Smt D. Satyavathi

1

CC.503/2017, VIII ACMMC/GWK

IN THE COURT OF VIII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

GAJUWAKA AT VISAKHAPANTAM

PRESENT: Smt.D.Satyavathi, VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka

Monday, this the 17th day February, 2020

C.C.No.503/2017

(Cr.No.385/2014 of Gajuwaka P.S.) (Old C.C.No.548/2014 of III ACMMGWK)

Between: State represented by the Inspector of Police, Gajuwka Police Station, Visakhapatnam City. Complainant

And

1) Kanumureddy Ramu @ Rambujji, S/o Appalaraju, age 24 years, Kapu by caste, labour, R/o D.No.1-2-20, Akkireddypalem, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam. A-1

2) Busa Eswara Rao, S/o Sriramulu, age 20years, Turupu Kapu, work man in a Kirana shop, r/o Dabbanda (V), Gandigundam P.O., Sontiyam road, Anandapuram (M), Visakhapatnam A-3

3) Patchkoru Marayya, S/o Demudu, age 21 years, Turupu Kapu, auto driver R/o Dabbanda (V), Gandigundam P.O., Sontiyam, Anandapuram (M), VisakhapatnamA-5 (Case Against A-5 is separated and numbered as C.C.No.24/2019)

…...Accused

This case was coming on 11-02-2020 for fnal hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and Sri S.Ramana Babu, Advocate for Accused A1 and A3 and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth the following:

JUDGMENT

The Inspector of Police, Gajuwaka Police Station, Visakhapatnam

City fled charge sheet against the accused for the ofences punishable under

Section 341, 324, 323, 365, 506 r/w 34 of IPC in Crime No.385/2014 .

2.The brief contents of the charge sheet are as follows:-

L.W.1 P.Prakash reported that in connection with default to pay IPL gaming betting money to A3 Eswararao. A1 admitted to collect betting money from L.W.1 P.Prakash on entrust from A3. A1 watching for L.W.1 P.Prakash on 24-06-2014 at 14.30 hours A1 secured A2 and another person and laid an ambush for L.W.1, while L.W.1 going to his 'B' shift duty, A1 and A2 and one 2

CC.503/2017, VIII ACMMC/GWK

another called him, way laid, forcibly brought him behind chicken shop of

L.W.4, beat him with iron rod, stick, coconut stems, also fsted over face all over the body caused bleeding injuries lay him in the chicken shop, called A3 to Nathayyapalem for collection of betting money. They all kidnapped L.W1

P.Prakash secretly at Dabbangi with a view to collect money from the father of

L.W.1 P.Prakash. They all took him in an auto towards Simhachalam and reached signal point, L.W.1 P.Prakash jumped down the auto, approached trafc police and informed about his kidnap. The trafc police constable rescued L.W1 P.Prakash from the accused and called the staf of

Gopalapatnam police station.

Basing on the report of L.W.1 P.Prakash, a case in

Cr.No.385/2014 u/sec.341, 324, 323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC by L.W.14 G.Dalibabu,

Sub-Inspector of police and investigated into. During the investigation he sent L.W.1 P.Prakash for treatment, examined the scene of ofence, seized the auto, 6 mm iron rod piece, one bamboo stick, coconut stem and one brick stone, prepared rough sketch. After completion of investigation L.W.15

Ch.Vivekananda, Inspector of police, fled charge sheet against the accused under Section 341, 324, 323, 365, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

3. This case was taken on fle for the ofence punishable under

Section 341, 324, 323, 365, 506 r/w 34 of IPC against the accused.

4.This case was transferred from the III Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court, Gajuwaka as per the orders of the Hon’ble

District Court’s Proceedings in Dis.No.629, dt.26-09-2016.

5.After appearance of accused A1 and A3 before the Court, copies of documents were furnished to them as required u/s.207 Cr.P.C., On 03.04.2019 accused A1 and A3 were examined u/s.239 Cr.P.C, for the charge under section 341, 324, 323, 365, 506 r/w 34 of IPC explaining them in Telugu the contents of charge sheet, they denied the contents of the charge sheet and claimed to be tried. The accused A 1 and A 3 have stated that they have got means to engage an Advocate to defend their case.

3

CC.503/2017, VIII ACMMC/GWK

6.During the course of trial prosecution examined as many as P.W.1 to P.W12 and got marked Exs.P1 to P18 and M.O.1 to M.O.4.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused A 1 and A3 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.,by explaining incriminating evidence to them in Telugu, which was deposed by the prosecution witnesses against them, for which accused not admitted the same and they further stated that they have no defence evidence.

8. Heard both sides.

9. Now the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused A1 and A3 for the ofence under Section 341, 324, 323, 365, 506 r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT :-

10.The Learned A.P.P., argued that the evidence of prosecution witnesses P.Ws.1 to P.W11 coupled with Exs.P1 to P.18 sufciently established the guilt of the accused. Therefore the ofence under Section 341, 324, 323, 365, 506 r/w 34 of IPC against the accused A1 and A3 is proved. Hence, prays the court to convict the accused according to Law.

11. On the other hand the Learned Counsel for the accused argued that the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.11 coupled with Exs.P1 to P18 are not at all sufcient to convict the accused. He further argued that the evidence of

P.Ws.1 to P.W11 sufered with several contradictions and omissions and the seizure also not taken place according to provisions of 100 (4) Criminal

Procedure Code in this case. Hence he sought for acquittal of the accused .

12.The prosecution frstly examined P.W.1 P.Prakash, who is the defacto complainant and injured deposed that on 24-6-2014 at about 4.30 p.m. while he was proceeding from his house to shop, he fell on the ground and sustained injuries on his lips and back side. He further deposed that he went to hospital for treatment and police took his signature on report dt:24-06- 2014, but he do not know the contents of report. Ex-P.1 is the report. He do not know the accused.

4

CC.503/2017, VIII ACMMC/GWK

13.The prosecution further examined P.W.2 P.Bala Krishna, who is present at the time of preparation of the scene observation report deposed that on 25-6-2014 at about 10.00 a.m. he went to Akkireddipalem for drinking coconut water. He further deposed that Dalinaidu SI of police prepared the scene observation report at chicken shop and seized brick piece, bamboo stick piece. Ex-P.3 is the scene observation report dt:25-6.2014. He know the contents of Ex-P.3

14. Prosecution further examined P.W.3 S.Rambabu, who is present at the time of preparation of the scene observation report deposed that on 25-6- 2014 at about 10.00 a.m. he went to Akkireddipalem for drinking coconut water. Dalinaidu SI of police prepared the scene observation report at chicken shop and seized brick piece, iron rod and coconut stem piece. Ex-P.4 is the signature on Ex-P.3 scene observation report dt:25-6.2014. He do not know the contents of Ex-P.3.

15.Prosecution further examined P.W4 A.Appala Raju, who is present at the time of recording the confessional statement of the accused A2, A3, A5 and A8 deposed that on 25-6-2014 at about 9-00 p.m. he went to Gajuwaka police station on his personal work and police took his signature on written paper. Except that he do not know the contents of it. Ex-P.5 is the signature of

P.W.4 on mediators report dt:25-6-2014 at 21.00 hours.

16.Prosecution further examined P.W.5 R.Shankar, who is present at the time of recording the confessional statement of the accused A2 to A4, A6 to A8 deposed that on 5-7-2014 at about 8.00 a.m. he went to Gajuwaka police station on his personal work and police took his signature on written paper and except that he do not know the contents of written paper. Ex-P.6 is the signature of P.W.5 on mediators report dt:5-7-2014 at 8.00 a.m. Ex-P.7 is the signature of P.W.5 on mediators report dt:5-7-2014 at 9.00 a.m. Ex-P.8 is the signature of P.W.5 on mediators report dt:5-7-2014 at 10.00 a.m.

17.Prosecution further examined P.W.6 E.Satyanarayana, who is witnessed to the incident deposed that he do not know anything about this 5

CC.503/2017, VIII ACMMC/GWK

case. Police never examined him.

18.Prosecution further examined P.W.7 E.Appalaraju, who is witnessed to the incident deposed that he do not know anything about this case. Police never examined him.

19.P.W.1, P.W4, P.W5,P.W6 and P.W7 they were not supported

the case of the prosecution the learned A.P.P. declared them as

hostile witnesses. Though, the learned A.P.P. cross-examined P.W.1 to

P.W7 nothing was elicited in favour of the prosecution. P.W1,

P.W6and P.W7 denied that they stated before the Police as in Exs.P2,

Ex.P9 and Ex.P10 which their alleged 161 Cr.P.C. Statements are

marked.

20. Prosecution further examined P.W.8 V.Ashok Kumar, Medical

Ofcer, who gave treatment to P.W1 deposed that on 24-6-2014 at about 10.15 p.m. P.W.1 P.Prakash was brought to his hospital with injuries and he found black eye on left side, bleeding from gums. He opined that the above injuries are simple in nature. Ex-P.11is wound certifcate.

21. Prosecution further examined P.W.9 M.S.Naidu, Head constable, who is eye witnessed to the incident deposed that on 24-06-2014 at about 5.30 p.m. while he was present at Simhachalam down by discharging constable duties P.W.1 came to him with bleeding injuries and he asked P.W.1 what happened. He further deposed that P.W.1 replied that he was kidnapped by some persons by beating and he stopped the auto and found 4 persons in the auto and he informed the same to Gopalapatnam police station. He further deposed that meanwhile one constable came there and he along with the said constable brought the said 4 persons to police station and on 25-06- 2014 police examined him.

22. Prosecution further examined P.W.10 S.Nanaji, Head constable, who is came to know the incident deposed that on 24-6-2014 at about 5.30p.m. while he was present at Gopalapatnam police station his writer received phone call from P.W.9 and the writer sent him to place of ofence. He 6

CC.503/2017, VIII ACMMC/GWK

further deposed that he along with P.W.9 brought the 4 persons to

Gopalapatnam police station and handed over them and one person stand in the court hall and police examined him.

23. Prosecution further examined P.W.11 Ch.Vivekananda, DSP, who is conducted the investigation deposed that on 25-06-2014 at about 10-00 am., he took up investigation from L.W 14, G.Dalibabu, SI of police in Crime No.

385/14 u/s 341, 324, 323, 365, 506 r/w 34 of IPC . He further deposed that on the same day he visited the scene of ofence which is situated at

Natayyapalem and arrested the A3, A5 at Gajuwaka PS at about 16 hours. He further deposed that basing on the confessional statement of A3, A5 he arrested A2, A8 at Jaggu junction at 21-00 hours which is Ex P12. He further deposed that on 26-6-2014 basing on the confessional statement of accused and he arrested A1 at police station. He further deposed that on 28-06-2014 he fled police custody petition against A2, A3, A8 and on 5-7-2014 gave police custody. He further deposed that he recorded the confessional statements of A2, A3, A8. Ex.P13 is Mediators report on 5-7-2014 at about 8-00 a.m., He further deposed that he deleted the accused A4 and A6 and A8 on basing on the confessional statement of A2, A3, A8. Ex.P14 is Mediators report on 5-7-2014 at about 9-00 a.m., ExP15 is Mediators report on 5-7-2014 at about 10-00 a.m. He further deposed that after receipt of wound certifcate of P.W1 from P.W 8 and he laid charge sheet and verifed the investigation done by L.W4 and found it on correct lines, later he fled charge sheet.

24.Prosecution further examined P.W.12 G.Dalibabu, Sub-Inspector of police, who is registered the frst information report deposed that on 24-06- 2014 at about 21.00 hours while he was present in P.S. P.W.1 P.Prakash came to P.S. and presented a report. Ex-P.16 is report. He further deposed that registered a case in Cr.No.385/2014 u/sec.341, 324, 323, 506 r/w 34 of

IPC. Ex-P.17 is FIR. He further deposed that on 25-6-2014 he examined P.W.1 and visited the scene of ofence and prepared rough sketch. Ex.P.18 is Rough sketch. He further deposed that he seized iron rod and stick at the scene of 7

CC.503/2017, VIII ACMMC/GWK

ofence and from there proceeded to Gopalapatnam police station and examined P.W.9 M.Surinaidu, P.W.10 S.Nanaji and recorded statement of L.W.4

K.Samudram at Chicken center. He further deposed that after completion of investigation he handover the CD fle to P.W.11 Ch.Vivekananda .MO1 is iron rod, MO2 is Bamboo stick, M.O.3 is coconut stem piece and M.O.4 is brick.

25.After gone through the evidence of P.W1 is the injured person,

P.W2 to P.W5 are the eye witnesses to the incident, P.W6 and P.W7 are the mediators. P.W1 to P.W7 are material witnesses, but they did not supported to the prosecution in all material aspects. P.W12 stated that P.W.1, P.W.9, P.W.10 came to police station at the time of giving Ex-P.16 and he along with mediators and P.W.1 went to scene of ofence and he secured the mediator on the way and he admitted that MO1 to Mo4 are available in open place. P.W8 to P.W12 ofcial witnesses, but they deposed on basing on the record.

Except the evidence of P.W.8 to P.W12, no one supported the case of

Prosecution in all respects. In this case no incriminating evidence is available in the record to show that the accused A1 and A3 are beat the P.W1 .

Therefore the evidence of P.W.8 to P.W12 is no way useful to connect the accused with this crime as there is no corroborative evidence to support his evidence. Further the evidence of P.W.8 to P.W.12 can not be sole basis to convict the accused for the alleged ofence with out other cogent convincing evidence. There is no iota of evidence in the evidence of prosecution to show that the accused A1 to A4 are beat the P.W1. Therefore in the above circumstances I hold that the Prosecution failed to prove the ofence against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In the said circumstances the accused

A1 and A2 are entitled for beneft of doubt. Therefore the evidence available on record is not at all sufcient to convict the accused for which he charged.

Hence, I hold that the prosecution utterly failed to prove their case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

26. In the result, the accused A1 and A3 are found not guilty for the ofence under sections 341, 324, 323,365, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code 8

CC.503/2017, VIII ACMMC/GWK

and they are acquitted under section 248(1) Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the accused A1 and A3 shall stands cancelled. The MO1 is iron rod, MO2 is Bamboo stick, M.O.3 is coconut stem piece and MO4 is brick. I.e.

non valuable property shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 17th day of February, 2020.

VIII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

GAJUWAKA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

On behalf of Prosecution:On behalf of Defence:-

P.W..1 : P.Prakash ---None--- P.W..2 : P.Balakrishna P.W..3 : S.Rambabu P.W.4 : A.Appala Raju P.W.5 : R.Shankar P.W.6 : E.Satyanarayana P.W..7 : E.Appalaraju P.W.8 : V.Ashok Kumar P.W.9 : M.S.Naidu P.W.10 : S.Nanaji P.W.11 : Ch.Vivekananda P.W.12 : G.Dalibabu

No.of Exhibits marked on prosecution side :-

Ex.P1 : Signature of P.W.1 on report Ex.P2 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1 Ex.P3 : Scene observation report Ex.P4 : Signature of P.W.5 on Ex-P.3 Ex.P5 : Signature of P.W.4 on mediators report dt:25-06-2014 Ex-P.6 : Signature of P.W.5 on mediators report dt:5-7-2014 at 8.00 a.m. Ex-P.7 Signature of P.W.5 on mediators report dt:5-7-2014 at 9.00 a.m. Ex-P.8 is the signature of P.W.5 on mediators report dt:5-7-2014 at 10.00 a.m. Ex.P9 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W6 Ex-P.10 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W7 Ex-P.11 Wound certifcate Ex-P.12 Mediators report dt:25-6-2014 Ex.P13: Mediators report dt:5-7-2014 at 8.00 a.m. Ex.P14: Mediators report dt:5-7-2014 at 9.00 a.m. Ex-P15: Mediators report dt:5-7-2014 at 10.00 a.m. Ex-P.16: Report Ex.P.17 F.I.R. Ex.P.18 Rough sketch

No.of Exhibits marked on Defence side:-NIL

No.of Material objects marked :- M.O.1: Iron Rod M.O.2 : Bamboo stick M.O.3 : Coconut stem piece M.O.4 : Brick.

VIII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

GAJUWAKA.

9

CC.503/2017, VIII ACMMC/GWK

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF VIII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT GAJUWAKA

Judgment : C.C.503/2017 (Cr.No.385/2014 ) (Old C.C.No.548/2014 of III ACMMGWK) Date of Ofence : 13.03.2018 Report/Complaint: 13.03.2018 Released on bail : A1 and A3 are on bail Commencement of trial : 30-01-2020 Close of trial: 13-02-2020 Sentence or Judgment: 17-02-2020 Explanation for delay and remarks: There is no delay

Name of the complainant:-

State represented by the Inspector of Police, Gajuwka Police Station, Visakhapatnam City.

Name of the Accused:- Kanumureddy Ramu @ Rambujji, S/o Appalaraju, age 24 years, Kapu by caste, labour, R/o D.No.1-2-20, Akkireddypalem, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam. A-1

Busa Eswara Rao, S/o Sriramulu, age 20years, Turupu Kapu, work man in a Kirana shop, r/o Dabbanda (V), Gandigundam P.O., Sontiyam road, Anandapuram (M), VisakhapatnamA-3

Patchkoru Marayya, S/o Demudu, age 21 years, Turupu Kapu, auto driver R/o Dabbanda (V), Gandigundam P.O., Sontiyam, Anandapuram (M), Visakhapatnam A-5 (Case Against A-5 is separated and numbered as C.C.No.24/2019)

Ofence : 341, 324, 323, 365, 506 r/w 34 of IPC

Finding: Accused A1 and A3 are found not guilty

Result:- In the result, the accused A1 and A3 are found not guilty for the ofence under sections 341, 324, 323,365, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal

Code and they are acquitted under section 248(1) Criminal Procedure Code.

The bail bonds of the accused A1 and A3 shall stands cancelled. The MO1 is iron rod, MO2 is Bamboo stick, M.O.3 is coconut stem piece and MO4 is brick.

i.e. non valuable property shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

VIII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

GAJUWAKA.

1

CC.306/2019, VIII ACMMC/GWK

IN THE COURT OF VIII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

GAJUWAKA AT VISAKHAPANTAM

PRESENT: Smt.D.Satyavathi, VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka

Saturday, this the 15th day of February, 2020

C.C.No.306/2019

(Cr.No.280/2019 of Duvvada P.S.)

Between: State rep. by the Sub-Inspector of police, Duvvada P.S, Steel Plant Visakhapatnam

.....Complainant

And

Gundela Srinivasa Rao, S/o Late Suryanarayana, agaed 38 years, caste by SC Mala, R/o D.No.8-28-14, SC Colony, Near I-Max theater, Vizianagaram.

…...Accused

This case was coming on 14-02-2020 for fnal hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and Sri D.Chiranjeevi, Legal Aid Advocate for the Accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth the following:

JUDGMENT

The Sub-Inspector of police, Duvvada Police station

Visakhapatnam fled charge sheet against the accused for the ofence punishable under section 379 or 411 of IPC in Crime No.280/2019

2.The brief contents of the charge sheet are as follows:-

On 30-08-2019 at about 20.00 hours L.W.1 Ch.Chandra Rao went to Durga wines, Vadlapudi on his two wheeler bearing No.AP 31 CK 8201. In the middle way one person requested lift, he picked him and both were went to

Durga wines and parked his vehicle before the wine shop. He forget to take key from his vehicle. Later at about 21.30 hours he came out side and look after for his vehicle but it is not found. Some unknown culprits committed theft of his two wheeler.

Basing on the report of L.W.1 Ch.Chandra Rao, a case was registered in Crime No.280/2019 u/Sec.379 of IPC by L.W.7 T.Lakshmi,

Inspector of police and endorsed investigation to L.W.8 G.Santhosh, Sub-

Inspector of police.

During the course of investigation L.W.8 G.Santhosh, Sub-Inspector 2

CC.306/2019, VIII ACMMC/GWK

of police visited the scene of ofence, examined the same, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements.

On 13.09.2019 at about 13.00 hours L.W.8 G.Santhosh, Sub-

Inspector of police arrested the accused at Apparel Park, Tunglam, Gajuwaka,

Visakhapatnam, recorded his confession statement and recovered the stolen property Honda Activa bearing No.AP 31 CK 8201 and recovered other property in other cases also. Then he served 41-A Cr.P.C. notice to the accused to come with sureties on the next day, but he did not came, then he arrested the accused and sent him for Judicial custody.

After completion of investigation he fled charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.280/2019 u/Sec.379 or 411 of IPC. Hence the charge.

3. This case was taken on fle for the ofence punishable under section 379 or 411 of IPC against the accused.

4.After appearance of accused before the Court, copies of documents were furnished to accused as required u/s.207 Cr.P.C. On 03-12- 2019 the accused was examined u/s.239 Cr.P.C., for the charge u/sec. 379 or 411 of IPC explaining him in Telugu the contents of charge, he denied the contents of the charge and claimed to be tried. The accused stated that he has means to engage an Advocate to defend his case.

5.During the course of trial prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.4 and got marked Ex.P1 to 4. The learned APP given up L.W2 G.V.S.A.Reddy, L.W.3

P.Srinivasa Rao and L.W.4 K.R.R.Mohanarao. Prosecution failed to produced the

L.W.6 R.R.Narasinga Rao. Several adjournments given. Hence L.W.6

R.R.Narasinga Rao evidence is closed.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., by explaining incriminating evidence to him in

Telugu, which was deposed by the prosecution witnesses against him, for which the accused did not admit the same and further stated that he had no defence evidence.

7. Heard both sides.

8. Now the point for determination is :

3

CC.306/2019, VIII ACMMC/GWK

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused for the ofence under Section 379 or 411 of I PC beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT :-

9.The learned A.P.P. argued that the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4 is corroborating with each other. Hence he prays the court to convict the accused according to law.

10. On the other hand the learned counsels for the accused argued that the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4 sufered with several contradictions and omissions. The prosecution failed to produced the seized property before the coutt from the conscious possession of the accused soon after commission of theft and the seizure also not taken place as per the Provisions of Section 100 (4) Criminal Procedure Code and he sought for acquittal of the A1 and A2.

11.To prove their case, the prosecution frstly examined P.W.1

Ch.Chandra Rao, deposed that on 30-08-2019 at about 8-00 p.m., he parked his motorcycle bearing No.AP 31 CK 8201 infront of Durga wine shop, Rajeevnagar.

He further deposed that he went inside the shop for taking alcohol and returned back at about 9-30 p.m., and found that his parked motorcycle was missed and also searched in and around the said locality and later he went to

Kurmannapelm PS and lodged report with police on 01-09-2019. Ex.P1 is the report. He further deposed that after two weeks police informed that his stolen property was recovered and later he went to police station and saw his motorcycle and Police examined him.

12. The evidence of P.W.1 can be taken into consideration to the extent that some unknown ofenders committed theft of motor cycle in front of his house and P.W.1 gave report to Police. There is no direct evidence against the accused to show that accused committed theft of his motorcycle in front house of P.W.1 and committed theft of motor cycle. When there is no direct evidence against the accused, it cannot be said that he committed theft in the house of P.W.1. The prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the ofence under Sections 379 I.P.C. beyond reasonable doubt.

13. On careful perusal of the entire evidence available on record, 4

CC.306/2019, VIII ACMMC/GWK

admittedly no one was present personally at the time of alleged ofence took place and witnessed the same. Further to convict the accused for the ofence under section 411 of Indian Penal Code, the prosecution needs to prove that -

i) there was theft of movable property.

ii) the accused was found in possession of the said stolen property.

iii) the accused failed to give proper explanation for its possession and iv) the accused retained or detained it knowing it to be stolen property.

14. Prosecution further examined P.W.2 S.Ramu, who is present at the time of arrest of the accused and seizure of the property deposed that on 13- 09-2019 at about 8.00 a.m. Duvvada police called him and he along with L.W.4,

SI of police, constable went to Park at Autonagar. He further deposed that they found one person came on scooty and SI of police stopped the said person and asked to show the records of the scooty, but the said person did not shown any relevant records and the scooty bearing No.AP 31 CK 8201. He further deposed that SI of police prepared the mediators report and he along with

L.W.4, SI of police and accused attested on mediator report and accused is the said person. Ex-P.2 is the mediators report dt:13-09-2019 at about 8.00 a.m.

15.Prosecution further examined P.W.3 G.Santhosh, Inspector of police, who is conducted the investigation deposed that on 01-09-2019 at about 16-00 hours while he was present in P.S. P.W.1 Ch.Chandra Rao gave a report to L.W7 Inspector of police. He further deposed that she registered a case in Cr.No.280/19 u/sec.379 of IPC and she endorsed CD fle to him for further investigation. He further deposed that on the same day he examined

L.W.1 police station and went to the scene of ofence which is situated at Durga wines, Rajeevnagar and prepared rough sketch. Ex-P.3 is rough sketch. He further deposed that on the next day he examined L.W.2, L.W.3 and recorded their statements and on 13-09-2019 at 8.00 hours on reliable information and secured L.W.4 K.R.Mohana Rao, P.W.2 Ramu and along with his staf went to

Appearial park. He further deposed that conducted vehicle checking, on seeing them he tried to escape from there and caught hold of him and 5

CC.306/2019, VIII ACMMC/GWK

interrogation he confessed that committed theft at Vizianagaram, Denkada and also he is having a suspect sheet. He further deposed that on enquiry about motor cycle, he committed theft at Durva wine shop and he further confessed that he committed theft at raiL.Way station, visakhapatnam and stolen Hero

Honda Hunk motor cycle on 3rd week of May and was caught hold in drunk and

drive. He further deposed that on 25-05-2019 at 7.20 hours the said vehicle was seized by SI of police L.W.6 and further confessed that he committed theft on 08-07-2019 at Swatantranagar at parking his motorcycle in front of his house. He further deposed that enquired the SI of police, PM palem and they informed that a case was registered Cr.No.386/2019 and he arrested the accused in Cr.No.280/2019 and seized AP 31 CK 8201 Honda Activa. He further deposed that arrested the accused and seized property brought to court for judicial remand and the accused is the said person and after completion of his investigation he laid charge sheet into court.

16.Prosecution further examined P.W.4 T.Lakshmi, Inspector of police, who registered the frst information report deposed that on 01-09-2019 at about 16-00 hours P.W.1 Ch.chandra Rao, came to P.S. and gave report ot him, basing on it she registered a case in Cr.No.280/2019 u/sec.379 of IPC. Ex-P.4 is

FIR. She endorsed CD fle to P.W.3 G.Santhosh, SI of police for further investigation.

17.After gone through the evidence of P.W.3 stated that he received information at about 7.00 a.m. and secured the mediators at police station at about 7.30 a.m. and arrested the accused at about 13.30 hours and except motorcycle and he did not recover anything from the possession of the accused.

18. No doubt, there were minor contradictions and variations in the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4, but such contradictions and variations is not fatal to the case of the Prosecution because they do not go in to the root of the prosecution case and they are no way give strong defence to the case of the accused.

19.On careful perusal of the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4 the 6

CC.306/2019, VIII ACMMC/GWK

commission of theft of motorcycle as well as recovery of the same from the possession of accused is proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt. Even though the counsel for the accused suggested that police foisted a false case against the accused. The evidence of P.W.1 is consistent with the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3. Though, P.W1 to P.W4 were cross-examined, nothing was elicited in favour of the accused except the mere suggestions made as stated supra. When the prosecution has established that the property was seized from the possession of the accused, it is for the accused to account for the same. It is also not the case of the accused that the amount which was seized from their possession is belongs to them. When the accused had failed to account for the property which is in his possession, it can be presumed that the property which was retained by him knowing it to be stolen property. P.W.1 to P.W4 evidence is consistent to each other. The prosecution by examining

P.W.2 and P.W.3 successfully established the guilt of the accused for the ofence punishable under Section 411 I.P.C

20. I hold that the prosecution proved the case against A1 and A2 beyond all reasonable doubt and the accused is liable for conviction for the ofence under section 411 of Indian Penal Code under section 248(2) Criminal

Procedure Code.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 15th February, 2020.

Sd/- D.Satyavathi

VIII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

GAJUWAKA

21. When questioned about the quantum of punishment to be imposed against the accused, he stated that he had small children so also old aged parents and he had to look after their welfare and pleaded mercy of the

Court in imposing punishment.

22.Considering the facts and circumstances and the gravity of the ofence, this Court feels that it is not a ft case to release the accused by invoking the provisions of Probation of Ofenders Act. But, a lenient view is taken in imposing punishment.

7

CC.306/2019, VIII ACMMC/GWK

23.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the ofence punishable under Section 379 of I.P.C. and accordingly, he is acquitted under

Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C., for the said ofence. The accused is found guilty for the ofence punishable under Section 411 I.P.C. and accordingly, he is convicted and sentenced under Section 248 (2) Cr.P.C., He is sentenced to undergo

Simple Imprisonment for a period of fve months for the said ofence. The remand period already undergone by the accused from 14-09-2019 to 15-02- 2020 shall be given set of under Section 428 Cr.P.C. Accused shall be released forth with , if he is not required in any other cases.

24. The accused is informed about his right of appeal before Hon’ble

Sessions Court and also informed his right to get free Legal Aid from the

Hon’ble Chairman, Mandel Legal Services Authority, Gajuwaka if he had no

means. The unmarked property shall be given to the owner of the property after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 15th day of February 2020.

Sd/- D.Satyavathi

VIII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

GAJUWAKA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

On behalf of Prosecution:On behalf of Defence:-

P.W.1:Ch.Chandra Sekhar NONE P.W.2:S.Ramu P.W.3:G.Santhosh P.W.4: T.Lakshmi

No.of Exhibits marked on prosecution side

Ex.P.1/-- Report Ex.P.2/-- Mediator report dt:13-09-2019 Ex.P.3/-- Rough sketch Ex.P.4/-- F.I.R

No.of Exhibits marked on Defence side:-NIL

No.of Material objects marked :- -NIL

Sd/- D.Satyavathi

VIII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

GAJUWAKA.

// True Copy //

VIII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

GAJUWAKA.

CC.306/2019 , VIII ACMMC/GWK

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF VIII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT GAJUWAKA

Judgment in : C.C.306/2019 (Cr.No.280/2019) Date of Ofence : 30-08-2019 Report/Complaint: 30-08-2019 Released on bail : Accused is in jail Commencement of trial : 24-01-2020 Close of trial: 13-02-2020 Sentence or Judgment: 15-02-2020 Explanation for delay and remarks: There is no delay

Name of the complainant:-

State rep. by the Sub-Inspector of police, Duvvada P.S, Visakhapatnam

Name of the accused :-

Gundela Srinivasa Rao, S/o Late Suryanarayana, agaed 38 years, caste by SC Mala, R/o D.No.8-28-14, SC Colony, Near I-Max theatre, Vizianagaram.

Ofence : Under Section 379 or 411 of IPC

Finding:Accused is found not guilty for the ofence punishable under Section 379 of I.P.C. Accused is found guilty for the ofence punishable under Section 411 I.P.C.

Result:- In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the ofence punishable under Section 379 of I.P.C. and accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C., for the said ofence. The accused is found guilty for the ofence punishable under Section 411 I.P.C. and accordingly, he is convicted and sentenced under Section 248 (2) Cr.P.C., He is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of fve months for the said ofence. The remand period already undergone by the accused from 14-09-2019 to 15-02-2019 shall be given set of under Section 428 Cr.P.C. Accused shall be released forth with , if he is not required in any other cases. The accused is informed about his right of appeal before Hon’ble Sessions Court and also informed his right to get free Legal Aid from the Hon’ble Chairman, Mandel Legal Services Authority, Gajuwaka if he had no means.The unmarked property shall be given to the owner of the property after appeal time is over.

Sd/- D.Satyavathi

VIII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

GAJUWAKA.

// True Copy //

VIII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

GAJUWAKA.

1

CC.810/2017 VIII ACMMC/GWKng

IN THE COURT OF VIII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

GAJUWAKA AT VISAKHAPANTAM

PRESENT: Smt.D.Satyavathi, VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka

Monday, this the 24th day of February, 2020

C.C.No.810/2017

(Cr.No.229/2017 of Duvvada P.S.)

Between:

State rep. by the Sub-Inspector of police, Duvvada P.S, Visakhapatnam

.....Complainant

And

1. Gorisi Krishna, S/o late Simhachalam, 32 years, Reddy by caste, R/o Swatantra Nagar, Karnavanipalem, Gajuwaka. Visakhapatnam

2. Bagantra Venu, S/o late Gopal, 28 years, Kapu, R/o D.No.25-10-149, Swatantra Nagar, Karnavanipalem, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam.

3. Adagarla Hari @ Guru, S/o late Simhadri Appadu, 24 years, K.Velama, R/o Dayalnagar, near Sai Baba temple, Pedagantyada, Visakhapatnam.

4. Lanka Chanti @ Pappu, s/o Late challayya, 32 years, SC mala, R/o Mindi colony, BHPV Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam

…...Accused A1 to A4

This case was coming on 20-02-2020 for fnal hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and Sri S.Ramana Babu, Advocate for A1 to A4 and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth the following:

JUDGMENT

The Sub-Inspector of police, Duvvada Police station

Visakhapatnamfled charge sheet against the accused A1 to A4 for the offence punishable under section 457, 380 or 411 of IPC in Crime

No.229/2017.

2.The brief contents of the charge sheet are as follows:-

L.W.1 G.Bobby reported that Visakha Trades is located at Plot No.1 and 2 APIIC Industrial area, Aganampudi from last six years and they noticed theft has taken place at their company internal store. On 16-08-2017

Wednesday night they have entered the store by removing over head towers and stolen 6 nos of new brass gate valves big size, 2 numbers of brass gate valves small six and 3 nos copper pipes, total cost of the above material is 2

CC.810/2017 VIII ACMMC/GWKng

Rs.1,60,000/- and they verifed the stock on Thursday 17-08-2018 and found out the theft.

Basing on the report of L.W.1 G.Bobby, a case was registered in

Crime No.229/2017 under Section 457 and 380 of IPC by L.W.5 N.Sai, Inspector of police and endorsed to L.W-6 P.Papa Rao, Sub-Inspector of police for further investigation.

During the course of investigation L.W.6 P.Papa Rao, Sub-Inspector of police visited the scene of offence, examined the witnesses.

L.W.6 P.Papa Rao, Sub Inspector of police arrested the accused A1 to A4 on 20-08-2017 at 16.00 hours while they were in possession of gunny bags containing copper pipes and brass valves, recorded their confession and recovered the stolen property and sent them for judicial remand. After completion of investigation L.W.6 P.Papa Rao, Sub-Inspector of police fled charge sheet against the accused A1 to A4 u/sec.457, 380 or 411 of IPC.

Hence the charge.

3. This case was taken on fle for the offence punishable under section 457, 380 or 411 IPC against the accused A1 to A4.

4.After appearance of accused A1 to A4 before the Court, copies of documents were furnished to accused A1 to A4 as required u/s.207 Cr.P.C. On 19-02-2019 the accused A1 to A4 were examined u/s.239 Cr.P.C., for the charge u/sec.457, 380 or 411 IPC explaining them in Telugu the contents of charge, they denied the contents of the charge and claimed to be tried. The accused A1 to A4 stated that they have means to engage an Advocate to defend their case.

5.During the course of trial prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.3and got marked Ex.P1 to P3. Prosecution fled memo along with VR report stating that L.W.1 G.Bobby and L.W.2 G.Mohan are where abouts not known. Hence

L.W 1 and L.W 2 evidence is closed.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused A1 to A4 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., by explaining incriminating evidence to them in Telugu, which was deposed by the prosecution witnesses against them, 3

CC.810/2017 VIII ACMMC/GWKng

for which the accused did not admit the same and further stated that they have no defence evidence.

7. Heard both sides.

8. Now the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused A1 to A4 for the offence under Section 457, 380 or 411 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

9. POINT :-

The learned A.P.P. argued that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to P.W3 is corroborating with each other and the prosecution proved their case beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence he prays the court to convict the accused according to law. The learned Counsel appeared on behalf of the accused argued that the accused is no way concerned with the alleged offence. He further argued that prosecution failed to examined the defacto complainant and police foisted a false case against the accused for statistical purpose and no property was seized from the possession of the accused and the prosecution has failed to prove the seizure of the property from the possession of the accused and prayed to acquit the accused.

10.On careful perusal of the entire evidence available on record, admittedly no one was present personally at the time of alleged offence took place and witnessed the same. Further to convict the accused for the offence under section 411 of Indian Penal Code, the prosecution needs to prove that -

i) there was theft of movable property.

ii) the accused was found in possession of the said stolen property.

iii) the accused failed to give proper explanation for its possession and iv) the accused retained or detained it knowing it to be stolen property.

11.Prosecution further examined P.W.1 K.R.Murthy, mediator, who is present at the time of arrest of the accused and seizure of the properties deposed that on 20-08-2017 at about 4-00 p.m. police called him to police station and he along with L.W.4 G.Mohan and SI and 3 constables proceeded to

Aganampudi bus stop on police jeep. He further deposed that they found 4 4

CC.810/2017 VIII ACMMC/GWKng

persons along with 3 gunny bags and on seeing the police they tried to skulk away and police caught hold of them and opened the said gunny bags which contains 6 brace valves, two small brace valves, 3 copper wires. He further deposed that on interrogation of SI of police, they confessed that they tried to sell away the said property and they committed theft at Visakha Trafes . He further deposed that they kept the stolen property in the bushes near

RaiL.Way gate, Kondaka and police prepared mediators report and he along with L.W.4 and 3 accused attested and one accused put his thumb impression on it. Ex-P.1 is the mediators report. The accused are the said persons.

12.Prosecution further examined P.W.2 N.Sai, Inspector of police, who is registered the frst information report deposed that on 18-08-2017 at about 1400 hours while he was present in the police station, L.W.1 G.Babi came to PS and gave report. Basing on it he registered a case in crime No.229/17 u/s 457, 380 of IPC which is Ex-P.2 and he endorsed the CD fle to P.Papa Rao, SI of police for further investigation.

13.Prosecution further examined P.W.3 P.Papa Rao, SI of police, who Is conducted the investigation deposed that on 16-08-2017 at about 19-00 hours

P.W.2 N.Sai, Inspector of police endorsed the case in Cr.No.229/2017 u/sec.457, 380 of IPC to him. He further deposed that on the same day he examined

L.W.1 G.Babi and along with P.W.1 went to scene of offence and prepared rough sketch. Ex-P.6 is rough sketch. He further deposed that on 20-8-2017 he received credible information and secured the mediators i.e. P.W.1 K.R.Murthy,

L.W.4 G.Mohan and his staff proceeded to Aganampudi bus stop. He further deposed that found 4 persons and on seeing them the said persons tried to escape from there and he caught hold of them. He further deposed that they confessed and disclosed their names and particulars and seized 3 copper pipes and valves small 2 in number and 3 in big size and prepared mediators report and arrested the accused. After completion of investigation he laid charge sheet into court.

14.The prosecution fled memo along with VR report stating that

L.W.1 and L.W.2 are where abouts not known. Hence L.W.1 and L.W.2 evidence 5

CC.810/2017 VIII ACMMC/GWKng

is closed. Finally, defacto complainant was not examined before the court which results the report was not marked and committed theft of the property was not proved. Therefore the accused last his opportunity to cross examine the above said witness. No doubt it is certainly fatal to the prosecution case.

No iota on record to hold that there is possibility of falsely fled case against the accused. The prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences under Sections 457 and 380 I.P.C. beyond reasonable doubt.

15.To convict the accused for the charge framed under Section 411 of IPC. P.W1 stated that he know the theft of the property belongs to his company and L.W.1 Babi and police called him to the police station and place of arrest is busy locality. He further stated that at the time of escape of the accused they have not possession any bags and at the time of arrest of the accused and seizure of the property nearly 20 to 30 persons are gathered.

P.W.3 stated that APIISC is having a security and did not examine the security guard of APIISC and Aganampudi bus stop is very busy area and did not examine the neighbors of the scene of offence. So the seizure proceedings were not followed to the investigation ofcer and accused cannot be convicted basing on the sole evidence of investigating ofcer without independent corroborating evidence about seizure of the case property. Hence the same is not believable in the absence of independent mediator’s evidence.

The recovery alleged to be made from the possession of accused is also not believable for the lack of independent evidence and I am not inclined to accept the evidence of Investigation Ofcer is alone as stated to be interested witness.

16.The prosecution failed to examined the neighbors of the scene of offence and place of arrest of the accused.The prosecution failed to prove that the police seized the case property from the possession of the accused and arrested the accused in the presence of independent mediators.

17.To convict the accused for the offence under Section 411 IPC the prosecution has to prove that the police seized the case property from the possession of the accused in the presence independent mediators. In the present case as per the prosecution case they recovered the case property 6

CC.810/2017 VIII ACMMC/GWKng

from the possession of the accused is not proved by the police does not called within the scope of under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act. The above stated confession made before the police by accused is hit by Section 25 and 26 of

Indian Evidence Act and has no value in the eye of Law. In the present case as per the prosecution the case property recovered from the possession of the accused is not proved by the police does not fall within the scope of Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act.

18.So the beneft of such invalidity must unnecessarily goes in favour of the accused and so the seizure proceedings were not followed by the investigation ofcer. The recovery of case property from the possession of the accused is not proved. The ingredients of Section 411 of IPC did not attract in any way against the accused. Therefore the prosecution failed to prove the involvement of the accused in this crime beyond reasonable doubt.

19.In the result, Accused A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable u/s.457, 380 or 411 IPC and they are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property shall be given to the owner of the property, after lapse of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 24th day of February, 2020

VIII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

GAJUWAKA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

On behalf of Prosecution:On behalf of Defence:-

PW.1 K.R.Murthy NONE PW.2 N.Sai PW.3 P.Papa Rao

No.of Exhibits marked on prosecution side

Ex.P.1/--Mediators report dt:20-08-2017 Ex.P.2/--F.I.R. Ex.P.3/--Rough sketch

No.of Exhibits marked on Defence side:-NIL

No.of Material objects marked :- NIL

VIII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

GAJUWAKA

CC.810/2017 , VIII ACMMC/GWK

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF VIII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT GAJUWAKA

Judgment in : C.C.810/2017 (Cr.No.229/2017 ) Date of Offence : Prior to 18-08-2018 Report/Complaint: 18-08-2018 Released on bail : A1 to A4 are on bail Commencement of trial : 13-12-2019 Close of trial: 10-02-2020 Sentence or Judgment: 24-02-2020 Explanation for delay and remarks: There is no delay

Name of the complainant:-

State rep. by the Sub-Inspector of police, Duvvada P.S, Visakhapatnam

Name of the accused :-

1. Gorisi Krishna, S/o late Simhachalam, 32 years, Reddy by caste, R/o Swatantra Nagar, Karnavanipalem, Gajuwaka. Visakhapatnam

2. Bagantra Venu, S/o late Gopal, 28 years, Kapu, R/o D.No.25-10-149, Swatantra Nagar, Karnavanipalem, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam.

3. Adagarla Hari @ Guru, S/o late Simhadri Appadu, 24 years, K.Velama, R/o Dayalnagar, near Sai Baba temple, Pedagantyada, Visakhapatnam.

4. Lanka Chanti @ Pappu, s/o Late challayya, 32 years, SC mala, R/o Mindi colony, BHPV Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam

Offence : Under Section 457, 380 or 411 IPC

Finding: Accused 1 to 4 are found not guilty

Result:- In the result, Accused A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable u/s.457, 380 or 411 IPC and they are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property shall be given to the owner of the property, after lapse of appeal time.

VIII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

GAJUWAKA.

1

CC.313/2018, VIII ACMMC/GWK

IN THE COURT OF VIII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

GAJUWAKA AT VISAKHAPATNAM

PRESENT: Smt.D.Satyavathi, VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka

Wednesday, this the 19th day of February, 2020.

C.C.No.313/2018

(Cr.No.260/2018 of Duvvada P.S.)

Between: State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Duvvada Police Station, Visakhapatnam City.

....Complainant

And

1. Mamidi Ravi Krishna, S/o Somu Naidu, 23 years, Kapu, R/o D.No.1-100, Aganampudi, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam.

2. Mamidi Somu Naidu, S/o Atchanna, 27 years, kapu by caste, R/o D.No.2-95-5, Aganampudi, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam.

…. Accused

This case was coming on -02-2020 for fnal hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Smt K.Jyothi, Advocate for Accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth the following:

JUDGMENT

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Duvvada Police Station,

Visakhapatnam City fled charge sheet against the accused A1 and A2 for the ofences punishable under Section 324, 323, r/w 34 of IPC in Crime

No.260/2018.

2. The brief contents of the charge sheet are as follows:-

L.W.1 B.Yeshwanth Kumar and L.W.2 N.Naga Raju are working in Panasonic Service Center. On 10-08-2018 one customer L.W.3

M.Appala Raju called to the customer care from 9640891447 for demo of

Panasonic smart TV and call was entrusted to L.W.1 B.Yeshwanth Kumar and L.W.2 N.Naga Raju. On 11-08-2018 at 16.30 hours L.W.1 B.Yeshwanth

Kumar and L.W.2 N.Naga Raju contacted the cell number 9640891447 and L.W.3 gave another cell number 8639266798. L.W.1 B.Yeshwanth 2

CC.313/2018, VIII ACMMC/GWK

Kumar called to the number and they went to Aganampudi junction, when they reached the junction, A2 took them to the D.No.2-95-14/1, and called

A1 Krishna. L.W.1 B.Yeshwanth Kumar and L.W.2 N.Naga Raju the demo to A1 and A2 and informed about Panasonic smart TV connecting to face book, and they have to down load app, in which e- mail and pass word will come, and the message will generate to the cell registered to the TV.

They asked A1 for the code and A1 informed them, the code was lost.

Then L.W.1 informed A1 to call the customer care for further doubts if any.

On that A1 and A2 told them that the call center people will talk rashly and L.W.1 and 2 tried to explain that there will be no problem. L.W.1 and 2 tried to explain that there will be no problems. Later A1 and A2 picked up dispute with them, A1 beat L.W.1 and 2 with a stick on the back and A2 beat them with hands and caused injuries.

Basing on the report of L.W.1 B.Yeshwanth Kumar, a case was registered in Cr.No.260/2018 under Section 324, 323, r/w 34 of IPC by

L.W.8 P.Suresh, Sub-Inspector of police and visited the scene of ofence, examined the same, seized one stick used by the accused, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements.

He served notice under section 41-A Cr.P.C. to the accused and released them on station bail. After completion of investigation,

L.W.9 P.Appala Naidu, Sub-Inspector of police, fled charge sheet against the accused A1 and A2 under Section 324, 323, r/w 34 IPC. Hence, the charge.

3. This case was taken on fle for the ofence punishable under section 324, 323, r/w 34 IPC against the accused A1 and A2.

4.After appearance of the accused A1 and A2 before the Court, copies of documents were furnished to accused A1 and A2 as required u/s.207 Cr.P.C. On 16-05-2019 the accused A1 and A2 were examined 3

CC.313/2018, VIII ACMMC/GWK

u/sec.239 Cr.P.C., for the charge u/sec.324, 323,r/w 34 of IPC explaining them in Telugu the contents of charge, they denied the contents of the charge and claimed to be tried. The accused A1 and A2 stated that they have means to engage an Advocate to defend their case.

5.During the course of trial prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.7 and got marked Ex.P1 to P8.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused A1 and A2 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., by explaining incriminating evidence to them in Telugu, which was deposed by the prosecution witnesses against them, for which the accused did not admit the same and further stated that they have no defence evidence.

7. Heard both sides.

8. Now the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused A1 and A2 for the ofence Under Sec. 324, 323, r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

9.The Learned A.P.P., argued that the evidence of prosecution witnesses P.Ws.1 to P.W 7coupled with Exs.P1 to p8 sufciently established the guilt of the accused. Therefore the ofence under Section 324, and 323, r/w 34 of IPC against the accused A1 and A2 is proved. Hence, prays the court to convict the accused according to Law.

10.On the other hand the Learned Counsel for the accused argued that the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.7 coupled with Exs.P1 to P 8 are not at all sufcient to convict the accused. He further argued that the P.W 1 and accused are compromised out of the court . Hence he sought for acquittal of the accused .

10.The prosecution frstly examined P.W.1 B.Yaswanth Kumar, who is the injured and defacto complainant deposed that he do not know 4

CC.313/2018, VIII ACMMC/GWK

the accused and anything about this case. He further deposed that at the instance of SI of police he put his signature on report and he do not know the contents of it. Ex-P.1 is his signature. Police never examined him.

11.The prosecution further examined P.W.2 N.Nagaraju, who is eye witnessed to the incident deposed that he do not know the accused and anything about this case. Police never examined him.

12.The prosecution further examined P.W.3 M.Appala Raju ,who is eye witnessed to the incident deposed that he do not know the accused and anything about this case. Police never examined him.

13.P.W.1 to P.W3 they were not supported the case of the

prosecution the learned A.P.P. declared them as hostile

witnesses. Though, the learned A.P.P. cross-examined P.W.s 1 to

P.W3 nothing was elicited in favour of the prosecution. P.W1 to

P.W3 denied that they stated before the Police as in Exs.P2 to

Ex.P4 which their alleged 161 Cr.P.C. Statements are marked.

14.The prosecution further examined P.W.4 M.Narasinga Rao,who is eye witnessed to the incident deposed that P.W.1 informed that the disputes raised between P.W.1 and accused. police never examined him.

15.The prosecution further examined P.W.5 G.Suresh Kumar, who is present at the time of preparation of the scene observation report deposed that in the year 2017 he went to police station on his personal work and police drafted the scene observation report at the police station.

He further deposed that at the request of police he put his signature on it, but he do not know the contents of scene of ofence and police did not seize any property in his presence. Ex-P.5 is the signature on scene observation report.

16.The prosecution further examined P.W.6 Dr.A.Neela, Medical 5

CC.313/2018, VIII ACMMC/GWK

Ofcer, who gave treatment to P.W1 and P.W2 deposed that on 11-08- 2019 at about 11.45 p.m. P.W.1 B.Yasvantha Kumar was brought to her hospital with injuries and he found the following injuries 1) Abrasion on the back of left shoulder, 2) an abrasion above the scapula on shoulder and he was of the opined that the injury is simple in nature. Ex-P.6 is wound certifcate.

17.He further deposed that on 11-08-2019 at about 11.45 p.m.

P.W.2 Nakka Naga Raju was brought to hospital with injuries and he found the following injuries 1) Abrasion on the right side back shoulder. He opined that the injury is simple in nature. Ex-P.7 is the Wound certifcate.

18.The prosecution further examined P.W.7 P.Appala Naidu, Sub

Inspector of police, who is conducted the investigation deposed that on 11-08-2018 L.W.8 P.Suresh Babu registered a case in Cr.No.260/2018 u/sec.324, 323 r/w 34 of IPC. Ex-P.8 is the FIR. He further deposed that on 20-10-2018 he received CD fle from L.W.8 and he received wound certifcate of P.W.1 from P.W.6. After verifcation of investigation done by

L.W.8, found it on correct lines and later he laid charge sheet.

19.After gone through the evidence of P.W.1 is the injured person, P.W2 to P.W4 are the eye witnesses to the incident, P.W5 is the mediator. P.W1 to P.W5 are material witnesses, but they did not supported to the prosecution in all material aspects. P.W6 and P.W7 are the ofcial witnesses, but they deposed on basing on the record. Except the evidence of P.W.6 and P.W7 no one supported the case of Prosecution in all respects. In this case no incriminating evidence is available in the record to show that the accused A1 and A2 are beat the P.W1 and P.W2.

Therefore the evidence of P.W.6 and P.W7 is no way useful to connect the accused with this crime as there is no corroborative evidence to support his evidence. Further the evidence of P.W.6 and P.W.7 can not be 6

CC.313/2018, VIII ACMMC/GWK

sole basis to convict the accused for the alleged ofence with out other cogent convincing evidence. There is no iota of evidence in the evidence of prosecution to show that the accused A1 and A2 are beat the P.W1.

Therefore in the above circumstances I hold that the Prosecution failed to prove the ofence against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In the said circumstances the accused A1 and A2 are entitled for beneft of doubt. Therefore the evidence available on record is not at all sufcient to convict the accused for which he charged. Hence, I hold that the prosecution utterly failed to prove their case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

20. In the result, the accused A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the ofence under sections 324 and 323 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and they are acquitted under section 248(1) Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the accused A1 and A2 shall stands cancelled. The unmarked non valuable property if any, shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 19th day of February, 2020.

VIII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

GAJUWAKA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

On behalf of Prosecution: On behalf of Defence:-

P.W.1 : B.Yaswant Kumar -None-

P.W.2 : K.Nagaraju

P.W.3 :M.Appala Raju

P.W.4 :M.Narasinga Rao

P.W.5: G.Suresh Kumar

P.W.6: Dr.A.Neela

P.W.7: P.Appala Naidu 7

CC.313/2018, VIII ACMMC/GWK

No.of Exhibits marked on prosecution side:

Ex.P1/--Signature of P.W.1 on Report Ex.P2/--161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.1 Ex.P3/--161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.2 Ex.P4/--161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.3 Ex.P5/--Signature of P.W.5 on Scene observation report. Ex.P6/--Wound Certifcate of P.W.1 Ex.P7/--Wound Certifcate of P.W.2 Ex.P8/--F.I.R.

No.of Exhibits marked on Defence side:-NIL

No.of Material objects marked :- NIL

VIII ACMM/GWK.

CC.313/2018 , VIII ACMMC/GWK

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF VIII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT GAJUWAKA

Judgment : C.C.313/2018 (Cr.No.260/2018 ) Date of Ofence : 10-08-2018 Report/Complaint: 10-08-2018 Released on bail : Accused A1 and A2 are on bail Commencement of trial : 13-02-2020 Close of trial: 17-02-2020 Sentence or Judgment: 19-02-2020 Explanation for delay and remarks: There is no delay

Name of the complainant:-

State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Duvvada Police Station, Visakhapatnam City.

Name of the Accused:-

1. Mamidi Ravi Krishna, S/o Somu Naidu, 23 years, Kapu, R/o D.No.1-100, Aganampudi, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam.

2. Mamidi Somu Naidu, S/o Atchanna, 27 years, kapu by caste, R/o D.No.2-95-5, Aganampudi, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam.

Ofence: Section 324, 323, r/w 34 IPC

Finding: Accused A1 and A2 are found not guilty

Result:- : In the result, the accused A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the ofence under sections 324 and 323 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and they are acquitted under section 248(1) Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the accused A1 and A2 shall stands cancelled. The unmarked non valuable property if any, shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

VIII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

GAJUWAKA

CC.313/2018 , VIII ACMMC/GWK

During his cross examination P.W.1 admitted that A1 is running private shop and it is not true to suggest that he talked tot he accused vulgarity and immediately after the accident he went to the hospital. He further deposed that it is not true to say that A1 to A4 never attacked him and he falsely fled a case against them. He do not know whether the accused belongs to schedule caste or not.

During his cross examination P.W.3 deposed that P.W.1 is his colleague and at his request he put his signature on Ex-P.2 and he along with p.W.1 went to police station and scene of ofence is situate by the side of Kokila restaurant.

During his cross examination P.W.4 deposed that on the date of incident his duty timings are 9.00 am to 4.00 p.m. and he do not know how P.W.1 got injuries.

During his cross examination P.W.5 deposed that he secured the mediators on the date of incident at about 9.30 a.m. and there is no Kokila restaurant adjacent to scene of ofence and it is true mediators of relatives of defacto complainant and P.W.1 underwent treatment for one as inpatient.

1

CC.5/2018, VIII ACMMC/GWK

IN THE COURT OF VIII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

GAJUWAKA AT VISAKHAPANTAM

PRESENT: Smt.D.Satyavathi, VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka

Friday, this the 14th day February, 2020

C.C.No.5/2018

(Cr.No.388/2017 of Duvvada P.S.)

Between: State represented by the Inspector of Police, Duvvada Police Station, Visakhapatnam City. Complainant

And

1) Sakinapalli Krishna, S/o Musalayya, age 31 years, R/o D.No.31, Rasalamma colony, Rajeevnagar, Kurmannapalem, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam. A-1

2) Sakinapalli Prasad @ Bujji, S/o Musalayya, age 32years, R/o D.No.31-36- 188, Rasalamma colony, Rajeevnagar, Kurmannapalem, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam. A-2

3) Baddati Ramana, S/o Apparao, age 32years, R/o D.No.20-4-3/7,Sivajinagar, Aganampudi, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam. A-3

4) Sakinapalli Tatamma, W/o Krishna, age 47 years, R/o D.No.31, Rasalamma colony, Rajeevnagar, Kurmannapalem, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam city. A-4

…...Accused

This case was coming on 13-02-2020 for fnal hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and Sri M.Rama Krishna, Advocate for Accused A1 to A4 and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth the following:

JUDGMENT

The Inspector of Police, Duvvada Police Station, Visakhapatnam

City fled charge sheet against the accused for the ofences punishable under

Section 324, 323, r/w 34 of IPC in Crime No.388/2017.

2.The brief contents of the charge sheet are as follows:-

On 26-11-2017 at night 20.30hours while L.W.1 B.Gunnayya was present in his house, A1, A2 andA 4 others who were residing at the beside of his house came to his house, called him out, A1 beat with stick on L.W.1

B.Gunnayya’s head, on the pretext that he is doing black magic to the people, 2

CC.5/2018, VIII ACMMC/GWK

resulting he received bleeding injury.

Basing on the report of LW.1 B.Gunnayya, a case in

Cr.No.388/2017 u/sec. 324, 323, r/w 34 of IPC by L.W.10 N.Sai, Inspector of police and endorsed investigation to L.W.9 K.Subbarao, Head constable.

During the investigation L.W.9 K.Subbarao, Head constable visited the scene of ofence, examined the same and served u/sec.41-A Cr.P.c. notice to the accused A1 to A4. After completion of investigation fled charge sheet against the accused A1 to A4 under Section 324, 323, r/w 34 of IPC.

3. This case was taken on fle for the ofence punishable under

Section 324, 323, r/w 34 of IPC against the accused A1 to A4.

4.After appearance of accused A1 to A4 before the Court, copies of documents were furnished to them as required u/s.207 Cr.P.C., On 03.10.2018 accused A1 to A4 were examined u/s.239 Cr.P.C, for the charge under section 324, 323, r/w 34 of IPC explaining them in Telugu the contents of charge sheet, they denied the contents of the charge sheet and claimed to be tried.

The accused A1 to A4 have stated that they have got means to engage an

Advocate to defend their case.

5.During the course of trial prosecution examined as many as P.W.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P10.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused A1 to A4 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., by explaining incriminating evidence to them in Telugu, which was deposed by the prosecution witnesses against them, for which accused not admitted the same and they further stated that they have no defence evidence.

7. Heard both sides.

8. Now the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused A1 to A4 for the ofence under Section 324, 323, r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT :-

9. In order to prove it’s case, prosecution examined as many as P.W..1 3

CC.5/2018, VIII ACMMC/GWK

to P.W.9. P.W.1 is the defacto complainant, P.W.2 to P.W.5 are the eye witnesses to the incident, P.W.6 and P.W7 are the mediators, P.W8 is the

Medical Ofcer, P.W.9 is the investigation ofcer.

10.The prosecution frstly examined P.W.1 B.Gunnayya, who is the injured and defacto complainant deposed that on 26-11-2017 he went to shop and fell down on ground and sustained injuries on the head and left hand. He further deposed that on the advise of police he went to Government hospital for treatment and he put his thumb impression on the report in police station, but he do not know the contents of it.

11.The prosecution further examined P.W.2 G.Kotamma, who is eye witnessed to the incident deposed that she do not know anything about this case and police never examined him.

12.The prosecution further examined P.W.3 G.Koteswara Rao, who is eye witnessed to the incident deposed that he do not know anything about this case and police never examined him.

13.The prosecution further examined P.W.4 K.Nookaratnam, who is eye witnessed to the incident deposed that she do not know anything about this case and police never examined her.

14.The prosecution further examined P.W.5 B.Srinivasa Rao who is eye witnessed to the incident deposed that he do not know anything about this case and police never examined him.

15.The prosecution further examined P.W.6 B.Kanakamahalakshmi, mediator, who is present at the time of preparation of the scene observation report deposed that on 2-12-2017 at about 9.00 a.m. Duvvada police called her and police took her thumb impression on a written paper, but she do not know the contents of it.

16.The prosecution further examined P.W.7 B.Lakshmi, who is present at the time of preparation of the scene observation report deposed that on 2-12-2017 at about 9.00 a.m. Duvvada police called her and police took her signature on a written paper, but she do not know the contents of it.

4

CC.5/2018, VIII ACMMC/GWK

17.P.W.1 to P.W7 they were not supported the case of the

prosecution the learned A.P.P. declared them as hostile witnesses.

Though, the learned A.P.P. cross-examined P.W.1 to P.W7 nothing was

elicited in favour of the prosecution. P.W1 to P.W5 denied that they

stated before the Police as in Exs.P1 to P5 which their alleged 161

Cr.P.C. Statements are marked.

18.The prosecution further examined P.W.8 Dr.Lakshmi Radha

Sowjanya, Medical ofcer, who gave treatment to P.W1 deposed that on 26-11-2017 at about 10.00 p.m. P.W.1 Balireddy Gunnayya, was brought to his hospital with injuries and she found the following injuries 1) Abrasion of 5 x 1 cm on left parietal bone. She was of the opinion that the above injury is simple in nature. Ex-P.7 is Wound Certifcate.

19. Prosecution further examined P.W.9 K.Subba Rao, ASI, who is conducted the investigation deposed that on 01-12-2017 at about 7.15 p.m.

P.W.1 came to P.S and presented a report. Ex-P.8 is Report. He further deposed that he registered a case in Cr.No.388/2017 u/sec.324, 323 r/w 34 of IPC. Ex-P.9 is FIR. He further deposed that he endorsed the CD fle to him and took up investigation and on the same day he proceeded to scene of ofence which is situated at opposite to Sivaji road at Aganampudi and prepared rough sketch. Ex-P.10 is Rough sketch. He further deposed that on the same day he examined P.W.1 and on 02-12-2017 he examined P.W.2

G.Kotamma, P.W.3 Koteswara Rao, P.W.4 K.Nookaratnam. He further deposed that on 6-12-2017 he issued 41-A of Cr.P.C. notice to A1 to A4 and released them on bail and on 19-12-2017 he received the wound certifcate of P.W.1 from P.W.8 Dr.Lakshmi and after completion of his investigation he handover the CD fle to L.W.10 N.Sai, Inspector of police, later L.W.10N.Sai, Inspector of police, fled charge sheet into court.

20.After gone through the evidence of P.W1 is the injured person, P.W2 to P.W5 are the eye witnesses to the incident, P.W6 and P.W7 are the mediators. P.W1 to P.W7 are material witnesses, but they did not 5

CC.5/2018, VIII ACMMC/GWK

supported to the prosecution in all material aspects. P.W8 and P.W9 are ofcial witnesses, but they deposed on basing on the record. Except the evidence of P.W.8 and P.W9, no one supported the case of Prosecution in all respects. In this case no incriminating evidence is available in the record to show that the accused A1 to A4 are beat the P.W1 . Therefore the evidence of P.W.8 and P.W9 is no way useful to connect the accused with this crime as there is no corroborative evidence to support his evidence. Further the evidence of P.W.8 and P.W.9 can not be sole basis to convict the accused for the alleged ofence with out other cogent convincing evidence. There is no iota of evidence in the evidence of prosecution to show that the accused A1 to

A4 are beat the P.W1. Therefore in the above circumstances I hold that the

Prosecution failed to prove the ofence against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In the said circumstances the accused A1 to A4 are entitled for beneft of doubt. Therefore the evidence available on record is not at all sufcient to convict the accused for which he charged. Hence, I hold that the prosecution utterly failed to prove their case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

21. In the result, the accused A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the ofence under section 324, 323 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and they are acquitted under section 248(1) Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the accused A1 to A4 shall stands cancelled. The unmarked non valuable property if any shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 14th day of February, 2020.

VIII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

GAJUWAKA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

On behalf of Prosecution:On behalf of Defence:-

P.W..1 : B.Gunnayya ---None--- P.W..2 : G.Kotamma P.W..3 : G.Koteswara Rao 6

CC.5/2018, VIII ACMMC/GWK

P.W.4 : K.Nookaratnam P.W.5 : B.Srinivasa Rao P.W.6 : B.Kanakamahalakshmi P.W..7 : B.Lakshmi P.W.8 : Dr.Lakshmi Radha Sowjanya P.W.9 :K.Subba Rao

No.of Exhibits marked on prosecution side :-

Ex.P1 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1 Ex.P2 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2 Ex.P3 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3 Ex.P4 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.4 Ex.P5 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W. Ex.P6 : Signature of P.W.7 on scene observation report Ex.P7 : Wound certifcate Ex.P8 : Report Ex.P9 : F.I.R. Ex.P10 Rough sketch

No.of Exhibits marked on Defence side:-NIL

No.of Material objects marked :- NIL

VIII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

GAJUWAKA.

7

CC.5/2018, VIII ACMMC/GWK

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF VIII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT GAJUWAKA

Judgment : C.C.5/2018 (Cr.No.388/2017) Date of Ofence : 26-11-2017 Report/Complaint: 26-11-2017 Released on bail : A1 to A4 are on bail Commencement of trial : 07-02-2020 Close of trial: 13-02-2020 Sentence or Judgment: 14-02-2020 Explanation for delay and remarks: There is no delay

Name of the complainant:- State represented by the Inspector of Police, Duvvada Police Station, Visakhapatnam City.

Name of the Accused:- 1.Sakinapalli Krishna, S/o Musalayya, age 31 years, R/o d.No.31, Rasalamma colony, Rajeevnagar, Kurmannapalem, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam.

2.Sakinapalli Prasad @ Bujji, S/o Musalayya, age 32years, R/o D.No.31-36-188, Rasalamma colony, Rajeevnagar, Kurmannapalem, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam.

3.Baddati Ramana, S/o Apparao, age 32years, R/o D.No.20-4-3/7,Sivajinagar, Aganampudi, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam.

4.Sakinapalli Tatamma, W/o Krishna, age 47 years, R/o D.No.31, Rasalamma colony, Rajeevnagar, Kurmannapalem, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam city.

Ofence : U/Sec.324, 323, r/w 34 of IPC

Finding: Accused A1 to A4 are found not guilty.

Result:- In the result, the accused A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the ofence under section 324, 323 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and they are acquitted under section 248(1) Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the accused A1 to A4 shall stands cancelled. The unmarked non valuable property if any shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time .

VIII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

GAJUWAKA.