Smt. Challa Janaki

I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur

II Additional District Judge Court, Proddatur (Taluka) · Kadapa · Andhra Pradesh

Smt. Challa Janaki, I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur, is posted at II Additional District Judge Court, Proddatur (Taluka), Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh, India. 1,593 court orders on record since 2016. 27 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, STC, PRC cases.

1,593

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

CC/200552/2017 Acquitted

Sub Inspector of Police, Proddatur II Town P.S. vs Kothapalli Khasim Peera @ Gulli

10 Aug 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS: PRODDATUR

Present: Smt. Challa Janaki.,

II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Proddatur

Friday, this the 10th day of August, 2018

C.C.No. 552 of 2017

State: Represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Proddatur II Town Police Station in Cr.Nos.82/2017 and 83/2017.

….Complainant

Vs.

Kothapalli Khasin Peera@Gulli S/o Ibrahim, aged about 24 years, D.No.03/10, B.C.Colony, Khajipeta Village and Mandal, Kadapa District.

….Accused

This case coming on 07.08.2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of

Sri G.Rajesh Reddy Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration till the evening, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of police, Proddatur II Town Police Station filed charge sheet in Cr.Nos. 82 / 2017 and 83/2017 against the accused for the offence punishable under section 420, 379 or 411 of IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that :

On two different dates.09.06.2017 07.05.2017 and different places one unknown offender came to L.W.1/Majjari Narayanamma and

L.W.3/K.Eswaramma and introduced himself as an employee in Municipal office, Proddatur and promised to provide Old age pension to their if they accompany him. Believing the words of the person L.W.1 and L.W.3 followed him. To said gullible words and take take L.W.1 and L.W.3 for taking

Photograph to the said bank and stated that one another woman was also want old age pension she taking photograph. And he asked their one photograph 2 without gold ornaments the scheme is only poor and old people. Then he asked their to remove gold ornaments and take a photographs. Then they believing the words of the unknown person give to him their gold ornaments and went into the bank then he fled away with the ornaments. Hence, the charge sheet.

3. This Court took cognizance against the accused for the offence punishable under section 420, 379 or 411 of IPC against the accused.

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents are furnished to them as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. The accused was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. charges were framed for the offence under section 420, 379 or 411 of IPC against the accused, its contents were explained to the accused in Telugu and hindi language, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed the case to be tried.

6. To prove the case, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and Ex.P1 to

Ex.P9 and M.O.1 and M.O.2 were marked. The learned A.P.P given up the evidence of Majjari Narasimhulu (L.W 2), K.Bramhaiah Achari (L.W 4),

K.Khaleel Basha (LW 6).

7.After the closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined u/sec. 313, Cr.P.C. and the incriminating material spelt out by the prosecution witnesses was put to them, they denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

8.Heard both sides and perused the record.

9.The learned APP submitted that the prosecution proved the case against U/Sec. 420, 379 or 411 of IPC on examining PW 1 to PW 8 Hence requested the court to convict the accused according to law.

10.The learned counsel for the accused submitted his arguments that the prosecution did not establish any of the ingredients of offence U/Sec. 420, 379 or 411 of IPC as well. He further submitted that the prosecution failed to prove the offence beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence, accused is entitled for acquittal.

11.Now the point for consideration is :

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable u/sec. 420, 379 or 411 of IPC beyond reasonable doubts?”

POINT :

12.As per the evidence of PW 1 before this court she deposed that On one year on one day at about 2.00 pm when she along with her husband present in the house the accused here in came to their house and asked about whether he was receiving old pension or not. She replied that she has applied for old age pension but it was not sanctioned. The accused asked her to show her Aadhar card. she has shown the same to the accused then the accused called on phone to some body and asked about her pension by saying her name and the accused told her that after ten minutes the accused will get the information. After ten minutes again the accused talked in the phone to somebody and told her that she was sanctioned with old age pension and the accused asked her to come along with the accused to receive the pension book.

Then she went along with the accused on the accused motor cycle. The 4 accused took her to the bank in the House board. Then the accused asked her to give you her thalibottu chain and gold ring by saying if any body inspect the accused her old age pension would not be sanctioned. Then she gave her thalibottu chain weighing of 2.50 thulas and gold ring weighing 0.50 thulas to give to the accused. Then the accused went away from there saying the accused would come back within short time. she has waited for the accused for half an hour and she returned to home and informed to same to her husband and her son. On the next day they went to police station and gave complaint to the police. After few months she got the got gold chain through the Court. She do not remember she has identified her chain prior to taking custody from the court. Ex.P1 is complaint. MO.1 is gold chain.

13.PW.2 deposed before this court in his chief examination that on one year back she along with K.Bramaiah Achari boarded R.T.C bus to go

Brahmamgari mattom mean while the accused make a interaction with them and asked about their village name and also informed the accused village name and later asked about the old age pension of them, she informed that already she has old age pension but her husband LW.4 K.Brahmaiah Achari not having old age pension and the accused asked whether LW.4 applied old age pension she informed that so many time they applied but not sanctioned. The accused informed her that the accused will arrange old age pension to LW.4 Brahmaiah achari mean while the accused gave assured that the accused will arrange old age pension to LW.4 Brahmaiah Achari. L.W.4 believed the words of the accused and get down from bus near Mallepalli village, there after they return to proddatur in one auto and the accused taken them also in one street in

Proddatur made them to wait there. And informed that in upstari one madam is there she is going to check so that they handed over gold ornaments of Gold chain weighing of 2.50 thulas she handed over the weighing of 2.50 thulas.

They returned within few minutes, stay they found the accused was escape and then they returned to their house after four days they lodged complaint in II

Town P.S. After consulting of their relatives. Police examined her. The witness identified the accused in the court. She did not identify her chain any where

before taking custody from the court. Ex.P2 is complaint given by the PW.2

and MO.2 is Gold chain.

14.PW.3 deposed before this court in his chief examination that On 05.07.2017 at about 11.45 am when she was present in the MRO office I Town constable came to their office and requested her to attend as mediator in one case and then she asked permission her M.R.O and she went to I Town police station at 12.00 noon. By that time LW.6 was present in the police station. I

Town S.I requested her to act as panchayadars as they have received credible information regarding the accused. Then the S.I and other police staff left the

P.S. In police jeep and she left the P.S. On her scooty. They reached

Rameswaram by pass road, R.T.P.P Cross road at 12.30 pm. After some time they found the accused was coming on motor cycle from Jammalamadugu side on seeing police party the accused tried to escape. Then police staff caught hold the accused and the I Town S.I interrogated the accused. Then the accused stated that the accused cheated the women by saying he will get pension for them and received the gold ornaments and the accused got pledged those ornaments through one Nassam Beebi and received the money illegally.

Later the accused let to the house of Nassam Beebi in Achari colony. They police obtained Manapuram gold loan receipts from Nassam Beebi and seized motor bike from the accused and from there they went to Manapuram gold loan and there after showing the receipts the Manapuram gold loan people shown the gold ornaments and the police seized the gold ornaments including MO.1 and MO.2 and arrested the accused Under cover of panchanama. She along 6 with LW.6 and other police staff signed in panchanama. Police obtained the signature of the accused in panchanama. Ex.P3 is certified copy of panchanama dated 05.07.2017.

15.PW.4 deposed before this court in his chief examination that On 10.06.2017 at about 6.00 pm when he was present in the police station PW.2

Kandukuru Eswaramma along with LW.4 Brahamaiah came to police station and gave oral report. It is was reduced into writing and case was registered on the strength of Ex.P2 in Cr.No. 83/2017 U/Sec.420, and 379 IPC and submitted all the FIR copies to all the concerned officers. He has examined PW.

2 and LW.4 in the police station only and recorded their statements. At 7.00 pm he proceeded to scene of offence i.e., in Vengala reddy peta and prepared rough sketch. Further investigation was done by their superiors Ex.P4 is FIR,

Ex.P5 is rough sketch in Cr.No.83/2017.

16.P.W.5 deposed before this court in his chief examination that On 10.06.2017 at about 5.00 pm when he was present in the police station PW.1 along with LW.2 Narasimhulu came to police station and gave written report.

The case was registered on the strength of Ex.P1 in Cr.No. 82/2017 U/Sec.420, and 379 IPC and submitted all the FIR copies to all the concerned officers. He has examined PW. 1 and LW 2 in the police station only and recorded their statements. At 6.00 pm he proceeded to scene of offence i.e., in Near

Andhrapragathi Bank in housing board colony and prepared rough sketch and examined one R.Balaramudu and recorded statement. Further investigation was done by their superiors Ex.P6 is FIR, Ex.P7 is rough sketch in

Cr.No.82/2017.

17.P.W.6 deposed before this court in his chief examination that On 05.07.2017 at about 12.00 PM he received a credible information regarding movements of the accused when he secured mediators P.W.3, L.W.6/Khalil

Basha. The he along with the mediators and his staff left the P.S in their police jeep at 12.30 PM and proceeded to R.T.P.P cross road on Jammalamadugu by pass road and reached there at 12.45 PM. There they started conducting vehicle checking then one person was coming on motorcycle from

Jammalamadugu side an he on seeing them tried to skulk away by taking “U” turn. Then his staff caught hold the accused brought to him. Ten he inquired the accused in the presence of mediators. The accused revealed his identity particulars and further stated that he cheated several old aged womens in various places near Venkaga Reddy peta in proddatur and housing board colony of II Town P.S limits and Rameswaram road etc., of I town P.S limits and taken away their gold ornaments by promising them to provide old age pension.

On inquiry the accused took out a plastic cover from the accused trousers packet which contents gold ornaments and stated that those on the ornaments stolen by the accused from the above said women. Then he secured the electronic weighting machine and he measured the weight of above said gold ornaments. The Thalibottu sarudu is weighing of 34.830 grams, another

Thalibottu sarudu is weighing of 24.820 grams. He weighed the other gold ornaments also. He ascertain the details of Cr.No.82/2017 and 83/2017 through the S.I of Police II town P.S. Proddatur. And came to know that this two Thalibottu chains are regarding the above said crimes. Then he has arrested the accused and seized all the gold ornaments including the M.O.1 and M.O.2 and Bajaj Pulsar motorcycle on which the accused was traveling under cover of Ex.P3 panchanama. He has signed on Ex.P3 along with the mediators and other staff and he obtained signature of the accused in Ex.P3 8 and returned to the police station along with the accused and seized properties.

He has produced the accused before the Court for remand. Later he has handed over the M.O.1 and M.O.2 (Thalibottu chains to L.W.11,

Madhumalleswara Reddy/S.I of Police II Town P.S.

18.P.W.7 deposed before the court in his chief examination that On he do not know anything about this case. He never conducted identification parade of property regarding this case. On his personal work he went to the police station there police obtained his signature on some papers he do not know the contents. Ex.P8 is signature on panchanama dated.06.07.2017 and

Ex.P9 signature of panchanama dated.06.07.2017. Then he has turned hostile.

19.P.W.8 deposed before this court in his chief examination that On he has produced the accused before this Court on 19.07.2017 on execution of

P.T warrant. He has verified the previous investigation and found it in correct lines and he filed charge sheet.

20.P.W.1 categorically deposed that the accused herein came to her house and he took her Thalibottu chain and Gold ring weighing about 0.50 tulas. But in the cross examination she clearly admitted that in the

Ex.P1/Complaint it is not mentioned that she lost her Gold ring also. Ex.P1 also reveals that it is not mentioned in that P.W.1 lost her ring also. P.W.1 further admitted that Ex. P1 /complaint was written by her son to her dictation and she do not know what was written in Ex.P1/Complaint. Basing on this statement a suspicion will araise regarding the case of prosecution. Further more, it is observed that the incident was took place at 2.00 PM on 09.06.2017 and the complaint was given by P.W.1 to the police on the next day.

The delay in giving the report to the police was not explained by the 9 complainant or the prosecution either during the evidence or on the record.

P.W.1 clearly admitted in the cross examination that she did not mention Ex.P1 and did not state to the police that she could identify the accused when ever she see him. And it is observed that in Ex.P1 and in the 161 Cr.P.C statement of the P.W.1 that she did not mention anywhere that she can identify the accused and she did not mention about the physical features of the accused.

21.Coming to another crime i.e., regarding P.W.2, she also in the cross examination admitted that she did not say to the police about the physical features of the accused and that she can identify the accused when ever she see him. It is observed that after the arrest of the accused the investigation agency did not conduct any identification parade with the help of the complainants P.W.1 and P.W2. In view of the absence of the physical features in Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 and identification parade it can not be relied up on the identification of the accused by the witness.

22.Further more, P.W.3 is the VRO/mediator said to be participated in the arrest and seizure of M.O.1 and M.O2 and other properties. She deposed that the accused confessed to the police before her that he cheated the women and received the Gold ornaments and he got pledge those ornaments through one Nassam Beebi and she further deposed that he lead to the house of Nassam

Beebi where police obtained gold load receipts and from there they went to

Manapuram Gold loan and police seized Gold ornaments including M.O.1 and

M.O.2 in the Manapuram Gold loan company under cover of panchanama. But where as P.W.6 who is said to be the officer conducted the arrest and seizure of

M.O.1 and M.O.2 and other properties has categorically deposed that the accused took out a plastic cover from his trousers pocket which contains Gold ornaments and the accused stated that those ornaments were stolen from the 10

Old woman and P.W.6 further deposed that he secured electric weighing machine and measured the weights of Gold ornaments. This is the major contradiction existing between the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.7 that is as per

P.W.3 the material M.O.1 and M.O.2 were seized from Manapuram Gold Loan persons but where as M.O.1 and M.O.2 were seized from the pocket of the accused at R.T.P.P cross road of Jamalamaddugu bypass road. And P.W.3 is silant in her evidence regarding the securing weighing machine and measuring the weights of gold ornaments. In view of the above major contradiction the reliability and trust worthiness of the prosecution witnesses i.e., P.W.3 and

P.W.6 were thrown in to suspicion.

23.The evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.5 were run in the lines of registering the crime and examination of some witnesses and preparing rough sketch etc.,

Coming to the evidence iof P.W.7 he deposed that he never conducted identification parade of properties regarding this case and his signature in property identification panchanama were marked as in Ex.P8. But as per the prosecution case P.W.7 has conducted test of identification parade of M.O.1 and M.O.2 with the help of P.W.1 and P.W.2 but P.W.1 did not support the prosecution version.

24.On considering the above discussion, facts, circumstances, fatal flaws and major dispencies of this case this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal as the benefit of doubt shoud go in favour of the accused.

In the result, the accused is not found guilty for the offences u/Sec. 420, 379 or 411 of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted u/Sec. 248 (1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months 11 as contemplated under section 437A of Cr.P.C. MO.1 the property in CPR No.

227 2017 dated.26.07.2017 returned to PW 1 for her interim custody as per order of this court in Crl.MP.No.2166/2017 dated 25.10.2017. And M.O.2 the property in and CPR No. 92 2017 dated.21.09.2017 returned to P.W.2 for her interim custody as per order of this court in Crl.M.P.No.2057/2017 dated.15.09.2017 shall be retained with them and it shall be made absolute after the expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to my Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 10th day of August, 2018.

Sd/ Challa Janaki, II Addl.Judl. Magistrate

of I Class, Proddatur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined: For prosecution:For Defence: None PW.1: Smt Majjari Narayanamma PW.2: Smt Kandukuri Eswaramma PW.3: Smt M.Sumalatha PW.4: Sri S.Vasu PW.5: Sri S.Ibrahim PW.6: Sri B.Venkata Siva Reddy PW.7: Sri A.Dasthagiraiah PW.8: Sri A.Madhu Malleswara Reddy `

Exhibits marked: For prosecution: For Defence: Nil Ex.P1: Report of PW 1. Ex.P2: Complaint of P.W.2 Ex.P3: Certified copy Panchanama dated 05.07.2017. Ex.P4: F.I.R in Cr.No. 83/2017 of II Town P.S, Proddatur. Ex.P5: Rough sketch of the scene of offence. Ex.P6: F.I.R in Cr.Nos. 82/2017 of II Town P.S, Proddatur. Ex.P7: Rough sketch of the scene of offence. Ex.P8: Signature of P.W.7 Panchanama dated 06.07.2017 at 10.30 AM. Ex.P9: Signature of P.W.7 Panchanama dated 06.07.2017 at 04.00 PM

Material Objects Marked M.O.1: Piece of Gold chain. M.O.2 piece of Gold chain Id/ C.J.,

II A.J.F.C.M.

Proddatur. // True Copy //

II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Proddatur.

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS::

PRODDATUR

CALENDAR CASE IN C.C.NO. 552 of 2017

Date of offence: 09.06.2017 and 07.05.2017 Date of complaint: 10.06.2017 and 10.06.2017 Date of Taken on file: 06.11.2017 Date of arrest: 19.07.2017 Date of commencement of trial: 03.05.2018 Date of close of trial: 07.08.2018 Date of Judgment : 10.08.2018.

State: Represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Proddatur II Town Police Station in Cr.Nos.82/2017 and 83/2017.

….Complainant

Vs.

Kothapalli Khasin Peera@Gulli S/o Ibrahim, aged about 24 years, D.No.03/10, B.C.Colony, Khajipeta Village and Mandal, Kadapa District.

….Accused

Offence: u/Sec. 420, 379 or 411 of IPC.

Finding: The accused is not found guilty.

Sentence:In the result, the accused is not found guilty for the offences u/Sec. 420, 379 or 411 of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted u/Sec. 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months as contemplated under section 437A of Cr.P.C. MO.1 the property in CPR No. 227 2017 dated.26.07.2017 returned to PW 1 for her interim custody as per order of this court in

Crl.MP.No.2166/2017 dated 25.10.2017. And M.O.2 the property in and

CPR No. 92 2017 dated.21.09.2017 returned to P.W.2 for her interim custody as per order of this court in Crl.M.P.No.2057/2017 dated.15.09.2017 shall be retained with them and it shall be made absolute after the expiry of appeal time.

Sd/ Challa Janaki, II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I class, Proddatur.

Copy Submitted

To The Hon’ble I Additional District Judge. Kadapa.

// True copy //

II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Proddatur.

P.W.1 categorically deposed that th accused herein came to her house and he took her Thalibottu chain and Gold ring weighing about 0.50 tulas. But in the cross examination she clearly admitted that in the Ex.P1 complaint it is not mentioned that she lost her Gold ring also. Ex.P1 also revels that it is not mentioned that P.W.1 lost her ring also. P.W.1 further admitted that Ex. P1 /complaint was written by her son to her dictation and she do not know what was written in Ex.P1/Complaint. Basing on this statement a suspicion will araise regarding the case of prosecution. Further more, it is observed that the incident was took place at 2.00 PM on 09.06.2017 and the complaint was given by P.W.1 to the police on the next day. The delay in giving the report to the police was not explained by the complainant or the prosecution either during the evidence or on the record. P.W.1 clearly admited in the cross examination that she did not mentioned Ex.P1 did not stated to the police that she could identify the accused when ever she see. And it is observed in the4 Ex.P1 and in the 161 Cr.P.C statement of the P.W.1 that she did not mentioned any where that she can identify the accused and she did not mention about the physical features of the accused. Coming to the another crime i.e., regarding P.W.2 she also in the cross examination admitted that she did not say to the police about the physical features of the accused and that she can identify the accused when ever she sees. It is observed that after the arrest of the accused the investigation agency did not conducted any identification parade with the help of the complainants P.W.1 and P.W2 in view of the absence of the recording physical feature and identification parade it can not be relied up on the identification of the accused directly in the court hall by the witness.

Another aspect P.W.3 is the VRO/mediator said to bhe participated in the arrest and seizure of M.O.1 and M.O2 and other properties. She deposed that the accused confessed before her that he cheated the woman and received the Gold ornaments and he got pledge those ornaments through one Nsambee and he laid to the house of Nosambee where police obtained gold load receipts and from there they went to Manapuram Gold loan and seized Gold ornaments including M.O.1 and M.O.2 in the Manapuram Gold loan company under cover of panchanama bu where as P.W.6 who is said to be the conducted the arrest and seizure of M.O.1 and M.O.2 and other properties as categorically deposed that the accused took out a plastic cover from his trousers pocket which contains Gold ornaments and the accused stated that those ornaments were stolen from the Old woman and he further deposed that he secured electric weighing machine and measure the weights of Gold ornaments. This is the major contradictions existing evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.7 that is as per P.W.3 the material M.O.1 and M.O.2 were seized from Manapuram Gold Loan persons but where as M.O.1 and M.O.2 were seized from the pocket of the accused at RTPP cross road of Jamalamaddugu byepass road in view of the above major contradiction the reliability and trust worthiness of the prosecution witnesses i.e., P.W.3 and P.W.6 were thrown in to suspicion.

The evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.5 were run in the lines of registering the crime and examination of some witnesses under preparing rough sketch etc., Coming to the evidence iof P.W.7 he deposed that he never conducted identification parade of properties regarding of this case and his signature in 14 property identification panchanama were marked as in Ex.P8 buyt as per the prosecution case P.W.7 has conducted test of identification parade of M.O.1 and M.O.2 with the help of P.W.1 and P.W.2 but P.W.1 did not support the prosecution version.

On considering the above discussion, facts, circumstances and fatalflase and major dispensaries of this case this Court is at the opinion that the prosecution has failed to bring whom the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal as the benefit of suspicion shout go in favour of the accused.

1. P.W.1 is the person who said to be criminal law in to motion by the way of giving report to the police has deposed that one unknow person came to her and heatful words that unknown persson has taken her gold Chain and Gold ring worth of Rs.80,000/ and fled away she clearly deposed that she can not identify that offender P.W.2 is son of the P.W.1 and he deposed that he can not identify the offender and he witnessed the incident. P.W.3 and P.W.4 turned hostile.

It can be seen that no witness deposed against the accused and no witnessed identify the accused herein.

16 he do not know the accused he never seen to accused. on one day he wen to the police station on his personal work then police obtained his signature on some papers he do not know the contents. Ex.P3 is his signature in panchanama dated.01.07.2017. Then he has turned hostile.

CC/100009/2017 Acquitted

Sub-Inspector of Police, Proddatur Urban P.S. vs Mangapatnam Varapraad aliyas Prasad

27 Feb 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS: PRODDATUR

Present: Smt. Challa Janaki.,

II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Proddatur FAC I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Proddatur Wednesday, this the 27th day of February, 2019

C.C.No. 9 of 2017

State: Represented by the Inspector of Police, Proddatur Urban Circle in Cr.No. 84/2014. ….Complainant

Vs.

1. Mangapatnam Varaprasad @ Prasad, 41 years, S/o Kondanna, C/SC Mala, D.No.7/307, Prakash Nagar, Proddatur road, Yerraguntla Town.

2. Pandeeti Devaraju @ Deva, 33 years, S/o Pullaiah, C/SCMala, N/o Ranivanam, Yerraguntla, NOW R/o near Telugu Counseling Church, Bollavaram, Proddatur town.

3. Mothukuru Manohar, 43 years, S/o Muneiah, C/Thogata, Native of C.Rajupalem Village, Kamalapuram Mandal, NOW Guruvaiahthota, near Balaji School, Proddatur town.

4. Shaik Mahamed Noor @ Noor, 38 years, S/o Akria, C/Muslim, D.No.176404, Hasanabad, Hindupuram town, Ananthapuram District.

….Accused

This case coming on 25.02.2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of

Sri P. Raghunath Reddy, Advocate for the accused A1; and Sri S.Obulesu,

Advocate for the accused A2 and A4; and B. Obulesu, Legal Aid Counsel for the accused A3 and having stood over for consideration till the evening, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub Inspector of police, Proddatur III Town Police Station filed charge sheet in Cr.No. 84/2014 against the accused A1 to A4 for the offence punishable under section 379 or 411 of IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that :

On 12.05.2016 at about 09.00 PM, LW.1/A.Madhusudhan Reddy the owner of the lorry and LW.4/K.Venkateswara Reddy being the driver took the 2 lorry bearing Reg. No.AP29 T 9369 six tire parked the same in front of the BSNL

Office and locked the lorry went to their respective houses. LW.2, LW.3, LW.5 and LW.6 witnessed the same. On the same day night i.e., on 12/13.05.2014 in the intervening night some unknown offenders committed theft of the lorry parking in front of BSNL office by LW.1 and LW.4. During the investigation,

LW.14/CI, Yerraguntla arrested the A1 and another person on 06.04.2016 under cover of panchanama. Hence, the charge sheet.

3. This Court took cognizance against the accused for the offence punishable under section 379 or 411 of IPC against the accused A1 to A4.

4. On appearance of the accused A1 to A4, copies of documents are furnished to them as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. The accused A1 to A4 were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C.

charges were framed for the offence under section 379 or 411 of IPC against the accused A1 to A4, its contents were explained to the accused A1 to A4 in

Telugu language, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed the case to be tried.

6.On behalf of the prosecution, PW 1 to PW 12 were examined, Ex.P1 to Ex.P9.

7.After the closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused A1 to A4 were examined u/sec. 313, Cr.P.C. and the incriminating material spelt out by the prosecution witnesses was put to them, they denied the same and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

8.Heard both sides and perused the record.

9.The learned APP submitted that the prosecution proved the case against U/Sec. 379 or 411 of IPC on examining PW 1 to PW 6, PW.8 to PW.12.

Hence requested the court to convict the accused A1 to A4 according to law.

10.The learned counsel for the accused A1 to A4 submitted his arguments that the prosecution did not establish any of the ingredients of offence U/Sec. 379 or 411 of IPC as well. He further submitted that the prosecution failed to prove the offence beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence, accused A1 to A4 entitled for acquittal.

11.Now the point for consideration is :

“ Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable u/sec. 379 or 411 of IPC beyond reasonable doubts?”

POINT :

12. As per Ex.P1 which is a complaint preferred by PW1 on 23.05.2014,

PW.2 parked six tyres lorry bearing Reg. No. AP29T9369 near BSNL Office,

Buddayapalli, Proddatur town and went for his work and on 13.05.2014 at 04.30 AM, the said LW.4 called PW.1 over phone and informed him that the said lorry was missing and PW1 came to conclusion that some unknown offenders committed theft of his lorry.

13.As per the evidence of PW 1 Sri A. Madhusudhan Reddy before this court he deposed that on 12.05.2014, he handed over his said lorry to his driver i.e., said PW.2 for loading the cotton and on the same day, PW.2 informed him that he need his lorry for the next day also for some load and 4 then, he and PW.2 parked his said lorry near BSNL office, Buddayapalle,

Proddatur at about 09.00 PM and they returned to his house and on 13.05.2014 at about 4.30 AM, the said PW.2 called him over phone and informed him that his lorry was not found near the said parking place and then, he went to the said place and they searched for the same in the cities and towns of Vijayawada, Nandyal, Hyderabad, Banglore, but in vain and he opined that some unknown person committed theft of lorry and he went to III town police station, Proddatur and lodged his report/Ex.P1 before the police and the police examined him and recorded his statement and after two years from the date of Ex.P1, the police informed him about the recovery of lorry and he filed application and received the lorry for his interim custody from this court.

Today, he brought the said lorry.

14.PW.2 namely Sri K. Venkateswara Reddy has deposed that on 12.05.2014, he came to Proddatur town from Rajupalem village with the said lorry with load of cotton and he unloaded the cotton from the said lorry in

Srivari Cotton Mill, Mundy complex, Proddatur and he started unloading cotton at 03.00 PM and concluded by 7.00 PM and he called PW.1 and he came to the said cotton mill at the time of unloading and he parked the said lorry at about 9.00 PM, near BSNL office, Buddayapalle Village, Proddatur as the said lorry was engaged on the next day early hours and on the next day morning at about 4.00 AM, he went to the place of said parking to attend the engaged work of the said lorry and he found missing of said lorry and immediately, he called PW.1 over phone and informed the same and PW.1 came to the said parking place and they searched for the said lorry all over Proddatur town and thereafter, they searched for the said lorry in Nandyala, Hyderabad, Kurnool, Banglore, etc. but in vain and thereafter, PW.1 went to police station and lodged report and police examined him and recorded his statement.

15.PW.3 namely Sri C.Ashok, VRO has deposed that on 06.04.2016 at about 12.45 AM, while he was in his house, he received phone call from

Yerraguntla police by informing him that the Inspector of Police was calling him and immediately, he rushed to Yerraguntla police station and he reached

Yerraguntla police station at about 1.45 AM and the said LW.8 was in the said police station by the time he reached there and he met the Inspector of police by name Rajendra Prasad (LW.14) and the said LW.14 requested him and said

LW.8 to act as mediators and they accepted the same and thereafter, he along with said LW.8, the said LW.14 and other police people proceeded to

Yerraguntla junction road in two police jeeps and they reached the said place withing 5 minutes and the police started conducting vehicles check and at the time, two persons by names Varaprasad and Bala Obul Reddy were coming in one white colour TATA Sumo vehicle and the witness identified A1 as

Varaprasad and A3 as Bala Obul Reddy in the public court and then, A1 and

A3 got down from the TATA sumo vehicle and tried to run in suspicious manner by seeing the police party and the said LW.14 caught A1 and A3 with the assistance of his staff and then, the police staff produced A1 and A3 before him and said LW.14 and the LW.14 handed over A3 to his staff and enquired A1 in his presence and A1 revealed his identity particulars and A1 confessed to said

LW.14 that he committed thefts of lorry in Korrapadu road, Tipper in Mydukur road, Lorry in Jammalamadugu road and 4 lorries in 4 places in Yerrguntla and then, the aid LW.14 seized TATA sumo vehicle in his presence and arrested A1 and he cannot say the registration number of TATA sumo vehicle and A1 informed that he sold all the vehicles in Hindupur and he spent the amount for this expenses after he partitioned the sale amount for his expenses after he partitioned the sale amount with other three persons and thereafter, the said

LW.14 enquired A3 for which A3 confessed the same and then, the said LW.14 arrested A3 and the said LW.14 prepared confessed and seizure mediatornama 6 to that effect in his presence and obtained the signature of A1, A3, police staff, himself and said LW.8 on it and thereafter, he returned to his place.

16.PW.4 namely Sri D.G. Abdul Aziz has deposed that on one day about 2 years back, the accused A4 brought one lorry bearing registration

No.AP29T9369 and asked him to sell the said lorry and he asked him the vehicle records for which A4 informed him that the vehicle records are in his house and he informed him that the lorry cannot be sold without the original records and then, A4 informed him that the will bring the original vehicle records and kept the said lorry in his mechanic shed and went away and thereafter, the accused A4 never came to him and on one day about 1 ½ year back, the police of Yerraguntla police station came to him and informed him that the said lorry is a stolen property and enquired him why the lorry was in his mechanic shed and he narrated the above said facts to the said police and then, he handed over the said lorry to the said police and the said police taken away the said lorry from his mechanic shed and police examined him and recorded his statement.

17.PW.5 namely Sri G. Sambabu, VRO deposed that on 15.04.2016 at about 6.00 AM, he received phone call from Yerraguntla SI of police requested him to come to their police station and then, he went to Yerraguntal police station and nearly, 5 to 6 persons were in Yerraguntla police station and he requested him to act as mediator and he accepted the same and then, he along with said LW.10 and police people went to a place near RCM church, Proddatur – Jammalamadugu road, Proddatur town in the police jeep and the police caught 5 or 6 persons from that place as they tried to run in suspicious manner by seeing the police party and they took them to one person called Noor and the said 5 or 6 persons informed the police that they kept one lorry near 7 one Azeez and accordingly, the police prepared mediatornamas to that effect and then, he said LW.10 affixed his signatures on mediatornamas and thereafter, he returned to his village.

18.PW.6 namely Sri Shaik Mahaboob Shareef, VRA, deposed that on 15.04.2016 at about 5.00 AM, he received phone call from their VRO i.e., PW.5 and called him to come to Yerraguntla police station and the Inspector of police and SI of police of Yerraguntla police station requested him to act as mediators and he accepted the same and then, he along with Inspector of police, SI, four police constables and PW.5 proceeded to RCM church, Bollavaram, Proddatur town and they reached the said place at about 6.00 AM. At that place, he saw

A3 who is present in this curt along with A2 in suspicious manner and A2 and

A3 tried to run by seeing the police party and then, the Inspector of police enquired A2 and A3. A2 and A3 revealed their identity particulars and A2 and

A3 confessed to him that they committed the theft of lorry near RCM church,

Proddatur and taken to Hindupur for selling it and handed over it to one Aziz (PW.4) and thereafter, they returned and then, the police prepared confession mediatornama/Ex.P4. He along with the police party, PW.5 and both accused affixed their signatures on Ex.P4 and the police arrested A2 and A3 and thereafter, A2 and A3 lead them to Hindupur and taken them to PW.4 in

Hindupur auto nagar and the police seized the lorry from PW.4 and prepared property seizure mediatornama and thereafter, they returned to Yerraguntla town along with both accused and seized lorry.

19.PW.8 namely Sri G. Rajendra Prasad, Inspector police deposed that on 06.04.2016 at about 1.30 AM, he was conducting vehicles check near 4 roads junction at Yerraguntla town along with their S.I of police and two mediators i.e., PW.3 and PW.5 and on that day at about 1.55 AM, one TATA 8 sumo vehicle was proceeding towards Kadapa side from Proddatur and on seeing the police party, the said sumo vehicle and tried to run in suspicious manner and he caught them with the assistance of his staff and he enquired A1 and one Obul Reddy separately and they confessed to him about the commission of offences and he seized property from the possession of A1 and one Obul Reddy relating to Kadapa crime and thereafter, he prepared confession and seizure mediatornama/Ex.P2 and he obtained signatures of both mediators, A1 and Obul Reddy and his staff on Ex.P2 and A1 confessed to him about the commission of this case offence that he along with A2 and A3 committed theft of lorry near RCM church in Proddatur town in the second week of May and he arrested A1 and Obul Reddy in Yerraguntla police station crime and he produced A1 and Obul Reddy before Kamalapuram Court for remand on 15.04.2016 at about 6.00 AM, he arrested A2 and A3 near RCM church, Proddatur town and in the presence of mediators. A2 and A3 confessed to him about their commission of thefts in Proddatur, yerraguntla and Kadapa towns and he prepared confession mediatornama in the presence of mediators and he obtained signatures of said mediators and his staff and A2 and A3 on

Ex.P4, A1 to A3 committed theft of Six tyres lorry pertaining to this case and A2 informed him that he sold the said lorry to A4 of Hindupur town and thereafter,

A2 and A3 lead them to one DGA steel shop, Hindupur town of Anantapur

District and on 15.04.2016 at about 1.15 PM, they reached the said place and

PW.4 was present at that place and he informed him that A4 handed over this case lorry to him for selling purpose and he identified this case lorry bearing

Registration No.AP29T9369 by ascertaining from Inspector of police of

Proddatur urban circle and then, he seized the said lorry and prepared seizer mediatornama and he obtained signatures of A2, A3 and mediators and his staff on Ex.P5 and after completion of all formalities, he produced A2 and A3 9

before Kamalapuram Court, pertaining to Yerraguntla police station crime, for

remand and he handed over seized lorry to the Proddatur urban circle.

20.PW.9 namely Sri P. Mahesh, S.I deposed that on 23.05.2014 at about 11.30 AM, PW.1 came to police station and lodged report and he registered the case and he forwarded ex.P7 and its copies to all concerned authorities and he took up investigation in this case and he handed over the copy of Ex.P7 to Inspector of Police by name T.V.Satyanarayana (LW.16) for further investigation and on 13.04.2016 due to non availability of the said

LW.16, he filed a requisition before this court to issue P.T.warrant against A1 and A4.

21.PW.10 namely Sri E. Bala Swamy Reddy, Inspector of police, deposed that on 05.05.2016, he filed a requisition before this court for issuance of PT warrant against A2 and A3 and accordingly, on 05.05.2016, this court issued PT warrant against Af2 and A3 and on 10.05.2016, he produced the accused A2 and A3 before this court for remand on execution of P.T warrant and this court remanded the accused A2 and A3 for judicial custody and thereafter on 17.05.2016, he produced the accused A1 and A4 before this court for remand on execution of PT warrant and the court remanded the accused A1 and A4 for judicial custody and thereafter on 21.05.2016, he received this case property from Yerraguntla police station and kept the same in Proddatur III town police station and on 30.05.2016, he took A1 and A4 for police custody as per orders of this court and he secured the mediators i.e., PW.7 and chenna

Krishnaiah/LW.13 and he examined the accused A1 and A4 in the presence of mediators and the accused A1 and A4 confessed that they committed the theft of lorry related to this case and he recorded the mediatornama in the presence of said mediators to that effect and he obtained the signatures of both 10 mediators and A1 and A4 and he produced A1 and A4 before this court from their police custody and he visited the Hindupur town and he secured the presence of PW.4 and examined him and recorded his statement.

22.PW.11 namely Sri T.V. Satyanarayana, Inspector of Police, deposed that on 23.05.2014 at about 12.00 noon, he received Ex.P7/FIR from PW.9 and took up investigation and he examined PW.1 and recorded his statement and he went to the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch and after observing the scene of offence and then, he secured the presence of LW.2 and LW.3 and examined them by recording their statements and he went to the house of

PW.2, he examined him and recorded his statement, then, he returned to police station, he secured the presence of LW.5 to LW.7 and recorded their statements and further investigation was done by his successor.

23.PW.12 namely Sri Sudhakar Reddy, Inspector of police, deposed that he submitted the recovered lorry bearing No.AP29T9369 i.e., MO.1 before the court and after completion of investigation and after verification of previous investigation, he filed charge sheet.

PW.5, PW.6, PW.8 and PW.10 deposed before this court in their chief examination admitted that they did not issue any summons to both mediators requesting them to act as mediators.

24.Coming to the identification of the accused no witness deposed regarding the features or identity particulars of the accused PW1 is witness who spoke regarding the incident have no where deposed regarding the identification of the accused and he deposed some unknown offenders have stolen away his lorry. Coming to the evidence of the investigating officer PW10, 11 he deposed that the accused confessed regarding the theft committed by them lorry. Except this confession there is no evidence to prove the ingredients u/sec. 379 of IPC as the confession is hit by section 25 of Indian Evidence Act.

25. Coming to the evidence u/sec. 411 of IPC the prosecution has to prove that the stolen property was recovered from the possession of the accused herein. PW.8 deposed that he has arrested A1 and one Obula Reddy on 06.04.2016 at about 12.45 AM and recorded confession in the presence of mediators PW.3. Where as PW.3 deposed that in his presence two persons by names Varaprasad and Bala Obula Reddy were arrested by Investigating Officer and he identified A1 as Varaprasad and A3 as Obula Reddy. Hence the wrong identification by PW.3 in the open court is major fatal to the prosecution case.

26.Further another mediator for the alleged arrest of A2 and A3 deposed that 5 or 6 persons were arrested and they confessed regarding the theft and lead them to stolen property. This is also a contradiction to the evidence of PW.8 and PW.6.

27.Another aspect is, as per the prosecution, the accused kept the

MO.1/lorry in the mechanic shed of PW.4 and it was handed over by PW.4 to the police. As per the evidence of PW.4, the lorry was kept in his shed for nearly six months. But he deposed that he do not know the colour of the lorry which gives rise to the suspicion of prosecution version. Another aspect is PW.3 deposed in cross examination that he has signed in Ex.P2/Panchanama at five places. But on perused of Ex.P2, it is noticed that only one signature is affixed by PW.3 in Ex.P2.

28.Though the investigating agency has recovered the lorry of PW1, but it is not established by the prosecution that it was recovered from the possession of accused. Hence, the ingredients of offence u/sec. 411 of IPC are not established by the prosecution.

29.On considering above discussions, facts and circumstances this court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence, the accused A1 to A4 entitled for acquittal.

30.In the result, the accused A1 to A4 are not found guilty for the offence u/Sec. 379 or 411 of IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted u/Sec. 248 (1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused A1 to A4 shall be in force for a period of 6 months as contemplated under section 437A of Cr.P.C. MO.1, returned to

PW 1 for his interim custody as per orders of this court in Crl.MP.No.

3686/2016 dated 14.12.2016 shall be retained with him and it shall be made good after the expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by my Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 27th day of February, 2019.

Sd/ Challa Janaki, II Addl.Judl. Magistrate of I Class, FAC I Addl.Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Proddatur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined: For prosecution:For Defence: None PW.1: Sri A. Madhusudhan Reddy. PW.2: Sri K. Venkateswara Reddy. PW.3: Sri C. Ashok. PW.4: Sri D.G. Abdul Aziz. PW.5: Sri G. Sambabu. PW.6: Sri Shaik Mahaboob Shareef. PW.7: Sri G. Anjaneyulu. PW.8: Sri G. Rajendra Prasad. PW.9: Sri P. Mahesh. PW.10: Sri E. Bala Swamy Reddy. PW.11: Sri T.V. Satyanarayana. PW.12: Sri I. Sudhakar Reddy.

Exhibits marked: For prosecution: For Defence: Nil Ex.P1: Report. Ex.P2: Certified copy of confession and seizure mediatornama

dated 06.04.2016 at 02.30 AM.

Ex.P3: Certified copy of confession and seizure mediatornama

dated 06.04.2016 at 08.45 AM.

Ex.P4: Certified copy of confession and seizure mediatornama

dated 15.04.2016 at 06.00 AM.

Ex.P5: Certified copy of confession and seizure mediatornama

dated 15.04.2016 at 01.15 PM.

Ex.P6: Signature of PW7 on Mediatornama dated 30.05.2016. Ex.P7: F.I.R. in Cr.No.84/2014 of III Town Police Station, Proddatur. Ex.P8: Mediatornama dated 30.05.2016. Ex.P9: Rough Sketch.

Material Objects Marked M.O.1: One Lorry bearing Reg. No.AP29T9369.

Id/ C.J.,

II A.J.F.C.M.

FAC I A.J.F.C.M.

Proddatur. // True copy //

II Addl.Judl. Magistrate of I Class, FAC I Addl.Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Proddatur.

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS::

PRODDATUR

CALENDAR CASE IN C.C.NO. 9 of 2017

Date of offence: 12/13.05.2014 Date of complaint: 23.05.2014 Date of Taken on file: 18.01.2017 Date of arrest A1 and A4: 17.05.2016 A2 and A3:10.05.2016 Date of commencement of trial: 31.08.2017 Date of close of trial: 25.02.2019 Date of Judgment : 27.02.2019

State: Represented by the Inspector of Police, Proddatur Urban Circle in Cr.No. 84/2014. ….Complainant

Vs.

1. Mangapatnam Varaprasad @ Prasad, 41 years, S/o Kondanna, C/SC Mala, D.No.7/307, Prakash Nagar, Proddatur road, Yerraguntla Town.

2. Pandeeti Devaraju @ Deva, 33 years, S/o Pullaiah, C/SCMala, N/o Ranivanam, Yerraguntla, NOW R/o near Telugu Counseling Church, Bollavaram, Proddatur town.

3. Mothukuru Manohar, 43 years, S/o Muneiah, C/Thogata, Native of C.Rajupalem Village, Kamalapuram Mandal, NOW Guruvaiahthota, near Balaji School, Proddatur town.

4. Shaik Mahamed Noor @ Noor, 38 years, S/o Akria, C/Muslim, D.No.176404, Hasanabad, Hindupuram town, Ananthapuram District.

.Accused Offence: u/Sec. 379 or 411 of IPC.

Finding: The accused A1 to A4 are found not guilty.

Sentence: In the result, the accused A1 to A4 are not found guilty for the offence u/Sec. 379 or 411 of IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted u/Sec. 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused A1 to A4 shall be in force for a period of 6 months as contemplated under section 437A of Cr.P.C. MO.1, returned to PW 1 for his interim custody as per orders of this court in

Crl.MP.No. 3686/2016 dated 14.12.2016 shall be retained with him and it shall

be made good after the expiry of appeal time.

Sd/ Challa Janaki, II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I class, FAC I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I class, Proddatur. Copy Submitted: To the Hon’ble I Addl. District Judge, Kadapa. // True copy //

II Addl.Judl. Magistrate of I Class, FAC I Addl.Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Proddatur.

CC/200077/2016 Acquitted

S.I. of Rural P.S. vs Anumala Shoba

20 Mar 2020

1

C.C.No.77 of 2016 II AJFCM Court, Proddatur. Dt.20.03.2020.

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS: PRODDATUR

Present: Smt. Challa Janaki.,

II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Proddatur

Friday, this the 20th day of March, 2020

C.C.No.77 of 2016

State: Represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Proddatur Rural Police Station in Cr.No.298/2015.

….Complainant.

Anumala Shobha W/o Praad, age 31 years, Caste: Peddeeti Golla, R/o Ramanjaneyapuram at Poleramma Temple, Near Central Prison, Kadapa City.

….Accused.

This case coming on 12.03.2020 for final hearing before me in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri Sreeram Obulesu, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration till day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of police, Proddatur Rural Police Station filed charge sheet in Cr.No.298/2015 against the accused for the offences punishable under sections.380 or 411 of IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that :

That on 20.12.2015 morning L.W.1/G. Amareswari along with her family members went to FG function hall, Proddatur in order to attend the marriage function of L.W.2/C. Vijay Bhaskar Reddy'w nephew and

L.W.1 was kept some gold ornaments in her bag and went to function and on 19.12.2015 evening L.W.1 kept gold ornaments 1). One gold long chain

2

C.C.No.77 of 2016 II AJFCM Court, Proddatur. Dt.20.03.2020.

studded with green enamels weighing 5 tulas, 2). One gold necklace having dollar weighing about 2 1/2 tulas, 3). One pair of gold Jumkilu weighing about 1/2 tula and 4). One gold chain weighing about 1 tula which will be present by them to bride towards gift and L.W.1 wore another set of gold ornaments and taken photos in the function during night time and later night at about 09.00 PM L.W.1, L.W.3 and L.W.4/G. Amareswari,

G. Narayanamma and G. Suguna Devi and children were sat at dining hall and after completion of meals, L.W.1 returned and did not found the above gold jewels which are kept in the bag and L.W.1 enquired about the gold ornaments but in vain, some unknown offenders committed the theft of

L.W.1's gold ornaments. Hence, charge sheet. Basing on the complaint of

L.W.1/G. Amareswari., L.W.8/C. Chalapathi., SubInspector of Police.,

Proddatur Rural P.S registered a case U/sec.380 or 411 of IPC. After completion of investigation L.W.10/G. Obulesu., CircleInspector of Police.,

Proddatur Rural Circle filed charge sheet against the accused.

3. This Court took cognizance against the accused for the offence punishable under sections.380 or 411 of IPC against the accused.

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents are furnished to her as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. The accused was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. charges were framed for the offence under sections.380 or 411 of IPC against the accused, its contents were explained to the accused in Telugu language, for which, she pleaded not guilty and claimed the case to be tried.

6. To prove the case, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and Exs.P1 to Exs.P5 and M.Os.1 to M.Os.4 were marked.

3

C.C.No.77 of 2016 II AJFCM Court, Proddatur. Dt.20.03.2020.

7.After the closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined u/sec.313, Cr.P.C. and the incriminating material spelt out by the prosecution witnesses was put to her, she denied the same and reported no defence evidence on her behalf.

8.Heard both sides and perused the record.

9.The learned APP submitted that the prosecution proved the case against the accused under section.380 or 411 of IPC on examining

PW.1 to PW.8. Hence requested the court to convict the accused according to law.

10.The learned counsel for the accused submitted his arguments that the prosecution did not establish any of the ingredients of offence under section.380 or 411 of IPC as well. He further submitted that the prosecution failed to prove the offence beyond all reasonable doubts.

Hence, accused is entitled for acquittal.

11.Now the point for consideration is :

“Whether the prosecution has proved that the accused has dishonestly stolen the Gold ornaments/M.O.1 to M.O.4 from the possession of the defacto complainants without the knowledge and consent of the defacto complainant (or) The prosecution proved that the accused retained the M.O.1 to M.O.4/stolen property having knowledge that it is stolen property and where it was seized from the possession of accused?

POINT No.1:

12.P.W.1 Smt. G. Amareswari., deposed in her chief examination

before the Court that on 20.12.2015 they went to FG Function hall to

attend a marriage function of her relatives. She have kept her jewelery i.e., 1). One gold long chain weighing of five thulas, 2). One gold necklace

4

C.C.No.77 of 2016 II AJFCM Court, Proddatur. Dt.20.03.2020.

weighing of 2.50 thulas, 3). One pair of gold jumukilu weighing of 0.50 thulas, 4). One gold chain weighing of one thulas in her hand bag. While attending dinner she kept her hand bag adjacent to her chair and she went to wash of hand after completion of dinner. She return within minutes and she did not find the gold jewelery which were kept in his bag.

She have inquired about the gold ornaments but in vain. Some unknown persons has theft her gold ornaments. On the 21.12.2015 at 9.00 pm she preferred a written report to the Rural police under Ex.P.1. Later on 18.05.2016 Gopavaram VRO/LW.6 called her on phone and asked her to identify her ornaments. Then she went to the office of LW.6 in Gopavaram at 1.00 pm and she have identified her gold ornaments which were mingled with other gold ornaments in the presence of LW.6. Later she obtained her gold ornaments through the Court for interim custody, today she brought her gold ornaments to the court. MO.1 is one gold long chain weighing of five thulas, Mo.2 is one gold necklace weighing of 2.50 thulas,

MO.3 is one pair of gold jumikilu weighing of 0.50 thulas, MO.4 is one gold chain wighting of one thulas (after marking the objects the above gold jewelery was return to PW.1 by the Court). Police examined her.

13.P.W.2 Sri Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy., deposed before the Court in his chiefexamination that on 20.12.2015 they went to FG Function hall to attend a marriage function of his relatives. PW.1 have kept her jewelery i.e., 1. one gold long chain weighing of five thulas, 2. one gold necklace weighing of 2.50 thulas, 3. one pair of gold jumukilu weighing of 0.50 thulas, 4. one gold chain wighting of one thulas in her hand her bag.

While attending dinner PW.1 kept hand bag adjacent to chair and went

5

C.C.No.77 of 2016 II AJFCM Court, Proddatur. Dt.20.03.2020.

to wash hands after completion of dinner. she return within minutes and did not find the gold jewelery which were kept in hand bag. They have inquired about the gold ornaments but in vain. Some unknown persons has theft her gold ornaments. On the 21.12.2015 at 9.00 pm he along with PW.1 went to Rural P.S. And PW.1 preferred a written report to the

Rural police. Later PW.1 obtained gold ornaments through the Court for interim custody. Police examined him.

14.P.W.3 Sri B. Madhusudhan Rao., deposed before the Court in his chiefexamination that on 17.05.2016 at about 6.00 am he received phone from their Tahsildar and asked him to go to police station to act as mediators. Then he along with LW.7/Sudhakar Reddy went to police station. He along with police people went in police jeep and reached

Yerraguntla by pass road at 8.00 am. There they found an woman who is trying to hide something on her back. Then C.I. Sent a woman P.C. To caught hold her. Then that woman P.C. Brought that woman and produced before the C.I. The C.I. Interrogated her and she revealed her name and identity particulars as Shoba and she further stated that on 20.12.2015 she has stolen gold ornaments i.e., MO.1 to MO.4 from FG

Function hall in Proddatur. She further stated that on one day in 2015 she has stolen one purse from one lady near Anwar function hall and that purse contains Rs.10,000/ cash in the denomination of Rs.500 notes and two pairs of ear studs. She further stated that she has spent Rs.10,000/ and then she came to Proddatur town to sell that above said stolen properties. On search the police people found the above said gold ornaments in the bag of that lady. Then C.I. Arrested that woman and

6

C.C.No.77 of 2016 II AJFCM Court, Proddatur. Dt.20.03.2020.

seized all the above said articles including MO.1 to MO.4 under cover of panchanama in which he along with LW.7 and other police person have signed. The signature of that woman was obtained in panchanama. On 18.05.2016 at about 11.00 A.M, while he was present in his office one

Constable from Rural Police Station came to him and brought four gold ornaments i.e., one gold long chain, one gold Haaram with dollar, one pair of gold Jumkeelu and one gold chain and asked him to conduct test identification parade by the witness Amareswari/P.W.1. He secured similar items from one gold shop through his V.R.A and secured the presence of

P.W.1/Amareswari, through another V.R.A. He have mixed the gold ornaments brought by the Constable with the similar items and asked

P.W.1 to identify her gold ornaments. P.W.1 identified the gold ornaments brought by the Constable as her ornaments. Accordingly he prepared

Panchanama and he have sent back the gold ornaments to Rural police station through the constable under Ex.P.5.

15.P.W.4 Sri S. Nazeer Ahammed., deposed in his chief examination that on 20.12.2015 in the night he came to know through

PW.1 her gold ornaments which were kept in hand bag were stolen by some un known persons when the bag was kept beside her and she went for washing her hands. They all searched for the said gold ornaments but in vain. On the next day they preferred complaint to the police and recorded his statement.

16.P.W.5 Sri C. Chalapathi., SubInspector of Police., Proddatur

Rural P.S deposed before the Court in his chiefexamination that on 21.12.2015 at about 9.00 PM while he was present in the police station

7

C.C.No.77 of 2016 II AJFCM Court, Proddatur. Dt.20.03.2020.

PW.1 came to police station and preferred written report/Ex.P1 basing on which he registered a case in Cr.No.298/2015 U/Sec.380 of IPC and submitted FIR copies to all the concerned officers and LW.9 their C.I. Took up the investigation. On 17.05.2016, he have assisted LW.10 their C.I.

While arresting the accused and seizing the stolen property under cover of panchanama/Ex.P2. He have signed in Ex.P2. Ex.P3 is FIR.

17.P.W.6 Sri T.V. Sathyanarayana., Incharge CircleInspector of

Police., Proddatur Urban circle deposed before the Court in his chief examination that On 22.12.2015 at about 9.00 A.M he received the express F.I.R from the S.I of Proddtur Rural P.S as he was acting incharge of Proddatur Rural Circle on that day and he took up investigation in

Cr.No.298/2015. He reached the Taluka Police station from Urban circle office. He secured the presence of L.W.1 and examined her and recorded her statement. He proceeded to the scene of offence at F.G Function hall and drawn the rough sketch of scene of offence under Ex.P.4. At the scene of offence he have examined and recorded the statements of P.W.2,

L.W.3/Narayanamma, L.W.4/Suguna Devi, and P.W.4. The further investigation was done by L.W.10.

18.P.W.7 Sri G. Obulesu., CircleInspector of Police., Proddatur

Urban circle deposed before the Court in his chiefexamination that on 05.02.2016, he took up further investigation in Cr.No.298/2015. He made efforts to detect M.O criminal and alerted such parties. On 17.05.2016, while he was present in the Circle office, He received credible information regarding the accused. He secured the presence of mediators i.e., P.W.3 through P.C No.1400. He along with the mediator and staff left their P.S

8

C.C.No.77 of 2016 II AJFCM Court, Proddatur. Dt.20.03.2020.

and went to Yerraguntla Circle. There they found the accused and on seeing them she tried to conceal herself. They found one hand bag along with the accused. He have examined the accused in the presence of mediator. She revealed her name as Anumula Shobha, W/o Prasad, R/at

Ramanjaneyapuram, Kadapa. She further stated that she has committed theft in various places. She further stated the on 20.12.2015 she went to

F.G function hall and there she has stolen a hand bag of one lady attending the marriage function at the function hall. On search of the hand bag present with the accused they found one gold long chain, one gold Haram with dollar, one pair of gold Jumkeelu and another gold chain which were wrapped in a plastic cover and on enquiry he came to know about that those are concernedwith the Cr.No.298/2015 of Rural P.S. In another cover in the hand bag they found one pair of gold ear studs with red stones and another pair of gold ear studs with green stones and they came to know that those are concerned in Cr.No.80/2016 of Proddatur II

Town P.S. He have arrested the accused and seized the gold ornaments under cover of panchanama in the presence of mediators. He have obtained signatures of the accused, mediators and their staff. He have signed in it. They returned to the police station along with the accused and seized property. He have produced the accused before the Court for remand and he have sent the seized gold ornaments M.O.1 to M.O.4 for identification by the complainant. After completion of investigation he filed the charge sheet.

19.P.W.8 Sri M. Sudhakar Reddy., deposed in his chief examination before the Court that On 17.05.2016 the Proddatur Rural C.I

9

C.C.No.77 of 2016 II AJFCM Court, Proddatur. Dt.20.03.2020.

called him through a Constable to the Rural Police station. At about 7.30

A.M, he reached Proddatur Rural Police station. By that time P.W.3 was already present in the police station. Then C.I informed them about the information received by him and further requested them to act as mediators for which they both accepted and accompanied the police in police vehicles along with other staff and went to Yerraguntla circle in

Proddatur town. There they found the accused was skulking away on seeing the police personal. Then C.I instructed the staff to caught hold them. The Women Constables caught hold the accused and produced her

before the C.I. The C.I interrogated her in their presence, for which she

stated identity particulars and further stated that she had stolen gold jewelery in F.G function hall and near a bus stop at Anwar hall. She has shown the gold ornaments in a plastic cover which was kept in her hand bag. The gold ornaments are totally five items i.e., gold chains, gold ear studs etc., The C.I has seized the gold ornaments, recorded her statement in their presence under cover of panchanama/Ex.P.2 in which he have signed.

20.Regarding the offence U/sec.380 of IPc, as per the case of the prosecution there are no direct or eye witnesses. The Investigation Officer and the said mediators deposed that the accused has confessed before them that she has stolen gold ornaments in FG Function Hall. But the said confession was before the Investigation Officer/P.W.7 and as per

Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act the confession before the police officer is not admissible. Except this said confession, there is no other other material to say that the accused has committed the offence of theft of gold

10

C.C.No.77 of 2016 II AJFCM Court, Proddatur. Dt.20.03.2020.

ornaments in FG Function Hall. Further, the owner of the Function Hall has deposed that he came to know through P.W.1 that her gold ornaments which were kept in hand bag were stolen by some unknown persons during the marriage function. In the crossexamination, he admitted that there were CC cameras in their function hall and he did not handover the footage of CC cameras to the police. Here the latches of the investigating agency i.e., having not obtained the CC footage from the Cameras present in the said function hall is clearly leading to the failure of detecting the crime and failure to connect the accused with the crime. Thus the ingredients for the offence of theft are not at all established by the prosecution against the accused.

21.Regarding the offence U/sec.411 of IPC, the prosecution has to prove that the stolen properties were seized from the possession of the accused when the accused is having the knowledge regarding the stolen properties. Here the Investigation Officer/P.W.7 has deposed that on 17.05.2016 he received credible information regarding the accused, he secured the mediators, at yerraguntla they found the accused and further he deposed that on search of the hand bag of the accused, they found one gold chain, one gold haram, one pair of gold jumkilu and other ornaments, for which he arrested the accused and seized the gold ornaments under the cover of Panchanama in the presence of mediators. But the mediators/P.W.8 has deposed in the chiefexamination that the Circle

Inspector has seized the gold ornaments and the gold ornaments are totally five items, whereas in the crossexamination he deposed that he cannot say the description of seized gold ornaments that means he failed.

11

C.C.No.77 of 2016 II AJFCM Court, Proddatur. Dt.20.03.2020.

The case of the prosecution is totally about seizure of the stolen properties and that facum has to be corroborated by the mediator's evidence in detail.

But the mediator/P.W.8 failed to describe the seized gold ornaments that means he failed to describe seizure procedure in detail.

Furthermore, the Investigating Officer/P.W.7 has deposed clearly that he found one gold long chain, one gold haram with dollar, one pair of gold jumkilu and another gold chain which were wrapped in plastic cover and in another cover they found one pair of gold ear studs and another pair of gold ear studs with green stones and he seized all the properties in the presence of mediators that means the Investigation Officer has seized six items from the possession of the accused as per the version of the

Investigation Officer. But, the mediator has deposed in the chief examination that the gold ornaments are totally five items i.e., gold chain, gold ear studs etc which is totally contradiction to the version of the

Investigation Officer and basing on the said material contradiction, the factum of seizure cannot be considered to be proved beyond all reasonable doubts. The another mediator who was examined as P.W.3 deposed before this Court clearly that he do not know the accused and he cannot identify her, though he has deposed that he has accompanied the police while seizing the stolen properties from woman. In view of his failure to identify the accused, his evidence cannot be taken in to consideration to fasten the accused for any guilt. Thus the evidence of P.W.3 is not taken into consideration against the accused herein regarding the seizure of stolen properties. Thus the remaining witnesses i.e., P.W.7 and P.W.8 contradicted with one another regarding the number of stolen properties

12

C.C.No.77 of 2016 II AJFCM Court, Proddatur. Dt.20.03.2020.

seized and did not corroborate to each other. So, basing on their testimonies it cannot be considered that the offence U/sec.411 of IPC is proved. Thus the accused is entitled for acquittal, as the essential ingredients for the offence U/sec.411 of IPC are not established by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts.

22.On summing up of the total evidence, facts and circumstances and material on the record, it is held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused for the offence U/sec.380 of IPC or 411 of IPC. Thus the accused is entitled for acquittal.

23. In the result, the accused is not found guilty for the offences u/Sec.380 or 411 of IPC and accordingly, she is acquitted u/Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be inforce for a period of six months as contemplated U/sec.437A of Cr.P.C. M.O.1 to

M.O.4 in C.P.R.No.38/2016 dt.13.06.2016 were already given to P.W.1 and it shall hold good after expiry of appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 20th day of

March, 2020.

Sd/Challa Janaki/ II Addl.Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Proddatur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined: For prosecution: For Defence: None PW.1: G. Amareswari. PW.2: C. Vijayabhaskar Reddy. PW.3: B. Madhusudhan Rao. PW.4: S. Nazeer Ahammad. PW.5: C. Chalapathi. PW.6: T.V. Sathyanarayana. PW.7: G. Obulesu. PW.8: M. Sudhakar Reddy.

13

C.C.No.77 of 2016 II AJFCM Court, Proddatur. Dt.20.03.2020.

Exhibits marked: For prosecution: For Defence: Nil Ex.P1: Written report of P.W.1. Ex.P2: Panchanama dt.17.05.2016. Ex.P3: F.I.R Ex.P4: Rough sketch. Ex.P.5: Panchanama dt.18.05.2016. Material Objects Marked M.O.1: One gold long chain weighing of five thulas. M.O.2: One gold necklace weighing of 2.50 thulas. M.O.3: One pair of gold jumkilu weighing of 0.50 thulas. M.O.4: One gold chain weighing of one thulas.

Id/C.J/

II A.J.F.C.M.

Proddatur.

Copy submitted To the Hon'ble I Addl. District Judge, Kadapa. // True Copy //

II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Proddartur.

14

C.C.No.77 of 2016 II AJFCM Court, Proddatur. Dt.20.03.2020.

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS::

PRODDATUR

CALENDAR CASE IN C.C.No.77 of 2016

Date of offence: 20.12.2015. Date of complaint : 21.12.2015. Date of Taken on file: 25.06.2016 Date of arrest: 17.05.2016 Date of commencement of trial: 21.06.2018 Date of close of trial: 13.03.2020 Date of Judgment : 20.03.2020

State: Represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Proddatur Rural Police Station in Cr.No.298/2015.

….Complainant

Vs.

Anumala Shobha W/o Praad, age 31 years, Caste: Peddeeti Golla, R/o Ramanjaneyapuram at Poleramma Temple, Near Central Prison, Kadapa City. ….Accused.

Offence: U/Sec.380 or 411 of IPC.

Finding: The accused is found not found guilty.

Sentence: In the result, the accused is not found guilty for the offences u/Sec.380 or 411 of IPC and accordingly, she is acquitted u/Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be inforce for a period of six months as contemplated U/sec.437A of Cr.P.C. M.O.1 to M.O.4 in C.P.R.No.38/2016 dt.13.06.2016 were already given to P.W.1 and it shall hold good after expiry of appeal time is over.

Sd/Challa Janaki/ II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I class, Proddatur.

CC/100113/2018 Acquitted

SHO of I town police station vs Tudamaladinne Sujatha

28 Feb 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS: PRODDATUR

Present: Smt. Challa Janaki,

II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Proddatur FAC I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Proddatur

Thursday, this the 28th day of February, 2019.

C.C.No. 113 of 2018

State: Represented by the Inspector of Police, Proddatur I Town Police station in Cr.No. 66/2018. ….Complainant

Vs.

Tudamaladinne Sujatha, 26 years, W/o Subbarayudu, C/Mangali, D.No. 281991, Muniswamy temple, Rameswaram, Proddatur town.

.…Accused

This case coming before me on 27.02.2018 for final hearing in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and

Smt. M. Lakshmi Prasanna, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Inspector of Police, Proddatur I town police station filed charge sheet against the Accused for the offence punishable U/Sec. 457 and 380 or 411 of IPC relating to Cr.No. 66/2018 of Proddatur I Town P.S.

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

On 22.01.2018, the accused committed theft of gold ornaments from the house of V. Vijaya Lakshmi (LW.1) located in near Padmasali Kalyana

Mandapam, Rameswaram, Proddatur by brake opening the house. Later,

B.Venkata Siva Reddy, Inspector of Police (LW.11) registered the case and during investigation, he seized gold ornaments from the possession of accused in the presence of mediators. Hence, charge sheet.

3.The case has been taken on file for the offence punishable u/Sec.

457 and 380 or 411 of IPC against the Accused.

4. After the appearance of the accused, the copies of the documents as required U/Sec. 207, Cr.P.C. were furnished to her.

5.Accused was examined U/sec. 239, Cr.P.C. Charges were framed for the offence punishable U/s. 457 and 380 or 411 of IPC against the Accused, its contents were explained to her in Telugu language for which she denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. On behalf of the prosecution, PW.1 to PW.6 were examined and

Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 and M.O.1 to MO.9 were marked.

7. After the closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined u/sec. 313, Cr.P.C. and the incriminating material spelt out by the prosecution witnesses was put to her, she denied the same and reported no defence evidence on her behalf.

8. Heard the arguments of both parties.

9. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/s. 457 and 380 or 411 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

10. The learned Senior APP argued before this court that the acts of

Accused are clearly established with the evidence of PW 1 to PW 6 and Ex.P1 to 3

Ex.P5 and MO.1 to MO.9. She further argued that the confession of accused and seizure of MO.1 to MO.9 are clearly established from the evidence of PW.3 and the evidence of PW.3 completely supported the prosecution case. Therefore, the accused is liable for conviction.

11. The learned defense counsel argued before this court that the

Accused is innocent and never committed the alleged offence. She further argued that PW.3 is a stock witness for the police. She further argued that

Ex.P2 which is confession and seizure mediatornama is a computer printout and this itself speaks volumes. Therefore, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

12. Perused the record. Out of 11 list of witnesses, the prosecution got examined 6 list of witnesses. The Learned APP has given up the evidence of V.

Madhusudhan (LW.2), C. Kalavathi (LW.4), M. Sivashankar (LW.6), Smt. A.V.

Rajamani (LW.8) and K.Chinna Peddaiah (LW.10). PW.1 is the person who initiated this case with her report. PW.2 is husband of PW.1. PW.3 is mediator.

PW.4 is goldsmith. PW.5 is Head constable. PW.6 is Investigating Officer. Ex.P1 is report of PW.1. Ex.P2 is confession and seizure mediatornama. Ex.P3 is property identification mediatornama. Ex.P4 is FIR. Ex.P5 is rough sketch.

MO.1 to MO.9 are gold ornaments.

13. As this is the case U/Sec. 457 and 380 or 411 of IPC, the prosecution has to establish that the accused broke open the house of PW.1 and committed theft of MO.1 to MO.9 gold ornaments or PW 6 seized MO.1 to

MO.9 from the possession of accused in the presence of PW 3 and the accused retained the possession of MO.1 to MO.9 gold ornaments knowingly that they are stolen property.

14. Ex.P1 which is report of PW.1 speaks that on 22.01.2018 evening, she locked her house and went to Tadipatri town of Anantapur District to attend the function of her relatives and returned to her house on 25.01.2018 in the evening hours and found the house door was broke open and she went into her house and found missing of five gold ornaments i.e., MO.1 to MO.9 and opined that some unknown offenders committed theft of gold ornaments and then, she went to police station and lodged report.

15.PW.1 namely Smt. V.Vijaya Lakshmi has deposed that on 22.01.2018 in the afternoon hours, she locked her house located in

Rameswaram, proddatur and she went to Tadipatri town to attend the function of her relatives. On 25.01.2018, she returned to her house in Proddtur and he found her house door was broke open and she went into her house and he found the iron almarah in the bed room of her house was broke open and he found missing of one gold chain, one gold black beeds chain with dollar, two gold bangles, one gold chain, tow gold pieces, eight pairs of ear studs, one gold jada billa, five gold small rings and two gold rings, total weight 127 grams and are worth about 3.70,000/. Immediately she called said LW.2 over phone and enquired him whether he visited their house and he informed her that he did not come to their house and the said LW.4 is working in Nandaluru town and he enquired with said LW.3 and LW.4. LW.3 and LW.4 informed her that the accused and some others might have come to their house and the accused son and her son are studying in the same school. He went to Proddatur I town police station and lodged report before the police. Police examined her and recorded her statement. Within two days from the date of Ex.P1, the police informed her about the recovery of her said lost gold ornaments and she identified her recovered gold ornaments before one VRO/LW.5. Thereafter, she 5 filed an application before this Court and received her recovered gold ornaments for her interim custody from this court. Today, she brought the said gold ornaments to this court.

16.PW.1 denied the suggestion put by defence counsel in his cross examination that she did not state to the police that the said LW.3 and LW.4 informed her that the accused and some others might have come to her house and she did not lose any gold ornaments.

17.Now, the prosecution has to establish that PW.6 seized MO.1 to

MO.9 from the possession of accused in the presence of PW.3.

18. PW.2 namely U. Lakshmi Devi, deposed that she know the accused. On one day about six months back, she came to know that some theft was committed in the house of PW.1 when PW.1 and LW.2 were not in their house and when their house was locked and she did not inform PW.1 about the suspects or any person who committed the theft in the house of PW.1 and they know the accused as she was taking carriage to the schools and the police examined her and recorded her statement.

19.PW.3 Sudhakar Reddy, VRO has deposed that on 28.01.2018 at about 06.30 AM, one police constable came to his house while he was in his house and informed him that his Inspector of Police sent him and the said police constable issued him notice and requested him to come to police station and his Inspector of Police was calling him and he along with police constable went to Proddatur I town police station and reached the said police station at about 6.45 PM. By the time, he reached he said police station, he found the 6

Inspector of Police, three police constables, two head constable and one SI of

Police and after sometime, one person by name Shiva Shankar came to the police station and the CI requested as to act as mediator as some theft was occurred in Rameswaram, Proddatur town and then, he along with the said

Inspector of police, one SI, two head constables and 3 police constables and said shiva sankar proceeded to Muniswamy temple street, Rameswaram,

Proddatur town in a police jeep. They reached there at about 7.10 AM. While, they were getting down from the police jeep, they saw the accused who is present in this court was carrying a bag and was going towards bypass road by seeing the police party. On the directions of Inspector of Police, the police constable caught the accused and the CI enquired the accused in his presence.

The accuse revealed her identity particulars and confessed to the police that she committed the thefts of gold ornaments in the house of PW.1 and she has the habit of committing gold ornaments on the previous occasions. The accused confessed that she knew PW.1 while she went to school and in that manner, she went to the house of PW.1 and observed where PW.1 use to keep the keys and she took away one key of PW.1 without her knowledge and when PW.1 was not in the house, she committed the theft of one gold black beeds chain, one gold necklace, one gold chain, one gold jada billa, two gold pieces, two big gold rings, five small gold rings, 8 pairs of gold ear studs and two small gold bangles from the Almirah of PW.1 house. The CI seized the same from the plastic bag of accused and arrested the accused and prepared mediatornama to that effect.

The Inspector of police obtained the signatures of accused and police party and their mediators on Mediatornama. Thereafter, they all returned to police station, thereafter, he went to his house.

20.PW.4. Sri D. Chandra Sekhar Reddy, deposed that on 27.01.2018 or 28.01.2018 at about 08.30 AM, while he was near gold shops near Darga in

Proddatur and one police constable came to him and informed him that their

Inspector of police sent him and he requested him to weigh gold ornaments and then, he took weighing machine and went to Muniswamy temple, Rameswaram,

Proddatur and the said LW.11 gave him eight pairs of of gold ear studs, two gold bits, one black beads gold chain, nine gold rings, etc., he weighed all the said gold ornaments. The weight of all the said gold ornaments is about 128 or 130 grams approximately and thereafter, the said LW.11 prepared mediatornama/Ex.P2 to that effect. He affixed his signature on Ex.P2. The signature shown to him and thereafter, he returned to his shop.

21.PW.5 S.H. Rahamathulla deposed that on 28.01.2018 at about 7.00 AM, their Inspector of Police/LW.11 took him, women head constable/LW.8 and woman police constable by name Bharathi and two mediators and two other police constables to Muniswamy temple street,

Proddatur and they went near one house. At that place, they saw the accused, who is present in this court, at that place. LW.11 caught the accused with the assistance of female constables. The LW.11 enquired the accused and the accused revealed her identity particulars and the accused confessed that she committed theft of gold ornaments in a house of PW.1 and the accuse showed gold ornaments to said LW.11. LW.11 weighed the gold ornaments by calling one goldsmith. They took laptap and printer to the alleged place and on dictation of said LW.11, he prepared confession and seizure mediatornama/Ex.P2 in laptop and thereafter, he took out printout from that place and thereafter, they returned to police station along with accused and seized property.

22.PW.6 C.I deposed that on 26.01.2018 at about 5.15 PM, he was present in the police station, PW.1 came to police station and presented written report/Ex.P1 and he registered the case and took up investigation. He left the police station along with PW.1 and visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch. He examined PW.1, PW.2 to PW.4 and recorded their statements and on 28.01.2018, he secured the mediators PW.3 and LW.6/PC. He explained to them about the information received by him and requested him to act as mediators and he left the police station along with mediators reached the scene of offence along with laptop and printer and he found the accused in front of her house carrying a plastic cover in her hand and on seeing the police she tried to skulk away from that place then, with the help of assistance he upper handed the accused and interrogated her in the presence of mediators. The accused voluntarily confessed her identity particulars and further stated that she committed the theft of gold ornaments from the house of one V.Vijaya

Lakshmi who is known to her and on that day she has taken those gold ornaments in order to sell them at Kadapa and in meantime, caught hold her and then he verified the plastic cover and found gold ornaments and then, he secured the goldsmith through his staff and weighed each gold ornament and noted its weight the total gold ornaments weighing about 125 grams. The identified MO.1 to MO.9 are stolen property and arrested the accused and seized the property under cover of panchanama and he brought the accused to police station and remand for judicial custody and on 29.01.2018 he got conducted test identification parade of property through PW.4 and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

23.Regarding the material objects, PW.1 deposed that she found missing of her gold ornaments worth of Rs.3,70,000/ and she preferred 9 complaint and after some days she identified the said gold ornaments before one VRO (Lw.5) and received MO.1 to MO.9 for interim custody through the court PW.3/LW.5 also deposed regarding identification of MO.1 to MO.9 by

PW.1. Hence it is held that MO.1 to MO.9 are the stolen properties and belong to PW.1.

24.Coming to the offence u/sec. 411 IPC., the version of the prosecution is that in the presence of mediators they have seized the MO.1 to

MO.9 from the possession of the accused under cover of panchanama.

Regarding that aspect, PW.3 who is said to be the mediator deposed that

Inspector of Police seized the gold ornaments from the plastic bag of the accused and prepared mediatornama. But PW.5 the head constable deposed that he prepared panchanama (Ex.P2) in laptop on the dictation of LW.11. PW.3 is silent to the factum of laptop and taking print out. And further no witness deposed regarding arrangement of printer at the place of seizure i.e., source of electricity for the printer etc. In addition to that, PW.3 in his cross examination, clearly deposed that Ex.P2 (Panchanama) was prepared before seizure of gold ornaments. In view of these discrepancies, a suspicion is occurred regarding seizure of MO.1 to MO.9 from the possession of the accused. Hence, it is not proved that MO.1 to MO.9 were seized from the possession of accused beyond all reasonable doubts.

25.Regarding the offence u/sec. 379 IPC, PW.1 deposed clearly that

LW.3 and LW.4 informed her that the accused and some others might have come to their house. Where as LW.3/PW.2 deposed clearly that she did not inform PW.1 about the suspects of the theft. LW.4’s evidence is given up by the 10 prosecution. Hence there is no direct or circumstantial evidence to prove that the accused committed theft in the home of PW.1.

26.From the above discussion, this court holds that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt and the benefit of doubt should go in favour of Accused. As such, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

27.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec. 457 and 380 or 411 of IPC and accordingly, the accused is acquitted U/sec. 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The Accused is set at liberty forthwith in the present case. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment as per Sec. 437A of Cr.P.C. MO.1 to

MO.9, the property in CPR No. 23/2018 returned to PW.1 for her interim custody as per orders in Crl.M.P.No. 506/2018 dated 14.02.2018 shall be retained with her and they shall be made absolute after the expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by my Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this, the 28th day of February, 2019.

Sd/- Challa Janaki,

II AJFCM,

FAC I Addl.Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Proddatur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined: For Prosecution: PW.1: Smt. V. Vijaya Lakshmi. PW.2: Sri U. Lakshmi Devi. PW.3: Sri M. Sudhakar Reddy. PW.4: Sri D. Chandra Sekhar Reddy. PW.5: Sri S.H. Rahamathulla. PW.6: Sri B. Venkata Siva Reddy.

For Defence: None

Exhibits marked: For Prosecution: Ex.P1: Report. Ex.P2: Confession and seizure mediatornama dated 28.01.2018. Ex.P3: Property Identification Mediatornama dated 29.01.2018. Ex.P4: F.I.R in Cr.No. 66/2018 of I Town P.S, Proddatur. Ex.P5: Rough sketch of the scene of offence.

For Defence: NIL Material Objects Marked MO.1: One black beads gold chain. MO.2: One sada necklace. MO.3: Two gold pieces. MO.4: Two gold rings. MO.5: One gold sadha chain. MO.6: Two gold Bangles. MO.7: Five gold rings. MO.8: One gold jadabilla (Surya Vanka). MO.9: Eight pairs of gold ear studs.

Id/ C.J.,

II AJFCM,

FAC I A.J.F.C.M.,

Pdtr.

// True Copy //

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Proddatur.

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS::

PRODDATUR

CALENDAR CASE IN C.C.NO. 113 of 2018

Date of offence: 22.01.2018 Date of complaint:26.01.2018 Date of Taken on file: 22.02.2018 Date of arrest: 28.01.2018 Date of commencement of trial: 11.06.2018 Date of close of trial: 27.02.2019 Date of Judgment : 28.02.2019

State: Represented by the Inspector of Police, Proddatur I Town Police station in Cr.No. 66/2018. ….Complainant

Vs.

Tudamaladinne Sujatha, 26 years, W/o Subbarayudu, C/Mangali, D.No. 281991, Muniswamy temple, Rameswaram, Proddatur town.

.…Accused

Offence: U/Sec. 457 and 380 or 411 of IPC

Finding: The Accused A1 and A2 are found not guilty.

Sentence: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec. 457 and 380 or 411 of IPC and accordingly, the accused is acquitted U/sec. 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The Accused is set at liberty forthwith in the present case. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment as per Sec. 437A of Cr.P.C. MO.1 to MO.9, the property in CPR No. 23/2018 returned to PW.1 for her interim custody as per orders in Crl.M.P.No. 506/2018 dated 14.02.2018 shall be retained with her and they shall be made absolute after the expiry of appeal time.

Sd/ Challa Janaki,

II AJMFC,

FAC I Additional Judicial Magistrate ,

of I Class, Proddatur. Copy submitted To the Hon'ble I Addl. District Judge, Kadapa.

// True copy //

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Proddatur.

CC/100046/2016 Acquitted

The SHO III town PS vs Gangikunta Ramakrishna 38 years

27 Feb 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS: PRODDATUR

Present: Smt. Challa Janaki.,

II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Proddatur FAC I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Proddatur Wednesday, this the 27th day of February, 2019

C.C.No. 46 of 2016

State: Represented by the SubInspector of Police, Proddatur III town Police Station in Cr.No. 83/2015.

….Complainant

Vs.

Gangikunta Ramakrishna @ Mahesh @ Chandra @ Sreenu, 38 years, S/o late Chowdappa, Thogata, D.No. 4/1263, Burrusadu Mattam, Near Super Bazar Road, Proddatur town. ….Accused

This case coming on 25022019 for final hearing before me in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of

Sri G. Srinivasulu, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration till the evening, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The SubInspector of police, Proddatur III town Police Station filed charge sheet in Cr.No. 83 / 2015 against the accused for the offence punishable under section 8 of A.P. Public Security Act, 1992.

2.The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that :

On 30.05.2015 while the accused was going to Dorasanipalli to organize a meeting with youth along with his literature and books kept in the hand bag the police LW.1 to LW.5 i.e., police officials in the presence of the mediators i.e.,

LW.6 and LW.7 apprehended the accused and the accused voluntarily handed over a zip bag. LW.1 checked the bag and found the nine revolutionary books.

Accused is having contacts with the banned Maoist Group, organizing meetings with the youth an idea and intention to attract youth towards the banned organization, making efforts to reinforce the banned organization and 2 possessed the literature of the banned organization as there is prima facie material against the accused under A.P. Public Security Act, 1992.

LW.1/Inspector of police arrested the accused and seized the above said nine boos and cell phone along with two SIM cards under the cover of panchanama.

Hence, the charge.

3.This Court took cognizance against the accused for the offence punishable under section 8 of A.P. Public Security Act against the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of documents are furnished to them as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.The accused is examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. charges were framed for the offence under section 8 of A.P. Public Security Act against the accused, its contents were explained to the accused in Telugu language, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed the case to be tried.

6.To prove the case, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 8. Ex.P1 to

Ex.P6 and M.O.1 to M.O.3 were marked.

7.After the closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined u/sec. 313, Cr.P.C. and the incriminating material spelt out by the prosecution witnesses was put to him, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

8.Heard both sides and perused the record.

9.The learned APP submitted that the prosecution proved the case against U/Sec. 8 of A.P. Public Security Act on examining PW 1 to PW 5 and

PW.8. Hence requested the court to convict the accused according to law.

10.The learned counsel for the accused submitted his arguments that accused is innocent and never committed the offence. He submitted that PW 1 to PW.5 and PW.8 are interested witnesses of the complainant and he further submitted that the prosecution failed to prove the offence beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence, accused is entitled for acquittal.

11.Now the point for consideration is :

“ Whether the prosecution is successful in establishing the accusation leveled against the accused u/sec. 8 of A.P. Public Security Act beyond all reasonable doubts?”

12.PW 1 deposed before this court in his chief examination that on 30.05.2015 at about 2.10 PM, he received information about one G.

Ramakrishna @ Mahesh @ Chandra @ Sreenu who is underground movoist that he was proceeding to Dorasanipalle village and then, he along with his

SI/LW.10 and other staff proceeded to Sreeram Nagar TJunction, Proddatur town and they reached the said place, he saw the accused, who is present in this Court, with a bag and he tried to run in suspicious manner by seeing police party and then, on his instructions, LW.10/S.I caught the accused and produced before him. He enquired the accused and the accused revealed his identity particulars and confessed to him that he involved in movoist activities.

He searched the bag of accused and found the 9 books of movoist activities and then, he arrested the accused and seized nine books, one bag, one Samsung cell phone having two SIM cards and recorded the mediatornama to that effect and he obtained the signatures of accused, said mediators and his police party 4 on mediatornama/Ex.P1. The signature shown to him on Ex.P1 is his signature. LW.10/SI registered the case and examined him and recorded his statement.

13.PW 2 Sri V.V. Veerabhadra Reddy has deposed that on 30.05.2015 at about 2.00 PM, PW.1 called their SI of police by name Venkateswarlu to send police constable and the said SI directed him and Prathap Reddy to go to circle office and then, he along with LW.5 to LW.7, said LW.10, two other police constables and PW.1 proceeded to Dorasanipalle village and reached Sreeram nagar, they saw the accused, was going on the road by carrying a bag and the accused tried to run in suspicious manner by seeing their police jeep and then,

PW.1 instructed them to stop the police jeep and catch the accused and he along with LW.10 and other police constables caught the accused and produced him before PW.1 and PW.1 enquired the accused in the presence of said LW.6 and LW.7 and the accused revealed his identity particulars and confessed to him that he involved in movoist activities and PW.1 searched the bag of accused and found the 9 books of movoist activities and then, PW.1 seized the said 9 books, one cell phone and one bag from the possession of accused and

PW.1 arrested the accused and PW.1 prepared mediatornama/Ex.P1 and thereafter, they returned to police station and the police examined him and recorded his statement.

14.PW.3 namely Sri J. Raja Kumar has deposed that 30.05.2015 at about 2.10 PM, he went to circle office. At that place, he saw 3 constables i.e.,

PW.2, Suresh (LW.3) and Prathap Reddy (LW.5) and two mediators i.e.,

Maheswar Reddy (LW.6) and Hussain Reddy (LW.7) and SI/LW.10 in the circle office and then, he along with said LW.5 to LW.7, said LW.10, two other police constables and PW.1 proceeded to Dorasanipalle village side and they reached 5

Sreeram Nagar, T. Junction, Proddatur town and they saw the accused was going on the road by carrying a bag and the accused tried to run in suspicious manner by seeing police jeep and then, PW.1 instructed them to stop the police jeep and catch the accused and he along with LW.10 and other police constables caught the accused and produced him before PW.1 and PW.1 enquired the accused in the presence of said LW.6 and LW.7 and the accused revealed his identity particulars and confessed to him that he involved in movoist activities and PW.1 searched the bag of accused and found the 9 books of movoist activities and then, PW.1 seized the said 9 books, one cell phone and one bag from the possession of accused and PW.1 arrested the accused and

PW.1 prepared mediatornama/Ex.P1 to that effect and PW.2 drafted the contents of Ex.P1 on dictation of PW.1 and thereafter, they returned to police station and the police examined him and recorded his statement.

15.PW.4 namely Sri R. Hussain Reddy has deposed that 30.05.2015 at about 2.10 PM, he was in Tahsildar office, Proddatur town, his Tahsildar called him to his chambers and directed him to act as mediator for police and further directed him to go to Proddatur III town police station and he saw the Inspector of police by name Satyanarayana (PW.1) in the said police station and he requested him to act as mediator and he accepted the same and then, he along with PW.1 and 4 police constables went to Venkateswara Kottalu in a sumo vehicle and one police constable caught one person and brought him and produced before PW.1. PW.1 enquired the said person and the said person was carrying 8 or 9 books in his bag and PW.1 seized the said 8 or 9 books from the said person. Thereafter, PW.1 prepared mediatornama/Ex.P1 to that effect and

PW.1, said LW.6, himself, police party and the said person affixed their signatures on Ex.P1 and the signature shown to him on Ex.P1 is his signature and thereafter, PW.1 returned to police station along with the said person and 6 seized books and he cannot identify whether the accused who is present in this court was the person from whom PW.1 seized 8 or 9 books.

16.PW.5 namely Sri C. Maheswar Reddy has deposed that 30.05.2015 at about 1.45 PM, he received a phone call from their Tahsildar and directed to go to Proddatur III town police station along with PW.4 and to meet SI of police of III town PS and then, he and PW.4 went to Proddatur III town police station and reached their at about 02.00 PM on his motor cycle and they saw the

Inspector of police by name TV. Satyanarayana (PW.1) and SI of police i.e.,

Mahesh (LW.10) and they requested him and said PW.4 to act as mediators and they accepted the same and he along with PW.1, PW.4 and said LW.10 and four polie constables proceeded to Venkateswara Kottalu, Dorasanipalle, Proddatur town and at that place, they saw the accused who is present in this court, was standing by the side of road, by carrying a bag and then, the accused tried to run in suspicious manner by seeing the police party and the police caught the accused and PW.1 enquired the accused and the accused revealed his identity particulars and confessed that he joined with one Tilak and had movoist activities and went to several place such as Nalamala forest, Macharla,

Vijayawada from the years 2004 to 2006 and in the year 2006, he went to

Chattisghad state with one Gowtham and in the year 2012, he requested his leader that he will stop all the activities and will return to home as he suffered from knee pains and he further stated that the accused leader gave him an amount of Rs.30,000/ and set him free and accused further informed that he went to his elder sister house in Proddatur and informed the same to her for which she did not allow him to stay with her and then, he went to Isukaladinne village and took a room for rent and the accused further informed that he was acquainted with one Ravi of Dorasanipalle village and he was conducting meetings to encourage public to the movoist activities and then, PW.1 searched 7 the bag of accused and saw one cell phone and 9 different books relating to

Moist activities and PW.1 seized and said 9 books from the accused and arrested him and thereafter, PW.1 prepared mediatornama (Ex.P1) to that effect and PW.1, PW.4, himself, police party and the accused affixed their signatures on Ex.P1 and the signature shown to him on Ex.P1 is his signature and thereafter, PW.1 returned to police station along with the accused and seized books and he returned to Tahsildar office.

17.PW.8 namely Sri P. Mahesh has deposed that on 30.05.2015, he assisted their SI of police i.e., PW.1 and they went to Venkateswara Kottalu,

Proddatur town at about 2.30 PM and they reached the above said place, they saw the accused who is present in this court, was going by carrying a bag and on suspicion, they caught the accused on directions of PW.1 and PW.1 enquired the accused in the presence of two mediators and the accused revealed his identity particulars and he was introduced with one Radical by name Tilak and he was inspired by the views of said Thilak and he started conducting meetings and use to encourage the public against the landlords and the said Tilak got opened one Carpenter shop to the accused in Kadapa city and the accused use to meet the Movoist leaders in Kadapa frequently and as the accused knew

Carpentary work, he learnt the repairs and manufacturing of weapons and likewise, the accused became popular in Movoist activities an the accused was in Movoist Group from 1994 to 2014 and later, the accused came out of the

Movoist group in the year 2014 due to his ill health of knee pains and the accused again started roaming with books to influence the public towards movoist activities and as the activities of accused is an offence, PW.1 arrested him under the cover of mediatornama (Ex.P1) in the presence of mediators and the accused was having the movoist activities books which are prohibited, in his bag and PW.1 seized nine books, bag and cell phone under the cover of 8

Ex.P1 in the presence of mediators and PW.1 obtained signatures of their staff, mediators and accused on Ex.P1 and he also affixed his signature on Ex.P1 and the signature shown to him on Ex.P1 is his signature and thereafter, PW.1 directed him to register the case and he registered the same as a case in

Cr.No.83/2015 of Proddatur III town police station for the offence punishable u/sec. 8 of A.P. Public Security Act and issued FIR and he forwarded Ex.P4 and its copies to all the concerned authorities and he took up investigation in this case and he examined PW.1 to PW.3, Suresh (LW.3) and Prathap Reddy (LW.5) in their police station and recorded their statements and after completion of all formalities and he produced the accused before this court for remand and again he visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch and he file4d a requisition before this court for police custody of accused and the court granted for police custody and he enquired the accused in the presence of mediators and the accused confessed to him and he prepared mediatornama to that effect and he obtained the signatures of both mediators and accused on Ex.P6 and he also affixed his signature on Ex.P6 and he produced the accused before this court after completion of police custody and he submitted the nine moist books, bag and cell phone before this court after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

18.Regarding the alleged seizure and confession of the accused,

PW4/the mediator clearly deposed that he cannot identify whether the accused present in this court was the person from whom PW.1 seized the MO.3. Hence, the identification is not established by the independent mediator. Another mediator/PW.5 deposed that Ex.P1 is prepared by PW.1. But as per the evidence of PW.2, PW.2 drafted Ex.P1. Hence the preparation of Ex.P1, at the alleged place of arrest and seizure was thrown into suspicious circumstances.

19.As it can be seen from the record, PW.1 to PW.5 and PW.8 all are the Govt. officials. PW.6 and PW.7 evidence did not support of the prosecution case.

20.On considering above discussions, facts and circumstances this court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

21.In the result, the accused is not found guilty for the offence u/Sec.

8 of A.P. Public Security Act and accordingly, he is acquitted u/Sec. 248 (1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months as contemplated under section 437A of Cr.P.C. MO.1, the property in

CPR No.14/2019 shall be confiscated to state after the expiry of appeal time.

MO.2 and MO.3, the property in CPR No.14/2019 shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by my Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this, the 27th day of February, 2019.

Sd/ Challa Janaki,

II AJFCM,

FAC I Addl.Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Proddatur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined: For prosecution:For Defence:None PW.1: Sri T.V. Satyanarayana. PW.2: Sri V.V. Veera Bhadra Reddy. PW.3: Sri J. Raja Kumar. PW.4: Sri R. Hussain Reddy. PW.5: Sri C. Maheswar Reddy. PW.6: Sri G. Gopinath. PW.7: Sri T. Sreenivasulu. PW.8: Sri P. Mahesh.

Exhibits marked: For prosecution: For Defence: Nil

Ex.P1: Mediatornama. Ex.P2: Signature of PW.6 on Mediatornama dated 08.06.2015. Ex.P3: Signature of PW.7 on Mediatornama dated 08.06.2015. Ex.P4: FIR in Cr.No. 83/2015 of Proddatur III town P.S. Ex.P5: Rough Sketch. Ex.P6: Mediatornama dated 08.06.2015.

Material Objects Marked

MO.1: One Samsung Cell phone. MO.2: One Dark Violet Student bag. MO.3: Nine books relating to the Prohibited publications.

Id/ C.J.,

II AJFCM.,

FAC I A.J.F.C.M.

Proddatur. // True copy //

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Proddatur.

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS::

PRODDATUR

CALENDAR CASE IN C.C.NO. 46 of 2016

Date of offence: 30.05.2015 Date of complaint: 30.05.2015 Date of Taken on file: 19.02.2016 Date of arrest : 31.05.2015 Date of commencement of trial: 20.09.2017 Date of close of trial: 25.02.2019 Date of Judgment : 27.02.2019

State: Represented by the SubInspector of Police, Proddatur III town Police Station in Cr.No. 83/2015.

….Complainant

Vs.

Gangikunta Ramakrishna @ Mahesh @ Chandra @ Sreenu, 38 years, S/o late Chowdappa, Thogata, D.No. 4/1263, Burrusadu Mattam, Near Super Bazar Road, Proddatur town. ….Accused

Offence: u/Sec. U/Sec. 8 of A.P. Public Security Act.

Finding: The accused is found not guilty.

Sentence: In the result, the accused is not found guilty for the offence u/Sec. 8 of A.P. Public Security Act and accordingly, he is acquitted u/Sec. 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months as contemplated under section 437A of Cr.P.C. MO.1, the property in CPR No.14/2019 shall be confiscated to state after the expiry of appeal time. MO.2 and MO.3, the property in CPR No.14/2019 shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time.

Sd/ Challa Janaki,

II AJFCM,

FAC I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I class, Proddatur. Copy submitted:

The Hon’ble I Additional District Judge. Kadapa.

// True copy //

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Proddatur.

Order Record 1,579 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
CC/516/2020	Chinnem Madduleti Rangadu vs K.Sugunamma	14 Jul 2020	Judgement	Acquitted
CC/200077/2016	S.I. of Rural P.S. vs Anumala Shoba	20 Mar 2020	Judgement	Acquitted
DVC/11/2019	Nare Suresh Kumar vs Varada Ramya Pushpa	20 Mar 2020	Other	Dismissed As Not Pressed
CC/417/2020	S.H.O, S.I of police, Proddatur Rural P.S. vs Pakkapoti Gangaraju	19 Mar 2020	Judgement	Acquitted
CC/388/2020	Prohibition Excise Inspector, Proddatur vs Godugula MaLLIKARJUNA	18 Mar 2020	Judgement	Acquitted
CC/416/2020	S.H.O S.I of police, Proddatur Rural P.S. vs Chapati Naveen	18 Mar 2020	Judgement	—
CC/72/2020	Sub-Inspector of police, Pdroddatur Rural P.S. vs Murapandi chinna Badulla	17 Mar 2020	Judgement	—
CC/420/2020	S.H.O, S.I of police, Proddatur Rural P.S. vs Moddugandla Chandrayudu	16 Mar 2020	Judgement	—
CC/620/2020	Sub-Inspector of police, Proddatur Rural P.S. vs Shaik Abdul	16 Mar 2020	Judgement	—
CC/1064/2019	Private complaint (Panigatla Zareenabegam vs Panigatla Azeeza @ Shaik Azeeza	12 Mar 2020	Judgement	—
CC/920/2019	SHO S.I of police, Proddatur Rural P.S. vs M.Bramha Naidu @ Vadde Bramha Naidu	11 Mar 2020	Judgement	—
CC/200108/2017	Challa Srinivasulu vs Dr.Yeddula Venkata Nagendra Redy @Nagendra reddy	11 Mar 2020	Judgement	—
CC/887/2019	Rajupalem P.S. Proddatur vs Nallagatla Obulesh	10 Mar 2020	Judgement	—
PRC/37/2019	Sub-Inspector of police, Proddatur Rural Circle vs Kammari Ramakrishna Chari	10 Mar 2020	Order	—
CC/70/2020	Sub-Inspector of police, Proddatur Rural P.s. vs Midde Lakshmi Narayana	05 Mar 2020	Judgement	—
CC/79/2020	Sub-Inpsector of police, Proddatur Rural P.s. vs Shaik Imam Hussain	05 Mar 2020	Judgement	—
CC/85/2020	Sub-Inspector of policel, Proddatur rural P.s. vs Chenigala Cuduru Chinna Babaiah	05 Mar 2020	Judgement	—
CC/66/2020	Sub-Inspector of police, Proddatur rural P.s. vs Boreddy Naramma	04 Mar 2020	Judgement	—
STC/14/2020	S.H.O S.I of Police, Rajupalem P.S. vs C.Dastagiri Basha	03 Mar 2020	Judgement	—
CC/200066/2015	station house officer Rajupalem PS vs Uppaluru Manohar Reddy@ Manohar	02 Mar 2020	Judgement	—
CC/200363/2017	SI of Police, Proddatur II Town P.S. vs Kasireddi Lakshmikar Reddy	02 Mar 2020	Judgement	—
CC/200382/2017	SI of Police Proddatur II Town P.S. vs Thippineni Ramadsappa Naidu	02 Mar 2020	Judgement	—
PRC/35/2019	SHO S.I of Police, Proddatur Rural P.S vs Kasunuru Pedda Obulesu	02 Mar 2020	Order	—
CC/200156/2014	Station House officer, I town P.S. vs A1 Shaik Mahammad Iqbal	28 Feb 2020	Order	—
CC/227/2020	Sub-inspector, Excise, Proddatur vs Choduboina Subbarayudu	27 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
CC/228/2020	Sub-Inpsector of police,Excise proddatur p.s. vs Mandla rama Subbamma	27 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
CC/229/2020	Sub-inspector, Excise, Proddatur vs Ganta Ramaswamy	27 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
CC/230/2020	Sub-inspector, Excise, Proddatur vs Midde Lakshmi Narasamma	27 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
CC/200073/2017	Marthala Ramakrishna Reddy vs Mothe Chinna Srinivasulu	26 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
CC/200074/2017	Marthala Ramakrishna reddy vs Mothe Chinna srinivasulu	26 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
CC/200075/2017	Marthala Rama Krishna Reddy vs Mothe Chinna Srinivasulu	26 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
CC/200076/2017	Marthala Ramakrishna Reddy vs Mothe Chinna Srinivasulu	26 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
CC/200077/2017	Marthala Ramakrishna reddy vs Mothe Chinna srinivasulu	26 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
CC/200141/2017	The Karur Vysya Bank Limited Proddatur branch proddartur town and mandla Redp. Its Branch manager R vs P.Srinivasulu reddy	25 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
CC/200344/2017	S.I. Police proddatur II Town P.S. vs Malepati Surersh kumar	25 Feb 2020	Order	—
STC/11/2020	Sub-Inspector of police, rajupalem P.s. vs Katigari Narapu Reddy	25 Feb 2020	Order	—
STC/12/2020	Sub-Inspector of police, Rajupalem vs Kota Ramohan Reddy	25 Feb 2020	Order	—
STC/13/2020	Sub-Inspector of police, Rajupalem vs Pattipati Ramesh Naidu	25 Feb 2020	Order	—
CC/200545/2017	Circle Inspector of Police, Proddatur Rural Circle. vs Panyam Venkatesh	24 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
CC/1265/2019	Sub-Inspector of police, Proddatur vs Sagala Raghu Vamsi Krishna	20 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
CC/200362/2017	SI of Police, Proddatur II Town P.S. vs Shaik Ghouse Peer @ Ghouse	20 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
CC/200071/2018	SI of Police, Proddatur II Town P.S. vs Bandi Siva Kumar and Others	19 Feb 2020	Order	—
CC/200218/2018	Proh. and Excise Inspector, Proddatur vs Chintakunta Saidu Saheb @ Peddamunaiah	19 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
CC/200336/2017	SI of Police, Proddatur II Town P.S. vs Panjagalla Ravi and Others	19 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
CC/200342/2017	SI of Police, Proddatur II Town P.S. vs Gandluru Veera Prathapa Reddy and Others	19 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
CC/200370/2017	S.I. of police II Town P.S. vs Gangadharagitri Swamy	19 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
CC/200383/2017	E.V.Maheswara Reddy vs Peddireddy Palakala Sivareddy and Others	19 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
DVC/200003/2017	Smt.S.Lakshumma vs S.Chanti Obulesu	19 Feb 2020	Other	—
MC/200004/2018	Sarukolla Lakshumma vs Sarukolla Chanti Obulesu	19 Feb 2020	Other	—
CC/42/2019	Sub Inspector of Police, Proddatur Rural P.S. vs Dhanikela Subba Raju	18 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
CC/226/2020	Sub-inspector, Excise, Proddatur vs Aluru Sanjeeva Rayudu	18 Feb 2020	Other	—
CC/319/2019	Gummalla Narayana Reddy vs Alluri Subbaiah	18 Feb 2020	Other	—
CC/503/2019	M/s. Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited vs Sriyapureddy Varalakshmi	18 Feb 2020	Other	—
CC/902/2019	S.H.O S.I of police, Rajupalem PS. vs Bhikarisabgari Ghouse Peera	18 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
CC/200223/2018	SI of Police, Proddatur II Town P.S. vs Mekala Katamaiah	18 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
CC/200338/2017	SI of Police, Proddatur II Town P.S. vs Pulla Venkata Subbaiah and Others	18 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
CC/99/2020	SHO S.I of police Proddatur Rural P.S. vs Gopireddy Rajesh Reddy	17 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
CC/1091/2019	Sub-Inspector of Police, Proddatur P.S. vs Patthi Naresh	17 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
CC/200348/2017	SI of Police, Proddatur II Town P.S. vs Shaik Sabdar Hussain	17 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
CC/241/2020	SI of police, Rajupalem P.S. vs Midde Chinna Dasthagiri	15 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
CC/259/2020	S.H.O, S.I of Police, Rajupalem. vs Parlapadu Narasamma	15 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
STC/4/2020	S.H.O, S.I of police, Rajupalem P.S. vs Chennamsetti Chakradhar	15 Feb 2020	Order	—
STC/5/2020	Sub-Inspector of Police, Rajupalem P.S. vs Madara Vinay,	15 Feb 2020	Order	—
STC/6/2020	Sub-Inspector of Police, Rajupalem P.s. vs Bandela Pushparaju	15 Feb 2020	Order	—
STC/7/2020	S.H.O, S.I of police, Rajupalem P.S. vs Tappeta Moshe	15 Feb 2020	Order	—
STC/8/2020	Sub-Inspector of police, Rajupalem P.S. vs Jiragalla Hari Krishna -a1	15 Feb 2020	Order	—
STC/10/2020	Sub-Inspector of police, Rajupalem P,.S. vs Maliki Venkatesh @ Kondanna	15 Feb 2020	Order	—
CC/200327/2017	S.I. of police II Town P.S. vs Vempalli Mopuri Surendra Natha Reddy	14 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
CC/980/2019	S.I of police, Proddatur Rural P.S. vs Yammaluru Pakkeeraiah	13 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
CC/200372/2017	Kovvuru Raja Gopal Reddy vs Kovvuru Ramesh Reddy and Others	13 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
CC/119/2020	Sub-Inspector of police, Proddatur Rural P.S. vs Guduru Loka Raju	12 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
CC/200277/2018	SI of Police, Proddatur II Town P.S. vs Mallela Karimulla	12 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
CC/200334/2017	SI of Police, Proddatur II Town P.S. vs Korrapati Chakrapani @ Chakrapani Reddy and Others	12 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
CC/200341/2017	SI of Police , Proddatur II Town P.S. vs Gangadharagiri Swamy and others	12 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
CC/200162/2014	Sub Inspector of Police, Proddatur I Town P.S. vs Kommaja Mary@Subbamma	11 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
CC/200374/2017	SI of Police, Proddatur II Town P.S. vs Kothamasi Sudhakar @ Chilaka	11 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
CC/200523/2017	Sub Inspector of Police, Rajupalem PS vs Mettupalli Muni Reddy	11 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
PRC/36/2019	Rural P.S vs Sake Balanna	11 Feb 2020	Order	—
STC/1/2020	SI of Police, Rajupalem P.S. vs Gangavaram Siva Kumar Reddy	11 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
STC/2/2020	Sub-Inspector of police, Rajupalem P.S. vs Avula Pedda dasthagiri	11 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
STC/3/2020	Sub-Inspector of police, Rajupalem P.s. vs Sarukolla Subramanyam	11 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
CC/200182/2014	The Station House Officer, Proddatur III town P.S. vs A1 Annapureddy Chinna Venkata Subba Reddy	10 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
CC/200330/2017	S.I.Police II Town P.S. vs Buchabbaiahgari Dasthagiri	10 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
CC/6/2019	Sub Inspector of Police, Rajupalem P.S. vs Gopu Narasimhulu @ Narasimhulu @ Peddodu	08 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
CC/11/2020	Suu-Inspector of police, Proddatur Traffic PS vs Vschinna Subbanna gari Kalyan Chakravarthi Reddy	08 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
CC/12/2020	Inspector of police, Proddatur traffice P.s. vs Shaik Ibrahim	08 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
CC/25/2020	SHO S.I of police Proddatur Rural P.S. vs Vempalli Venkata Konda Reddy	08 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
CC/91/2020	Sub-Inspector of police, Proddatur Rural P.S. vs Jyothi Kiriti-A1	08 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
CC/92/2020	Sub- Inspector of police, Proddatur Rural P.s. vs Palaji Sekhar-A1	08 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
CC/117/2020	SHO S.I police, Rajupalem P.S. vs Mallepogu Narendra Babu	08 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
CC/118/2020	S.H.O S.I of Police, Rajupalem P.S. vs Gaalipothula Guruvaiah	08 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
CC/121/2020	SHO S.I of police, Rajupalem P.S. vs Shaik Mahammad	08 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
CC/122/2020	SHO S.I of police, Rajupalem P.S. vs Pattipati Siva Kumar	08 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
CC/124/2020	S.H.O S.I of Police, Rajupalem P.S. vs Proddatur Kishore Achari	08 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
CC/125/2020	SHO S.I of police, Rajupalem P.S. vs Talapaka Pavan Kumar	08 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
CC/126/2020	S.I of police, Rajupalem P.S. vs Mula Nagi Reddy	08 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
CC/127/2020	S.H.O, S.I of police, Rajupalem P.S. vs Rachamreddi Ramanatha Reddy	08 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
CC/128/2020	S.H.O., S.I of police, Rajupalem P.S. vs Putta Madhu	08 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
CC/129/2020	SHO S.I of police Rajupalem vs Kokkala Ankalaiah	08 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
CC/138/2020	SI of P.S. Proddatur Rural P.s. vs Gollapalli Obulesu	08 Feb 2020	Judgement	—

Showing 100 of 1,579 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Jul 2020		1
Mar 2020		22
Feb 2020		125
Jan 2020		76
Dec 2019		104
Nov 2019		65
Oct 2019		57
Sep 2019		95
Aug 2019		62
Jul 2019		129
Jun 2019		49
May 2019		56

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Smt. Challa Janaki handled?

Smt. Challa Janaki has handled 1593 court orders since 2016 at II Additional District Judge Court, Proddatur (Taluka). The average disposal rate is 41 orders per month.

What types of cases does Smt. Challa Janaki hear?

Based on available records, Smt. Challa Janaki primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases, Summary Trial Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) at II Additional District Judge Court, Proddatur (Taluka).

Where is Smt. Challa Janaki currently posted?

Smt. Challa Janaki is posted as I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur at II Additional District Judge Court, Proddatur (Taluka), Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Smt. Challa Janaki available online?

Yes. 27 judgments by Smt. Challa Janaki are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Smt. Challa Janaki dispose cases?

Smt. Challa Janaki disposes approximately 41 cases per month, based on 1593 orders handled over their tenure at II Additional District Judge Court, Proddatur (Taluka).

Since when is Smt. Challa Janaki serving?

Smt. Challa Janaki has been serving at II Additional District Judge Court, Proddatur (Taluka) since 2016.

Case Types

CC 73%

STC 19%

PRC 5%

MC 1%

OS 1%

DVC 1%

EP 0%

Posting History

Jun 2019 — Dec 2019

I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur · 87 orders
Dec 2018 — Mar 2019

I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur · 32 orders
Dec 2018 — Jul 2020

II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur · 974 orders
Dec 2018 — Jan 2019

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur · 24 orders
Nov 2017 — Aug 2018

II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur · 474 orders
Oct 2016 — Jul 2017

II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur · 2 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 19

Settled Before Lok Adalat Disposal Date: 05-01-2019 2

Compromised 1

Convicted 1

Dismissed As Not Pressed 1

Other Judges at this Court

Smt.K.Satya Kumari

II Additional District and Sessions Judge Proddatu...

903 orders

Sri D.Venkateswarlu Naik

VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge Prodda...

0 orders

Smt. Shaik Faizunnisa

Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur

515 orders

Sri K.Surendra Reddy

I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur

0 orders

Smt.E.Prathiba

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur

666 orders

← View all judges at II Additional District Judge Court, Proddatur (Taluka)

Smt. Challa Janaki

Present:­ Smt. Challa Janaki.,

C.C.No. 552 of 2017

J U D G M E N T

of I Class, Proddatur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

II A.J.F.C.M.

PRODDATUR

Present:­ Smt. Challa Janaki.,

C.C.No. 9 of 2017

J U D G M E N T

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

II A.J.F.C.M.

FAC I A.J.F.C.M.

PRODDATUR

1

Present:­ Smt. Challa Janaki.,

C.C.No.77 of 2016

….Accused.

J U D G M E N T

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

13

II A.J.F.C.M.

14

PRODDATUR

Present:­ Smt. Challa Janaki,

C.C.No. 113 of 2018

J U D G M E N T

II AJFCM,

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

II AJFCM,

FAC I A.J.F.C.M.,

PRODDATUR

II AJMFC,

FAC I Additional Judicial Magistrate ,

Present:­ Smt. Challa Janaki.,

C.C.No. 46 of 2016

J U D G M E N T

II AJFCM,

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

II AJFCM.,

FAC I A.J.F.C.M.

PRODDATUR

II AJFCM,

Present: Smt. Challa Janaki.,

Present: Smt. Challa Janaki.,

Present: Smt. Challa Janaki.,

Present: Smt. Challa Janaki,

Present: Smt. Challa Janaki.,