Sri. Ch. Yugandhar

1 C.C. 4285/2021 CMM Court/VSP

IN THE COURT OF THE CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present:- Sri Ch. Yugandhar,

I Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

FAC/ Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

Visakhapatnam.

Tuesday the 31 st day of October, 2023

C.C.No.4285/2021

Between:

The State represented by the Sub-inspector of police, Arilova police station, Visakhapatnam city ….Complainant And: Kandhi Bangaru Naidu, S/o late Suryanarayana, 26 yrs, Kapu by caste, R/o D.No.4-135/6, Rajeev Nagar, near Govt. High school, Yendada, Visakhapatnam city ….Accused

This case is coming on 17.10.2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned A.P.P. for complainant and Sri K.Vinod Kumar, Advocate for Accused andthe same having been stood over for consideration till this day and this Court delivered the following :-

J U D G M E N T

1.This is the case filed against the Accused in Cr.No.332/2021 for the offence u/s 324 IPC of Arilova police station.

2.The case of the prosecution as per the contents of the charge sheet are that PW.1 is resident of house bearing Dr.No.5-50/6, Rajeev Nagar, Yendada,

Visakhapatnam from last seven years. While so on 07.07.2021 at about 6.30 p.m. when he came to his house from his office and entering into the house, the

Accused was found with damaging of the steps of his house with one crowbar.

On questioning, the Accused attacked on him with crowbar and beat on his forehead, resulting into causing bleeding injury on his forehead. Then he was shifted to K.G. Hospital for treatment through his friend Eagala Sai. During his treatment he got 4 sutures on his forehead. On that he made a report to Sub- inspector of police, Arilova police station under Ex.P1 to take necessary action against the Accused.

3.On the strength of Ex.P1 report the Inspector of police by name

T.Emmanuel Raju/LW.10 registered a case in crime No.332/2021 under Section 2 C.C. 4285/2021 CMM Court/VSP 324 IPC and endorsed the investigation to Sub-inspector B.Apparao/PW.6 who have conducted major portion of investigation in this case by examining the witnesses, scene of offence and drafting the scene observation report and prepared the rough sketch and seized weapon- crowbar from the possession of

PW.1 and collected the wound certificate of PW.1. Meanwhile handed over the

CD file to another Sub-inspector of police by name G.Apparao/LW.12 who filed charge sheet against the accused after completion of the investigation.

4.The case was taken on file for the offence punishable under Sec.324 IPC against the accused.

5.Pursuant to the summons, after marking the appearance of accused

before this court, the copies of case documents were furnished to him as

required U/sec.207 Cr.P.C.

6.The accused was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. and framed charge for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC against him and read over said charge and explained to him in Telugu language for which he denied the same, pleaded ‘not guilty’ and claimed to be tried.

7.The prosecution has examined the witnesses P.Ws.1 to 6 and got Exs.P1 to

P.5 and MO.1 marked on its behalf.On behalf of accused although no witnesses were examined but Exs.D1 and D2 are marked.

8.After closure of evidence on behalf of prosecution, accused was examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating circumstances found from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which, accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

9.Heard the arguments of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor and Learned

Counsel for defence.

10.Now the point for determination is that :

“Whether the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the

Accused for the offence punishable under section 324 IPC

beyond reasonable doubt?”

POINT :

11.During trial, on behalf of the prosecution P.Ws.1 to 6 were examined. PW.1 is the injured. According to him, he got own house situated on a hill area in 3 C.C. 4285/2021 CMM Court/VSP Rajeev Nagar, Yendada Colony. On 07.07.2021 at about 6.30 p.m. while he was returning home from his duty and proceeding towards his house by climbing the steps on the said hill. The house of Accused is situated adjacent to the steps enroute to his house, he happened to be noticed that the Accused was digging the steps with crowbar. On that when he questioned, immediately the Accused grew wild against him and beat on his head with the said crowbar. Thereby he received bleeding injury to his head. The said incident was witnessed by one

Eagala Sai, G.Kamala, Eagala Rambabu, one Bujji and Ramu. Immediately they took away the crowbar from the hands of Accused and shifted him to K.G.

Hospital, Visakhapatnam. He got four sutures for his injury. Later he lodged report to the police under Ex.P1. He also identified the said crowbar with which the Accused attacked on him at the time of incident. As such the same is marked as MO.1.

12.During cross-examination it is elicited from PW.1 that there are two ways to reach his house from the main road. However he elaborated said two ways are connecting again to the steps way leading to his house. It is further elicited that there is overwriting regarding the date mentioned on Ex.P1. It is further elicited that he did not mention specifically on which side of his forehead the said injury was received by him either on right side or left side. It is further elicited that MO.1 crowbar was handed over by Eagala Sai and Eagala Rambabu to Sub-inspector of police in his presence. But either his signature or signatures of Eagala Sai and Eagala Rambabu does not contain on the slips attached to

MO.1. It is further elicited that he did not state before the police that there were petty disputes are existing between him and the Accused for some period prior to the incident in respect of the said steps and same is marked as Ex.D1.

Similarly he admitted that he did not state before the police that even after registration of FIR on 8.7.2021, the police, Arilova have again sent him to K.G.

Hospital for treatment on the same day and the same is also marked as Ex.D2. It is suggested to him that no galata took place between himself and the Accused and the Accused did not cause any injuries to him with MO.1 and that taking advantage of injury received by him elsewhere and by using his influence over 4 C.C. 4285/2021 CMM Court/VSP the police, he got foisted the present false case against the Accused for which he denied.

13.Coming to the evidence to PW.2 who claimed to be eyewitness of the incident according to him on 7.7.2021 during evening hours at about 6.00 or 6.30 p.m. when he was present at his house, he noticed that Accused beat PW.1 with crowbar on his head. Thereby PW.1 received bleeding injury to his head.

Then he shifted him to hospital. On the date of incident when PW.1 was returning home after completing his duty and when he was passing through the said steps way, he noticed that Accused was digging the steps with crowbar. He asked the accused to do the said work only after placing the matter before the elders. On that the Accused grew wild against him and beat him with crowbar available in his hands.

14.During cross-examination it is elicited that they also went to K.G.Hospital along with PW.1 by 7.30 p.m. and remained there till 10.30 p.m. Later himself and PW.1 returned home. On the next day of the incident, PW.1 lodged report with the police and he also handed over the said crowbar to the police. Till then it was kept in the house of PW.1.

15.Coming to the evidence of PW.3 who is another eyewitness he also deposed in the similar lines of PW.2. According to him he is also resident of the same area in which PWs.1 and 2 are residing and his house is also situated on the hill. The steps way proceeding in between the house of PW.1 and his house is only way to reach his house from the road. It is the only way being used by

PW.1 and Accused for ingress and egress to their respective houses. In the month of July, 2021 in the evening hours when he was present at his house, he heard noise of galata. Then he came out from his house and noticed that the

Accused was digging the said steps and on questioning by PW.1, he was beaten by Accused with crowbar on the right side of the forehead and caused injury.

16.Coming to the evidence of PW.5 who is mediator of the scene observation report Ex.P3. According to him in his presence the police observed the steps which were broken on previous day. For that the police prepared scene observation report and obtained his signature.

5 C.C. 4285/2021 CMM Court/VSP

17.Coming to the evidence of PW.4 who is Medical officer who treated PW.1 on his examination he found 3 x 1 cms laceration on the right side of the forehead and he was of the opinion that the said injury was simple in nature and that he got issued wound certificate Ex.P2.

18.During cross-examination it is elicited that he did not mention the age of the injury and he did not make any observation in Ex.P2 that either he noticed any blood at the said injury or it is a fresh injury. It is further elicited that the said injury can be possible if any person fall on the hard surface either by skid or in any accident.

19.PW.6 is the investigating officer who deposed chronological event of the investigation. During cross-examination it is elicited that after recording of the statement of PW.1 he has referred to PW.1 to K.G. Hospital for treatment on 08.07.2021. It is further elicited that PW.1 stated before him as in Exs.D1 and

D2.

20.On perusal of entire evidence and material available on record admittedly there are some disputes between PW.1 and Accused in respect of said steps.

Moreover the houses of Accused and PW.1 are situated nearer to each other and there is no dispute in respect of location of their houses. Further PW.2 and PW.3 who are neighbours of Accused and PW.1 and they have also categorically stated that they have witnessed when the Accused dug the said steps with crowbar and he was questioned by PW.1 and Accused grew wild and beat him with crowbar on his head and caused such injury. Therefore the evidence of PW.2 and PW.3 is very much corroborated with the evidence of PW.1 in respect of actual occurrence of the incident. Further nothing worthy was elicited during cross- examination of PW.1 to PW.3. There is no plea of the Accused to suggest false implication or evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 is not true. Moreover, PW.1 is an injured witness who himself stating that the Accused beat him and caused such injury, his evidence cannot be brushed aside and there are no attending circumstances to discard his evidence and further the Accused did not make any probable defence in that regard. Thus the evidence of PW.1 is inspiring confidence of this court. As observed above when the evidence of PW.1 is corroborating with 6 C.C. 4285/2021 CMM Court/VSP independent witnesses PW.2 and PW.3 certainly it can be said that the incident has been proved.

21.In this regard it is apposite to refer the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case between State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Naresh and others reported in 2011 (2) ALD (Crl.) 382 (SC) as to how the injured witness has to be appreciated where their lordship observed that :

“The evidence of an injured witness must be given due weightage being a stamped witness, thus, his presence cannot be doubted. His statement is generally considered to be very reliable and it is unlikely that he has spared the actual assailant in order to falsely implicate someone else. The testimony of an injured witness has its own relevancy and efficacy as he has sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence and this lends support to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence. Thus, the testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law. The witness would not like or want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to implicate a third person falsely for the commission of the offence. Thus the evidence of injured witness should be relied upon unless there are grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein.”

22.In view of the above proposition of law the evidence of PW.1 cannot be thrown away in any circumstances even if considered that there are some omissions as found in Exs.D1 and D2 since they are not touching the core of prosecution case and there are only minor discrepancies. Further as per the evidence of PW.1 the said crow-bar which was taken out from the hands of

Accused by PW.2 and the same was handed over to the police in his presence when the police visited the scene of offence. But whereas PW.2 stated that the said crow-bar was handed over by PW.1. The fact remains that the accused beat with the said crow-bar and caused the said injury on the forehead of PW.1 for which PW.1 got four sutures for his injury. Further it is also undisputed fact that the crow-bar which was taken away from the hands of Accused. Therefore it may be recovered by PW.1 by keeping the same in his house. Mere contradiction as to who actually handed over the same to the police does not make the entire case of the prosecution effected. Moreover, PW.2 and his father took PW.1 to the hospital for treatment soon after the incident. Hence the evidence of PW.1 to

PW.3 shall be taken into account. Be that as it may the evidence of PW.4 who is 7 C.C. 4285/2021 CMM Court/VSP Medical officer categorically stated that he examined PW.1 and found laceration of 3 x 1 cms on the right side of the head. For which he gave Ex.P2 wound certificate. He may not mention the age of injury or the descriptive particulars of the injury in Ex.P2 that would not stand in favour of Accused in any manner.

When the injury is proved under Ex.P2 since the medical evidence and ocular testimony of PW.2 and PW.3 are consistent to each other certainly it can be said that the prosecution has succeeded in proving their case for the offence u/s 324

IPC against the Accused beyond reasonable doubt. Thus it can be said that the

Accused is found guilty for the offence u/s 324 IPC. consequently he is convicted u/s 248(2) Cr.P.C. for the said charged offence u/s 324 IPC.

Dictated to Stenographer Gr-1, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me on this day the 31st day of October,2023.

Sd/- Ch.Yugandhar,

I Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, FAC/ Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Visakhapatnam.

31.10.2023

Hearing on quantum of sentence:

23)On hearing the quantum of sentence, the accused stated that he has nothing to say anything for the reasons to mitigate the sentence. On further enquiry he stated that he got wife and two minor children. He is eaking out his livelihood as labourer. In view of the nature of the circumstances where the accused ventured to beat PW.1 with crowbar certainly it has to be taken a serious note of it and if anything happens seriously to PW.1 that it would effects the life of PW.1. So in these circumstances though lenient view cannot be taken in the given circumstances and the benefit of provisions of P.O. Act cannot be extended to the Accused, this court is of the considered opinion imposing of fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the accused will meet the ends of justice and out of Rs.10,000/- fine, an amount of Rs.5,000/- shall be paid to PW.1/ injured towards his medical expenses u/s 357(1) Cr.P.C. after expiry of appeal time. In default of payment of fine of Rs.10,000/- the accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The bail bonds of accused shall 8 C.C. 4285/2021 CMM Court/VSP be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437-A of

Cr.P.C.. MO.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. Free copy of judgment shall be furnished to the Accused forthwith. The accused is informed of his right of appeal and right of free legal aid.

Sd/- Ch.Yugandhar,

I Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, FAC/ Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Visakhapatnam.

: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

Names of witnesses examined

For Prosecution: For Accused:

P.W.1/20.03.2023 : Y.Sriramulu-NIL- P.W.2/13.04.2023 : E.Sai Karthik P.W.3/30.06.2023 : Ch.Bujji P.W.4/21.07.2023 : Dr.K.V.Aruna Devi P.W.5/04.08.2023 : L.Appalaraju P.W.6/13.09.2023 : B.Apparao

Documents marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P.1: Report of PW-1 to SHO, Arilova PS, VSP, dt.08.07.2021 Ex.P.2: Wound certificate of PW.1 Ex.P.3: Scene observation report,dt.08.07.2021 Ex.P.4: FIR, dt.08.07.2021 Ex.P.5: Rough sketch, dt.08.07.2021

For Accused:

Ex.D1 : Part of Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1 Ex.D2 : Part of Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1

Material objects marked

MO.1 - Crowbar

Sd/- Ch.Yugandhar,

I Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, FAC/ Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam 9 C.C. 4285/2021 CMM Court/VSP

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, VISAKHAPATNAM.

C.C.No.4285/2021

DATE OF

Apprehen-Commen-Sentence OffenceFilingRelease sion ofcement ofClose of Trialor on Bail AccusedTrial06 Order 010204 030507 07.07.202115.11.202120.04.2022On bail20.03.202313.09.202331.10.2023

Complainant:

State represented by its Sub-Inspector of Police, Arilova Police Station, Visakhapatnam city.

Name and description of accused:

Kandhi Bangaru Naidu, S/o late Suryanarayana, 26 yrs, Kapu by caste, R/o D.No.4-135/6, Rajeev Nagar, near Govt. High school, Yendada, Visakhapatnam city

Offence: U/Sec. 324 IPC

Finding: Accused is found guilty.

Result: In the result accused is found guilty for the charged offence punishable under Section 324 IPC. Consequently, he is convicted U/s.248 (2) Cr.P.C. for the said charge u/s 324 IPC. Accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) and out of Rs.10,000/- fine, an amount of Rs.5,000/- shall be paid to PW.1/ injured towards his medical expenses u/s 357(1) Cr.P.C. after expiry of appeal time. In default of payment of fine of Rs.10,000/- the accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437-A of Cr.P.C.. MO.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. Free copy of judgment shall be furnished to the Accused forthwith. The accused is informed of his right of appeal and right of free legal aid.

Explanation for delay and remarks: The police did not produce the witnesses from time to time, hence the delay occurred.

This case was taken on file against the accused for the offence punishable

U/Sec.324 IPC on 15.11.2021. After receipt of summons, accused appeared 10 C.C. 4285/2021 CMM Court/VSP

before this court and copies of the documents furnished to accused on

20.04.202. Accused was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C and framed charge for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC against him and read over said charges and explained to him in Telugu la nguage for which Accused denied the same, pleaded ‘not guilty’ and claimed to be tried. PWs 1 to 6 were examined and got marked Exs.P1 to 5 and MO.1. On behalf of defence none were examined but Exs.D1 and D2 were marked. Accused was examined u/sec.313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the evidence of prosecution witnesses for which he denied and reported no defence evidence. Heard both side arguments on 17.10.2023 and the Judgment has been pronounced on 31.10.2023.

Sd/- Ch.Yugandhar,

I ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

FAC/ CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

Note : Accused paid fine amount of Rs.10,000/- in this court on this day i.e. on 31.08.2023

1 C.C. 616/2023 CMM Court/VSP

IN THE COURT OF THE CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present:- Sri Ch. Yugandhar,

I Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

FAC/ Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

Visakhapatnam.

Tuesday the 21 st day of November, 2023

C.C.No.616/2023

Between:

The State represented by the Sub-inspector of police, Arilova (Crimes) police station, Visakhapatnam city ….Complainant And:

1. Bandi Satish, S/o Bandi Mani, 20 yrs, SC Mala by caste, R/o back side of Raviteja bar and restaurant, Jodugullapalem, Visakhapatnam city

2. Mylapalli Satish, S/o Dasubabu, 19 yrs, Vadabalija by caste, R/o D.No.1-88, Suzuki Showroom back side, Jodugullapalem, Visakhapatnam city ….Accused

This case is coming on 17.11.2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned A.P.P. for complainant and Sri Rayi Srinivasarao, Advocate for Accused andthe same having been stood over for consideration till this day and this Court delivered the following :-

J U D G M E N T

1.This is the case filed against the Accused in Cr.No.406/2022 for the offence u/s 382 IPC of Arilova (Crimes) police station, Visakhapatnam city.

2.The case of the prosecution as per the contents of the charge sheet are that PW.1 is working as receptionist in hotel Excella at Visalakshi Nagar,

Visakhapatnam. As such as per the instructions of hotel management, on 11.10.2022 at about 3.15 p.m. while PW.1 was sticking the wall poster of the hotel at beach road junction, Visalakshinagar, Visakhapatnam city for advertisement purpose, some unknown persons numbering in 3 came behind him and snatched away the gold chain weighing of ½ tula from his neck and escaped with booty. Immediately PW.1 reported the same to the police over phone by dialing 100. However again PW.1 went to the concerned jurisdiction police station I.e,. Arilova crime PS and presented his report under Ex.P1.

3.Basing on his report, the SHO, Arilova Crime PS I.e,Inspector of police, 2 C.C. 616/2023 CMM Court/VSP Arilova Crime police station by name T.Immanuel (LW.9) registered the same as a case in Cr.No.406./2022 for the offence u/s 394 IPC and issued FIR under Ex.P.5 and entrusted the investigation to SI of police/PW.5 who visited the scene of offence and drawn rough sketch of the scene and examined the witnesses and recorded the statements of PW.1, LW-2 M.Suraj and LW.3 E.Akhil. On 05.11.2022 he secured the presence of PW.2 and LW.5 – Poorna Prakash and examined them and recorded their statements. Meanwhile on 12.10.2022 at about 9.00 a.m. he received information about moments of accused. Then he proceeded to

Jodugullapalem beach and arrested A1, A2 and child in conflict with law in the presence of mediators PW.3 and LW.6 – P.Chandini Priya, VRO and on their confession he seized ½ tula chain, MO.1 from the possession of A1 and A2 under cover of mediators report. Then he affected the arrest of A1 and A2 and sent them for judicial custody. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused u/s 382 IPC by altering the section of law from Sec.394 IPC to Sec.382 IPC.

4.The case was taken on file for the offence punishable under Sec.382 and 411 IPC against the accused.

5.Pursuant to the summons, after marking the appearance of A2 and production of A1 from Central Prison, Visakhapatnam before this court, the copies of case documents were furnished to them as required U/sec.207 Cr.P.C.

6.The accused were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. and framed charge for the offence punishable under Section 382 IPC against them and read over said charge and explained to them in Telugu language for which they denied the same, pleaded ‘not guilty’ and claimed to be tried.

7.The prosecution has examined the witnesses P.Ws.1 to 5 and got Exs.P1 to

P.6 and MO.1 marked on its behalf.On behalf of accused although no witnesses were examined and no documents are marked.

8.After closure of evidence on behalf of prosecution, accused were examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating circumstances found from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which, the accused denied the 3 C.C. 616/2023 CMM Court/VSP same and reported no defence evidence.

9.Heard the arguments of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor and Learned

Counsel for defence.

10.Now the point for determination is that :

“Whether the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the

Accused for the offence punishable under section 382 IPC

beyond reasonable doubt?”

POINT :

11.During trial, on behalf of the prosecution P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined. PW.1 is the victim and owner of MO.1 gold chain. According to him while he was working as receptionist at Excella hotel at Visalakshinagar, on 11.10.2022 at about 3.00 p.m. he was there at Jodugullapalem beach road junction for the purpose of getting affixed the wall poster pertaining to their hotel by giving way mark leading to their hotel, 3 persons came to him and have forcibly snatched away the gold-chain from his neck and ran away from the scene. Then on the same day he lodged report before SHO, Arilova Crime PS under Ex.P.1. He also identified A1 and A2 before this court are to be the persons among those three persons. He further deposed that he was summoned to Central Jail,

Visakhapatnam and identified the said persons correctly. Thereafter the police informed that the property was recovered which is identified by him as MO.1.

12.During cross examination it is elicited that after 4 days of the incident he went to police station to lodge complaint and he also emphasized that Ex.P1 which was given by him after 4 days of the incident. It is further elicited that he did not mention the descriptive particulars of gold chain in Ex.P1 and he also admitted that he remained silent in Ex.P1 that in the said incident the gold-chain was broken. It is further elicited that the scene of offence is a busy road and there is a police outpost at Jodugullapalem junction.

13.It is suggested to him that he identified the accused in Central Prison as he was tutored and furnished the photographs of accused before taking him to test identification parade for which he denied.

14.PW.2 is the eyewitness who is friend of PW.1. He also narrated the 4 C.C. 616/2023 CMM Court/VSP incident in the similar manner of PW.1 in his chief examination. He also identified A1 and A2 before this court to be the culprits at the time of alleged incident.

15.PW.3 is one of the mediators who is working as VRO of Arilova. According to him on the request of the police, Arilova himself and another VRO accompanied the police party to Jodugullapalem beach and there they noticed the presence of 3 persons who sat in the said beach on seeing the police they tried to run away. However the police caught hold them and on enquiry by checking their pockets, they found one gold chain in the pant pocket of accused

No.1. They have also revealed about their involvement in the said incident and pursuant to their disclosure statement, the gold-chain was seized from their possession under cover of mediators report.

16.During cross-examination it is elicited that no written proceedings were given by MRO to act as mediators in this case and no written summons were served on them by SHO, Arilova to act as mediators in this case.

17.PW.4 is the Judicial First Class Magistrate who previously worked as I AJCJ cum I Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam and during his tenure, as per the proceedings issued by CMM, Visakhapatnam dt.22.10.2022 he conducted test identification parade of 2 suspects in this crime by duly following the procedure and in the said test identification parade PW.1 correctly identified Suspect No.2

I.e,. A2. But he failed to identify suspect No.1 I.e, A1 and to that effect he recorded the proceedings under Ex.P4.

18.PW.5 is the investigating officer who deposed the chronological events of the investigation. During cross-examination it is elicited that the scene of offence is busy locality and he did not secure CC footage of scene of offence and he did not secure the presence of mediators from the police station.

19.On perusal of entire evidence and material available on the record the case is that some unknown offenders came on the back side of PW.1 and snatched away the gold-chain from his neck. In that process the gold-chain was broken into pieces. The said incident said to have taken place at Jodugullapalem 5 C.C. 616/2023 CMM Court/VSP beach road junction. As per the version of PW.1 he came there to get affix the posters of his hotel marking the way leading to their hotel. In view of the purpose of his presence over there, certainly he would not alone was present and some other his colleagues can also be expected. But he did not whisper anything that with whom he came to the said spot. Even the workers through whom he could affix the posters were also not referred to by him in his report

Ex.P.1 or in his evidence.

20. Be that as it may he did not whisper even the presence of his friend PW.2.

But all of sudden PW.2 was brought into existence by projecting him to be as eyewitness to the said incident. If PW.2 was really there at the time of incident,

PW.1 should have referred his name in his evidence by stating that he was also present along with him. Moreover PW.2 is not the employee of hotel of PW.1. on perusal of deposition of PW.2 he stated he got no avocation. So when PW.1 was engrossed with his official duties, where is necessity for PW.2 to be present along with PW.1. Moreover he categorically stated during his cross-examination that his residence is situated at a distance of 6kms from the scene of offence.

Therefore the presence of PW.2 at the scene does not seem to be probable at the time of alleged incident. In the given circumstances it cannot be ruled out to say that PW.2 is planted for the purpose of this case. Here it is another aspect is also to be looked into that had PW.2 really present at the time of incident along with

PW.1, the investigating agency could have not ignore him at the time of test identification parade and even through him also they would have get identified the accused in test identification parade. Therefore, when the investigating agency had chosen only PW.1 and omitted PW.2 securing for identification of accused at the time of test identification parade, gives rise to suspect the process of investigation.

21. Having said the another aspect is also to be examined that when all the accused are unknown persons to PW.1 where the accused said to have came behind PW.1 and taken away the gold-chain and in that scuffle which took place within fraction of seconds, how PW.1 could identify them is also be a question.

6 C.C. 616/2023 CMM Court/VSP However in the test identification parade PW.1 identified only A2 and he failed to identify A1. Unless there was some ruffle took place between both of them to have an opportunity for PW.1 to glance the accused for sometime, there is no possibility for him to identify the persons who have done the acts on his back.

Therefore the very identification of the accused before this court and the proceedings of test identification parade under Ex.P4 cannot put into service against the accused.

22.Further when this scene of offence is busy with mobility of vehicles and men, there is no chance for the accused to venture this kind of incident during broad day light. Naturally the chain snatchers would opt secluded places but not rush areas. Further admittedly no CC camera footage were secured by the investigating officer in connection with this incident despite available at the scene of offence which is one of the major dents to the prosecution case. Above all, on the next day of the incident itself the accused and another child in conflict with law happened to be present at the scene of offence itself is highly doubtful.

In this context it has to be referred the cross-examination of PW.1 where the significant information was elicited that the report was given under Ex.P1 after 4 days of the incident. It seems that the said incident took place on 11.10.2022 so

PW.1 might have given the said report on 15.10.2022. But the accused were arrested on 12.10.2022 in connection with this crime. As such everything is suspicious in this case and the case putforth by the prosecution is bristled with suspicion and the material aspects are being suppressed by them having regard of these things when PW.1 himself emphasized that he gave report Ex.p1 after 4 days of the incident, the registration of FIR and arrest of accused on 12.10.2022 and recovery of MO.1 from their possession in the presence of PW.3 does not lends credence. Thus it gives benefit of doubt to the accused.

23.Hence it can be said that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused for the offence u/s 382 IPC, consequently they are acquitted u/s 248(1)

Cr.P.C. for the said charged offence u/s 382 IPC.

7 C.C. 616/2023 CMM Court/VSP

24. In the result the Accused 1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence u/s 382 IPC and they are acquitted u/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A2 shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

A1 shall be released forthwith if he is not required in any other case. MO.1- gold chain (broken into pieces) returned to PW.1 as per orders in Crl.MP.No.492/2022, dt.31.10.2022 and the same shall be made absolute after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to Stenographer Gr-1, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me on this day the 21st day of November,2023.

Sd/- Ch.Yugandhar,

I Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, FAC/ Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Visakhapatnam.

: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

Names of witnesses examined

For Prosecution: For Accused:

P.W.1/04.05.2023 : M.Sureshbabu-NIL- P.W.2/02.08.2023 : K.Suhash P.W.3/11.08.2023 : Y.Shiva P.W.4/15.09.2023 : Sri B.Saikrishna P.W.5/15.11.2023 : T.Rukmangandara Rao

Documents marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P.1: Report of PW-1 to SHO, Arilova (Crimes) PS, VSP, dt.11.10.2022 Ex.P.2: Mediators report dt.12.10.2022 Ex.P.3: Covering letter, dt.5.11.2022 Ex.P.4: Test identification proceedings, dt.05.11.2022 Ex.P.5: FIR, dt.11.10.2022 Ex.P6: Rough sketch

For Accused:

NIL

Material objects marked

MO.1 – Gold chain (broken into pieces)

Sd/- Ch.Yugandhar,

I Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, FAC/ Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam 8 C.C. 616/2023 CMM Court/VSP

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, VISAKHAPATNAM.

C.C.No.616/2023

DATE OF

Apprehen-Commen-Sentence OffenceFilingRelease sion ofcement ofClose of Trialor on Bail AccusedTrial06 Order 010204 030507 11.10.202220.12.2022--A1 is in jail04.05.202317.11.202321.11.2023 A2 is on bail

Complainant:

State represented by its Sub-Inspector of Police, Arilova (Crimes) Police Station, Visakhapatnam city.

Name and description of accused:

1. Bandi Satish, S/o Bandi Mani, 20 yrs, SC Mala by caste, R/o back side of Raviteja bar and restaurant, Jodugullapalem, Visakhapatnam city

2. Mylapalli Satish, S/o Dasubabu, 19 yrs, Vadabalija by caste, R/o D.No.1-88, Suzuki Showroom back side, Jodugullapalem, Visakhapatnam city

Offence: U/Sec. 382 IPC

Finding: Accused are found not guilty.

Result: In the result the Accused 1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence u/s 382 IPC and they are acquitted u/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A2 shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437-A of Cr.P.C. A1 shall be released forthwith if he is not required in any other case. MO.1- gold chain (broken into pieces) returned to PW.1 as per orders in Crl.MP.No.492/2022, dt.31.10.2022 and the same shall be made absolute after expiry of appeal time.

Explanation for delay and remarks: The police did not produce the witnesses from time to time, hence the delay occurred.

This case was taken on file against the accused for the offence punishable

U/Sec.382 and 411 IPC on 04.02.2023. After receipt of summons, A2 appeared and A1 was produced from Central Prison, Visakhapatnam before this court and copies of the documents furnished to accused. Accused were examined under 9 C.C. 616/2023 CMM Court/VSP section 239 Cr.P.C and framed charge for the offence punishable under Section 382 IPC against them and read over said charges and explained to them in

Telugu language for which Accused denied the same, pleaded ‘not guilty’ and claimed to be tried. PWs 1 to 5 were examined and got marked Exs.P1 to 6 and

MO.1. On behalf of defence none were examined and do documents were marked. Accused were examined u/sec.313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the evidence of prosecution witnesses for which they denied and reported no defence evidence.

Heard both side arguments on 17.11.2023 and the Judgment has been

pronounced on 21.11.2023.

Sd/- Ch.Yugandhar,

I ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

FAC/ CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

1 C.C. 2894/2023 CMM Court/VSP

IN THE COURT OF THE CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present:- Sri Ch. Yugandhar,

I Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

FAC/ Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

Visakhapatnam.

Friday the 3 rd day of November, 2023

C.C.No.2894/2023

Between:

The State represented by the Sub-inspector of police, I town police station, Visakhapatnam city ….Complainant And: Pankaj Kumar Yadav @ Pankaj Yadav, S/o Narasinga Yadav, Yadava by caste, R/o Tewtha village, Bangra post, Siwan District, Bihar State ….Accused

This case is coming on 03.11.2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned A.P.P. for complainant and Sri S.Srinivas, legal aid counsel for Accused andthe same having been stood over for consideration till this day and this Court delivered the following :-

J U D G M E N T

1.This is the case filed against the Accused in Cr.No.307/2022 for the offence u/s 379 or 411 IPC of I town police station, Visakhapatnam city.

2.The case of the prosecution as per the contents of the charge sheet are that PW.1 being student in Andhra Medical College and staying in P.G. Men’s

Hostel as he got motorcycle MO.1 i.e., Royal Enfild bearing registered No.AP 39

EJ 0565 parked inside of K.G. Hospital C.S.R. Parking block on 15.10.2022 at 6.30 p.m. and subsequently it was found missed. On that he gave a report to police, I town police station on 18.10.2022 at 6.00 p.m. under Ex.P1 to take necessary action against the Accused.

3.On the strength of Ex.P1 report the Inspector of police by name

L.Revathamma/LW.10 registered a case in crime No.307/2022 under Section 379

IPC and endorsed the investigation to Sub-inspector/PW.4 who examined the witnesses, visited scene of offence which is the premises of CSR Parking area,

K.G. Hospital, Visakhapatnam and drafting the scene observation report and prepared the rough sketch under Ex.P7 and has also examined some of the witnesses over there. Later he received information that the Accused was 2 C.C. 2894/2023 CMM Court/VSP apprehended by Gajuwaka police in Cr.No.230/2023 for the offence u/s 379 IPC and recovered stolen property from his possession and further the disclosure statement of the Accused depicts that he has also involved in this crime event.

On that he got produced the Accused before this court on execution of PT warrant and later he took the Accused for police custody as per orders of this court in Crl.MP.206/2023, dt.25.5.2023. During police custody the Accused voluntarily confessed where he kept MO.1 and he led the police party and mediators to the house bearing Dr.No.17-20-10/13, Suryanarayanapuram,

Pedagantyada which is house of the cousin of Accused where MO.1 had been seized at the instance of Accused under cover of mediators report and further some other stolen vehicles were also recovered at the instance of Accused at

Malkapuram area in the presence of mediators PW.2 and LW.6/P.Santosh under cover of Ex.P4. After completion of police custody again remanded him to judicial custody. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offence u/s 379 IPC.

4.The case was taken on file for the offence punishable under Sec.379 or 411 IPC against the accused.

5.Pursuant to the summons, after marking the appearance of accused

before this court, the copies of case documents were furnished to him as

required U/sec.207 Cr.P.C.

6.The accused was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. and framed charge for the offence punishable under Section 379 or 411 IPC against him and read over said charge and explained to him for which he denied the same, pleaded ‘not guilty’ and claimed to be tried.

7.The prosecution has examined the witnesses P.Ws.1 to 4 and got Exs.P1 to

P.7 and MO.1 marked on its behalf.On behalf of accused although no witnesses were examined and no documents marked.

8.After closure of evidence on behalf of prosecution, accused was examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating circumstances found from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which, accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

3 C.C. 2894/2023 CMM Court/VSP

9.Heard the arguments of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor and Learned

Counsel for defence.

10.Now the point for determination is that :

“Whether the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the

Accused for the offence punishable under section 379 or

411 IPC beyond reasonable doubt?”

POINT :

11.During trial, on behalf of the prosecution P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined. PW.1 is owner of MO.1. He stated that on 15.10.2022 at 06.00 P.M. he parked the said vehicle MO.1 at A.M.C. Men’s hostel and subsequently he found missed. On that he gave report to police under Ex.P1. Later the police informed him that the said vehicle was traced out. On his identification the said vehicle which is produced

before this court is marked as MO.1.

12.In view of the evidence of PW.1 it shows that he is not the direct witness for the alleged theft and he did not whisper anything against the accused.

Moreover PW.2 and PW.3 are the mediators and PW.4 is the investigating officer.

Therefore in the light of evidence let in by the prosecution absolutely there is no evidence to show that the Accused had taken away the said motorcycle MO.1 from scene of offence area. As there is no direct evidence showing overt acts of the Accused, commission of theft of MO.1 there cannot be fastened with offence u/s 379 IPC.

13.Now it has to be seen whether the alternative offence u/s 411 IPC can be connected to the Accused. In this regard the evidence of PW.2 to PW.4 assumes much significance. PW.2 is the mediator in whose presence MO.1 motorcycle was seized by the police at the instance of Accused. According to him on 27.5.2023 at 11.00 a.m. he was called to I town police station. There he found the Accused in the custody of the police and in pursuance of the confession made by the Accused, they were led by the accused to Suryanarayanapuram,

Pedagantyada and on reaching to the house of one Ravi Kumar who claimed to be friend of Accused, there they found three motorcycles on the road side in front of the said house, and at the instance of accused, the police had seized the three motorcycles namely Royal Enfield bearing No.AP 31 EJ 0565 i.e., MO.1 and 4 C.C. 2894/2023 CMM Court/VSP two other vehicles are Pulsar and Glamour vehicles under cover of mediators report Ex.P3 and Ex.P4.

14.PW.3 is another mediator who was present at the time of seizure of one motorcycle from the possession of Accused by Gajuwaka police under Ex.P5. In fact Pwl.3 has nothing to do with MO.1. However his evidence dissembler that at first instance when Gajuwaka police arrested him, he confessed that even pertaining to this crime. As such it is the basis for PW.4 to bring him before this court on execution of PT warrant.

15.PW.4 the investigating officer also categorically stated that after obtaining police custody orders when the Accused was enquired at his instance, MO.1 was seized from the area Suryanarayanapuram, Pedagantyada. In fact during cross- examination of PW.2 and PW.4 nothing was elicited to disbelieve their evidence.

PW.2 evidence is very much corroborating with the evidence of investigating officer in respect of seizure of MO.1 at the instance of Accused and moreover only after taking the Accused into police custody MO.1 was traced out. As such certainly it can be said that the Accused got possession of stolen property and he is also having knowledge with regard to the nature of the property. Therefore the offence u/s 411 IPC can be attracted against the Accused. Moreover, unless having knowledge that where he kept the stolen property, there is no possibility for him to took the police and the mediators to that area and shown the stolen vehicles. Further the said stolen vehicles were found nearer to the house of cousin of Accused. As such the case of the prosecution is fit to the circumstances probablising that the Accused got possession of stolen property.

Although the confession which made by Accused in the presence of police is not admissible and hit by Sec.25 of Indian Evidence Act, the recovery portion under

Exs.P3 and P4 certainly availed for the prosecution to press into service against the Accused.

16.Though there is a delay of 3 days in reporting of Ex.P1 that would not cause prejudice to the Accused. since it is not the defence of the Accused that no theft was taken place and the Accused is stranger to PW.1 and there is a little chance for PW.1 to make the Accused in false case. In the absence of any 5 C.C. 2894/2023 CMM Court/VSP enmity or animosity pleaded on behalf of the Accused, the question of delay in reporting the matter under Ex.P1 to police does not give any benefit for him to escape from liability. Further the Accused is admittedly belongs to Bihar State and he is not belongs to Andhra Pradesh. So the investigating officer had taken the assistance of translator at the time of recording the statement of Accused.

There is no necessity for the translator to be added as one of the witnesses in the case. Further there is no any provisions mandate for the investigating agency to get videography at the time of recovery in theft cases. So the investigating officer cannot be blameworthy for non-recording of videography of the alleged recovery to take place at Pedagantyada and Malkapuram area. Thus it can be said that nothing worthy was elicited from the cross-examination of

PW.2 to PW.4 by the Accused and the evidence of PW.2 to PW.4 inspired confidence and there are no attending circumstances to discard their evidence in any manner. Hence in the circumstances it can be said that the prosecution though failed to prove the offence u/s 379 IPC, has succeeded in proving the offence u/s 411 IPC against the Accused.

17.In the result the Accused is found not guilty for the offence u/s 379 IPC and he is acquitted u/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. However the Accused is found guilty for the offence u/s 411 IPC and consequently he is convicted u/s 248(2) Cr.P.C. for the said charged offence u/s 411 IPC.

Dictated to Stenographer Gr-1, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me on this day the 3rd day of November,2023.

I Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, FAC/ Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Visakhapatnam.

03.11.2023

Hearing on quantum of sentence:

18)On hearing the quantum of sentence, the accused stated that he got wife and two minor children and if he continued in jail, they will become destitute and prayed to take lenient view. On perusal of record and in view of the circumstances of the case though lenient view cannot be taken and the benefit 6 C.C. 2894/2023 CMM Court/VSP of provisions of P.O. Act cannot be extended to the Accused. However in view of his languishing in jail since 24.05.2023 this court is of the considered opinion that imposing of simple imprisonment for six months will meet the ends of justice apart from fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only).

19.Accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) in default of payment of fine, Accused shall under simple imprisonment for two months for the offence u/s 411 IPC. The remand period from 24.05.2023 to till date shall be given set off u/s 428 Cr.P.C. MO.1 returned to PW.1 as per orders in Crl.MP.No.505/2023, dt.20.10.2023 and the same is made absolute.

Free copy of judgment shall be furnished to the Accused forthwith. The accused is informed of his right of appeal and right of free legal aid.

Sd/- Ch.Yugandhar,

I Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, FAC/ Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Visakhapatnam.

: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

Names of witnesses examined

For Prosecution: For Accused:

P.W.1/20.10.2023 : G.Dhanunjayarao-NIL- P.W.2/25.10.2023 : V.Venkata Ramanareddy P.W.3/03.11.2023 : P.Niranjan P.W.4/03.11.2023 : P.Srinivasarao

Documents marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P.1: Report of PW-1 to SHO, I town PS, VSP, dt.18.10.2022 Ex.P.2: Scene observation report Ex.P.3: Relevant portion of leading to discovery portion in mediators report Ex.P.4: Recovery of three vehicles under cover of mediators report dt.27.5.2023 Ex.P.5: Relevant portion of seizure of said motorcycle in mediators report Ex.P.6 : FIR, dt.18.10.2022 Ex.P7 : Rough sketch, dt.18.10.2022

For Accused:

NIL 7 C.C. 2894/2023 CMM Court/VSP

Material objects marked

MO.1 - Royal Enfild bearing registered No.AP 39 EJ 0565

Sd/- Ch.Yugandhar,

I Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, FAC/ Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam 8 C.C. 2894/2023 CMM Court/VSP

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, VISAKHAPATNAM.

C.C.No.2894/2023

DATE OF

Apprehen-Commen-Sentence OffenceFilingRelease sion ofcement ofClose of Trialor on Bail AccusedTrial06 Order 010204 030507 15.10.202221.07.202304.08.2023in jail20.10.202303.11.202303.11.2023

Complainant:

State represented by its Sub-Inspector of Police, I town Police Station, Visakhapatnam city.

Name and description of accused:

Pankaj Kumar Yadav @ Pankaj Yadav, S/o Narasinga Yadav, Yadava by caste, R/o Tewtha village, Bangra post, Siwan District, Bihar State

Offence: U/Sec. 379 or 411 IPC

Finding: Accused is found guilty.

Result: In the result the Accused is found not guilty for the offence u/s 379 IPC and he is acquitted u/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. However the Accused is found guilty for the offence u/s 411 IPC and consequently he is convicted u/s 248(2) Cr.P.C. for the said charged offence u/s 411 IPC. Accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) in default of payment of fine, Accused shall under simple imprisonment for two months for the offence u/s 411 IPC. The remand period from 24.05.2023 to till date shall be given set off u/s 428 Cr.P.C. MO.1 returned to PW.1 as per orders in Crl.MP.No.505/2023, dt.20.10.2023 and the same is made absolute. Free copy of judgment shall be furnished to the Accused forthwith. The accused is informed of his right of appeal and right of free legal aid.

Explanation for delay and remarks: The police did not produce the witnesses from time to time, hence the delay occurred.

This case was taken on file against the accused for the offence punishable

U/Sec.379 or 411 IPC on 25.07.2023. After receipt of summons, accused wsa 9 C.C. 2894/2023 CMM Court/VSP produced before this court and copies of the documents furnished to accused on 10.08.2023. Accused was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C and framed charge for the offence punishable under Section 379 or 411 IPC against him and read over said charges and explained to him for which Accused denied the same, pleaded ‘not guilty’ and claimed to be tried. PWs 1 to 4 were examined and got marked Exs.P1 to 7 and MO.1. On behalf of defence none were examined and no documents were marked. Accused was examined u/sec.313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the evidence of prosecution witnesses for which he denied and reported no defence evidence. Heard both side arguments on 03.11.2023 and the Judgment has been pronounced.

Sd/- Ch.Yugandhar,

I ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

FAC/ CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

1CC 1374/2023 I ACMMC/VSP

IN THE COURT OF I AD-DL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM

PRESENT: Sri Ch. YUGANDHAR

I ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

-VISAKHAPATNAM

Wednesday, this the 3rd day of April, 2024

Calendar Case No.1374/2023

Between :

State represented by its Sub-Inspector of Police, Women Police Station, Visakhapatnam City. … Complainant

And

1. Gorli Rambabu, S/o Mutyala Naidu, aged 32 years, R/o D.No.1-59, Kasipuram Main Steet, Devarapalli, Visakhapatnam

2. Gorli Ramayamma, W/o Mutyala Naidu, 58 years, R/o D.No.1-59, Kasipuram Main Steet, Devarapalli, Visakhapatnam

3. Mathala Rajula Naidu, S/o Demudu, 45 years, R/o D.No.1-71, Kasipuram Main Steet, Devarapalli, Visakhapatnam

4. Mathala Dali Naidu, S/o Demudu, 33 years, R/o D.No.1-72, Kasipuram Main Steet, Devarapalli, Visakhapatnam … Accused

This case is coming on 20.03.2024 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for state and of Sri.S.V.Ramana

Advocate for Accused Nos.1 to 3 and upon hearing both sides and having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Women Police Station, Visakhapatnam City filed charge sheet in Cr.No.294/2022 against the accused for the offence u/sec.498-A IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of DP Act.

2CC 1374/2023 I ACMMC/VSP

2)The case of the prosecution as per the Charge sheet is that marriage of

PW.1 is performed with A.1 on 08.12.2021 in the presence of elders by giving dowry of Rs.10,00,000/-. 1 ½ tula gold, one scoot, Active 6G, Rs.1,00,000/- sarisaman on demand apart from spending Rs.1,00,000/- towards marriage expenses by securing loan from IIFL Home Loans an amount of

Rs.14,00,000/-, upon which A.1 gave Rs.10,00,000/- towards advance to a new house at Isukathota and the house is on her name and A.1 is working as

Welfare Secretary in Sachivalayam at Madhurawada, 42nd ward, after marriage she joined A.1 at her in-laws house, on the first night itself, A.1 behaved weird with her, on questioning, he beat and abused her and warned that she should pretend as if having physical relation and A.1 behaved in the same way for the next two days and later herself and A.1 went to her parents house to attend duty, at that time A.1 harassed her stating she brought less dowry and demanded her to bring additional dowry, TV , Fridge and to purchase a car, then she expressed her inability, then A.1 stated to sell the house on her name and give money to him so that he can start finance business and when LW.3/Vanapalli Kameswari (mother of PW.1) got heart stroke, A.1 stated that she is acting and left from there stating her to come along with additional dowry; that on 08.01.2022 negotiations held at the village of A.1 before elders, at that time A.1 to A.4 stated to sell the house on her name and give money to A.1 on that the village elders gave counsel and subsequently A.1 and PW.1 lived in a rented house at Car shed, during which time A.2 to A.4 used to make phone calls to A.1, saying 3CC 1374/2023 I ACMMC/VSP fallacious words about her and instigated him to demand additional dowry, listening the same A.1 subjected her to cruelty both physically and mentally, when she went to her in-laws house for Sankranti Festival, at that time A.1 and A.2 of demanded her to bring additional dowry or else threatened to kill, due to fear she came to her parents house and later called A1 but he did not respond, then on 05.03.2022 she along with her parents attended for negotiations before elders at that time A.1 to A.4 stated to give her salary of

Rs.40,000/- every month, a car and sarisamans and also stated to attend for duty from Kasipuram, they she stated that it is difficult for her to attend for duties by traveling 80 kms, but A.1 did not listen and as the A.1 not interested in physical relation, she asked A.1 to consult a Doctor for which

A.1 beat and abused her, though A.1 was given counseling by elders and

Police, there is no change in you behaviour thereby, all accused subjected her to cruelty by way of ill-treating her and harassed her both mentally and physically. Thus, due to unbearable harassment, PW.1 is constrained to lodge complaint.

3)Basing on the report of PW-1, LW-7/Smt.U.Rupavathi, Sub-Inspector of

Police, Women Police Station, Visakhapatnam City registered the same as case in Crime No.294/2022 under Section 498-A IPC and Secs.3 & 4 of DP Act and took up investigation. During course of investigation, she visited scene of offence, examined as many as six witnesses and served 41-A Cr.P.C notices on the accused on execution of bonds they were instructed to appear before the Court and and when they were summoned and after 4CC 1374/2023 I ACMMC/VSP completion of investigation filed charge sheet against the accused.

4)This case was taken on file for the offence punishable U/section 498-A of IPC and Secs.3 & 4 of DP Act against accused.

5)Accused appeared before this court, necessary copies of case documents were supplied to them as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

6)Accused are examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C. and framed the charges for the offences punishable U/Sec.498-A IPC and Secs.3 & 4 of DP Act against them, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7) The prosecution got examined PW-1 alone and got marked Ex.P.1 signature on the report and Ex.P.2 is earlier statement of PW.1 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The remaining evidence of witnesses has been given up by Asst.

Public Prosecutor. As no purpose would be served even examining the

Investigation Officer (Lw.7), hence her evidence was closed by this court.

Consequently, examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was dispensed with as there is no incriminating evidence found in the evidence of PW-1.

8) Heard both sides.

9) The point that arises for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the Accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.498-A I.P.C. and Sec.3 & 4 of DP Act beyond reasonable doubt or not” ?

P O I N T:

10)P.W.1/Vanapalli Revathi, deposed that on 08.12.2021, her marriage was performed with A.1 as per Hindu rites and caste custom. After the 5CC 1374/2023 I ACMMC/VSP marriage she joined her husband/accused No.1 and lived together for about one week. Later some misunderstandings took place between them and they placed the matter before the elders. At the time of mediation her signature was obtained, which is appearing on the report dated 04.06.2022 is marked as Ex.P.1. However she elaborated that it was affixed by her at the instance of elders. Except that she did not speak anything against the accused, as she did not support the case of prosecution, she was treated as hostile by prosecution and examined in cross, but nothing was elicited.

Except, PW-1 no other witnesses were examined on behalf of prosecution.

11)On perusal of evidence of PW-1, there is no incriminating material elicited against the accused. The remaining material witnesses were given up the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor. In the above circumstances, there is no positive evidence on behalf of prosecution to show that PW.1 was subjected to harassment physically and mentally, on demand of dowry by the accused. In such circumstances, it can be said that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilty of accused for the charged offences beyond reasonable doubt.

12)In the result, accused Nos.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the charged offence punishable U/Sec.498-A Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 & 4 of DP

Act and consequently, accused Nos.1 to 4 are acquitted U/s.248 (1) Cr.P.C.

for the said charges. The bail bonds of accused Nos.1 to 3 shall be in force 6CC 1374/2023 I ACMMC/VSP for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437-A of Cr.P.C. A.4 shall be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other case.

Typed to my dictation directly on computer by the Stenographer of this court, corrected and pronounced by me on this the 3rd day of April,2024

Sd/-

I ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

VISAKHAPATNAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For ProsecutionFor Defence

P.W.1 : Vanapalli Revathi -NIL-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For ProsecutionFor Defence

Ex.P.1 : Report filed PW.1 Nil

Ex.P.2 : U/sec 161 CrPC statement of P.W.1.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

Nil

Sd/-

I ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

VISAKHAPATNAM

7CC 1374/2023 I ACMMC/VSP

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF I ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM

C.C.No.1374/2023

DATE OF

ApprehensiCommenSentence Release Close of OffenceFilingon ofcement ofor on BailTrial AccusedTrial Order 01020304050607 Prior to27.09.2022__20.03.202420.03.202403.04.2024 04.06.2022

Complainant:

State represented by its Sub-Inspector of Police, Women Police Station, Visakhapatnam City.

Name and description of accused:

1. Gorli Rambabu, S/o Mutyala Naidu, aged 32 years, R/o D.No.1-59, Kasipuram Main Steet, Devarapalli, Visakhapatnam

2. Gorli Ramayamma, W/o Mutyala Naidu, 58 years, R/o D.No.1-59, Kasipuram Main Steet, Devarapalli, Visakhapatnam

3. Mathala Rajula Naidu, S/o Demudu, 45 years, R/o D.No.1-71, Kasipuram Main Steet, Devarapalli, Visakhapatnam

4. Mathala Dali Naidu, S/o Demudu, 33 years, R/o D.No.1-72, Kasipuram Main Steet, Devarapalli, Visakhapatnam

Offence: U/Sec. 498-A IPC and Sec. 3 & 4 of DP Act

Finding: Accused are found not guilty

Result: In the result, accused Nos.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the charged offence punishable U/Sec.498-A Indian Penal Code and

Sections 3 & 4 of DP Act and consequently, accused Nos.1 to 4 are acquitted U/s.248 (1) Cr.P.C. for the said charges. The bail bonds of accused Nos.1 to 3 shall be in force for a period of six months as 8CC 1374/2023 I ACMMC/VSP contemplated under section 437-A of Cr.P.C. A.4 shall be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other case.

Explanation for delay and remarks:

The police did not produce the witnesses from time to time, hence the delay occurred.

This case was taken on file against accused for the charged offences punishable U/Sec.498-A I.P.C and Sections 3 & 4 of DP Act on 15.12.2022.

Accused appeared before this court, necessary copies of case documents were supplied to them as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. and they were examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C. and framed the charges for the offences punishable U/Sec.498-A IPC and Secs.3 & 4 of DP Act against them, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, PW-1 was examined on 20.03.2024 and got marked Exs.P1 and P.2 and the remaining witnesses were given up by learned APP as the material witness PW-1 did not support to the case of prosecution and turned hostile. In such circumstances, no purpose would be served in the event of examining the Investigation

Officers, hence their evidence is closed; consequently, examination under

Sec.313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with as there is no incriminating material found against the evidence of P.W.1. Heard both sides arguments on 20.03.2024.

On 03.04.2024 Judgment has been pronounced.

Sd/-

I ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

VISAKHAPATNAM

1 C.C. 2910/2023 CMM Court/VSP

IN THE COURT OF THE CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present:- Sri Ch. Yugandhar,

I Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

FAC/ Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

Visakhapatnam.

Friday the 3 rd day of November, 2023

C.C.No.2910/2023

Between:

The State represented by the Sub-inspector of police, I town police station, Visakhapatnam city ….Complainant And:

1. Saligrama Ravi @ Falaknama, S/o Nagaraju, 22 yrs, Kapu by caste, R/o D.No.27-15-12, Kallupakalu, Visakhapatnam

2. Amara Jagadesh @ Boggu, S/o Parasuram, 25 yrs, Vadabalija by caste, R/o Pandupullala Sandhu, near Poorna Market, Visakhapatnam

3. Kundri Rajesh, S/o Naidu @ Nageswararao, 22 yrs, Settibalija by caste, R/o scrap shop, near Kallipakalu, Visakhapatnam

4. Kundri Manohar, S/o Naidu @ Nageswararao, 20 yrs, Settibalija by caste, R/o scrap shop, near Kallipakalu, Visakhapatnam

5. Kona Pydiraju, S/o late Appanna, 53 yrs, Reddika by caste,R/oBiyanagara,Thotagaruvu,Arilova, Visakhapatnam ….Accused

This case is coming on 03.11.2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned A.P.P. for complainant and Sri K.Sobhan Babu and Sri S.Balakrishna, Advocates for Accused andthe same having been stood over for consideration till this day and this Court delivered the following :-

J U D G M E N T

1.This is the case filed against the Accused in Cr.No.72/2023 for the offences u/s 457, 380, 427 or 411 IPC of I town police station, Visakhapatnam city.

2.The case of the prosecution as per the contents of the charge sheet are that on 29.5.2023 at about 7.00 a.m. PW.1 being Health Assistant in GVMC in

Indira Priyadarshini Municipal Stadium found that the office doors were broken and committed theft of two plastic drums, one iron drum and drainage spray pumps all worth of Rs.15,000/-. On that he gave report under Ex.P1.

3.On the strength of Ex.P1 report the Inspector of police by name

L.Revathamma/LW.8 registered a case in crime No.72/2023 under Section 457 2 C.C. 2910/2023 CMM Court/VSP and 380 IPC and endorsed the investigation to Sub-inspector/PW.4 who examined the witnesses, recorded the statements of all the witnesses, visited scene of offence and drafted rough sketch. Thereafter on reliable information the

Accused 1 to 5 were apprehended and on their confession, the said plastic drums, iron drums and drainage spray pumps were recovered from them in the presence of mediators PW.2 and PW.3 under cover of mediators report. Then he effected the arrest of all the Accused and sent them for judicial custody. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offences u/s 457, 380, 427 in alternative u/s 411 IPC.

4.The case was taken on file for the offence punishable under Sec.457, 380 or 411 IPC against the accused.

5.Pursuant to the summons, after marking the appearance of accused

before this court, the copies of case documents were furnished to them as

required U/sec.207 Cr.P.C.

6.The accused were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. and framed charges for the offences punishable under Sections 457, 380 or 411 IPC against them and read over said charges and explained to them in Telugu language for which they denied the same, pleaded ‘not guilty’ and claimed to be tried.

7.The prosecution has examined the witnesses P.Ws.1 to 4 and got Exs.P1 to

P.9 and MO.1 to MO.3 marked on its behalf.On behalf of accused although no witnesses were examined and no documents marked.

8.After closure of evidence on behalf of prosecution, accused were examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating circumstances found from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which, accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

9.Heard the arguments of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor and Learned

Counsel for defence.

10.Now the point for determination is that :

“Whether the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the

Accused for the offences punishable under sections 457, 380 or

411 IPC beyond reasonable doubt?” 3 C.C. 2910/2023 CMM Court/VSP POINT :

11.During trial, on behalf of the prosecution P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined. PW.1 is the first informant who happened to see about the broken doors of their office and on further verification, he realized MO.1 to MO.3 were found missing. As such he has come to a conclusion that some unknown offenders gained entry into their office and committed theft of MO.1 to MO.3. On that he gave report to police under Ex.P1.

12.It is relevant to note that PW.2 to PW.4 are the mediators and investigating officer. Therefore in view of the evidence adduced by the witnesses it can be said that absolutely there is no evidence to show that the Accused gained entry into the office of PW.1 and committed theft. None of the witnesses stated anything against any one of the accused that they have witnessed while they were entering into the office of PW.1 and carrying out MO.1 to MO.3. As such the offence u/s 457 and 380 IPC cannot be made applicable to the accused in any manner.

13.Now it has to be seen the alternative charge u/s 411 IPC whether the same can be connected to the Accused or not. In this regard the evidence of

PW.2, PW.3 who are the mediators their evidence assumes much significance.

But both of them did not support the case of prosecution or the claim of the investigating officer and they turned hostile to the prosecution. Therefore the evidence of PW.4 investigating officer is alone available on the record.

14.Now it has to be seen whether the evidence of investigating officer PW.4 alone is sufficient to implicate the Accused for the offence u/s 411 IPC. Although

PW.4 stated that on credible information A3, A4 were arrested at about 11.00 a.m. on 2.6.2023 and subsequently on the same day A1 and A2 were arrested at 1.00 p.m. and on their confession he seized MO.1 to MO.3. But the place of arrest of Accused was not stated by him where he actually arrested the Accused and how the mediators were secured. So in the circumstances the evidence of

PW.4 is found to be weak to press into service against the Accused to implicate them even for the offence u/s 411 IPC. moreover, there is no sufficient evidence to show that the Accused has enough knowledge that MO.1 to MO.3 are stolen 4 C.C. 2910/2023 CMM Court/VSP property. Hence it can be said that even alternatively charge u/s 411 IPC has not been proved sufficiently against the Accused. Thus it can be said that the prosecution has failed to prove the offences u/s 457, 380 and 411 IPC beyond reasonable doubt against A1 to A5.

15.In the result, the A1 to A5 are found not guilty for the offences u/s 457, 380 and 411 IPC and consequently they are acquitted u/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. for the said charges. The bail bonds of accused 2 to 5 shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437-A of Cr.P.C. MO.1 to MO.3 returned to PW.1 as per orders of this court dt.29.08.2023. Hence the same is made absolute. A1 shall be set at liberty if he is not required in any other cases.

Dictated to Stenographer Gr-1, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me on this day the 3rd day of November,2023.

Sd/- Ch.Yugandhar

I Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, FAC/ Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Visakhapatnam.

: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

Names of witnesses examined

For Prosecution: For Accused:

P.W.1/29.08.2023 : N.Ramesh Kumar-NIL- P.W.2/05.09.2023 : B.Polarao P.W.3/03.11.2023 : U.Sanyasirao P.W.4/03.11.2023 : P.Srinivasarao

Documents marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P.1: Report of PW-1 to SHO, I town PS, VSP, dt.1.06.2023 Ex.P.2: Photographs of stolen property Ex.P.3: Signature of PW.2 in mediators report, dt.2.6.2023 at 11.00 a.m. Ex.P.4: Signature of PW.2 in mediators report, dt.2.6.2023 at 01.00 p.m. Ex.P.5: Signature of PW.3 in mediators report, dt.2.6.2023 at 11.00 a.m. Ex.P.6 : Signature of PW.3 in mediators report, dt.2.6.2023 at 01.00 p.m. Ex.P7 : FIR, dt.1.6.2023 Ex.P8 : Rough sketch Ex.P9 : Relevant portion of recovery of MO.1 and MO.3 from possession of accused 5 C.C. 2910/2023 CMM Court/VSP

For Accused:

NIL

Material objects marked

MO.1 - Iron drum MO.2 – Two plastic drums MO.3 – Two spray machines

Sd/- Ch.Yugandhar

I Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, FAC/ Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam 6 C.C. 2910/2023 CMM Court/VSP

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, VISAKHAPATNAM.

C.C.No.2910/2023

DATE OF

Apprehen-Commen-Sentence OffenceFilingRelease sion ofcement ofClose of Trialor on Bail AccusedTrial06 Order 010204 030507 29.05.202321.07.202328.07.2023A1 is in jail29.08.202303.11.202303.11.2023 A2 to A5 are on bail

Complainant:

State represented by its Sub-Inspector of Police, I town Police Station, Visakhapatnam city.

Name and description of accused:

1. Saligrama Ravi @ Falaknama, S/o Nagaraju, 22 yrs, Kapu by caste, R/o D.No.27-15-12, Kallupakalu, Visakhapatnam

2. Amara Jagadesh @ Boggu, S/o Parasuram, 25 yrs, Vadabalija by caste, R/o Pandupullala Sandhu, near Poorna Market, Visakhapatnam

3. Kundri Rajesh, S/o Naidu @ Nageswararao, 22 yrs, Settibalija by caste, R/o scrap shop, near Kallipakalu, Visakhapatnam

4. Kundri Manohar, S/o Naidu @ Nageswararao, 20 yrs, Settibalija by caste, R/o scrap shop, near Kallipakalu, Visakhapatnam

5. Kona Pydiraju, S/o late Appanna, 53 yrs, Reddika by caste,R/oBiyanagara,Thotagaruvu,Arilova, Visakhapatnam

Offence: U/Sec. 457, 380 or 411 IPC

Finding: Accused 1 to 5 are found not guilty.

Result: In the result, the A1 to A5 are found not guilty for the offences u/s 457, 380 and 411 IPC and consequently they are acquitted u/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. for the said charges. The bail bonds of accused 1 to 5 shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437-A of Cr.P.C.. MO.1 to MO.3 returned to PW.1 as per orders of this court dt.29.08.2023. Hence the same is made absolute. A1 shall be set at liberty if he is not required in any other cases.

Explanation for delay and remarks: The police did not produce the witnesses from time to time, hence the delay occurred.

7 C.C. 2910/2023 CMM Court/VSP

This case was taken on file against the accused for the offences punishable U/Sec.457, 380 or 411 IPC on 27.07.2023. After receipt of summons, accused were produced before this court and copies of the documents furnished to accused on 14.08.2023. Accused were examined under section 239 Cr.P.C and framed charges for the offences punishable under Sections 457, 380 or 411 IPC against them and read over said charges and explained to them for which

Accused denied the same, pleaded ‘not guilty’ and claimed to be tried. PWs 1 to 4 were examined and got marked Exs.P1 to 9 and MO.1 to MO.3. On behalf of defence none were examined and no documents were marked. Accused were examined u/sec.313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the evidence of prosecution witnesses for which they denied and reported no defence evidence. Heard both side arguments on 03.11.2023 and the Judgment has been pronounced.

Sd/- Ch.Yugandhar

I ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

FAC/ CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.