Chittoor.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For prosecution: For defence PW1 : V. Punyakoti - Complainant NIL. PW2 : Shivnarayana - V.R.O., Mediator PW3 : Rajasekhar - Inspector of Police, who seized the property PW4 : J. Mallesh Yadav – I.O. who filed F.I.R.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For prosecution: Ex.P-1 : Complaint given by P.W.1 to the police Ex.P-2 : Certificate given by P.W.1 Ex.P-3 : Arrest mahazar dt. 13-10-2013 at 11 A.M. Ex.P-4 : Seizure Mahazar dt. 13-10-2013 at 2.30 P.M. Ex.P.5: First Information Report Ex.P.6: Rough sketch For defence NIL Material Objects: -Nil-

Sd/ Sri Ch. K. Durga Rao Prl. District & Sessions Judge, FAC I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Chittoor.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE ::

CHITTOOR.

Present: CH.K.DURGA RAO,

Principal District & Sessions Judge, Chittoor.

FAC – I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Chittoor.

Saturday, the (Fifth) 5th day of November, 2016.

IESC.No.45 of 2014

Cr.Nos.78, 79 and 87 of 2014 of B.Kothakota Police Station.

Name of the Complainant : The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, B.Kothakota Police Station.

Name of the Accused : 1. Krishnapuram Mahesh, age 35 years, S/o.Rudramuni, Caste by Jangam, Kurapalli, H/o Battamdoddi, Peddapanjani Mandal, Now at Estate, Madanapalli.

2. Talagavara Dinesh, age 30 years, S/o.late Amruth Kanthaiah, Bankamdoddi, H/o Battam Doddi, Pedda Panjani Mandal.

3. Siddaiahgari Nagaraju, age 29 years, S/o.Sekhar, Battamdoddi village, Peddapanjani Mandal.

The prosecution is conducted : Sri K.S.Jayaram, Additional Public Prosecutor. by

The accused is defended by : Sri P.Dayasekhar, Advocate for A1 to A3.

Offence : Under Sec. 379 or 411 IPC & Sec. 136(1)(a) of the Electricity Act.

Charges : Under Sec.136 (1) (b) of Indian Electricity Act, 2003, or, Sec.411 IPC.

Plea of the accused : Not guilty

Finding of the Court : Accused 1 to 3 are found not guilty

Sentence or Order : In the result, accused 1 to 3 are found not guilty of either for the offence under section 136(1)(b) of Indian Electricity Act or for the offence under section 411 I.P.C. and accordingly they are acquitted of the said offence under section 235 (1)

Cr.P.C. The unmarked property shall be returned to Assistant Engineers, Operation, APSPDCL,

Kurabalakota and B.Kothakota, respectively, after appeal time. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

2

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 02.11.2016 and upon perusing the charge sheet and other material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K.S.Jayaram – Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri P.Dayasekhar, Advocate for accused 1 to 3, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

The State, through Sub-Inspector of Police, B.Kothakota police station filed charge sheet in Cr.No.78 of 2014, 79 of 2014 and 87 of 2014 against accused 1 to 3 for the offences under Sec. 379 or 411 IPC and u/Sec. 136 (1) (a) of the Indian

Electricity Act, 2003.

2. The case of the prosecution in nut-shell, is as follows:

(i) On the night of 23.07.2014 at Ayyavaripalli, Jarappalli, near KGBV school, Madanapalli road, B.Kothakota, PTM road near river, B.Kothakota, Aletipalli, near river, Moravapalli and Kuravapalli B.Kothakota Mandal, some unknown offenders broke open one 25 KVA transformer, five 15 KVA transformers and two 16 KVA transformers, belonging to Electricity Department and committed theft of copper winding wire of about 170 Kgs worth about Rs.33,000/-. Basing on the complaint given by J.David Sanjay (P.W.2), a case in Cr.No.78/2014 u/Sec. 379 IPC and Sec.

136(1)(a) of Indian Electricity Act was registered.

(ii) So also, on the night of 23.07.2014 at Vasanthappacheruvu, near Navya

Diary, B.Kothakota, Main road, Gattu, Madanapalli road, B.Kothakota, near TANA bus stop, near Sericulture Farm, Magasalamarry of B.Kothakota Mandal, some unknown offenders broke open two 25 KVA transformers and six 15 KVA transformers belonging to Electricity Department and committed theft of copper winding wire of about 180 Kgs worth about Rs.34,000/-. Basing on the complaint given by J.David

Sanjay (P.W.2), a case in Cr.No.79/2014 u/Sec. 379 IPC and Sec. 136(1)(a) of Indian

Electricity Act was registered.

3

(iii) So also, on the night of 07.08.2014 at the fields of Yerramadduvaripalli, near Amaranarayana puram @ Kandlamadugu cross of B.Kothakota Mandal, some unknown offenders broke open five 25 KVA transformers belonging to Electricity

Department and committed theft of silver winding wire of about 50 Kgs worth about

Rs.25,000/-. Basing on the complaint given by Y.Sateesh Babu (P.W.1), a case in

Cr.No.87/2014 u/Sec. 379 IPC and Sec. 136(1)(a) of Indian Electricity Act was registered.

(iv) During the course of investigation, one B.Kumar, HC 2071 of

B.Kothakota police station and B.V.Sivaprasad Reddy, Sub Inspector of Police,

B.Kothakota Police Station, examined the complainants and witnesses and recorded their statements, inspected the scenes of offences and drafted rough sketches.

(v) On 23.08.2014 at 6.00 AM at CTM cross road, H/o CTM, Madanapalle

Mandal, the accused 1 to 3 were arrested by the Sub Inspector of Police, Madanapalle

Taluk police station (P.W.4) and the stolen properties concerned in this case and in some other cases of different police stations from the possession of accused 1 to 3 were seized under the cover of Mahazar in the presence of mediators G.Sudhakar (P.W.3) and another and the accused 1 to 3 were sent for remand. Hence the charge.

3. The case was taken on file for the offences under Sec. 379 or under Sec. 411

IPC and Sec. 136(1)(a) of Indian Electricity Act, 2003.

4. On appearance of accused 1 to 3, copies of case documents furnished to them.

5. After hearing the prosecution and the learned defence counsel, charge under Section 136 (1) (b) of Electricity Act, 2003 or under Sec. 411 IPC has been framed against the accused 1 to 3, read over and explained to them in Telugu, and they pleaded not guilty.

6. In support of its case, the Prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 4 and marked Exs.P1 to P29.

4

7. After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused 1 to 3 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against them. They denied the evidence and stated that they have no defence evidence.

8. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused.

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

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused either for the offence under section 136 (1) (b) of Indian Electricity Act, 2003 or for the offence under Section 411 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt ?

10.POINT:-

P.W.1 Y.Sathish Babu is the Assistant Engineer, Kurabalakota. P.W.2

J.David Sanjay is the then Assistant Engineer in B.Kothakota. P.W.4 B.Raviprakash

Reddy is the Sub Inspector of Police, Madanapalle Taluk police station. The evidence of

P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 coupled with Exs.P-1, P-3 and P-13 complaints show that on 07.08.2014 when some unknown offenders committed theft of 38 Kgs of winding wire from five 25

KVA transformers situated around Kurabalakota, on 21.07.2014 when some unknown offenders committed theft of 170 Kgs of winding wire from the transformers situated around B.Kothakota, and on 23.07.2014 when some unknown offenders committed theft of 180 Kgs of winding wire from the transformers situated around B.Kothakota, the police have registered Exs.P-17, P-18 and P-19 First Information Reports in Crime

Nos.79/2014, 87/2014 and 78/2014 and investigated into. The evidence of P.W.3 also shows that he and one B.Kumar, HC 2071 visited the respective scenes of offences and prepared Exs.P-4 to P-11, P-20 to P-25 and P-26 to P-29 rough sketches. So, the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 coupled with the above documentary evidence proves causing of damage to the transformers and commission of theft of winding wires.

11. It is the version of the Prosecution that on 23.08.2014 at 6.00 A.M the accused 1 to 3 were apprehended in the presence of P.W.2 and another mediator and 10 gunny bags containing 441 Kgs of winding wire was seized besides one Auto bearing 5 registration No. AP 03 TC 4389 which was used to transport the stolen property under the cover of a mahazar Ex.P-15 and subsequently in pursuance of confession of accused 1 to 3 they went to Bandlamitta, Mittapalle, CTM Panchayat by about 9.00 A.M and seized 27 gunny bags containing 1523 Kgs of winding wire kept in a shed containing winding wire concerned in this case and in other crimes under the cover of a mahazar

Ex.P-16.

12. Now, it has to be seen whether the prosecution has proved the alleged apprehension of accused 1 to 3 on 23.08.2014 and seizure of properties.

13. A careful reading of the entire evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 4 keeping in view the submissions made by learned defence counsel and learned Additional

Public Prosecutor, does not inspire confidence as regards apprehension of accused and seizure of the properties as alleged, for the following reasons.

14. The evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 4 is inconsistent and discrepant and self- contradictory in several respects. A perusal of their evidence throws any amount of doubt as to when the accused were apprehended , where they were apprehended and when the mediators were called. P.W.4 in his chief examination deposed that on 23-8-2014 since early morning they have been checking the vehicles at CTM cross road on Madanapalle- Tirupathi main road and at about 6 a.m. they noticed the auto bearing No. AP03 TC 4389 coming in suspicious manner with heavy load and he along with his staff tried to stop it, but the three persons in the said auto were trying to escape from the said place and they could apprehend them, enquired them and could know their identity as accused 1 to 3 herein and also noticed 10 bags used for urea with winding wire and when questioned, the accused made confessional statement. Then they secured the presence of P.W.3 G. Sudhakar and K. Narayana (L.W.30) who were present at a nearby tea stall and after getting the weighing machine through their Constable, he got weighed and seized the said properties mentioning the quantities found in each bag. Whereas, P.W. 3 who has been working as Village Revenue Officer deposed that on 23-8-2014 while 6 himself and another mediator K. Narayana were present at CTM cross road at about 6 a.m. the Sub Inspector of police called them and by that time one auto came from Mittapalle and on suspicion police stopped it and verified the contents in the Auto and found all the accused possessing 10 gunny bags containing winding wire belonging to Electricity Department, questioned them and when they confessed, seized the said property after weighment which is 441 kgs. of winding wire found in 10 bags under cover of a mahazar in their presence and Ex.P. 15 is the same.

15. So, it is evident that as per the evidence of P.W.4 initially he along with other staff have been checking the vehicles and stopped the Auto which was coming in suspicious circumstances and when accused 1 to 3 made confessional statement , at that time he secured the presence of P.W.3 and another who were said to be present at a nearby teal stall. Whereas according to P.W.3 they were present along with the police from the beginning and he did not state taking place of above events as narrated by P.W.4. Though P.W.4 stated that P.W.3 and another mediator were present at a near by teal stall, P.W.3 did not testify to the said version. On the other hand, he gave a contradictory version stating that he came to CTM cross at 5.30 a.m. though he has no work at CTM cross and he came there to verify E-Seva. So it is evident that he did not state that he was present at a nearby Tea stall as stated by P.W.4. Moreover, P.W.3 is not Village Revenue

Officer of Madanapalle and he is Village Revenue Officer of Malepadu which he has admitted in his cross examination. He further admitted that he has not informed to his superior officers that he is accompanying the police and police have also not issued any requisition requesting him to accompany the police. He further stated that the distance between his house and CTM cross is about 3/4 kilometer and he came to CTM cross at 5.30 a.m. and he has no work at CTM cross. He also admitted that there is no bus shelter near CTM cross. Ex.P.13 mahazar shows that P.W.4 along with his staff and mediators were present at 7 about 6 a.m. on 23-8-2014 at that time. It is not stated that after accused confessed about the offence, P.W.3 and another mediator were called for recording their confession and for seizure of the property as testified by P.W.4 which is also against the contents of arrest cum seizure mahazar. It is also pertinent to note that

P.W.4 in the cross examination stated that they secured mediators by about 6 a.m.

and Auto was found coming from Mittapalle side at 4 a.m. This evidence is also inconsistent and self-contradictory. In view of the same, very presence of P.W.3 and another Village Revenue Officer at that place throws any amount of doubt.

(i) Though P.W.4 stated that he has secured a weighing machine through their Constable and got the winding wires in 10 bags weighed, he himself in the cross examination has admitted that it is true in the mahazar it is not mentioned that the quantity of winding wire were weighed. P.W.3 did not state anything about securing of weighing machine by sending Constable and taking place of actual weighment of the wires in 10 bags in their presence and noting down of the said weighment of each bag on measurement. In the cross examination P.W.3 also admitted that it is true in the mahazarnama there is no mention that the property was weighed by the police. So, it is evident that evidence of P.W.4 is against the contents of mahazar and it has also not been corroborated by P.W.3. If really any weighment took place at the spot and quantity contained in each bag could be known on such weighment, P.W.3 could have given weight of each bag.

Admittedly, P.W.3 could not state the quantum of each gunny bag with material and on the other hand, he stated that total quantity of winding wire in 10 bags was 441 kgs. This also throws doubt about securing of weighing machine and weighing of material contained in each bag. This evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 4 throws any amount of suspicion as regards taking place of any such weighment. In such a case, the contents of mahazar that each bag contains so and so quantity of winding wire can be said to be incorrect. So also the evidence of P.W.4 is inconsistent in respect of the descriptive particulars of bags . In the chief 8 examination P.W.4 stated that they noticed 10 bags used for urea containing the said winding wire. But, in the cross examination he himself admitted that it is not mentioned in the mahazar that bags used for urea were found in the Auto with wires. He also admitted that specific nature of the bag i.e., gunny bag or urea bag is not mentioned. P.W.4 has categorically stated that only one copy of mahazar was prepared, whereas P.W.3 has stated that police drafted two copies of mahazar. Further P.W.3 admitted that it is not mentioned in the mahazar that the copies of mahazar were served on the accused. These inconsistencies besides other improbabilities throw doubt as to the veracity of these witnesses and also the case of the prosecution as regards apprehension of the accused and seizure of the properties.

(ii) There are other circumstances which also throw doubt about taking place of any proceedings as contained in Exs. P.15 and P.16 mahazars. It is pertinent to note that P.W.3 has categorically admitted that he does not know the contents of Exs. P.15 and P.16.

(iii) P.W.4 admitted that he did not examine any neighbours from

CTM cross roads. He also did not examine any neighbours of Bandlamidda and he did not examine the owner of the shed though he came to know that shed belongs to

P. Erraiah. He also admitted that he did not secure any certificate form Village

Revenue Officer or Revenue official to the effect that the said land belongs to P.

Erraiah. He further admitted that he did not prepare rough sketches of the said two places. P.W.3 admitted that police did not examine the public gathered there. So, it is evident that though independent witnesses and neighbours and public were present, P.W.4 did not choose to prefer any one of them. This circumstance strongly probablises the version of defence that the signatures of

P.W.3 and another mediator, who have been working as Village Revenue Officers have been secured subsequently though they were not present. It is pertinent to 9 note that P.W.3 has categorically admitted that he also deposed in another case, which supports the version of defence that he is a stock witness.

(iv) All the above circumstances throw any amount of doubt as to acting of P.W.3 as one of the mediators for the alleged apprehension of the accused and seizure of the properties in question. In view of the same, no reliance can be placed on the testimony of P.Ws. 3 and 4 in this regard.

16. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the identity of the property allegedly seized from the possession of the accused as that of the property that was committed theft of from various transformers as alleged or as the property of the Electricity department so as to attract the offence under section 136 (1) (b) of the Act. However, the evidence of

P.W.4 in the cross examination coupled with office copy of Form 66 available in the record shows that the property was produced by the police and it was returned to them for interim custody. So , it might be with the police. It is for the police to produce the property and get it marked and identified. Admittedly, they did not do so. It is significant to state that P.Ws.1 and 2 in the cross examination have admitted that they have not filed any document to show that property committed theft of belongs to the department. They also admitted that they have not filed any document to show that the property committed theft and the property recovered are one and the same. They also made a categorical admission that it is true the seized property is available in the open market. P.Ws.1 and 2 in the cross examination while admitting that it is not mentioned in the mahazar that identity slips containing signatures of concerned were affixed on the bags and in the Form 66 also and it is not mentioned that all the bags were affixed with the above slips, have admitted that they identified the property found in 10 bags mainly basing on the confessional statement given by the accused , which piece of evidence is inadmissible in evidence.

10

(i) In view of the categorical admissions of P.Ws.1 and 2 , there is no other option except to record a finding that prosecution has failed to establish that the property allegedly seized from the possession of the accused is the property involved in the present crime or as the property of the Electricity Department. So also, though P.W.4 has stated that he identified the other properties contained in 27 gunny bags and seized at the instance of the accused as the property involved in several crimes by contacting the concerned Sub Inspectors of police in mobile phone, it has not been mentioned in the mahazar. When P.W.4 admitted that P.Ws.1 and 2 did not furnish documentary evidence supporting the descriptive particulars of the properties, which was subject matter of theft and he identified the properties found in 10 bags mainly basing on the confessional statement given by the accused, it is quite improbable to believe his version that he identified the properties contained in 27 gunny bags as the properties involved in other crimes of other police stations by merely contacting the concerned Sub Inspectors in phone. If all the circumstances are viewed, this court has no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove that the property allegedly seized from the possession of the accused is either the property involved in the above crime or the property of the department. In view of the same even if it is presumed that

P.Ws. 3 and 4 evidence as regards apprehension of accused and seizure of property can be believed for a moment, still the prosecution has to fail since it has failed to establish the identity of the property as stated above.

17. In view of my foregoing discussion, I hold that prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused 1 to 3 either for the offence under section 136 (1) (b) of Indian Electricity Act or for the offence under section 411 I.P.C. beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly I hold that the accused are not guilty of the said offences. The point is answered accordingly.

11

18. In the result, accused 1 to 3 are found not guilty of either for the offence under section 136 (1) (b) of Indian Electricity Act or for the offence under section 411

I.P.C. and accordingly they are acquitted of the said offence under section 235 (1)

Cr.P.C. The unmarked property shall be returned to Assistant Engineers, Operation,

APSPDCL, Kurabalakota and B.Kothakota, respectively, after appeal time. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court, this is the 5th day of November, 2016.

Sd/- Ch.K.DURGA RAO

Prl. District & Sessions Judge, FAC – I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Chittoor.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For prosecution: For defence: P.W.1: Y.Sathish Babu -NIL- P.W.2: J.David Sanjay P.W.3: G.Sudhakar P.W.4: B.Raviprakash Reddy

Exhibits marked For prosecution: Ex.P-1: Complaint given by P.W.1 in Cr.No.87/2014. Ex.P-2: Certificate issued by P.W.1. Ex.P-3: Complaint given by P.W.2 in Cr.No.78/2014. Ex.P-4 to Ex.P-11: Rough sketches in Cr.No.78/2014. Ex.P-12: Certificate issued by P.W.2. Ex.P-13: Complaint given by P.W.2 in Cr.No.79/2014. Ex.P-14: Certificate issued by P.W.2. Ex.P-15: Arrest and Seizure Mahazar dt.23.08.2014 at 6.00 A.M. Ex.P-16: Seizure Mahazar dt.23.08.2014 at 9.00 A.M. Ex.P-17: FIR in Cr.No. 79/2014. Ex.P-18: FIR in Cr.No. 87/2014. Ex.P-19: FIR in Cr.No. 78/2014. Ex.P-20 to Ex.P25: Rough sketches in Cr.No. 79/2014. Ex.P-26 to Ex.P29: Rough sketches in Cr.No. 87/2014. For defence: -NIL- Material Objects: -Nil-.

Sd/- Ch.K.DURGA RAO

Prl. District & Sessions Judge, FAC – I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Chittoor.