Sri Challa Pavan Kumar

1

222IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM – I ADDL. JUDL.

MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS: BHIMAVARAM.

Present:- Sri Ch.Pavan Kumar

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Bhimavaram

Tuesday, this the 23 rd day of June, 2020.

C.C.No.277/2018

Between:

The State: Rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, Akividu P.S.…Complainant.

And

1.Savarapu Raju 2.Savarapu Padma...A1 and A2

This case coming on 11-03-2020 before me for final hearing in the presence of the A.P.P. for the complainant and of Sri S.B.Vijaya Kumar, Counsel for A1 and A2, upon hearing both sides, and having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Akividu P.S has laid charge sheet against A1 and and A2 alleging A1 of the offences punishable under Sec.457, 380 of IPC or alternatively under Sec.411 of IPC and A2 of the offence punishable under Sec.411 of IPC in Cr.No.165/2017 of Akividu P.S.

2.The case of prosecution in brief is as follows:

(i)The informant i.e. L.W.1/Payasam Veera Naga Satya Ramarao (hereinafter referred to as P.W.1) is working as Railway booking clerk in Akividu Railway station and he is residing in a rented house in Puthurivari Street, opposite Akividu Railway station. On 12.10.2017 at 7 p.m., P.W.1 went to attend night duty and returned home on 13.10.2017 at 7 a.m. In the meanwhile some unknown offenders gained entrance into the house of P.w.1 by opening the latch of the doors and committed theft of gold ornaments which are kept in a bag in the cupboard.

(ii)Basing on the report given by P.W.1, L.w.8/K.Sudhakara Reddy, the then SI of police at Akividu P.S (hereinafter referred to as P.W.5) registered a case in Cr.No.165/2017 under Sec.457 and 380 of IPC on 13.10.2017 at 8 p.m., and investigated into the case. In the course of investigation, P.W.5 visited the scene of offence, observed the scene and prepared rough sketch. Further P.W.5 examined the informant and witnesses and recorded their statements in Part II C.D.

(iii)In the course of investigation, on 10.01.2018 on receipt of credible information P.W.5 arrested A1 near new bus stand, Akividu at 8 a.m., in the presence of mediators i.e. L.W.6/A.Satyanarayana (hereinafter referred to as P.W.4) and L.W.7/Relangi 2

Himabindu and pursuant to the confession made by A1, gold chain concerned in Cr.No.8/2018 was recovered from his possession under the cover of mediators report. Thereafter A1 lead the police and mediators to his house in Samatha Nagar, Akividu and there gold chandraharam, pearls chain, plain gold chain, black beads chain, ear studs and four gold rings are recovered from A2 who is mother of A1 pursuant to her confession under the cover of mediators report. P.W.5 has issued notice under Sec.41- A Cr.P.C to A1 and A2 and they complied with the terms of notice. P.W.5 added Sec.411 IPC to the charge. P.W.5 got held property identification parade at CMC Church Hall, Akividu through mediators in which P.W.1 identified his stolen property. Later after completion of investigation, charge sheet was laid.

3.Initially charge sheet was laid before Hon’ble II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class Court, Bhimavaram and cognizance of the offences punishable under Sec.457, 380 or 411 IPC was taken against A1 and A2 and summons are ordered to them by numbering the case as C.C.No.277/2018. At that stage, as per the proceedings of

Hon'ble District Judge, W.G., at Eluru, the case was transferred to this Court and

continued with the same number.

4. On appearance of A1 and A2, copies of case documents are furnished to them in due compliance of provisions under Sec.207 Cr.P.C. On 24.10.2018 A1 and A2 are examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C. Heard, charge under Sec.457, 380 of IPC is framed against A1 and Sec.411 of IPC is framed against A2, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In the course of trial before this Court, on behalf of prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Ex.P1 to P6 and M.O.1 to 9 are marked.

6.Upon closure of prosecution evidence, A1 and A2 are examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C, in which they denied the incriminating material that appeared against them in the evidence of prosecution. On enquiry, A2 reported defence evidence. On behalf of defence, A2 was examined as D.W.1 and Ex.D1 and D2 are marked.

7.Heard learned APP and that of the counsel for accused.

The learned APP contended that the evidence of P.ws.1 to 3 amply establishes the occurrence of theft in the house of P.W.1 and further establishes that M.Os.1 to 9 are stolen gold ornaments. It is further contended that the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5 amply establishes the arrest of A1 and A2 and seizure of M.Os.1 to 9 pursuant to the confession of A1 and A2. By contending so, he argued that the prosecution has proved its case against A1 and A2 and thus, canvassed for their conviction.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for accused contended that this is a false case foisted against accused and that the accused are innocents of the offence alleged. It is further contended that the discrepancies found in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 goes to show that no theft was committed in the house of P.W.1. It is further 3 contended that police have falsely taken A1 to police station and took the gold ornaments from the house of accused and shown them as stolen property. It is further contended that the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5 is marred with inconsistencies and developments, as such, the same cannot be believed. By contending so, he argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against A1 and A2 and thus, prayed for their acquittal. Further, the learned counsel for accused prayed for return of gold ornaments to A2.

8.Now, the point for determination is :-

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of A1 for the offences punishable under Sec.457 and 380 of IPC and A2 for the offence punishable under Sec.411 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

P O I N T

9.The prosecution, in order to establish the occurrence of theft as examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and 5. P.W.1 who is informant in this case deposed his evidence stating that on 12.10.2017 at 7 p.m., he went for night duty up to 7 a.m., on 13.10.2017. That, during that time, his wife was pregnant, as such, she went to her parents' house. That, he has locked the back side door of the house and went to attend duty. That, the house in which he is residing is a two portioned RCC building and the other portion was vacated 10 days prior to the incident. That, after completing duty on 13.10.2017 at 7 a.m., he has returned home and noticed that the door was opened by bending the latch of the door. That, he went inside the house and noticed that the household articles are lying in pel-mel condition. That, on verification, he found missing of Chandraharam, black beads chain, Mutyaladanda, gold chan, four gold rings and ear rings all weighing 8 sovereigns kept in a bag in the cupboard. That, he gave report i.e. Ex.P1 to police. That, on 11.01.2018 police informed him about recovery of their stolen property. That, on 12.01.2018 he has identified his stolen property when the same are mixed along with other properties in the presence of mediators in CBN Chruch, Akividu. M.Os.1 to 9 are marked through him.

10.P.W.2 who is neighbour to the house of P.W.1 deposed his evidence stating that the rented house of P.W.1 is situated by the side of their house. That, the said house is two portioned small RCC building and P.W.1 is residing in one portion of the house. That, one and half year ago on 13th day of October in the morning hours crowd gathered at the rented house of P.W.1 and he came to know that in the absence of inmates of the house of P.W.1, some unknown persons committed theft of gold ornaments from the almyrah.

11.P.W.3 who is another neighbour to the house of P.W.1 deposed his evidence stating that one and half year ago on a day in the morning hours at 8 a.m., public gathered at the house of P.W.1 and P.W.1 is in frightened stage. That, he went to the house of P.W.1 and questioned him as to what happened. On that P.W.1 stated that 4 theft was committed in his house when he went for night duty. P.W.3 further deposed that the wife of P.W.1 went to her parents’ house and the parents of P.W.1 went to see the wife of P.W.1.

12.P.W.5 who is investigation officer deposed his evidence stating that on 13.10.2017 at about 8 p.m., while he was present in the police station, P.W.1 came to police station and presented Ex.P1 report and he registered the same as Ex.P5 FIR. He further deposed about visiting the scene of offence, observing the scene and preparing rough sketch. He further deposed about examining P.W.1 and witnesses and recording their statements in Part II C.D.

13.From the above evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and 5, it is amply made clear that none of them deposed their evidence directly incriminating against A1. Though P.W.1 identified the gold ornaments recovered from A2 as his stolen gold ornaments and the same are marked through him as M.Os.1 to 9 and further the evidence of P.W.1 is supported by the evidence of P.W.4 with regard to property identification parade, the accused have made claim against some of the gold ornaments. Now it is to be seen whether M.Os.1 to 9 are stolen gold ornaments and whether the same are recovered from A2.

14.The prosecution to prove the arrest of A1 and seizure of M.Os.1 to 9 from A2, has relied on the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5. P.W.4 who is one of the mediators at the time of arrest of A1 and seizure of M.Os.1 to 9 deposed his evidence stating that on 10.01.2018 at 7 a.m., SI of police, Akividu P.S has called him over phone and asked him and VRA to come to new bus stand, Akividu and accordingly they went there. That, there SI of police caught one person who on enquiry revealed his name as Savarapu Raju. That, A1 confessed about the offences committed by him including the theft concerned in this case. That, when questioned about the stolen property, A1 stated that he has given the property to his mother and if they accompany him, he will show them. That, mediators report was recorded to that effect. Ex.P2 relevant portion in attested copy of mediators report was marked. P.W.4 further deposed that A1 took them to his house situated in Samatha Nagar and at that time the mother of A1 was not present in the house and on that A1 went inside the house and brought one steel box and upon opening the same, they found gold black beads chain, Nantradu, Pearl chain, one pair of ear studs and four rings. That, SI of police seized the said ornaments under the cover of mediators report. Ex.P3 attested copy of mediators report was marked. P.W.4 further deposed that as Savarapu Raju has handed over the stolen property to his mother and she concealed the same, both of them were arrested.

15.P.W.5 who is investigation officer in this case deposed his evidence in this regard stating that on 10.01.2018 he has arrested A1 at Akividu bus stand in the presence of mediators i.e. P.W.4 and L.W.7/R.Himabindu. That, A1 confessed about committing the offence in this case and in another case. P.W.5 further deposed that he seized the stolen property concerned in Cr.No.8/2018 under the cover of mediators report. P.W.5 5 further deposed that A1 lead them to his house situated in Samatha Nagar, Akividu and there he has seized stolen property concerned in this case from A2 who confessed about receiving the stolen property from A1.

16.From the above evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5, it is clear that their evidence is contrary to each other and the evidence of P.W.4 is inconsistent with the prosecution case. While it is the case of prosecution that stolen property concerned in Cr.No.8/2018 of Akividu P.S i.e. gold nantradu was recovered from A1 at the time of his arrest pursuant to his confession, P.W.4 did not depose anything about recovery of any stolen property from A1 at the time of his arrest. While it is the case of prosecution that stolen property concerned in this case was recovered from A1 at the house of accused, P.W.4 in his evidence deposed that A2 was not present at the house when A1 lead them to his house and he further deposed that the stolen property in this case was handed over by A1. Thus, the evidence of P.W.4 creates any amount of doubt as to the mode and manner in which A1 was arrested and stolen property was recovered. The discrepancies found in the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5 does not inspire confidence of this Court in believing the prosecution case with regard to arrest of A1 and seizure of stolen gold ornaments from A2 pursuant to the confession of A1 and A2. Hence, in these circumstances, there can be no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of A1 and A2 for the offences charged against them.

17.Now coming to the aspect whether M.Os.1 to 9 are stolen property of P.W.1 or not is concerned, it is the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.4 that property identification parade was conducted on 12.01.2018 in which P.W.1 identified his stolen property

before mediators when the same are mixed along with similar gold ornaments. On the

other hand, A2 who was examined as D.W.1 deposed her evidence stating that her mother-in-law works in Kuwait for 10 years and returned to India. That, on 03.01.2018 in the early hours at 3.30 a.m., A1 and his friend returned from Vijayawada in train and while they are coming to the house and reached Siddapuram Railway gate, one constable by name Srinu and another constable took them to police station. That, her sister who is residing near Siddapuram Railway gate noticed the same and followed them to the police station. That, police shouted at her sister and sent her away. That, due to fear her sister returned from the police station and informed her about police taking away A1 and his friend. That, then she went to Akividu police station, but they have not shown A1 to her.

18.D.W.1 further deposed that on 5.1.2018 also she went to police station, but police without showing A1 to her, have asked her to sit on the back side of police station and then the police without her notice have taken A1 to her house, broke open the lock and took their gold ornaments and returned to police station. That, when she asked the police to show her son, they have stated that they will show him later and asked her to go away. That, when she returned home, she noticed that door was opened and articles are lying in pel-mel condition. That, due to frustration, she 6 consumed poison to commit suicide. That, then her last son took her to Govt. Hospital, Bhimavaram and there she took treatment for three days. She further deposed that on 10.01.2018 A1 was produced before the Court with severe injuries on his legs and hands. That, Hon'ble Magistrate has referred A1 to hospital and also summoned SI of police and questioned him about beating A1. She further deposed that A1 was not arrested and no stolen property was seized from him as alleged by police. She further deposed that she has filed petition claiming the gold ornaments which are shown as stolen property in this case. she further deposed that police have taken away four sovereigns of gold nantradu, three sovereigns of necklace, two sovereigns of gold black beads chain, one chandraharam, one pair of ear rings, two gold rings and pearls chain. She further deposed that she has purchased gold nantradu, necklace and black beads chain in the shop of Kopparthi Ramarao jewelers. She further deposed that gold chandraharam and ear rings are brought by her mother-in-law from Kuwait. She further deposed that she purchased two gold rings from the shop of Kopparthi Narayana Rao. Ex.D1 and D2 are marked through her.

19.A perusal of Ex.D1 discloses that the same is a issue bill of Kopparthi Ramarao jewellers concerning order No.443 for 'Nalla Tavaram'. The amount paid under the said bill is Rs.500/-. Ex.D2 is another issue bill given by the same jewelers with Order No.64 for '2 petala tadu'. The amount paid under the said bill is Rs.800/-. In the cross examination of D.W.1, she has admitted that the total price of the ornament was not mentioned in the bills and there is no mention of word 'gold' describing the ornaments mentioned in the bill. Given by the amounts mentioned in Ex.D1 and D2 bills, a strong suspicion arises as to whether the ornaments mentioned in the bills are gold ornaments or not. As rightly contended by APP, no price of gold as on the date of issue of bills were mentioned in Ex.D1 and D2. Further, in the cross examination of D.W.1, she has deposed that she do not have any documentary proofs concerning other gold ornaments claimed by her. Though D.W.1 in her cross examination deposed that she can examine the owner of the shop in which she purchased the gold, she has not taken any steps to examine the said person.

20.As per the evidence of D.W.1, on 05.01.2018 police came to her house, break open the lock and took gold ornaments while she was waiting at the police station to see her son. In the cross examination of D.W.1, she deposed her mother-in-law is residing at their house for the last three years. It is not the evidence of D.W.1 that she along with her mother-in-law went to the police station to see her son. From the evidence of D.W.1 that her mother-in-law is residing at their house for the last three years, it is clear that, had there been any incident as alleged by D.W.1 had taken place, the same would have been witnessed by the mother-in-law of D.W.1. There is no explanation from D.W.1 as to whether her mother-in-law was present at the time of alleged incident on 05.01.2018. It is pertinent to mention here that the theft in the house of P.W.1 took place on the night of 12.10.2017. Whereas, as per the evidence of D.W.1, police took away her gold ornaments on 05.01.2018. Therefore, there is no 7 possibility for P.W.1 to give false report regarding theft by including the gold ornaments of D.W.1. The seized gold ornaments corresponds to the gold ornaments mentioned in Ex.P1 report. Further D.W.1 has not made any claim over gold ring with Saibaba idol and small gold rings of children.

21.In the chief examination of D.W.1, she has deposed that police have taken away four sovereigns of gold nantradu, three sovereigns of necklace, two sovereigns of gold black beads chain, one chandraharam, one pair of ear rings, two gold rings and pearls chain. D.W.1 further deposed that she purchased gold nantradu, necklace and black beads chain in the shop of Kopparthi Ramarao jewelers and two gold rings from the shop of Kopparthi Narayana Rao. However, she has failed to produce any proof of purchase concerning necklace and gold rings. D.W.1 further deposed that gold chandraharam and ear rings are brought by her mother-in-law from Kuwait. D.W.1 did not got her mother-in-law examined to prove the said aspect.

22.From the above discussion, it is clear that D.W.1 except relying on Ex.D1 and D2 bills which are vague in description and other particulars, has not come up with any cogent evidence to show that the gold ornaments claimed by her belongs to her. On the other hand, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 amply establishes the occurrence of theft and the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 4 amply establishes the identification of stolen ornaments by P.W.1 in the presence of independent mediators. Therefore, the claim made by the accused over the seized gold ornaments cannot be accepted.

23.In view of the discussion in foregoing paragraphs, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of A1 and A2 for the offences charged against them and accordingly, A1 and A2 are entitled for benefit of doubt.

In the result, I find A1 not guilty of the offences under Sec.457 and 380 of IPC and A2 not guilty of the offence under Sec.411 of IPC and accordingly, A1 and A2 are acquitted of the said offences as per Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 and A2, if any, shall be in force for a period of six months as required under Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. M.Os.1 to 9 shall be returned to P.W.1 after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to Stenographer Gr.III, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me

in open court, this the 23rd day of June, 2020.

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM-

I ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

BHIMAVARAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: - FOR ACCUSED:-

P.W.1:Payasam Veera Naga Satya Ramarao D.W.1 Savarapu Padma P.w.2:Kalluri Suribabu P.W.3:K.Indraiah P.W.4:Ampavelli Satyanarayana, VRO P.W.5:K.Sudhakara Reddy, SI 8

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1:Report

Ex.P2:Relevant portion in attested copy of mediators report

Ex.P3:Attested copy of mediators report

Ex.P4:Property identification proceedings

Ex.P5:FIR

Ex.P6:Rough sketch

FOR ACCUSED:

Ex.D1 :Bill Dt.7.4.2007 issued by Kopparthi Ramarao Jewellers Ex.D2 :Bill Dt.10.9.2011 issued by Kopparthi Ramarao Jewellers

MATERIAL OBJECTS

M.O.1 :Chandraharam chain M.O.2 :Black beads chain M.O.3 :Pearls chain M.O.4 :Pair of gold ear studs M.O.5 :Gold saibaba ring M.O.6 :Cross symbol ring (broken on one side) M.O.7 :Gold anji design ring M.O.8 :Gold normal design ring M.O.9 :Gold chain

I AJCJ- CUM- I AJFCM,

BVRM 9

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT

Calendar Case No.277/2018 tried by the I Additional Junior Civil Judge – cum- I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Bhimavaram. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Report Filing Apprehension Release Commence- Close Sentence

Offence or of of on ment of of or

Complt. Complt. Accused Bail Trial. Trial Order

12/ 13.10.17 19.3.18 – –- 28.11.18 19.2.20 23.6.2020 13.10.17 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Explanation for the delay: No such unavoidable delay.

Complainant: The Sub-Inspector of police, Akividu P.S

Cr.No.165/2017 of Akividu P.S. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sl.No. Name of the Accused. F/Name. Age. Calling. Religion. Residence. Mandal.

1.Savarapu Raju, S/o.Veerapandu @ Srinu, Gowda, Samatha Nagar, Akividu, W.G.

2.Savarapu Padma, W/o.Veerapandu @ Srinu, Gowda, Samatha Nagar, Akividu, W.G. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offences : Under Sec.457, 380 and 411 IPC

Finding: Not guilty

Result:In the result, I find A1 not guilty of the offences under Sec.457 and 380 of IPC and A2 not guilty of the offence under Sec.411 of IPC and accordingly, A1 and A2 are acquitted of the said offences as per Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 and A2, if any, shall be in force for a period of six months as required under Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. M.Os.1 to 9 shall be returned to P.W.1 after expiry of appeal time.

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM-

I ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

BHIMAVARAM

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM – I ADDL. JUDL.

MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS: BHIMAVARAM.

Present:- Sri Ch.Pavan Kumar

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Bhimavaram

Tuesday, this the 23 rd day of June, 2020.

C.C.No.278/2018

Between:

The State: Rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, Akividu P.S.…Complainant.

And

1.Savarapu Raju 2.Savarapu Padma...A1 and A2

This case coming on 11-03-2020 before me for final hearing in the presence of the A.P.P. for the complainant and of Sri S.B.Vijaya Kumar, Counsel for A1 and A2, upon hearing both sides, and having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Akividu P.S has laid charge sheet against A1 and and A2 alleging A1 of the offences punishable under Sec.457, 380 of IPC or alternatively under Sec.411 of IPC and A2 of the offence punishable under Sec.411 of IPC in Cr.No.8/2018 of Akividu P.S.

2.The case of prosecution in brief is as follows:

(i)The informant i.e. L.W.1/Konepalli Lakshmi (hereinafter referred to as P.W.1) is resident of Akividu and her house is situated near Ravindra Barathi School. On 05.01.2018 P.W.1 along with her husband went to her relatives house in Madanapalli village and returned to their house on 09.01.2018. Then they have noticed that the lock of the house was broke open and when they went inside the house, they have noticed that articles are lying in pel-mel condition. They have found missing of gold necklace and two rows gold chain from the almyrah.

(ii)Basing on the report given by P.W.1, L.W.8/K.Sudhakara Reddy, the then SI of police at Akividu P.S (hereinafter referred to as P.W.4) registered a case in Cr.No.8/2018 under Sec.457 and 380 of IPC on 09.01.2018 at 2 p.m., and investigated into the case. In the course of investigation, P.W.4 visited the scene of offence, observed the scene and prepared rough sketch. Further P.W.4 examined the informant and witnesses and recorded their statements in Part II C.D.

(iii)In the course of investigation in Cr.No.165/2017 of Akividu P.S, on 10.01.2018 on receipt of credible information P.W.4 arrested A1 near new bus stand, Akividu at 8 a.m., in the presence of mediators i.e. L.W.6/A.Satyanarayana (hereinafter referred to 2 as P.W.3) and L.W.7/Relangi Himabindu and pursuant to the confession made by A1, gold chain concerned in this case was recovered from his possession under the cover of mediators report. Thereafter A1 lead the police and mediators to his house in Samatha Nagar, Akividu and there gold chandraharam, pearls chain, plain gold chain, black beads chain, ear studs and four gold rings are recovered from A2 who is mother of A1 pursuant to her confession under the cover of mediators report. P.W.4 has issued notice under Sec.41-A Cr.P.C to A2 and she complied with the terms of notice. P.W.4 forwarded A1 to II AJFCM, Bhimavaram for remand. P.W.4 added Sec.411 IPC to the charge. P.W.4 got held property identification parade at CMC Church Hall, Akividu through mediators in which P.W.1 identified his stolen property. Later after completion of investigation, charge sheet was laid.

3.Initially charge sheet was laid before Hon’ble II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class Court, Bhimavaram and cognizance of the offences punishable under Sec.457, 380 IPC was taken against A1 and A2 and summons are ordered to them by numbering the case as C.C.No.278/2018. At that stage, as per the proceedings of Hon'ble District

Judge, W.G., at Eluru, the case was transferred to this Court and continued with the

same number.

4. On appearance of A1 and A2, copies of case documents are furnished to them in due compliance of provisions under Sec.207 Cr.P.C. On 24.10.2018 A1 and A2 are examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C. Heard, charge under Sec.457, 380 or 411 of IPC is framed against A1 and Sec.411 of IPC is framed against A2, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In the course of trial before this Court, on behalf of prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Ex.P1 to P6 and M.O.1 and 2 are marked.

6.Upon closure of prosecution evidence, A1 and A2 are examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C, in which they denied the incriminating material that appeared against them in the evidence of prosecution. On enquiry, A2 reported defence evidence. On behalf of defence, A2 was examined as D.W.1.

7.Heard learned APP and that of the counsel for accused.

The learned APP contended that the evidence of P.ws.1 and 2 amply establishes the occurrence of theft in the house of P.W.1 and further establishes that M.Os.1 and 2 are stolen gold ornaments. It is further contended that the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 amply establishes the arrest of A1 and A2 and seizure of M.Os.1 and 2 pursuant to the confession of A1 and A2. By contending so, he argued that the prosecution has proved its case against A1 and A2 and thus, canvassed for their conviction.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for accused contended that this is a false case foisted against accused and that the accused are innocents of the offence alleged. It is further contended that the discrepancies found in the evidence of P.Ws.1 3 and 2 goes to show that no theft was committed in the house of P.W.1. It is further contended that police have falsely taken A1 to police station and took the gold ornaments from the house of accused and shown them as stolen property. It is further contended that the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 is marred with inconsistencies and developments, as such, the same cannot be believed. By contending so, he argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against A1 and A2 and thus, prayed for their acquittal. Further, the learned counsel for accused prayed for return of gold ornaments to A2.

8.Now, the point for determination is :-

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of A1 for the offences punishable under Sec.457, 380 or 411 of IPC and A2 for the offence punishable under Sec.411 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

P O I N T

9.The prosecution, in order to establish the occurrence of theft as examined P.Ws.1, 2 and 4. P.W.1 who is informant in this case deposed his evidence stating that on 05.01.2018 she along with her husband went to Madanapalli village by locking their house. That, on 09.01.2018 at 9 a.m., when they returned to their house, they have noticed that the lock of their house was broke open and when they went inside, articles are lying in pel-mel condition. That, on verification, they found missing of gold necklace and two rows gold chain from the almyrah. That, she gave report i.e. Ex.P1 to police. That, after three days police informed her about recovery of her stolen gold ornaments. That, police have shown her gold ornaments at the police station and she identified them. M.Os.1 and 2 are marked through her.

10.P.W.2 who is neighbour to the house of P.W.1 deposed his evidence stating that

before Sankranthi festival in 2018 P.W.1 and her husband went to Madanapalli and

after Sankranthi festival they returned and found that their gold ornaments are missing. That, he went to the house of P.W.1 and she informed him about missing of gold ornaments. In re-examination by APP, he clarified that he is not certain about the date on which P.W.1 and her husband returned to their house and whether it is before or after Sankranthi festival.

11.P.W.4 who is investigation officer deposed his evidence stating that on 09.01.2018 at about 2 p.m., while he was present in the police station, P.W.1 came to police station and presented Ex.P1 report and he registered the same as Ex.P5 FIR. He further deposed about visiting the scene of offence, observing the scene and preparing rough sketch. He further deposed about examining P.W.1 and witnesses and recording their statements in Part II C.D.

12.From the above evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 4, it is amply made clear that none of them deposed their evidence directly incriminating against A1. Though P.W.1 identified the gold ornaments recovered from A1 and A2 as her stolen property and 4 the same are marked through her as M.Os.1 and 2 and further the evidence of P.W.4 with regard to property identification parade is in consonance with the prosecution case, the accused have made claim against some of the gold ornaments. Now it is to be seen whether M.Os.1 and 2 are stolen gold ornaments and whether the same are recovered from A1 and A2.

13.The prosecution to prove the arrest of A1 and A2 and seizure of M.Os.1 and 2 from A1 and A2, has relied on the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4. P.W.3 who is one of the mediators at the time of arrest of A1 deposed his evidence stating that on 10.01.2018 at 7 a.m., SI of police, Akividu P.S has called him over phone and asked him and VRA to come to new bus stand, Akividu and accordingly they went there. That, there SI of police caught one person who on enquiry revealed his name as Savarapu Raju. That, A1 confessed about the offences committed by him including the theft concerned in this case. That, when questioned about the stolen property, A1 has handed over two rows gold chain taken out from his pocket to SI of police and when questioned about remaining stolen property, A1 has stated that he has given the property to his mother and if they accompany him, he will show them. That, mediators report was recorded to that effect. Ex.P2 relevant portion in attested copy of mediators report was marked. P.W.3 further deposed that A1 took them to his house situated in Samatha Nagar and at that time the mother of A1 was not present in the house and on that A1 went inside the house and brought one steel box and upon opening the same, they found necklace, gold black beads chain, Nantradu, Pearl chain, one pair of ear studs and four rings. That, SI of police seized the said ornaments under the cover of mediators report. Ex.P3 attested copy of mediators report was marked. P.W.3 further deposed that as Savarapu Raju has handed over the stolen property to his mother and she concealed the same, both of them were arrested.

14.P.W.4 who is investigation officer in this case deposed his evidence in this regard stating that on 10.01.2018 he has arrested A1 at Akividu bus stand in the presence of mediators i.e. P.W.3 and L.W.7/R.Himabindu. That, A1 confessed about committing the offence in this case and in another case. P.W.4 further deposed that he seized the stolen property concerned in this case under the cover of mediators report. P.W.5 further deposed that A1 lead them to his house situated in Samatha Nagar, Akividu and there he has seized stolen property concerned in Cr.No.165/2017 from A2 who confessed about receiving the stolen property from A1.

15.From the above evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4, it is clear that their evidence is contrary to each other and the evidence of P.W.3 is inconsistent with the prosecution case. While it is the case of prosecution that part of stolen property concerned in this case i.e. gold nantradu was recovered from A1 at the time of his arrest pursuant to his confession, P.W.4 deposed that he has seized the stolen property concerned in this case from A1. While it is the case of prosecution that part of stolen property concerned in this case was recovered from A2 at the house of accused, P.W.3 in his evidence 5 deposed that A2 was not present at the house when A1 lead them to his house and he further deposed that the stolen property in this case was handed over by A1. Thus, the evidence of P.W.3 creates any amount of doubt as to the mode and manner in which A1 was arrested and stolen property was recovered. The discrepancies found in the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 does not inspire confidence of this Court in believing the prosecution case with regard to arrest of A1 and seizure of stolen gold ornaments from A2 pursuant to the confession of A1 and A2. Hence, in these circumstances, there can be no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of A1 and A2 for the offences charged against them.

16.Now coming to the aspect whether M.Os.1 and 2 are stolen property of P.W.1 or not is concerned, it is the evidence of P.W.1 that she has identified the stolen property at the police station when police showed her, P.W.3 deposed that identification parade was conducted on 13.01.2018 at 10 a.m., in which P.W.1 identified her stolen property

before mediators when the same are mixed along with similar gold ornaments. On the

other hand, A2 who was examined as D.W.1 deposed her evidence stating that her mother-in-law works in Kuwait for 10 years and returned to India. That, on 03.01.2018 in the early hours at 3.30 a.m., A1 and his friend returned from Vijayawada in train and while they are coming to the house and reached Siddapuram Railway gate, one constable by name Srinu and another constable took them to police station. That, her sister who is residing near Siddapuram Railway gate noticed the same and followed them to the police station. That, police shouted at her sister and sent her away. That, due to fear her sister returned from the police station and informed her about police taking away A1 and his friend. That, then she went to Akividu police station, but they have not shown A1 to her.

17.D.W.1 further deposed that on 5.1.2018 also she went to police station, but police without showing A1 to her, have asked her to sit on the back side of police station and then the police without her notice have taken A1 to her house, broke open the lock and took their gold ornaments and returned to police station. That, when she asked the police to show her son, they have stated that they will show him later and asked her to go away. That, when she returned home, she noticed that door was opened and articles are lying in pel-mel condition. That, due to frustration, she consumed poison to commit suicide. That, then her last son took her to Govt. Hospital, Bhimavaram and there she took treatment for three days. She further deposed that on 10.01.2018 A1 was produced before the Court with severe injuries on his legs and hands. That, Hon'ble Magistrate has referred A1 to hospital and also summoned SI of police and questioned him about beating A1. She further deposed that A1 was not arrested and no stolen property was seized from him as alleged by police. She further deposed that she has filed petition claiming the gold ornaments which are shown as stolen property in this case. she further deposed that police have taken away four sovereigns of gold nantradu, three sovereigns of necklace, two sovereigns of gold black beads chain, one chandraharam, one pair of ear rings, two gold rings and pearls 6 chain. She further deposed that she has purchased gold nantradu, necklace and black beads chain in the shop of Kopparthi Ramarao jewelers. She further deposed that gold chandraharam and ear rings are brought by her mother-in-law from Kuwait. She further deposed that she purchased two gold rings from the shop of Kopparthi Narayana Rao.

18.Further, in the cross examination of D.W.1, she has deposed that she do not have any documentary proofs concerning other gold ornaments claimed by her. Though D.W.1 in her cross examination deposed that she can examine the owner of the shop in which she purchased the gold, she has not taken any steps to examine the said person.

19.As per the evidence of D.W.1, on 05.01.2018 police came to her house, break open the lock and took gold ornaments while she was waiting at the police station to see her son. In the cross examination of D.W.1, she deposed her mother-in-law is residing at their house for the last three years. It is not the evidence of D.W.1 that she along with her mother-in-law went to the police station to see her son. From the evidence of D.W.1 that her mother-in-law is residing at their house for the last three years, it is clear that, had there been any incident as alleged by D.W.1 had taken place, the same would have been witnessed by the mother-in-law of D.W.1. There is no explanation from D.W.1 as to whether her mother-in-law was present at the time of alleged incident on 05.01.2018. The seized gold ornaments corresponds to the gold ornaments mentioned in Ex.P1 report.

20.In the chief examination of D.W.1, she has deposed that police have taken away four sovereigns of gold nantradu, three sovereigns of necklace, two sovereigns of gold black beads chain, one chandraharam, one pair of ear rings, two gold rings and pearls chain. D.W.1 further deposed that she purchased gold nantradu, necklace and black beads chain in the shop of Kopparthi Ramarao jewelers and two gold rings from the shop of Kopparthi Narayana Rao. However, she has failed to produce any proof of purchase concerning the gold ornaments. D.W.1 further deposed that gold chandraharam and ear rings are brought by her mother-in-law from Kuwait. D.W.1 did not got her mother-in-law examined to prove the said aspect.

21.From the above discussion, it is clear that D.W.1 except relying on her self serving oral testimony, has not come up with any cogent evidence to show that the gold ornaments claimed by her belongs to her. It is pertinent to mention here that though A2 has filed Crl.M.P.No.1034/2018 seeking interim custody of seized gold ornaments, the said petition was dismissed for non-prosecution and no further steps are taken by A2. On the other hand, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 amply establishes the occurrence of theft and the evidence of P.W.3 amply establishes the identification of stolen ornaments by P.W.1 in the presence of independent mediators. Therefore, the claim made by the accused over the seized gold ornaments cannot be accepted.

7

22.In view of the discussion in foregoing paragraphs, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of A1 and A2 for the offences charged against them and accordingly, A1 and A2 are entitled for benefit of doubt.

In the result, I find A1 not guilty of the offences under Sec.457, 380 or 411 of IPC and A2 not guilty of the offence under Sec.411 of IPC and accordingly, A1 and A2 are acquitted of the said offences as per Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 and A2, if any, shall be in force for a period of six months as required under Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. M.Os.1 and 2 shall be returned to P.W.1 after expiry of appeal time. Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Gr.III directly on computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 23rd day of June, 2020.

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM-

I ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

BHIMAVARAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: - FOR ACCUSED:-

P.W.1:Konepalli Lakshmi D.W.1 Savarapu Padma P.w.2:Rayana China Venkateswarlu P.W.3:Ampavelli Satyanarayana, VRO P.W.4:K.Sudhakara Reddy, SI

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1:Report of P.W.1

Ex.P2:Relevant portion in attested copy of mediators report

Ex.P3:Attested copy of mediators report

Ex.P4:Property identification proceedings

Ex.P5:FIR

Ex.P6:Rough sketch

FOR ACCUSED: NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS

M.O.1 :Gold necklace M.O.2 :Gold double rows chain

I AJCJ- CUM- I AJFCM,

BVRM 8

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT

Calendar Case No.278/2018 tried by the I Additional Junior Civil Judge – cum- I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Bhimavaram. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Report Filing Apprehension Release Commence- Close Sentence

Offence or of of on ment of of or

Complt. Complt. Accused Bail Trial. Trial Order

9.1.18 9.1.18 19.3.18 10.1.18(A1) 12.1.18 06.02.19 19.2.20 23.6.2020 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Explanation for the delay: No such unavoidable delay.

Complainant: The Sub-Inspector of police, Akividu P.S

Cr.No.8/2018 of Akividu P.S. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sl.No. Name of the Accused. F/Name. Age. Calling. Religion. Residence. Mandal.

1.Savarapu Raju, S/o.Veerapandu @ Srinu, Gowda, Samatha Nagar, Akividu, W.G.

2.Savarapu Padma, W/o.Veerapandu @ Srinu, Gowda, Samatha Nagar, Akividu, W.G. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offences : Under Sec.457, 380 and 411 IPC

Finding: Not guilty

Result:In the result, I find A1 not guilty of the offences under Sec.457, 380 or 411 of IPC and A2 not guilty of the offence under Sec.411 of IPC and accordingly, A1 and A2 are acquitted of the said offences as per Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 and A2, if any, shall be in force for a period of six months as required under Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. M.Os.1 and 2 shall be returned to P.W.1 after expiry of appeal time.

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM-

I ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

BHIMAVARAM

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM – I ADDL. JUDL.

MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS: BHIMAVARAM.

Present:- Sri Ch.Pavan Kumar

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class,

Bhimavaram

Monday, this the 22 nd day of June, 2020.

C.C.No.778/2017

Between:

The State: Rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, Undi P.S.…Complainant.

And

Gubbala Gowtham Kumar...Accused

This case coming on 01-06-2020 before me for final hearing in the presence of the A.P.P. for the complainant and of Sri V.Mohana Rao, Counsel for accused, upon hearing both sides, and having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Undi P.S has laid charge sheet against the accused alleging him of the offence punishable under Sec.338 of I.P.C in Cr.No.92/2017 of Undi P.S.

2.The case of prosecution in brief is as follows:

(i)The informant i.e. L.W.1/Teku Sai Durgarao (hereinafter referred to as P.W.1), L.W.2/Teku Ramanjaneyulu (hereinafter referred to as P.W.3) and L.W.3/Selavalasala Kranthi @ Sirivatsala Kranthi (hereinafter referred to as P.W.2) who are residents of Saripalli village, Ganapavaram Mandal, are injured in this case. On 05.06.2017 P.Ws.1 to 3 attended rod bending works at Kolamuru village and in the evening hours at 7 p.m., they came to Bhimavaram on motorcycle bearing No.AP 37 CE 8124 to purchase mobile phone and after purchasing the same, while they were returning to Saripalli village on the same motorcycle, at about 10 p.m., when they reached ITI college in NRP Agraharam, Undi village, one car bearing No.AP 37 CD 4971 came in opposite direction and dashed the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner. The driver of the car fled away without stopping the car. Due to the impact, P.Ws.1 to 3 fell down from the motorcycle and sustained severe injuries. P.Ws.1 to 3 were shifted to Varma Hospitals, Bhimavaram and from there P.W.2 was shifted to Vijayawada for better treatment.

2

(ii)Basing on the hospital intimation of P.Ws.1 and 3, the statement of P.W.1 was recorded by Bhimavaram I town police and the same was forwarded to Undi P.S on point of jurisdiction. L.W.8/M.Ravivarma, the then SI of police at Undi P.S (hereinafter referred to as P.W.8) upon receiving the statement of P.W.1 and hospital intimation registered the same as a case in Cr.No.92/2017 under Sec.338 of IPC on 09.06.2017 at 11.30 a.m., and investigated into the case. In the course of investigation, P.W.8 visited Varma Hospitals, Bhimavaram, secured the presence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and recorded their statements in Part II C.D. Later, P.W.8 visited the scene of offence, observed the scene and prepared rough sketch. At the scene P.W.8 secured the presence of P.Ws.4 and 5 and recorded their statements in Part II C.D. On 13.06.2017 P.W.8 issued notice under Sec.41-A Cr.P.C to the accused and he complied with the terms of notice. P.W.8 obtained wound certificates of P.Ws.1 and 3 from L.W.6/Dr.H.Satya Santosh (hereinafter referred to as P.W.6). On 27.07.2017 P.W.8 obtained wound certificate of P.W.2 and later after completion of investigation charge sheet was laid.

3.Initially charge sheet was laid before Hon’ble II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class Court, Bhimavaram and cognizance of the offence under Sec.338 IPC was taken against the accused and summons are ordered to him by numbering the case as C.C.No.778/2017.

4. On appearance of accused, copies of case documents are furnished to him in due compliance of provisions under Sec.207 Cr.P.C. On 26.06.2019 accused was examined under Sec.251 Cr.P.C and the substance of accusation leveled against the accused for the offence punishable under Sec.338 of IPC is made known to him by explaining in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. At that stage, as per the proceedings of Hon'ble District Judge, W.G., at Eluru, the case was transferred to this Court and continued with the same number.

5.In the course of trial before this Court, on behalf of prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 8 were examined and Ex.P1 to P10 are marked.

6.Upon closure of prosecution evidence, accused is examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C, in which he denied the incriminating material that appeared against him in the evidence of prosecution. On enquiry, accused reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

7.Heard learned APP and that of the counsel for accused.

The learned APP contended that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 coupled with other circumstances amply establishes the guilt of accused for the offence alleged against him. It is further contended that though independent witnesses did not support the prosecution case, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is sufficient to find the accused guilty. Thus, he canvassed for the conviction of the accused.

3

On the other hand, the learned counsel for accused contended that this is a false case foisted against accused and that the accused is innocent of the offence alleged. It is further contended that the evidence of prosecution witnesses is marred with inconsistencies and developments with regard to the identity of the accused and the rider of the motorcycle on which P.Ws.1 to 3 are proceeding. It is further contended that there is no material available on record to show that the accused is the driver of the crime vehicle and how he is connected to the crime vehicle. It is further contended that the non examination of the owner of the crime vehicle and non holding of inspection of crime vehicle through MVI makes the case of prosecution doubtful. By contending so, he argued that the prosecution has failed to establish its case against accused and thus, prayed for his acquittal.

8.Now, the point for determination is :-

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the

offence charged against him under Sec.338 of IPC beyond

reasonable doubt?

P O I N T

9.

To prove the offences under Sec.338 of IPC in accident cases, the following aspects are to be established.

1.That the accident has taken place in which the injured have `sustained injuries.

2.That the vehicles i.e., car bearing No.AP 37 CD 4971 and motorcycle bearing No.AP 37 CE 8124 are involved in the accident.

3.That the accused is the driver of car bearing No.AP 37 CD 4971 at the time of accident.

4.That the accident occurred due to rash or negligent driving of the accused.

10.The prosecution, in order to establish its case, has examined P.Ws.1 to 5 as material witnesses. P.Ws.1 to 3 are injured in this case and P.Ws.4 and are cited as eye witnesses to the incident. Before going into the evidence of prosecution, it is pertinent to mention here that the occurrence of accident and injuries sustained by P.Ws.1 to 3 in the accident is not disputed. However, as per the contention of the accused, some unknown vehicle dashed the motorcycle on which P.Ws.1 to 3 are proceeding by consuming liquor. In light of the above contention, I would like to appreciate the evidence on record.

11.P.W.1 who is injured in this case deposed his evidence stating that on 5.6.2017 he along with P.Ws.2 and 3 attended rod bending work in Kolamuru village and returned home at 7 p.m. That, on the same day at 8 p.m., they went to Bhimavaram on the motorcycle of P.W.2 to purchase mobile phone and after purchasing the same, they started returning to their village on the same motor cycle. That, P.W.2 was 4 driving the motorcycle. That, when they reached near Government ITI college near Undi at 10.30 p.m., one car coming in opposite direction from Undi side dashed their motorcycle, went ahead and stopped. That, the driver of the car reversed his vehicle, saw them without getting down from the car and fled away with the car. That, due to that impact, they fell down by the side of the road and sustained injuries. That, they were shifted to Varma Hospital in an Ambulance and later P.W.2 was shifted to Vijayawada for better treatment. He further deposed that police recorded his statement at Varma Hospital after four days from the date of incident. He further deposed that car which dashed their motorcycle is bearing No.AP 37 CD 4971.

12.P.Ws.2 and 3 as well deposed their evidence in similar lines that of the evidence of P.W.1. P.W.4 who is cited as eye witness to the incident deposed his evidence stating that about 2 ½ years ago in the month of June on a day at about 10.30 p.m., while he was on duty at Krishi Vignana Kendram, he heard huge sound from the road and went on to the road. That, there he has seen one motorcycle and three persons lying on the ground with injuries. That, all three of them lying unconscious. That, after sometime Ambulance came to that place and he has assisted the injured persons to get on to the Ambulance. P.W.5 who is cited as another eye witness to the incident deposed his evidence stating that he is not aware of the facts of the case and that police never examined him. The learned APP treated P.Ws.4 and 5 as hostile witnesses and cross examined them with the permission of this Court, but nothing could be elicited in support of prosecution case except for marking the relevant statement of P.W.4 and statement of P.W.5 given to police as Ex.P2 and P3.

13.The doctor who gave treatment to P.Ws.1 and 3 were examined as P.W.6 and he deposed his evidence to that effect and injuries sustained by them. Ex.P4 and P5 are marked through him. To prove the injuries sustained by P.W.2, the prosecution got marked the wound certificate of P.W.2 through P.W.7 who deposed his evidence stating that Dr.Parveen who worked as medical officer in Liberty Hospital, Vijayawada issued wound certificate of P.w.2 and that the said Dr.Parveen left the hospital one year ago and her whereabouts are not known. That, he can identify her signature as they worked together for two years.

14.The investigating officer in this case was examined as P.W.8 and he deposed about investigation done by him.

15.A perusal of the record discloses that the alleged incident took place on 5.6.2017 at about 10.30 p.m. Whereas, as per the evidence of P.W.8 and Ex.P9 FIR, the case was registered on 9.6.2017 at 11.30 a.m. Thus, there is a gap of 3 ½ days in registering the FIR. A perusal of Ex.P7 and P8 hospital intimations of P.Ws.1 and 3 discloses that the same were issued on 6.6.2017. There is nothing available on record to show who received the said intimation at Bhimavaram I town P.S, recorded 5 the statement of P.W.1 and forwarded the same to Undi P.S. Moreover from the evidence of P.W.1, it is clear that the statement was recorded after four days from the date of incident. The prosecution has not given any explanation with regard to the delay occurred in recording the statement of P.W.1. Further none of P.Ws.1 to 3 or their family members have not given any report to police.

16.While it is the evidence of P.w.1 that his statement was recorded after four days from the date of incident and perusal of Ex.P9 FIR as well reveals the said aspect, P.W.2 in his cross examination surprisingly deposed that police recorded his statement at Vijayawada hospital on the next day to the incident. Further, P.W.3 in his cross examination deposed that police recorded his statement at Varma Hospital after two days from the incident. When the very FIR was registered after four days from the incident, the question of police examining P.Ws.2 and 3 on the next day of incident and after two days from the incident respectively does not arise. Thus, from the above circumstances, it is clear that the registration of FIR and examination of witnesses by police is shrouded with suspicion.

17.As per the charge sheet averments and evidence of P.W.8 who is investigation officer, P.W.1 is the rider of the motorcycle at the time of incident. Whereas P.Ws.1 to 3 consistently deposed that P.W.2 was driving the motorcycle at the time of incident. Thus, there is discrepancy between the prosecution case and evidence of material witnesses.

18.As per the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, the driver of the car after dashing their motorcycle went ahead and stopped the car, reversed the same, saw them without getting down from the car and fled away from the car. Further, as per the evidence of P.W.3, the driver of car saw them and fled away with the car. A perusal of Ex.P1 statement discloses that P.W.1 has stated to the police that the driver of car fled away without stopping the car. In the cross examination of P.W.8, he deposed that none of the witnesses stated that they have seen the driver of crime vehicle and that they can identify him. Admittedly there are no street lights at the scene of offence. Further, as per the evidence of P.W.4, when he came to the scene after hearing huge sound, he has seen three persons lying unconscious. In view of the above circumstances, I find it hard to believe that P.W.1 to 3 have seen the driver of the crime vehicle.

19.Now coming to the identity of the accused as driver of the crime vehicle is concerned, there is nothing worth believing is available on record to show that the accused is the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident. In the cross examination of P.W.8, he deposed that he has ascertained the identity of the accused with the identity of the car. However, he deposed that he has not examined the owner of the crime vehicle and he has not got the crime vehicle and motorcycle of 6 injured inspected by MVI. The above evidence of P.W.8 throws any amount of suspicion as to how he ascertained the identity of the accused.

20.As per the prosecution case and evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, P.Ws.1 to 3 have proceeded on the same motorcycle. Though triple riding is an offence, P.W.8 has not charged the driver of the motorcycle under the provisions of MV Act. From the above circumstances, it is clear that the investigating officer has performed perfunctory role in conducting investigation.

21.In view of the discussion in the foregoing paragraphs, I am of the opinion that there is no evidence available on record to connect the accused with the offence. Further the discrepancies found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and in the prosecution case does not inspire the confidence of this Court in believing the prosecution case. Therefore, there can be no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence alleged against him under Sec.338 of IPC. Accordingly, accused is entitled for acquittal.

In the result, I find the accused not guilty of the offence punishable under Sec.338 of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted of the said offence as per Sec.248(1) Cr.P.c. The bail bonds of accused, if any, shall be in force for a period of six months as required under Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. There is no order as to property.

Dictated to Stenographer Gr.III transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me

in open court, this the 22nd day of June, 2020.

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM-

I ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

BHIMAVARAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: - FOR ACCUSED:-

P.W.1:Teku Sai Durgarao None P.w.2:S.Kranthi Kumar P.W.3:Teku Ramanjaneyulu P.W.4:Paluri Balaji P.W.5:Kuppali Rajarao P.W.6:Dr.H.Satya Santosh P.W.7:Dr.Sayed Javed Hussain P.W.8:M.Ravi Varma, SI

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1:Statement of P.W.1 Ex.P2:Relevant portion in 161 Cr.PC statement of P.W.4 Ex.P3:161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.5 Ex.P4:Wound certificate of P.W.1 Ex.P5:Wound certificate of P.W.3 7

Ex.P6:Wound certificate of P.W.2 Ex.P7:Hospital intimation Ex.P8:Hospital intimation Ex.P9:FIR Ex.P10:Rough sketch

FOR ACCUSED: NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS

NIL

I AJCJ- CUM- I AJFCM,

BVRM 8

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT

Calendar Case No.778/2017 tried by the I Additional Junior Civil Judge – cum- I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Bhimavaram. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Report Filing Apprehension Release Commence- Close Sentence

Offence or of of on ment of of or

Complt. Complt. Accused Bail Trial. Trial Order

5.6.17 9.6.17 28.8.17 -- -- 17.10.19 16.3.20 22.6.2020 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Explanation for the delay: No such unavoidable delay.

Complainant: The Sub-Inspector of police, Undi P.S

Cr.No.92/2017 of Undi P.S. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sl.No. Name of the Accused. F/Name. Age. Calling. Religion. Residence. Mandal.

Gubbala Gowtham Kumar, S/o.Satyanarayana, 20yrs, S.Balija, Kukkalavarithota, Mogalturu Mandal, Driver of car bearing No.AP 37 CD 4971 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offences : Under Sec.338 of IPC

Finding: Not guilty

Result:In the result, I find the accused not guilty of the offence punishable under Sec.338 of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted of the said offence as per Sec.248(1) Cr.P.c. The bail bonds of accused, if any, shall be in force for a period of six months as required under Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. There is no order as to property.

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM-

I ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

BHIMAVARAM

1

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

BHIMAVARAM.

Present:- Sri Ch.Pavan Kumar

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

FAC: II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Bhimavaram

Tuesday, this the 25 th day of June, 2019.

C.C.No.148/2019

Between:

The State: Rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, Kalla P.S …Complainant.

And

1. Didla Nagaraju @ Nagulu.

2. Kannepamula Daveedu.

3. Nelluri Chittinaidu @ Yesu.

4. Chitturi Veera Swami....Accused

This case coming on 17-6-2019 before me for final hearing in the presence of the A.P.P. for the complainant and of Sri K.V. Ramana, Counsel for accused, and having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kalla P.S. has laid charge sheet in Cr.No.229/2018 of Kalla P.S. against A1 to A4 alleging them of the offence punishable under Sec.379 or alternatively u/s.411 of IPC of Kalla P.S.

2.The case of prosecution in brief is as follows:

(i)The informant, i.e., LW1/Pasim Srinu (hereinafter referred to as P.W.1) has been working under LW2/Gokaraju Pedababu for the past 3 years by watching his cocks. LW2/Gokaraju Pedababu used to rear high breed cocks. That, from one week prior to filing of the case, some unknown persons have committed theft of 5 cocks from the makham of LW2/Gokaraju Pedababu. While so, on 23.12.2018 at about 11.30 P.M., two unknown persons came to the place, where the cocks are kept and committed theft of two cocks and while they are taking away motorcycle of PW1, on hearing the noise, PW1 ran after the motorcycle, but the accused pushed him and absconded.

(ii)Basing on the report given by PW1, LW7/G. Subba Rao, the then Head Constable of Kalla P.S. (hereinafter referred to as P.W.3) registered a case in Cr.No.229/2018, u/s.379 of IPC on 24.12.2018 at 3 P.M. and investigated into the case. In the course of investigation, PW3 visited the scene of offence, observed the 2 scene and prepared rough sketch. Further, P.W.3 examined the informant and witnesses and recorded their statements in part II C.D.

(iv)LW8/D. Rajkumar, the then S.I. of Police of Kalla P.S.(hereinafter referred to as P.W.4) took up further investigation and on 29.12.2018 at 10 A.M., PW4 arrested A1 and A2 in the presence of mediators at Kopalle bridge and seized Hero Glamour motorcycle bearing No.AP37 DP 4469 from their possession in the presence of mediators, pursuant to the confession made by A1 and A2. Police party went to the shed of A4 in Elurupadu and there, arrested A3 and A4 and seized 7 cocks under the cover of mediators report. After completing formalities, A1 to A4 are forwarded to court for remand. Since A3 and A4 received stolen property, Section 411 of IPC was added to the charge. Later, after completion of investigation charge sheet was laid.

3.Cognizance of the offence under Sec.379 or 411 of IPC was taken against A1 to A4 and summons are ordered against them.

4.On appearance of A1 to A4, copies of case documents are furnished to them in due compliance of provisions under Sec.207 Cr.P.C. On 2.4.2019, A1 to A4 were examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C. Heard, charge under Sec.379 or 411 of IPC was framed against A1 to A4, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In the course of trial, on behalf of prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Ex.P1 to P5 and M.Os.1 and 2 are marked.

6.Upon closure of prosecution evidence, A1 to A4 were examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C, in which they denied the incriminating material that appeared against them in the evidence of prosecution. On enquiry, accused reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

7.Heard learned A.P.P and that of the counsel for accused.

The learned A.P.P contended that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 amply establishes the occurrence of theft and that the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 4 amply establishes the arrest of A1 to A4, confession made by them with regard to their involvement in committing the offence and further about recovery of stolen property from their possession. It is further contended that all the circumstances points to the guilt of accused and thus, canvassed for his conviction.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for accused contended that this is a false case foisted against accused and that they are innocents of the offence alleged. It is further contended that the evidence of prosecution witnesses is marred with inconsistencies and developments, as such, the same cannot be believed. By 3 contending so, it is argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against A1 to A4 and thus, prayed for acquittal of the accused.

8.Now, the point for determination is :-

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of A1 to A4 for the

offence charged against them under Sec.379 or 411 of IPC beyond

reasonable doubt?

P O I N T

9.The allegation in brief against A1 to A4 is that A3 and A4 abetted A1 and A2 to commit theft of cocks from the shed of LW2/Gokaraju Pedababu and accordingly, A1 and A2 have committed theft of cocks and motorcycle of PW1 from the fields of LW2/Gokaraju Pedababu. Hence, the charge.

10.The prosecution, in order to establish the occurrence of theft has relied on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3. P.W.1 who is informant in this case deposed his evidence stating that on 23.12.2018 at about 7 P.M., he parked his two wheeler, i.e., Glamour motorcycle in front of his house and that he kept 7 cocks in one room. That, at 11 P.M., he heard barking of dock and found 4 persons tried to escape on motorcycle with cocks. That he caught A2 and informed the same to LW2/G. Pedababu. That LW2/G. Pedababu made a phone call to President of Kallakuru and in turn came to the scene of offence and took A2 to police station. That, on the next day, he went to Kalla P.S. at 4 P.M., and lodged report.

11.PW3 who is the first investigation officer in this case deposed his evidence stating that on 24.12.2018 at 3 P.M., he has received Ex.P1 report from PW1 and registered the same as Ex.P4 FIR. He further deposed that he visited the scene of offence, observed the scene and prepared Ex.P5 rough sketch. He further deposed that he has examined the informant and witnesses and recorded their statements in part II C.D.

12.The learned counsel for the accused contended that the evidence of PW1 is quite contrary to the prosecution case, as such, the contents of Ex.P1 report and evidence of PW1 cannot be believed.

13.A perusal of the record discloses that the alleged theft took place on the night of 23.12.2018, whereas PW1 gave report on 24.12.2018 at 3 P.M. On the contrary, PW1 deposed his evidence stating that he gave report on the next day to the incident at 4 P.M. As per the contents of Ex.P1 report, on the night of 23.12.2018 at 11.30 P.M., two unknown persons came and took away two cocks and his motorcycle and that when he tried to catch them, they have pushed him and absconded. On the contrary, PW1 in his evidence before this court deposed that on the date of incident at 11 p.m., he heard barking of dog and found four persons trying to escape from that place on motorcycle with two cocks. He however deposed that he caught A2 and informed the same to LW2/Gokaraju Pedababu, who in turn informed the 4 same to President of Kallakuru and that President of Kallakuru came to the scene of offence and took A2 to Kalla P.S.

14.In the cross-examination of PW1, he denied the suggestion with regard to the developments made by him in his chief-examination. From the above evidence of PW1, it is amply made clear that his evidence is quite contrary to the contents of Ex.P1 report. Hence, in these circumstances, the contents of Ex.P1 report and evidence of PW1 has to be viewed cautiously.

15.The prosecution in order to establish the arrest of A1 to A4 and seizure of M.Os.1 and 2 has relied upon the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 4. PW2 who is one of the mediators at the time of arrest of A1 to A4 and seizure of M.Os.1 and 2 deposed his evidence stating that on 29.12.2018 at about 9 A.M., SI of Police, Kalla P.s. has called him and LW6/Gokaraju Narayanaraju to the police station and from there, the SI of Police took them and his staff to Kopalle bridge in Kopalle village. That there, on seeing the police two persons turned suspicious and on that, SI of Police detained them with the assistance of his staff and took them to the police station. That, at the police station, the said persons revealed their names as Nagaraju and Daveedu and confessed that at the instance of Chittinaidu and Veeraswamy, they have committed theft of 5 cocks on one day and two cocks and motorcycle on another day and that they have received amounts for the cocks from Veeraswamy and Chittinaidu. He further deposed that Ex.P2 mediators report was drafted to that effect. He further deposed that police took them, Nagaraju and Daveedu to iron shed in Kothapeta to Elurupadu and there, police caught two persons and on enquiry, they revealed their names as Veeraswamy and Chittinaidu and confessed about abetting Nagaraju and Daveedu to commit theft of cocks and purchasing cocks from them. That Ex.P3 mediator report was drafted to that effect. PW4 who is the investigation officer in this case deposed about the arrest of A1 to A4 and seizure of M.Os.1 and 2 inconsonance with the prosecution case.

16. Now it is to be seen whether the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 4 stood to the test of cross-examination and whether their evidence is sufficient to prove the allegations made against A1 to A4. As per the prosecution case, A1 and A2 are arrested at Kopalle bridge and pursuant to their confession, they were taken to Elurupadu, whereas PW2 in his evidence deposed that A1 and A2 are caught at Kopalle bridge and brought to police station and there, they confessed about the offence. Thus, the evidence of PW2 is contrary to the prosecution case.

17.Admittedly, PW2 and LW6/Gokaraju Narayanaraju are friends of LW2/Gokaraju Pedababu who is the owner of the cocks. Further, PW2 and LW6/Gokaraju Narayanraju are not the residents of the locality, where A1 to A4 are arrested. Hence, under these circumstances, the evidence of PW2 which is contrary to the prosecution case cannot be believed.

18.When it is the evidence of PW1 that he has caught A2 and he was handed over at Kalla P.S., by President of Kallakuru village, how A2 was again arrested on 5 29.12.2018 at 9 p.m., is not explained by the prosecution. The discrepancies found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses goes to show to the root of prosecution case and does not inspire confidence of this court in believing the prosecution case. There is no cogent and the consistent evidence from the prosecution to show that A1 and A2 have committed theft of M.Os.1 and 2 and that A3 and A4 have abetted the theft and further that stolen property was recovered from the possession of A3 and A4.

19.In view of the discussion in the foregoing paragraphs, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of A1 to A4 and accordingly, they are entitled for benefit of doubt.

In the result, I find A1 to A4 not guilty of the offence punishable under Sec.379 or 411 of IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted of the said offence as per Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The Jail Authorities are directed to release A1 forthwith, if not required in any other cases. The bail bonds of A2 to A4 if any, shall be in force for a period of six months as required under section 437(A) Cr.P.C. M.O.1 Hero Honda Glamour motorcycle bearing No.AP37 DP 4469 and MO2 Seven cocks which are given interim custody toPW1 is hereby made absolute after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to Stenographer Gr.I, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me

in open court, this the 25th day of June, 2019.

I ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

FAC: II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

BHIMAVARAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: - FOR ACCUSED:-

P.W.1:P. Srinivas. None P.w.2:Alluri Venkata Ranga Raju. P.W.3:G. Subba Rao. P.W.4:M. Raj Kumar.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1:Report given by P.W.1 to Police. Ex.P2:Relevant portion of mediators report. Ex.P3:FIR. Ex.P4:Rough sketch.

FOR ACCUSED: NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS

M.O.1:Hero Honda Glamour motorcycle bearing registration No.AP37 DP 4469. M.O.2:Seven cocks.

I AJCJ,

FAC: II AJFCM, BVRM 6

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT

Calendar Case No.148/2019 tried by the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Bhimavaram.

Date of

Report Filing Apprehension Release Commence- Close Sentence

Offence or of of on ment of of or

Complt. Complt. Accused Bail Trial. Trial Order

A1:-- 23.12.18 24.12.18 28.2.19 29.12.18 A2:5.1.19 8.4.19 17.6.18 25.6.19 A3&A4:7.1.19

Explanation for the delay: No such unavoidable delay.

Complainant: The Sub-Inspector of police, Kalla P.S

Cr.No.229/2018 of Kalla P.S ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sl.No. Name of the Accused. F/Name. Age. Calling. Religion. Residence. Mandal.

1. Didla Nagaraju @ Nagulu, S/o. Pitchayya, 39 yrs., SC Mala, Pedapeta, Elurupadu Village, Kalla Mandal.

2. Kannepamula Daveedu, S/o. John Moshe, 35 yrs., SC Madiga, Kothapeta, Elurupadu Village, Kalla Mandal.

3. Nelluri Chittinaidu @ Yesu, S/o. Masthan Rao, 25 yrs., Kapu, Kothapeta, Elurupadu Village, Kalla Mandal.

4. Chitturi Veera Swami, S/o. Satyanarayana, 45 yrs., Kapu, Elurupadu Village, Kalla Mandal.

Offence: Under Sec.379 or alternatively Under Sec.411 of IPC

Finding: Not guilty

Result: In the result, I find A1 to A4 not guilty of the offence punishable under Sec.379 or 411 of IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted of the said offence as per Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The Jail Authorities are directed to release A1 forthwith, if not required in any other cases. The bail bonds of A2 to A4 if any, shall be in force for a period of six months as required under section 437(A) Cr.P.C. M.O.1 Hero Honda Glamour motorcycle bearing No.AP37 DP 4469 and MO2 Seven cocks which are given interim custody toPW1 is hereby made absolute after expiry of appeal time.

I ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

FAC: II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

BHIMAVARAM.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL I CLASS MAGISTRATE

BHIMAVARAM.

PRESENT : Kum. M.Vijaya Rameswari

II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class

Tuesday, this the 26 th day of March, 2018

CALENDAR CASE No.743/2017

Between: State – Rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police,

Kalla P.S. ...Complainant.

A N D

1. Tirumani Srinu, S/o. Designaraju, 45 yrs., Agnikula Kshatriya, Prathalameraka of Kalla Mandal.

2. Tirumani Veeranjaneyulu, S/o.Srinu, 22 yrs., Agnikula Kshatriya, Prathalameraka of Kalla Mandal.

..Accused

This case is coming on this day before this court for final hearing

before me in the presence of A.P.P. Gr-II for the Prosecution and of Sri G.V.G. Swamy,

Learned counsel for accused and upon hearing the arguments on both sides and the matter is having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The accused 1 and 2 are arrayed before this court for the offence punishable U/Sec.354, 506 and 290 of Indian Penal Code in Cr.No.90/2017 of Kalla

Police Station.

2. The case facts of charge sheet in brief as follows:

On 4.6.2017 at about 7 P.M., at Pathalameraka Village of Kalla Mandal, both the accused went to the house of LW1/Karadi Anuradha and inquired why the husband of LW1 gave suggestions to the auto driver, while driver going to the house of accused and abused her. When her son interfered, A2 pushed her son and when she interfered, A1 pushed her by keeping his hands on her chest, abused her in filthy language and threatened her that he will kill her and insulted her. Having received the report from LW1, LW9/M. Raj Kumar, S.I. of Police of Kalla P.S. of Kalla

P.S., registered a case in Cr.No.90/2017 u/s.354, 506 and 290 of IPC on 7.6.2017 at 8.00 a.m., and investigated into. During the course of investigation, he examined as many as 8 witnesses including the defacto complainant and recorded their statements. Later, he visited the scene of offence and got prepared rough sketch.

2

Later, he served notice u/s.41-A Cr.P.C. to the accused. After completion of investigation,the SI of Police laid charge sheet.

3. Basing on the material available on record, this case was taken on file for the offence punishable under U/secs.354, 506 and 290 of IPC .

4. On appearance of the accused 1 and 2, copies of documents are furnished as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. The accused 1 and 2 were examined under Section.239 of Cr.P.C and charge under Section 354 of IPC against A1 and Section 290 and 506 of I.P.C.

against A1 and A2 have been framed and read over and explained to thm in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During the course of trial the prosecution has examined P.W.1 and Ex.P-1 on behalf of the prosecution. The learned APP have given up the other list cited witnesses.

7.After completion of prosecution evidence, accused 1 and 2 were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., for which they denied the incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard Arguments on both the sides.

9. Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of A1 for

the offence U/Sec.354 of IPC and guilt of A1 and A2 for the

offence U/Sec.290 and 506 of IPC beyond all reasonable

doubt or not?

10.POINT:-

The gist of the prosecution case is that on On 4.6.2017 at about 7 P.M., at Pathalameraka Village of Kalla Mandal, both the accused went to the house of

LW1/Karadi Anuradha and inquired why the husband of LW1 gave suggestions to the auto driver, while driver going to the house of accused and abused her. When her son interfered, A2 pushed her son and when she interfered, A1 pushed her by keeping his hands on her chest, abused her in filthy language and threatened her that he will kill her and insulted her.

11.To prove it’s case, Prosecution examined only one witness as

P.w.1 and Ex.P.1 is marked in favour of prosecution.

3

12. PW1 in her evidence deposed that on 4.6.2017 at about 7 P.M., A1 and A2 abused her. She came out from her house and questioned A1 why he is abusing them in filthy language, then A1 pushed her by placing his hands on her chest and outraged her modesty. PW1 further deposed that on 2.6.2017, her son LW2 and A2 went to prawn tank and while returning in an auto, A2 caused accident by took the auto from it's driver and caused injuries to LW2 and LW2 admonished A2 and placed the matter before elders, thereby A2 bore grudge and outraged her modesty on 4.6.2017. Then, she gave Ex.P1 report to police.

13.In her cross-examination, PW1 deposed that she did not know anything about this case and police never examined her. Her village elders obtained her signature on white paper and lodged report against the accused and she also even denied the contents of her chief-examination and stated that her village elders forced her to depose like that.

14.In the cross examination, PW1 herself clearly admitted that she is not interested to prosecute the accused as she compromised with the accused. In such a case, it is very difficult to get the truth from the prosecution witness. In the circumstances, the prosecution has rightly given up the evidence of other witnesses, cited in the charge sheet, on the premise, no useful purpose would be served even if they are examined, as the victim P.W.1 herself did not support the case of prosecution.

15. With the above stated circumstances and reasons the prosecution is failed to establish the essential ingredients for the offence U/Sec.354, 290 and 506

I.P.C.. against accused 1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt and the accused 1 and 2 are entitled for benefit of doubt.

16. In the result, A1 is found not guilty for the offence u/sec. 354 of I.P.C., and A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offences u/sec. 290 and 506 of I.P.C. and they are acquitted U/Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused 1and 2 shall 4 be in force for six months and thereafter shall stand cancelled as contemplated under sec.437-A Cr.PC. There is no order as to property.

Dictated directly on the Computer to Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced

by me in open Court this the 26th day of March, 2019.

Sd/- Kumari M. Vijaya Rameswari,

II ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS, BHIMAVARAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.

(WITNESSES EXAMINED)

FOR PROSECUTION : FOR DEFENCE:

P.W.1: Karadi Anuradha. -None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1: Report given by PW1 to Police.

FOR DEFENCE : nil Id/- Kumari M. Vijaya Rameswari,

II AJFCM

Bhimavaram.

5

CALENDAR AND JUDGEMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

BHIMAVARAM

CALENDER CASE NO.743/2017

DATES OF:

1.Offence : 04-06-2017 2.Complaint : 07-06-2017 3.Apprehension of accused : 41-A notice given 4.Commencement of Trail : 26-03-2019 5.Close of Trail : 26-03-2019 6.Judgment : 26-03-2019 7.Complainant : State – Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kalla P.S.

8.Name of the accused :

1. Tirumani Srinu, S/o. Designaraju, 45 yrs., Agnikula Kshatriya, Prathalameraka of Kalla Mandal.

2. Tirumani Veeranjaneyulu, S/o.Srinu, 22 yrs., Agnikula Kshatriya, Prathalameraka of Kalla Mandal.

9. Offence : U/Sec.354 of IPC against A1 & U/Sec.290 and 506 of IPC against A1 and A2.

10.Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty 11.Finding : Found not guilty 12.Result: In the result, A1 is found not guilty for the offence u/sec. 354 of I.P.C., and A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offences u/sec. 290 and 506 of I.P.C. and they are acquitted U/Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused 1 and 2 shall be in force for six months and thereafter shall stand cancelled as contemplated under sec.437-A Cr.PC. There is no order as to property.

Sd/- Kumari M. Vijaya Rameswari,

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Bhimavaram.

Copy submitted to The Hon.ble I Addl.District & Sessions Judge, Eluru by way of C.D.