1 of 20 CC.No.20/2023
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
AT ARMOOR.
PRESENT: DEEPTI VEMULA,
I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, ARMOOR.
FAC: JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, ARMOOR.
Tuesday, this the 19 th day of September, 2023.
C.C. N o . 20 of 20 23
Between: The State represented by Circle Inspector of Police, Dichpally Circle.
... Complainant.
A N D
Gunjala Yadhagiri @ Yadhav, S/o. late Bhanudas, Age:45 years, Caste:Waddera, Occ:Labour, R/o. Gollavari colony, Deglur (v) & (M), Nanded District, Maharastra State, now present C/o. Gadhepally Satyamreddy House, Munipally (V) of Jakranpally (M).
... Accused
This case is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and in the presence of Smt.Kandesh Sangeetha, legal aid counsel for accused and having stood over for consideration, the Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
The Circle Inspector of Police, Dichpally Circle filed a charge sheet against accused U/secs.457 and 380 of IPC alleging that on the intervening night of 09/10-12-2022 unknown offenders entered into the house of LW.1/Pasupula Srinivas by broke open the main door lock with iron rod and committed theft of net cash Rs.2,50,000/- and 8 small gold finger rings wg. about 1 tula from Beeruva. In that connection, a case in Cr.No.151/2022 was registered on a report given by LW.1/Pasupula Srinivas. During the course of investigation, on 2 of 20 CC.No.20/2023 11-12-2022 at 05.00 p.m., while LW.11/D.Mohan, C.I. of police,
Dichpally along with LW.10/K.Srikanth, S.I. of police, PS.Jakranpally and staff were conducting checking at Munipally bridge of Armoor road, on seeing them accused tried to escape then they apprehended accused and on enquiry in the presence of panch witnesses accused confessed about commission of offence. In pursuance of confession of accused an amount of Rs.2,47,420/- and one small finger ring weighing about 2 grams pertaining to this case was recovered from the possession of accused. After completion of formalities of arrest, accused was produced before the Court and he was remanded to judicial custody. Thus, the accused is liable for punishment under the above provisions of law.
2.This Court has taken cognizance for an offence punishable
U/secs. 457 and 380 of IPC against accused.
3.Copies of case documents were furnished to accused as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C.
4.Accused was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C., and he denied the offence. Charges U/secs. 457 and 380 of IPC against accused were framed. Charges were read over and explained to accused in his known language, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5.To bring home the guilt of accused, the prosecution examined
PW.1 to PW.9 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 and MOs.1 and 2.
3 of 20 CC.No.20/2023
PW.1/Pasupula Srinivas is de-facto complainant and victim.
PW.2/Pasupula Shiva Krishna is brother of PW.1. PW.3/Smt.Gaini
Ganganarsu is neighbour of PW.1. PW.4/Padamati Shivaji is a witness who provided CC footage. PW.5/Konduka Nagaraju is panch for scene.
PW.6/Pogula Bhasker is circumstantial witness. PW.7/Ambati
Muthenna is panch for confession and seizure panchanama of accused. PW.8/K.Srikanth, S.I. of Police and PW.9/D.Mohan, C.I. of police are investigation officers.
Ex.P1 is Report. Ex.P2 is Crime details form. Ex.P3 is the confession and seizure panchanama and Ex.P4 is the F.I.R.
MO.1 is cash of Rs.2,47,420/- and MO.2 is 2 grams gold ring.
The learned APP given up LW.6/Kanka Gangadhar and
LW.8/Marripally Praveen.
6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He described the evidence of the prosecution as false. He did not choose to lead any evidence on his behalf.
7.Heard arguments on both sides.
8.Now the point for determination is,
Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused
beyond all reasonable doubt?
4 of 20 CC.No.20/2023
POINT:
9.I have carefully perused the evidence brought on record.
Accused is alleged to have committed an offence punishable under
Sections 457 and 380 of IPC.
10.In order to bring home the guilt of accused, the prosecution has to establish that on the intervening night of 09/10-12-2022 the accused committed theft of net cash Rs.2,50,000/- and 8 small gold rings (wg.1 tula) from the house of PW.1 situated at Munipally Village and an amount of Rs.2,47,420/- and one ring weighing about two grams were recovered from the possession of accused in pursuance of his confession.
11.The evidence available on record is the evidence of PW.1 to
PW.9 and the learned counsel for the accused tested the material witnesses by way of cross-examination.
12.Now the first point to be determining is whether case property i.e., cash of Rs.2,47,420/- and one ring weighing about two grams are stolen property or not?
13.To establish the said fact, the prosecution has placed reliance on the evidence of PW.1 to PW.3, PW.5, PW.8 and PW.9. PW.1 is de-facto complainant and victim. PW.1 deposed that on 09-12-2022 at 06.00 p.m., himself and his family members went to his younger brother’s house to attend house warming ceremony situated at BC colony of Munipally village by duly locking his house and stayed there on that night. He further deposed that on the next day morning he 5 of 20 CC.No.20/2023 received a phone call from PW.3 and came to know that some unknown offenders broke open the lock of his house then immediately they returned to their house, noticed some unknown offenders broke open the main door lock of his house and also broke open the beeruva in his house and committed theft of net cash of
Rs.2,50,000/- and 8 small gold finger rings wg about one tula and they also noticed iron rods beside the beeruva. He further deposed that on the same day he gave report/Ex.P1 at police station and subsequently he has taken interim custody of MO.1/cash of
Rs.2,47,420/- and MO.2/two grams gold ring.
14. PW.2 is brother of PW.1. PW.2 deposed that on 09-12-2022
PW.1 along with family members came to his home to attend his house warming ceremony and on the next day morning PW.1 received information from PW.3 that some unknown offenders broke open the lock of his brother’s house situated at Munipally village then immediately they returned to the house of PW.1. He further deposed that they noticed some unknown offenders broke open the main door lock of house, entered into house, broke open the beeruva and committed theft of net cash of Rs.2,50,000/- and 8 gold rings.
15. PW.3 is neighbour of PW.1. PW.3 deposed that on 09-12-2022
PW.1 went to the house of PW.2 for attending house warming ceremony of PW.2 and on the next day morning he noticed some unknown offenders broke open the lock of house of PW.1 then immediately he informed the same to PW.1. He further deposed that 6 of 20 CC.No.20/2023
PW.1 and his family members rushed to his house and noticed some unknown offenders committed theft of gold and amount from
Beeruva.
16. PW.5 is panch for scene. PW.5 deposed that C.I. of police,
Dichpally called him and LW.6/Kanaka Gangadhar to the house of
PW.1 and asked them to act as panch witnesses with regard to theft took place in the house of PW.1. He further deposed that police conducted scene of offence panchanama, drawn rough sketch in the
Crime details form, explained the contents of crime details form and obtained his signature on Ex.P2/crime details form.
17.PW.8 and PW.9 are investigation officers. PW.8 deposed that on 10-12-2022 at about 8.30 a.m., he received a report from PW.1, basing on that he registered a case in Cr.No.151/2022 and issued F.I.R./Ex.P4 and thereafter he handed over the case file to PW.9 for further investigation. PW.9 deposed that on 10.12.2022 he received case file from PW.8, recorded the statement of PW.1 and visited the scene of offence situated at Munipally Village and prepared crime details form in the presence of PW.5 and LW.6/Kanaka Gangadhar and recorded the statements of PW.2 to PW.4 and PW.6.
18.The oral evidence of PW.1 to PW.3, PW.5, PW.8 and PW.9 coupled with Ex.P1, Ex.P2 and Ex.P4 clearly shows that some unknown offenders committed theft of cash Rs.2,50,000/- and 8 small gold rings (wg.1 tula) from the house of PW.1 situated at Munipally Village.
Moreover, accused is not disputing the fact that the case property 7 of 20 CC.No.20/2023 belongs to PW.1. The plea of accused is one of total denial. Accused also not claimed that the case property i.e., cash Rs.2,47,420/- and 2 grams gold ring belongs to him. In view of the evidence of PW.1 to
PW.3, PW.5, PW.8 and PW.9, this Court is of the considered opinion that cash Rs.2,47,420/- and 2 grams gold ring were stolen from the house of PW.1 situated at Munipally village. Thus, the prosecution has proved the fact that case property i.e., cash Rs.2,47,420/- and 2 grams gold ring is stolen property.
19.Now the next point to be determined is whether accused committed theft of case property i.e., cash Rs.2,47,420/- and 2 grams gold ring from the house of PW.1 situated at Munipally village.
20.To prove the same, the prosecution has relied on the evidence of PW.1 to PW.6. PW.1 to PW.3 and PW.5 in their evidence simply stated that cash Rs.2,50,000/- and 8 gold rings were stolen from the house of PW.1. PW.1 to PW.3 and PW.5 in their evidence no-where stated that accused committed theft of cash Rs.2,50,000/- and 8 gold rings from the house of PW.1. So, the evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 and
PW.5 is not useful to the prosecution case on this aspect.
21.PW.4is a witness who provided CC footage and PW.5 is said to be a witness who identified the accused. PW.4 deposed that he is having a photo studio at Munipally Village and at the request of
Jakranpally police, he copied the contents of CCTV footage of VDC building of Munipally village into a Pen drive and the CCTV footage contents are pertaining to the hours in between 1.41 a.m., to 1.50 8 of 20 CC.No.20/2023 a.m., on 11-12-2022. PW.6 deposed that on 10-12-2022 Jakranpally police came to Munipally Village, shown CC camera footage to him and asked him to identify the person who was moving in suspicious circumstances near Gram Panchayath then he informed the police that the suspicious person is accused who belongs to his village. He further deposed that accused residing in his village for 15 years and in
CC camera he noticed the accused went into his house by holding a bag and came out side with bicycle and went away from his house.
22.I have carefully perused the evidence of PW.4 and PW.6. PW.4 simply stated that he copied the contents of CC TV footage into pen drive at the request of police. But, PW.4 in his evidence no-where stated that he saw the accused entered into the house of PW.1 or exit from the house of PW.1. PW.4 did not state any incriminating evidence against accused. So, the evidence of PW.4 is not helpful to the prosecution case.
23.PW.6 in his evidence stated that in CC camera footage he noticed accused went into his house and after some time came outside of his house with bicycle. There is no single whisper in the evidence of PW.6 that accused entered into the house of PW.1 or committed theft of MO.1 and MO.2 from the house of PW.1. Further, the prosecution also not produced any CC TV footage before the
Court. In these circumstances, the evidence of PW.6 is also not helpful to the prosecution case.
9 of 20 CC.No.20/2023
24.As seen from the evidence on record, there is no positive or direct evidence to show that accused committed theft of MO.1 and
MO.2 from the house of PW.1. Further, it is also not the case of the prosecution that prosecution witnesses saw accused while he was committing theft of MO.1 and MO.2 from the house of PW.1. So, there is no direct evidence before the Court to show that accused committed theft of MO.1 and MO.2 from the house of PW.1 as alleged by the prosecution. Thus, the evidence brought on record would not show that accused entered into the house of PW.1 and committed theft of MO.1 and MO.2 from the house of PW.1. In the circumstances, the charges under Section 457 and 380 of IPC against accused must fails.
25.In the present case it is seen that charges against accused have been framed by my learned predecessor under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC only. Upon perusal of evidence on record, it clearly reveals that case property was seized from the possession of accused in pursuance of his confession. When recovery is alleged to have made from the possession of accused, this Court is ought to have framed alternative charge under Section 411 IPC also along with Section 457 and 380 of
IPC as the prosecution alleged that MO.1 and MO.2 were seized from the possession of accused.
26.At this stage, this Court feels it is worthwhile to refer Section 216 Cr.P.C. Section 216 Cr.P.C., deals with powers of Court to alter or 10 of 20 CC.No.20/2023 add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced. This
Section is quoted below:
“216.Court may alter charge.
(1) Any Court may alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced.
(2) Every such alteration or addition shall be read and explained to the accused.
(3) If the alteration or addition to a charge is such that proceeding immediately with the trial is not likely, in the opinion of the Court, to prejudice the accused in his defence or the prosecutor in the conduct of the case, the Court may, in its discretion, after such alteration or addition has been made, proceed with the trial as if the altered or added charge had been the original charge.
(4) If the alteration or addition is such that proceeding immediately with the trial is likely, in the opinion of the Court, to prejudice the accused or the prosecutor as aforesaid, the Court may either direct a new trial or adjourn the trial for such period as may be necessary.
(5) If the offence stated in the altered or added charge is one for the prosecution of which previous sanction is necessary, the case shall not be proceeded with until such sanction is obtained, unless sanction had been already obtained for a prosecution on the same facts as those on which the altered or added charge is founded.
27.From the perusal of the aforesaid Section it is clear that without evidence being adduced the Court may add or alter any charge, thus it is clear from a bare reading of the provisions of Section 11 of 20 CC.No.20/2023 216 Cr.P.C., that the Court has the power to add or alter a charge at any time before judgment is pronounced and such addition or alteration is permissible before pronouncement of judgment. This
Section itself takes care of avoiding any prejudice to the accused by providing adequate safeguard in sub-section (2), (3), (4) & (5) to prevent resulting in material prejudice to the accused. Therefore, it follows that with the facts and circumstances of the case so warranted, the Court is empowered to add to or alter a charge already framed against the accused at any stage before the pronouncing of judgment.
28.In Kantilal Chandulal Mehta Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
[(1969) 3 SCC 166], the Hon’ble Supreme Court again examined this very issue arising under the present Code of Criminal Procedure and held as under:
“in our view the Criminal Procedure Code gives ample power to the courts to alter or amend a charge whether by the trial court or by the appellate court provided that the accused has not to face a charge for a new offence or is not prejudiced either by keeping him in the dark about that charge or in not giving a full opportunity of meeting it and putting forward any defence open to him, on the charge finally preferred against him.” 12 of 20 CC.No.20/2023
29.Section 216 Cr.P.C., and the above said judgments of the
Hon’ble Apex Court would reveal that an alteration or addition of
charge can be made where no prejudice is caused to the accused or the prosecution is well within the powers and jurisdiction of the
Court. In view of the powers vested by this Court by virtue of Section 216 Cr.P.C., this Court feels that this is a fit case to frame alternative charge under Section 411 IPC on par with the existing charge.
Accordingly, during the course of trial, an alternative charge for the offence under Section 411 IPC is framed against accused and sufficient opportunity was given to both parties for adducing evidence U/s. 411 IPC.
30.Now, the next question that arises for consideration is whether the case property i.e., MO.1 and MO.2 were seized from the possession of accused in pursuance of the confession of accused.
31.At this stage, this Court feels that it is very profitable to reproduce relevant provisions of law.
32. Section 410 IPC defines stolen property as:-
Property, the possession whereof has been transferred by theft, or by extortion, or by robbery, and property which has been criminally misappropriated or in respect of which criminal breach of trust has been committed is designed as “stolen property”, whether the transfer has been made, or the misappropriation, or breach of trust has been committed, with or without India. But, if such property 13 of 20 CC.No.20/2023 subsequently comes into the possession of a person legally entitled to the possession thereof, it then ceases to be stolen property.
33. Section 411 IPC punishes the act of dishonestly receiving stolen property as follows:-
Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
34. The basic ingredients of Section 411 IPC are-
(a) dishonest receipt or retention of stolen property
(b) Knowledge or reason to believe at the time of receipt that the property was obtained in one of the ways specified in the section.
35.Now, let me discuss the material on record and try to arrive at a definite finding as regards the above said aspect.
36.To prove the above aspect, the prosecution examined PW.7 and
PW.9. PW.7 is mediator for confession and seizure panchanama of accused. It is the evidence of PW.7 that accused belongs to his village and on 11-12-2022 police asked him to act as panch witness and called him to Munipally railway bridge, accordingly he went there and noticed accused along with police personnel. It is further evidence of
PW.7 that at the request of police he enquired with accused then 14 of 20 CC.No.20/2023 accused confessed that on 09-12-2022 he went to a house near
Pochammagally of Munipally village, broke open the locks of the house and committed theft of MO.1 and MO.2 and put them in his bag, returned to home, taken bicycle and went to agricultural land belongs to his owner, parked the bicycle there and left that place with the bag. It is further evidence of PW.7 that accused also confessed that he went to Kamareddy purchased a new bag and put the stolen money in that bag and thrown away the old bag and while returning to Munipally village police apprehended him. It is further evidence of
PW.7 that Police seized MO.1 and MO.2 in pursuance of the confession of accused under cover of confession and seizure panchanama in his presence and that Ex.P3 is confession and seizure panchanama.
37. PW.9 is investigation officer. It is the evidence of PW.9 that he verified the CC footage and noticed accused in suspicious circumstances and on enquiry PW.6 informed the details of accused.
It is his further evidence that on 11.12.2022 at 5.00 p.m., at Munipally bridge of Armoor road accused tried to escape from there on seeing them due to that they apprehended accused, secured PW.7 and
LW.8/Marripally Praveen as mediators and in their presence they enquired with accused. It is his further evidence that on enquiry accused revealed his particulars and on search of a bag of accused they found MO.1/cash of Rs.2,47,420/- and MO.2/small ring wg. about 02 gms and accused confessed about commission of this offence and accordingly he recorded the confession and recovery panchanama of 15 of 20 CC.No.20/2023 accused in the presence of mediators and also seized MO.1/cash of
Rs.2,47,420/- and MO.2/small ring wg. about 02 gms. It is his further evidence that after completion of formalities of arrest accused was produced before the Court and he was remanded to judicial custody and case property was deposited before the Court vide CPR.No.
01/2023 and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused.
38.The learned legal aid counsel for accused cross examined PW.7 and PW.9. In-spite of cross-examination, the legal-aid counsel for accused failed to shake the evidence of PW.7 and PW.9. PW.7 consistently deposed that police seized MO.1 and MO.2 from the possession of accused under cover of confession and seizure panchanama. It clearly appears that the evidence of P.W.7 is consistent throughout as to the very seizure of MO.1 and MO.2 from the possession of accused. Though the learned legal aid counsel for the cross-examined PW.7, nothing could be elicited in favour of accused. The learned legal aid counsel for accused also failed to shake the credibility of PW.7. Moreover, there is no single suggestion in the entire cross-examination of PW.7 that he is not responsible mediator and he is stock mediator. There is no iota of material before the Court to show that PW.7 has enmity with accused. The evidence of PW.7 is very consistent about the seizure of MO.1 and MO.2 from accused and his evidence also clinchingly corroborated with the evidence of PW.9.
PW.9 also cross-examined by the learned legal aid counsel for 16 of 20 CC.No.20/2023 accused, but nothing worthwhile elicited in favour of the case of accused. PW.9 also consistently deposed that he seized MO.1 and
MO.2 from the possession of accused under cover of confession and seizure panchanama in the presence of mediators.
39.It is the specific evidence of P.W.9 that MO.1 and MO.2 pertaining to this crime were recovered from the possession of accused in pursuance of the confession of accused. It appears that the evidence of P.W.9 is consistent and convincing with regard to the arrest of accused and seizure of MO.1 and MO.2 from the possession of accused. In such circumstances, the evidence of PW.9 which is fully corroborating with the evidence of PW.7 cannot be discarded. In this case, PW.9 has seized MO.1 and MO.2 on the basis of confession made by accused in the presence of mediators. Though the confession
made before the Police Officer is no confession, but the Section 27
of Indian Evidence Act lays down that the confession is admissible
if it leads the discovery of some fact. In the instant case, PW.9 seized MO.1 and MO.2 on the basis of statement made by accused and the same is admissible with regard to the recovery of MO.1 and MO.2 from the possession of accused. This Court finds no discrepancies in the investigation done by the police and the investigating agency in investigating the case on proper lines. PW.9 has very rightly conducted the investigation and thus, I find the evidence of PW.9 is trustworthy and reliable with regard to the recovery of MO.1 and
MO.2 from accused. Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act is in the form 17 of 20 CC.No.20/2023 of proviso, it lays down how much of an information received from accused may be proved and for application of section 27 of Indian
Evidence Act, admissible portion of confession statement has to a fact which were the immediate cause of the discovery only that would be part of legal evidence and not the rest. In a statement something new is discovered or recovered from the accused which was not in the knowledge of police before disclosure statement of the accused is recorded is admissible in evidence. From the evidence of PW.7 and
PW.9, it is evident that MO.1 and MO.2 pertaining to this case were recovered from the possession of accused in pursuance of the confession made by accused under Ex.P3.
40.The seizure of MO.1 and MO.2 pertaining to this case from the possession of accused is well proved by the evidence of mediator and so also through investigating officer. Thus, the prosecution established that MO.1 and MO.2 were stolen from the house of PW.1 situated at Munipally village and further the same was recovered from the possession of accused who failed to account of the same.
41. Illustration-(a) of Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 demonstrates the laws of presumption in case of possession of stolen goods. It says “that a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon-after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession.”
42.In the instant case, accused failed to explain the possession of
MO.1 and MO.2 which were seized soon after theft i.e., within two 18 of 20 CC.No.20/2023 days of the occurrence. As per the above said illustration, accused is either thief or have received MO.1 and MO.2 knowing them to be stolen. This Court already held that there is no positive or direct evidence to show that accused committed the offence under Section 380 of IPC. Therefore, the presumption can be drawn that accused has committed the offence under Section 411 IPC. Thus, the prosecution has clearly established that MO.1 and MO.2 are stolen property and further that the same was recovered from the possession of accused who failed to account for, which led this Court to come to the conclusion that accused has committed the offence under Section 411
IPC. Thus, accused is found guilty under Section 411 IPC.
43.In the light of the above discussion, I am inclined to accept the prosecution evidence to base conviction against accused under
Section 411 IPC. The offence under Section 457 and 380 of IPC stands disproved against accused for lack of evidence and accordingly he is not found guilty for the offence under Section 457 and 380 of IPC and he is acquitted for the offence U/s.457 and 380 of IPC. Accused is found guilty under Section 248(2) of Cr.P.C. of the offence under
Section 411 of IPC.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 19th day of September, 2023.
Sd/-
FAC: Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Armoor.
19 of 20 CC.No.20/2023
44.In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that accused is not entitled to the provisions of Probation of
Offenders Act.
45.I have heard accused on the question of sentence. He pleaded that he is only bread winner of his family and his family members are entirely depending upon him and accordingly prayed this Court to take lenient view while imposing punishment. He pleaded for mercy.
46.Considering the nature of offence and submission made by accused and having considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the considered view that accused may be sentenced moderately which will meet the ends of justice.
47. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 457, 380 of IPC and accordingly he is acquitted under Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. for the offence U/s.457 and 380 of
IPC. Accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.411 of IPC and he is convicted under Sec.248(2) Cr.P.C., for the offence
U/s.411 IPC. Accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 411 of IPC.
48.The MO.1 and MO.2 which were given to PW.1 towards interim custody shall holds good after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked case property i.e., one bag shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.
49.The accused was in judicial custody since 12.12.2022. The period of detention already undergone by accused in course of 20 of 20 CC.No.20/2023 investigation, trial etc. of the case shall be set-off against the sentence of his imprisonment as provided under Sec.428 of the Cr.P.C.
50.Accused is informed about the right of appeal to the Hon'ble
District and Sessions Court, Nizamabad. A copy of judgment is given free of cost to accused.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 19th day of September, 2023.
Sd/-
FAC: Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Armoor.
A PPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined for
Prosecution Defence
PW.1: Pasupula Srinivas. -None- PW.2: Pasupula Shiva Krishna. PW.3: Gaini Ganganarsu. PW.4: Padamati Shivaji. PW.5: Konduka Nagaraju. PW.6: Pogula Bhasker. PW.7: Ambati Muthenna. PW.8: K.Srikanth. PW.9: D.Mohan.
Exhibits marked for
Prosecution Defence
Ex.P1 : Report. -Nil- Ex.P2 : Crime details form. Ex.P3 : Confession and seizure panchanama. Ex.P4 : F.I.R.
M.O’s Marked
MO.1: Cash of Rs.2,47,420/-. MO.2: 2 grams gold ring.
Sd/-
FAC: Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Armoor.
21 of 20 CC.No.20/2023
CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT
IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
AT ARMOOR.
CC No. 20 of 202 3
1Name of Complainant:: The State through Circle Inspector of Police, Dichpally-circle. 2Names of Accused:: Gunjala Yadhagiri @ Yadhav S/o late Bhanudas, Age:45 years, Caste:Waddera, Occ:Labour, R/o Gollavari colony, Deglur (v) & (M), Nanded District, Maharastra State, now present C/o Gadhepally Satyamreddy House, Munipally (V) of Jakranpally (M). 3Nature of Offence:: U/sec 457, 380 and 411 of IPC against accused. 4Finding:: Accused is found guilty U/s. 411 IPC and found not guilty U/s.457, 380 of IPC 5Sentence :: In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 457, 380 of IPC and accordingly he is acquitted under Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. for the offence U/s.457 and 380 of IPC. Accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.411 of IPC and he is convicted under Sec.248(2) Cr.P.C., for the offence U/s.411 IPC. Accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 411 of IPC. 6Date of offence :: On the intervening night of 09/10.12.2022. 7Date of Complaint:: 10-12-2022. 8Date of remand of accused:: 12-12-2022. 9Date of Commencement of trail:: 09-03-2023. 10Date of Closure of trial:: 30-06-2023 11Date of Sentence or Order:: 19.09.2023. 12Explanation of delay:: ---
Sd/-
FAC: Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Armoor.
To: The Hon’ble I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.