Smt G. Devika

1

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. JUDICIALMAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

NELLORE.

Present: - Smt.G.Devika,

V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore

Tuesday, this the 22 nd day of April, 2025.

C.C.No.591 of 2019

Sub-Inspector of Police, Vedayapalem Police Station. … Complainant

Vs

Garithoti Vijay Kumar, s/o.Late Venkaiah, aged 32 years, SC Mala by caste, N/o.Rajupalem Harijanawada, Kodavaluru

Village & Mandal, N/o.Old Vedayapalem, Nellore city.... Accused

This case is coming on 11.04.2025 for final hearing before me and upon perusing the entire material available on record and upon hearing the arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri K.Suresh Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Vedayapalem police station filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.373/2018 & Crime

No.377/2018 for the offence under section 457,380 or 411 of Indian Penal

Code.

2. The brief averments of the prosecution case are as follows:

It is the case of prosecution alleging that on 15.11.2018 at 9.00 pm , Lw.s.1 and 2 watching TV and kept 3 cell phones and Gold chain wg about 3 sov, under cloths at TV cup board and went to sleep without closing doors. At 2.00 am on 16.11.2018, LW.1 woke up and noted 3 cell phones and Black beed chain with containing gold gundlu all are worth of

Rs.20,000/- are missing LW.1 informed to LW.2 and made searched.

Some unknown persons gain entered into the house and committed theft of 3 cell phones and gold chain wg about 3 sovereigns L.W.1 gave report.

Basing the report of LW1, L.W.9 SI of police Vedayapalem PS registered a case in Cr.No.373/2018 U/Sec.457,380 of IPC and made investigation into.

2

On 19.11.2018 at 10.00 hours L.W.4,5 went to their village at

Ongole by locking doors. On 25.11.2018 at 18.00 hours they returned to

Nellore and noted that main door was opened and Samsung TV worth of

Rs.20,000/- was found missing. Some unknown offenders gain entered into the house and committed theft. L.W.4 gave report. Basing the report of

L.W.4, L.w.10 SI of police of Vedayapalem PS registered a case in

Cr.No.377/2018 U.Sec.457,380 of IPC and made investigation into.

During the course of investigation on 30.11.2018 at 11.00 hours L.W.11 arrested the accused at eastern side of Vedayapalem

Railway station and seized a stolen property, besides other case properties of their station under the cover of mahazarnama, duly attested by the mediators L.W.7 and L.W.8. LW.10 filed PT warrant before the

Hon’ble Court and produced the accused on 21.12.2018 for judicial

remand and filed charge sheet after completion of investigation. Thus, the accused is liable for punishment under sections 457,380 or 411 of IPC.

3.Cognizance is taken for the offence under Sections 457,380 or 411 of Indian Penal Code and summons was issued to the accused.

4.On appearance of accused before this court, copies of documents as contemplated under Sec.207 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C') was furnished and when he is examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C about the substance of allegations in the charge sheet, the accused denied the same and hence charge under

Sections 457,380 or 411 of Indian Penal Code are framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.To prove its case, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to

PWs.6, got marked Exs. P1 to Ex.P8 and MO.1 and MO.2.

6.Afterclosure of prosecution evidence, accused is examined under Sec.313 Criminal Procedure Code, explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied. Accused did not choose either to examine any defence witnesses or to mark any documents on his behalf.

3

7. Heard arguments on both sides.

8. Now the points for consideration:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the

offences punishable under sections 457,380 or 411 IPC

beyond all reasonable doubt?

9.The crux of prosecution case is that about 4 years ago at old vedayapalem at 10.00 to 11.00PM un known offender gained entry in the house of the defacto complainant/lw.1/M. Kankamma broke open the door of the said house and committed theft of mobile phone and one gold chain with black beads, gold Sarudu and decamped with the booty. Basing on the report of Lw.1 a case was registered by Vedayapalem police and during the course of investigation, police arrested the accused and recovered the stolen property in this case from his possession under cover of confession and seizer mahzarnama in the presence of mediators.

10.To prove the case of prosecution, prosecution examined Pw.1 to Pw.6 and MO.1 and M.O.2. Pw.1 defacto complainant. Pw.2 independent witness, Pw.3 is the mediator for arrest of accused and seizer of stolen property, Pw.4, Pw.5 and Pw.6 are investigating officers. The evidence of LW.2 and Lw.3, 5,6,8 are given up by the learned App. The description Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 and M.O.1 and M.O.2 was mentioned in the appendix of evidence.

a) Pw.1/ who is defacto complainant deposed that at about 04.00 years ago while they are residing in old Vedayapalem, between 10.00 to 11.00 a.m., while they are sleeping her husband noticed that their mobile phones and gold chain with black beads, gold sarudu were missing and then they went to the police station, Vedayapalem and gave the report. He further deposed that after 3 days police informed her about tracing of her stolen articles.

b) Pw.2/P.Anka Rao, stated that in the year 2018 while they were residing in B.V. Nagar rented house, by putting the door lock they went to their home town and returned to Nellore after 4 days at around 10.00AM.

They observed their main door was broke open and noticed that one 4

Samsung TV, 43 Inches was missing and then they went to the police station, Vedayapalem and gave report. He further deposed that after few days police informed him about tracing of his Samsung TV from the accused. And he received the same.

c) Pw.3/G.V.Subrahmanyam Who acted as mediator for arrest of accused and seizer of stolen property, deposed that he was working as

VRO, Nellore Bit-1, Kothuru village. On 30.11.2018 at about 07.00 am at the request of police he acted as mediator in this case and that in his presence, police arrested the accused and seized stolen property from his possession under cover of mahazarnama as accused was trying to escaped from that place, but the police caught hold the accused. He further deposed that on further enquiry by police, accused confessed about the commission of theft in this case and also committed theft of one gas cylinder and when he entered into another portion of house, there he found another women, and he threatened her by showing knife and thefted, her gold chain, ear studs, for which she resisted and raised alarm and by pressing her throat, she died. He also further confessed that he left the house along with two cylinders and hided them in his house. Then police seized cylinders, gold ornaments, Samsung led TV.

d) Further, Pw.4 who is another investigating officer, deposed in his evidence that previously he was working as SI of police, Vth town ps till 2019. On 26.11.2012 at 10.30 AM he registered case as in

Cr.No.377/2018 under sec.457,380 IPC and issued FIR. He examined

Pw.1 and recorded her statement he proceeded to scene of offence, KNR

School,B.V.Nagar, Nellore.

e) Finally coming to the evidence of Pw.5 who conducted a part of investigation deposed that previously he worked as SI of police Vth town ps, Nellore. After receiving CD file from Pw.4, he conducted further investigation.

f) Pw.6/K.Narasimha Rao who is one of the investigating officer, deposed that he worked as Sub Inspector of police V Town PS, Nellore on 30.11.2018 on receipt of credible information he went to old Railway 5

Station, Vedayapalem, Along with his staff, CI of CCS, Pw.3 and

Lw.8/mediators, to conduct vehicle checking at that time one child was in possession of one gunny bag and one person came there and taken away the ganny bag and tried to escape. The inspector CCS police identified the person as accused in previous offender in theft cases, he along with his staff caught hold him and on enquiry, he revealed his name as a

G.Vijay/accused and he also confessed the commission of offences at

Kodavaluru, Vedayapalem and murder case in vedayapalem and then he seized gold ornaments, gas cylinders from his possession in the presence of mediators Pw.3.

11.Admittedly the prosecution failed to examine another mediator, no one has deposed any overt act against accused 2013(1) ALD (Crl) 582 (SC) between Hema Vs State, wherein Para 10, it was held that “There may be highly defective investigation in a case. However, it is to be examined as to whether there is any lapse by the I.O and whether due to such lapse any benefit should be given to the accused. The law on this issue is well settled that the defect in the investigation by itself cannot be a ground for acquittal. If primacy is given to such designed or negligent investigations or to the omissions or lapses by perfunctory investigation, the faith and confidence of the people in the criminal justice administration would be eroded. Where there has been negligence on the part of the investigating agency or omissions, etc., which resulted in defective investigation there is a legal obligation on the part of the court to examine the prosecution evidence de hours such lapses, carefully, to find out whether the said evidence is reliable or not and to what extent it is reliable and as to whether such lapses affected the object of finding out the truth.

Therefore, the investigation is not the solitary area for judicial scrutiny in a criminal trial”. In our case also there are some defectives by the investigating agency. But there is a legal obligation on the part of this court to examine the prosecution evidence de hors such lapses, carefully, to find out the truth. Therefore, let us peruse the prosecution case available on record.

13.As seen from the record, it shows that Pw.1, PW.2 who are not the eye witnesses to the commission of offence, did not identify the 6 accused that he committed theft. So, the prosecution relying upon the confession of accused which was recorded by the investigating officer/Pw.6, in the presence of Pw.3 who are said to be mediator for

Ex.P3.

14.It is well settled principle of law that the confession of the accused in the custody of police is not admissible under section 26 of

Indian Evidence Act unless it leads to discovery of fact or recovery of an article. Admittedly, in this case the prosecution proved that the stolen property was seized from the possession of the accused. The admissions made by Pw.3 in cross examination is not fatal to the case of prosecution since the confession of the accused before the police officer cannot be taken into consideration. Further, it cannot be presumed that the accused confessed the commission of offence correctly and without any hiding of the real fact. Merely because the accused never confessed the commission of the offence with details is not a ground to discard the entire evidence of prosecution.

15.Further more, on perusing the evidence of Pw.3 who is mahazar witness to Ex.P3 arrest cum seizer mahazarnama of MO.1 and 2 and seizer mahazarnama other stolen properties possession by accused pertaining to other crimes, clearly stated that in his presence the accused admitted the guilt the offence vide Ex.P3. Though Ex.P8/Seziure mahazarnama, was recorded in the custody of police which is hit by section 26 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. But as per Section 27 of Indian

Evidence Act when the information given by the accused even in the custody or presence of police, when it leads to discovery of fact it shall be relevant as per above section. This court felt necessity to quote Section 27 of Act How much of information received from the accused may be proved :- “provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distantly to the fact thereby discovered may be proved.” 7

16.It is the burden on the accused as to how he came into the possession of stolen property if he has not committed theft of the same or received the same knowingly that the same was stolen property. Once the prosecution proved the seizure, the presumption should be raised in favour of the prosecution under section 114(A) of Indian evidence Act that the accused either must have committed the theft or received with the knowledge that the same was stolen property. In the absence of explanation offered by the accused with regard to the possession of stolen property the burden to rebut the presumption cannot said to have been discharged by him. The defence counsel though cross examined P.W.3,

P.Ws.4,5,6 elicited nothing in his favour, remaining cross examination is nominal by putting suggestions which were denied by the witnesses. It is need not to say mere suggestions to the witness are not evidence and there is no valid. It is well settled law that “suggestive questions cannot be held evidence of fact if denied.”

17. On perusing the entire evidence on record and after going through the discussion stating supra, there is no evidence or material to say that the accused was committed theft of M.O.1 and M.O.2 because none of them have witnessed the commission of theft. But prosecution proved its case to say M.O.1 and M.O.2 were in the possession of accused, as per Section 411 IPC that the accused possessed or retained the stolen property/M.O.1 and M.O.2. This court as a matter of rule cannot reject in toto the P.W.3 on the mere ground that they are interested witnesses to the prosecution case. This court is bound to scrutinize their evidence with care, so as to arrive at conclusion, whether there is any ring of truth in their version. Since there is bleak chance to see the commission of offence by anybody, the investigating officer who conducted investigation has every chance to find out the stolen article in whose presence it was. As such, P.W.6 being investigating officer found stolen articles/M.O.1 and M.O.2 in the possession of accused. The mediator in whose presence the accused confessed the commission of offence and in whose presence the seizure taken place also supported the prosecution case. As per section 27 of Indian Evidence Act, though the accused confessed the commission of offence before the independent mediator, not 8 proved against him in the custody of police, but if such confession leads to discovery of information of property may be relevant. In this case on hand, basing on the statement/confession made by the accused in the presence of P.W.3, who is the said to be mediator for Ex.P3 confessional and arrest mahazarnama, the prosecution recovered the stolen articles from the possession of accused. As already discussed M.O.1 and M.O.2 were not planted by the investigating officer/P.W.6 to implicate the accused. Even more, it is not the case of the accused that the investigating officer planted

M.O.1 and M.O.2 and their motive to do so. In the absence of that the seizure ofM.O.1 and M.O.2 from the possession of accused is believable.

18. On consideration of above stated discussion, this court has found that the prosecution couldn’t prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt under sections 457 and 380 IPC as there is no evidence or material to say that the accused committed theft of M.O.1 and M.O.2. But the prosecution proved its case under Sec.411 IPC.

19.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence

U.Sec.457,380 of IPC. Therefore, he is acquitted U.Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C for the said offence.

But the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable U.Sec.411 of IPC therefore the accused is convicted under section 248(2) Cr.P.C for the said offence.M.O.1 and M.O.2 shall be given to concern after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked property made absolute after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Gr-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court this the 22nd day of April, 2025.

Sd/-G.Devika

V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore.

When accused is questioned regarding the quantum of sentence imposed on him for which he stated that he is sole bread winner of the family. Considering the facts of the case this court is off the view that it is not a fit case to apply the benevolent provisions of prohibition of offenders

Act as the accused committed serious offence. This court is inclined to take lenient view in imposing sentence.

9

Hence the accused is pleaded guilty. Accordingly accused is convicted U.Sec.248(2) Cr.P.C. and sentenced the undergo Simple

Imprisonment for a period of One year and shall pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable U.Sec.411 of IPC, in default of payment of fine

Rs.2,000/- to under go Simple Imprisonment for a period of Six months.

The remand period of accused if any shall be set off U.sec.428

Cr.P.C.

The accused is appraised of his right of appeal and also availability of free legal aid for the purpose of appeal.

Sd/-G.Devika

V Additional Judicial M agistrate of First Class, Nellore.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW.1: Manchanuri Kanakamma -NIL- PW.2: P.Anka Rao PW.3: G.V.Subrahmanyam PW.4: P.Chitti Babu PW.5: I.Masthanaiah PW.6: K.Narasimha Rao

EXHIBITS MARKED

PROSECUTION

Ex.P1: is the portion of 161 Cr.P.C. statement of L.W.1/P.W.1 Ex.P2: is the report of P.W.2/L.W.4 Ex.P3: is the attested copy of confession cum arrest mahazarnama Ex.P4: is the Original FIR in Cr.No.377/2018 Ex.P5: is the Rough Sketch Ex.P6: is the original FIR in Cr.No.373/2018 Ex.P7: is the Rough Sketch Ex.P8: is the seizure mahazarnama

DEFENCE

--NIL--

MATERIAL OBJECTS

M.O.1: Mobile Phones - 3

M.O.2: Black bead chains

Sd/-G.Devika

V Addl.Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Nellore

1

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. JUDICIALMAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

NELLORE.

Present: - Smt.G.Devika,

V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore

Thursday, this the 24 th day of April, 2025.

C.C.No.2483 of 2019

Sub-Inspector of Police, Vedayapalem Police Station. … Complainant

Vs

Garithoti Vijay Kumar, s/o.Late Venkaiah, aged 32 years, SC Mala by caste, N/o.Rajupalem Harijanawada, Kodavaluru

Village & Mandal, N/o.Old Vedayapalem, Nellore city.... Accused

This case is coming on 23.04.2025 for final hearing before me and upon perusing the entire material available on record and upon hearing the arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri K.Suresh Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Vedayapalem police station filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.357/2018 & Crime

No.378/2018 for the offence under section 457,380 or 411 of Indian Penal

Code.

2. The brief averments of the prosecution case are as follows:

It is the case of prosecution alleging that on 02.11.2018 at 03.00 am , Lw.s.1 and 2 were sleeping in their house at that time some unknown persons gain entered into the house and committed theft of LED

TV, mixcy, Gas Cylinder and Cellphones. L.W.1 gave report. Basing the report of LW1, L.W.14 SI of police Vedayapalem PS registered a case in

Cr.No.357/2018 U/Sec.457,380 of IPC and made investigation into.

On 16/17.10.2018 at 01.30 to 6.30 hours, some unknown offenders gained entered into the house by breaking of grill doors lock and committed theft of Gas Cylinder, stove, MI phone,charger worth of

Rs.15,000/- and decamped with booty. L.W.6 gave report. Basing the 2 report of L.W.6, L.w.15 SI of police of Vedayapalem PS registered a case in Cr.No.378/2018 U.Sec.457,380 of IPC and made investigation into.

During the course of investigation on 30.11.2018 at 11.00 hours L.W.16 arrested the accused at eastern side of Vedayapalem

Railway station and seized a stolen property, besides other case properties of their station under the cover of mahazarnama, duly attested by the mediators L.W.10 and L.W.11. LW.15 filed PT warrant before the

Hon’ble Court and produced the accused on 21.12.2018 for judicial

remand and filed charge sheet after completion of investigation. Thus, the accused is liable for punishment under sections 457,380 or 411 of IPC.

3.Cognizance is taken for the offence under Sections 457,380 or 411 of Indian Penal Code and summons was issued to the accused.

4.On appearance of accused before this court, copies of documents as contemplated under Sec.207 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C') was furnished and when he is examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C about the substance of allegations in the charge sheet, the accused denied the same and hence charge under

Sections 457,380 or 411 of Indian Penal Code are framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.To prove its case, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to

PWs.7, got marked Exs. P1 to Ex.P10 and MO.1 to MO.6..

6.Afterclosure of prosecution evidence, accused is examined under Sec.313 Criminal Procedure Code, explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied. Accused did not choose either to examine any defence witnesses or to mark any documents on his behalf.

7. Heard arguments on both sides.

8. Now the points for consideration:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the

offences punishable under sections 457,380 or 411 IPC

beyond all reasonable doubt?

3

9.The crux of prosecution case is that P.W.1 while sleeping in their house, some unknown persons gained entered intot he house by break open the grill doors lock and committed theft in two houses which are side by side. Hence, P.W.1 gave the report. Basing on the report of Lw.1 a case was registered by Vedayapalem police and during the course of investigation, police arrested the accused and recovered the stolen property in this case from his possession under cover of confession and seizer mahzarnama in the presence of mediators.

10.To prove the case of prosecution, prosecution examined Pw.1 to

Pw.7. Pw.1, Pw.2 defacto complainants. Pw.3 is the mediator for arrest of accused and seizer of stolen property, Pw.4, Pw.5 and Pw.6 are investigating officers. The evidence of LW.2 and Lw.5,7 to 9,11,13 are given up by the learned App. The description Ex.P1 to P10 and M.O.1 to

M.O.6 was mentioned in the appendix of evidence.

a) Pw.1/Varalakshmi who is the defacto complainant deposed that on 02.11.2018 while they are sleeping, some unknown person gain entered into the house and committed theft of LED Samsung TV, Gas

Cylinder, Two cell phones, mixer by breaking main door lock. She also stated that, unknown person had entered into the neighboring house by break open the main door and stolen their gold chain kept on a table. Later the unknown person escaped from the place. She gave a report at the police station.

b) Pw.2/V.Anil Kumar, stated that on 16.10.2018, by the next day morning he noticed that some body break open the grills door by bending the grills and broke open the lock of the grill door and stolen away the gas stove, cylinder, MI Note Phone and charger. After 10 days he gave the report at Vedayapalem PS.

c) Pw.3/G.V.Subrahmanyam Who acted as mediator for arrest of accused and seizer of stolen property, deposed that he was working as

VRO, Nellore Bit-1, Kothuru village. On 30.11.2018 at about 07.00 am at the request of police he acted as mediator in this case and that in his presence, police arrested the accused and seized stolen property from his possession under cover of mahazarnama as accused was trying to 4 escaped from that place, but the police caught hold the accused. He further deposed that on further enquiry by police, accused confessed about the commission of theft in this case and also committed theft of one gas cylinder and when he entered into another portion of house, there he found another women, and he threatened her by showing knife and thefted, her gold chain, ear studs, for which she resisted and raised alarm and by pressing her throat, she died. He also further confessed that he left the house along with two cylinders and hided them in his house. Then police seized cylinders, gold ornaments, Samsung led TV.

d) Further, Pw.4 who is another investigating officer, deposed in his evidence that previously he was working as SI of police, Vth town ps till 2019. On 02.11.2018 at 10.30 AM he registered case as in

Cr.No.357/2018 under sec.457,380 IPC and issued FIR. He examined

Pw.1 and recorded her statement he proceeded to scene of offence,

Tyagaraja Nagar, Vedayapalem, Nellore.

e) Pw.5/K.Narasimha Rao who is one of the investigating officer, deposed that he worked as Sub Inspector of police V Town PS, Nellore on 30.11.2018 on receipt of credible information he went to old Railway

Station, Vedayapalem, Along with his staff, CI of CCS, Pw.3 and

Lw.8/mediators, to conduct vehicle checking at that time one child was in possession of one gunny bag and one person came there and taken away the ganny bag and tried to escape. The inspector CCS police identified the person as accused in previous offender in theft cases, he along with his staff caught hold him and on enquiry, he revealed his name as a

G.Vijay/accused and he also confessed the commission of offences at

Kodavaluru, Vedayapalem and murder case in vedayapalem and then he seized gold ornaments, gas cylinders from his possession in the presence of mediators Pw.3.

f)Finally coming to the evidence of Pw.6/Ch.Kondaiah stated on 26.11.2018 at 13.00 hours while he was present in Police station he received a report and he registered the Cr.No.378/2018 U.sec.457,380 of

IPC the original FIR sent to Hon’ble court he examined P.W.1 and recorded the statement, scene of offence is situated at Vedayapalem 5

Railway Gate the house of P.W.1, Nellore. After receiving CD file from

Pw.5, he conducted further investigation.

g)P.W.7/G.Siva Chari stated that on 03.12.2018 upon the request of SI of police, he acted as mediator for identification of property accordingly, L.W.4 and L.W.13 conducted property identification parade at

Gurram Babai Function Hall by following all the formalities for the identification parade. After identification of the stolen property was concluded. Identification Mahazarnama was prepared by P.W.7 and the same was attested by him and L.w.13.

11.Admittedly the prosecution failed to examine another mediator, no one has deposed any overt act against accused 2013(1) ALD (Crl) 582 (SC) between Hema Vs State, wherein Para 10, it was held that “There may be highly defective investigation in a case. However, it is to be examined as to whether there is any lapse by the I.O and whether due to such lapse any benefit should be given to the accused. The law on this issue is well settled that the defect in the investigation by itself cannot be a ground for acquittal. If primacy is given to such designed or negligent investigations or to the omissions or lapses by perfunctory investigation, the faith and confidence of the people in the criminal justice administration would be eroded. Where there has been negligence on the part of the investigating agency or omissions, etc., which resulted in defective investigation there is a legal obligation on the part of the court to examine the prosecution evidence de hours such lapses, carefully, to find out whether the said evidence is reliable or not and to what extent it is reliable and as to whether such lapses affected the object of finding out the truth.

Therefore, the investigation is not the solitary area for judicial scrutiny in a criminal trial”. In our case also there are some defectives by the investigating agency. But there is a legal obligation on the part of this court to examine the prosecution evidence de hors such lapses, carefully, to find out the truth. Therefore, let us peruse the prosecution case available on record.

12.As seen from the record, it shows that Pw.1, PW.2 who are not the eye witnesses to the commission of offence, did not identify the 6 accused that he committed theft. So, the prosecution relying upon the confession of accused which was recorded by the investigating officer/Pw.5, in the presence of Pw.3 who are said to be mediator for

Ex.P3.

13.It is well settled principle of law that the confession of the accused in the custody of police is not admissible under section 26 of Indian Evidence

Act unless it leads to discovery of fact or recovery of an article. Admittedly, in this case the prosecution proved that the stolen property was seized from the possession of the accused. The admissions made by Pw.3 in cross examination is not fatal to the case of prosecution since the confession of the accused before the police officer cannot be taken into consideration. Further, it cannot be presumed that the accused confessed the commission of offence correctly and without any hiding of the real fact.

Merely because the accused never confessed the commission of the offence with details is not a ground to discard the entire evidence of prosecution.

14.Further more, on perusing the evidence of Pw.3 who is mahazar witness to Ex.P3 arrest cum seizer mahazarnama of MO.1 to 6 and seizer mahazarnama other stolen properties possession by accused pertaining to other crimes, clearly stated that in his presence the accused admitted the guilt the offence vide Ex.P3. Though Ex.P8/Seizure mahazarnama, was recorded in the custody of police which is hit by section 26 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. But as per Section 27 of Indian

Evidence Act when the information given by the accused even in the custody or presence of police, when it leads to discovery of fact it shall be relevant as per above section. This court felt necessity to quote Section 27 of Act How much of information received from the accused may be proved :- “provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distantly to the fact thereby discovered may be proved.” 7

15.It is the burden on the accused as to how he came into the possession of stolen property if he has not committed theft of the same or received the same knowingly that the same was stolen property. Once the prosecution proved the seizure, the presumption should be raised in favour of the prosecution under section 114(A) of Indian evidence Act that the accused either must have committed the theft or received with the knowledge that the same was stolen property. In the absence of explanation offered by the accused with regard to the possession of stolen property the burden to rebut the presumption cannot said to have been discharged by him. The defence counsel though cross examined P.W.3,

P.Ws.4,5,6 elicited nothing in his favour, remaining cross examination is nominal by putting suggestions which were denied by the witnesses. It is need not to say mere suggestions to the witness are not evidence and there is no valid. It is well settled law that “suggestive questions cannot be held evidence of fact if denied.”

16. On perusing the entire evidence on record and after going through the discussion stating supra, there is no evidence or material to say that the accused was committed theft of M.O.1 to M.O.6 because none of them have witnessed the commission of theft. But prosecution proved its case to say M.O.1 to M.O.6 were in the possession of accused, as per

Section 411 IPC that the accused possessed or retained the stolen property/M.O.1 to M.O.6. This court as a matter of rule cannot reject in toto the P.W.3 on the mere ground that they are interested witnesses to the prosecution case. This court is bound to scrutinize their evidence with care, so as to arrive at conclusion, whether there is any ring of truth in their version. Since there is bleak chance to see the commission of offence by anybody, the investigating officer who conducted investigation has every chance to find out the stolen article in whose presence it was. As such,

P.W.6 being investigating officer found stolen articles/M.O.1 to M.O.6 in the possession of accused. The mediator in whose presence the accused confessed the commission of offence and in whose presence the seizure taken place also supported the prosecution case. As per section 27 of

Indian Evidence Act, though the accused confessed the commission of offence before the independent mediator, not proved against him in the 8 custody of police, but if such confession leads to discovery of information of property may be relevant. In this case on hand, basing on the statement/confession made by the accused in the presence of P.W.3, who is the said to be mediator for Ex.P3 confessional and arrest mahazarnama, the prosecution recovered the stolen articles from the possession of accused. As already discussed M.O.1 to M.O.6 were not planted by the investigating officer/P.W.6 to implicate the accused. Even more, it is not the case of the accused that the investigating officer planted M.O.1 to

M.O.6 and their motive to do so. In the absence of that the seizure of

M.O.1 to M.O.6 from the possession of accused is believable.

17. On consideration of above stated discussion, this court has found that the prosecution couldn’t prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt under sections 457 and 380 IPC as there is no evidence or material to say that the accused committed theft of M.O.1 to M.O.6. But the prosecution proved its case under Sec.411 IPC.

18.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence

U.Sec.457,380 of IPC. Therefore, he is acquitted U.Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C for the said offence.

But the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable U.Sec.411 of IPC therefore the accused is convicted under section 248(2) Cr.P.C for the said offence.M.O.1 to M.O.6 shall be given to concern after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Gr-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court this the 25th day of April, 2025.

Sd/-G.Devika

V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore.

When accused is questioned regarding the quantum of sentence imposed on him for which he stated that he is sole bread winner of the family. Considering the facts of the case this court is off the view that it is not a fit case to apply the benevolent provisions of prohibition of offenders

Act as the accused committed serious offence. This court is inclined to take lenient view in imposing sentence.

9

Hence the accused is pleaded guilty. Accordingly accused is convicted U.Sec.248(2) Cr.P.C. and sentenced the undergo Simple

Imprisonment for a period of One year and shall pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable U.Sec.411 of IPC, in default of payment of fine

Rs.2,000/- to under go Simple Imprisonment for a period of Six months.

The remand period of accused if any shall be set off U.sec.428 Cr.P.C.

The accused is appraised of his right of appeal and also availability of free legal aid for the purpose of appeal.

Sd/-G.Devika

V Additional Judicial M agistrate of First Class, Nellore.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW.1: Varalakshmi-NIL- PW.2: V.Anil Kumar PW.3: G.V.Subrahmanyam PW.4: Sk.Karimulla PW.5: K.Narasimha Rao PW.6: Ch.Kondaiah PW.7: G.Siva Chary

EXHIBITS MARKED

PROSECUTION

Ex.P1: is the report of P.W.1 Ex.P2: is the report of P.W.2 Ex.P3: is the attested copy of confession cum arrest mahazarnama Ex.P4: is the Original FIR in Cr.No.357/2018 Ex.P5: is the Rough Sketch in Cr.No.357/2018 Ex.P6: is the seizure mahazarnama Ex.P7: is the Original FIR in Cr.No.378/2018 Ex.P8: is the Rough Sketch Ex.P9: is the Police proceedings.

DEFENCE

--NIL--

MATERIAL OBJECTS

M.O.1: Samsung Company LED TV

M.O.2: Gas Cylinder

M.O.3: Gold Thalibottu -1 (2.02 grams)

M.O.4: Indane Gas Cylinder

M.O.5: Steel gave stove

M.O.6: Samsung white color charger Sd/-G.Devika

V Addl.Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Nellore

1

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS:

NELLORE

Present: Smt. G.Devika,

V Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nellore

Monday, dated this the 21st day of April, 2025

C.C.No. 2808 of 2021

Between:

State: Sub-Inspector of Police,

DargamittaPolice Station. ....Complainant.

Vs.

1. Pattem Venkateswarlu, s/o.Subrahmanyam(late), aged 40 years,Yadava by caste, Collie, R/o.Behind District Police Office, Nellore City.

2. Pattem Hari, s/o.Subrahmanyam (late), aged 32 years,Yadava by caste, Collie, R/o.Behind District Police Office, Nellore City.

3. Pattem Sugunamma, w/o.Munusami, aged 67 years, Yadava by caste, Collie, R/o.Behind District Police Office, Nellore City.

4. Pattem Kalpana, w/o.Hari, aged 28 years, Yadava by caste, Collie, R/o.Behind District Police Office, Nellore City.

5. Pattem Sudhamani, w/o.Venkateswarlu, aged 34 years, Yadava by caste, Collie, R/o.Behind District Police Office, Nellore City. …Accused

This case is coming on 16-04-2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri J.Vijay Kumar Advocate for accused and upon hearing the arguments on the both sides and the matter is having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court passed the following:-

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

1. The state represented by the Sub-Inspector of police, Dargamitta

P.S. has filed the charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.147/2021 for the offence punishable under Sections 448,323,506 r/w 34 of IPC with following allegations:-

2. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant and accused 2 were close friends and they are residing in one locality, the defacto complainant lend money Rs.3,15,000/- to the accused as their request for house constructions and they also promised it will be returned as early as possible.

After that L.w.1 asked the accused to return the money, but they replied evasively, a few days ago L.W.1 got betrothal of her daughter marriage on 17.06.2021, so L.w.1 asked the accused to return her money for her daughter marriage, but in vain, resulting a dispute developed between them. As usually on 02.06.2021 morning L.W.1 was talking in herself as to how arrange the money for marriage and also asked A3 to return the money, then they bore grudges with her. During the altercation A1, A2 trespassed into the house of LW.1 caught hold her throat and they pushed the Lws.1 and 2 onto the floor. Hearing cries Lws.3 to 6 rescued the Lws.1 and 2 from the hands of the accused. After that A1 to A5 abused Lws.3 and 4 in vulgar language and kicked them indiscriminately and also threatened them with dire consequences. After that L.W.1 came to PS and lodged a report about the offence. On report of L.W.1, LW.7 registered the case in Cr.No.147/2021 U.Sec.448,323,506 r/w 34 of IPC and investigated into. After investigation charge sheet was laid. Hence the charge.

3. On appearance of Accused No.1 to 5 before the Court, copies of case documents were furnished to them as contemplated U/Sec.207 of Criminal

Procedure Code (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C.,).

4.On appearance of Accused No.1 to 5 before the Court, they were examined U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C., for the substance of allegations levelled against them by explaining to them the contents of Charge Sheet in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and charges U.Secs 448,323,506 r/w 34 of IPC were framed against the accused and explained the charges to them in Telugu, for which they denied the same and claimed to be tried.

5.To prove its case, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to PWs.5, got marked Exs. P1 to Ex.P3. On behalf of accused Ex.D1 to D6 are marked.

6. On closure of prosecution side evidence, accused No.1 to 5 were examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C., for the incriminating material appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses by explaining the same to them in 3

Telugu, for which they denied the same and reported that they have got no defence side evidence on their behalf.

7. Heard arguments on both sides and perused the material on record.

8. Now the point for determination is:- “Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of Accused No.1 to 5 for the offences punishable U/secs.448,323,506r/w 34 of

I.P.C., beyond reasonable doubt?”

Point:-

9.The crux of case is PW.1 and accused were closed friends, residing same locality. Accused had borrowed some amount from Pw.1 for his house construction. Later when Pw.1 asked the accused to return money for her daughter marriage, which resulted in dispute, accused did not return the amount.

On 02.06.2021 Pw.1 asked A.3 to return her money, then they bore grudges with her during the altercation A.1 and A.2 trespassed into the Pw.1 house and caught hold her throat and they pushed Pw.1 on to the floor. A.1 to A.5 abused them in vulgar language and kicked indiscriminately and also threatened with dire consequence. Thus Pw.1 came to the ps and lodged a report about the offence under sec.448,323,506 r/w 34 IPC. Hence the complaint.

10.The learned App has examined Pw.1 to Pw.5 and marked Ex.P1 to

Ex.P3. The defence counsel had marked Ex.D1 to Ex.D6 to prove their cases.

a) Pw.1/Sk. Beebijan, stated that in the year 2021, they demanded A.1 to

A.5 to return the amount which they borrowed from her, few years ago. Thus, A.1 to A.5 came to the house of pw.1 and made galata, kicked her with hands and legs by entering into the house. She further stated that A.1 to A.3 dragged her saree and beat her severely by holding her throat. Mean while Lw.2 and Lw.4 reached the place and try to rescue Pw.1 from A.1 to A.5. Admittedly she stated that she did not take medical treatment from any hospital but she had sustained swollen injuries. Thus she gave a report in the police station.

In her cross examination she stated that SI had return the compalint upon his dictation. She also stated that her husband has sent legal notice to A.2 and

A.5 as the accused indebted to her husband for Rs.20,000/- and her husband filed NI act on the file of II AJMFC, Nellore. Admittedly she stated that the accused will survivor by doing cooli work on daily basis. She denied the 4 suggestion that, on the date of offence in the morning at 06.00AM, Pw.1 herself went to the house of accused and made galata with them to repay the debt amount. In Ex.p1/Complaint she herself mentioned that she went to the house of accused on 02.06.2021 at 06.00AM. But she stated many contradictory statements in her chief examination.

b) Pw.2/Alla Bakshu, who is husband of Pw.1 stated that A.1 to A.5 themselves came to their house and made galata with them. While A.1 to A.3 dragging the saree of his wife Pw.1, upon listening her cries he along with Lw.4 came out of the room and rescued Pw.1 from the hands of A.1 to A.5. Thus the complaint was filed.

Pw.2 in his cross examination stated that at the time of incident he was returning from his work. He admitted on 01.06.2021 his wife went to the house of

A.1 to A.5 to request them to discharge debt. In 161 Cr.P.C. statement he mentioned that on 02.06.2021 at 06.00AM his wife went to the house of A.1 to

A.5 and demanded them to discharge the debt. By the time of he reached the house, her wife saree was in pellmell condition and she was crying loudly.

Admittedly Pw.2 stated that he did not witness A.1 to A.5 dragging the saree of his wife. But in his 161 Cr.P.C statement he mentioned that he has seen with his eyes A.1 to A.5 have forcibly entered into the house and made galata. He also denied the suggestion that PW.1 and PW.2 went to the house of accused and threatened them and discharge debt. PW.2 also gave contradictory statements in the open court.

c)Pw.3/B.Padmavathi, who is neighbor of Pw.1 stated that in the year 2021, at 06.00AM she saw that A.1 to A.5 were quarrel with Pw.1 and Pw.2 related to the recovery of debt amount. A.1 to A.5 beat lw.3 with hands and legs. Thus pw.1 filed case against A.1 to A.5.

In her cross examination she stated that in her 161 Cr.p.c statements she only separated A.1 to A.5 and the family of Pw.1 from quarreling and she did not seen A.1 to A.5 dragen the saree of Pw.1. She stated that by the time she reached the place the saree was already removed. She also mentioned that that there were no injuries Pw.1 and family. She also admitted that she do not know the reason why they were quarreling.

5

d) Pw.4/M.Seerisha, Who is resident of Batawadipalem, stated that about 4 years ago one day at 06.00AM, the family members of A.3 came along with

A.3 and quarreled with family members of Pw.1. She witnessed the incident and later she came to know that both were quarreling relating some finance issue.

during the quarreling no one were injured. Pw.4 is eye the witness.

e) Pw.5/ D.S.Vijay Kumar, who is the investigating officer, stated that on 02.06.2021 at 11.00AM while he was present in the police station as In-charge

SHO, Pw.1 and Pw.2 came to the PS and presented a report, which is registered as in Cr.No.147/2021 under sec.448,323,506 R/w 34 IPC and issued FIR. He examined Pw.1 and recorded her statement. he proceeded scene of offence situated at House of Pw.1 Indukurpet, shanthi nagar, Nellore. He secured Lw.3 to Lw.6 and recorded their statements. He prepared rough sketch after observing scene of offence. He issued 41-A notice to A.1 to A.5 and after completing investigation he filed charge sheet.

In his cross examination he stated that, Pw.1 do not submit in her report that has saree was dragged by any of the accused. and there were no injuries over the body of any of the witness. He also stated that Pw.1 did not take any treatment from the hospital. Admittedly he stated that Pw.1 informed her husband that she went to the house of A.1 and demanded money for which for galata has commenced.

Observations made by this court are:-

11.Upon perusing the complaint, the chief examination and her cross examination this court found many contradictions and omissions. In chief examination she mentioned that A.1 to A.3 have dragged her saree but in Ex.p1 she stated that A.1 and A.2 dragged her saree. But in 161 Cr.P.C statement she stated they did not drag her saree. In the chief examination she stated her Lw.2/ her husband upon listening her cries he came out of the house and rescue her.

But in her cross examination she stated that he was not present at home. She denied the suggestion at the instance of police accused have executed promissory note and cheque in favour of her husband. Witness volunteered that

A.2 and A.5 have torned away the previous promissory notes and cheque and executed fresh promissory notes and cheque in the name of her husband.

6

12.As per the evidence of PW.1, since there are several omissions and contradictions, the evidence of PW.1 alone can not be believed without any supporting evidence. She initially stated that her modesty has been outraged by

A.1 to A.3 by dragging her saree and A.1 to A.5 beat her indiscriminately. In order to prove her statement, there is no documentary proof like wound certificate or any other supporting evidence. Except her oral submissions, there is no supporting evidence.

13.In the light of above evidence it is case f prosecution that the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of accused - that the accused A.1 to A.5 trespassed and beat PW.1, PW.2 and they sustained injuries and that police received the report and registered case under Ex.P2, and then laid charge sheet against accused, and that prosecution was able to prove the guilt of accused, and therefore, the accused are liable for conviction.

14. On the other hand, it is case of accused with total denial that the prosecution miserable failed establishing the in case of prosecution at any point of time and there is no corroboration between the evidence of prosecution witness.

15.In the light of above evidence and on a careful perusal of entire material record, it clearly shows that the evidence of Pw.3, pw.4 who is the eye witness and Pw.5/investigating officer stated that there are no wounds or injuries said to have been sustained by Pw.1.

16.On careful perusal of the entire ocular evidence, it clearly shows that there was no any corroboration with regard to chain of events occurred in the scene of offence. The investigating officer has examined the neighbors that Pw.3 and pw.4. Who stated that there no were no injuries over the body of Pw.1 but they stated that A.1 to A.5 have beat pw.1 with hands and legs. But no one except and Pw.1 and Pw.2 have submitted that the saree of Pw.1 has been detached by the accused. Thus, there is no evidence to prove that A.1 to A.5 had outraged the modesty of pw.1. Except the evidence of Pw.1 and Pw.2 who are interested witness in the case, none of the witnesses have mentioned about the removal of saree. Therefore, no independent witness was examined by the 7 investigating officer, which creates doubt and gives to raise an inference that the investigating officers were not diligent in investigating the case. Upon careful perusal of the entire evidence this court found that there was financial dispute between the families of Pw.1 and the accused. From the Ex.D1 to Ex.D5 it can be inferred that pw.1 herself went to the house of the accused to demand the accused to repay the money. Later, accused family have come to the house of

Pw.1 and they pick up heated arguments with pw.1. It is proved that fight took place between pw.1, pw.2 and A.1 to A.5 and it is supported with the evidence

Pw.3 and Pw.4. None of the witness have stated that A.1 to A.5 had trespassed into the house of Pw.1 and though there is evidence that A.1 to A.5 have beat pw.1 but there are no documentary evidence like wound certificate, as Pw.1 did not have any treatment in the hospital. It implies that Pw.1 did not sustained injuries which are not even simple injuries. There might be only heated arguments between both the parties. None of the witness have stated that A.1 to

A.5 had insulted or abused Pw.1. Thus the offence under sec.506 IPC is not made out. Thus, the ingredient for the offences under Sec.448,323,506 R/w 34

IPC are not made out. Furthermore, there was no any evidence to show that the accused resorting to commit grave crime and not established about the case beyond all reasonable doubt and the police did not recover the material objects.

The testimonies of all the witness are inconsistent and not inspiring the confidence of the court and not able to bringing home the guilt of the accused.

17.In the result, accused No.1 to 5 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U.Sec.448,323,506 r/w 34 of IPC. and they are acquitted

U.Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused if any shall remain in force for a period of six months as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. and thereafter shall stands cancelled.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Gr-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court this the 21st day of April, 2025.

Sd/-G.Devika

V Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nellore

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution:- For Defence: -NIL P.W.1: Sk.Beebijan 8

P.W.2: Allaha Bakshu P.W.3: V.Padmavathi P.W.4: M.Sireesha P.W.5: D.S.Vijay Kumar

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:- Ex.P1: Report of P.W.1 Ex.P2: FIR Ex.P3: Rough Sketch

For Defence:- Ex.D1: 9th line from the top of complaint it is mentioned that we went the house of accused on 02.06.2021 at 6.00am

Ex.D2: A1 and A2 have dragged my saree

Ex.D3:5th line in 161 Cr.P.C. statement – I mentioned that they did not drag my saree

Ex.D4: in the complaint she stated that upon listening to her cries her husband came out to rescue her.

Ex.D5: on 02.06.2021 at 6.00 am my wife went to the house of A1 to A5 and demanded them to discharge the debt.

Ex.D6: that I have seen with my eyes that they have forcible entering into my house and making galata.

Material Objections Marked: NIL

Sd/-G.Devika

V Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nellore

CC. No.5138 of 2021 1 23.04.2025

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

NELLORE.

Present: Smt G.Devika

V Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore

Wednesday this the 23 rd day of April, 2025.

Calendar Case. No. 5138 /2021

Between:- State Represented by The Sub Inspector of Police, Dargamitta P.S. … Complainant.

And

Achi Bharani Kumar, s/o.Sundaraiah,aged 28 years,

Caste by Vaddera, N/o.Vutukur Village of Sydapuram

Mandal, r/o.D.No.24-4-136, Pavan Apartment, 2nd street,

Santhi Nagar, Nellore Town. (Working as Chemistry teacher in Narayana

Olympaid School, Ramesh Reddy Nagar, Nellore) ... Accused.

This case is coming on 22-04-2025 for disposal before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and Sri M.Upendra Advocate for the accused, 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 court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Dargamitta Police Station submitted

Report against the accused in Crime Number 142 of 2018 of Dargamitta Police

Station, for the offence punishable Under Section 354 (c) of I.P.C. and Sec.67 (A) (B) of IT Act.

2.PROSECUTION CASE

The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

The accused is native of Vutukur Village, Sydapuram Mandal of SPSR

Nellore District. During the period of 2014 June to June 2016 is he worked in

Priyadarshini Engineering College as Asst. Professor of Chemistry at present working in Narayana Olympiad School, Ramesh Reddy Nagar from 2016 onwards. During this period he used to attend to the tuition classes to the

Olympiad students at their residence during afternoon times, to the houses of minor students (Lws 1 to 7). At this juncture, the accused has got an ambition

CC. No.5138 of 2021 2 23.04.2025

to watch sexual acts derived from the houses. Accordingly, he purchased a spy camera through Amazon APP., and also secured at China Company USB SPY camera with USB charger and secreted the camera in the charger, and made a scribe as charger, which is an automatic video recording with voice. Then the accused induced Lws.1 to 7 who are his tuition minor students made them believed that the charger will be scan the percentage of virus in the room, if it is inserted into a socket plug, and directed them to kept them in an electric plug, during night times. Later again the accused gave his spy camera to L.W.3 and it was captured some nude images of changing of her dress. On 15.04.2018 at 11.00 hours the accused gave his spy camera to L.W.7 but there are no visuals recorded in the same. The accused transmitted the images which were captured in the spy camera into this pen drive, and he witnesses the images in his cell phone through OTG cable.

On 23.04.2018 early morning the accused while sat in the Municipal

Corporation water tank at Ramesh Reddy nagar, Nellore city and watching the nude sexual explicit depicts in his cell phone on reliable information he was caught red handed by L.w.10 alogn with his staff and mediators and interrogated him the presence of the mediators L.w.8 and 9 drafted his confessional statement. L.W.10 seized the electronic devices from the possession of accused. On 23.04.2018 at 9.00 hours L.W.10 registered the mahazarnama as a case in Cr.No.142/2018 U.sec.354 (c) of I.P.C. and Sec.67 (A) (B) of IT Act., and submitted the FIRs to all concerned officers. During the course of investigation, LW10 prepared a Rough sketch and send the accused to judicial custody. L.W.10 forwarded the seized material objects from the possession of accused to State Forensic Science Laboratory Redhills,

Hyderabad. L.w.11 continued the investigation, secured the presence of abusing children (Lws.1 to 7) examined them and recorded their statemetns.

On completing the investigation, LW.7 S.I., filed a final report.

3. COGNIZANCE

After careful perusal of material on record and Police report the cognizance of the offence was taken for the offences Under Section 354 (c) of

I.P.C. and Sec.67 (A) (B) of IT Act. against accused.

4.On appearance of the accused, relevant copies of documents were

CC. No.5138 of 2021 3 23.04.2025

furnished to him as contemplated Under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED BEFORE TRIAL

Accused was examined Under Section 239 Cr.P.C was framed for the offences punishable u/s 354 (c) of I.P.C. and Sec.67 (A) (B) of IT Act.

charges framed against accused and read over and explained to him in

Telugu, for which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.PROSECUTION EVIDENCE

During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and got exhibited Exs.P.1 to P9.

7.After closure of prosecution side evidence, examined the accused

Under Section 313 Cr.P.C, since there is no incriminating evidence brought against accused.

8. Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the entire material on record.

9.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the

offence punishable Under Sections 354 (c) of I.P.C. and Sec.67 (A) (B) of IT Act., beyond reasonable doubt?”

POINT:-

10.The crux of prosecution the accused in the year 2014 while working in Priyadharsini Engineering college, Kanuparthypadu as Ass.

Professor, to chemistry and presently working in Narayana Olympiad School,

Ramesh Reddy Nagar, Nellore, he used to attend the tuition classes with

Olympiad students at their residents during the afternoon times, to the houses of minor students (Lws.1 to 7). At this juncture the accused has got an ambition to watch live sexual acts. Accordingly he purchased a spy camera through

Amazon App and secreted the camera in the charger, which is the automatic video recording with voice. The accused made the minor students believe that the charger will scan the percentage of virus in the room and directed them to keep them in electrical plug, during the night time. Later the accused obtained

CC. No.5138 of 2021 4 23.04.2025

images which were transmitted his spy camera. The accused transmitted the images into his pen drive and he witnesses the images in his cellphone through OTG cable. One day while he was watching the nude sexual images in his cellphone he was caught hold thus a case was registered against him.

The prosecution has examined Pw.1 to Pw.7 and marked Ex.p1 to

Ex.P9.

a) P.W.1/Sd.Rehan, stated that he was studying 1st year MBBS at

Naryana Medical College, Nellore and he know the accused as his chemistry teacher while he was studying 7th class, Narayana Olympiad school, Nellore and he stated that he do not know anything about the case.

b)PW.2/Sk. Mansoor, who acted one of the mediator at the time of arrested of the accused stated that he do not know anything about the case and he just gave his signature on the mahazarnama the direction of police.

c) Pw.3/Sd. Jeelani, who acted one of the mediator at the time of arrested of the accused stated that he do not know anything about the case and he just gave his signature on the mahazarnama the direction of police.

d) Pw.4/S. Manogna, stated that stated that he was studying 2nd year

B.Tech and he know the accused as his chemistry teacher while he was studying 7th class, Narayana Olympiad school, nellore and he stated that he do not know anything about the case.

e) Pw.5/D.Samiksha, stated that she know that accused working as teacher in her school, Narayana Olympiad school.

f) Pw.6/V.Sudhakar Reddy, stated that on 23.04.2018 at 06.00AM he received oral information that some one is using spy camera and capturing the obscene visual of women. He secured mediators Lw.9,Pw.3,Pw.2 and went to the Ramesh reddy nager, near water tank, cement benches there he found one person was waching his mobile by sitting on the bench, upon seeing them he try to escape, upon suspicion they caught hold him examined him. He disclosed his name as Atchi Barani Kumar and confessed and gave his identity particulars, submitted that he was working as teacher in Narayana Olympiad

CC. No.5138 of 2021 5 23.04.2025

school, Ramesh Reddy Nagar, nellore. He admitted that he is habituated to watch porn videos in web site. He also confessed the he purchased spy camera/device by using google from Amazon and to capture any persons activities. He manipulated the students of his school by saying that the said camera will remove the virus of their room of their bed room. Believing his words students install the camera in their bed room. He used to copy the pictures and videos from the camera in to the pen drive or his mobile phone and used to watch them in his free time. Like wise he passed the device from one student to another student. Upon search we seized MO.1 is Moto-E mobile phone having idea company sim no.7729857853, MO.2 is the black color US adopter, MO.3 is the 8 GB scan-disc pen drive, MO.4 is USB cable, MO.5 is

OTG cable, arrested the accused under the cover of seizure cum mahazarnama/Ex.p6. After reaching station he registered Ex.P1 as in

Cr.No.142/2018 under sec.354(c) IPC and Sec.67(a)67(b) of IT Act 2000 and issued a FIR, the original FIR send to Hon’ble court and copies of FIR to all concern authorities. He took up investigation he produced accused before

Hon’ble court for judicial remand, again he visited scene of offence at Ramesh

Reddy Nagar, water tank, nellore, he prepared rough sketch and observed scene of offence. On the same day he visited the Narayana Olympiad school, he secured in the presence of Principal and students no one came forward to gave the statement. On 28.04.2018 seized MO.1 to Mo.5 are sent to APFSL for analyses, later as per record secured the presence Pw.1, Pw.4,Pw.5, Lw.2,

Lw.4, Lw.7 examined them the recorded the statement and CD file in handed over to Lw.11.

10.Here all the witnesses did not depose anything about overacts against the accused and prosecution did not examine any independent witness.

Moreover the listed witnesses have turned hostile. Thus, there is no material on record to prove the guilt of accused. There is no corroboration between any of the witnesses. Thus, prosecution failed to prove that case.Accordingly this point is answered against the prosecution.

11.RESULT/FINDING

In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable Under Sections of 354 (c) of I.P.C. and Sec.67 (A) (B) of IT Act

CC. No.5138 of 2021 6 23.04.2025

accordingly, he is acquitted U/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused if any shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated U.Sec.437-A

Cr.P.C., and thereafter shall stands cancelled.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Gr-III, and corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 23 rd day of April, 2025.

Sd/-G.Devika

V Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nellore.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution Defence

P.W.1: Sd.Rehan None.

P.W.2: Sk.Mansoor

P.W.3: Sd.Jilani

P.W.4: S.Manogana

P.W.5: Dasari Samiksha

P.W.6: V.Sudhakar Reddy

P.W.7: N.Nageswaramma

Exhibits marked on behalf of Prosecution

Ex.P.1: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1

Ex.P.2: is the signature of P.W.2 on mahazarnama dated 23.04.2018

Ex.P.3: is the signature of P.W.3 on mahazarnama dated 23.04.2018

Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.4

Ex.P5: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.5

Ex.P6: Mahazarnama

Ex.P7: Original FIR

Ex.P8: Rough Sketch

Ex.P9: RSSL Report

Exhibits marked on behalf of Defence

NIL Material Objects

M.O.1: is Moto -E Mobile phone having idea company SIM No.7729857853

M.O.2: is black color USB Adopter

M.O.3: is 8 GB Scan Disc Pen Drive,

M.O.4: is USB Cable,

M.O.5: is OTG Cable

Sd/-G.Devika

V Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class,Nellore.

1

IN THE COURT OF V ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, NELLORE

PRESENT:G.Devika

V Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nellore

Monday, this the 21st day of April, 2025

CC.No 3476 /20 23 .

State: Inspector Police,

Dargamitta Police Station, Nellore ...... Complainant.

Vs.

1. Shaik Arshad, s/o.Babu, aged 23 years, Muslim by caste, R/o.Kotamitta, Nellore city, SPSR Nellore District.

2. Shaik Abid, s/o.Shahul Ahmeed, aged 22 years, Caste by Muslim, R/o.D.No.27-2-812, Mahatmagandhi Nagar, Nellore city.

3. Shaik Aarif, s/o.Shahul, aged 26 years, caste by Muslim, R/o.Mahatmagandhi Nagar, Vedayapalem, Nellore city.

4. Shaik Mahamud Ali, s/o.Allabakshu, aged 22 years, Caste by Muslim, R/o.D.No.20-8-219, Ameen Nagar, Current office, Kotamitta, Nellore city.

5. Shaik Muzzu @ Muzamil, s/o.Jaffer Mohiddin, aged 23 years, Caste by Muslim, r/o. Current Office center, Kotamitta, Nellore city.

6. Kothuru Srinivas, s/o. Venkata Rathnam, aged 36 years, Caste by Kamasali, D.No.20-3-549, 10th street, Mansoor Nagar, Kotamitta, Nellore.

7. Shaik Subhani, s/o.Siraj, aged 25 years, Caste by Muslim, D.No.26-2-2763, 5th street, GandhiNagar, AK Nagar, Nellore town. ….Accused

This case is coming on 16-04-2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and Sri. Mallireddy S., Advocate for accused No.1 to 7 and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Dargamitta Police Station, Nellore filed a charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 7 in Cr.No.22 of 2020 for the offenses punishable under sections 452,332,325,427 r/w 34 of IPC.

2

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

On 25.01.2020 during night L.w.12 along with L.W.9 came outside of the hospital to had a tea and returned to Hospital. By that time, the father of the accused No.1 namely Shaik Babu who is proceeding on the motorcycle hit one motorcycle and hit the motorcycle of L.w.12 on its rear side and fell on the road. Lws.12 and 9 who are the medico students shifted the injured Sk. Babu to the emergency ward. In turn the injured phoned up to his son A1. On 25.01.2020 at about 22.00 hours the unruly mob I.e., A1 to A7 having common intention forcibly trespassed in the emergency ward and attacked the doctors and the medico students and also damaged hospital 9 glasses and also broken the spectates including students watches and fisted them indiscriminately and also created panic situation in the hospital and obstructed the duty officers to attend for the duties resulting which Lws.2 to 6 sustained injuries. Later the accused No.1 to 7 fled away from the spot.. Lws.7 to 12 witnessed the occurrence. On 26.01.2020 at about 3.00 am L.W.1 who is the principal of

Medico College presented a report at Dargmaitta PS LW.17 registered a case in crime number 22 of 2020 under section 452,332,325,427 r/w 34 of IPC and investigated into and examined 12 witnesses and recorded their statements and prepared rough sketch of the scene of offense in the presence of L.Ws.13 and

14. L.W17 arrested the accused No.1,3,5 and sent them to judicial remand. On 07.09.2021 and on 10.01.2022 the accused A2,A4,A6 and A7 were surrendered

before L.W.17 while admitting the guilty of the offence. Then L.W.16 served 41-

A Cr.P.C. notices to the accused A2, A4,A6 and A7 and directed them to appear

before the Hon’ble court. Hence the charge.

3. Cognizance was taken under Sections 452,332,325,427 r/w 34 of IPC against the accused No.1 to 7. Copies of the documents were furnished to the accused under section 207 Cr.P.C. on their appearance.

4. When examined under Sections 239 Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable under sections 452,332,325,427 r/w 34 of IPC and the accusation read over and explained to them in Telugu, in which they pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.

3

5. The prosecution in support of its case, examined P.W.1 to P.W.6 and marked Ex.P.1 to P14.

6. After closure of the evidence the accused were examined under

Sec.313 Cr.P.C. about the incriminating material against them from the prosecution evidence. They denied the prosecution evidence and reported no defense evidence.

7 Heard both sides.

8. Now the Points for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the charge

under Sections 452,332,325,427 r/w 34 of IPC against the accused

beyond all reasonable doubts?

POINT:

9. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has argued before the Court that the evidence of PW.1 to PW.6 coupled with Exhibits P1 to P14 is in support of the prosecution case, and established the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts and, therefore, the accused are liable for conviction.

10.On the other hand, the learned defence counsel has argued before the

Court that the prosecution miserably failed in establishing the case against the accused, and nobody stated before the Court about the alleged offence and there is no evidence to connect the accused with this crime and therefore, the prosecution failed to establish the case, and therefore, prayed the Court to acquit the accused.

11.The crux of prosecution is the on 25.01.2020 during the night time Lw.12 along with Lw.9 came out side of the hospital to have Tea and returning to the hospital, the father of accused/A.1 who is proceeding to the motorcycle hit the motor cycle Lw.12 and fell on the road. The injuries was shifted emergency ward. On 25.01.2020 A.1 to A.7 having common intention forcibly trespassed in the emergency ward and attacked the doctors and Medico Students and also damaged hospital, glasses and also broken the spectacles of the students and fisted them indiscriminately and created panic situation in the hospital and 4 abstracted duty doctors to attend the duty and A.1 to A.7 fled away. Hence,

Pw.1 gave the complaint.

a)Pw.1/Ch. Radha Krishna Raju, deposed that 4 years ago while

PW.1 was working as Principal, ACSR medical college, few students among

Lw.2 to Lw.12 informed Pw.1 that some galata took place in the causality of hospital at around 11.30 in the night. They informed Pw.1 that a big mob of persons came and made galata and beat some of his students. On the next day

Pw.1 lodged a report.

b)Pw.2/Purushotham, Stated that in the year 2020, while he was present causality, ENT department, in the night hours a big mob came into the hospital in related to some accident and made galata with duty doctors. He do not know names of the said persons and reason why they made galata.

c)Pw.3/M.Dinesh Kumar, stated that in the year 2020 while he was present causality, ENT department, in the night hours a big mob came in to the hospital in related some accident and made galata with duty doctors. He do not know names of the said persons and reason why they made galata.

d)Pw.4/Dinakar, stated that in the year 2020 while he was present causality, ENT department, in the night hours a big mob came in to the hospital in related some accident and made galata with duty doctors. He do not know names of the said persons and reason why they made galata.

e)Pw.5/K.Chandra Sekhar Bavan Reddy, stated that in the year 2020 while he was present causality, ENT department, in the night hours a big mob came in to the hospital in related some accident and made galata with duty doctors. He do not know names of the said persons and reason why they made galata.

f)Pw.6/D.S.Vijay Kumar, Stated that on 26.01.2020 at about 03.00AM while he was present in police station Pw.1 came to PS and presented a report then he registered Ex.p1 as in Cr.No.22/2020 Under sec.452,332,325,427 R/w 34 of IPC and issued FIR. He examined Pw.1 and recorded statement and proceeded to scene of offence situated at ACSR Medical College, Emergency ward Nellore, there he secured PW.1 to PW.5 and Lw.6 to Lw.8 and recorded 5 their statements, he prepared rough sketch and observed scene of offence, he secured Lw.13 and Lw.14 as mediators to observe the scene and also captured the scene of offence. On 27.01.2020 he arrested A.1 and A.3 and A.5 at Bus stand, Nellore. On 07.09.2021 her served 41-A Cr.P.C notice to A.2,A.4,A.7. On 10.01.2023 he served 41-A notice Cr.P.C notice to A.6. Later, after collecting wound certificate he handed over the CD file to Lw.18 and filed charge sheet.

12.On a careful perused the entire ocular evidence and also documentary evidence, it clear shows that there was no corroboration with regard to chain of events occurred in the scene of offence. The investigating officers did not choose any of the person from the hospital. The prosecution did not produce any evidence that A.1 and A.2 got intention to cause injury to Pw.1 to Pw.5,

Lw.6. And therefore the investigation of prosecution and also the opinions given by the medical officer are doubtful, so as to establish the fact that the injuries has sustained injuries, all the injured Pw.1 to Pw.5, lw.6 have turned hostile, and their evidence did not support the case of the prosecution. When Pw.1,

Pw.5/the injured witness themselves have turned hostile, there is no iota to prove the case against accused A.1 to A.7 as prosecution could not prove the case against accused beyond all reasonable doubt, and benefit of doubt goes in favour of accused.

26.In the result, the accused No. 1 to 7 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 452,332,325,427 r/w 34 IPC accordingly, they are acquitted of the same under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused if any shall remain in force for Six months U.Sec.437-A

Cr.P.C. and thereafter shall stands canceled.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer directly, and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 21st day of April, 2025.

Sd/-G.Devika

V. Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class,

Nellore.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMIEND

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

P.W.1: Ch.Radha Krishna Raju-Nil-

P.W.2: Purushotham

P.W.3: M.Dinesh Kumar 6 P.W.4: Dinakar

P.W.5: K.Chandra Sekhar Bavan Reddy

P.W.6: D.S.Vijay Kumar

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For prosecution: For defense:

Ex.P1: is Report -Nil-

Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C statement PW.1

Ex.P3: 161 CrPC statement of PW.2

Ex.P4: 161 CrPC statement of PW.3

Ex.P5: 161 CrPC statement of PW.4

Ex.P6: 161 CrPC statement of PW.5

Ex.P7: is the Original FIR

Ex.P8: is the Rough Sketch

Ex.P9: is the Scene observation report

Ex.P10 to 14: is the wound certificate of LW.2 to L.W.6

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

--NIL-

Sd/-G.Devika

V ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NELLORE.