Sri.D.Venkatesh

1 C.C.NO. 593 OF 2015

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE :: AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT : SRI D. VENKATESH,

III ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

Wednesday, the 6th day of November, 2019

C.C. No. 593/2015

Between :

The State of Telangana, represented by the Station House Officer, P.S. S.R. Nagar, Hyderabad. …… Complainant

And

A1]Nagarimadugu Srikanth Reddy, S/o Lakshman Reddy,age: 37 years, R/o flat No. 107, Plot No. 43, R/o H.No. 8­3­167/K/43, Leeladhar Enclave, Kalyan nagar, Venture­III, Hyderabad. 

A2]Rapaka Satyanarayana, S/o Veeraswamy, age: 45 years, R/o flat No. 204, Plot No. 43, R/o H.No. 8­3­167/K/43, Leeladhar Enclave, Kalyan nagar, Venture­III, Hyderabad. 

A3]Leeladhar Dhuwalia, age: 65 years, Occ: Business, R/o flat No. 304, Plot No. 43, R/o H.No. 8­3­167/K/43, Leeladhar Enclave, Kalyan nagar, Venture­III, Hyderabad. …… Accused

This case is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri P.J. Rama Krishna, the Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and Sri. G. Venugopal Reddy, Advocate for Accused No.1 and 2 and Sri. K. Anand Kumar, Advocate

for Accused No.3 and after perusing the case records and upon

hearing the arguments on both sides, this Court made the following:­

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1.The accused is indicted for the offence U/Sec. 420, 409. 447 r/w 34 of IPC by Sub­Inspector of police, P.S. S.R. Nagar in Crime No.

2 C.C.NO. 593 OF 2015 824/2014 for having committed trespass, cheating by misappropriation of the society funds. 

2.Brief facts of the Prosecution case: 

(i)On 10.10.2013 [LW1]­ M. Joganna filed police report stating that he is the General Secretary of Leeladhar Enclave flat owners

Association and the earlier office bearers of association misappropriated the association funds by cheating the members of the association and further Accused No.3 did not return the original document and link documents relating to the Plot No. 43, Kalyan

Nagar along with the original development agreement. It was further complained that Accused No.1 and 2 even did not maintain the accounts properly relating to the association with an intention to cheat the association and the members of the association. It was further complained that when he along with J.R. Murthy and

Ravinder came forward to file complaint, Accused No.1 and 2 threatened them with dire consequences and further Accused No.3 was using the parking area of the apartment for parking his vehicle by trespassing into the apartment premises without paying any rent to the association amounting to trespass. Since Accused No.1 and 2 misappropriated the association funds and did not submit the accounts and Accused No.3 trespassed into the association land for parking his vehicle, he filed this complaint.

(ii)Basing on the said complaint [LW3]­K. Govinda Reddy (Sub­

Inspector of police) registered a case in Cr. No. 824/2013 U/Sec. 420, 3 C.C.NO. 593 OF 2015 409 and 447 r/w 34 IPC and issued FIR. During the course of investigation he examined and recorded the statement of [LW1]­ M.

Joganna, visited the scene of offence, examined and recorded the statement [LW2]­ P. Ravinder. He added section of law 409 of IPC.

On 21­2­2015 he issued notice under section 41­A Cr.P.C to Accused

No.1 and 2. Subsequenlty Accused No.3 was surrendered and released on Anticipaty bail. After completion of investigation filed charge sheet.

3.This Court taken cognizance of the offence under sections 420, 447 r/w 34 IPC against Accused No.1 to 3 and issued the process. 

4. On the appearance of the Accused No.1 to 3, copies of documents were furnished to them by my learned predecessor as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C and issued process.

5.The accused No.1 to 3 were examined under section 239

Cr.P.C., and after hearing both parties, a charge under sections 420,409 and 447 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code against Accused

No.1 to 3 has been framed, read over and explained to them. The accused No.1 to 3 denied the accusation levelled against them, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, for the said charge.

6.In order to substantiate the said charge, the prosecution has examined Pws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5. During cross­ examination of PW.1 Exs.D1 to D3 marked. 

7.After closure of the above prosecution evidence, the Accused

No.1 to 3 were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., with reference to 4 C.C.NO. 593 OF 2015 the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused No.1 to 3 denied the incriminating material put to them and they did not propose to examine any defence witness.

8.Heard the learned Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor and the

Defence Counsel. Perused the record.

9.Now the point that arises for determination is:­ 1]“Whether the prosecution proved its case against Accused No.3 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence under sections 447 IPC?” 2]“Whether the prosecution proved its case against Accused No.1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence under sections 420 and 409 r/w 34 IPC?” 

10.Point No.1: The allegation of prosecution against Accused No.3 is of trespass into the Apartment premises and used to park his car.

To this effect PW.1 deposed that Accused No.3 being the builder of the

Apartment used to park his car and he did not paid any rent for it.

When PW.1 himself admitted Accused No.3 as the builder of apartment, his contention of Accused no.3 trespassing into the

Apartment is not acceptable. It is not known as to for what reason

Accused No.3 used to visit the apartment. Further PW.1 admitted about Accused No.3 filing civil suit against him, besides a criminal case. When there are civil and criminal cases filed by Accused No.3 against PW1, PW.1 making the allegation of trespass falsely cannot be 5 C.C.NO. 593 OF 2015 ruled out. Ex.D1 is the copy of Judgment in O.S. 1146 of 2007 which is decreed in favour of Accused No.3. Though PW.1 preferred appeal, the decree holds good. During cross examination, PW.1 admitted

ExD2 and D3 which are relating to civil dispute pertaining to

Apartment. Further PW.1 is not the exclusive owner of the property.

In such circumstances, his contention about trespass is not acceptable. By virtue of the decree, Accused No.3 is having authority over the premises. Hence, question of trespass is not believable and acceptable. Point answered accordingly. 

11.POINT: No.2 [PW1]­ M. Joganna is the complainant. He deposed that he lives in Leeladhar Enclave Apartment situated at

Kalyan Nagar locality and accused also live in the same apartment.

He says that Leeladhar Enclave Association is formed in the year 1997 and he is the member of the association. He says that in 2010 he observed discrepancy in the accounts of the association for which he addressed letters to the society but there was no response. He further says that in the year 2012 he was elected as General

Secretary of the association and after he took charge he sent the accounts to the Auditor for verification wherein it was found that there was misappropriation of society funds and further Accused No.3 being the builder of the apartment is not handed over the original documents relating to the property to the society even after formation of the society, besides used to park his car within the society land without authorization for which he filed complaint.

6 C.C.NO. 593 OF 2015

12. PW.1 exhibited two documents vide Ex.P2 and P3 dated 11­12­ 2013 and 25­12­2013. He also exhibited the account book vide

Ex.P4. Ex.P2 is the letter issued by Jaya Prakash Reddy, Chartered

Accountant to Leeladhar Enclave Flat owners association. As per the report of Chartered Accountant, it says that there was some misfeasance in the accounts of the association. Ex.P3 is the reply notice issued by one Venugopal Reddy under the instructions of one

R. Satyanarayana to one Sree latha. Ex.P2 is the document which is showing the report of Chartered Accountant relating to the accounts of the apartment. Though the report says about some discrepancy, there is no clarity in the report and there is no mention in the report as to on whose instance the Chartered Accountant issued the report.

What are the documents that were relied on by him for furnishing the report. From which year to which the accounts were audited. In the absence of any clarity with respect to the documents produced

before the Chartered Accountant, report cannot be relied upon.

Furthermore, it is not the case of prosecution that the association pertaining to the apartment has requested the Chartered accountant legally for issuance of Audit report. Hence, Ex.P2 cannot be relied upon.

13.Ex.P3 is the reply notice issued by Advocate in pursuance to the notice received. Though the documents speaks about some disputes with respect to flat owners association and funds of the society including the body of the association, PW.1 never referred to the said document in his evidence or in his complaint filed to police vide 7 C.C.NO. 593 OF 2015

Ex.P1. When there was no reference of the said document in the complaint or in the statement given to police it is highly unsafe to rely upon the alleged document.

14.During cross­examination of PW.1 learned counsel for Accused

No.1 to 3 elicited material information from PW1. During cross­ examination, PW.1 admitted membership of all the flat owners of the apartment in association. He also admitted about Accused No.3 filing civil suit against PW.1 vide O.S. No. 1146 of 2007 vide Ex.D1.

He also admitted pendency of Appeal before Hon’ble High Court.

PW.1 further admitted that he is not the owner of any flat in

Leeladhar Enclave Apartment. He admitted presence of a association by name Leeladhar Enclave Flat owner Association. He further admitted that in the year 2014 he got registered another

Association by name Leeladhar Enclave Flat Owners Association vide

Registration No. 473 of 2014. He admitted pendency of case vide

C.C. No. 2007/2018 filed against himself and Association members for selling of six flats. 

15.According to the case of prosecution, Accused No.1 and 2 being the treasurer and Secretary of the flat owners association of Leeladhar

Enclave Apartment misappropriated the apartment association funds which were collected by the association for maintaining the apartment. Though PW.1 himself says that after he was elected as

General Secretary of the Apartment association in the year 2012, he verified the accounts of the association and found some discrepancy and when the accounts were verified by the Auditor, the Audit report 8 C.C.NO. 593 OF 2015 clarified about misappropriation of funds. Basing on the mere report of auditor, one cannot infer and believe the alleged misappropriation. 

16.During cross­examination of PW.1, he admitted that he is not the owner of any flat in the apartment. In general an association for an apartment would be formed with the members of the flats of the apartment. Whoever is the member of the apartment they would form in to the assembly. They would conduct elections for electing a body so that the body would take care of the welfare of the apartment.

Similarly in the present case, a body for maintenance of Leeladhar

Enclave Flat Owners Association has been formed in the year 1998 subsequently elections were held. The body continued. In the year 2014 complainant raises suspicion against the earlier body which maintained the association. The suspicion of PW1 is that the earlier body misappropriated the association funds.

17. Absolutely no material is putforth before this court with respect to the body of association, member of the association, what was the funds that were collected by the Association and the funds that were spent by the Association. Before going to prove the misappropriation, the prosecution has to initially prove entrustment of funds by the association in favour of the accused. In the present case, there is no material on record to believe the entrustment of funds to Accused No.1 and 2. When there is no material on record to believe that Accused No.1 and 2 collected amounts from flat owners, question of misappropriation does not arise.

9 C.C.NO. 593 OF 2015

18.Section 420 reads:­ “Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment”.

19.In order to prove an offence under section 420 of IPC, prosecution has to establish dishonest intention on the part of

Accused No.1 and 2. Prosecution has to further establish delivery of property in favour of Accused by the victim under deception and

Accused would have converted the property delivered for their self.

Prosecution examined PW.1 Joganna for proving the above allegation of cheating. The evidence of PW.1 though says that while his tenure as General Secretary of Apartment Association, he found misappropriation of Association funds by Accused No.1 and 2, it is not acceptable in view of his admission that he is not a flat owner. No material is put forth before court to believe that PW.1 was a General

Secretary of Apartment Association and there is any clause in the bye­ law giving permission to a non­member of association to contest elections. When no material is produced with respect to Association.

Funds and its profit/loss statement, the version of PW.1 cannot be accepted.

20.For proving the allegations against Accused No.1 and 2 prosecution examined PW.1 who is the complainant and material witness besides marking the complaint and Chartered Accountant 10 C.C.NO. 593 OF 2015 report. Though the oral evidence of PW.1 is in accordance with his complaint vide Ex.P1, it is not acceptable and not in accordance with the essentialities of Section 420 of IPC. The version of PW.1 that

Accused No.1 and 2 misappropriated Association funds is not acceptable in view of the material admissions elicited during his cross­examination. On the other hand, he failed to substantiate his contention with the help of relevant documents. In the absence of proof of misuse of accounts and misuse of funds by Accused No.1 and 2 in capacity of Treasurer and Secretary, prosecution case cannot be accepted.

21.According to prosecution case, the alleged misappropriation and cheating by Accused No.1 and 2 was committed while they were the

Association office bearers. It means, they must have committed the offence in capacity of office bearers. In such circumstances, the harm must have caused to an association, but not to any individual of

Apartment. In the given circumstances, a complaint in capacity of an individual shall not be maintained. The complaint must have been filed by Association or a representative of the association. In the present case, PW.1 filed the complaint in his individual capacity, but not authorized by the association which is bad. The complaint itself is not maintainable. When the act of PW.1 in filing complaint does not have concurrence from the body or association, the complaint is not acceptable and cannot be relied upon. One individual cannot be permitted to take revenge against other members of association for the reason of different groups.

11 C.C.NO. 593 OF 2015

22. In addition to the evidence of PW1, prosecution examined PW.2 and 3. The evidence of PW.2 and 2 appears to be formal. They being the Investigating officers deposed about the formal investigation conducted and in the absence of securing necessary documents in an offence under section 420 or 409 of IPC, prosecution case cannot be accepted. The material witness is PW1. However, his evidence though says about alleged misappropriation and cheating, in view of not supported by authorization, his version cannot be accepted. 

23.Having considering the discussion held above this court is of the opinion that prosecution failed to prove the guilt of Accused

No.1 to 3 beyond all reasonable doubt for which they are entitled for benefit of doubt.

24.In the result, Accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence u/s 420 and 409 r/w 34 IPC. Further Accused No.3 is found not guilty for the offence under section 447 of IPC and

Accordingly they are acquitted u/s 248(1) Cr PC. Bonds and bail bonds of Accused No.1 to 3 stands cancelled subject to section 437­A

Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 6th day of November, 2019.

III ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

12 C.C.NO. 593 OF 2015

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTIONFOR DEFENCE

LW1/PW1 – M. Joganna, (Complainant) ­ None – LW4/PW2 – K. Govinda Reddy – (Investigating officer) LW3/PW3 – D. Ajay Kumar­ (Investigating officer.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

Ex.P1 – Complaint Ex.P2 – Document dated 11­12­2015 Ex.P3­ Document dated 25­12­2015 Ex.P4­ Account Book Ex.P5­First Information Report 

FOR DEFENCE

Ex.D1: is the copy of Judgment in O.S. 1146 of 2007 Ex.D2: Appeal suit vide A.S. No. 280 of 2011 Ex.D3: is the second appeal vide S.A. No. 37 of 2016

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

­ Nil ­

III ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

13 C.C.NO. 593 OF 2015

CALENDER OF CASES TRIED BY III ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE AT HYDERABAD

FORM NO: 71/72 OF CRIMINAL RULES OF PRACTICE

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT 

C.C.NO. 593/2015 Date of offence: prior to 10.10.2013 Date of report/complaint : 10.10.2013 Date of apprehension of accused : 41­A against A1&A2 21­02­2015 Anticipatory bail 18­10­2014 Date of release on bail : 18­10­2014 Taking of cognizance: 26­03­2015 Furnishing of copies to the accused: 04­02­2016 Recording plea of the accused:04­02­2016 Date of commencement of trial : 23.03.2018 Date of closure of trial : 18.10.2019 Examination U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C: 18.10.2019 Date of Judgment: 06.11.2019 Explanation for delay:

Name of the complainant: S.H.O., P.S.S.R. Nagar. Hyderabad. ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Description of the Accused 

A1]Nagarimadugu Srikanth Reddy, S/o Lakshman Reddy,age: 37 years, R/o flat No. 107, Plot No. 43, R/o H.No. 8­3­167/K/43, Leeladhar Enclave, Kalyan nagar, Venture­III, Hyderabad. A2]Rapaka Satyanarayana, S/o Veeraswamy, age: 45 years, R/o flat No. 204, Plot No. 43, R/o H.No. 8­3­167/K/43, Leeladhar Enclave, Kalyan nagar, Venture­III, Hyderabad. A3]Leeladhar Dhuwaliaage: 65 years, Occ: Business, R/o flat No. 304, Plot No. 43, R/o H.No. 8­3­167/K/43, Leeladhar Enclave, Kalyan nagar, Venture­III, Hyderabad. ____________________________ Offence U/Sec.: 420, 409 and 447 r/w 34 IPC Finding : Found not guilty. Result : In the result, Accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence u/s 420 and 409 r/w 34 IPC. Further Accused No.3 is found not guilty for the offence under section 447 of IPC and Accordingly they are acquitted u/s 248(1) Cr PC. Bonds and bail bonds of Accused No.1 to 3 stands cancelled subject to section 437­ A Cr.P.C.

III ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

To: The Hon'ble I Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

Dis.No. /III ACMM/2019 Date :

1 C.C.No. 562 of 2015

 IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE :: AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT: Sri. D. VENKATESH III Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Hyderabad

Monday, this the 11th day of November, 2019

C.C.No. 562 of 2015

Between:

The State of Telangana through the Sub­Inspector of Police, P.S. Banjarahills.

[Cr.No.732/2011]...Complainant.

A N D 

A3) Posala Veera, @ Veera, S/o P. Satya Narayana, age: 30 years, Occ: Tailor, R/o H.No. 12­2­823/79, Santosh Nagar, Mehidipatnam, Hyderabad

A4) Eli. Srinivasulu, S/o Venkatrao, age: 32 years, Occ: Mason, R/o H.No. 9­4­84/45, Kakatiya Nagar, Nanlnagar, Mehidipatnam, Hyderabad.

A6) Smt. Sunitha Agarwal, W/o Bajaranglal Agarwal, age: 40 years, Occ: Clothe shop, R/o 12­2­709/25/27, Gudimalkapur, Mehidipatnam, Hyderabad. 

A1) A. Madan Kumar, S/o A. Dhananjaya Naidu, age: 21 years, Occ: Student, R/o H.No. 8­2­616/3/R, Road No.11, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, N/o Bandivandla village of Yadamarri Mandal, Chittor District. 

A2) Sunil Kumar Diwedi, S/o Bhola Prasad Diwedi, age: 23 years, occ: Security Guard of Sharp Security Srvice. R/o Back side of St Anna’s college, Mehidipatnam, Hyderabad, N/o Bhagvathpur vilalge of Kousambhi dist. UP

A5) Pddar Ritesh, S/o P. Mahendra, age: 24 years, Occ: Business, R/o Flat No. 406, Shurabhi Sharada Apartments, Abids, Hyderabad.

2 C.C.No. 562 of 2015 [Note:­ Since NBWs against Accused No.1,2 and 5  are pending for a long time, the case against them is split up and numbered as C.C. 8058/2019, hence the present case is proceeded against Accused

No.3,4 and 6 only] ...Accused 

This case is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri P.J. Rama Krishna, the Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and Sri. D. Ravinder, Advocates for the accused No.3,4 and 6 and after perusing the case records and upon hearing the arguments on both sides, this Court made the following:­

J U D G M E N T

1.The SI of Police, P.S Banjarahills filed charge sheet against the

Accused No.1and 2 for the offence u/s 454,380 of IPC and Accused

No.3 to 6 for the offence u/s 411 IPC. 

2.The Matrix of the prosecution case is as under:

(i)On 05­08­2015 at 7.30 A.M [LW1]­ T. Venkatesh filed police report stating that on the same day at about 9.30 A.M, he and his wife went to office whereas, their son went to attend his college. It was further complained that his son returned in the evening at about 4.20 P.M and on his return he found that the main door was locked from inside and on verifying the backside door he found that plank of the door was broken, as such he took the help of neigbours and went into the house. It was further complained that his son found the Almarah in the bed room was broken, as such he called this complainant who returned home immediately and verified about the valuables wherein he found theft of cash of Rs. 40,000/­ along with gold and diamond ornaments and valuable watches. Since some unknown persons trespassed into the house during the absence of the inmates and committed theft of valuables, he went to police station and filed report. 

3 C.C.No. 562 of 2015

(ii) Basing on the above complaint, [LW11]­ M. Venkateshwara Rao (SI of Police) registered a case in Cr No. 732 of 11 u/s 454, 380 IPC and issued FIR. During investigation, [LW13]­Prabhakar (SI of police) examined and recorded the statements of [Lws.1 to 3]­T. Venkatesh,

Smt. T. Renuka Devi and Master. T. Hemanth and visited the scene of offence. He conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of two mediators and drawn rough sketch. On 28­02­2015 [LW12]­B.

Bhaskar Rao (SI of police) apprehended Accused No.1 and 2. On interrogation they voluntarily confessed the commission of this offence in the presence of two mediators besides found them in possession of one Tapancha with one round, a Screwdriver, one knife which is a punishable offence.

(iii) In pursuance of the confession of Accused No.1 and 2, they led the police party to the shops of Accused No.3 to 6 from where police seized stolen property relating to crime No. 36 of 2011 of P.S.

Banjarahills, Cr.No. 586 of 2011 of P.S. Banjarahills, Cr.No. 732 of 2011 of P.S. Banjarahills, Cr.No. 1073 of 2011 of P.S. Banjarahills,,

Cr.No. 499 of 2011 of P.S Panjagutta and Cr.No. 67 of 2012 of P.S

Jubilee Hills. On 29­02­2012 [LW12]B. Bhaskar Rao (SI of police) seized the stolen property from Manappuram Finance situated at

Banjarahills and Retibowli which was pledged by the accused in the presence of [LW8 and 9] G. Swaraj and A. Aswartha Reddy. Later

Sub­Inspector of police sent the Tapancha to FSL and received report basing on the report, he added the section of law under section 25(1­

A) of Arms Act. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

4 C.C.No. 562 of 2015

3.The case was taken on file as C.C. 562/2015 for the offence under sections 454, 380 of Indian Penal Code against Accused No.1 and 2 and u/sec. 411 of IPC against Accused No.3 to 6.

4.Since NBWs against Accused No.1,2 and 5  are pending for a long time, the case against them is split up and numbered as C.C.

8058/2019, hence the present case is proceeded against Accused

No.3,4 and 6 only. On appearance of Accused No.3,4 and 6, copies of documents have been furnished to the Accused No.3,4 and 6 as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.The Accused No.3,4 and 6 were examined under section 239

Cr.P.C, by explaining the accusation levelled against them. After hearing the learned Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor and the

Defence Counsel, a charge under section 411 of Indian Penal Code has been framed, read over and explained to Accused No.3,4 and 6 in vernacular, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the trial, the Prosecution examined P.W.1 to P5 and got marked Exs.P1 to 5 and M.Os.1 to 10.

7.After closure of the Prosecution evidence, Accused No.3,4 and 6 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining incriminating material found against them, for which they denied the same and they reported no defense evidence.

8.Arguments heard through the learned A.P.P. and Defence

Counsel. Perused the oral and documentary evidence available on record.

5 C.C.No. 562 of 2015

9.Now the point that arise for determination is:­:

Whether Prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence under Section 411 of IPC against Accused No.3,4 and 6 ?

10.POINT::

[PW1]­T. Venkatesh is the defacto complainant and owner of the property. [PW2]­M.Renuka is the wife of PW.1 and [PW2]­T. Hemanth is the son of Pw1. Pws.1 to 3 supported each other with respect to occurrence of theft at their house. PW.3 is the first person who noticed the occurrence of theft. He deposed that on 05­08­2011 he went to attend his college and returned home at 4.00 P.M and on his return he observed that some unknown persons break open the lock of their house, trespassed into the house and committed theft of valuables from the Almarah. 

11. PW.3 further deposed that immediately he informed his parents, who returned home and verified the belongings and filed report. PW.3 after noticed the occurrence of theft and being the son of the owner of the property and student, he immediately informed his parents. Since the witness was at his tender age he immediately informed his parents about the occurrence of incident and on receiving the information from their son PW.1 and 2 returned their home verified the belongings and found that cash of Rs. 40,000/­ along with gold and diamond ornaments were committed theft. PW.1 as the owner of the property immediately approached police and filed complaint vide Ex.P1.

6 C.C.No. 562 of 2015

12. PW.1 and 2 claimed ownership over the stolen property that was recovered from the possession of Accused No.1 and 2. besides claiming the ownership PW.1 and 2 obtained the property towards their interim custody. M.Os.1 to 10 are the stolen property that was committed theft and received towards their interim custody. Since

PW.1 and 2 as the owners of the property and filed complaint on occurrence of incident, their version to the extent of occurrence of incident and filing of complaint can be believed. However, accused never claimed their ownership over the material objects that were alleged to have seized from them. They not even disputed the claim of the PW.1 and 2. In view of the evidence of Pws.1 to 3, it can be believed that a theft at the house of PW.1 in day time in the absence of the inmates and M.Os.1 to 10 along with some other property was committed theft. To the effect of loss of property PW.1 exhibited the complaint by categorically mentioning about the theft as well as the property lost. PW.1 proved the loss of property.

13.According to prosecution case Accused No.1 and 2 committed theft at the house of PW.1 and 2. According to Ex.P1 the incident and occurrence of theft took place in the absence of PW.1 and 2. It means no body observed the theft. Though the incident took place during day time there is no eye witness to the occurrence of theft.

Even the investigating officer did not choose to examine any neighbours who would have noticed any person moving suspiciously in the locality or any independent witness examined who would have 7 C.C.No. 562 of 2015 noticed A1 and A2 going into the house of PW.1. In the absence of any direct evidence the contention of the prosecution that Accused

No.1 and 2 committed theft at the house of PW.1 cannot be believed.

However, the present charge is against Accused No.3,4 and 6 who are receivers of stolen property.

14.According to prosecution case, Accused No.1 and 2 committed theft at the house of PW.1 and the said property has been sold in favour of Accused No.3 to 6. Police recovered the stolen property from the possession of Accused No.3 to 6 and at their instance from

Munnapuram Finance. Absolutely there is no material on record to believe that M.Os.1 to 10 has been seized at the instance of Accused

No.1 and 2 from the possession of Accused No.3 to 6. Prosecution even did not choose to examine the employees of Munnapuram gold

Finance for proving the alleged seizure of stolen property from their possession which is alleged to have pledged by Accused No.3 to 6.

15.In order to prove the confession cum seizure panchanama, prosecution examined PW.5 alone. [PW5]M. Sai Prasad is the mediator for recording confession cum seizure panchanama of

Accused No.1 and 2. Since the present charge is not against Accused

No.1 and 2, the evidence of PW.5, is of no help to prosecution case.

On the other hand the only mediator PW.5 did not support the prosecution case. In the absence of proving of theft by Accused No.1 and 2 and in the absence of prove of seizure of M.O.1 to 10 from the 8 C.C.No. 562 of 2015 possession of Accused No.3 to 6, prosecution case regarding theft and believing the accused receivers of stolen property does not arise.

16. As per the provisions of Sec.222 of Cr.P.C., when the offence proved forms the part of the offence charged, the accused is liable to be convicted for such proved charge. The offence U/Sec.411 IPC is an integral part of the offence U/Sec.380 IPC. Here it is the case of the prosecution that the Accused No.1 and 2 were apprehended by SI of police while they were in the possession of property. Prosecution failed to prove the confession panchanama to believe accused in the possession of material object, because, prosecution did not examine the mediators in whose presence the panchanama was recorded.

According to section 27 of Indian Evidence Act, any confession of accused in the custody of police leading to discovery of material object is admissible in evidence. When prosecution failed to examine the mediators, there is no question of presumption under section 114 of

Indian Evidence Act. Hence it can be said that prosecution failed to prove the panchanama to believe the accused as a receiver of stolen property as required under section 411 of IPC. In the absence of proof of panchanama, prosecution case either under section 380 of

IPC for the offence of theft or under section 411 of IPC for the offence of Accused as receiver of stolen property cannot be believed.

17.Having considering the oral evidence of Pws.1 to 5 coupled with

Ex.P1 to P5, it is not sufficient to believe the case of prosecution.

Accordingly accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

9 C.C.No. 562 of 2015

18.(i) In the result, Accused No.3,4 and 6 are found not guilty for the offence u/s 411 IPC and accordingly they are acquitted u/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. Bonds and bail bonds of Accused No.3,4 and 6 shall stands cancelled subject to sec 437­A CrPC.

(ii) Since the split up case vide C.C. No. 8058 of 2019 pending against

Accused No.1,2 and 5 hence no order relating to the M.Os.1 to 10 has been passed.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 11th day of November, 2019.

III ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE: 

­ Nil ­ PW1 – T. Venkatesh (complainant ) PW2 – M. Renuka, (wife of PW1) PW3­T. Hemanth (Son of PW.1) PW4. Shaik Shareef ( panch witness for scene of offence observation panchanama) PW5­ M. Sai Prasad ( Panch witness for confession cum seizure panchanama of A1 and A2

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE:

­ Nil ­ Ex.P1 – Complaint Ex.P2­ Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P3: Rough sketch of scene of offence Ex.P4 and P5: are the Signature of PW.5 on confession cum seizure panchanamas of Accused No.1 and 2.

10 C.C.No. 562 of 2015

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR

M.O.1: Diamond Pendent. M.O.2: one big Diamond bangle M.O.3: one big Diamond Pendent. M.O.4: is one Gold Chain. M.O.5: Pair of Diamond Ear Rings. M.O.6: pair of diamond ear studs. M.O.7: small gold chain. M.O.8: two gold chains. M.O.9: one small diamond bangles M.O.10 :Diamond ear drop­3 pairs

III ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

11 C.C.No. 562 of 2015

CALENDER OF CASES TRIED BY III ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE :: AT HYDERABAD

FORM NO: 71/72 OF CRIMINAL RULES OF PRACTICE

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT 

C.C.NO. 562/2015

Date of offence: 05.08.2011 Date of report/complaint : 05.08.2011 Date of apprehension of accused : 28.02.2012 Date of release on bail : 05.03.2012 Taking of cognizance: 17.03.2015 Furnishing of copies to the accused: 25.06.2019 Recording plea of the accused: 01.07.2019 Date of commencement of trial : 15.07.2019 Date of closure of trial : 04.11.2019 Examination U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C: 04.11.2019 Date of Judgment: 11.11.2019 Explanation for delay: due to pendency of NBW Name of the complainant : The State of Telangana, represented by the Station House Officer, P.S. Banjarahills, Hyderabad. ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Description of the Accused A3) Posala Veera, @ Veera, S/o P. Satya Narayana, age: 30 years, Occ: Tailor, R/o H.No. 12­2­823/79, Santosh Nagar, Mehidipatnam, Hyderabad A4) Eli. Srinivasulu, S/o Venkatrao, age: 32 years, Occ: Mason, R/o H.No. 9­4­84/45, Kakatiya Nagar, Nanlnagar, Mehidipatnam, Hyderabad. A6) Smt. Sunitha Agarwal, W/o Bajaranglal Agarwal, age: 40 years, Occ: Clothe shop, R/o 12­2­709/25/27, Gudimalkapur, Mehidipatnam, Hyderabad. A1) A. Madan Kumar, S/o A. Dhananjaya Naidu, age: 21 years, A2) Sunil Kumar Diwedi, S/o Bhola Prasad Diwedi, age: 23 years, A5) Pddar Ritesh, S/o P. Mahendra, age: 24 years, [Note:­ Since NBWs against Accused No.1,2 and 5  are pending for a long time, the case against them is split up and numbered as C.C. 8058/2019, hence the present case is proceeded against Accused No.3,4 and 6 only] ________________________________________________________________

Offence U/Sec.: 411 of IPC Finding : Found not guilty. Result :(i) In the result, Accused No.3,4 and 6 are found not guilty for the offence u/s 411 IPC and accordingly they are acquitted u/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. Bonds and bail bonds of Accused No.3,4 and 6 shall stands cancelled subject to sec 437­A CrPC.(ii) Since the split up case vide C.C. No. 8058 of 2019 pending against Accused No.1,2 and 5 hence no order relating to the M.Os.1 to 10 has been passed.

III ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, 

HYDERABAD

To:

The Hon'ble I Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

Dis.No. /III ACMM/2019 Date :

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

Present : Sri.D.Venkatesh, FAC II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

Dated this the 27 th day of February, 2019.

C.C.No.67 of 2015.

Between: The State through Sub Inspector of Police,

Sultanbazar Police Station, Hyderabad ... Complainant.

And

Boddu Lingaiah S/o.Mallaiah aged 50 yrs occu: RTC Bus Driver,E.No.206957 R/o.4-9-570/1,Vinayaknagar, Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy District. …. Accused.

This case is coming before me final hearing on 21.2.2019 in the presence of learned APP for the state and of M/S. K.Anand Goud,Counsel

for the accused, and upon hearing them and upon perusing the evidence

adduced by both sides, this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following :

J U D G M E N T

The State represented by Sub-Inspector of police, Sultanbazar P.S ,

Hyderabad has filed the charge sheet against the accused in

Cr.No.234/2014 for the offence punishable Under Section 338 IPC.

2Brief Facts of prosecution case:-

On 24.7.2014 at about 0900 hours LW1 J.Pandu filed a complaint stating that on the same day at about 9.00 a.m, he went to Koti Bus stop, where he tried to board RTC bus bearing number AP.11 Z 7080 from back side foot board and while he was trying to board the bus, the driver of the bus drove the bus in speed manner resulting he fell down and rear tyre of the RTC bus run over his right leg resulting crush injury. He further complained that immediately, he was shifted to Osmania General Hospital for treatment. Since the incident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the RTC bus he filed complaint.

3Basing on the above complaint, LW9 P.Naresh Kumar ( S.I of police,

Page No. 2CC No. 67 of 2015

Sultanbazar,). registered a case in Cr.No.234/2014 U/S 337 IPC and issued

FIR. During the investigation, LW9 P.Naresh Kumar visited the scene of offence, conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of Lws.6 and 7, ( Shaik Abdul and Mahaboob) drawn rough sketch. He deputed the presence of eye witnesses and recorded statements of Lws 2 to 4

K.Srinivas,Md.Qursheed and Mustafa.He also examined and recorded the statement of the complainant at Osmania General Hospital.

4On the same day at 7.00 p.m, the accused surrendered before him by admitting his guilt. Since the offence was bailable in nature, the accused was arrested and released on bail. After collecting the injury certificate and completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet.

5Cognizance was taken for the offence punishable Under Section 338

IPC against the accused.

6On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were furnished to him as required u/sec 207 of Cr.PC. Thereafter, the accused was examined under section 251 Cr.P.C by explaining the accusation leveled against him in brief for the offence U/S 338 IPC. The accused has denied the said offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7During course of trial, Pws.1 to 10 are examined and Exs.P.1 to P.8 are marked on behalf of the prosecution.

8 After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/S 313 Cr.P.C to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused has denied the said incriminating material and he did not choose to adduce any evidence on his behalf.

9Heard the arguments from both sides.

10Now the point for determination in this case is :

Page No. 3CC No. 67 of 2015 “Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of accused for the offences U/S 338 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt ?” 10 Point :- The defacto complainant was examined as PW1. PW1 Pandu in his evidence deposed that on 24.7.2014 at 9.45 a.m, while he was boarding the bus bearing number AP.11 Z 7080 at Koti bus stop, the driver of the bus drove the bus in high speed resulting he fell down and the rear tyre of the bus ran over his right leg causing injury. He further deposed that the passengers shifted him to Osmania General Hospital where the police came and recorded his statement vide EX.P.1. PW1 further deposed that on the same day his leg was amputated. During the cross examination, PW1 denied the suggestion of occurrence of incident as a result of his own negligence who tried to board the running bus and accidentally fell down, where another bus ran over his right leg.

11PW2 Srinivas, PW3 Md.Kursheed Ali and PW4 Mustafa are the alleged to be the eye witness to the incident.

12PW2 Srinivas is one of the business men having shop at Koti and

Pws.3 and 4 are the Security Guards at RTC terminal. All of them in their evidence deposed that on 24.7.2014 while a boy was tried to board the bus bearing number AP.11 Z 7080, he fell down and bus ran over his left leg.

PW2 himself specifically deposed that the bus came in rash manner and ran over right leg of the victim. PW2 categorically denied the accused as the driver of RTC bus bearing number AP.11 Z 7080. PW2 admitted that he did not stated before the police the bus number as well as the name of the driver of the bus.Pws 3 and 4 admitted no fault on the part of the driver of bus.

13PW5 corroborated the version of PW1 regarding the occurrence of incident. PW5 is the circumstantial witness. He deposed that he received

Page No. 4CC No. 67 of 2015 telephonic information from the police with respect of the alleged incident.

Immediately, he rushed to Osmania Hospital and found the injured suffered crush injury.

14PW6 Sk. Abdul and PW7 Sk.Mahaboob are the alleged to be the mediators for recording the scene of offence. Both of them did not support the case or prosecution and deposed that 4 or 5 years back, the police obtained their signatures on some written papers without explaining the contents. Though they admitted that their signatures on the panch proceedings and they denied the conducting of panchanama, for the reason of PW6 and 7 not supporting the case of prosecution, the learned Sr.APP cross examined them but failed to elicit any material during cross examination to support the prosecution case.

15 EXP.1 is the statement of the complainant recorded by Head

Constable Sultanbazar Police Station.EX.P1 says that it was recorded on 24.7.2014 at 4.15 p.m by Head Constable 3412 of P.S.Sultanbazar. EX.P.1 says that while the complainant was proceeding to attend his duty at about 9.00 a.m from Koti bus stop, he tried to board the bus bearing number AP.11

Z 7080 and suddenly the bus moved in speed manner resulting he fell down and the bus ran over his right leg and he received crush injury. The complaint also says that the incident occurred as a result of negligence on the part of the driver of bus. Though the complainant disclosed the number of the bus, the complainant never stated whether he can identify the driver of the bus or not.

16In corroboration of the evidence of PW1, PW10 Doctor D.Manohar the medical officer deposed that on 24.7.2014 the injured by name Pandu who is none other than PW1 was brought for treatment by police Sultanbazar and the injured was examined where he found crush injury on right leg and

Page No. 5CC No. 67 of 2015 right foot. PW10 also deposed that he advised X Ray and referred the injured to Orthopedic Surgeon and Dr.G.V.K.Reddy gave the opinion as the injury is grievous in nature.PW10 exhibited the injury certificate vide EXP.8.

17According to the complaint/ PW1, the incident occurred while he tried to board the RTC bus at Koti. PW1 says that he suffered crush injury which is very much corroborated by the medical evidence. The medical evidence is contrary because, as per the version of PW1 his right leg was amputated by doing surgery and obviously amputation is a grievous injury as per section 338 IPC.But the medical evidence is silent regarding the treatment that was given to PW1 after examination, because PW10 who is the medical officer who treated the injured. As per the version of PW1, he was referred to Orthopedic Surgeon and the Doctor G.V.K.Reddy has given the opinion that the injury was grievous in nature. The injury certificate vide EX.P.8 is silent with respect of operation and amputation. It appears that EX.P.8 has been obtained mechanically and it was issued mechanically without verifying in to the records. The medical evidence in an offence U/S 338 ore 304-A IPC assumes important. The medical evidence proves actual harm caused to the victim. In the present case, the victim suffered amputation.

When the medical evidence is considered, it is very much mechanical without even disclosing about conducting of operation. It is certainly fatal to the prosecution case in the present circumstances.

18PW8 G.Ramakrishna and PW9 P.Naresh Kumar are the Investigating

Officers. Both of them in their evidence deposed about registration of case,recording the statements of witnesses and conducting of panchanama.

Their version appears to be routine manner. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused during the cross examination of PW9 elicited material information regarding the actual facts of the incident.

Page No. 6CC No. 67 of 2015

PW10 being the Investigating Officer admitted that there is no possibility for PW2 to see the incident.

19According to the prosecution case, PW2 is an independent eye witness to the incident. He categorically states the version of prosecution. He even identified the accused as the driver of crime vehicle before this Court. But with a single admission by the Investigating Officer , he himself destroyed the entire version of PW2. PW9 even certified that as per the statements of witnesses does not establish any negligence on the part of the driver and

PW1 sustained injury while boarding the bus. However,PW9 denied the suggestion of filing of false case for compensation.

20According to the prosecution case, while PW1 was tried to board the bus at Koti bus stop, he fell down and the bus ran over his right leg, resulting his right leg was amputated. As per the version of PW1, he was boarding the bus from back side foot board, as such, the question PW1 identifying and establishing the identity does not arise.

21To prove the identification, prosecution has to rely on the eye witness or to consider the Conductor Statistical Return of the bus, it will be lying with the conductor of the bus and he would certainly disclose the accused as the driver of the bus. Even in the absence of collecting that document, it is the duty of the Investigating Officer to examine the conductor who would certainly disclose the accused as the driver of the bus. But in the present case, absolutely, there is no material on record to accept the evidence of

PW2 to identify the accused before this Court as the driver of bus.

22In order to prove the offence U/S 338 IPC, the prosecution has to establish the accused as the driver of the bus, in addition, he drove the bus in rash and negligent manner. When the prosecution failed to establish the accused as the driver of the bus, the question of rashness or negligence on

Page No. 7CC No. 67 of 2015 the part of the accused does not arise.

23However, except PW1 and PW2 no other witnesses supported the prosecution case, regarding rash or negligence on the part of the accused.

Though PW2 deposed that the incident occurred as a result of rashness on the part of the accused, PW10 by virtue of his admission destroyed the version of PW2.

24Under these circumstances, absolutely, there is no conclusive evidence on record to prove that the accused was the driving the bus in rash or negligent manner at the relevant point of time.

25Having considered the discussion held above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

32In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence U/S 338

IPC and the accused is acquitted U/s 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand canceled after 6 months subject to Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C and he is set at liberty.

Dictated to Steno-typist, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and

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

II ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

Appendix of Evidence No. of witnesses examined for Prosecution: Defence

PW1 : Pandu,victim and complainant. Nil. PW2 : Srinivas, eye witness. PW3 : Md.Qursheed Ali, eye witness. PW4 : Mustafa, eye witness. PW5 : B.Yadaiah, circumstantial witness. PW6 : Sk.Abdul,panch witness. PW7 : Mahaboob,panch witness. PW8 : G.Ramakrishna,S.I and and I.O. PW9 : P.Naresh Kumar,S.I and I.O.

Page No. 8CC No. 67 of 2015

PW10: Dr.D.Manohar,treated PW1.

No. Of documents marked for

Prosecution Defence

EX.P.1 is the Statement of PW1. Nil.

EXP2 and P3 are the signatures of PW6.

EXP4 and P5 are the signatures of PW7.

EXP6 is the FIR.

EX.P7 is the scene of offence panchanama.

EXP.8 is the rough sketch.

EXP.9 medical certificate of PW1.

II ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE.

HYDERABAD.

Page No. 9CC No. 67 of 2015

FORM NO.71 OF CRIMINAL RULES OF PRACTICE

CALENDER CASE TRIED BY THE II ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE HYDERABAD

CALENDER CASE NO: 67/2015

DATE OF OFFENCE : 24.7.2014

DATE OF REPORT OF COMPLAINT : 24.7.2014

DATE OF APPREHENSION OF ACCUSED : 24.7.2014

DATE OF RELEASE ON BAIL : 24.7.2014

DATE OF COMMENCEMENT OF TRIAL : 26.7.2017

DATE OF CLOSE OF TRIAL : 30.1.2019

DATE OF SENTENCE OF ORDER : 27.2.2019

EXPLANATION OF DELAY AND REMARKS : -

NAME OF THE COMPLAINANT; The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Sultanbazar, Hyderabad

NAME OF THE ACCUSED: B.Lingaiah.

OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 338 IPC.

FINDING Accused is found not guilty for the said offence and he is acquitted U/sec 255 (1) Cr.PC

SENTENCE : TO THE HON'BLE I ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE, HYDERABAD

DIS NO /II ACMM/HYD DATED 28.2.2019

CALENDER CASE NO: 67/2015 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27.2.2019

DATE OF DESPATCH DATE OF RECEIPT

01. DATE OF FILING CHARGE SHEET : 05.11.2014

02. DATE OF TAKING COGNIZANCE : 27.12.2014 03 . DATE OF FURNISHING COPIES TO ACCUSED : 04.2.2015 04 . DATE OF RECORDING PLEA OF ACCUSED :12.6.2017

05. DATE OF EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED U/SEC. 313 Cr.P.C. : 01.2.2019.

II ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE 

HYDERABAD

Page No. 10CC No. 67 of 2015 Page No. 11CC No. 67 of 2015

FORM NO.72 OF CRIMINAL RULES OF PRACTICE

CALENDER CASE TRIED BY THE II ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE HYDERABAD

CALENDER CASE NO: 1157/2015

DATE OF OFFENCE : 7.7.2015

DATE OF REPORT OF COMPLAINT : 9.7.-2015

DATE OF APPREHENSION OF ACCUSED : 10.7.2015

DATE OF RELEASE ON BAIL : 11.7.2015

DATE OF COMMENCEMENT OF TRIAL : 04-7-2017

DATE OF CLOSE OF TRIAL : 07.8.2018

DATE OF SENTENCE OF ORDER : 21.8.2018

EXPLANATION OF DELAY AND REMARKS : -

NAME OF THE COMPLAINANT; The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Afzalgunj, Hyderabad

NAME OF THE ACCUSED: T.Jangaiah and 5 others.

OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 143,147,341 r/w 149 IPC and section 3 of DPP Act .

FINDING Accused is found not guilty for the offences and tey are acquitted U/sec 255 (1) Cr.PC

SENTENCE : TO THE HON'BLE I ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE, HYDERABAD

DIS NO /II ACMM/HYD DATED 27.8.2018

CALENDER CASE NO: 1157/2015 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21.8.2018

DATE OF DESPATCH DATE OF RECEIPT

01. DATE OF FILING CHARGE SHEET : 30.11.2015

02. DATE OF TAKING COGNIZANCE : 11.12.2015 03 . DATE OF FURNISHING COPIES TO ACCUSED : 09.2.2016 04 . DATE OF RECORDING PLEA OF ACCUSED :21.6.2016

05. DATE OF EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED U/SEC. 313 Cr.P.C. : 10.8.2018.

II ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE 

HYDERABAD

1 C.C.No. 10263 of 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT : SRI D. VENKATESH,

III ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

Monday, the 4th day of November, 2019

C.C. No. 10263/2019

Between :

The State of Telangana, represented by the Station House Officer,S.R.Nagar, Hyderabad. …… Complainant

And

A1]Paramesh Jagadish, S/o Gandadhar Late, age: 29 years, Occ: labour, R/o Footpath, Secunderabad, N/o Janta colony, Himayath Nagar, Nanded Dist. 

A2]Bandi Shyam Kumar, s/o Ramu, age: 29 years, occ: Work at Blue moon Hotel, Opp Manju Theater, R/o Beside of Riyo Hotel, Secunderabad, Hyderabad, N/o Idho Nagar, Ramagunde, Peddhapalli District.

A3]Anil Ram Kumble, S/o Ram Kamble, age: 22 years, occ: Work at Blue moon Hotel, Opp Manju Theater, R/o Beside of Riyo Hotel, Secunderabad, Hyderabad, N/o Alyavli village of Bidar District.

A4]Kishore Bhanu Das Surya Vamshi,S/o Bhanu age: 23 years, Occ: Work Teal Stall, R/o SP Tiffin Center Hotel, Secunderabad, N/o Bhalki, Bidar.

A5]Sunil Shah, S/o Dhanjay, age: 19 years, Occ: Chicken shop at 999 shop, opp Manju Theatre, R/o Chicken shop, Opp Manju Theatre, Secuderabad, N/o Bhalki Taluka, Bidar District. 

…… Accused

This case is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri P.J. Rama Krishna, the Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and Sri Gocul Advocate for the accused No.1 and 2 and Sri. G. Rajavardhan Reddy, Advocate for Accused No.3 to 5 and after perusing the case records and upon hearing the arguments on both sides, this Court made the following:­ 2 C.C.No. 10263 of 2019

:: J U D G M E N T ::

The Sub­Inspector of Police, P.S. S.R.Nagar, Hyderabad has filed a charge sheet against the Accused No.1 to 5 in Crime No. 317/2019 for the offence punishable under section 380 of IPC.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case:­

(i)On 30­04­2019 [LW1]­T. Avinash Babu filed police report stating that on the earlier night at about 1.30 A.M he returned to his room and slept by opening the doors of the room and when he wakeup in the morning, he found missing of one Redmi 4 cell phone,

Samsung J1 cell phone and Apple Ipad. Since some unknown persons committed theft of his mobile phones and Ipad, he went to police station and filed report. 

(ii)Basing on the above complaint, [Lw.6]­ B. Bandaiah ( Sub

Inspector of Police and investigating officer ) registered a case in

Crime NO. 317 of 2019 for the offence under section 380 of IPC and issued First Information Report. During the course of investigation he examined and recorded the statement of [LW1]­T. Avinash Babu, visited scene of offence. On 03­05­2019 Sub­inspector of police apprehended the Accused No.1 to 5 with the help of [Lws.4 and 5]­ N.

Kiran Kumar and S. Srikanth ( Police Constables). On interrogation in the presence of two mediators, they voluntarily confessed commission of this offence. In pursuance of their confession, Sub­ inspector of police seized one Samsung J1 cell phone and one Apple

Ipad from the possession of Accused No.1 under the cover of panchanama which is the subject matter of this case. In addition to 3 C.C.No. 10263 of 2019 it Sub­inspector of police also seized one Samsung cell phone and

Moto cell phone from the possession of Accused No.1 and one HP

Laptop, one Samsung cell phone from the possession of Accused No.2 pertaining to Cr.No. 230 of 2019 of P.S Gachibowli. Since Samsung cell phone and moto cell phone were unclaimed he added section of 102 of Cr.P.C. He arrested and sent them to judicial remand. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet. . 

3.This Court taken cognizance of the offence under section 380 of

IPC against the Accused No.1 to 5 and issued the process.

4.On production of Accused No.1 and 2 from Central Prison,

Chenchalguda and on the appearance of the Accused No.3 to 5

before this Court, copies of documents were furnished to them as

contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.The Accused No.1 to 5 were examined under section 239

Cr.P.C., and after hearing both parties, a charge under section 380 of

IPC has been framed, read over and explained to the Accused No.1 to

5. They denied the accusation levelled against them, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, for the said charge.

6.In order to substantiate the said charge, the prosecution has examined Pws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1, P2 and M.O.1 and 2. 

7.After closure of the above prosecution evidence, the Accused

No.1 to 5 were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., with reference to 4 C.C.No. 10263 of 2019 the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Accused No.1 to 5 denied the incriminating material put to them and they did not propose to examine any defence witness.

8.Heard the learned Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor and the

Defence Counsel. Perused the record. 

9.Now the point that arises for determination is:­ “Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence under section 380 of IPC against Accused No.1 to 5?” 

10.POINT:[PW1]­ T. Avinash Babu is the defacto complainant.

He deposed that on 29­04­2019 at about 1.30 A.M when he slept in his room by opening the main door, some unknown persons trespassed into his house and committed theft of one Redmi cell phone, one Samsung cell phone and one Apple Ipad for which he filed police report vide Ex.P1. He further deposed that after about one month police seized the property from which he obtained his

Samsung cell phone and Apple­Ipad towards his interim custody. The evidence of PW.1 says about commission of theft while he was sleeping in his room during night time by opening the main door.

11.According to PW.1 and Ex.P1 which is the police report one

Redmi mobile phone, one Samsung mobile phone and one Apple I­

Pad were committed theft from the room of PW1. Though PW.1 did 5 C.C.No. 10263 of 2019 not produce any material in proof of ownership over the material object lost, since accused never claimed his right over the property recovered from his possession and as PW.1 obtained the property towards his interim custody, the contention of prosecution and PW.1 can be believed.

12.[PW2]­ Bandaiah is the investigating officer who registered the case, arrested the accused and filed charge sheet. He deposed that on 30­04­2019, he received complaint from the complainant basing on which he registered a case in Cr.No. 317 of 2019 under section 380 of IPC and issued FIR which is Ex.P2. He further deposed that he recorded the statement of complainant, visited the scene of offence and on 23­05­2019 he arrested Accused No.1 to 5. PW.2 also deposed that on interrogation in the presence of two mediators

Accused No.1 to 5 voluntarily confessed the commission of offence and he seized one Samsung J1 cell phone and one Apple I­pad relating to this case. Though PW.2 deposed about seizure of some other property from the possession of Accused No.1 and 2, said property is not the subject matter of this case. On the other hand,

PW.2 categorically admitted non seizure of any property from the possession of Accused No.3 to 5.

13.According to prosecution case, some unknown persons committed theft of M.O.1 and 2 along with one Redmi 4 mobile phone from the room of PW.1 which is situated at Flat No.301 of Saptagiri builders. PW.1 claimed his ownership over the property lost.

6 C.C.No. 10263 of 2019

Admittedly the property was committed theft from the room of PW.1 while he was very much present in the room. However, his evidence does not disclose that he has witnessed any of the accused committing theft from his room. In view of the evidence of PW.1 after going through the complaint vide Ex.P1 it can be said that there is no direct evidence available on record to believe that Accused No.1 to 5 committed theft of M.O.1 and 2 and one Redmi 4 mobile phone.

14.In corroboration to the evidence of PW1, Pw.2 deposed about receiving of complaint and registration of the case and also deposed about seizure of material objects from the possession of Accused no.1 and 2. Though PW.2 supported the version of PW1, PW.2 being investigating officer, certainly he would have interest in securing conviction and further except the testimony of the investigating officer there is no material available on record to believe the seizure of material object at the instance of Accused No.1 to 5. In the absence of any independent witness for proving the seizure of material object from the possession of Accused No.1 and 2, it is highly unsafe to rely upon the solitary and interested testimony of PW2.

15.The allegation of prosecution against Accused No.1 to 5 is for committing theft of electronic goods from the flat of PW1. The plea of the accused is total denial. Though the evidence of PW.1 says about theft of material object and claimed ownership, no document is produced by him to believe his ownership. However, since there is no claim from the accused his version can be believed and accepted.

7 C.C.No. 10263 of 2019

Even if the evidence of PW.1 is accepted to be true, that cannot be relied upon since he is not a direct witness to the occurrence of theft.

Prosecution could not examine the mediators in whose presence the alleged property was recovered by PW2. Prosecution filed a report that the presence of witnesses cannot be secured since the witnesses are not residing in the given address. In the absence of the evidence of mediators the version of PW.1 about seizure of material object from the possession of Accused No.1 and 2 cannot be believed and accepted.

16.In order to prove an offence of theft, prosecution has to establish through direct evidence, but in the present case though

PW.2 deposed about loss of property, complaint itself discloses that the alleged theft took place while he was sleeping, it can be said that he is not a direct witness to the incident. In such circumstances, the case of prosecution that accused committed theft cannot be accepted.

17. As per the provisions of Sec.222 of Cr.P.C., when the offence proved forms the part of the offence charged, the accused is liable to be convicted for such proved charge. The offence U/Sec.411 IPC is an integral part of the offence U/Sec.380 IPC. Here it is the case of the prosecution that the accused was apprehended by SI of police while he was in the possession of property, Prosecution failed to prove the confession panchanama to believe accused in the possession of material object, because, prosecution did not examine the mediators in whose presence the panchanama was recorded. According to section 27 of Indian Evidence Act, any confession of accused in the 8 C.C.No. 10263 of 2019 custody of police leading to discovery of material object is admissible in evidence. When prosecution failed to examine the mediators, there is no question of presumption under section 114 of Indian

Evidence Act. Hence it can be said that prosecution failed to prove the panchanama to believe the accused as a receiver of stolen property as required under section 411 of IPC. In the absence of proof of panchanama, prosecution case either under section 380 of

IPC for the offence of theft or under section 411 of IPC for the offence of Accused as receiver of stolen property cannot be believed.

18.Thus, there is absolutely no legal and acceptable evidence connecting the accused with the crime. I, therefore, hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Consequently, I find the accused are not guilty of the offence with which they stood charged. The point is answered accordingly against the prosecution.

19. (i) In the result, the Accused No.1 to 5 are found not guilty for the offence under section 380 of IPC. Accordingly, they are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. Accused No.1 and 2 shall be set at liberty forthwith if they are not required in any other case. Bail bonds of the Accused No.3 to 5 shall stand cancelled subject to

Section 437­A of Cr.P.C.

9 C.C.No. 10263 of 2019

(ii)M.O.1 Samsung Mobile phone and M.O.2 Apple Ipad deposited vide P.I. No. 137/2019 already returned to PW1­ T. Avinash Babu shall be made absolute subject to result of appeal.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 4th day of November, 2019.

III ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTIONFOR DEFENCE

PW1 – T. Avinash Babu­ (Complainant ) ­None – PW2 ­K. Bandaiah­((Sub­inspector of Police /Investigating Officer

EXHIBITS MARKED

Ex.P1 – Complaint Ex.P2 ­First Information Report 

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1 Samsung Mobile phone M.O.2 Apple Ipad

III ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

10 C.C.No. 10263 of 2019

CALENDER OF CASES TRIED BY III ADDL CHIEF

METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT HYDERABAD

FORM NO: 71/72 OF CRIMINAL RULES OF PRACTICE

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT 

C.C.NO. 10263/2019 Date of offence: 29.04.2019 Date of report/complaint : 30.04.2019 Date of apprehension of accused : 03.05.2019 Date of release on bail : A1&A2 jail A3 to A3 8.5.2019 Taking of cognizance: 12­07­2019 Furnishing of copies to the accused: 05.09.2019 Recording plea of the accused: 05.09.2019 Date of commencement of trial : 17.10.2019 Date of closure of trial : 01.11.2019 Examination U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C: 04.11.2019 Date of Judgment: 04.11.2019 Explanation for delay: ­ Name of the complainant: S.H.O., P.S. S.R. Nagar, Hyderabad. ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Description of the Accused 

A1]Paramesh Jagadish, S/o Gandadhar Late, age: 29 years, Occ: labour, R/o Footpath, Secunderabad, N/o Janta colony, Himayath Nagar, Nanded Dist. A2]Bandi Shyam Kumar, s/o Ramu, age: 29 years, occ: Work at Blue moon Hotel, Opp Manju Theater, R/o Beside of Riyo Hotel, Secunderabad, Hyderabad, N/o Idho Nagar, Ramagunde, Peddhapalli District. A3]Anil Ram Kumble, S/o Ram Kamble, age: 22 years, occ: Work at Blue moon Hotel, Opp Manju Theater, R/o Beside of Riyo Hotel, Secunderabad, Hyderabad, A4]Kishore Bhanu Das Surya Vamshi,S/o Bhanu age: 23 years, Occ: Work Teal Stall, R/o SP Tiffin Center Hotel, Secunderabad, A5]Sunil Shah, S/o Dhanjay, age: 19 years, Occ: Chicken shop at 999 shop, opp Manju Theatre, R/o Chicken shop, Opp Manju Theatre, Secuderabad, _____________________________________________ Offence U/Sec.: 380 of IPC

Finding : Found not guilty 

Result In the result, the Accused No.1 to 5 are found not guilty for the offence under section 380 of IPC. Accordingly, they are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. Accused No.1 and 2 shall be set at liberty forthwith if they are not required in any other case. Bail bonds of the Accused No.3 to 5 shall stand cancelled subject to Section 437­A of Cr.P.C.(ii)M.O.1 Samsung Mobile phone and M.O.2 Apple Ipad deposited vide P.I. No. 137/2019 already returned to PW1­ T. Avinash Babu shall be made absolute subject to result of appeal.

III ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, 

HYDERABAD

To: The Hon'ble I Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

Dis.No. /III ACMM/2019 Date : 

1 C.C.No. 678 of 2015

 IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE :: AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT: Sri. D. VENKATESH III Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Hyderabad

Monday, this the 11th day of November, 2019

C.C.No. 678 of 2015

Between:

The State of Telangana through the Sub­Inspector of Police, P.S. Banjarahills.

[Cr.No.1073/2011]...Complainant.

A N D 

A3) Posala Veera, @ Veera, S/o P. Satya Narayana, age: 30 years, Occ: Tailor, R/o H.No. 12­2­823/79, Santosh Nagar, Mehidipatnam, Hyderabad

A1) A. Madan Kumar, S/o A. Dhananjaya Naidu, age: 21 years, Occ: Student, R/o H.No. 8­2­616/3/R, Road No.11, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, N/o Bandivandla village of Yadamarri Mandal, Chittor District. 

A2) Sunil Kumar Diwedi, S/o Bhola Prasad Diwedi, age: 23 years, occ: Security Guard of Sharp Security Srvice. R/o Back side of St Anna’s college, Mehidipatnam, Hyderabad, N/o Bhagvathpur vilalge of Kousambhi dist. UP [Note:­ Since NBWs against Accused No.1 and 2  are pending for a long time, the case against them is split up and numbered as C.C. 8391/2019, hence the present case is proceeded against Accused No.3 only] 

 ...Accused 

This case is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri P.J. Rama Krishna, the Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and Sri. D. Ravinder, Advocate for the accused No.3,4 and 6 and after perusing the case records and upon hearing the arguments on both sides, this Court made the following:­ 2 C.C.No. 678 of 2015

J U D G M E N T

1.The SI of Police, P.S Banjarahills filed charge sheet against the

Accused No.1 and 2 for the offence u/s 457 and 380 IPC and

Accused No.3 for the offence u/s 411 IPC alleging as follows. 

2.The Matrix of the prosecution case is as under:

(i)On 20­11­2011 at 7.00 P.M [LW1]­ Smt. Vandhana Sethi filed police report stating that on 09­11­2011 she went to her parents house at Punjab State and on 17­11­2011 her husband Dr. Bipin

Sethi went to Hon­Kong to attend conference by locking the house .

She further complained that On 20­11­2011 at 6.00 A.M, her PA

Hanumanth Rao called her stating that he along with driver came to the said house and observed that rear door lock of the house was broken and on knowing the same she return to Hyderabad and found

Lock of the door was broken and all the house hold belongings were scattered here and there. When she went to the master bed room found the wooden almairh lock was broken and One laptop, two

Nokia cell phones, Sony Handicam, 10 silver coins, Travel Cheques, fixed deposit papers, gold chains were stolen by some unknown person. Since some unknown persons trespassed into the house during the absence of the inmates and committed theft of valuables, she went to police station and filed report. 

(ii)Basing on the above complaint, [LW10]­ Syed

Nayeemullah (SI of Police) registered a case in Cr No. 1073 of 11 u/s 457, 380 IPC and issued FIR. During investigation, [LW11]­Prabhakar (SI of police) examined and recorded the statements of [LW.1]­Smt.

Vandhana Sethi and visited the scene of offence. He conducted scene 3 C.C.No. 678 of 2015 of offence panchanama in the presence of two mediators and drawn rough sketch. On 28­02­2015 [LW9]­ S. Prabhakar (DI of police) apprehended Accused No.1 to 3 in Cr.No. 732 of 2011 of P.S.

Banjrahills. On interrogation they voluntarily confessed the commission of offence in the presence of two mediators. In pursuance of the confession of Accused No.1 and 2, [LW9]­ S.

Prabhakar (DI of police) seized the property relating to Cr.No. 732 of 2011 of P.S Banjarahills. Later [LW11]­B. Bhaskar Rao (SI of Police) filed a requisition to issue production warrant against A1 and A2 and on issuance of production [LW11]­B. Bhaskar Rao (SI of Police) producd them before this court and remanded to Judicial custody.

On 10­03­2012 [LW7 and 8]­ Syed Zamin and S. Prabhakar( police constables) produced A3 before [LW11]­B. Bhaskar Rao (SI of

Police). On interrogation he confessed accepting the stolen property from Accused No.1 and 2 and he paid some amount to them. As such he Arrested A3, and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

3.The case was taken on file as C.C. 678/2015 for the offence under sections 457, 380 and 411 of Indian Penal Code against

Accused No.1 to 3.

4.Since NBWs against Accused No.1 and 2 are pending for a long time, the case against them is split up and numbered as C.C.

8391/2019, hence the present case is proceeded against Accused

No.3 only. On appearance of Accused No.3, copies of documents 4 C.C.No. 678 of 2015 have been furnished to the Accused No.3 as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.The Accused No.3 was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C, by explaining the accusation levelled against him. After hearing the learned Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor and the Defence Counsel, a charge under section 411 of Indian Penal Code has been framed, read over and explained to Accused No.3 in vernacular, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the trial, the Prosecution examined P.W.1 to P4 and got marked Exs.P1 to 5 and M.Os.1 to 12.

7.After closure of the Prosecution evidence, Accused No.3 was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining incriminating material found against him, for which he denied the same and he reported no defense evidence.

8.Arguments heard through the learned A.P.P. and Defence

Counsel. Perused the oral and documentary evidence available on record.

9.Now the point that arise for determination is:­:

Whether Prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence under Section 411 of IPC against Accused No.3 ?

10.POINT::

[PW1]­Smt. Vandana Sethi is the defacto complainant and owner of the property. She deposed that on 09­11­2011 she went to her parents house and on 17­11­2011 her husband went to abroad 5 C.C.No. 678 of 2015 on his official work by locking the house. She further deposed that on 20­11­2011 her driver called her stating that some unknown persons break opened the lock of the back side doors of her house, immediately she returned to Hyderabad and on verifying she found that some unknown persons entered into the house by breaking the locks and committed theft of valuables from the almarah present in the master bed room. Since some unknown persons committed theft of one Laptop vide M.O1, two mobile phones vide M.O3, silver coins vide MO4, two pairs of silver anklets vide M.O.5, silver toe ring vide

MO6, Euro Travel Cheque vide M.O7, Euro coins vide M.O8, Copper coins vide M.O.9 silver coated plate vide M.10, diamond rings vide

M.O11 and pair of diamond ear rings vide M.O12, she went to police station and filed report vide Ex.P1. 

12. PW.1 claimed ownership over the stolen property that was alleged to have recovered from the possession of Accused No.1 and 2.

besides claiming the ownership PW.1 obtained the property towards her interim custody. M.Os.1 to 12 are the stolen property that was committed theft and received towards her interim custody. PW.1 as the owner of the property filed complaint on occurrence of incident.

Her version to the extent of occurrence of incident and filing of complaint can be believed. However, accused never claimed ownership over the material objects that were alleged to be seized from him. He not even disputed the claim of the PW.1. In view of the evidence of Pw.1 it can be believed that there were a theft at the house of PW.1 during day time in the absence of the inmates and 6 C.C.No. 678 of 2015

M.Os.1 to 12 along with some other property was committed theft.

To the effect of loss of property PW.1 exhibited the complaint by categorically mentioning about the theft as well as the property lost.

PW.1 proved the loss of property.

13.According to prosecution case Accused No.1 and 2 committed theft at the house of PW.1. According to Ex.P1 the incident of occurrence of theft took place in the absence of PW.1. It meas no body observed the theft. Though the incident took place during day time there is no eye witness to the occurrence of theft. Even the investigating officer did not choose to examine any neighbours who would have noticed any person moving suspiciously in the locality or any independent witness examine would have noticed A1 and A2 going into the house of PW.1. In the absence of any direct evidence the contention of the prosecution that Accused No.1 and 2 committed theft at the house of PW.1 cannot be believed. However, the present charge is against Accused No.3 who is receiver of stolen property.

14.According to prosecution case Accused No.1 and 2 committed theft at the house of PW.1 and the said property has been sold in favour of Accused No.3. Police recovered the stolen property from the possession of Accused No.3 and at his instance. Absolutely, there is no material on record to believe that M.Os.1 to 12 has been seized at the instance of Accused No.1 and 2 from the possession of Accused

No.3. Prosecution even did not choose to examine any witness for proving the alleged seizure of stolen property from their possession.

7 C.C.No. 678 of 2015

15.In order to prove the confession cum seizure panchamam, prosecution examined PW.4 alone. [PW4]M. Sai Prasad is the mediator of recording confession cum seizure panchanama of Accused

No.1 and 2. Since the present charge is not against Accused No.1 and 2, the evidence of PW.4 is of no help to prosecution case. On the other hand, the only mediator PW.4 did not support the prosecution case. In the absence of proving of theft by Accused No.1 and 2 and in the absence of prove of seizure of M.O.1 to 12 from the possession of

Accused No.3, prosecution case regarding theft and believing the accused receiver of stolen property does not arise.

16. As per the provisions of Sec.222 of Cr.P.C., when the offence proved forms the part of the offence charged, the accused is liable to be convicted for such proved charge. The offence U/Sec.411 IPC is an integral part of the offence U/Sec.380 IPC. Here it is the case of the prosecution that the accused was apprehended by SI of police while he was in the possession of property, Prosecution failed to prove the confession panchanama to believe accused in the possession of material object, because, prosecution did not examine the mediators in whose presence the panchanama was recorded. According to section 27 of Indian Evidence Act, any confession of accused in the custody of police leading to discovery of material object is admissible in evidence. When prosecution failed to examine the mediators, there is no question of presumption under section 114 of Indian

Evidence Act. Hence it can be said that prosecution failed to prove 8 C.C.No. 678 of 2015 the panchanama to believe the accused as a receiver of stolen property as required under section 411 of IPC. In the absence of proof of panchanama, prosecution case either under section 380 of

IPC for the offence of theft or under section 411 of IPC for the offence of Accused as receiver of stolen property cannot be believed.

17.Having considering the oral evidence of Pws.1 to 4 coupled with

Ex.P1 to P5, it is not sufficient to believe the case of prosecution.

Accordingly accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

18.(i) In the result, Accused No.3 is found not guilty for the offence u/s 411 IPC and accordingly he is acquitted u/s 248(1)

Cr.P.C. Bonds and bail bonds of Accused No.3 shall stands cancelled subject to sec 437­A CrPC.

(ii) Since the split up case vide C.C. No. 8391 of 2019 pending against

Accused No.1 and 2 hence no order relating to the M.Os.1 to 12 has been passed.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 11th day of

November, 2019.

III ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

9 C.C.No. 678 of 2015

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE: 

­ Nil ­ PW1 – Smt. Vandana Sethi (complainant ) PW2 – Peter( panch witness for scene of offence observation panchanama) PW3­Shaik Shareef ( panch witness for scene of offence observation panchanama) PW4­ M. Sai Prasad ( Panch witness for confession cum seizure panchanama of A1 and A2

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE:

­ Nil ­ Ex.P1 – Complaint Ex.P2­ Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P3: Rough sketch of scene of offence Ex.P4 and P5: are the Signature of PW.4 on confession cum seizure panchanamas of Accused No.1 and 2.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR

M.O.1: Laptop. M.O.2: Two Sony Handicam cameras M.O.3: Two mobile phones M.O.4: Silver coins M.O.5:Two pairs of silver anklets M.O.6:Silver toe ring. M.O.7: Euro Travel Cheque . M.O.8: Euro coins M.O.9: Copper coins M.O.10 :Silver coated plate M.O.11: Diamond rings M.O.12: Pair of diamond ear rings

III ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

10 C.C.No. 678 of 2015

CALENDER OF CASES TRIED BY III ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE :: AT HYDERABAD

FORM NO: 71/72 OF CRIMINAL RULES OF PRACTICE

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT 

C.C.NO. 678/2015

Date of offence: In between 9­11­2011 to 17­11­2011 Date of report/complaint : 20.11.2011 Date of apprehension of accused : 10.03.2012 Date of release on bail : 10.04.2012 Taking of cognizance: 25.03.2015 Furnishing of copies to the accused: 01.07.2019 Recording plea of the accused: 01.07.2019 Date of commencement of trial : 23.07.2019 Date of closure of trial : 04.11.2019 Examination U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C: 04.11.2019 Date of Judgment: 11.11.2019 Explanation for delay: due to pendency of NBW Name of the complainant : The State of Telangana, represented by the Station House Officer, P.S. Banjarahills, Hyderabad. ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Description of the Accused A3) Posala Veera, @ Veera, S/o P. Satya Narayana, age: 30 years, Occ: Tailor, R/o H.No. 12­2­823/79, Santosh Nagar, Mehidipatnam, Hyderabad A1) A. Madan Kumar, S/o A. Dhananjaya Naidu, age: 21 years, A2) Sunil Kumar Diwedi, S/o Bhola Prasad Diwedi, age: 23 years, [Note:­ Since NBWs against Accused No.1 and 2  are pending for a long time, the case against them is split up and numbered as C.C. 8391/2019, hence the present case is proceeded against Accused No.3 only] ________________________________________________________________

Offence U/Sec.: 411 of IPC Finding : Found not guilty. Result : (I) In the result, Accused No.3 is found not guilty for the offence u/s 411 IPC and accordingly he is acquitted u/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. Bonds and bail bonds of Accused No.3 shall stands cancelled subject to sec 437­A CrPC.(ii) Since the split up case vide C.C. No. 8391 of 2019 pending against Accused No.1 and 2 hence no order relating to the M.Os.1 to 12 has been passed.

III ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, 

HYDERABAD

To:

The Hon'ble I Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

Dis.No. /III ACMM/2019 Date :