Sri.D.V.R.Tejo Karthik

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

KOLLAPUR

Thursday, the 6 th day of October, 2016.

Present:- D.V.R.Tejo Karthik, Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kollapur

C.C.No. 95 of 2011 Between:- State of A.P., represented through S.I.of Police, Veepangandla …Complainant

Versus

1. Kavali Balakistamma w/o Late Narayana age 45 years, occ. Coolie

2. Etigadda Venkatramudu s/o Balaiah age 38 years, occ. Coolie Both are r/o Kondur village. …Accused

Nature of offence: - Theft in dwelling house

Section of law: - U/s 380 r/w 511 IPC

Plea of the accused: - Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the court: - Found not guilty

Sentence or order:. The accused are acquitted U/s 248(1) Cr.P.C.

-o0o- This case coming before me in the presence of learned APP for the State and Sri. K.Srihari, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration and delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Veepangandla filed charge sheet against the accused A1 and A2 for the offence punishable U/s 380 r/w 511 IPC in Cr.No.12/2011 of P.S. Veepangandla.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that LW8 P.Srinivas Rao,

S.I. of police, Veepangandla and Investigating officer received a report on 16-3-2011 at 06:30 hours from PW1

G.Neelamma stating that on 15-3-2011 she along with husband Ramudu went to their agriculture fields for attending their agriculture work. Her mother –in –Law Yellamma (PW3) stayed in their house, to look after her younger daughter at about 1600 hours their villagers A1 and A2 entered in to her house with the intention to commit theft , while attempting her mother-in-law (PW3)saw them and closed the door immediately and called the village Kavalikar Srinivasulu and Narayana in presence of Kavalikars opened the door and handed both the accused to the Kavalikars and report against A1 and A2 was lodged by PW1. Basing on the report a case was registered against the accused for the offence punishable U/sec 380 r/w 511 IPC. After completion of investigation LW8 P.Srinivasa Rao laid charge sheet.

3. Upon consideration of the material placed before the court, cognizance for the offence punishable u/s 380 r/w 511 IPC was taken against A1 and A2. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to them u/s 207 Cr.P.C., and after furnishing copies of documents, the accused were examined u/s 239 Cr.P.C. for the substance of allegations. Then charge u/s 380 r/w 511 IPC against A1 and A2 was framed, read over and explained to them. On the question of plea, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. To prove the case of prosecution PWs1 to 4 were examined as witnesses and Ex.P1 to P4 were marked as documents.

Prosecution filed death certificate of LW4 Srinivasulu hence his evidence was closed. LW6 E.Gnaneshwar , LW7

M.Parushareamudu and LW8 P.Srinivasulu were given-up by the learned A.P.P.

5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the examination of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C was dispensed with since there was no incriminating circumstances appeared against the accused.

6. Heard the learned A.P.P. and defence counsel.

7. Now the point for determination is that whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence U/s 380 r/w 511 IPC against A1 and A2?

8. As seen from the evidence of PWs1 to 4 , they turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. PW1 testified in her evidence that she does not know any facts of this case. She did not lodge any report to the police . Someone obtained her thumb impression on a blank paper. PW2 testified in his evidence that he does not know any facts of this case. PW3 testified in her evidence that she does not know any facts of this case. She did not witness any incident. PW4 testified in his evidence that he does not know any facts of this case. However the act of learned

A.P.P. in giving up the rest the witnesses is justified in view of swift administration of justice. Therefore no Iota of evidence against the accused. Hence this Court has no hesitation to hold that prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused for the offence U/s 380 r/w 511 IPC against A1 and A2. Accordingly this point is answered.

9. In the result, the accused A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable u/s 380 r/w 511 IPC. Accordingly A1 and A2 are acquitted u/s 248(1) of Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds of A1 and A2 shall stand cancelled after expiry of a period of 6 months as envisaged U/s 437A of Cr.P.C. Since there is no property deposited, there is no order with regard to property.

Typed to my dictation and, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 6th day of October, 2016.

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

KOLLAPUR.

Appendix of evidence

For prosecution For defence PW1:G.Neelamma -Nil-. PW2:G.Ramudu PW3.G.Yellamma PW4: G.Narayana Exhibits marked

Ex.P1 to 4 : are 161 are Cr.P.C. Statements of PWs1 to 4

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

KOLLAPUR.

`