Smt E.Prathiba AJCJ, ATP

//1//

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

ANANTHAPURAMU.

Present: Smt. E. Prathiba,

I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ananthapuramu.

FAC/ Prl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ananthapuramu.

Friday, the 11 th day of April, 2025.

Calendar Case No.85 of 2025

(Crime No.42 of 2025 of Anantapuramu I Town Police Station)

Between:-

The State represented by:- Inspector of Police, Anantapuramu I Town Police Station, …Complainant.

AND

Mangali Rama Mohan, aged 40 years S/o late keshanna Mangala, N/o Chintala Cheruvu Village, Pedda Vaduguru mandal, Ananthapuramu. Now R/o Jakkalacheruvu(V), Gooty (M), Anantapuramu District. …Accused. * * * * * *

This case came on 02.04.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and of Smt.G. Sandhya, Asst.

Legal Aid Defense Counsel for the accused and upon hearing both sides and having perused the material on record, this court delivers the following:

: : J U D G M E N T : :

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, I Town Police Station, Anantapuramu filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.42 of 2025 for the offences punishable under Section 303(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (herein after referred as BNS for brevity), with the following allegations:- //2//

Brief facts of the charge sheet are as follows:

LW.1/ Y. Sreenivasulu is the defacto complainant, he is resident of Aravinda

Nagar, Ananthapuramu and Accused/ Mangala Rama Mohan is resident of

Jakkalacheruvu(V), Gooty (M), Anantapuramu District.

On 02.02.2022 at about 01.00 PM, LW.1 went to Vegetable market near old

Town, Ananthapuramu for purchase of Vegetables and parked his TVS XL motor cycle bearing Regd. No.AP 02 AJ 0876, Engine No.0D1BB1094266, Chassis

No.MD621AD14B1B94653 infront of Bangalore Bakery, near vegetable market,

Ananthapuramu town. After purchase of vegetables, he came to near his vehicle and found that his vehicle was missing. Subsequently LW.1 searched his motor cycle surroundings of vegetable market, but in vain. Finally, LW.1 realized that, his vehicle was committed theft by some unknown offenders.

(a)Basing on the complaints of LW.1, LW.6/ G. Rajendranath Yadav registered a case in Cr.No.42/2025 U/s 303(2) of BNS of Ananthapuramu I Town

Police Station.

(b)During the Course of investigation, LW.6 examined LWs.1 to 3 and recorded their detailed statements, inspected the scene of offence. With credible information, on 11.02.2025 at 10.00 AM, accused was found at Mirchi Yard Circle,

Gooty Road, Ananthapuramu by LW.6 and his staff and interrogated him in the presence of Lws.4 and 5, then accused confessed about his involvement in this case.

(c)During the course of investigation, accused confessed about his involvement in this case i.e., Cr.No.42/2025 and Cr.No.41/2025 U/Sec.303(2) of BNS of ananthapuramu I Town PS. Further, Accused was arrested with stolen properties of

TVS XL motor vehicles i.e., bearing Regd. No.AP 02 AJ 0876, Engine

No.0D1BB1094266, Chassis No.MD621AD14B1B94653 in Cr.No.42/2025 bearing //3//

Regd. No. AP 02 BD 3125, Engine No.0DPE1043603, Chassis

No.MD621AD16F1A94723 in the presence of Lws. 4 and 5.

Basing on the above circumstances the acused used to organize the theft of

TVS mopeds frequently. Hence Sec.111 BNS was added to executing section of law.

Thus the accused has committed an offence liable to be punished

U/sec.303(2) or 317 & 111 BNS.

2.On 12.02.2025 , the Court took cognizance of case for the offence punishable under section 303(2) or 317 & 111 BNS, 2023 against the accused.

3. On 25.02.2025, Copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under Section 230 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita(herein after reffered as

BNSS for brevity), 2023.

4.On 27.02.2025, the accused was produced from District Jail, Anantapuramu and he was examined under section 216 of BNSS, 2023 for which he denied. After hearing both sides and on considering the entire record, the charge for the offence punishable under section 303(2) or 317 & 111 BNS, 2023 was framed against the accused. The said charge was read-over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case was posted for trial.

5.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined LW1, LW4 and LW.6 as PWs1 to 3 respectively and got marked Exs.P1 to P4 besides MO1. The prosecution has given up the evidence of remaining witnesses (LW2/Syed Jabiulla,

LW3/shaik Mahammad and LW5/Akumulla Subahan)

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 351 of BNSS, 2023 by explaining the incriminating prosecution evidence in //4//

Telugu, for which he denied the incriminating material and reported no defence evidence.

7.The stand of the accused is of total denial.

8.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of PW1 to

PW3 coupled with the contents of Exs.P1 to P4 establishes that MO.1 belongs to

PW.1 and same was stolen from his possession and further establishes that the accused had stolen the same and dishonestly retained the said stolen property for wrongful gain and therefore, the accused is liable for conviction under Section 303(2) or 317 & 111 BNS, 2023.

9.On the other hand, the learned Assistant Legal Aid Defence Counsel argued that there is no direct evidence to establish that the accused committed theft of

MO.1 and further, there is no support of the independent mediator (PW2), hence the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

10. Heard arguments of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned

Assistant Legal Aid Defence Counsel. Perused the entire record.

11. Now the points that arise for determination are as follows :-

1. Whether the prosecution is able to establish that PW1 was in

possession of MO.1 respectively and the same was stolen from their

respective possession, prior to the alleged recovery made, beyond the

reasonable doubt?

2. Whether the prosecution is able to establish that the accused

committed theft of MO.1 from the possession of PW1 and committed an

offence punishable under section 303(2) of BNS, 2023, beyond the reasonable

doubt?

//5//

3. Whether the prosecution is able to establish that MO.1 was recovered from the possession of the accused, beyond the reasonable doubt?

4. Whether the prosecution is able to establish that the accused had

dishonestly received or retained MO.1 by knowing or having reason to believe

that MO.1 was stolen properties, beyond the reasonable doubt?

5. Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the accused for

an offence punishable under Section 317(2) of BNS, 2023, beyond the

reasonable doubt?

6. Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the accused for

an offence punishable under Section 111 of BNS, 2023, beyond the

reasonable doubt?

7. In the result?

12. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution has examined PWs1 to 3 out of 6 listed witnesses and got marked Exs.P1 to P4, besides MO.1. PW1 is the defacto complainant in Crime No. 42 of 2025 of Anantapuramu I Town Police Station. PW2/

K. Suresh Reddy is the mediator. PW.3/ G. Rajendranath Yadav is the Investigation officers of I Town P.S, Ananthapuramu.

13.In view of rival contentions, the entire evidence is perused.

14.Point No.(1):-

The prosecution placed reliance on the evidence of PW.1, to prove the guilt of accused for the above offences. And the evidence of PW1 goes to show that on 27.01.2025 at about 01.00 p.m., he went to Vegetable market at Tadipatri bus stand at Ananthapuram on his TVS motor cycle bearing No.A02 AJ 0876 and he parked the said vehicle infront of Bangalore bakery and went inside the vegetable market and returned after 20 minutes, he found that the motorcycle which was parked was stolen by some unknown offender and he searched for the same. But in vain. On //6// the same day he made Ex.P1/ written complaint to police. Police examined him and recorded his statement. Police informed him after 10 days that his motorcycle was recovered and the same was identified by him. Today police brought the recovered case property/ MO.1/ TVS motorcycle bearing No.AP02 AJ 0876. MO.1 is returned to PW.1 on requisition

15.The evidence of PW3 goes to show that on 09.02.2025 at 10.00 a.m., while he was present in police station, PW.1 came to police station and gave report basing on the same he registered Ex.P3/ case in Cr.No.42/2025 for the offence punishable U/Sec. 303(2) BNS. He submitted copies of Fir to all concerned officers.

Thereafter he examined PW.1, LW.2, LW.3 and recorded their statements. He visited the scene of offence situated at infront of Bangalore bakery, near Tadipatri bus stop, Tilak road, Ananthapuramu. There He inspect the scene and drawn

Ex.P4/ roguh sketch. During the course of investigation he received credible information on 11.02.2025 at 10.45 am, he secured the presence of mediators/PW.2 and LW.5 and proceeded to Mirchi yard circle, Anantapuramu to gooty road and on seeing us one person tried to skulk away. Then with the assistance of his staff he apprehended him and on enquiry he revealed his identity particulars as mentioned in the charge sheet and voluntarily confessed about the commission offence and basing on his confession and recovered the theft vehicles from his possession. Theft vehicles bearing Nos. AP02 AJ 0876 and another motorcycle bearing No.AP02 BD 3125 in Cr.No.42 and 41/2025 respectively. He arrested the accused in Cr.No.42/2025 and under cover of arrest, confession and seizure mahazarnama/Ex.P2. Then He arrested the accused and produced before the Judicial custody in Cr.No.42/2025. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

16.On perusal of evidence of record, none including the accused, either disputed that PW1 is the owner of MO1, or claimed the said property, as his own. In such circumstances, the Court is of the view that the evidence of PW1 supported by

PW3 coupled with the contents of Ex.P1, Ex.P2 and P4 clinchingly establishes that //7//

MO1 belongs to PW1 and the same was stolen from his possession, prior to the alleged recovery, beyond the reasonable doubt. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in favour of the prosecution.

17. Point No. 2:-

On coming to the charge for the offence punishable under section 303(2) of

BNS, it has to be seen as to whether the prosecution is able to establish that the accused had committed theft of MO1, as alleged. Admittedly, PW1 did not identify the accused as the person who committed theft and there is no positive evidence showing that the accused committed the commission of theft of MO1 belongs to

PW1. But PW1 is not the eye witnesses to the incident. Therefore, no witness has seen that the accused committed the offence and moreover, no Test Identification

Parade of the accused was conducted and no incriminating material found against the accused at the scene of offence. Further, PW3 also admitted that the case was registered against unknown offenders. As such, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt for the offence punishable under sections 303(2) of BNS. Accordingly, the point No.2 is answered against the prosecution.

18.Point No.3 to 5:-

Now, it has to be seen as to whether the prosecution is able to establish that the said stolen properties were recovered from the possession of the accused under section 317(2) of BNS.

Dishonestly receiving stolen property :-“Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with an imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both”.

In order to prove the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under section 317(2) of BNS, the prosecution has to establish the following aspects:

Whether MO. 1 is the stolen properties of PW1 ?

As per the discussion in point No.1, the prosecution has successfully proved that MO.1 is the stolen properties of PW1 and though PW1 was cross examined on //8// that aspect that no theft of MO.1 was committed even then a false report was preferred, but nothing could be elicited in their cross examination, except denying the suggestions. On considering the above, the Court is of the opinion that MO.1 is the stolen properties of PW1 and according the point is answered in favour of the prosecution.

19.Whether MO1 along with other properties were recovered from the possession of the accused?

To prove this aspect, the prosecution has examined Pws 2 and 3. Among them, PW2 is the mediator and PW3 are the investigation officers. As per the evidence of PW3, he received credible information on 11.02.2025 at 10.45 am, he secured the presence of mediators/PW.2 and LW.5 and proceeded to Mirchi yard circle,

Anantapuramu to gooty road and on seeing them one person tried to skulk away.

Then with the assistance of his staff he apprehended him and on enquiry he revealed his identity particulars as mentioned in the charge sheet and voluntarily confessed about the commission offence and basing on his confession and recovered the theft vehicles from his possession. Theft vehicles bearing Nos. AP02

AJ 0876 and another motorcycle bearing No.AP02 BD 3125 in Cr.No.42 and 41/2025 respectively. He arrested the accused in Cr.No.42/2025 and under cover of arrest, confession and seizure mahazarnama/Ex.P2. Then He arrested the accused and produced before the Judicial custody in Cr.No.42/2025. Later on 25.02.2025, he produced the accused on P.T Warrant in the present case. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

20. PW2 who is the crucial witness in this case and who acted as mediator categorically deposed in the similar lines of PW3 with regard to the apprehension of accused recording confession and seizure of stolen property relating to other crimes from accused including this case property. Though PW2 was cross examined at length by the learned counsel for accused, but nothing could be //9// elicited from his evidence in favor of defence thus the evidence of PW2 & PW3 is corroborating with each other and inconsistently proved that they found accused at the place of arrest and recovered MO1 from the possession of the accused.

21.It is a well settled principle that if a person is found to be in possession of stolen property soon after the theft, it is presumed Section 114(a) of Indian

Evidence Act that he is a thief or is a person keeping the stolen property being fully aware that it is a stolen property. Further, it is also the settled principle that the confession made before the police officer is hit by Section 25 of Indian Evidence

Act, while the confession leading to the recovery of the property is only admissible under section 27 of Indian Evidence Act. In the present case also though the confessions stated by the accused is not admissible in evidence, in pursuance to the confession of accused, the accused was in possession of the case property in the present case and in other cases. Though the mediators ie PW2 and PW3 in this case did not supported the case of prosecution, the contents of Ex.P6 coupled with the contents of Ex.P1 and P7 shows that PW1 property was stolen and the same was recovered from the possession of the accused as such it is admissible in evidence. Further, the accused failed to explain as to why he is in possession of the stolen property and also failed to account for the same. To establish Section 317(2) of BNS, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in Mahabir

Sao Vs. State [AIR 1972 SC 642], wherein it was held that “in order to convict a person of having received stolen property who knew it to be stolen or had reason to believe that it was stolen, two essential ingredients must be satisfied i.e., (1)

Identification of property and (2) its possession by the accused” and further, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in Trimbak Vs. State. [AIR 1954

SC 39], wherein it was held that “the stolen property was in the possession of the

accused and before the accused got possession, it must be in the possession of some other person than the accused and the accused had knowledge that the property was stolen”.

//10//

22.Admittedly, in the present case on hand, PW1 identified MO.1, belong to him and committed theft by some unknown persons which were recovered from the possession of accused who could not account for the same. Hence, this Court is of the view that the prosecution could able to prove the offence punishable under section 317(2) of BNS against the accused.

23.In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that though the prosecution failed to establish that the accused is the person who has committed the offence of theft of MO.1 belonging to PW1 , but it proved that MO.1 is the stolen properties of PW1 and the accused is found to be in possession of stolen properties soon after the theft without accounting for the same. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the prosecution and against accused.

24.Point No.6:-

To prove the offence U/Sec.111 of BNS the prosecution has to establish that, the accused is involved in continuing unlawful activity by use of violence, threats, intimidation or coercion. And to prove the same prosecution relied on the evidence of PW.3 investigating officer. On perusal of the evidence of PW.3 it inly disclose at he recover 2 vehicles from the possession of accused and arrested in

Cr.No.42/2025 and file P.T Warrant in Cr.No.41 of 2025 but his evidence is silent with regard to the accused continuation unlawful activity by use of violence, threat, intimidation and coercion.

As such the prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of offence alleged

U/Sec. 111 of BNS. Accordingly the point No.6 is answered.

25.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 303(2) and 111 of BNS and accordingly, he is acquitted for the said offence under section 271(1) of BNSS.

But the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 317(2) of BNS and accordingly, he is convicted under section 271(2) of BNSS.

//11// (Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in Court, this the 11 th day of April, 2025).

Sd/- E. Prathiba

I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Anantapuramu. FAC Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Anantapuramu.

The Accused is explained with regard to the punishment that can be imposed under section 317(2) of BNS that he can be punished with an imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

When the accused is questioned about the sentence, he stated that he is the only bread winner of his family and he has to look after his old age parents, wife and 11 years son and they are dependent on me. Thus, he pleaded mercy in imposing sentence and to set off the detention period.

On considering the facts of the case, since the accused is involved in similar offences, the Court is of the view that it is not a fit case to apply the provisions of

Probation of Offenders Act. However, in view of the submissions of the accused with regard to condition of his family, the Court is inclined to take balanced view in imposing sentence.

Therefore, the accused is sentenced to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of THREE MONTHS for the offence punishable Under Section 317(2) of

BNS.

Both the sentences ie., the sentence in CC. No. 85 of 2025 and in CC. No.

110 of 2025 shall run concurrently.

The detention period undergone by the accused for the period from 11.02.2025 to till date ie., 11.04.2025 (both days inclusive) shall be set off under

Section 514 of BNSS, 2023 against his sentence of imprisonment.

MO.1 was already given to the interim custody of PW1 and the same shall holds good and becomes absolute after expiry of appeal time.

//12//

The accused is informed of his right to prefer an appeal against the Calendar and Judgment of this court. When he is asked about his means to prefer an appeal, he stated that he need legal aid.

(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in Court, this the 11 th day of April, 2025).

Sd/- E. Prathiba

I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Anantapuramu. FAC Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Anantapuramu.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution

PW1: Y. Sreenivasulu

PW2: K. Suresh Reddy

PW3: G. Rajendranath yadav

Defence

NIL

Exhibits marked for the Prosecution

Ex.P1:Report of PW1.

Ex.P2:Mahazarnama

Ex.P3:Original FIR

Ex.P4:Rough Sketch

Exhibits marked for the Defence

NIL //13//

Material objects marked on behalf of

ProsecutionDefence

NIL

MO1:TVS XL motorcycle bearing Reg.No.AP 02 AJ 0876.

(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in Court, this the 11 th day of April, 2025).

Sd/- E. Prathiba

I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Anantapuramu. FAC Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Anantapuramu.

// True Copy//

I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Anantapuramu.

FAC/Judicial Magistrate of I Class.

Ananthapuramu.

//14//

CALENDAR CASES TRIED

IN THE COURT OF PRL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

ANANTAPURAMU

Calendar Case No.85 of 2025

Crime No.42 of 2025 of Anantapuramu I Town Police Station

The State represented by:- Inspector of Police, Anantapuramu I Town Police Station. …Complainant.

Mangali Rama Mohan, aged 40 years S/o late keshanna Mangala, N/o Chintala Cheruvu Village, Pedda Vaduguru mandal, Ananthapuramu. Now R/o Jakkalacheruvu(V), Gooty (M), Anantapuramu District. …… Accused.

Date of Report or Appearanc Released Commenc Close of Sentence

Offence Complaint e/ on bail ement of trial Order

Apprehensi trial

on of the accused 02.02.2022 09.02.2022 11.02.2025UTP03.03.2025 25.03.202511.04.2025

Offence :-offence punishable under section 303(2) or 317(2) & 111 of BNS, 2023.

Finding :- Found guilty for the offence punishable under section 317(2) of BNS, 2023.

Sentence of Order:-

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 303(2) of BNS and accordingly, he is acquitted for the said offence under section 271(1) of BNSS.

But the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 317(2) of BNS and accordingly, he is convicted under section 271(2) of BNSS.

Therefore, the accused is sentenced to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of THREE MONTHS for the offence punishable Under Section 317(2) of

BNS.

//15//

Both the sentences ie., the sentence in CC. No. 85 of 2025 and in CC. No.

110 of 2025 shall run concurrently.

The detention period undergone by the accused for the period from 11.02.2025 to till date ie., 11.04.2025 (both days inclusive) shall be set off under

Section 514 of BNSS, 2023 against his sentence of imprisonment.

MO.1 was already given to the interim custody of PW1 and the same shall holds good and becomes absolute after expiry of appeal time.

The accused is informed of his right to prefer an appeal against the Calendar and Judgment of this court. When he is asked about his means to prefer an appeal, he stated that he need legal aid.

Sd/- E. Prathiba

I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Anantapuramu.

FAC/Judicial Magistrate of I Class.

Ananthapuramu.

Copy Submitted :-

1. The Hon’ble First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Anantapuramu.

// True Copy//

I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Anantapuramu.

FAC/Judicial Magistrate of I Class.

Ananthapuramu.

//1//

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

ANANTHAPURAMU.

Present: Smt. E. Prathiba,

I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ananthapuramu.

FAC/ Prl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ananthapuramu.

Friday, the 11 th day of April, 2025.

Calendar Case No.110 of 2025

(Crime No.41 of 2025 of Anantapuramu I Town Police Station)

Between:-

The State represented by:- Inspector of Police, Anantapuramu I Town Police Station, …Complainant.

AND

Mangali Rama Mohan, aged 40 years S/o late keshanna Mangala, N/o Chintala Cheruvu Village, Pedda Vaduguru mandal, Ananthapuramu. Now R/o Jakkalacheruvu(V), Gooty (M), Anantapuramu District. …Accused. * * * * * *

This case came on 02.04.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and of Smt.G. Sandhya, Asst. Legal Aid Defense Counsel for the accused and upon hearing both sides and having perused the material on record, this court delivers the following:

: : J U D G M E N T : :

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, I Town Police Station, Anantapuramu filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.41 of 2025 for the offences punishable under Section 303(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (herein after referred as BNS for brevity), with the following allegations:-

Brief facts of the charge sheet are as follows:

//2//

LW.1/ P. Gangaiah is the defacto complainant, he is resident of Rotarypuram village, B.K.Samudram Mandal and Accused/ Mangala Rama Mohan is resident of

Jakkalacheruvu(V), Gooty (M), Anantapuramu District.

On 03.02.2022 at about 04.00 PM, LW.1 went to Vegetable market near old

Town, Ananthapuramu for purchase of Vegetables and parked his TVS XL motor cycle bearing Regd. No.AP 02 BD 3125, Engine No.0D1PE1043603, Chassis

No.MD621AD16F1A94723 infront of Prakash Gunny Bag Shop, near vegetable market. After purchase of vegetables, he came near to the place where his vehicle is parked and found that his vehicle was found missing. Subsequently LW.1 searched his motor cycle at surroundings of vegetable market, but in vain. Finally,

LW.1 realized that, his vehicle was committed theft by some unknown offenders.

(a)Basing on the complaints of LW.1, LW.6/ Y. Marenna registered a case in Cr.No.41/2025 U/s 303(2) of BNS of Ananthapuramu I Town Police Station.

(b)During the Course of investigation, LW.6 examined LWs.1 to 3. Further,

LW.7/ G. Rajendranath Yadav verified the investigation of LW.6 and took up further investigation. With credible information, on 11.02.2025 at 10.00 AM, accused was found at Mirchi Yard Circle, Gooty Road, Ananthapuramu by LW.7 and his staff and interrogated him in the presence of Lws.4 and 5, then accused confessed about his involvement in this case.

(c)During the course of investigation, accused confessed about his involvement in Cr.No.41/2025 U/Sec.303(2) of BNS of ananthapuramu I Town PS and Cr.No.42/2025 U/Sec.303(2) of BNS of ananthapuramu I Town PS. Further,

Accused was arrested with stolen properties of TVS XL motor vehicles i.e., bearing

Regd. No.AP 02 BD 3125, Engine No.0D1PE1043603, Chassis

No.MD621AD16F1A94723 in Cr.No.41/2025 and bearing Regd. No. AP02 AJ 0876,

Engine No.0D1BB1094266, Chassis No.MD621AD14B1B94653 in Cr.No.42/2025.

//3//

(d)Subsequently, on 25.02.2025 the accused who lodged in District Jail,

Ananthapuramu concerned in Cr.No.42/2024 U/Sec.303(2) or 317 and 111 BNS of

Ananthapuramu I town PS was produced before the Hon’ble Court of Prl. JFCM,

Ananthapuramu by executing PT warrant against him and accordingly the Hon’ble court sent him to the judicial custody in this case.

Thus the accused has committed an offence liable to be punished

U/sec.303(2) of BNS.

2.On 03.03.2025 , the Court took cognizance of case for the offence punishable under section 303(2) of BNS, 2023 against the accused.

3. On 05.03.2025, Copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under Section 230 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita(herein after reffered as

BNSS for brevity), 2023.

4.On 12.03.2025, the accused was produced from District Jail, Anantapuramu and he was examined under section 216 of BNSS, 2023 for which he denied. After hearing both sides and on considering the entire record, the charge for the offence punishable under section 303(2) of BNS, 2023 was framed against the accused.

The said charge was read-over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case was posted for trial.

5.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined LW1, LW4, LW7 and

LW.6 as PWs1 to 4 respectively and got marked Exs.P1 to P4 besides MO1. The prosecution has given up the evidence of remaining witnesses (LW2/Kasamsetty

Prakash, LW3/Syed Rahamthullah and LW5/Akumulla Subahan) //4//

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 351 of BNSS, 2023 by explaining the incriminating prosecution evidence in

Telugu, for which he denied the incriminating material and reported no defence evidence.

7.The stand of the accused is of total denial.

8.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of PW1 to

PW4 coupled with the contents of Exs.P1 to P4 establishes that MO.1 belongs to

PW.1 and same was stolen from his possession and further establishes that the accused had stolen the same and dishonestly retained the said stolen property for wrongful gain and therefore, the accused is liable for conviction under Section 303(2) of BNS, 2023.

9.On the other hand, the learned Assistant Legal Aid Defence Counsel argued that there is no direct evidence to establish that the accused committed theft of

MO.1 and further, there is no support of the independent mediator (PW2), hence the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

10. Heard arguments of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned

Assistant Legal Aid Defence Counsel. Perused the entire record.

11. Now the points that arise for determination are as follows :-

1. Whether the prosecution is able to establish that PW1 was in

possession of MO.1 respectively and the same was stolen from their

respective possession, prior to the alleged recovery made, beyond the

reasonable doubt?

//5//

2. Whether the prosecution is able to establish that the accused

committed theft of MO.1 from the possession of PW1 and committed an

offence punishable under section 303(2) or 317(2) of BNS, 2023, beyond the

reasonable doubt?

3. Whether the prosecution is able to establish that MO.1 was recovered from the possession of the accused, beyond the reasonable doubt?

4. Whether the prosecution is able to establish that the accused had

dishonestly received or retained MO.1 by knowing or having reason to believe

that MO.1 was stolen properties, beyond the reasonable doubt?

5. Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the accused for

an offence punishable under Section 317(2) of BNS, 2023, beyond the

reasonable doubt?

6. In the result?

12. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution has examined PWs1 to 4 out of 7 listed witnesses and got marked Exs.P1 to P4, besides MO.1. PW1 is the defacto complainant in Crime No. 41 of 2025 of Anantapuramu I Town Police Station. PW2 is the mediator. PW.3 and 4 are the Investigation officers of I Town P.S,

Ananthapuramu.

13.In view of rival contentions, the entire evidence is perused.

14.Point No.(1):-

The prosecution placed reliance on the evidence of PW.1, to prove the guilt of accused for the above offences. The evidence of PW1 shows that On 3.2.2022 at //6// about 4.00 p.m., He went to vegetable market, old town, Ananthapuramu on his

TVS XL motorcycle bearing No.AP02 BD 3125 and He parked the said vehicle in front of Prakash Old gunny bag shop and went inside the vegetable market and returned after 20 minutes, he found that the motorcycle which was parked was stolen by some unknown offender and he searched for the same. But in vain. On 8.2.2025 he made Ex.P1/ written complaint to police.Police examined him and recorded his statement. Police informed him after 10 days that his motorcycle was recovered and the same was identified by him. Today police brought the recovered case property/ MO.1 / TVS XL motorcycle bearing No.AP02 BD 3125.MO.1 is returned to Pw.1 on requisition.

15.The evidence of PW4 goes to show that on 08.02.2025 at 11.00 a.m., while he was present in Police station, PW.1 came to Police Station and gave report basing on the same he registered a Ex.P3/ case in Cr.No.41/2025 for the offence punishable under section 303(2) of BNS. He submitted copies of FIR to all concerned officers. Thereafter he examined PW.1, LW.2, LW.3 and recorded their statements. He visited the scene of offence situated at near Tadipatri bus stop, Tilak road, Ananthapuramu. There he inspected the scene and drawn Ex. P4/ rough sketch. Thereafter he handover the case file to PW.3 for further investigation.

16.On perusal of evidence of record, none including the accused, either disputed that PW1 is the husband of the owner of MO1, or claimed the said property, as his own. In such circumstances, the Court is of the view that the evidence of PW1 supported by PW4 coupled with the contents of Ex.P1, Ex.P4 clinchingly establishes that MO1 belongs to PW1 and the same was stolen from his possession, prior to the alleged recovery, beyond the reasonable doubt.

Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in favour of the prosecution.

//7//

17. Point No. 2:-

On coming to the charge for the offence punishable under section 303(2) of

BNS, it has to be seen as to whether the prosecution is able to establish that the accused had committed theft of MO1, as alleged. Admittedly, PW1 did not identify the accused as the person who committed theft and there is no positive evidence showing that the accused committed theft of MO1 from the vegetable market that belongs to PW1. But PW1 is not the eye witnesses to the incident. Therefore, no witness has seen that the accused committed the offence and moreover, no Test

Identification Parade of the accused was conducted and no incriminating material found against the accused at the scene of offence. Further, PW4 also admitted that the case was registered against unknown offenders. As such, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt for the offence punishable under sections 303(2) of

BNS. Accordingly, the point No.2 is answered against the prosecution.

18.Point No.3 and 4:-

Now, it has to be seen as to whether the prosecution is able to establish that the said stolen properties were recovered from the possession of the accused under section 317(2) of BNS.

Dishonestly receiving stolen property :-“Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with an imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both”.

In order to prove the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under section 317(2) of BNS, the prosecution has to establish the following aspects:

Whether MO. 1 is the stolen properties of PW1 and respectively?

As per the discussion in point No.1, the prosecution has successfully proved that MO.1 is the stolen properties of PW1 respectively and though PW1 was cross examined on that aspect that no theft of MO.1 was committed even then a false //8// report was preferred, but nothing could be elicited in their cross examination, except denying the suggestions. On considering the above, the Court is of the opinion that MO.1 is the stolen properties of PW1 and according the point is answered in favour of the prosecution.

19.Whether MO1 along with other properties were recovered from the possession of the accused?

To prove this aspect, the prosecution has examined Pws 2 & 3. Among them,

PW2 is the mediator and PW3 and 4 are the investigation officers. As per the evidence of PW3, he received credible information on 11.02.2025 at 10.45 am, he secured the presence of mediators/PW.2 and LW.5 and proceeded to Mirchi yard circle, Anantapuramu to gooty road and on seeing them one person tried to skulk away. Then with the assistance of his staff he apprehended him and on enquiry he revealed his identity particulars as mentioned in the charge sheet and voluntarily confessed about the commission of offence and basing on his confession, recovered the theft vehicles from his possession. Theft vehicles bearing Nos. AP02

AJ 0876 and another motorcycle bearing No.AP02 BD 3125 in Cr.No.42 and 41/2025 respectively. He arrested the accused in Cr.No.42/2025 and under cover of arrest, confession and seizure mahazarnama/Ex.P2. Then He arrested the accused and produced before the Judicial custody in Cr.No.42/2025. Later on 25.02.2025, he produced the accused on P.T Warrant in the present case. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

20. PW2 who is the crucial witness in this case and who acted as mediator categorically deposed in the similar lines of PW3 with regard to the apprehension of accused recording confession and seizure of stolen property relating to other crimes from accused including this case property. Though PW2 was cross examined at length by the learned counsel for accused, but nothing could be //9// elicited from his evidence in favor of defence thus the evidence of PW2 & PW3 is corroborating with each other and inconsistently proved that they found accused at the place of arrest and recovered MO1 from the possession of the accused.

21.It is a well settled principle that if a person is found to be in possession of stolen property soon after the theft, it is presumed Section 114(a) of Indian

Evidence Act that he is a thief or is a person keeping the stolen property being fully aware that it is a stolen property. Further, it is also the settled principle that the confession made before the police officer is hit by Section 25 of Indian Evidence

Act, while the confession leading to the recovery of the property is only admissible under section 27 of Indian Evidence Act. In the present case also though the confessions stated by the accused is not admissible in evidence, in pursuance to the confession of accused, the accused was in possession of the case property in the present case and in other cases. The contents of Ex.P2 coupled with the contents of Ex.P1 & P3 shows that PW1 property was stolen and the same was recovered from the possession of the accused as such it is admissible in evidence.

Further, the accused failed to explain as to why he is in possession of the stolen property and also failed to account for the same. To establish Section 317(2) of

BNS, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in Mahabir Sao Vs.

State [AIR 1972 SC 642], wherein it was held that “in order to convict a person of having received stolen property who knew it to be stolen or had reason to believe that it was stolen, two essential ingredients must be satisfied i.e., (1) Identification of property and (2) its possession by the accused” and further, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in Trimbak Vs. State. [AIR 1954 SC 39], wherein it was held that “the stolen property was in the possession of the accused and before the accused got possession, it must be in the possession of some other person than the accused and the accused had knowledge that the property was stolen”.

//10//

22.Admittedly, in the present case on hand, PW1 identified MO.1, belong to him and committed theft by some unknown persons which were recovered from the possession of accused who could not account for the same. Hence, this Court is of the view that the prosecution could able to prove the offence punishable under section 317(2) of BNS against the accused.

23.In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that though the prosecution failed to establish that the accused is the person who has committed the offence of theft of MO.1 belonging to PW1 , but it proved that MO.1 is the stolen properties of PW1 and the accused is found to be in possession of stolen properties soon after the theft without accounting for the same. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the prosecution and against accused.

24.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 303(2) of BNS and accordingly, he is acquitted for the said offence under section 271(1) of BNSS.

But the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 317(2) of BNS and accordingly, he is convicted under section 271(2) of BNSS.

(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in Court, this the 11 th day of April, 2025).

Sd/- E. Prathiba

I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Anantapuramu. FAC Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Anantapuramu.

The Accused is explained with regard to the punishment that can be imposed under section 317(2) of BNS that he can be punished with an imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

//11//

When the accused is questioned about the sentence, he stated that he is the only bread winner of his family and he has to look after his old age parents, wife and 11 years son and they are dependent on me. Thus, he pleaded mercy in imposing sentence and to set off the detention period.

On considering the facts of the case, since the accused is involved in similar offences, the Court is of the view that it is not a fit case to apply the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act. However, in view of the submissions of the accused with regard to condition of his family, the Court is inclined to take balanced view in imposing sentence.

Therefore, the accused is sentenced to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of THREE MONTHS for the offence punishable Under Section 317(2) of BNS.

Both the sentences ie., the sentence in CC. No. 85 of 2025 and in CC. No. 110 of 2025 shall run concurrently.

The detention period undergone by the accused for the period from 25.02.2025 to till date ie., 11.04.2025 (both days inclusive) shall be set off under Section 514 of BNSS, 2023 against his sentence of imprisonment.

MO.1 was already given to the interim custody of PW1 and the same shall holds good and becomes absolute after expiry of appeal time.

The accused is informed of his right to prefer an appeal against the Calendar and Judgment of this court. When he is asked about his means to prefer an appeal, he stated that he need legal aid.

(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in Court, this the 11 th day of April, 2025).

Sd/- E. Prathiba

I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Anantapuramu. FAC Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Anantapuramu.

//12//

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution

PW1:P. Gangaiah PW2:K. Suresh Reddy PW3:G. Rajendranath yadav PW4:Y. Marenna

Defence

NIL

Exhibits marked for the Prosecution

Ex.P1:Report of PW1. Ex.P2:Certified copy of Mahazarnama Ex.P3:Original FIR Ex.P4:Rough Sketch

Exhibits marked for the Defence

NIL

Material objects marked on behalf of

ProsecutionDefence NIL MO1:TVS XL motorcycle bearing Reg.No.AP 02 BD 3125. (Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in Court, this the 11 th day of April, 2025).

Sd/- E. Prathiba

I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Anantapuramu. FAC Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Anantapuramu.

//True Copy//

FAC Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Anantapuramu.

//13//

CALENDAR CASES TRIED

IN THE COURT OF PRL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

ANANTAPURAMU

Calendar Case No.110 of 2025

Crime No.41 of 2025 of Anantapuramu I Town Police Station

The State represented by:- Inspector of Police, Anantapuramu I Town Police Station, …Complainant.

Mangali Rama Mohan, aged 40 years S/o late keshanna Mangala, N/o Chintala Cheruvu Village, Pedda Vaduguru mandal, Ananthapuramu. Now R/o Jakkalacheruvu(V), Gooty (M), Anantapuramu District. …… Accused.

Date of Report or Appearance/ Released Commence Close of Sentence

Offence Complaint Apprehensio on bail ment of trial Order

n of the trial

accused 03.02.202208.02.202225.02.2025UTP17.03.202501.04.202511.04.2025

Offence :-offence punishable under section 303(2) or 317(2) of BNS, 2023.

Finding :- Found guilty for the offence punishable under section 317(2) of BNS, 2023.

Sentence of Order:-

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 303(2) of BNS and accordingly, he is acquitted for the said offence under section 271(1) of BNSS.

But the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 317(2) of BNS and accordingly, he is convicted under section 271(2) of BNSS.

//14//

Therefore, the accused is sentenced to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of THREE MONTHS for the offence punishable Under Section 317(2) of

BNS.

Both the sentences ie., the sentence in CC. No. 85 of 2025 and in CC. No. 110 of 2025 shall run concurrently.

The detention period undergone by the accused for the period from 25.02.2025 to till date ie., 11.04.2025 (both days inclusive) shall be set off under Section 514 of BNSS, 2023 against his sentence of imprisonment.

MO.1 was already given to the interim custody of PW1 and the same shall holds good and becomes absolute after expiry of appeal time.

The accused is informed of his right to prefer an appeal against the Calendar and Judgment of this court. When he is asked about his means to prefer an appeal, he stated that he need legal aid.

Sd/- E. Prathiba

I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Anantapuramu.

FAC/Judicial Magistrate of I Class.

Ananthapuramu.

Copy Submitted :-

1. The Hon’ble First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Anantapuramu.

//True Copy//

FAC Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Anantapuramu.

1

BEFORE THE JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD, ANANTAPURAMU.

Present: Smt. E. Prathiba,

Principal Magistrate,

Juvenile Justice Board, Anantapuramu.

Smt. H. Adinarayanamma, Board member Sri. Y. Sreenivasulu, Board Member

Friday, the Eleventh day of April,

Two Thousand and Twenty Five

(11.04.2025)

Juvenile Calendar Case No.16 of 2024

(Crime No.67 of 2018 of OD. Cheruvu Police Station) Between:-

The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Child Welfare Police Officer / Sub Inspector of Police, OD. Cheruvu Police Station.

...complainant.

AND CCL Boreddy Adikesavareddy, aged 17 years, S/o Venkataramireddy, Donnikotavaripalli village, OD Cheruvu Mandal. ( Rider of motor cycle bearing No. AP04 AY2078) Child in conflict with law * * * * *

This case came on 07.04.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and CCL appeared before the Juvenile Justice Board, Anantapuramu and upon hearing both sides and on perusing the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day and this Board, delivers the following:-

F I N A L O R D E R

1.The Child welfare officer / Inspector of Police, OD. Cheruvu Police Station filed final information report against the child in conflict with law (herein after to be referred as CCL for the sake of convenience and brevity) in Crime No.67 of 2018 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 337 and 338 of Indian Penal Code, with the following allegations:

2.As per the contents of Final report, LW1/K. Ramanjineyulu is the defacto complainant and injured and he is earning his living by doing coolie work. On 14.12.2018 at 06.30, himself along with his brother/LW2 left in a motor cycle bearing No. AP02 CC 0199 in order to reach OD Cheruvu village. They were about to reach the destination, meanwhile CCL who was driving motor cycle bearing No.

AP02AY2078 along with two pillion riders drove in rash and negligent manner and dashed the motor cycle of LW1 near Babasahebpalli village cross road. As a result,

LW1 sustained bleeding injuries, LW2 sustained swelling injuries and Lws 3, 4 &

CCL sustained bleeding injuries. Thereafter, they were shifted to Government

General Hospital, Kadiri for treatment.

Later, basing on the statement of LW1, LW9 registered this case for the offence punishable under Section 337 Indian Penal Code and started investigation.

He examined and recorded statements of witnesses, further he examined the crime scene and drafted rough sketch of scene of offence. Later on 20.01.2019, he served Section 41A of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 notice to CCL. Further,

LW7/ Medical Officer of Government General Hospital, Kadiri who treated Lws 1 to 4 opined that the injuries sustained by Lws 1 & 2 are grievous in nature and the injuries sustained by Lws 3 & 4 are simple in nature. Then, basing on the opinion of

LW7, altered the Section of law 338 Indian Penal Code Thus prosecution ascertained that CCL had committed the said offences and liable for the same.

2. On 26.04.2024, on perusal of the record, the Board took cognizance of case against CCL for the offence punishable under section 337 & 338 of Indian Penal 3

Code.

3. On 26.04.2024, copies of documents were furnished to the CCL as required under section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

5.On 03.05.2024, the Board examined the CCL under section 251 of Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 by explaining the substance of accusation leveled against the CCL for the offences punishable under sections 337 & 338 of Indian

Penal Code, for which he denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case was posted for inquiry.

6.During the course of inquiry, the prosecution has examined LW1, 2, 3, 5, 6 & 8 as PWs 1 to 6 respectively and got marked Exs.P1 to P13. The prosecution has given up the remaining witnesses.

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the CCL was examined under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by explaining the incriminating prosecution evidence in Telugu, for which he denied the incriminating material and reported no defence evidence.

8.The stand of the CCL is of total denial.

9.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of PW6 is sufficient to hold that the CCL committed the offence and therefore, the CCL is liable for the said offence.

10.On the other hand, the learned defence counsel argued that PWs 1 to 5 being the crucial witnesses did not support the case of prosecution. Hence, their evidence is not sufficient to establish that the CCL committed offence, Hence the 4

CCL is entitled for benefit of doubt.

11. Heard arguments of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned defence counsel. Perused the entire record.

12. Now the points that arise for determination are as follows :-

1. Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of CCL for the

offence punishable under section 337 of Indian Penal Code, beyond the

reasonable doubts?

2. Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of CCL for the

offence punishable under section 338 of Indian Penal Code, beyond the

reasonable doubts?

13.POINTS No.1 & 2:

Points No.1 & 2 are answered together for the sake of convenience, as they are inter linked and inter related with each other :

14.In order to prove its case, the prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of

PWs 1 to 6 coupled with Ex.P1 to P13. Among them, PW1 is the defacto- complainant and injured. PW2 & 3 are injured persons. PW4 & PW5 are eye witnesses and PW6 is Investigation officer. Ex.P1 is the signature of PW1. Ex.P2 is contents of report. Ex.P3 to P7 are the statements of PWs 1 to 5 respectively recorded under section 161(3) of Criminal Procedure Code. Ex.P8 is First

Information Report. Ex.P9 is rough sketch. Ex.P10 to Ex.P13 are the respective wound certificates of Lws 1, 2, 4 & 3.

15.PWs1 to 5 are said to be the kith and kin of this case did not adduce evidence against the CCL. PW1 simply deposed that in the month of December 5 2018, on one day at about 06.00PM, he was going to ODC from his village

Nallaguntapalli at that time one vehicle came opposite to him and dashed him and the said vehicle did not stop as such he did not see the person who is driving and also the vehicle name. Due to the said incident he sustained scratched injuries. But on one day police obtained his Ex.P1 signature on some written papers. He was confronted and identified his Ex.P1 signature. But he do not know the contents of the same. Police never examined him and never recorded his statements.

Thereafter PW2 also goes to show that of similar lines as that of PW1. Later, PWs 3 to 5 who are the eye witnesses simply deposed that they do not know anything about the facts of this case, they did not witness any incident. Police never examined them and never recorded their statements. As PW1 to PW5 did not support the prosecution version in material aspects, the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor has declared them as hostile and cross examined them with the permission of the Board. Nothing was elicited from their evidence which helps the prosecution to prove the material allegations leveled against the CCL.

16.The only evidence left on record is the evidence of PW6 who is the investigating officer and his evidence goes to show that on 15.12.2018 at about 11.00AM, while he was present in police station, he received medical intimation along with statement of PW1 from Area hospital Kadiri. Basing on the same, he registered a case in Cr. no. 67 of 2018 for the offences punishable under Section 337 Indian Penal Code and issued copies of Ex.P8 First Information Report.

Thereafter, he visited Area hospital and there, he secured the presence of PWs 1 to 3 and LW4, examined them and recorded their statements. Thereafter, he proceeded to scene of offence situated at Babasahebpalli cross road, OD cheruvu mandal. There, he inspected the scene and drafted Ex.P9 rough sketch. At the scene, he secured the presence of LW4 and LW5, examined them and recorded their statements. Thereafter, he handedover the case file to LW9 who verified his investigation ad thereafter o 20.01.2019 at about 11.30AM, LW9 served Section 6 41A cprc notice to CCL in the presennce of his father and further received Ex.P10 to Ex.P13 wound certificates of PWs 1 to 3 and LW4 respectively. Basing on the opinion of wound certificate, LW9 alter the section of LW1 to 338 Indian Penal Code and thereafter handed over the case file to LW10 who perused the investigation of

LW8 & LW9 and filed final report.

17.As could be seen the evidence of PW6 only disclose the investigation procedure followed by him in the course of his investigation which is not useful for the accusation of CCL for the offences alleged. And further this board relied on the decision reported in 1994 (2) ALT CRL 69 AP

Boccha Raju [Accused/Petitioner]

Vs

State represented by the Inspector of Police [Respondent/Complainant]

Vijaya Nagaram Rural circle

In the above judgment lordship opined in para (2)----"but all the said witnesses have turned hostile and nothing could be elicited from them, so as to base conviction against the petitioner. The evidence of PW5, PW8 and PW9 who are all Police Officers can not be easily believable without proper corroboration by disinterested witnesses". Therefore in view of insufficient, cogent, corroborative evidence and in view of non supported by the direct witness this board hesitate to believe the version of prosecution.

18.Hence, from the above discussion this board is of opinion that the evidence of prosecution i.e., PW6 is not sufficient to prove the case of the prosecution for the alleged offence, which shows the lack of evidence to prove the offence against CCL for the offences punishable under sections 337 & 338 of Indian Penal Code 1860 beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence the point No.1 & 2 are answered in favor of

CCL against prosecution.

7

19. In the result, the CCL is found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 337 & 338 of Indian Penal Code. Hence, he is acquitted under section 255(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the said offences and he is set at liberty. The bail bonds of parents and sureties of CCL shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437-A of Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973. No property is either marked or produced before this Board.

(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Board, this the 11th day of April, 2025).

1) 2)

Members Principal Magistrate,

Juvenile Justice Board Juvenile Justice Board

Anantapuramu. Anantapuramu.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution

PW1: K. Ramanjineyulu.

PW2: P. Anjineyulu.

PW3: Y. Eswarreddy.

PW4: Cheruvu Krishnareddy.

PW5: K. Venkataramana.

PW6: P. Siva Prasad.

Defence

NIL

Exhibits marked for the Prosecution

Ex.P1: Signature of PW1 on report.

Ex.P2: Contents of report.

Ex.P3: Statement of PW1 recorded under section 161(3) of Criminal Procedure Code.

8

Ex.P4: Statement of PW2 recorded under section 161(3) of Criminal Procedure Code.

Ex.P5: Statement of PW3 recorded under section 161(3) of Criminal Procedure Code.

Ex.P6: Statement of PW4 recorded under section 161(3) of Criminal Procedure Code.

Ex.P7: Statement of PW5 recorded under section 161(3) of Criminal Procedure Code.

Ex.P8: First Information Report.

Ex.P9: Rough sketch.

Ex.P10: Wound certificate of LW1.

Ex.P11: Wound certificate of LW2.

Ex.P12: Wound certificate of LW4.

Ex.P13: Wound certificate of LW3.

Exhibits marked for the Defence

NIL

Material objects marked on behalf of

ProsecutionDefence

NILNIL

(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Board, this the 11th day of April, 2025).

Prl. Magistrate,

J.J.B., ATP.

1

BEFORE THE JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD, ANANTAPURAMU.

Present: Smt. E. Prathiba,

Principal Magistrate,

Juvenile Justice Board, Anantapuramu.

Smt. H. Adinarayanamma, Board member Sri. Y. Sreenivasulu, Board Member

Friday, the Eleventh day of April,

Two Thousand and Twenty Five

(11.04.2025)

Juvenile Calendar Case No.16 of 2024

(Crime No.67 of 2018 of OD. Cheruvu Police Station) Between:-

The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Child Welfare Police Officer / Sub Inspector of Police, OD. Cheruvu Police Station.

...complainant.

AND CCL Boreddy Adikesavareddy, aged 17 years, S/o Venkataramireddy, Donnikotavaripalli village, OD Cheruvu Mandal. ( Rider of motor cycle bearing No. AP04 AY2078) Child in conflict with law * * * * *

This case came on 07.04.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and CCL appeared before the Juvenile Justice Board, Anantapuramu and upon hearing both sides and on perusing the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day and this Board, delivers the following:-

F I N A L O R D E R

1.The Child welfare officer / Inspector of Police, OD. Cheruvu Police Station filed final information report against the child in conflict with law (herein after to be referred as CCL for the sake of convenience and brevity) in Crime No.67 of 2018 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 337 and 338 of Indian Penal Code, with the following allegations:

2.As per the contents of Final report, LW1/K. Ramanjineyulu is the defacto complainant and injured and he is earning his living by doing coolie work. On 14.12.2018 at 06.30, himself along with his brother/LW2 left in a motor cycle bearing No. AP02 CC 0199 in order to reach OD Cheruvu village. They were about to reach the destination, meanwhile CCL who was driving motor cycle bearing No.

AP02AY2078 along with two pillion riders drove in rash and negligent manner and dashed the motor cycle of LW1 near Babasahebpalli village cross road. As a result,

LW1 sustained bleeding injuries, LW2 sustained swelling injuries and Lws 3, 4 &

CCL sustained bleeding injuries. Thereafter, they were shifted to Government

General Hospital, Kadiri for treatment.

Later, basing on the statement of LW1, LW9 registered this case for the offence punishable under Section 337 Indian Penal Code and started investigation.

He examined and recorded statements of witnesses, further he examined the crime scene and drafted rough sketch of scene of offence. Later on 20.01.2019, he served Section 41A of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 notice to CCL. Further,

LW7/ Medical Officer of Government General Hospital, Kadiri who treated Lws 1 to 4 opined that the injuries sustained by Lws 1 & 2 are grievous in nature and the injuries sustained by Lws 3 & 4 are simple in nature. Then, basing on the opinion of

LW7, altered the Section of law 338 Indian Penal Code Thus prosecution ascertained that CCL had committed the said offences and liable for the same.

2. On 26.04.2024, on perusal of the record, the Board took cognizance of case against CCL for the offence punishable under section 337 & 338 of Indian Penal 3

Code.

3. On 26.04.2024, copies of documents were furnished to the CCL as required under section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

5.On 03.05.2024, the Board examined the CCL under section 251 of Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 by explaining the substance of accusation leveled against the CCL for the offences punishable under sections 337 & 338 of Indian

Penal Code, for which he denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case was posted for inquiry.

6.During the course of inquiry, the prosecution has examined LW1, 2, 3, 5, 6 & 8 as PWs 1 to 6 respectively and got marked Exs.P1 to P13. The prosecution has given up the remaining witnesses.

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the CCL was examined under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by explaining the incriminating prosecution evidence in Telugu, for which he denied the incriminating material and reported no defence evidence.

8.The stand of the CCL is of total denial.

9.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of PW6 is sufficient to hold that the CCL committed the offence and therefore, the CCL is liable for the said offence.

10.On the other hand, the learned defence counsel argued that PWs 1 to 5 being the crucial witnesses did not support the case of prosecution. Hence, their evidence is not sufficient to establish that the CCL committed offence, Hence the 4

CCL is entitled for benefit of doubt.

11. Heard arguments of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned defence counsel. Perused the entire record.

12. Now the points that arise for determination are as follows :-

1. Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of CCL for the

offence punishable under section 337 of Indian Penal Code, beyond the

reasonable doubts?

2. Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of CCL for the

offence punishable under section 338 of Indian Penal Code, beyond the

reasonable doubts?

13.POINTS No.1 & 2:

Points No.1 & 2 are answered together for the sake of convenience, as they are inter linked and inter related with each other :

14.In order to prove its case, the prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of

PWs 1 to 6 coupled with Ex.P1 to P13. Among them, PW1 is the defacto- complainant and injured. PW2 & 3 are injured persons. PW4 & PW5 are eye witnesses and PW6 is Investigation officer. Ex.P1 is the signature of PW1. Ex.P2 is contents of report. Ex.P3 to P7 are the statements of PWs 1 to 5 respectively recorded under section 161(3) of Criminal Procedure Code. Ex.P8 is First

Information Report. Ex.P9 is rough sketch. Ex.P10 to Ex.P13 are the respective wound certificates of Lws 1, 2, 4 & 3.

15.PWs1 to 5 are said to be the kith and kin of this case did not adduce evidence against the CCL. PW1 simply deposed that in the month of December 5 2018, on one day at about 06.00PM, he was going to ODC from his village

Nallaguntapalli at that time one vehicle came opposite to him and dashed him and the said vehicle did not stop as such he did not see the person who is driving and also the vehicle name. Due to the said incident he sustained scratched injuries. But on one day police obtained his Ex.P1 signature on some written papers. He was confronted and identified his Ex.P1 signature. But he do not know the contents of the same. Police never examined him and never recorded his statements.

Thereafter PW2 also goes to show that of similar lines as that of PW1. Later, PWs 3 to 5 who are the eye witnesses simply deposed that they do not know anything about the facts of this case, they did not witness any incident. Police never examined them and never recorded their statements. As PW1 to PW5 did not support the prosecution version in material aspects, the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor has declared them as hostile and cross examined them with the permission of the Board. Nothing was elicited from their evidence which helps the prosecution to prove the material allegations leveled against the CCL.

16.The only evidence left on record is the evidence of PW6 who is the investigating officer and his evidence goes to show that on 15.12.2018 at about 11.00AM, while he was present in police station, he received medical intimation along with statement of PW1 from Area hospital Kadiri. Basing on the same, he registered a case in Cr. no. 67 of 2018 for the offences punishable under Section 337 Indian Penal Code and issued copies of Ex.P8 First Information Report.

Thereafter, he visited Area hospital and there, he secured the presence of PWs 1 to 3 and LW4, examined them and recorded their statements. Thereafter, he proceeded to scene of offence situated at Babasahebpalli cross road, OD cheruvu mandal. There, he inspected the scene and drafted Ex.P9 rough sketch. At the scene, he secured the presence of LW4 and LW5, examined them and recorded their statements. Thereafter, he handedover the case file to LW9 who verified his investigation ad thereafter o 20.01.2019 at about 11.30AM, LW9 served Section 6 41A cprc notice to CCL in the presennce of his father and further received Ex.P10 to Ex.P13 wound certificates of PWs 1 to 3 and LW4 respectively. Basing on the opinion of wound certificate, LW9 alter the section of LW1 to 338 Indian Penal Code and thereafter handed over the case file to LW10 who perused the investigation of

LW8 & LW9 and filed final report.

17.As could be seen the evidence of PW6 only disclose the investigation procedure followed by him in the course of his investigation which is not useful for the accusation of CCL for the offences alleged. And further this board relied on the decision reported in 1994 (2) ALT CRL 69 AP

Boccha Raju [Accused/Petitioner]

Vs

State represented by the Inspector of Police [Respondent/Complainant]

Vijaya Nagaram Rural circle

In the above judgment lordship opined in para (2)----"but all the said witnesses have turned hostile and nothing could be elicited from them, so as to base conviction against the petitioner. The evidence of PW5, PW8 and PW9 who are all Police Officers can not be easily believable without proper corroboration by disinterested witnesses". Therefore in view of insufficient, cogent, corroborative evidence and in view of non supported by the direct witness this board hesitate to believe the version of prosecution.

18.Hence, from the above discussion this board is of opinion that the evidence of prosecution i.e., PW6 is not sufficient to prove the case of the prosecution for the alleged offence, which shows the lack of evidence to prove the offence against CCL for the offences punishable under sections 337 & 338 of Indian Penal Code 1860 beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence the point No.1 & 2 are answered in favor of

CCL against prosecution.

7

19. In the result, the CCL is found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 337 & 338 of Indian Penal Code. Hence, he is acquitted under section 255(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the said offences and he is set at liberty. The bail bonds of parents and sureties of CCL shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437-A of Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973. No property is either marked or produced before this Board.

(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Board, this the 11th day of April, 2025).

1) 2)

Members Principal Magistrate,

Juvenile Justice Board Juvenile Justice Board

Anantapuramu. Anantapuramu.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution

PW1: K. Ramanjineyulu.

PW2: P. Anjineyulu.

PW3: Y. Eswarreddy.

PW4: Cheruvu Krishnareddy.

PW5: K. Venkataramana.

PW6: P. Siva Prasad.

Defence

NIL

Exhibits marked for the Prosecution

Ex.P1: Signature of PW1 on report.

Ex.P2: Contents of report.

Ex.P3: Statement of PW1 recorded under section 161(3) of Criminal Procedure Code.

8

Ex.P4: Statement of PW2 recorded under section 161(3) of Criminal Procedure Code.

Ex.P5: Statement of PW3 recorded under section 161(3) of Criminal Procedure Code.

Ex.P6: Statement of PW4 recorded under section 161(3) of Criminal Procedure Code.

Ex.P7: Statement of PW5 recorded under section 161(3) of Criminal Procedure Code.

Ex.P8: First Information Report.

Ex.P9: Rough sketch.

Ex.P10: Wound certificate of LW1.

Ex.P11: Wound certificate of LW2.

Ex.P12: Wound certificate of LW4.

Ex.P13: Wound certificate of LW3.

Exhibits marked for the Defence

NIL

Material objects marked on behalf of

ProsecutionDefence

NILNIL

(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Board, this the 11th day of April, 2025).

Prl. Magistrate,

J.J.B., ATP.

1

BEFORE THE JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD, ANANTAPURAMU.

Present: Smt. E. Prathiba,

Principal Magistrate,

Juvenile Justice Board, Anantapuramu.

Smt. H. Adinarayanamma, Board member Sri. Y. Sreenivasulu, Board Member

Friday, the Eleventh day of April,

Two Thousand and Twenty Five

(11.04.2025)

Juvenile Calendar Case No.16 of 2024

(Crime No.67 of 2018 of OD. Cheruvu Police Station) Between:-

The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Child Welfare Police Officer / Sub Inspector of Police, OD. Cheruvu Police Station.

...complainant.

AND CCL Boreddy Adikesavareddy, aged 17 years, S/o Venkataramireddy, Donnikotavaripalli village, OD Cheruvu Mandal. ( Rider of motor cycle bearing No. AP04 AY2078) Child in conflict with law * * * * *

This case came on 07.04.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and CCL appeared before the Juvenile Justice Board, Anantapuramu and upon hearing both sides and on perusing the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day and this Board, delivers the following:-

F I N A L O R D E R

1.The Child welfare officer / Inspector of Police, OD. Cheruvu Police Station filed final information report against the child in conflict with law (herein after to be referred as CCL for the sake of convenience and brevity) in Crime No.67 of 2018 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 337 and 338 of Indian Penal Code, with the following allegations:

2.As per the contents of Final report, LW1/K. Ramanjineyulu is the defacto complainant and injured and he is earning his living by doing coolie work. On 14.12.2018 at 06.30, himself along with his brother/LW2 left in a motor cycle bearing No. AP02 CC 0199 in order to reach OD Cheruvu village. They were about to reach the destination, meanwhile CCL who was driving motor cycle bearing No.

AP02AY2078 along with two pillion riders drove in rash and negligent manner and dashed the motor cycle of LW1 near Babasahebpalli village cross road. As a result,

LW1 sustained bleeding injuries, LW2 sustained swelling injuries and Lws 3, 4 &

CCL sustained bleeding injuries. Thereafter, they were shifted to Government

General Hospital, Kadiri for treatment.

Later, basing on the statement of LW1, LW9 registered this case for the offence punishable under Section 337 Indian Penal Code and started investigation.

He examined and recorded statements of witnesses, further he examined the crime scene and drafted rough sketch of scene of offence. Later on 20.01.2019, he served Section 41A of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 notice to CCL. Further,

LW7/ Medical Officer of Government General Hospital, Kadiri who treated Lws 1 to 4 opined that the injuries sustained by Lws 1 & 2 are grievous in nature and the injuries sustained by Lws 3 & 4 are simple in nature. Then, basing on the opinion of

LW7, altered the Section of law 338 Indian Penal Code Thus prosecution ascertained that CCL had committed the said offences and liable for the same.

2. On 26.04.2024, on perusal of the record, the Board took cognizance of case against CCL for the offence punishable under section 337 & 338 of Indian Penal 3

Code.

3. On 26.04.2024, copies of documents were furnished to the CCL as required under section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

5.On 03.05.2024, the Board examined the CCL under section 251 of Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 by explaining the substance of accusation leveled against the CCL for the offences punishable under sections 337 & 338 of Indian

Penal Code, for which he denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case was posted for inquiry.

6.During the course of inquiry, the prosecution has examined LW1, 2, 3, 5, 6 & 8 as PWs 1 to 6 respectively and got marked Exs.P1 to P13. The prosecution has given up the remaining witnesses.

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the CCL was examined under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by explaining the incriminating prosecution evidence in Telugu, for which he denied the incriminating material and reported no defence evidence.

8.The stand of the CCL is of total denial.

9.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of PW6 is sufficient to hold that the CCL committed the offence and therefore, the CCL is liable for the said offence.

10.On the other hand, the learned defence counsel argued that PWs 1 to 5 being the crucial witnesses did not support the case of prosecution. Hence, their evidence is not sufficient to establish that the CCL committed offence, Hence the 4

CCL is entitled for benefit of doubt.

11. Heard arguments of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned defence counsel. Perused the entire record.

12. Now the points that arise for determination are as follows :-

1. Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of CCL for the

offence punishable under section 337 of Indian Penal Code, beyond the

reasonable doubts?

2. Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of CCL for the

offence punishable under section 338 of Indian Penal Code, beyond the

reasonable doubts?

13.POINTS No.1 & 2:

Points No.1 & 2 are answered together for the sake of convenience, as they are inter linked and inter related with each other :

14.In order to prove its case, the prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of

PWs 1 to 6 coupled with Ex.P1 to P13. Among them, PW1 is the defacto- complainant and injured. PW2 & 3 are injured persons. PW4 & PW5 are eye witnesses and PW6 is Investigation officer. Ex.P1 is the signature of PW1. Ex.P2 is contents of report. Ex.P3 to P7 are the statements of PWs 1 to 5 respectively recorded under section 161(3) of Criminal Procedure Code. Ex.P8 is First

Information Report. Ex.P9 is rough sketch. Ex.P10 to Ex.P13 are the respective wound certificates of Lws 1, 2, 4 & 3.

15.PWs1 to 5 are said to be the kith and kin of this case did not adduce evidence against the CCL. PW1 simply deposed that in the month of December 5 2018, on one day at about 06.00PM, he was going to ODC from his village

Nallaguntapalli at that time one vehicle came opposite to him and dashed him and the said vehicle did not stop as such he did not see the person who is driving and also the vehicle name. Due to the said incident he sustained scratched injuries. But on one day police obtained his Ex.P1 signature on some written papers. He was confronted and identified his Ex.P1 signature. But he do not know the contents of the same. Police never examined him and never recorded his statements.

Thereafter PW2 also goes to show that of similar lines as that of PW1. Later, PWs 3 to 5 who are the eye witnesses simply deposed that they do not know anything about the facts of this case, they did not witness any incident. Police never examined them and never recorded their statements. As PW1 to PW5 did not support the prosecution version in material aspects, the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor has declared them as hostile and cross examined them with the permission of the Board. Nothing was elicited from their evidence which helps the prosecution to prove the material allegations leveled against the CCL.

16.The only evidence left on record is the evidence of PW6 who is the investigating officer and his evidence goes to show that on 15.12.2018 at about 11.00AM, while he was present in police station, he received medical intimation along with statement of PW1 from Area hospital Kadiri. Basing on the same, he registered a case in Cr. no. 67 of 2018 for the offences punishable under Section 337 Indian Penal Code and issued copies of Ex.P8 First Information Report.

Thereafter, he visited Area hospital and there, he secured the presence of PWs 1 to 3 and LW4, examined them and recorded their statements. Thereafter, he proceeded to scene of offence situated at Babasahebpalli cross road, OD cheruvu mandal. There, he inspected the scene and drafted Ex.P9 rough sketch. At the scene, he secured the presence of LW4 and LW5, examined them and recorded their statements. Thereafter, he handedover the case file to LW9 who verified his investigation ad thereafter o 20.01.2019 at about 11.30AM, LW9 served Section 6 41A cprc notice to CCL in the presennce of his father and further received Ex.P10 to Ex.P13 wound certificates of PWs 1 to 3 and LW4 respectively. Basing on the opinion of wound certificate, LW9 alter the section of LW1 to 338 Indian Penal Code and thereafter handed over the case file to LW10 who perused the investigation of

LW8 & LW9 and filed final report.

17.As could be seen the evidence of PW6 only disclose the investigation procedure followed by him in the course of his investigation which is not useful for the accusation of CCL for the offences alleged. And further this board relied on the decision reported in 1994 (2) ALT CRL 69 AP

Boccha Raju [Accused/Petitioner]

Vs

State represented by the Inspector of Police [Respondent/Complainant]

Vijaya Nagaram Rural circle

In the above judgment lordship opined in para (2)----"but all the said witnesses have turned hostile and nothing could be elicited from them, so as to base conviction against the petitioner. The evidence of PW5, PW8 and PW9 who are all Police Officers can not be easily believable without proper corroboration by disinterested witnesses". Therefore in view of insufficient, cogent, corroborative evidence and in view of non supported by the direct witness this board hesitate to believe the version of prosecution.

18.Hence, from the above discussion this board is of opinion that the evidence of prosecution i.e., PW6 is not sufficient to prove the case of the prosecution for the alleged offence, which shows the lack of evidence to prove the offence against CCL for the offences punishable under sections 337 & 338 of Indian Penal Code 1860 beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence the point No.1 & 2 are answered in favor of

CCL against prosecution.

7

19. In the result, the CCL is found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 337 & 338 of Indian Penal Code. Hence, he is acquitted under section 255(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the said offences and he is set at liberty. The bail bonds of parents and sureties of CCL shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437-A of Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973. No property is either marked or produced before this Board.

(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Board, this the 11th day of April, 2025).

1) 2)

Members Principal Magistrate,

Juvenile Justice Board Juvenile Justice Board

Anantapuramu. Anantapuramu.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution

PW1: K. Ramanjineyulu.

PW2: P. Anjineyulu.

PW3: Y. Eswarreddy.

PW4: Cheruvu Krishnareddy.

PW5: K. Venkataramana.

PW6: P. Siva Prasad.

Defence

NIL

Exhibits marked for the Prosecution

Ex.P1: Signature of PW1 on report.

Ex.P2: Contents of report.

Ex.P3: Statement of PW1 recorded under section 161(3) of Criminal Procedure Code.

8

Ex.P4: Statement of PW2 recorded under section 161(3) of Criminal Procedure Code.

Ex.P5: Statement of PW3 recorded under section 161(3) of Criminal Procedure Code.

Ex.P6: Statement of PW4 recorded under section 161(3) of Criminal Procedure Code.

Ex.P7: Statement of PW5 recorded under section 161(3) of Criminal Procedure Code.

Ex.P8: First Information Report.

Ex.P9: Rough sketch.

Ex.P10: Wound certificate of LW1.

Ex.P11: Wound certificate of LW2.

Ex.P12: Wound certificate of LW4.

Ex.P13: Wound certificate of LW3.

Exhibits marked for the Defence

NIL

Material objects marked on behalf of

ProsecutionDefence

NILNIL

(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Board, this the 11th day of April, 2025).

Prl. Magistrate,

J.J.B., ATP.