Sri.D.Durga Prasad

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD, L.B. NAGAR

Present: Sri. D. Durga Prasad, MA, MHRM, LL.M., II Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad, AT L.B. Nagar

Dated this the 28th day of March, 2014

C.C. No. 469/2011

Between:- The State through P.S. Meerpet. :Complainant

And

A-1 P. Venkat Reddy S/o. Mohan Reddy, age 38 Yrs, Occ: Real Estate Business, R/o. Hasthinapuram North, Near Santhoshimatha Temple, N/o. Chintapalli (v) and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

A-2 S. Narsimha S/o. Chandraiah, Age: 30 Yrs, Occ: Lorry Driver, Caste: Goud, R/o. Plot No. 36, Kakatiya Nagar Colony, N/o. Kistapur, Munugodu Mandal, Nalgonda District. :Accused

This case came before me for final hearing in the presence of the Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri. Y. Amarender Reddy, Advocate

for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the

Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Meerpet, laid charge sheet in Cr. No. 75/2010 against the accused for the offence punishable Under Section 379, 411 of IPC.

2. The brief facts of the case as set out in the charge sheet are that: On 15.05.2010 at 2100 hours the complainant A. Mahender Reddy S/o. Bal Reddy age 40 Yrs, Occ: Business, came to police station and lodged a complaint in which he stated that on 09.05.2010 at 1900 hours he went to K.N. Reddy Swimming pool on his Hero Honda Passion Plus bearing No. AP 29 L 5542 and parked his motorcycle in front of said Swimming pool and he went to inside, one hour later he returned to his vehicle parking place and found that, his parked motorcycle was missed form there, immediately he searched in the surrounding but in vain and he suspected that, some unknown offenders might have stolen his motorcycle in front of said swimming pool. So stating, the complainant requested for necessary action. Basing 2 on the above complaint, a case was registered by LW 11 and investigation was entrusted to LW-12. During the course of investigation, LW-12 examined the complainant ie., LW 1 and recorded his statement in detail which is incorporated in part-II CD. Visited the place of occurrence and conducted panchanama of scene of offence in the presence of Lws 2 and 3 drawn rough sketch of the scene and caused enquiries in the vicinity and deployed the staff into the areas on the detective duty.

Subsequently, he filed charge sheet.

3. Cognizance was taken against the accused No.1 for the offence punishable

Under Section 379 of IPC and for the offence punishable Under Section 411 of IPC against A-2.

4. On appearance of the accused copies of the documents relied upon by the prosecution have been furnished to them Under Sec. 207 Cr.P.C.

5. When examined Under Sec.239 Cr.P.C the accused denied the charge sheet allegations. On consideration, charge Under Section 379 of IPC for A-1 and for the offence punishable Under Section 411 of IPC for A-2 have been framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove its case, the prosecution examined PWs1 to 5 under Exs.P1 to P8 were marked.

7. After closure of the prosecution when examined Under Section 313 Cr.P.C accused denied the incriminating substance found against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.

8. The Point for consideration is:

“Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused No.1 for the

offence punishable Under Section 379 of IPC and for the offence punishable

Under Section 411 of IPC against A-2 beyond reasonable doubt.

9. Heard both sides.

10. The testimonies of PWs 1 to 5 under Exs. P1 to P8 stands for scrutiny.

3

11. PW-1 is the complainant, PW-2 is the panch for confession, PW-3 is the panch for scene of offence, PW-4 is the seized the crime vehicle, PW-5 is the investigating officer and filed charge sheet. Ex.P1 is the report, Ex.P2 is the confession cum seizure panchanama of A-1, Ex.P3 is the confession cum seizure panchanama of A-2, Ex.P4 is the signature on crime detail form, Ex.P5 is the crime detail form, Ex.P6 is the property release receipt, Ex.P7 is the attested seizure report, Ex.P8 is the FIR according to the prosecution case.

12. PW-1 Y. Mahender Reddy deposed that On 09.05.2010 he parked his Hero

Honda passion motorcycle bearing No. AP 29 L 5542 in front of K.N. Reddy

Swimming pool and after one hour, found it was committed theft by unknown person and that he went to police station and gave report. Police recovered the vehicle and he took the same for interim custody and brought the same to the court.

13. PW-2 Laxman Goud deposed that police conducted confession cum seizure panchanama in his presence and accused admitted guilty in his presence and police seized property and he attested on confession cum seizure panchanama.

14. PW-4 K. Bal Raj deposed that on 06.09.2010 he went to Kalvakurthy along with A-2 (Receiver) and proceeded to Balramnagar, Kalvakurthy and seized the vehicle ie., Hero Honda bearing No. AP29 L 5542 from the possession of LW-6 and came back to police station along with case property and handed over to the Station

House officer for further investigation.

15. PW-5 Krishnaiah deposed that on 15.05.2010 LW 11 received a report from PW1, basing on the report he registered a case in Cr. No. 75/2010 U/s 379 IPC and he issued FIR. Investigation entrusted to him. During the course of investigation he examined and recorded the statement of LW1 at Police Station, went to the scene of offence and conducted Crime Detail Form in the presence of LW 2 & 3, LW 10 apprehended the accused and he conducted confession cum seizure panchanama in the presence of LW 4, 5 , 7, 8 and seized the case property and intimated to them and they filed PT warrant and got regularized and after collecting all relevant document, case property and deposited into the court and filed charge sheet.

16. The contention of the accused are that false case is foisted against them and that they are not related to this case. In order to disprove their version the 4 learned APP has produced and examined PWs 1 to 5 of which PW-1 is the complainant, PW-2 is the panch for confession, PW-3 is the panch for scene of offence, PW-4 is the seized the crime vehicle, PW-5 is the investigating officer and filed charge sheet. Ex.P1 is the report, Ex.P2 is the confession cum seizure panchanama of A-1, Ex.P3 is the confession cum seizure panchanama of A-2, Ex.P4 is the signature on crime detail form, Ex.P5 is the crime detail form, Ex.P6 is the property release receipt, Ex.P7 is the attested seizure report, Ex.P8 is the FIR.

17. PW-1 is the defacto complainant who moved the law into motion by way of

Ex.P1 report which is registered as Ex.P8 FIR. The oral evidence of PW-1 which is reiteration of Ex.P1 report shows that on 09.05.2010 he parked his Hero Honda passion motorcycle bearing No. AP 29 L 5542 in front of K.N. Reddy Swimming pool and after one hour, found it was committed theft by unknown person. It is the version of PW-5 that during the course of investigation he examined and recorded the statement of PW1 at Police Station, went to the scene of offence and conducted

Crime Detail Form in the presence of PW 3 and LW-3 Gopal Naik. The investigating agency filed a report that LW-3 Gopal Naik is another panch witness for Crime detail is not available as such court is constrained to close his evidence. PW-3 turned hostile vide Ex.P4 not supporting the case of the prosecution as such prosecution failed to establish that Pw-5 has conducted crime detail form vide Ex.P5 in the presence of mediators. The oral evidence of PW-1 coupled with Ex.P1 report establishes theft of case property mentioned in Ex.P6 Property release receipt but not the role of the accused as there is no whisper in the oral evidence of PW-1 or in

Ex.P1 report with regard to the role of the accused and thus the prosecution is failed to establish the offence under seciton 379 of IPC against A-1.

18. Now the point for determination is whether the offence against A-2 is establish by the prosecution or not?

19. The prosecution relied on the evidence of Pw-2, 4 and 5. It is the version of

PW-5 that LW 10 Ravinder apprehended the accused and he conducted confession cum seizure panchanama in the presence of LW 4, 5 , 7, 8 and seized the case property and intimated to them and they filed PT warrant and got regularized and after collecting all relevant document, case property and deposited into the court and filed charge sheet. The investigating agency filed a report that LW-6 D. Shekhar who is the receiver, LW-7 Kiran Kumar Goud, LW-8 Ganesh Reddy who are the 5 panch witness for the seizure panchanama, LW-7 Santhosh Kumar who is the panch witness for the confession panchanama are not available as such court is constrained to close their evidence. The learned APP given up LW-10 Ravinder, and

LW-11 Drona Charyulu. Pw-4 evidence shows that on 06.09.2010 he went to

Kalvakurthy along with A-2 (Receiver) and proceeded to Balramnagar, Kalvakurthy and seized the vehicle ie., Hero Honda bearing No. AP29 L 5542 from the possession of LW-6 and came back to police station along with case property and handed over to the Station House officer for further investigation. The evidence of PW-4 is unchallenged. PW-2 evidence shows that police conducted confession cum seizure panchanama in his presence and accused admitted guilty in his presence and police seized property and he attested on confession cum seizure panchanama vide Ex.P2 and P3. The counsel for the accused has cross examined PW-2 and the evidence of

PW-4 and 5 is unchallenged. Though PW-4 and PW5 is unchallenged yet the case of the prosecution rests on the evidence of material witness. Pw-2 categorcically stated that he deposed in theft cases and half kilometer between police station and his house. Nothing contrary is elicited from the testimony of PW-2. Now let me go through the Ex.P2,3 and 7. Before going into the Exs.P2,P3 and P7 the material record shows that Pw-2 is the panch witness for confession where as the oral evidence of Pw-2 shows that he is the panch witness for confession cum seizure panchanama. The panch witness for the seizure panchanama are not produced by the prosecution. The contradictory version of PW-2 that he is panch witness for seizure panchanama is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Ex.P2 pertains to the admission of guilty of the A-1 and Ex.P3 pertains to the admission of guilty of A-2.

Though Ex.P3 is not shaken and the cross examination yet Ex.P7 seizure panchanama does not disclose the case property has seized from the possession of

A-2 but it discloses that the case property has been seized the possession of A-2 and even Ex.P3 does not show that accused admitted guilty voluntarily. In view of the contradictory version of PW-2 and as prosecution failed to establish that case property has been seized from the possession of A-2. The alleged offence under section 411 of IPC is not proved against A-2.

20. Therefore, in the light of the fore going reasons discussed supra, I have no hesitation to come to conclusion that the prosecution is not able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence leveled against them and thus they are entitled to acquittal.

6

21. In the result, I find the Accused No.1 is not guilty of the offence punishable

U/s 379 of IPC and Accused No.2 is not guilty for the offence punishable Under

Section 411 of IPC and thus I acquit them U/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused and that of their sureties if any shall stands cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant on computer, Corrected and pronounced by

me in the open Court on this the 28th day of March, 2014.

II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

AT L.B. NAGAR, R.R.DISTRICT.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:- For Defense:- PW 1 Y. Mahender Reddy, -Nil- PW 2 Laxman Goud, PW 3 N. Srinivas Yadav, PW 4 K. Balraj, PW 5 Krishnaiah.

Exhibits Marked Ex.P1 is the report, Ex.P2 is the confession cum seizure panchanama of A-1, Ex.P3 is the confession cum seizure panchanama of A-2, Ex.P4 is the signature on crime detail form, Ex.P5 is the crime detail form, Ex.P6 is the property release receipt, Ex.P7 is the attested seizure report, Ex.P8 is the FIR

II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

AT L.B. NAGAR, R.R. DIST.

7

IN THE COURT OF THE II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD, L.B. NAGAR

F O R M No: 71

Calendar And JUDGMENT

District: Ranga Reddy II Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad

Calendar of case tried by: Sri. D. Durga Prasad, MA,MHRM, LLM., II Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad.

L.B. NAGAR, R.R. DIST.

Date of Offence : 09.05.2010

Date of report or complaint : 15.05.2010

Date of apprehension of accused : 06.09.2010

Date of commencement of trial : 10.01.2012

Date of Closure of trial : 07.03.2014

Date of sentence of order : 28.03.2014

Explanation of delay and remarks : Due to non-production of Witnesses by the prosecution side

Judgment in calendar case No. : 469/2011

Complainant : P.S. Meerpet.

Name of the Accused : A-1 P. Venkat Reddy S/o. Mohan Reddy, A-2 S. Narsimha S/o. Chandraiah,

Offence : U/s. 379 of IPC against A-1, U/s. 411 of IPC against A-2.

Finding : Not guilty

Sentence : Acquitted U/s. 248 (1) of Cr.P.C.

II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD, AT L.B.NAGAR.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD AT LB. NAGAR

Present: Sri. D. Durga Prasad, MA, MHRM, LLM, II Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad at LB Nagar.

Dated on this the 28th day of March, 2014

C.C. No. 747/2012

Between:- The State of AP through PS L.B. Nagar. :Complainant

And

A-1 B. Ramesh @ Chinna S/o.Murali, Aged about 21 Yrs, Occ: Private employee, Caste: Goud, A-2 Smt. B. Yadamma W/o. Murali, aged about 45 Yrs, Occ: House keeping, caste: Goud, Both are R/o. H. No. 14-2-565, Seetharambagh, Mallepally, Hyderabad. (A-1 Convicted in Jail Adalat on 02.06.2012) :Accused

This case came before me for final hearing in the presence of the Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri. G. Subhas Chandra Bose, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, L.B. Nagar Police Station laid charge sheet in Cr.

No. 336/2011 against Accused No. 2 for the offence punishable Under Section 454, 380 r/w 411 IPC.

2. The brief facts of the case as set out in the charge sheet are that on 01.03.2011 at 23.30 hours the LW-1 Smt. K. Vimala came to police station and lodged a complaint in which he stated that from the last 6 months the lock of his neighbour house is found intact, but some persons are coming theft of gold ornaments from the almirah, he stated that so far, the gold ornaments viz.,

Chandraharam, gold chain, of her son, one pair of ear Kammalu of her daughter, diamond ear tops, one small pair and one big pair ear tops, one gold bangle, one camera sony make, one Titan watch were stolen. The complainant stated that some times they used to keep the house keys with Chandramouli General stores. She further stated that one Koushik, friend on her son and the neighbour Ramesh used 2 to visit her house oftenly. She further stated that she used to give keys to her friends Shon Ramesh or Koushik and one of them might have committed theft in her house. Hence, he requested to take necessary action into the matter. Basing on the above complaint, LW 6 registered a case and the investigation entrusted to LW-7.

During the course of investigation, LW 7 examined the complaint and recorded his statement which is incorporated in part-II CD. Visited the scene of offence, and caused enquiries and made observation of the scene by nothing incriminating material found to conduct panchanama. The LW-7 has made efforts to detect the case but in vain. Subsequently after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against accused.

3. Cognizance was taken against Accused No.1 for the offence punishable under section 454, 380 or 411 of IPC and under Section 454, 380 r/w 411 of IPC against accused No.2.

4. On appearance of Accused, copies of the documents relied upon by the prosecution have been furnished to them Under Sec. 207 Cr.P.C.

5. When examined Under Sec. 239 Cr.P.C Accused denied the charge sheet allegations. On consideration, charge Under Section 454, 380 or 411 of IPC and

Under Section 454, 380 r/w 411 of IPC against accused No.2. have been framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove its case, the prosecution examined PW 1 to 6, Exs. P1 to P4 and

MO-1 is marked.

7. After closure of the prosecution when examined Under Section 313 Cr.P.C

Accused denied the incriminating substance found against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.

8. The Point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilty of Accused No.1 for the offence

punishable under section 454, 380 or 411 of IPC and under Section 454, 380

r/w 411 of IPC against accused No.2 beyond reasonable doubt.

9. Heard both sides.

10. The evidence of PW 1 to 6, Ex. P1 to P4 and MO1 stands for scrutiny.

11. PW 1 is the complainant and owner of stolen Property, PWs-2 and 3 are the 3 panch for confession cum seizure panchanama of accused, PW-4 is the circumstantial witness, PW-5 is the first investigating officer, PW-6 is the arrested the accused and filed charge sheet. Ex.P1 is the report, Ex.P2 is the confession cum seizure panchanama, Ex.P3 is the 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW-4, Ex.P4 is the FIR and MO-1 is the CPR No. 143/2012 (One gold chain wg. About 15 grams, One Sony

Handicam DCRSX21E, One Sony Cybershot Digital Photo Camera and Net cash of

Rs. 4,000=00 (500X8) according to prosecution case.

12. PW 1 K.J.V. Vimala Bai deposed that since 2010 some items are being committed theft from his house and even he lost Titan Watch, gold rings, ear tops, diamond ear sets, cell phone and cash of Rs.10,000/-, 4 tulas gold chain,two tulas bracelet, 1 tulas gold bangles, 3 thulas gold chain and cameras and it was committed theft by unknown person and that he went to police station and admitted guilty before him in the presence of police. He cannot identify the accused No.2.

13. PW-2 Prakash deposed that police conducted confession cum seizure panchanama in his presence and seized the case property and accused admitted guilty in his presence and he attested the same. He cannot identify the accused due to lapse of time.

14. PW-3 Ramesh deposed that police conducted confession cum seizure panchanama in his presence and seized the case property and accused admitted guilty in his presence and he attested the same. He signed on Ex.P2. He cannot identify the accused due to lapse of time.

15. PW-5 E. Jahangeer Yadav deposed that on 01.03.2011 LW-6 received a report from PW-1, basing on the report he registered a case in Cr. No. 336/2011

U/s. 406, 380 of IPC and he issued FIR. Investigation entrusted to him. During the course of investigation he examined and recorded the statement of LW1 and police station, he handed over the CD file to LW-8 for further investigation.

16. PW-6 S. Lingaiah deposed that he received the CD file from PW-5 and found it correct line, arrested the A-1 and A-2 and conducted confession cum seizure panchanama in the presence of mediators and seized the case property from

Lws 4 and 5 and sent A-1 and A-2 to the court for remand and filed charge sheet after completion of investigation.

4

17. The contention of the accused are that false case is foisted with concocted allegations. In order to disprove their version, the learned APP has produced PW 1 to 6 of which PW 1 is the complainant and owner of stolen Property, PWs-2 and 3 are the panch for confession cum seizure panchanama of accused, PW-4 is the circumstantial witness, PW-5 is the first investigating officer, PW-6 is the arrested the accused and filed charge sheet. Ex.P1 is the report, Ex.P2 is the confession cum seizure panchanama, Ex.P3 is the 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW-4, Ex.P4 is the FIR and MO-1 is the CPR No. 143/2012 (One gold chain wg. About 15 grams, One Sony

Handicam DCRSX21E, One Sony Cybershot Digital Photo Camera and Net cash of

Rs. 4,000=00 (500X8).

18. The oral evidence of PW-1 who is the defacto complainant and who gave report to the police vide Ex.P1 which is registered as Ex.P4 FIR shows that since 2010 some items are being committed theft from his house and even he lost Titan

Watch, gold rings, ear tops, diamond ear sets, cell phone and cash of Rs.10,000/-, 4 tulas gold chain,two tulas bracelet, 1 tulas gold bangles, 3 thulas gold chain and cameras and it was committed theft by unknown person and she cannot identify the accused No.2 and that A-1 admitted guilty in her presence in the presence of police.

PW-4 turned hostile vide Ex.P3 not supporting the case of the prosecution. It is the version of PW-5 during the course of investigation he examined and recorded the statement of PW-1 and police station, he handed over the CD file to PW-6 for further investigation. The evidence of PW-1 was not cross examined and the evidence of PW- 5 is unchallenged. The oral evidence of PW-1 coupled with Ex.P1 report establishes theft of case property One gold chain wg. About 15 grams, One Sony Handicam

DCRSX21E, One Sony Cybershot Digital Photo Camera Net cash of Rs. 4,000=00 (500X8) as mentioned in MO-1 but not the role of A-2 as there is no whisper about the role of A-2 in the oral evidence of PW-1 and even in Ex.P1 report. PW-1 stated that A-1 admitted guilty in her presence and A-1 admitted his guilty in the court and he was convicted by this court. As such prosecution failed to establish the offence against A-2 under Section 454, 380 of IPC

19. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution proved the offence under Section 411 of IPC.

20. In order to prove the same the prosecution relied the same on the evidence of PWs-2,3 and 6 of which PW-6 is the investigating officer and Pws 2 and 3 are the 5 panch witness. It is the version of PW-6 he received the CD file from PW-5 and found it correct line, arrested the A-1 and A-2 and conducted confession cum seizure panchanama in the presence of mediators and seized the case property from

Lws 4 and 5 and sent A-1 and A-2 to the court for remand and filed charge sheet after completion of investigation. The evidence of PW-6 is unchallenged. Pws2 and 3 evidence shows that police conducted confession cum seizure panchanama vide

Ex.P2 in their presence and seized the case property and accused admitted guilty in their presence and he attested the same and that they cannot identify the accused due to lapse of time. The oral evidence of Pws 2 and 3 substantiated the version of

PW-5 the evidence of Pws 2 and 3 is unchallenged. Though Pws 2 and 3 stated that police conducted confession cum seizure panchanama vide Ex.P2 in their presence and seized the case property and accused admitted guilty in their presence and he attested the same yet they did not identify the accused and simply stated that they cannot identify the accused due to lapse of time. The identification of the accused is not established by the prosecution. The alleged offence denotes that case property mentioned MO-1 has been seized from the accused in the presence of mediators which was not established by the prosecution as panch witness themselves did not identified the accused. In view of the above prosecution failed to prove the alleged accusation under offence 411 of IPC.

21. Therefore, In the light of the fore going reasons discussed supra, I am of the humble belief that the prosecution is not able to prove the guilt of A2 for the offence charged against him thus it is a fit case to extend benefit of doubt in favour of him.

22. In the result, I find accused No.2 found not guilty for the offence under

Section 454, 380 r/w 411 of IPC and thus I acquit him U/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. The case property mentioned vide CPR No. 143/2012 (One gold chain wg. About 15 grams,

One Sony Handicam DCRSX21E, One Sony Cybershot Digital Photo Camera and Net cash of Rs. 4,000=00 (500X8) which is in the interim custody of PW-1 shall hold good with PW-1 till the appeal time is over and it shall be retained with him after the appeal time is over. The bail bonds of the accused and that of their sureties if any shall stands cancel after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant on computer corrected and pronounced by

me in the open court on this the 28th day of March, 2014.

II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

AT L.B. NAGAR, R.R.DISTRICT.

6

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution :- For Defense: PW 1 K. Vimala, - Nil - PW 2 G. Prakash, PW 3 A. Ramesh, PW 4 G. Chaitanya, PW 5 E. Jahangeer, PW 6 S. Lingaiah.

Exhibits Marked Ex.P1 is the report, Ex.P2 is the confession cum seizure panchanama, Ex.P3 is the 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW-4, Ex.P4 is the FIR

Material Objects

MO-1 is the CPR No. 143/2012 (One gold chain wg. About 15 grams, One Sony Handicam DCRSX21E, One Sony Cybershot Digital Photo Camera Net cash of Rs. 4,000=00 (500X8).

II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

AT L.B. NAGAR, R.R. DIST.

7

IN THE COURT OF THE II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD AT LB. NAGAR

Calendar And JUDGMENT

District: Ranga Reddy II Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad

Calendar of case tried by: Sri. D. Durga Prasad, MA, MHRM, LLM Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad.

L.B. NAGAR, R.R. DIST.

Date of Offence : 01.03.2011

Date of report or complaint : 01.03.2011

Date of apprehension of accused : 02.03.2012

Date of commencement of trial : 07.01.2013

Date of Closure of trial : 06.03.2014

Date of sentence of order : 28.03.2014

Explanation of delay and remarks: Due to non-production of Witnesses by the prosecution side

Judgment in calendar case No. : 747/2012

Complainant : P.S L.B. Nagar

Name of the Accused : A-1 B. Ramesh @ Chinna S/o.Murali, A-2 Smt. B. Yadamma W/o. Murali, (A-1 Convicted in Jail Adalat on 02.06.2012)

Offence : 454, 380 or 411 of IPC against A-1 454, 380 r/w 411 of IPC against A-2.

Finding : Not guilty

Sentence : Acquitted U/s 248 (1) of Cr.P.C.

II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD, AT L.B.NAGAR.

8

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD, L.B. NAGAR

Present: Sri. D. Durga Prasad, MA, MHRM, LL.M., II Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad, AT L.B. Nagar

Dated this the 10th day of April, 2014

C.C. No. 1178/2012

Between:- The State through P.S. L.B. Nagar. : Complainant

And

Smt. Yata Lakshmi @ Anitha W/o. Murali, aged about 38 Yrs, Occ: House keeping, R/o. Plot No. 557, R.K. Nagar, Thattiannaram Village, Hayath Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dist., N/o. Golnaka, Amberpet, Hyderabad. :Accused

This case came before me for final hearing in the presence of the Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri. A. Ramesh Babu, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station L.B. Nagar laid charge sheet in Cr. No. 1286/2011 against the accused for the offence punishable

Under Section 420, 379 of IPC.

2. The brief facts of the case as set out in the charge sheet are that: On 28.08.2011 at 22.00 hours received a complaint from T. Ramesh S/o.

Madhari, aged about 28 Yrs, Occ: auto driver, came to police station and lodged a complaint in which he stated that on 28.08.2011 at about 5.00PM the complainant's daughter 1. Manisha 2) Mounika were missing who are playing themselves infront of their house. On searching they are found at Mohan

Nagar X road. On enquiry they disclosed that an unknown female person came to them and taken away them to Mohan Nagar X road by walk by believing that she will buying chocolates to them where an unknown male person joined with her and diverted their minds by saying thieves are moving in the area and committed theft of gold ear rings from the ears of Baby Prathiba and fled away.

2

Basing on the above complaint, a case was registered by LW 5 and investigation was entrusted to LW-6. During the course of investigation, LW-6 examined the complainant ie., LW 1 and other eye witnesses ie., Lws 2 and 3 and recorded their statement in detail. Visited the scene of offence and enquiries into the matter. Subsequently, after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

3. Cognizance was taken against the accused for the offence punishable

Under Section 420, 379 IPC.

4. On appearance of the accused copies of the documents relied upon by the prosecution have been furnished to her Under Sec. 207 Cr.P.C.

5. When examined Under Sec.239 Cr.P.C the accused denied the charge sheet allegations. On consideration, charge Under Sec. 420, 379 of IPC have been framed, read over and explained to her in Telugu to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove its case, the prosecution examined PWs1 to 5 under Exs.P1 to

P4 and MO-1 are marked.

7. After closure of the prosecution when examined Under Section 313

Cr.P.C accused denied the incriminating substance found against her in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.

8. The Point for consideration is:

“Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the

offences Under Section 420, 379 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt.

9. Heard both sides.

10. The testimonies of PWs 1 to 5 under Exs. P1 to P4 and MO1 stands for scrutiny.

3

11. PW-1 is the complainant and owner of stolen property, PW-2 is the circumstantial witness and mother of victim, PW-3 is the panch for confession cum seizure panchanama, PW-4 is the first investigating officer, PW-5 is the second investigating officer and arrested the accused and filed charge sheet.

Ex.P1 is the report, Ex.P2 is the confession cum seizure panchanama, Ex.P3 is the seizure report, Ex.P4 is the FIR, MO-1 is the CPR No. 316/2012 ( One pair of ear rings) according to prosecution case.

12. PW-1 T. Ramesh deposed that he got daughter by name Manisha aged about 9 years. He came to know that on 28.08.2011 at Kamineni Hospital she is playing at Cheerla Function Hall, one female came and took away her daughter and that left her at Maruthi Nagar after taking ear set of her daughter. Her daughter informed to one of passer by and he informed over phone to him and that he went to Maruthi Nagar and picked up her and went to police station and gave report.

13. PW-2 Venkateshwarlu deposed that he got daughter by name

Prathibha aged about 8 years. He came to know that on 28.08.2011 at

Kamineni Hospital she is playing at Cheerla Function hall one female came and took away his daughter. His daughter informed to one of passer by and he informed over phone to him and that he went to Maruthi Nagar and picked up her and went to police station gave report.

14. PW-3 Santhosh Reddy deposed that in the year 2011 police conducted confession cum seizure panchanama in his presence and seized the case property ie., gold ornaments, cash and accused admitted guilty in his presence and he attested the same. Person standing in the dock is accused who confessed in his presence.

15. PW-4 Raghavender Reddy deposed that on 28.08.2011 LW-5 received a report from PW-1, basing on the report he registered a case in Cr. No.

1286/2011 U/s. 420, 379 of IPC and he issued FIR. Investigating entrusted to him. During the course of investigation he examined and recorded the statement of Lws 1 and 2 at police station, went to the scene of offence and 4 caused enquiries and on his transfer he handed over CD file to the LW-7 for further investigation.

16. PW-5 S. Lingaiah deposed that he received CD file from PW-4 and found it on correct line and apprehended the accused and conducted confession cum seizure panchanama and seized the case property and sent the accused to the court for remand and after completion he filed the charge sheet.

17. The contention of the accused is that false case is foisted against her and that she is not related to this case. In order to disprove her version the learned APP has produced and examined PWs 1 to 5 of which PW-1 is the complainant and owner of stolen property, PW-2 is the circumstantial witness and mother of victim, PW-3 is the panch for confession cum seizure panchanama, PW-4 is the first investigating officer, PW-5 is the second investigating officer and arrested the accused and filed charge sheet. Ex.P1 is the report, Ex.P2 is the confession cum seizure panchanama, Ex.P3 is the seizure report, Ex.P4 is the FIR, MO-1 is the CPR No. 316/2012 ( One pair of ear rings).

18. PW-1 is the defacto complainant who moved the law into motion by way of Ex.P1 report which is registered as Ex.P4. The oral evidence of PW-1 shows that on 28.08.2011 at Kamineni Hospital she is playing at Cheerla

Function Hall, one female came and took away her daughter and that left her at Maruthi Nagar after taking ear set of her daughter, that her daughter informed to one of passer by and he informed over phone to him and that he went to Maruthi Nagar and picked up her. PW-2 evidence stood on the same lines with that of the evidence of PW-1. It is the version of PW-4 that during the course of investigation he examined PWs 1 and 2 at police station, went to the scene of offence and caused enquiries and then handed over CD file to PW- 5 for further investigation. Nothing contrary is elicited from the testimony of

PW-4 and the evidence of PW-4 is unchallenged.

19. It is the version of PW-5 that he received CD file from PW-4 and found it on correct lines and apprehended the accused and conducted 5 confession cum seizure panchanama and seized the case property and sent the accused to the court for remand and after completion he filed the charge sheet. The learned APP has given up LW-5 M. Sreedhar Reddy who issued FIR and also given up LW-4 K. Madhusudhan Reddy who is another panch witness for confession cum seizure panchanama. PW-3 is the panch witness for the confession cum seizure panchanama and his evidence shows that in the year 2011 police conducted confession cum seizure panchanama in his presence and seized the case property ie., gold ornaments, cash and accused admitted guilty in his presence and he attested the same and that the person standing in the dock is accused who confessed in his presence. The evidence of PW-4 is unchallenged.

20. Though the evidence of Material witness is unchallenged yet the case of the prosecution should not rest on the weakness of the defense but it should stand on its own legs.

21. Ex.P1 report discloses that PW-1 came to know about the alleged offence through his children who were found missing and they stated in that an uncle, aunty came and took the ear studs of one Prathibha. The oral evidence of PWs 1 and 2 shows that he came to know about the incident over phone and his daughter informed the theft to the passer by. Surprisingly neither the prosecution nor the investigating agency took any steps to implicate the passer by who is the vital witness for the case of the prosecution nor the child by name Prathibha who is the victim of the case. As such the alleged version by the prosecution is hearsay evidence as PWs 1 and 2 did not witness the incident and the person who came to know about the incident was not examined and even the victim Prathibha is not examined.

22. Ex.P2 confession cum seizure panchanama does not disclose that the accused gave the confession voluntarily. Though Ex.P3 shows that case property vide MO-1 is seized along with other properties yet the prosecution failed to established the case property has been seized on the instance of accused by voluntary confession and even the prosecution failed to prove about the occurrence of the incident.

6

23. Therefore, in the light of the fore going reasons discussed supra, I have no hesitation to come to conclusion that the prosecution is not able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence leveled against her and thus she is entitled to acquittal.

24. In the result, I find the Accused is not guilty of the offence punishable

U/s 420, 379 of IPC and thus I acquit her U/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. The MO-1 which is in the interim custody of PW-2 shall hold good with him till the appeal time is over and it shall be retained with him after the appeal time is over. The bail bonds of the accused and that of her sureties if any shall stands cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant on computer, Corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 10th day of April, 2014.

II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

AT L.B. NAGAR, R.R.DISTRICT.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:- For Defense:- PW 1 T. Ramesh, -Nil- PW 2 M. Venkateshwarlu, PW 3 M. Santhosh Reddy, PW 4 S. Raghavender Reddy, PW 5 S. Lingaiah.

Exhibits Marked

Ex.P1 is the report, Ex.P2 is the confession cum seizure panchanama, Ex.P3 is the seizure report, Ex.P4 is the FIR,

Material object

MO-1 is the CPR No. 316/2012 ( One pair of ear rings)

II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

AT L.B. NAGAR, R.R. DIST.

7

IN THE COURT OF THE II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD, L.B. NAGAR

F O R M No: 71

Calendar And JUDGMENT

District: Ranga Reddy II Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad

Calendar of case tried by:Sri. D. Durga Prasad, MA,MHRM, LLM., II Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad.

L.B. NAGAR, R.R. DIST.

Date of Offence : 28.08.2011

Date of report or complaint : 28.08.2011

Date of apprehension of accused : 12.12.2011

Date of commencement of trial : 04.12.2012

Date of Closure of trial : 04.03.2014

Date of sentence of order : 10.04.2014

Explanation of delay and remarks : Due to non-production of Witnesses by the prosecution side

Judgment in calendar case No. : 1178/2012

Complainant : P.S. L.B. Nagar.

Name of the Accused : Smt. Yata Lakshmi @ Anitha W/o. Murali,

Offence : U/s. 420, 379 of IPC.

Finding : Not guilty

Sentence : Acquitted U/s. 248 (1) of Cr.P.C.

II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD, AT L.B.NAGAR.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD, L.B. NAGAR

Present: Sri. D. Durga Prasad, MA, MHRM, LL.M., II Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad, AT L.B. Nagar

Dated this the 03rd day of March, 2014

C.C. No. 326/2013

Between:- The State through P.S. L.B. Nagar. :Complainant

And

J. Bala Swamy S/o. Ashanna, age 41 Yrs, Occ: Mason, Caste: SC, R/o. Huts at Road No. 4,Green Hills Colony, L.B. Nagar, N/o. Mahaboob Nagar District. :Accused

This case came before me for final hearing in the presence of the Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri. M. Sreenivas, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S L.B. Nagar laid charge sheet in Cr. No.

16/2013 against the accused for the offence punishable Under Section 380 of IPC.

2. The brief facts of the case as set out in the charge sheet are that: On 03.01.2013 at 19.15 hours received a complaint from P. Arjun Rao S/o. Narayana

Rao, aged about 41 Yrs, Occ: Business, in which he stated that on01.01.2013 the complainant kept his bicycle at the parking place of his house and slept in the house. Again at early hours on 02.01.2013 he woke up and his bicycle was not found in the parking place of his house. In the night of 01/02.01.2013 night an unknown offender came to his house and attempted to commit theft of his said bicycle, at that time, on hearing of sound the complainant caught him and let off by giving a warning. He strongly suspecting on the said unknown person, he might have stolen away his bicycle. Further he mentioned that he will identify the said person, if seen again. Basing on the above complaint, a case was registered by LW 4 and investigation was entrusted to LW-5. During the course of investigation, LW-5 examined the complainant ie., LW 1 and recorded his statement in detail which is incorporated in part-II CD. Visited the scene of crime and caused enquiries into the matter. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused.

3. Cognizance was taken against the accused for the offence punishable Under

Section 380 or 411of IPC.

2

4. On appearance of the accused copies of the documents relied upon by the prosecution have been furnished to him Under Sec. 207 Cr.P.C.

5. When examined Under Sec.239 Cr.P.C the accused denied the charge sheet allegations. On consideration, charge Under Sec. 380 or 411 of IPC have been framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove its case, the prosecution examined PWs1 to 4 under Exs.P1 to P4 and MO-1 were marked.

7. After closure of the prosecution when examined Under Section 313 Cr.P.C accused denied the incriminating substance found against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.

8. The Point for consideration is:

“Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offences

Under Section 380 or 411 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt.

9. Heard learned APP. The learned counsel for the accused did not attend the arguments. Hence, treated as nil.

10. The testimonies of PWs 1 to 4 under Exs. P1 to P4 and MO1 stands for scrutiny.

11. PW 1 is the complainant and owner of stolen property, PWs-2 and 3 are the panch for confession cum seizure panchanama, PW-4 is the investigating officer and filed charge sheet. Ex.P1 is the report, Ex.P2 is the signature on confession cum seizure panchanama, Ex.P3 is the confession cum seizure panchanama, Ex.P4 is the FIR. MO-1 is the CPR No. 67/2013 Hero Bicycle (Blue Colour) according to prosecution case.

12. PW-1 Arjun deposed that on 02.01.2013 he parked his cycle at his house and it was committed theft by unknown person and that he went to Police Station and gave report. Police recovered the vehicle and he took the same for interim custody and brought the same to the court. Mo1 return to this witness after marking. He cannot identify the accused.

3

13. PW-3 Upendera Chary deposed that On 01.01.2012 Police conducted confession cum seizure panchanama in his presence and seized case property i.e.,

Hero Cycle and accused admitted guilty in his presence and he attested the same.

The person standing in the dock is accused.

14. PW-4 K. Bal Raj deposed that on 03.01.2013 LW 4 received a report from

PW1, basing on the report he registered a case in Cr. No.16/2013 U/s 380 IPC and he issued FIR. Investigation entrusted to him. During the course of investigation he examined and recorded the statement of LW1 at Police Station, apprehended the accused and recorded the confession cum seizure panchanama in the presence mediator, sent the accused to the court for remand. Case property deposited into the court. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

15. The contention of the accused is that false case is foisted against him and that he is not related to this case. In order to disprove his version the learned APP has produced and examined PWs 1 to 4 of which PW 1 is the complainant and owner of stolen property, PWs-2 and 3 are the panch for confession cum seizure panchanama, PW-4 is the investigating officer and filed charge sheet. Ex.P1 is the report, Ex.P2 is the signature on confession cum seizure panchanama, Ex.P3 is the confession cum seizure panchanama, Ex.P4 is the FIR. MO-1 is the CPR No.

67/2013 Hero Bicycle (Blue Colour).

16. Pw1 is the defacto complainant who moved the law into motion by way of giving report to the police vide Ex.P1 report which is registered as ex.P4 FIR. The oral evidence of Pw1 appears that 02.01.2013 he parked his cycle at his house and it was committed theft by unknown person and he cannot identify the accused. The oral evidence of Pw1 is reiteration of Ex.P1 report. It is the version of the investigating officer that during the course of investigation he examined and recorded the statement of PW1 at Police Station, apprehended the accused and recorded the confession cum seizure panchanama in the presence mediator, sent the accused to the court for remand. Case property deposited into the court and that after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet. The learned APP has given up the evidence of Lw4 Srinivas Reddy who issued FIR. The oral evidence of

Pw1 coupled with Ex.P1 report establishes that case property mentioned in MO1 is committed theft but not the role of the accused as there is no whisper in oral evidence of Pw1 or in Ex.P1 report with regard to the role of the accused as such prosecution failed to establish the alleged accusation against the accused for the offence under section 380 IPC .

4

17. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution has proved the offence under section 411 IPC?

18. The prosecution in order to prove the offence under section 411 IPC has examined Pw2 and Pw3. Pw2 turned hostile vide Ex.P2 not supporting the case of the prosecution. Pw3 evidence shows that on 01.01.2012 Police conducted confession cum seizure panchanama in his presence and seized case property i.e.,

Hero Cycle and accused admitted guilty in his presence and he attested the same and that the person standing in the dock is accused. The evidence of Pw3 is unchallenged.

19. Let me go through Ex.P3 confession cum seizure panchanama. Ex.P3 confession cum seizure panchnama which was conducted in the presence of mediator's disclose that on 4-1-2012 at 9:30 am while accused came to cycle shop at Masjid gully , police caught him and questioned about the cycle and to that he admitted his guilty and that it was seized in the presence of mediator's. The documentary evidence Ex.P3 is not disputed. The categorical version in Ex.P3 that on 4-1-2012 at 9:30 am while accused came to cycle shop at Masjid gully , police caught him and questioned about the cycle and to that he admitted his guilty and that it was seized in the presence of mediator's shows that accused admitted guilty in the presence of mediator's. As such the unchallenged evidence of Pw3 coupled with Ex.P3 establishes the alleged accusation against the accused for the offence under section 411 IPC.

20. Therefore, in the light of the fore going reasons discussed supra, I have no hesitation to come to conclusion that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence leveled against him under section 411 and thus he is liable for conviction. I have no hesitation to come to conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence leveled against him under section 380 and thus he is entitled for acquittal.

21. In the result, I find the Accused is not guilty of the offence punishable U/s 380 of IPC and thus I acquit him U/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. I find the Accused guilty of the offence punishable U/s 411 of IPC and thus I convict him U/s 248(2) Cr.P.C. MO-1 is Hero Bicycle (Blue Colour) CPR No. 67/2013 which is in the interim custody of

PW-1 till the appeal time is over and it shall be retained with him after the appeal time is over.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant on computer, Corrected and pronounced by

me in the open Court on this the 03rd day of March, 2014.

II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

AT L.B. NAGAR, R.R.DISTRICT.

5

22. For quantum of sentence:

Dictated to the Personal Assistant on computer, Corrected and pronounced by me

in the open Court on this the 03rd day of March, 2014.

II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

AT L.B. NAGAR, R.R.DISTRICT.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:- For Defense:- PW 1 P. Arjun Rao. -Nil- PW 2 B. Swamy, PW 3 Ch. Upendra Chary, PW 4 K. Bala Raju.

Exhibits Marked Ex.P1 is the report, Ex.P2 is the signature on confession cum seizure panchanama, Ex.P3 is the confession cum seizure panchanama, Ex.P4 is the FIR.

Material Objects

MO-1 is the CPR No. 67/2013 Hero Bicycle (Blue Colour)

II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

AT L.B. NAGAR, R.R. DIST.

29. Regarding quantum of Sentence when questioned the accused he pleaded that 

Accused : He is innocent and he is the bread winner of the family.

30. Taking into consideration of the pleas raised by the accused , I am not of the opinion to take a lenient view in imposing the sentence by way of imposing fine. .Accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of SIX MONTHS for the offence punishable under section Under Section 411 IP Act under section 248(2) of Cr.PC. Accused is informed about his right of appeal and if he has no means to engage a counsel to prefer appeal he is at liberty to approach the District Legal Services Counsel Authority , Rang reddy to get free legal aid.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant on computer, Corrected and pronounced by me in the 

open Court on this the 28th day of March, 2014.

II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

6

AT L.B. NAGAR, R.R.DISTRICT.

IN THE COURT OF THE II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD, L.B. NAGAR

F O R M No: 71

Calendar And JUDGMENT

District: Ranga Reddy II Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad

Calendar of case tried by:Sri. D. Durga Prasad, MA,MHRM, LLM., II Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad.

L.B. NAGAR, R.R. DIST.

Date of Offence : 01.01.2013

Date of report or complaint : 03.01.2013

Date of apprehension of accused : 04.01.2013

Date of commencement of trial : 03.07.2013

Date of Closure of trial : 02.01.2014

Date of sentence of order : 03.03.2014

Explanation of delay and remarks : Due to non-production of Witnesses by the prosecution side

Judgment in calendar case No. : 326/2013

Complainant : P.S. L.B. Nagar.

Name of the Accused : A-1 J. Bala Swamy S/o. Ashanna,

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

Finding : Not guilty-380 IPC

Found guity -411 IPC

Sentence : Acquitted U/s. 248 (1) of Cr.P.C.-380 IPC convicted U/s. 248 (2) of Cr.P.C.-411 IPC

II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD, AT L.B.NAGAR.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD, L.B. NAGAR

Present: Sri. D. Durga Prasad, MA, MHRM, LL.M., II Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad, AT L.B. Nagar

Dated this the 28th day of March, 2014

C.C. No. 1920/2012

Between:- The State through P.S. L.B. Nagar. :Complainant

And

A-1 K. Pandu Naik S/o. Mothya, aged about 25 Yrs, Occ: Painter, Caste: ST, R/o. Cable Nehru Nagar Colony, ECIL, Kushaiguda, N/o. Nalgonda District. :Accused

This case came before me for final hearing in the presence of the Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri. G. Subhas Chandra Bose, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S L.B. Nagar laid charge sheet in Cr. No.

1460/2012 against the accused for the offence punishable Under Section 379 of

IPC.

2. The brief facts of the case as set out in the charge sheet are that: On 15.10.2012 at 0730 hours received a complaint from J. Sampath S/o. Sambaiah in which he stated that on 15.10.2012 at about 03.30 hours while the Metro Rail work is in progress at point No. 10 near prasannanjaneya Swamy Temple, L.B. Nagar meanwhile an unknown person committed theft of flat spanner (40mm) and adjustable man key plate from point No. 10 subsequently he was caught hold by the complainant red handedly. On enquiry he disclosed his name as Pandu Naik subsequently he was handed over to police, L.B. Nagar for taking necessary action into the matter. Basing on the above complaint, a case was registered by LW 4 and investigation was entrusted to LW-5. During the course of investigation, LW-5 examined the complainant ie., LW 1 and recorded his statement in detail. Visited the scene of offence and enquiries into the matter. Subsequently, after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

3. Cognizance was taken against the accused for the offence punishable Under

Section 379 or 411of IPC.

2

4. On appearance of the accused copies of the documents relied upon by the prosecution have been furnished to him Under Sec. 207 Cr.P.C.

5. When examined Under Sec.239 Cr.P.C the accused denied the charge sheet allegations. On consideration, charge Under Sec. 379 or 411 of IPC have been framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove its case, the prosecution examined PWs1 to 3 under Exs.P1 to P3 and MO-1 are marked.

7. After closure of the prosecution when examined Under Section 313 Cr.P.C accused denied the incriminating substance found against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.

8. The Point for consideration is:

“Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offences

Under Section 379 or 411 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt.

9. Heard both sides.

10. The testimonies of PWs 1 to 3 under Exs. P1 to P3 and MO1 stands for scrutiny.

11. PW-1 is the complainant and owner of stolen property, PW-2 is the panch for confession cum seizure report, PW-3 is the investigating officer and filed charge sheet. Ex.P1 is the report, Ex.P2 is the confession cum seizure panchanama, Ex.P3 is the FIR and MO1 is the CPR No. 492/2012 (one flat Spanner (40 MM) adjustable man key plate) according to prosecution case.

12. PW-1 A. Sampath deposed that in the year 2012 iron rods was committed theft by unknown persons and that he went to police station and gave report. He cannot identify the accused.

13. PW-2 Mohd. Sayeed deposed that police conducted confession cum seizure panchanama in his presence and seized the case property and accused admitted guilty in his presence and he attested the same.

14. PW-3 K. Bal Raj deposed that on 15.10.2012 LW 4 received a report from

PW1, basing on the report he registered a case in Cr. No.1460/2012 U/s 379 IPC and he issued FIR. Investigation entrusted to him. During the course of 3 investigation he examined and recorded the statement of LW1 at Police Station, and apprehended the accused by ID party and produced before him and he recorded the confession cum seizure statement and seized the case property and sent him to the court for remand. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

15. The contention of the accused is that false case is foisted against him and that he is not related to this case. In order to disprove his version the learned APP has produced and examined PWs 1 to 3 of which PW-1 is the complainant and owner of stolen property, PW-2 is the panch for confession cum seizure report, PW-3 is the investigating officer and filed charge sheet. Ex.P1 is the report, Ex.P2 is the confession cum seizure panchanama, Ex.P3 is the FIR and MO1 is the CPR No.

492/2012 (one flat Spanner (40 MM) adjustable man key plate).

16. PW 1 is the defacto complainant who moved the law into the motion by way of giving report to the police marked as EX.P1 which is registered as Ex.p3 FIR the oral evidence of PW 1 which is reiteration of Ex.P1 report discloses that in the year 2012 iron rods was committed theft by unknown persons and that he cannot identify the accused. It is the version of PW 3 during the course of investigation he examined and recorded the statement of PW1 at Police Station. The evidence of PW 3 is unchallenged and the learned counsel for the accused reported no cross examination of PW 1. The oral evidence of PW 1 is coupled with Ex.p1 report established theft of case property as mentioned in MO 1 but not role of accused as there is no whisper about the role of accused either in Ex.P1 report or in oral evidence of PW 1 as such prosecution failed to establish the alleged accusation against the accused for the offence under section 379 IPC.

17. Now the point for determination is whether the case property has been seized from the possession of accused as alleged by the prosecution under the offence under section 411 IPC.

18. The prosecution in order to prove the offence, has relied on the evidence of PW 2 and PW 3 of which PW 2 is the panch witness for the confession cum seizure panchanama and PW 3 is the investigating officer. The learned APP given up

LW 3 J.Somla Naik who is anther pancha witness, LW 4 M.Mallikarjun who issued

FIR. It is the version of PW 3 that ID party apprehended the accused and produced

before him and he recorded the confession cum seizure statement and seized the

case property and sent him to the court for remand and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet. PW-2 evidence shows that police conducted confession cum seizure panchanama vide Ex.p2, in his presence and seized the case property and accused admitted guilty in his presence and he attested the same. The 4 evidence of PW 2 and 3 are unchallenged. The case of the prosecution should rests on its own legs but not on the weakness of the defence.

19. Now let me go through Ex.p2 which is the vital document to prove the offence under section 411 IPC, Ex.p2 discloses that accused admitted that he committed theft and that he was apprehended and produced before the police and he admitted guilty and the case property was seized in the presence of mediators, slips were pasted on the case property in his presence, in the presence of mediators.

Ex.p2 further shows that the panch witness signed on panchanama after police narrating the contents and as they were tallied with the admission of guilt by the accused in the presence of mediators. Ex.P2 is undisputed. The counsel for accused neither cross examined the panch witness nor disputed the documents vide Ex.P2.

The unchallenged and undisputed evidence of PW 2 coupled with Ex.p2 substantiated the version of PW 3 with regard to conducting of Ex.p2 in the presence of mediators and thus prosecution proved the guilt of accused under section 411 IPC.

20. Therefore, in the light of the fore going reasons discussed supra, I have no hesitation to come to conclusion that the prosecution is not able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence leveled against him under section 379 IPC and thus he is entitled to acquittal. I have no hesitation to come to conclusion that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence leveled against him under section 411

IPC and thus he is liable for conviction.

21. In the result, I find the Accused is not guilty of the offence punishable U/s 379 of IPC and thus I acquit him U/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. I find the Accused is guilty of the offence punishable U/s 411 of IPC and thus I convict him U/s 248(2) Cr.P.C.

The case property one flat Spanner (40 MM) adjustable man key plate mentioned in

MO-1 which is in the interim custody of PW-1 shall hold good with him till the appeal time is over and it shall be retained with him after the appeal time is over.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant on computer, Corrected and pronounced by

me in the open Court on this the 28th day of March, 2014.

II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

AT L.B. NAGAR, R.R.DISTRICT.

22. Regarding quantum of Sentence when questioned the accused he pleaded that

Accused : He is innocent and he is the bread winner of the family.

23. Taking into consideration of the pleas raised by the accused , I am not of the opinion to take a lenient view in imposing the sentence by way of imposing 5 fine. .Accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of THREE MONTHS for the offence punishable under section Under Section 411 IP Act under section 248(2) of Cr.PC. Accused is informed about his right of appeal and if he has no means to engage a counsel to prefer appeal he is at liberty to approach the District Legal Services Counsel Authority , Rang reddy to get free legal aid.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant on computer, Corrected and pronounced by

me in the open Court on this the 28th day of March, 2014.

II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

AT L.B. NAGAR, R.R.DISTRICT.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:- For Defense:- PW 1 J. Sampath -Nil- PW 2 Md. Sayeed, PW 3 K. Bala Raju.

Exhibits Marked

Ex.P1 is the report, Ex.P2 is the confession cum seizure panchanama, Ex.P3 is the FIR

Material object MO1 is the CPR No. 492/2012 (one flat Spanner (40 MM) adjustable man key plate).

II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

AT L.B. NAGAR, R.R. DIST.

6

IN THE COURT OF THE II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD, L.B. NAGAR

F O R M No: 71

Calendar And JUDGMENT

District: Ranga Reddy II Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad

Calendar of case tried by:Sri. D. Durga Prasad, MA,MHRM, LLM., II Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad.

L.B. NAGAR, R.R. DIST.

Date of Offence : 15.10.2012

Date of report or complaint : 15.10.2012

Date of apprehension of accused : 15.10.2012

Date of commencement of trial : 21.03.2013

Date of Closure of trial : 12.03.2014

Date of sentence of order : 28.03.2014

Explanation of delay and remarks : Due to non-production of Witnesses by the prosecution side

Judgment in calendar case No. : 1920/2012

Complainant : P.S. L.B. Nagar.

Name of the Accused : A-1 K. Pandu Naik S/o. Mothya,

Offence : U/s. 379 or 411 of IPC.

Finding : Not guilty

Sentence : Acquitted U/s. 248 (1) of Cr.P.C.

II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD, AT L.B.NAGAR.