Smt G. Geetha

- 1 -

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE : KAVALI.

Wednesday, this the 28th day of March 2018.

Present: Smt.G.Geetha,

Senior Civil Judge, Kovur

(FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Kavali.

O.S.NO.70 of 2007

1. Sure Krishna Reddy (died)

2. Sure Varalakshmamma.

3. Sure Vijayalakshmi.

4. Sure Madhusudhana Reddy.

5. Sure Madhavi Latha. (Plaintiffs 2 to 5 are added as legal representatives of deceased 1st plaintiff as per orders in I.A.86/2014, dt.20.7.2015)…Plaintiffs.

Vs.

1.Konduru Chenchu Krishnamma.

2.Konduru Kameswaramma.

3.Konduru Narasa Reddy.

4.Konduru Dasaradharami Reddy.

5.Medarametla Malla Reddy (died).

6.Budamgunta Ramakrishna Rao (died)

7.Maddirala Ramanamma (died).

8.Sure Penchala Reddy.

9.Remala Malakonda Reddy.

10. Remala Rami Reddy.

11. Remala Ramasubba Reddy.

12. Remala Krishna Reddy (died).

13. Sure Mahadeva Reddy.

14. Konduru Krishna Reddy.

15. Konduru Dayakara Reddy.

16. Sd.Tabassum

17. Medarametla Ramanamma.

18. Medarametla Rami Reddy.

19. Medarametla Eswar Reddy.

20. Kunam Vijayamma.

(Defendants 17 to 20 are added as legal representatives of deceased 5th defendant as per orders in I.A.512/10, dt.18.11.2010)

21. Budamgunta Chandrasekhar Rao.

22. Budamgunta Venugopal Rao.

23. Budamgunta Sudhakar Rao.

24. Gumuduru Ramadevi.

25. Karuvadi Meena.

(Defendants 21 to 25 are added as legal representatives of deceased 6th defendant as per orders in I.A.657/11, dt.24.1.2013) - 2 -

26. Seesala Rajamma.

(26th defendant is added as legal representative of deceased 7th defendant as per orders in I.A.658/11, dt.24.1.2013)

27. Remala Subbamma.

28. Remala Venugopal Reddy.

29. Remala Sriveni.

(Defendants 27 to 29 are added as legal representatives of deceased 12th defendant as per orders in I.A.659/11, dt.24.1.2013) …Defendants.

This suit coming before me on 23.3.2018 for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.Srinivasulu Reddy, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri M.V.Subba Naidu, Advocate for 8 th defendant, Sri V.V.Narasimha charyulu, Advocate for 13 th defendant, Sri Y.Janaki Ramaiah, Advocate for 16 th defendant and the defendants 1 to 7, 9 to 12, 14, 15, 17 to 29 were remained exparte and upon hearing and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following.

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed by the plaintiff for partition of the plaint schedule land by dividing item no. 8 from the plaint schedule joint property by passing preliminary decree and to determine means profits in respect of the plaintiffs 2 to 5 share of land in separate proceedings and for costs of the suit.

2.The averments of the plaint are that: The 1st plaintiff is a native of Gowravaram village and he worked as Manager, N.D.C.C Bank,

Kavali branch and now retired and residing at Kavali. There is a Adavi

Beedu, to an extent of Ac 113.90cents comprised in 10 survey numbers i.e., 434/2 -Ac. 13.96cents, 435-Ac 9.58cents, 438-Ac 17.29cents, 439- 2.41cents, 440-Ac 23.21cents, 444-1- Ac 16.81 cents, 442 – Ac 6.01cents, 583-Ac 7.24 cents 591-Ac 8.19cents and 653-Ac 9.20cents, situated in Gowravaram village, which is joint one. For the above said extent 67 joint owners are having joint right. Till today the said land is - 3 - in joint possession of all the sharers, out of said total extent of Ac 113.90cents an extent of 16.81 cents is comprised in S.No. 441-1. In the said extent of Ac 16.81 cents in S.No. 441-1 the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 7 are having joint right and the same is shown as plaint schedule. To show the joint right and possession of the 1st plaintiff and the defendants 1 to7 over the said land the certified copy of R.O.R extract copy is filed herewith. Out of that extent the 1st plaintiff is having joint right Ac 2-19 cents. Likewise the defendants 1 to 7 are also having joint right in the extent shown in the schedule. The entire extent of Ac 16.81 cents is shown in the plaint schedule and out of it over item no. 8, the 1st plaintiff have got joint right. The defendants 8 to 15 are not having any right in the schedule property.

Without partitioning or deviating the said extent as per the respective shares, no sharer will have right to alienate or sold their joint respective shares. Unless and until division or partition of the schedule land, if at all any alienation or sale transaction was held, it is not valid under law, Regarding the joint owner ship in the extent of Ac.16.81 cents to the defendants 1 to 7 and the 1st plaintiff there is no dispute.

The defendants promised to cooperate for partition, but they have been postponing the same on some ground or other.

The 1st plaintiff now learnt that the entire total extent of Ac 113.90cents was sold away by the defendants 1 to 7 as joint sharers and the defendants 8 to 15 without any right under different transactions and under different sale deeds without partitioning the said joint land, and also without consent and knowledge of the 1st plaintiff. Out of the purchasers 16th defendant is one of the purchaser, who knew about the joint ownership of the above said extent. It is - 4 - further stated that the 16th defendant purchased the land in suit schedule survey number including the land of the 1st plaintiff. So the said transactions are not valid under law. Without locating and identifying each share of land, and so the said sale deeds are not valid and they will not transfer any right to 16th defendant. It is further learnt by the plaintiff that all the defendants 1 to 15 sold the land at Rs.1,00,000/- per acre,. It is submitted the 16th defendant purchased the entire AC 16.81 cents under different sale deeds on different dates, So the said sale deeds are not valid under law and the 16th defendant will not acquire any right over the schedule property. It is submitted that after 1st plaintiff’s demand of partition, all the defendants colluded together and without consent and knowledge of 1st plaintiff, with a view to cause inconvenience and with ulterior motive, entered into sale transactions in respect of the schedule property including the 1st plaintiffs joint share of

Ac 2-19 cents. So the 1st plaintiffs share of Ac 2.19cents is liable to be divided from the schedule property. It is further submitted unless and until the Ac 16.81 cents is divided , the 16th defendant have no right to enter into the land. If at all any attempts of entering into the said land are made by the defendants, they will be liable for prosecution.

Even after knowing the above said illegal transactions the 1st plaintiff requested and demanded the defendants 1 to 7 and 16th defendant to cooperate for division of the schedule property of Ac 16.81cens as per their respective shares shown in the schedule by fixing the boundaries to the each shares land. The defendants 1 to 7 and 16 defendant did not cooperate for the partition. Then the 1st plaintiff issued a legal notice on 13.2.2007 to all the defendants 1 to16 to cooperate for partition of Ac 16.81cents. Except 12th defendant, all the - 5 - defendants received the said notices, and the 12th defendant got it returned with false endorsement and they neither sent any reply nor comply the 1st plaintiffs demand.

After knowing the sale transaction entered by the 16th ,the 1st plaintiff got issued a legal notice on 6.1.2007, but neither she sent any reply nor comply the demand.

It is further submitted that the 16th defendant now without any manner of right, is trying to alter the schedule property in an extent of

Ac 16.81 cents by forming ridges and by digging bore wells etc.

During the pendency of the suit the 5th defendant died leaving behind the defendants 17 to 20 as his nearest legal heirs and they were added as defendants 17 to 20 in the suit, as legal heirs of deceased 5th defendant.

During the pendency of the suit the 6th defendant died leaving behind the defendants 21 to 25 as his legal heirs and they were added as defendants 21 to 25 in the suit, as legal heirs of deceased 6th defendant.

During the pendency of the suit the 7th defendant died leaving behind the defendants 26 as his legal heirs and she was added as 26th defendant in the suit, as legal heir of deceased 7th defendant.

During the pendency of the suit the 12th defendant died leaving behind the defendants 27 to 29 as his legal heirs and they were added as defendant 27 to 29 in the suit, as legal heir of deceased 12th defendant.

- 6 -

During the pendency of the suit the 1st plaintiff died leaving behind the plaintiffs 2 to 5 as his legal heirs and they were added as as plaintiffs 2 to 5 in the suit, as legal heirs of deceased 1st plaintiff.

3.Here, the defendants 8, 13, 14 and 16 filed their written

statements and the defendants 1 to 4 and 15 are adopted the

written statement of D14.

The averments of the written statement of 8 th defendant are

that: The 8th defendant denies all the allegations in the suit, except those that are specifically admitted herein to be true and puts the plaintiff to strict proof for the same.

He submits that the plaintiff is the son of Malakonda Reddy and also the description of the defendants shown in the plaint are correct and plaintiff is native of Gowravaram village. He submits that there is a

Adavi Beedu comprised in 10 survey numbers in an extent of Ac 113.90 cents as stated in the plaint, and the same is situated in Gowravaram village which is joint one. The 8th defendant is not aware of 67 joint owners are having joint right and also till to day the said lands are in joint possession of all the 67 sharers. He submits that he is one of the joint owner of the above said property. Out of the total extent of Ac 113.90cents an extent of Ac 16.81 cents is comprised in S.No. 441/1 and he denies that in the said extent of Ac 16.81 cents in S.NO. 441/1 the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 7 are only having joint right.

The father of 8th defendant Sure Lakshma Reddy purchased an aggregate extent of AC 2.50cents in P.NO.177 in S.No. 435 out of an extent of AC 9.58 cents in S.NO.438 out of an extent of 17.59 in S.no.

- 7 - 439 out of an extent of AC 2.41cents in S.No.442 out of an extent of AC 6.01cemts, S.No. 440 out of an extent of Ac 23.21 cents , S.No. 434 out of an extent of Ac 13.96cents, in S.No.441/1 out of an extent of Ac 16.81cents in S.NO.653 out of an extent of AC 9.20 cents, in total out of an extent of Ac 90.47cemts was purchased under a unregistered sale deed dated 2.11.1940 from one Thippareddy Padma Reddy s/o Rami reddy of Gowravaram village for a considerattion of Rs. 50/-, since the date of purchase this defendant’s father and after his demise this defendant is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. The said AC 2.50cents is jointly enjoying this defendants family along with other defendants.

This defendants father Lakshmi Reddy also purchased an extent of

Ac 1.32cents out of AC 16.82cents in P.No. 177, in S.No. 441/1 under a registered sale deed dated 21.1.1943 for consideration of Rs. 30/- from

Kandukuru Nagaiah, S/o subbaiah. Since the date of purchase this defendant’s father and after his demise this defendant is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. The 8th defendant further submits that he is having joint right in a total extent of Ac 3.82cents in

S.Nos. 434,435,438,439,440,441/1, 442, 653 in P.NO. 177 of

Gowravaram village this defendant is a joint sharers along with other defendants.

This defendant is not aware about the contents of the Certified copies of ROR extract filed by the plaintiff and denies the said ROR which is fabricated one and the plaintiff obtained the same by manipulating the revenue officials. This defendant submitted that he sold away Ac 0.96 cents of land out of Ac 1.32 cents in S.No. 441/1 to

Sd.Tahassum who is the 16th defendant herein. The defendant is not - 8 - aware about the plaintiff has been requesting to the defendants 1 to 7 to cooperate the partition of Ac 16.81 cents and also defendants 1 to 7 promised to cooperate for partition. He further submits that the plaintiff not issued a notice to this defendant and this defendant did not send any reply.

The plaintiff has no right and title and possession over an extent of AC 2.19cents out of Ac 16.81 cents in S.No. 441/1. the contention of the plaintiff that he has got right and title and possession in item no. 8 of the plaint schedule is false. There is no cause of action for the suit and the one alleged is false and invented for the purpose of the suit. Hence the 8th defendant requested the court to dismiss the suit.

The averments of the written statement of 13 th defendant are

that: The 13th defendant denies all the allegations in the suit, except those that are specifically admitted herein to be true and puts the plaintiff to strict proof for the same.

The 13th defendant submits that there is a land called Adavi beedu to an extent of Ac 113.90cents and it is covered by ten survey numbers of Gowravaram village and it is in joint one and all the joint owners were having joint right. He submits that said land was in joint possession of all the sharers. It is not true that plaintiff and defendants 1 to 7 are having joint right in an extent of AC 16.81 cents in survey no.

441/1 which is shown in the plaint schedule . The certified copy of the

ROR filed by the plaintiff is not true and genuine. The plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same. He denied that the defendants 8 to 15 are not having any right in the schedule property and the sharers can not alienate or sell their shares without partition.

- 9 -

This defendant is not aware that the entire plaint schedule land of

Adivi beedu was sold by the defendants 1 to 7 as joint shares and defendants 8 to 15 without any right under different transaction. It is also not true that without partitioning the joint land and without the consent the knowledge of plaintiff sharers can not alienate. There is no need of the consent of plaintiff for selling the shares by other sharers.

This is submitted that to the knowledge of this defendant plaintiff has no share. The plaintiff never enjoyed the said beedu along with the sharers. The suit itself is not maintainable.

This defendant submits that, he owned 11 cattle share in the said adivi beedu. Out of them he got two cattle share in their family partition.

After partition, this defendant purchased 8 cattle shares from one

Madarametla Krishna Reddy and Palavalli Venkata Subba Reddy under two separate registered sale deeds. As per the rights the two cattle shares that he got in the family partition comes to Ac 2.00 cents at the rate of Ac 1.00 from each cattle share. Four cattle shares purchased from Medarametla Krishna Reddy comes to AC 3.00 cents, the Four cattle shares purchased from Palavalli Venkata subba Reddy comes to Ac 3.37 cents as this defendants remembers. This defendant returned the registered sale deeds standing in his name to the purchaser. Therefore he could not remembered the dates of registered sale deeds. Even though certain survey numbers are mentioned in the registered sale deeds obtained by this defendant and also in the registered sale deed executed by him, the said extents include out of the total extent of

Rs.113.90 cents, therefore this defendant rightly sold his own shares in the joint beedu and plaintiff has no right to question the same.

- 10 -

The plaintiff never enjoyed the said beedu, Therefore the suit is not maintainable. If the share in ancestral one, the plaintiff alone is not entitled to claim partition. The plaintiffs paternal uncle Balarami reddy will become sharer. He died, his legal heirs are there. The Plaintiff’s sister is there and she is no more now. Her legal heirs are there. They were not joined in filing of the suit along with the plaintiff. They are also not imp leaded as defendants. Therefore the suit is not maintainable.

There fore, the suit is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

The averments of the written statement of 14 th defendant are

that(this written statement was adopted by the defendants 1 to

4 and 15): He denied all the allegations mentioned in the plaint except those that are specifically admitted by him. But, he admitted that there is a adavi beedu to an extent of Ac 113.90 cents comprised in 10 survey

Numbers of Gowravaram village, Kavali mandal. He further admitted that it is a joint one and all the joint owners were having joint right and the said land was in joint possession of the all sharers. This defendant is not aware 67 joint owner are having joint right and till today the said land is in joint possession of all the 67 sharers joint of the said to all extent of Ac 113.90 cents . It is true that an extent of Acs 16.81cents is comprised in Sno;. 441/1. It is not correct to state that the defendants 1 to 7 and the plaintiff having joint right and the same is shown as plaint schedule.

They further submits that the 1st defendant is having Ac 6.75 cents

In S.No. 441/1, 2nd defendant was in possession of Ac 1.65cents in S.No.

441, 3rd defendant was in possession of Ac 0.83 cents and the sons of 4th defendant who shown as 14th defendant and 15th defendant having Ac 1.66 cents in same survey number. Thus the defendant 1 to 4 and 15 - 11 - and this defendants were in possession of Ac 10.89 in S.No. 441.The revenue authorities also issued pattadar pass book and title deeds in respect of their respective shares. This defendant defendants 3 to 15 were jointly sold away their respective shares in favour of D16 under registered sale dated 7.6.2006 and likewise the defendants 1 and 2 and father of D1 jointly sold away their respective shares over the schedule mentioned property in favor of D16 under registered sale deed dated 6.6.2006. Since then D16 has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule mentioned property. The defendants rightly sold his own shares in the joint Beedu and the plaintiff has no right to question about the execution of the registered sale deed.

This defendant is not aware that the plaintiff is having joint right in an extent of AC 2.19cents of out of Ac 16.81cens in S.No. 441/1. it is also false to state that the defendants 8 to 15 are not having any right in the schedule property. The plaintiff has to strict proof of the same.

He further submits that it is false to state that the total extent of

AC.113.90cents was sold away by the defendants 1 to 7 as joint sharers and defendants 8 to 15 with out any right under different transaction and under different sale deeds, without partitioning the said joint land and also with out consent and knowledge of the plaintiff. This defendant also not aware the 16th defendant purchased the entire acres 16.81cents under different sale deeds on different dates.

This defendant submits that the certified copies of ROR extract filed by the plaintiff is nothing but a fabricated one with the assistance of revenue officials. This defendant and the defendants 1 to 4 and 15 received the lawyer notice and they did not chosen to send any reply thereto as they thinks that they can put forward his defense in the suit - 12 - at appropriate time. This defendant personality not aware about the contents in true copy of no. 3 account and 10(1) issued by VAO There are no valid and tenable grounds to partition of plaint schedule land by delivering item 8 from the plaint schedule joint property. The suit is not maintainable for partition of plaint schedule property alone out of Ac 113 cents. The defendant is not approached the court with clean hands.

There is no cause of action for the suit as the alleged contents in the plaint are all false and frivolous and invented for the purpose of filing the suit. Hence the requested to dismiss the suit with costs.

The averments of the written statement of 16 th defendant

are that: She denied all the allegations mentioned in the plaint except those that are specifically admitted by her.

It is the contention of the this defendant that the contention of the plaintiff that the suit schedule property is joint property and also the plaintiff is having a joint share of Ac 2.19 cents in it are false. The other contention that the defendants are his co owners is also false. Only some of the 7 defendants are having exclusive and individual rights in the suit schedule property which was divided long back. The suit schedule property was divided among the joint owners long back and each one of then have been enjoying their respective extents of lands as absolute owners thereof.

Originally the suit schedule property was in the name of some of the villagers of Gouravaram village. Conferring on them the notional title of concerned villagers in the suit schedule property, some of the villagers of Gouravaram village enjoyed title and possession during the course of their life time, depending upon the number of Oxes, they possess.

- 13 -

Likewise one Devarapalli Ramana Reddy, K.chenchu krishanamma, and

K.Kameswaramma, plaintiff was owning about an extent of ACs 2.40 cents. Madderala Ramanamma (D6) was owning Ac 0.80 cents,

Budamgunta Ramakrishna Rao (D7) was owning Ac 1.23 cents of land,

Medarametla Mallareddy (D5)was owning AC 1.66 cents of dry land,

Remala Malakonda Reddy was owning Ac 3.43 cents of dry land ,Remala

Rami reddy, Remala Ramasubaareddy and Remala Krishna Reddy were owning Ac 3.00 cents of dry land and Sure Mahadevareddy , advocate of

Atmakur was owning Ac 3.30 cents of dry land.

The above persons are the absolute owners of the lands situated in

Survey numbers 441/1 of patta no. 177 of Gouravaram village of the panchayath. Kavali Rural mandal. They have been in possession and enjoyment of the land, heaving separate possession thereof, such being the case the allegations of the plaintiff that the land situated in survey numbers 441/1 is joint and it is to be separated by metes and bounds is absured and is false. The documents namely 10 (1) Adangal, no. 3 adangal and ROR filed by the plaintiff himself would go to show that the suit schedule land underwent sale transaction which denotes that the suit schedule land was not in joint possession and it was separated by meters and bounds and has been in the enjoyment of the respective owners.

She further submits that there are two persons in the village of

Gouravaram by name Sure Krishna Reddy. In the adangals filed by the plaintiff, his father name is not given. The fathers name of the plaintiff is

Malakondareddy. There is another Sure Krishna Reddy son of Pedda

Venkata Reddy living in Gouravaram village. The voters list of

Gouravaram village shown the above fact to the true.

- 14 -

The plaintiff here in filed a suit in OS 418/2001, on the file of

Principal Junior civil Jugdge, Kavali against one Medarametla Obul reddy

show as he is sister’s son of the plaintiff here in. In that suit the plaintiffs herein filed the particulars of the land owned and possessed by him. Like wise he filed his pattadar pass book also in that suit, pertaining to his lands in Gouravaram village, but in those documents, the allegations that the plaintiff was owning land in S.No. 441/1 not shown. These facts clearly show that the plaintiff and his family never owned any land in S.No. 441/1 of Gouravaram village and also never have been in possession of any part of the land the Survey number 441/1 of Gouravaram village.

Moreover in the revenue record filed by the plaintiff the fathers names of all the pattadars were given except in the case of one sure

Krishna Reddy, by taking advantage of that the plaintiff is claiming himself to be the surya Krishna shown in the adangals and illegally claiming a share in the property. But the claim of the plaintiff is not legally valid and correct. From Sure family one S.Maha deva Reddy sold

Ac 3.30cens to this 16th defendant.

She further submits that the defendant after purchasing the suit schedule land, took possession of the land, cleared up the jungle in the suit schedule land and her relatives who purchased the adjoining land also cleared off, two months ago, prior to to the institution of the suit.

This defendant also dug a bore well in the suit schedule property prior to the institution of the suit. That photographs were taken to substantiate the above fact. Thus the relief sought by the petitioner/ plaintiff that the topography of the land should not be altered and no bore wells should be digged became infructuous.

- 15 -

She further submits that she was given pass books also by

Revenue Officials. The defendant has invested huge amount in purchasing an developing the land and her right of enjoyment could not be curbed by the plaintiff by instituting a false and frivolous case. The balance of provenience is in favour of this defendant.

It is further submits that the defendant here in purchased an extent of Ac 19.00cents and odd in S.NO. 441/1 of Gouravaram village which is in excess to the extent shown in ROR. This is an earnest error which is to be rectified. The name of the plaintiff was not provided in

ROR and adangals Thus the plaintiff is not having title and right in the suit schedule property . The sure Krishna Reddy family did not have any share in the suit schedule property. By the time of entries were made in the ROR the plaintiffs father was very much alive and if at all the Sujre

Family has any share, their fathers name might be there but not the name of the plaintiff herein.

Moreover the plaintiff has to prove that he has got a right in the property and the property is a joint property. Thus burden lies on the plaintiff to prove his legal title in the property . The ROR only S.no. 441 is given but not 441/1. The difference in S.No. 441/1 and 441 clearly shows the ambiguity in deciding the right of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is having no right and title and the relief of partition in the plaint schedule land sought by him is untenable. Hence it is prayed to dismissed the suit with costs.

- 16 -

4. Basing on the above said pleadings the following ISSUES were framed for trial:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition, as prayed for?

2. To what relief?

5. Trial:- To prove their respective contentions, the plaintiff himself examined as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A24. Further, he also got examined the villagers of Gowravaram as Pws.2 and 3. On behalf of the 16th defendant, she herself examined as DW1 through the Advocate

Commissioner and got marked Exs.B1 to B20. Further, she also got examined her husband as DW2 and one of the attestor of Ex.A6 as DW3.

Further, the 8th defendant himself examined as DW4 and got marked

Exs.B21 and B22.

On behalf of other defendants, none were examined and no documents were marked, but they cross examined the witnesses. Here, the defendants 1 to 7, 9 to 12, 14, 15 and 17 to 29 were remained exparte.

6. Arguments:- Heard on both sides. The plaintiff, defendants 8, 13 and 16 were filed their written arguments.

Discussion:

ISSUE NO.1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of

partition, as prayed for?

7.Here, the case of the plaintiff is that he is native of Gowravaram village. He worked as Manager, N.D.C.C.Bank, Kavali branch and now he is retired. Further, contended that there is Adavi Beedu to an extent of - 17 -

Ac.113-90 cents comprised in ten survey numbers i.e., 434/2-Ac.13-96 cents, 435-Ac.9-58 cents, 438-Ac.17-29 cents, 439-Ac.2-41 cents, 440-

Ac.23-21 cents, 444-1 – Ac.16-81 cents, 442-Ac.6-01 cents, 583-Ac.7-24 cents, 591-Ac.8-19 cents, 653-Ac.9-20 cents situated in Gowravaram village, which is in joint and there are 67 joint owners for the said land having joint right and till today the same is in joint possession of all the sharers for the total extent of Ac.113-90 cents. Out of that, in the land an extent of Ac.16-81 cents comprised in Sy.No.441-1, the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 7 are having joint right as shown in the plaint schedule.

The same was also revealed in ROR extract and out of that the 1st plaintiff is having right to an extent of Ac.2-19 cents, which is item No.8 of the plaint schedule. But, the defendants 8 to 15 are not having any right in the schedule property. So, the contention and case of the plaintiff is that, without partition or division all the said extent, as per their respective shares, no sharer will have right to alienate or sale their respective shares and if any alienation made does not valid and not binding, further contended that inspite of demands made by the plaintiff and inspite of issuing legal notice by the plaintiff, the defendants 1 to 7 did not cooperate for partition. Moreover, by colluding with each other and with the defendants 8 to 15, without consent and knowledge of the 1st plaintiff, sold away the entire extent of Ac.113-90 cents to different persons and sold away the schedule property including the joint share of the plaintiff to the 16th defendant. So, the said transaction is not valid and not binding. After knowing the said sale transaction, the plaintiff also got issued legal notice dt.6.1.2007 to 16th defendant, but, she did not sent any reply notice inspite of receiving the said notice and now the 16th defendant without any manner of right trying to alter the schedule - 18 - property in an extent of Ac.16-81 cents by forming ridges and by digging bore wells etc., to defeat the rights of the plaintiff.

8.The same was deposed by the 1st plaintiff, who was examined as

PW1. Further, in support of his oral evidence, he got marked Exs.A1 to

A24 i.e., certified copy of ROR extract, office copy of legal notice dt.10.2.2007, postal acknowledgements, reply notice, office copy of legal notice dt.6.1.2007, postal acknowledgement, 10(1) account copy, No.3 adangal copy, market value certificate and orders in CMA No.21/08 along with decree.

9.The above said evidence of plaintiff is also supported by the villagers of Gowravaram and also neighbouring land owners of the plaint schedule property, who were examined as Pws.2 and 3.

10.The above said evidence of plaintiff is denied by the 8th defendant, who was examined as DW4. Further, the contention and evidence of the 8th defendant is that the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 7 alone are not the joint owners of alleged extent of Ac.16-81 cents in Sy.No.441-1 and contended that the father of this defendant also purchased land an extent of Ac.1-32 cents in Sy.No.441 under Ex.B21 registered sale deed for the year 1943. Further, the father of this defendant by name

Lakshma Reddy purchased an extent of Ac.2-50 cents in Patta No.177 in

Sy.No.435, in sy.No.438, 439, 442, 440, 653 in total extent of Ac.90-47 cents under registered sale deed dt.2.11.1940 from one Tippareddy

Padma Reddy i.e., the paternal grand father of DW3 and the said Ac.2-50 cents jointly enjoying by himself and his family members along with other defendants. Further, his contention and evidence is that, he is one of the joint owner for the land in Sy.No.441-1. After the death of his father, he is enjoying the above said Ac.1-32 cents and also above said - 19 -

Ac.2-50 cents. Then, he sold away the land an extent of Ac.0-96 cents out of Ac.1-32 cents in Sy.No.441- to the 16th defendant along with other defendants. So, the contention and evidence of the 8th defendant is that the plaintiff is not the joint owner for the land in Sy.No.441-1 and the

ROR extract, copy of 10(1) and NO.3 adangals filed by the plaintiff are manipulated documents by managing the revenue authorities.

11.Here, the 16th defendant was examined as DW1. Her evidence is that she purchased total extent in Sy.No.441-1 from the lawful owners and she also purchased some other extent of land in total extent of

Ac.113-90 cents of Adavi Beedu from the lawful owners through registered sale deeds and contended that after purchasing the land, she made it clean by spending huge amounts and also dug a bore well in the plaint schedule property. But, the 1st plaintiff who have no manner of right claiming the share in the land in Sy.No.441-1. In support of her oral evidence, she got filed letter addressed to 16th defendant by Sri Balaji

Constructions dt.9.4.2007, bill dt.25.4.2007, 10 photos with CD, register sale deed dt.21.11.2006, 6.6.2006, 12.6.2006, 22.6.2006, 26.8.2006, 16.6.2006, 7.6.2006, 13.6.2006, 5.6.2006, 18.11.2006, certified copy of cist receipts, settlement deed dt.27.11.1974 standing in the name of

Obul Reddy, cist receipts and half portion torn cist receipts.

12.The above said evidence of 16th defendant was also supported by the attestor of Ex.B6 sale deed who was examined as DW3 and who is alleged as joint owner for the total land an extent of Ac.113-90 cents.

Further, the evidence of DW1 is also supported by her husband who was examined as DW2.

13.Here, the plaintiff denied the evidence of defendants and denied the documents of the defendants and contended that he is joint owner - 20 - to an extent of Ac.2-19 cents in Sy.No.441-1 and contended that his right also revealed through Ex.A1 i.e., certified copy of ROR extract, Ex.A21 i.e., 10(1) account and Ex.A22 i.e., No.3 adangal for the faslie 1406.

Here, the suit is filed by the plaintiff by claiming land an extent of Ac.2- 19 cents in Sy.No.441-1. So, the plaintiff has to prove the right over the said extent.

14.Further, here, as admitted by plaintiff, defendants 8, 13, 14, the total Adavi Beedu an extent of Ac.113-90 cents is in joint and as admitted by them, there are several sharers for the said total extent.

Further, as admitted by the plaintiff, even till today the total extent of

AC.113-90 cents is in joint. Further, as admitted by the plaintiff, he did not implead all the sharers of above said total extent in the present suit.

But, his contention and evidence is that himself and defendants 1 to 7 are joint owners for the land in Sy.No.441-1 an extent of Ac.16-81 cents.

So, it is not necessary to him to implead all the joint sharers of the total extent of Ac.113-90 cents. Further, here, as admitted by him, in his cross examination, the extent of the land in Sy.No.441-1 is includes in total extent of Ac.113-90 cents and there is no separate boundaries or division for the land in Sy.No.441-1. But, admittedly, he did not shown all the extent of Ac.113-90 cents in the suit and not impleaded all the sharers of said joint extent.

15.Here, the plaint and chief examination affidavit of PW1 is silent about the source of ownership of him for the land an extent of Ac.2-19 cents in Sy.No.441-1. But, he simply claiming the said extent basing on

Exs.A1, A21 and A22. But, in his cross examination, he deposed that the above said land an extent of Ac.2-41 cents in Sy.No.441-1 is their ancestral property. But, as admitted by him, he did not file any record - 21 - either standing in the name of his father or his family members in respect of the above said land. Further, as admitted by him, there is no record from him to show that the above said land is his ancestral property. But, his contention is that his name was clearly shown in Ex.A1

ROR extract, 10(1) account filed under Ex.A21 and No.3 adangal. But, here, as admitted by PW1 and also as per Ex.A1, there is no mention of father’s name of Sure Krishna Reddy in respect of land an extent of Ac.2- 81 cents in Sy.No.441-1 and no mention of the name of the plaintiff’s father i.e., Malakonda Reddy in ROR extract. Further, as admitted by

PW1 and as per Ex.A1 father’s names of other joint owners in respect of

Sy.No.441 was clearly mentioned. Further, as admitted by PW1, in Ex.A1 there is no mention of source of acquisition of above said extent by plaintiff. But, for the remaining joint sharers to the Sy.No.441, there is particulars of their father’s name and source of acquisition as ancestral or self acquisition. Further, as admitted by PW1, nature of his possession for the above said land mentioned in Ex.A1 is as encroacher.

16.Further, in the cross examination of PW1, he deposed that basing on the averments of sale deeds and records, he shown the names of possessor in the schedule annexed to the plaint and he prepared the schedule of the plaint, basing on the village accounts obtained from

M.R.O. in the suit year. Further, here, as admitted by him, he did not obtain any pattadar pass book and title deed in respect of the above said land and also not paying any cist. Further, as admitted by him in

Ex.A21, there is no seal and stamp of V.A.O. Further, he admitted that his father name was not mentioned in Ex.A21 10(1) account and name of his father was also not noted in Ex.A22 No.3 adangal. Further, here, the pleadings of the 16th and 8th defendant was admitted by the plaintiff - 22 - as there are three persons by name Sure Krishna Reddy in Gowravaram village including this plaintiff. So, it is the burden of the plaintiff to prove that the name of Sure Krishna Reddy shown in Exs.A1 and A21 belongs to him.

17.Further, he admitted that one Sure Krishna Reddy is son of Brahma

Reddy and one Sure Krishna Reddy is son of Peda Venkat Reddy and they are his villagers. But, here, as admitted by him either his father’s name or his grand father’s name was not mentioned in any of the revenue records in respect of land an extent of Ac.2-19 cents in Sy.No.441-1.

Further, as admitted by him in Exs.A1 and A21 the Sy.No. simply shown

as 441 and there is no sub division as 441-1. Further, here, as admitted

by him, he obtained pattadar pass book and title deed for his entire lands. But, admittedly, the land an extent of Ac.2-19 cents in Sy.No.441- 1 was not shown in his pattadar pass book. Further, here, in the cross examination of PW1, it reveals that he filed a suit in O.S.418/2001 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kavali. But, admittedly, he did not mention the property in question in the present suit and admittedly the documents filed in the said O.S.418/01 are not relating to the present suit survey number much less survey number 441 or 441-1. Further, as admitted by him, he filed all the documents relating to all his landed properties in his earlier suits. But, admittedly, he did not file any documents in respect of present suit either in O.S.418/01 and in

O.S.103/88. So, here, as admitted by him, there is no record standing in

his name in respect of land an extent of Ac.2-19 cents in Sy.No.441-1 with his father’s name.

18.Further, here, as admitted by the plaintiff, he did not call for the originals of Exs.A1, A21 and 22 from the revenue department to show in - 23 - the originals of it, his father name was mentioned. Further, he did not take any steps either to summon the revenue people or summon the documents in respect of Sy.No.441 and 441-1 to show his right over the land an extent of Ac.2-19 cents in Sy.No.441 as contended by him.

19.So, here, as admitted by him, there is no record to show his right over the land an extent of Ac.2-19 cents in Sy.No.441.

20.Further, it is the contention of the plaintiff, the defendants 1 and 2 who are alleged 2nd and 3rd vendors of Ex.B5 sale deed have no right to sell the extent of Ac.6-75 cents and Ac.1-65 cents to the 16th defendant.

Further, he contended that as per the written statement of D1, the 1st defendant has land only an extent of Ac.6-75 cents and D2 has only to an extent of Ac.1-65 cents, but in Ex.B5, no separate extents of each vendor was mentioned. Further, he contended that in all the 10 sale deeds of the 16th defendant, there is no mention of separate extents of respective vendor. Further, the 16th defendant did not obtain the signatures of all the family members of the defendants in their sale deeds. So, he contended that the said sale deeds are not valid because it was not executed by all the rightful persons.

21.No doubt, in the cross examination of DW1, she deposed that she did not obtain the signatures of all the family members of her vendors in the sale deeds standing on her name. But, she deposed that her husband i.e., DW2 verified the rights of her vendors and verified the documents of her vendors.

22.Further, it is the contention of the plaintiff in all 10 sale deeds one

Kunnam Venkata Ramana Reddy purchased the property on behalf of

DW1 and contended that in the cross examination of DW1, it reveals that - 24 - she does not know anything about Exs.B4 to B13 sale deeds. No doubt, in the cross examination of DW1, she deposed that she does not know anything about the Exs.B4 to B13 sale deeds. But, she deposed that she went to Sub-Registrar Office by the time of execution of the said sale deeds. Further, she deposed that her husband i.e., DW2 looked after the entire transactions.

23.Further, it is the contention of the plaintiff mere having registered sale deeds will not create right to the person unless the same was executed by proper persons and executed properly. On that, he relied upon a decision reported in

2008(6) ALD 818 i.e., in Thummalachetty Builders and

Developers (Pvt) Ltd., Hyderabad v. Commissioner and Inspector

General of Stamps and Registration, Hyderabad and others.

In the above said citation, it was held mere registration of document will not confer any new title and any title dispute, arising of such registrations, subject to and decided under provisions of various other laws, governing transfer of immovable property.

24.Further, he relied upon another decision reported in

2009 (1) ALD 337 i.e., in Dr.Yadla Ramesh Naidu v. Sub-Registrar,

Sabbavaram, Visakhapatnam District and others.

In the said citation, it was held that mere registration of transfer of immovable property by execution of a document by transferor in favour of transferee, confers no title on transferee.

25.No doubt, mere registration of a document will not confer right to any person unless it is satisfied provisions of Transfer of Property Act about the rights of the parties. But, here, all the above said citations are - 25 - not applicable to the present case on hand because, here, the plaintiff filed the suit for partition by claiming some extent of the property out of the plaint schedule property. So, he has to prove his right and title by adducing positive evidence and he cannot rely upon defects in the evidence of defendants.

26.Further, it is the contention of the plaintiff, the 16th defendant herself in the paragraphs 4 and 5 of her written statement admitted about right of the plaintiff in Sy.No.441/1, so, itself is enough to prove the title of the plaintiff, as admitted facts need not be proved. No doubt, in the written statement of 16th defendant in Paragraph 4 and 5, it was mentioned that along with the defendants, the plaintiff has right over the land in Sy.No.44/1. But, it is the contention of the 16th defendant that herself and her family members filed number of suits during the relevant period and on that there are typographical mistakes arose in their written statement in this regard. Further, here, through the cross examination of PWs.2 and 3, it reveals that the family members of 16th defendant filed some other suits against PWs.2 and 3 and some others in respect of Adavi Beedu land, which supports the contention of the 16th defendant as they filed some other suits in this regard. Further, here, when the plaintiff filed the suit to prove his right and title, it is his burden to prove the same and he cannot rely upon the weaknesses of the defendant or defects in the evidence of defendants. So, here, the plaintiff has to prove his right and title with cogent evidence. On the other hand, mere, stray admission in the written statement of 16th defendant will not confer right and title to the plaintiff, because 16th defendant is not the person to decide the rights of others. Further, in the written statement of vendors of the 16th defendant I.e., in the written - 26 - statement of other defendants also they denied the title of the plaintiff.

So, the plaintiff has to prove his title with his own evidence.

27.Further, here, it is the contention and evidence of the plaintiff, prior to filing of the suit, he sent the elders for amicable settlement of partition and the names of the said elders are Sure Gopal Reddy,

M.Audinarayana Reddy, Eswar Reddy and Malakonda Reddy. But, his evidence was not supported by the above said Audinarayana Reddy, who was examined as PW2. Further, here, in the cross examination of

PW2, he deposed that there was no occasion for him to act as elder on behalf of the plaintiff to settle the dispute in respect of suit claim along with Sure Gopal Reddy, Eswar Reddy and Malakonda Reddy.

28.Further, here, as per the chief examination affidavits of PWs.2 and 3, there are joint owners for the total extent of Ac.113-90 cents of Adavi

Beedu, but, in the cross examination of PWs.2 and 3, they clearly deposed that no document from them to show that they are having some portion of land in the above said Adavi Beedu.

29.Further, in the cross examination of PW2, he deposed that he has no claim in the suit schedule property and he does not know the names of the persons who sold the property in dispute to the 16th defendant and also extents of the land purchased by 16th defendant. Further, he deposed that he does not know, whether brother of the 16th defendant by name Haneef filed a suit in O.S.No.354/2007against him showing as 17th defendant, on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kavali in respect of land in Sy.No.591, 438 and deposed that he does not know whether in the said suit he filed his written statement. So, it shows that he intentionally pleading ignorance about the suits filed by the brother of the 16th defendant. But, he clearly deposed that he has no claim over - 27 - the plaint schedule property herein and admitted that he has no record to show any of his right over the Adavi Beedu land.

30.Further, in the chief examination of PW3, it was mentioned that the brother of the 16th defendant by name Haneef filed a collusive suit through Sd.Chand Basha against him and alleged vendors on the file of

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kavali in O.S.No.354/2007 and in that suit he

is contesting. But in his cross examination, he denied the same and pleaded ignorance. Further, he admitted that he filed a suit in

O.S.48/1974 on the file of this court against Annem Ramana Reddy,

Annem Chenchurami Reddy, Remala Mangamma, Annem Kamamma,

Remala Venkata Krishna Reddy, Remala Venkatarami Reddy, Remala

Venkateswarlu Reddy and R.Audilakshmamma seeking partition of their joint family property. But, PW3 admitted that the land an extent of Ac.1- 66 cents in sy.No.438 or land an extent of Ac.2-14 cents nearby schedule property, which he claims as their property in his chief examination affidavit was not shown in O.S.48/1974. So, if really either himself or his family members are having any right over the Adavi Beedu land as contended by him, why he did not shown the same in their suit filed for partition. Further, here, as admitted by him, he did not file any record

before the court to show their right for any of the extent in Adavi Beedu

land.

31.Further, here, in the cross examination of Pws.2 and 3, they pleaded ignorance about the land an extent of Ac.1-32 cents in

Sy.No.441 purchased by the father of 8th defendant by name Laxma

Reddy under Ex.B21.

32.So, the cross examination of Pws.2 and 3 shows that they do not know anything about the plaint schedule property and about the rights - 28 - of the parties in the suit. So, their evidence is noway helpful to support the case of the plaintiff.

33.Further, here, it is the contention and evidence of the defendants, the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties and the plaintiff failed to implead his sister, when he is claiming land an extent of Ac.2-19 cents in Sy.No.441-1 as his ancestral property.

34.No doubt, in the cross examination of PW1 and PW2, it reveals that the plaintiff is having one elder sister and admittedly she is not a party to the present suit. Further, in the written statement of 13th defendant, he clearly mentioned that the plaintiff is having one sister. So, he contended that if really the claim of the plaintiff is in respect of his ancestral property as contended by him, why he did not implead her sister’s legal heirs as her sister is no more. The same was not denied by the plaintiff either by filing rejoinder or by examining any of the legal heirs of his sister. Further, here, it is not the case of the plaintiff as the land an extent of Ac.2-19 cents in Sy.No.441-1 fell to his share during their partition and it is not the case of the plaintiff, his sister has no right over the said property and he is alone having right over the said property. In the absence of such things, the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties.

35.Here, it is the contention of the plaintiff, the vendors under Exs.B4 to B13 have no right to sell the Adavi Beedu land to DW1 as so far no partition was taken place in respect of total Adavi Beedu land an extent of Ac.113-90 cents and as admitted by PWs.2 and 3 there are some other co-sharers of vendors of the 16th defendant, but they are not parties to the sale deeds filed by the 16th defendant. So, the vendors have no absolute right to sell the property to 16th defendant. As such, - 29 - the registered sale deeds filed by 16th defendant are not valid and binding. But, here, the suit is filed by the plaintiff, so, the plaintiff has to prove his right over the extent claimed by him. But here, as admitted by him, there is no valid record to show his right over the extent claimed by him. On the other hand, Exs.A1, A21 and A22 will not consider to prove the right of the plaintiff because there is no clear particulars of the plaintiff in the said documents. In the absence of such information, it cannot be taken into consideration as the name of the 1st plaintiff Sure

Krishna Reddy mentioned in Exs.A1, A21 and A22. So, here, the plaintiffs failed to prove their right over the land an extent of Ac.2-19 cents in Sy.No.441-1.

36.Further, Ex.B21 registered sale deed dt.21.1.1943 show the right of the father of 8th defendant in respect of land an extent of Ac.1-32 cents in Sy.No.441. So, through Ex.B21, it reveals that even since 1943 there are registered documents in respect of above said Adavi Beedu lands, so, i.e., the case, why the plaintiff did not obtain any pattadar pass book and title deed in respect of extent claimed by him in the said survey numbers and why he did not file any record to prove his right.

Moreover, here, as admitted by the plaintiff, he is Retired Bank Manager, so, when he is well educated person, why he did not obtain any pattadar pass book and title deed for the extent claimed by him. Further, as admitted by him, he did not file any No.3 adangal subsequent to Ex.A22 to show his right or possession over the plaint schedule property. On the other hand, the case of the 16th defendant is that after purchasing the land in Sy.No.441 she spent huge amounts and cleared the land and dug a bore well. Though the same was denied by the plaintiff, but in his plaint, chief examination affidavit and in his cross examination, he - 30 - admitted that after purchasing the land by D16, the land was cleared and bore well was also dugged in the said land by D16 which supports the evidence of DW1 as subsequent of her purchase, she is in possession and enjoyment of the same.

37.So, here, as per the above discussion, the plaintiff failed to prove his right over the said land an extent of Ac.2-19 cents in Sy.No441-1. So, in the absence of proof of his right, he cannot seek for partition of land in

Sy.No.441-1. So, the plaintiff is not entitled for partition of the said land.

38.Hence, the issue is decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendants.

ISSUE NO.2: To What relief?

39.In the result, the suit is dismissed without costs.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 28 th day of March’2018)

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KOVUR.

(FAC) SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KAVALI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiffs:

PW1: Sure Krishna Reddy. PW2: Medarametla Audinarayana Reddy. PW3: Annem Venkata Ramana Reddy.

For Defendants:

DW1: Sd.Tabassum. DW2: Syed Shahin. DW3: Thippareddy Karunananda Reddy. DW4: Sure Penchal Reddy.

- 31 -

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiffs:

Ex.A.1: C.C.of ROR extract. Ex.A.2: Office copy of legal notice dated 13.2.2007. Ex.A.3: Postal acknowledgement card of D1. Exs.A.4 to A.17: Postal acknowledgements of D2 to D11, D13 to D16 respectively. Ex.A.18: Returned notice of D12. Ex.A.19: Office copy of legal notice dated 6.1.2007. Ex.A.20: Postal acknowledgement of D16. Ex.A.21: 10(1) account copy. Ex.A.22: No.3 adangal copy. Ex.A.23: Market value certificate. Ex.A.24: Order in C.M.A.No.21/08 along with decree.

For Defendants:

Ex.B1: Letter addressed to D16 by Sri Balaji Constructions dt.9.4.2007. Ex.B2: Bill dt.25.4.2007 issued by Sri Venkateswara Borewells. Ex.B3: 10 photographs with negatives. Ex.B4: Registered sale deed dt.21.11.2006. Ex.B5: Registered sale deed dt.6.6.2006. Ex.B6: Registered sale deed dt.12.6.2006. Ex.B7: Registered sale deed dt.22.6.2006. Ex.B8: Registered sale deed dt.26.8.2006. Ex.B9: Registered sale deed dt.16.6.2006. Ex.B10: Registered sale deed dt.7.6.2006. Ex.B11: Registered sale deed dt.13.6.2006. Ex.B12: Registered sale deed dt.5.6.2006. Ex.B13: Registered sale deed dt.18.11.2006. Ex.B14: C.C.of cist receipt dt.9.4.1988. Ex.B15: C.C.of cist receipt dt.22.4.1982. Ex.B16: C.C.of cist receipt dt.9.4.1988. Ex.B17: C.C.of settlement deed dt.27.4.1974. Ex.B18: C.C.of cist receipt dt.27.5.2001. Ex.B19: C.C.of cist receipt dt.30.3.1996. Ex.B20: Half portion torned cist receipt in favour of plaintiff date not seen. Ex.B21: Registered sale deed dt.21.1.1943. Ex.B22: Report of Tahsildar, Kavali in Case No.1386/KLI/75.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KOVUR.

(FAC) SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KAVALI.

1

In the Court of the Special Judge for trial of offences against Women-

cum-VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore.

Present: Smt. G.Geetha,

I Additional District & Sessions Judge,

(FAC) Special Judge for trial of offences against Women-cum- VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore. *** Tuesday, this the 29th day of April, 2025.

SESSIONS CASE No.48/2022

(P.R.C.No.2/2022 on the file of AJMFC, Kavali) (Crime No.120/2021 of Bitragunta Police Station) ***

1. Name of the Complainant : State – Inspector of Police, Kavali Rural Circle.

2. Description of the Accused : Guthi Yacob @ Badri, S/o Mohan, aged 28 years (as on the date of filing charge sheet) Thellagunta village, Bogole Mandal.

3. Offences : Charge Under Section 302 IPC for committing murder intentionally/ knowingly causing the death of Chellari Syamala/deceased.

4. Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty

5. Finding of the Judge : Found guilty

6. Sentence or Order : In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.302 of IPC and accordingly, he is convicted under Sec.235(2) of Cr.P.C., and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and also to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only)and in default shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 2 months. The remand period of convict/accused from 24.09.2021 to till date is directed to be set off against the sentence imposed above under Sec.428 of Cr.P.C.

M.O1/Saree and MO2/Rope shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

The convict/accused is informed about his right to prefer an appeal against this Judgment. The convict/accused is supplied a free copy of this Judgment and informed that if he has no means, he can utilize the services of Hon’ble State Legal Services Authority, if required.

Forward M.O1/Saree and MO2/Rope and other unmarked non- valuable property if any, entered in CPR No.6/2022 of Committal Court and CPR No.4/2024 of this Court to the learned Additional Judicial

Magistrate of I Class, Kavali, for

carrying out the order of disposal of the case property, after expiry of appeal time.

The Jail Authorities are directed to provide all means of medical aid to the convict/accused in Jail, if it is required.

7. Prosecution conducted by : Smt. M.K.Vijayalakshmi,

Additional Public Prosecutor,

VIII Addl. Sessions Court, Nellore.

8. Accused defended by : Sri K.B.S.Mani, Legal Aid Counsel for the Accused 3

This case coming on 24.03.2025 for hearing before me in the presence of Smt. M.K.Vijayalakshmi, Additional Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and Sri K.B.S. Mani, Legal Aid Counsel for the accused and upon perusing the records, having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

Filing of charge sheet:-

The Inspector of Police, Kavali Rural Circle filed charge sheet in Crime

No.120 of 2021 of Bitragunta Police Station for the offences punishable u/s 302

IPC against the accused.

JURISDICTION:

2.The offence took place in the house of accused at Thellagunta village, Bogole mandal which comes under the limits of Bitragunta Police Station and within the territorial jurisdiction of learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kavali, i.e. Committal Court.

3 . The gist of the allegations made by the prosecution is that:-

One Kareti Pitchaiah/LW1 is resident of Mikkilimpet village of Kodavalur mandal and eking out his livelihood by doing cooli works. He was blessed with three children and deceased is his second daughter. He performed her marriage with one Chellali Chiranjeevi and they were blessed with two daughters and about 8 years ago, due to some misunderstandings, the deceased left her children at her husband and came to the house of LW1 and she was working in a hotel at Rajupalem and also worked as a dancer in

Keelugurralata. About 3 years back, her husband Chiranjeevi died. About 2 months back, the deceased brought the accused to their house and introduced to LW1 that he is a Vegetable cutter in the said hotel. She brought him twice to their house. Whileso, about 4 days back, the deceased and accused again 4 came to the house of LW1 and informed to him that on the eve of

Vinayakachavithi festival, they have to attend Keelugurralu programmes and by saying that they left from there. Subsequently, on 16.09.2021 at 7-00 a.m., one

Bapatla Venkatapathi/LW5, who is Ex-ZPTC, Bogole telephoned to LW1 and informed that the deceased died at Thellagunta and on that LW1 along with daughters and mother-in-law of the deceased went to Thellagunta village and found dead body of the deceased was laid down at the house of the accused and at that time, the accused was escaped from there. On observation, LW1 found a bleeding injury on the left hand above fist and skin was peeled and found a rope tied mark on the neck of the deceased. Then, he suspected that either the accused killed the deceased or there is any other ground for her death.

Then, on the report of LW1, the Sub Inspector of Police, Bitragunta Police

Station/LW12 registered the present case under Section 174 Cr.P.C. on 16.09.2021 at 10-00 hours and took up investigation and visited the scene of offence and inspected the same in the presence of mediators/L.Ws.6 and 7 and prepared scene observation mahazarnama duly attested by the mediators and seized material objects and took photographs and prepared rough sketch.

Thereafter, he examined L.Ws.1 to 5 namely Kareti Pitchaiah, Mocharla Amulya,

Kalturi Kavya, Chellari Ramanamma and Bapatla Venkatapathi respectively and recorded their statements under Sec.161 Cr.P.C and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of L.Ws.6 to 8/Pasarlaputi

Venkata Nagar Sathish Kumar, Kakani Masthanaiah and Anchipaka Jayasri and prepared inquest report duly attested by them and sent the dead body for the autopsy.

(ii) On 24.09.2021 Pasarlaputi Venkata Nagar Sathish Kumar/LW6 came to the Police Station and produced the accused along with the confessional statement of accused and his report. Basing on that, the Sub

Inspector of Police/LW12 altered Section of Law from Section 174 Cr.P.C to

Sec.302 IPC and filed alteration memo to that effect and issued express F.I.R.

5

Thereafter, the Inspector of Police/LW13 took up investigation and verified the investigation done by LW12 and found it is on correct lines. Thereafter, he examined LW6 and recorded his statement. Later, he arrested the accused in the presence of mediators/L.Ws.7 and 9 under the cover of arrest-cum- confessional mahazarnama duly attested by the mediators. Then, he sent the accused to the Court for judicial custody. The Doctor/LW10, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased seized material objects for chemical analysis and issued post-mortem certificate. The Expert/LW11 examined the hyoid bone of the deceased and issued Expert opinion.

Thereafter, the Inspector of Police/LW13 sent the material objects to RFSL,

Guntur for chemical analysis and received RFSL report.

(iii) The entire investigation reveals that the accused addicted to vices and in that connection, he involved in theft cases and after released from Jail, he worked in a hotel at Rajupalem and there he got acquaintance with the deceased. Subsequently, they both lived under one roof and thereafter they married and were living at Thellagunta village in the house of accused.

Subsequently, the accused suspected the fidelity of the deceased and on that on the fateful day, he picked up quarrel with the deceased and with a pre-plan he tied her neck with saree and killed her. Hence, the charge sheet.

Taking of cognizance and committal proceedings:

4.The learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kavali, had taken the cognizance of the case, for the offence under Section 302 of IPC against the accused and registered it as P.R.C.No.2/2022 and copies of documents were furnished to him, as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. on his appearance. Since the offence under Section 302 of IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Session, Nellore Division, Nellore, the learned Magistrate had committed this case under Section 209 of Criminal Procedure Code (in short 6

Cr.P.C) and therefore, the Hon’ble Principal District and Sessions Judge,

Nellore, made over this case to the Special Court for trial of offences against

Women-cum-VIII Additional District and Sessions Court, Nellore for trial and disposal, according to law, after registering it as S.C.No.48/2022.

Appearance of the accused and Opening the case:

5. After receipt of the summons, the accused appeared before this

Court and on his request, Sri K.B.S. Mani, Advocate is appointed as Legal Aid counsel on his behalf to defend him. Thereafter, the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor as envisaged under Section 226 of Cr.P.C., opened the case, by describing the charge brought against him and also the evidence going to be adduced to prove his guilt.

Framing of charge:-

6. After hearing both sides and considering the entire material available on record, as per Section 228 (2) of Cr.P.C. charge for the offence under Section 302 of IPC against the accused was framed, read over and explained to him in his vernacular language by my predecessor. For which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, this case stands posted for prosecution evidence, after fixing the schedule for trial.

Prosecution evidence:-

7. In order to prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution has got examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P14 and M.Os.1 and 2. But the evidence of L.Ws.4, 7, 8 and 11 namely Chellari Ramanamma, Kakani

Masthanaiah, Anchipaka Jayasri and Dr. KAR Reddy, Assistant Professor,

Department of Forensic Medicine, ACSR, GMC, Nellore was given up by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor in view of evidence of other witnesses on record.

7 8. In this case, from the beginning the accused has been in Judicial custody as such, compliance of section 437-A Cr.P.C for his appearance before the Appellate Court does not arise.

9. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the incriminating material appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and reported no defence evidence on his behalf, except marking Exs.D1 to D3 in the cross examination of Pws.2 and 3.

10. Heard both sides. Perused the material available on record.

11. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 coupled with the evidence of scene observation mahazar witness and inquest mediator i.e., PW4 and his evidence about Ex.P4 – Extra judicial confession of the accused and Ex.P5 – Report and circumstantial witnesses

P.Ws.5 and 6 coupled with the evidence of PW7, who conducted autopsy and evidence of Investigating Officers/P.W8 and PW9 established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence charged under Section 302

IPC. So, requested the Court to convict the accused.

12. The learned counsel for the accused argued that there is no any evidence to show that deceased is living with the accused and no evidence to show that accused is residing at Thellagunta village. Further, he argued that though there is V.R.O., V.R.A and other officials in Thellagunta village, no one gave report to the police on the death of the deceased till PW1 gave Ex.P1 –

Report, so, it itself shows that Ex.P1 is a false report pressed into service against the accused. Further, he argued that as admitted by Investigating

Officers/P.Ws.8 and 9, accused is a habitual offender relating to the theft cases like chain snatching etc. So, he argued that on the pressure of their higher 8 officials, they implicated the accused in this case. Further, he argued that

Ex.P14 is not admissible in evidence and it is hit by Section 25 of Indian

Evidence Act, 1872. Further, he argued that alleged extra judicial confession of accused under Ex.P4 is a weak piece of evidence, since it is not supported by any cogent evidence on record, as such, the evidence of PW4 cannot be considered. Further, he argued that as admitted by PW9, the deceased was deserted by her husband and living as sex worker. So, he argued that in that process, the deceased contacted with HIV and on that she committed suicide.

Further, he argued that Ex.P4 – Extra judicial confession was pressed into service after nine days of the incident, till then, none of the villagers of

Thellagunta informed to the police that accused and deceased were living under one roof. So, itself shows that the prosecution made a false case against the accused. Further, he argued that Ex.P11 – Photos does not contain any C.D or pen drive, as such, it cannot be considered. Further, he argued that there is no any direct evidence from the prosecution to show that the accused and deceased are living together and the accused used to harass the deceased by suspecting her fidelity. So, he argued that the prosecution failed to prove the offence charged under Section 302 IPC against the accused. So, requested the Court to acquit the accused.

13. Now, the points for determination are:

1. Whether the death of the deceased/Chellari

Syamala is homicidal or suicidal?

2. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence charged against him under Section 302 IPC?

9 14. On perusal of the charge sheet and evidence on record, the case of the prosecution is that since two months prior to the death of the deceased, she had been living with the accused under one roof at the house of accused at

Thellagunta village and the accused used to suspect her fidelity and on that, on the night of 15.09.2021, the accused with an intention and pre-plan committed murder of the deceased by causing bleeding injuries to her and by hanging with

M.Os.1 and 2.

15. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has got examined defacto complainant/father of the deceased as PW1. He deposed in his evidence that deceased is his 2nd daughter and P.Ws.2 and 3 are children of the deceased and LW4/Chellari Ramanamma is mother-in-law of deceased and one Chiranjeevi is husband of the deceased, who is predeceased of her.

16. Further, PW1 deposed in his evidence that subsequent to the death of the husband of the deceased, the deceased had been living along with

Accused, whileso, since two months prior to her death, the deceased and accused had been living together and a day prior to her death she came to their house and informed that she is going to attend the programme of Keelugurralata.

On the next day morning at about 7-00 A.M., he received call from PW5 about the death of the deceased at Thellagunta. Then, he along with P.Ws.2 and 3 and mother-in-law of the deceased went to Thellagunta village and found the dead body of the deceased laid in front of the house of the accused and also noticed a bleeding injury on the left hand dorsum, abrasion over right hand index finger and ligature mark around the neck of deceased. Then, he gave Ex.P1 –

Report to police by suspecting that the accused might have caused the death of the deceased.

10

17. Further, the prosecution examined daughters of deceased as

P.Ws.2 and 3. They also deposed in the same lines that of the evidence of PW1.

Further, PW2 deposed in her evidence that the deceased and accused had been attending vegetable cutting work in a hotel at Rajupalem village and they also used to perform stage programmes i.e., Keelugurralata. Further, PW3 deposed in her evidence that PW5 informed her that on the intervening night, deceased and accused quarrelled with each other and during early hours at about 3.00 a.m., the accused went to PW5 and informed that the deceased died.

18. Further, the prosecution examined the then Village Revenue Officer of Allimadugu village of Bogole Mandal as PW4. He deposed that he knows the accused, who is resident of Thellagunta village. On 16.09.2021 at 9.30 a.m., in the presence of himself, Village Revenue Assistant/LW7 and LW8, the police observed the scene of offence and seized one saree/MO1 and one cloth rope/MO2 under the cover of Ex.P2 – Scene observation report-cum- seizurenama, then they signed on it. Thereafter, the police also conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and prepared Ex.P3 – Inquest report and they noticed injuries over the body of the deceased at dorsum of both hands and ligature mark around the neck of the deceased and there the police examined the witnesses and blood relatives of the deceased and they opined that the accused murdered the deceased.

19. Further, PW4 deposed that on 24.09.2021 in between 8.00 and 8.30

A.M., the accused came to their office and confessed about commission of murder of the deceased, with whom he was living together under Ex.P4 – Extra judicial confession. Then, PW4 produced the accused in the police station along with Ex.P4 – Extra judicial confession and Ex.P5 report of him, dated 24.09.2021.

11

20. Further, the prosecution examined one of the villagers of

Thellagunta as PW5. He deposed in his evidence that since 3 to 4 months prior to the death of the deceased, herself and accused had been living together by attending cooli works. Whileso, on 15.09.2021 at 9.00 p.m., he noticed that the accused and deceased were quarrelling with each other. Thereafter, during the early hours at about 3-00 a.m., the accused came to him and informed that his wife/deceased died. Then, he went near the house of accused and found dead body of deceased laying at the verandah and also noticed bleeding injuries on left hand dorsum of deceased, abrasion on the right hand index finger and a ligature mark around the neck.

21. PW5 further deposed that the accused given three mobile phone numbers to him and asked him to inform about the death of deceased to the said mobile phone numbers, then the accused went away. Thereafter, he informed

PW2 over phone about the death of the deceased.

22. Further, the prosecution examined V.R.O, Bogole as PW6. He deposed in his evidence that on 24.09.2022 at about 1.30 P.M., on the call given by the Bogole Police Station, he went there, there the police arrested the accused in his presence at about 2.00 p.m. and recorded confessional statement of accused/Ex.P14, then he signed on it.

23. Further, the prosecution has got examined the Medical Officer, who conducted the post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased as

PW7. He deposed in his evidence that on 16.09.2021 at 2.45 p.m., he conducted

Post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and found the following external injuries.

1. Ligature mark of about 35 cms in length 1/5 cms in width running upper side of the neck, around the neck, knot mark of 1 x 1 cms. Ovel abrasion present back side of left ear.

12

2. Abrasion of 0.25 x 0.25 cms present over middle finger on left hand.

3. Abrasion of 0.25 cms x 0.25 cms present over index finger on right hand.

4. Protrusion of tongue present.

5. Blood mixed fluid is oozing from both nostrils.

All are antemortem injuries and issued Ex.P6 – Preliminary Post-mortem report. He preserved stomach, small intestine, sample liver and part of the kidney sample of preservative sent to RFSL, Guntur and Hyoid sent to ACSR

Medical College, Nellore for Expert opinion. Later, he received RFSL report/Ex.P7 from Guntur and Expert opinion/Ex.P8 from ACSR Government

Medical College, Nellore. Basing on those documents, he gave final opinion/Ex.P9 that cause of death is due to cardiorespiratory failure due to

Asphyxia due to hanging.

24. Further, the prosecution examined one of the Investigating Officers as P.W8. He deposed in his evidence that on Ex.P1 – Report of PW1, he registered the present case by issuing Ex.P10 – F.I.R. u/s 174 Cr.P.C. Then, he inspected the scene of offence in the presence of mediators/PW4 and another and seized M.Os.1 and 2 under the cover of Ex.P2 – Scene observation mahazarnama and took Ex.P11 – Photographs. Then, he conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of above said mediators and prepared Ex.P3 – Inquest report. Then, he examined the witnesses and recorded their Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements. Thereafter, he received preliminary post-mortem report/Ex.P6 and thereafter on 24.09.2021 at 10.00 a.m., PW4 came to the Police Station along with the accused and Exs.P4 and P5 i.e., extra judicial confessional statement of accused and report of PW4 and produced

before him and basing on Ex.P5 – Report, he/PW8 altered Section of law to

Section 302 IPC from Section 174 Cr.P.C under Ex.P13 – Altered memo.

13

25. Further, the prosecution examined main Investigating Officer as

PW9. He deposed in his evidence that on receiving Exs.P4, P5 and P13 on 24.09.2021, he took up investigation in this case. Then, he visited the scene of offence and there he examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and LW4 and found that their statements under section 161 Cr.P.C recorded by PW8. Then, he verified the scene of offence and rough sketch and found it is on correct lines. Then, he examined PW4/Village Revenue Officer. Thereafter, in the presence of mediators/PW6 and LW7, he examined the accused and recorded his Ex.P14 –

Confessional statement. Then, he forwarded the accused to the Court for judicial custody. Thereafter, he forwarded the preserved material to the RFSL, Guntur and forwarded Hyoid bone to ACSR Government Medical College, Nellore for chemical analysis and thereafter forwarded material objects to the Court and after receiving final report, he filed charge sheet against the accused.

Revealed and undisputed facts:

26. Through the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, 5, 8 and 9 the revealed and undisputed facts are that PW1 is father and PW2 and PW3 are daughters of the deceased/Syamala. The husband of the deceased is predeceased of her and thereafter she reached to the house of her father/PW2 and eking out her livelihood by working in a hotel and by attending programmes of Keelugurralata.

Discussion – POINT No.1:

27. Here, no doubt, through the evidence of Prosecution witnesses, the revealed fact is that daughter of PW1 i.e., deceased/Syamala died. Because here, even in the cross examination of PWs.2, 3, 8 and 9 the accused not denied about the death of the deceased and date of her death. But, here, the contention of the accused is that the deceased was working as a sex worker and contacted 14 with HIV positive and on that she died by committing suicide by hanging. Though the same was denied by PW2 in her cross examination, but in the evidence of

PW9/one of the Investigating Officers, he admitted that the deceased is a sex worker. But, here, in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and even in the cross examination of PW8/one of the Investigating Officers, they categorically deposed that the deceased used to work in a hotel at Rajupalem and she was a dancer in the Art of Keelugurralu. The said evidence of them was not denied by the accused even by putting a single suggestion to them. Moreover, there is no any contra evidence from the accused to show that the deceased contacted with HIV positive. On the other hand, even in the evidence of Medical Officer/PW7 it was not revealed that the deceased was suffering with HIV Positive.

28. Further, the categorical evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, who are the blood relatives of the deceased and who clearly observed the dead body of the deceased is that they noticed a bleeding injury over the left hand dorsum, abrasion over the right hand index finger and ligature mark around the neck. The same was also supported by the VRO/PW4, who is an Inquest Panchayatdar and it was categorically mentioned in column No.7 of Ex.P3 – Inquest Report.

29.Moreover, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 is supported by the independent eye witness/PW5, who witnessed the galata took place between the deceased and accused on that night at 9-00 p.m. and also to whom the accused informed about the death of the deceased and brought him to his house and who found the dead body of the deceased laying at the Verandah of the accused. Because, in the evidence of PW5, he categorically deposed that he noticed the above said injuries on the dead body of the deceased.

15

30.Further, their evidence is also supported by the Medical

Officer/PW7 and Exs.P6 and P9 i.e., preliminary and final post-mortem reports, in which it was categorically mentioned that there was a ligature mark of about 35 cms around the neck and oval abrasion present on the backside of the left ear, abrasion of 0.25 cms x 0.25 cms present over middle finger of left hand and abrasion of 0.25 cms x 0.25 cms present over index finger on the right hand of the deceased.

31.So, here, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 about the injuries over the dead body of the deceased is clinching the evidence of Medical Officer/PW7 and

Exs.P6 and P9.

32.But, here, in the cross examination of PW7/Medical Officer, it is the contention of the accused that the said injuries might have caused even in the case of suicide. No doubt, in the cross examination of PW7, he admitted the suggestion of accused that the said injuries may be possible in the case of suicide. But, here, except the said suggestion, there is no any contra evidence on record to accept the contention of the accused. Moreover, in the cross examination of PW5, he categorically deposed that the accused and deceased were quarrelling on 15.09.2021 at 9-00 p.m., in front of the house of accused, but he did not intervene between them as they used to quarrel usually. The same was not denied by accused even by putting a single suggestion to PW5.

Further, in the evidence of PW4, who recorded the Ex.P4 – Extra judicial confession of the accused, categorically deposed that before him, the accused confessed that he murdered the deceased with whom he was living together.

16

33.So, here, as discussed above, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 coupled with the medical evidence that is with PW7 and Exs.P6 and P9 shows that the death of the deceased is not a suicidal and it is homicidal. Hence, the prosecution established that the death of the deceased is a homicidal.

34. Hence, the Point No.1 is answered in favour of the prosecution and against the accused.

POINT No.2:

35.Here, the case of the prosecution and evidence of P.Ws.,1 to 3 and

Ex.P1 is that about two months prior to the death of the deceased, she used to reside along with the accused with whom she got acquaintance in the hotel, in which she is working along with accused and they both also used to attend programmes of Keelugurralu occasionally and a day prior to her death, herself and accused came to the house of PW1 and informed to him that they are going to attend programmes of Keelugurralu on the eve of Vinayakachavithi festival and thereafter on 16.09.2021 at about 7-00 a.m., PW5 informed to PW2 over phone that the deceased died at the house of accused at Thellagunta village of

Bogole mandal.

36.Here, though the same was denied by the accused and contended that the prosecution failed to file any piece of record to show that the accused is resident of Thellagunta village and he had been residing with the deceased prior to her death. But, in the cross examination of PW8, the accused admitted that the deceased died at Thellagunta village. Moreover, the death of the deceased at the house of accused at Thellagunta village is supported by elderly person of the said village i.e., PW5. Further, PW5’s categorical evidence is that previously he elected as ZPTC Member under the candidature of YSRCP Party.

17

The same was also admitted by the accused in the cross examination of PW5.

Further, through the suggestions of accused to PW5, it reveals that his house is situated on the southern side of the house of the deceased by intervening a lane leading to agriculture land and house of one Chevuru Raja is situated on the western side of the house of the deceased. The same was clinching Ex.P12 –

Rough sketch. So, through the said cross examination of PW5, it reveals that he is elderly person in Thellagunta village and he is an Ex- ZPTC member of

Bogole mandal and locality person of scene of offence. His evidence found trustworthy and inspires the confidence of the Court that the accused is resident of Thellagunta village. Further, the same was revealed in Ex.P10 – F.I.R and

Ex.P13 – Altered memo and also through residence particulars of the accused shown in the charge sheet. So, the above said evidence established that the accused is resident of Thellagunta and residing in the locality of PW5 and in the house shown in Ex.P12 – Rough sketch.

37.Further, the categorical evidence of PW5 is that on the night of 15.09.2021 at 9-00 p.m., the accused and deceased were quarrelling with each other and at 11-00 p.m., he went to sleep, thereafter, during the early hours at about 3-00 a.m., the accused woke up him and informed him that that his wife/deceased/Syamala died. Then, he went to the house of the accused along with him and noticed the dead body lying in the verandah of the accused house.

38In the instant case, the evidence of PW5 in spite he being not the exact eye witness to the murder at the same time, within no time he has seen the death of the deceased and also found the accused immediately after causing death of the deceased. Thereafter, the accused ran away. Therefore, it is to be found that the evidence of PW5 is a direct evidence about the acts of the accused. When such is the case, the question of motive is not a material factor. But to the instant case, the 18 reasons for causing death have been explained by PW4. Further, in the evidence of PW5 also it reveals that he saw the quarrel between the accused and the deceased on the night of the incident. Therefore, there need not be a separate motive or preparation prior to the incident. In the light of a decision reported in 2010 (71) ACC 764 ALLHCLB in between the State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Akhlaq rendered by Hon’ble Supreme

Court wherein it is clearly held that question of motive is not material where there is direct evidence of the acts of the accused.

39. Further, in the light of decisions rendered by Hon’ble Supreme

Court reported in AIR 2002 SC 312 Japsa Kabri and Others Vs. State of

Bihar wherein it is held that “There is no bar in basing conviction on the testimony of solitary witness so long as the said witness is reliable and the said witness is reliable and trustworthy” and also in a decision reported in AIR 2002 SC 3006 in between Ram Anup Singh and others Vs. State of Bihar wherein it is held that “The case of prosecution cannot be disbelieved merely because the testimony of the eye witness is consistent by raising a suspicion that they may be got up or tutored witnesses.” 40. Here, the evidence of PW3 is that she saw the clothes of the deceased in the house of accused. The same was not denied by the accused by putting a single suggestion to her. So, here, on perusal and scrutiny of the evidence of PW5 nothing worth in the evidence could be elicited to 19 suspect the presence of PW5. The evidence of PW5 coupled with the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 clearly reveals that the accused and deceased were living together prior to the death of deceased. Their evidence is very much corroborative, consistent, believable and reliable.

41.In the instant case, the evidence of PW5 clearly goes to show that the deceased was seen last by him with the accused at 9-00 p.m., on the date of the incident at the house of accused and thereafter at 3-00 a.m., seen the dead body of the deceased and the presence of accused in the very same place i.e., the house of the accused. The chain of this evidence has been clearly stated by the other witnesses also.

42. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in its Judgment, dated 13.05.2022

Veerendra Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh upheld the last seen theory by discussing the observations of its Judgment in State of Rajasthan Vs. Kashi

Ram reported in (2006) 12 SCC 254 at paragraph 23.

“23. It is not necessary to multiply with authorities. The principle is well settled. The provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act itself are unambiguous and categoric in laying down that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of a person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Thus, if a person is last seen with the deceased, he must offer an explanation as to how and when he parted company. He must furnish an explanation which appears to the court to be probable and satisfactory. If he does so he must be held to have discharged his burden. If he fails to offer an explanation on the basis of facts within his special knowledge, he fails to discharge the burden cast upon him by Section 106 of the Evidence Act. In a case resting on circumstantial evidence if the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of the burden placed on him, that itself provides an additional link in the chain of 20 circumstances proved against him. Section 106 does not shift the burden of proof in a criminal trial, which is always upon the prosecution. It lays down the rule that when the accused does not throw any light upon facts which are specially within his knowledge offences punishable under Section 302, 364, 120B and 201 of IPC, this Court held: “once the appellant was last seen with the deceased, the onus is upon him to show that either he was not involved in the occurrence at all or that he had left the deceased at her home or at any other reasonable place. To rebut the evidence of last seen and its consequence in law, the onus was upon the accused to lead evidence in order to prove his innocence.”

43. Further, in the above said Judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court

referred its Judgment in Pattu Rajan Vs. State of Tamilnadu (2019) 4 SCC

771 para 63 held that:

“It is needless to observe that it has been established through a catena of judgment of this Court that the doctrine of last seen, if proved, shifts the burden of proof on to the accused placing on him the onus to explain how the incident occurred and what happened to the victim, who was last seen with him. Failure on the part of the accused to furnish any explanation in this regard, as in the case on para 43 hand, or furnishing false explanation would give rise to strong presumption against him and in favour of his guilt and would provide an additional link in the chain of circumstances.”

44. Here, in the present case on hand already the prosecution had established that the deceased was last seen with accused. So, as per the observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the said Judgments, the onus shifts on the accused. But, here, the accused has not offered any explanation how the deceased died, other than the case of prosecution.

21

45.Further, the case of the prosecution is that the accused murdered the deceased by suspecting that she was talking with some other male persons over phone. Though the same was denied by the accused, but in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 they suspected that the accused might have killed the deceased for her money or any other reason. The same was also mentioned in Ex.P1. But it is the contention of the accused that there are contradictions in the evidence of P.W2 with her part of statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C marked under

Ex.D1 and evidence of PW3 with her part of statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C marked under Ex.D2 about particulars and name of the accused. No doubt, in

Ex.D1 and D2 name of the suspect was mentioned as Badri. Even initially in

Ex.P1 and in Ex.P10 – FIR, name of the suspect was shown as Badri. But the prosecution established that the said name of Badri is alias name of the accused.

Even the name of the accused shown in the charge sheet is as Guthi Yacob alias

Badri, S/o Mohan and resident of Thellagunta village, Bogole mandal. The same was not disputed by the accused even in the evidence of any of the prosecution witnesses including Investigating Officers.

46. Further, through the suggestion of the accused to P.Ws.8 and 9/Investigating Officers, it reveals that the accused previously involved in theft cases like chain snatching cases etc., which supports the case of the prosecution that the accused addicted to vices and in that connection he involved in theft cases and after released from the Jail, he worked in a hotel at Rajupalem as mentioned in the charge sheet. So, even that time also the accused not denied his name and particulars mentioned in the charge sheet. So, in these circumstances, the said contradictions marked under Exs.D1 and D2 not a ground to disbelieve the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and not cuts the roots of the prosecution case. Apart from the direct evidence of PW5 and circumstantial evidence of other witnesses, there is also the extra judicial confession of the accused made before PW4.

22

47.Here, the case of the prosecution and evidence of PW4/VRO of

Allimadugu is that on 24.09.2021 in between 8-00 a.m., and 8-30 a.m., the accused approached him in his office and confessed that he murdered the deceased with whom he was living and he was afraid of police and approached him/PW4, then, he reduced Ex.P5/Extra judicial confession of the accused into writing in true verbatim and obtained thumb impression of the accused on it.

Further, he/PW4 categorically deposed that the accused confessed that by suspecting fidelity of the deceased as she used to speak to others over phone, he murdered her. Then, he/PW4 produced the accused in the Police Station along with Exs.P4 and P5.

48.But, here, the same was denied by the accused and contended that as admitted by PW5 he did not give any report to the police in relation to the death of the deceased. Further, as admitted by PW8/Investigating Officer though the deceased was dead in Thellagunta village of Bogole mandal, none of the villagers gave any report or information to the police, which is situated at a distance of 7 Kms., from the place of occurrence. So, he contended that the evidence of PW4 and Ex.P4 and P5 are pressed into service to facilitate the case of the prosecution with a delay of 9 days.

49.No doubt, the evidence of PWs.4, 8 and Ex.P4 and P5 shows that after 9 days of the incident, PW4/VRO produced the accused and Ex.P4 before the Police Station. But, here, already as discussed in the evidence of

PW5/village elder, who is the locality people of the scene of offence, on the early hours at 3-00 a.m., the accused fled away from the scene of offence due to fear.

So, itself reveals that the accused immediately after the commission of the offence fled away from the place due to fear. The same was supported the evidence of PW4 and the recitals of Ex.P4/Extra judicial confession. Moreover, here, there is no any contra evidence on record or suggestion to PW4 about any 23 enmity or ill-feeling between PW4 and accused. Further, in the cross examination of PW4, nothing was elicited to suspect the evidence of PW4.

50. Coming to the scope of confession, irrespective of no one can accuse himself once that privilege is waived and any confession made voluntarily based on the principle that no man can falsely accuse himself that confession is not only relevant and admissible but also got its own credibility for the Court to consider as part of appreciation of evidence from said disclosure of the facts which are within his exclusive knowledge accusing him. It is clearly held that the extra judicial confession even made to a stranger can be considered if it is found to have been truthful and voluntarily made before a person who has no reason to state falsely as held in Ram Singh Vs. Sonia reported in 2007(3) SCC 1 Division

Bench. The same is also reiterated in Satish and another etc., Vs. State of Haryana reported in 2017 (2) ALD (Crl.) 837 SC Division Bench. It is also the position of law laid down in Prahallad Vs. State reported in

AIR 1981 Supreme Court 1241 wherein it is held that “where the extra judicial confession is shown voluntarily made by the accused and the witnesses no way inimical or interested to falsely implicate and there are no any other circumstances to doubt credibility of the witness; it can even be a sole basis and no way a corroborative piece or a weak piece of evidence.” 51. The Hon’ble Apex Court also held and observed in a reported decision 2003 SCC (Crl.) 2033 in between Nazir Khan Vs. State of Delhi wherein it is held that:

24 “Free and voluntary confession is deserving of the highest credit , because it is presumed to flow from the highest sense of guilt.” 52. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also held in a decision reported in

2003 SCC (Crl.) 1965 in between State of Rajasthan Vs. Rajaram

wherein it is held that:

“The requirement of corroboration to extra judicial confession like any other evidence is a matter of prudence and not an invariable rule of law.” 53. Further, it is also held by the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in

2008 SCC (Crl.) 264 in between Alokenath Dutta Vs. State of West

Bengal wherein it is held that “the extra judicial confession need not contain reproduction of exact words in the so called extra judicial confession the maker took the entire blame on himself without implicating others and for no circumstance brought out doubting the extra judicial confession including by the cross examination of the prosecution witnesses, from that extra judicial confession, it proves the involvement of the accused in the crime beyond reasonable doubt to solely act upon since voluntary and in the form of natural response.

54. From the above decisions more particularly from the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Alokenath Dutta case, an extra judicial confession made voluntarily true and made by a person in fit state of mind and even to a stranger as per decisions supra is not only admissible but also a sole basis to convict the accused. It is well settled 25 law from the above observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court that an extra judicial confession even can form a sole basis for conviction even in a case totally rested upon circumstantial evidence. So, here, in the case on hand, the prosecution established that Ex.P4 – Extra Judicial Confession made by accused before PW4 is voluntary one and it is made in fit state of mind.

55. Further, the learned counsel for the accused contended that Ex.P11 – Photos are not admissible in evidence without any pen drive or C.D. No doubt,

Ex.P11 – Photos do not contain any C.D. or Pen drive. But, here, already as discussed above, there is no dispute about the identity of the dead body of the deceased that of Syamala and about her death and place of her death. So, in such circumstances, Ex.P11 – Photos in the absence of any pen drive or C.D.

are no way vitiate the concrete evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Hence, even in the absence of Ex.P11 – Photos, the prosecution established about the identity of the deceased that of Syamala. So, the contention of the accused in this regard is no way helpful to him.

56.Further, the evidence of PW4 and Ex.P2 supports the evidence of

PW8/Investigating Officer that he seized M.Os.1 and 2 under Ex.P2. Further, nothing was elicited in the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 8 to disbelieve about the seizure of M.Os.1 and 2. As such, the prosecution established that M.Os.1 and 2 are seized at the scene of offence in the presence of P.W4 and another under

Ex.P2 – Scene observation mahazarnama.

57. Further, it is the case of the prosecution and evidence of

Investigating Officer/PW9 that on 24.09.2021 at 2-00 p.m., he secured mediators/PW6 and another/LW7 and in their presence he enquired the accused and recorded his Ex.P14/Confessional statement, in which, he stated about his acquaintance and relationship with the deceased and murder of the deceased.

26

The said evidence of PW9 is also supported by one of the mediators of Ex.P14 i.e., PW6, who is VRO of Bogole village. Moreover, in the cross examination of

PW6 nothing was elicited to discredit his evidence except denying the suggestions made by the accused and not obtaining written permission from the

Tahsildar to leave his office. Moreover, even in the cross examination of PW6, he categorically deposed that Ex.P14 was scribed by one of the Constables.

58.But, here, the contention of the accused is that confession made

before the Police Officer is hit by Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as

such, Ex.P14 is not valid. No doubt, a confession made before the Police Officer is hit by Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, unless part of the confession leads to discovery of material objects in pursuance of Section 27 of Indian

Evidence Act, 1872. So, here, though Ex.P14 is not valid in the eye of Law, but, the evidence of PW6 in all material aspects supported the evidence of

P.Ws.4 and 5. So, here, as discussed above even in the absence of Ex.P14, through the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 and P.Ws.7 to 9, the prosecution established that the accused with an intention and preplan murdered the deceased. Thereby, the prosecution established the guilt of Accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence charged under Section 302 IPC.

59. In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.302 of IPC and accordingly, he is convicted under

Sec.235(2) of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.I, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court this the 29th day of April, 2025.

Sd/- G.Geetha,

I Additional Sessions Judge, (FAC) Special Judge for trial of offences against Women-cum- VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Nellore.

27 60. Accused produced from Central Prison, Nellore. When he is questioned on the sentence that can be imposed under Section 302 of

I.P.C., the accused submitted that he is suffering from HIV positive and has no one, so prays mercy of the Court and to take lenient view.

Here, though the accused has not filed any documentary proof to show his health condition, suffering from HIV positive is not a ground to take lenient view, because the Court’s primary concern is the criminal act of murder, not the HIV status of the accused. HIV status is not a factor in determining guilt or innocence of the accused.

So, considering the facts and circumstances of the case that it is a case of gruesome murder of one person, there appears no deserving circumstances to show any lenient and mercy view while imposing the punishment against the culprit.

An offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. shall be punished with either death or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine. As can be seen from the nature of the offence committed by the accused in this case and the circumstances, under which, he committed the same, it appears to this Court that this is not a rarest of rare case to impose a harsh punishment, but imposing the life imprisonment would meet the ends of

Justice.

Accordingly, the Accused is sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and also to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only)and in default shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months. The remand period of convict/accused from 24.09.2021 to till date is directed to be set off against the sentence imposed above under Sec.428 of Cr.P.C.

28

M.O1/Saree and MO2/Rope shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

The convict/accused is informed about his right to prefer an appeal against this Judgment. The convict/accused is supplied a free copy of this Judgment and informed that if he has no means, he can utilize the services of Hon’ble State

Legal Services Authority, if required.

Forward M.O1/Saree and MO2/Rope and other unmarked non-valuable property if any, entered in CPR No.6/2022 of Committal Court and CPR

No.4/2024 of this Court to the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Kavali, for carrying out the order of disposal of the case property, after expiry of appeal time.

The Jail Authorities are directed to provide all means of medical aid to the convict/accused in Jail, if it is required.

Typed to my direct dictation by the Stenographer Grade I, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 29 th day of April, 2025.

Sd/- G.Geetha,

I Additional Sessions Judge, (FAC) Special Judge for trial of offences against Women-cum- VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Nellore.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution: Defence: None PW 1: Kareti Pitchaiah, PW 2: Mocharla Amulya, PW 3: Kalturi Kavya, PW 4: P.V.N. Sathish Kumar, PW 5: Bapatla Venkatapathi 29

PW 6: Thalli Haribabu, PW 7: Dr. Siva Shankar, Deputy Medical Officer, Area Hospital, Kavali. PW 8: S.Suman, the then Sub Inspector of Police, Bitragunta Police Station. PW 9: Sk. Khajavali, the then Inspector of Police, Kavali Rural Circle.

Exhibits marked for the prosecution:

Ex.P.1: Report of PW1, dt.16.09.2021. Ex.P.2: Scene observation report. Ex.P.3: Inquest report. Ex.P.4: Extra judicial confession statement, dt.24.09.2021. Ex.P.5: Report of PW4, dt.24.09.2021. Ex.P.6: Attested copy of Preliminary Post-mortem report. Ex.P.7: R.F.S.L. Report, Guntur. Ex.P.8: Forensic report from ACSR Medical College, Nellore. Ex.P.9: Final Post-mortem report. Ex.P10: F.I.R in Crime No.120/2021 of Bitragunta Police Station. Ex.P11: Photographs eleven in number (marked subject to objection) Ex.P12: Rough sketch of the Scene of Offence. Ex.P13: Altered memo. Ex.P14: Confessional statement of accused, dt.24.09.2021(marked subject to objection)

Exhibits marked for the defence:

Ex.D1: Relevant portion in Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2. Ex.D2: Relevant portion in Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3. Ex.D3: Relevant portion in Section 161(3) Cr.P.C statement of PW3.

M.Os. Marked

M.O1 – One parrot green silk saree with orange and sap-green design. M.O2 - Rope with a cloth length of 8 feet.

Sd/- G.Geetha,

I Addl. Sessions Judge, (FAC) Special Judge-cum- VIII Addl. Sessions Judge, Nellore.

30

Copies submitted to:-

1. The Hon’ble Registrar (Judicial), High Court of A.P. at Amaravathi.

2. The Hon’ble Principal District & Sessions Judge, Nellore.

Copies to: -

3. The learned Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kavali.

4. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, VIII Addl. Sessions Court, Nellore.

5. The Station House Officer, Bitragunta Police Station.

6. The learned Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Nellore.

//True Copy//

APNE000016432015 1 APTS CC.41/2015 Dt.29.04.2026 I ADJ/Nlr

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE :: NELLORE.

Present:- Smt.G.Geetha, I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore.

Wednesday, this the 29th day of April, 2026.

APTS C.C No.41 of 2015

(Crime No.3898/2014 & 3909/2014 of Anti Power Theft Squad Police

Station, Nellore)

1.Name of the Complainant State: Inspector of Police, Vigilance and APTS Police Station, Nellore.

2.Name of the Accused 1. Mekala Chandraiah S/o. Narasimhulu, age 43 years R/o Thupilipalem Village, Vakadu Mandal, S.P.S.R.Nellore District. (A1) ( Case against A1 was abated on 17.09.2022)

2. Goturu Mohan Rao, S/o Navaneetham, aged 35 years (as on the date of filing charge sheet), Junior Assistant working at Utukuru Section R/o Door No.28-3-1783, Kissan Nagar, Mypadu Road, Nellore town. (A2)

3. Neelam Sankaraiah S/o. Eswaraiah, aged 29 years, Junior Assistant working at Sub Electricity Revenue Office, Kota, resident of Opp. to Viswabharathi School, Teachers Colony, near Pichireddy Thopu, Naidupet town, SPSR Nellore District. (A3). (Case against A3 was abated on

21.10.2021).

3.Charges Under Section 135(b), 138(a)(b) and 150 of Electricity Act, 2003.

4.Plea of accusedPleaded not guilty.

5.Finding of the JudgeFound not guilty.

APNE000016432015 2 APTS CC.41/2015 Dt.29.04.2026 I ADJ/Nlr

6.Sentence or orderIN THE RESULT, the Accused No.2 is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 135(1)(b) r/w 150(2) of the

Electricity Act, 2003. Accordingly Accused

No.2 is acquitted for the same under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of accused No. 2 and his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months as per Section 437(A) of Cr.P.C.

M.O.1 Electricity meter bearing No.APS08822 and M.O.2 Electricity meter bearing

No.16692839 vide CPR No.15/2026 of this

Court shall be returned to the nominated officer by the A.P.S.P.D.C.L, Nellore after expiry of appeal time.

Case against Accused No.1 was abated on

17-09-2022.

Case against Accused No.3 was abated on

21.10.2021.

7.Prosecution conducted bySri Sk. Rafi Malik, Addl. Public Prosecutor, I ADJ Court, Nellore

8.Name of the advocate for Sri R.Roja Reddy, accused. Advocate for Accused No.2.

This case is coming on 17-04-2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Sk. Rafi Malik, Additional Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and Sri R.Roja Reddy, Advocate for the Accused No.2 and Case against Accused No.1 was abated on 17.09.2022 and Case against Accused No.3 was abated on 21.10.2021upon perusing the records, having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

APNE000016432015 3 APTS CC.41/2015 Dt.29.04.2026 I ADJ/Nlr

JUDGMENT

Filing of charge sheet:-

The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and APTS Police Station, Nellore, filed the charge sheet in Cr.No.3898 of 2014 and Cr.No.3909 of 2014 for the offence under Section 135(b), 138(a)(b) and 150 of Electricity Act, 2003, against the accused Nos.1 to 3 alleging that:

2. The Accused No.1 is resident of Thupilipalem village, Vakadu

Mandal of SPSR Nellore District, who is the present beneficiary of Aqua ponds in these two cases. A2 is resident of Nellore town and also staff in A.P.S.P.D.C.L.,

Nellore Circle. A3 is working as Junior Assistant working at Sub Electricity

Revenue office, Kota, resident of opp. Viswabharathi School, Teachers Colony, near Pichireddy Thopu, Naidupet town, S.P.S.R.Nellore District.

Jurisdiction of the case:-

(i) The scene of offence is situated at Thupilipalem Village, Vakadu

Mandal of Nellore District and the exact scene of offence is took place at

S.C.Nos. 164 and 133 electrical meters, which comes under the local limits of

Vigilance and A.P.T.S. Police Station, Nellore and the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble

Court.

Gist of the Charge Sheet:- 3 (i). The Assistant Divisional Engineer, D.P.E Wing, APSPDCL, Nellore

Circle (LW.1) is authorized to inspect the premises of the accused No.1/Mekala

Chandraiah situated at Thupilipalem village, Vakadu mandal and institute prosecution against the offenders under Electricity Act, 2003. Assistant

Engineer(LW.2) and Assistant Divisional Engineer, CT meters, Nellore(LW.3), who assisted Assistant Divisional Engineer DPE Wing, APSPDCL, Nellore(LW.1) and on 22.09.2014 at 15.00 hours they inspected the Aqua culture SC No.164 of Mekala Chandraiah/A1 in the presence of mediators/Akkamgari Munuswamy

APNE000016432015 4 APTS CC.41/2015 Dt.29.04.2026 I ADJ/Nlr (LW.6) and Valasamgari Jayapal( LW.7) and found that utilizing power dishonestly by tampering seal of the meter and provided an unauthorized loop as well as connected a resister and thereby caused theft of energy valued

Rs.6,66,678/-. Basing on the inspection notes, Shaik Ansari Basha, Sub

Inspector of Police, Vigilance and APTS Police Station, APSPDCL, Nellore (L.W.18) registered the case in Crime No.3898/2014 under Section 135(b), 138(a)(b) and 150 of the Electricity Act, 2003 against the accused and took up investigation.

(ii) Later on the same day i.e. 22.09.2014 at 18.00 they inspected the aqua culture S.C.No.133 of Mekala Chandraiah/A1 in the presence of Pamanji

Suresh(LW.8) and Puchalapalli Venkataiah( LW.9) and found that utilizing power dishonestly by tampering seal of the meter and provided an unauthorized loop as well as connected a resister and thereby caused theft of energy valued

Rs.1,65,276/-. Basing on the inspection notes, Sk.Ansari Basha(LW.18) registered the case in Crime No.3909/2014 under Section 135(b), 138(a)(b) and 150 of the Electricity Act, 2003 against the accused and took up investigation.

(iii) The Sub Inspector of police, Vigilance & APTS PS, APSPDCL,

Nellore Circle(LW.18) visited the scene of offences situated at aquaculture fields of Thupilipalem village, Vakadu Mandal of Nellore District, inspected the same in the presence of Mekala Yedukondalu(LW.10) and Pralayakaveri

Nagaraju(LW.13) respectively and got prepared scene observation reports duly attested by them and prepared rough sketches.

(iv) During the course of investigation, The Sub Inspector of police,

Vigilance & APTS PS, APSPDCL, Nellore Circle(LW.18) arrested the Accused

No.3 on 24.09.2014 at Kissan Nagar centre, Nellore. Further on 07.10.2014

LW.18 arrested Accused No.2 at Atmakur Bus Stand Centre, Nellore concerned in Crime No.3897/14 and produced them before the Hon’ble Additional Judicial

Magistrate of I Class Court, Kota for judicial remand. Later, on 08.10.2014 and

APNE000016432015 5 APTS CC.41/2015 Dt.29.04.2026 I ADJ/Nlr 09.10.2014 produced A2 and A3 respectively before this Hon’ble Court on P.T.

Warrant in this case for judicial remand. Meanwhile, A1 got anticipatory bail from the Hon’ble I Additional District Court, Nellore.

(v) During the course of investigation, it was established that the SC

No.164 relating to Crime No.3898/2014 and S.C.No.133 relating to Crime

No.3909/2014 in the name of A1 with the connivance of the Accused No.2 and 3 came to clandestine understanding to ensure the record of low consumption of the meters and due to which, accused tampered the MRT seals and company seals of the meters, meddled the internal mechanism of the meters to record less consumption duly suppressing the actual consumption of the electrical power in the meter and the said meter.

(vi) In the course of further investigation, obtained sanction orders under

Section 197 Cr.P.C against A2 and A3 from the authorities concerned to prosecute them accordingly.

(vii) After completion of investigation, basing on the evidence of witnesses, the prima facie case is made out against A1 to A3. The Inspector of

Police, Vigilance & APTS Police Station, APSPDCL, Nellore Circle(LW.19) filed charge sheet against A1 under Section 135(b), 138(a) (b) and A2 and A3 u/s 138(a)(b) and 150 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Hence, the charge sheet.

4. Taking of cognizance of the case:-

Cognizance of this case was taken under Section 135(b) against A1 and 135(b) r/w 150 of the Electricity Act, 2003 against A2 and A3 by my predecessor.

On theirappearance, copies of the documents were furnished to them as required under Section 207of Cr.P.C.

APNE000016432015 6 APTS CC.41/2015 Dt.29.04.2026 I ADJ/Nlr

5. Appearance of the accused and opening the case:-

After receipt of the summons, the accused No.2 and 3 appeared before this Court. Accused No.2 engaged Sri R.Roja Reddy, Advocate to defend him.

Case against Accused No.1 was abated on 17.09.2022.Case against Accused

No.3 was abated on 21.10.2021. Thereafter, Sri Sk. Rafi Malik, Learned

Additional Public Prosecutor as envisaged under Section 226 of Cr.P.C, opened

the case, by describing the charge brought against him/A2 and also the evidence going to be adduced to prove his guilt.

6. Framing of charge:-

After hearing both sides and considering the entire material available on record, examined the accused Nos. 1 to 3 and charge under Section 135(1) (b) r/w 150(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 is framed against Accused Nos.1 to 3, read over and explained to them in their vernacular language, for which the accused

No1.1 to 3 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, this case was stood posted for prosecution evidence, after fixing the schedule for trial.

7. Prosecution evidence:-

To prove the prosecution case, the prosecution got examined P.W.1 to

P.W.12 and got marked Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.29 and M.O.1 and M.O.2. But, the evidence of Dasari Lakshmaiah(L.W.5), Akkamgari Munuswamy(LW.6),

Valasamgari Jayapal(L.W.7), Kadiveti Sankar(L.W.11), Pralayakaveri

Nagaraju(LW.13) and Pamula Venkateswarlu (LW.14) were given up by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. After completion of the prosecution side evidence, bonds as required under Section 437-A Cr.P.C was obtained from the accused No.2 and his sureties.

8.After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused No.2 was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, by explaining the incriminating evidence appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, but, he denied the same

APNE000016432015 7 APTS CC.41/2015 Dt.29.04.2026 I ADJ/Nlr and reported that no defence evidence on his behalf, as such defence evidence is closed.

9. Heard on both sides and perused the material available on record.

10. The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, argued that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and P.W.8 are sufficient to proceed against the accused No.2. So, requested the Court to convict the accused.

11. The learned counsels for the accused No.2 argued that there are material contradictions in the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 about the name of employee is of Electricity department and their evidence is also inconsistent with the evidence of Investigating Officer. Further as admitted by Investigation officer,

PW.1 to PW.3 did not state the surnames of the accused Nos.2 and 3 in their 161 Cr.P.C. statements and as admitted by the Investigating officer, he did not enquire in the electricity department about the persons with the names of A2 and

A3 and even not conducted any test identification parade of A2 and A3 and even as admitted by PW.1 and PW.3 names of A2 and A3 are not found in Ex.P.1 and

Ex.P.5. Further as admitted by PW.1 fiber box seals of M.Os. 1 and 2 were intact, so how it is possible to tamper the meter kept in the fiber box. Further as admitted by Investigating officer, he did not examine owner of the land and there is no record to show the relationship between A1 and owner of the land and meter. Further as admitted by PW.1 he did not file any piece of record to show that he is competent to give report as DPE/ detective pilferage of energy. Further as admitted by PW.1 the monthly reading of electricity meters pertaining to aqua culture should be taken by Assistant Engineer of that area and as admitted by him no report received by them from the concerned Assistant Engineer about tampering of M.O.1 and M.O.2. More over as admitted by PW.1 the Additional

Divisional Engineer should be check the meters pertaining to Aqua culture once in 3 months. So he argued that how it is possible to tamper M.O.1 and M.O.2 meters by A1 with the help of A2 and A3. More over there is no any complaint

APNE000016432015 8 APTS CC.41/2015 Dt.29.04.2026 I ADJ/Nlr from the concerned Assistant Engineer of that area that his seals on the M.O.1 and M.O.2 and its synthetic box were tampered. So, he argued that to save the higher officials a false case was registered against accused. Further he argued that as admitted by PW.1 and Investigating officer column No.8 of Ex.P1 and

Ex.P.5 inspection notes shows that M.O.1 and M.O.2 meters were handed over to the police, but it was alleged as prepared on the date of the offence, but as per the categorical evidence of PW.1 and the investigating officer the meter was handed over to the investigating officer at the time of giving report by PW.1. So, it is material contradiction in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, which falsifies case of the prosecution. Further they argued that as admitted by investigating officer he did not examine the meter and not noted the condition of the meter by the time of receiving the same from PW.1 and even not sent to the

Laboratory for examination of alleged tampering. Further he argued that as per the sanction orders and evidence of investigating officer basing on the confession of A2 and A3, the said sanction orders were issued, but he argued that except the said material there is no any cogent evidence against the accused to get sanction orders. More over the said confession mahazarnamas were not supported by the mediators. So, he argued that the said sanction order is also not valid. So, he argued that the prosecution miserably failed to prove that A1 tampered the meter with the help of A2 and A3 and they abetted A1 to commit theft of electricity by tampering seals of meter. So requested the Court to acquit the accused No.2.

12. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused No.2 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence charged under Section 135(1)(b) r/w 150(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 against the accused No.2?

APNE000016432015 9 APTS CC.41/2015 Dt.29.04.2026 I ADJ/Nlr

POINT:-

13. On perusal of the charge sheet and evidence on record, the case of the prosecution is that the A2 and A3 being employees of the Electricity Board abetted Accused No.1 to commit an offence of theft of electricity or dishonestly utilizing power by tampering seal of the meter and unauthorizedly connected a loop to the meter with an electric line through which electricity is supplied to the aqua culture of A1. Then, basing on Ex.P3 and Ex.P.7– Reports of PW.1, who is the Assistant Engineer, APSPDCL, DPE Wing (Detective Pilferage of Energy), the present case was registered against the accused.

14. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has got examined the then Assistant Divisional Engineer, DPE- II, APSPDCL, Nellore as PW.1. He deposed in his evidence that on 22.09.2014 at 03-00 p.m and 04.30 p.m., he along with PW2/Assistant Engineer, APSPDCL, Vakadu section and PW.3/Assistant Divisional Engineer, CT meters Wing, APSPDCL, Nellore inspected the Electricity Service Connection No.164 pertaining to M.O.1 –

Electricity meter placed in the prawn fields of A1/Mekala Chandraiah in the presence of Akkamgari Munuswamy(LW.6) and Jayapal(LW.7) and found that

M.O.1- Meter Repair and Testing seals were tampered and Terminal cover were tampered and a copper wire was looped across the Current Transformer coils in all three phases and Meter was tampered Service Connection No.133 pertaining to M.O.2 – Electricity meter placed in the prawn fields of A1/Mekala

Chandraiah in the presence of Pamanji Suresh(LW.8) and Puchalapalli

Venkataiah(LW.9) found that the meters were tampered. At that time, A1, who was beneficiary of meters was present there. Then, PW.1 prepared Ex.P1 and

Ex.P.5 – Inspection notes and seized MO1 and M.O.2– Meters under the cover of Ex.P2 and Ex.P.6 – Mediator’s reports and obtained the signatures of A1,

PW2, PW3 and mediators. Then, he enquired A1, who made such arrangement to tamper the meter sand on that A1 stated before him/PW1 that the employees of APSPDCL i.e., Neelam Sankaraiah/A3 and Goturu Mohan Rao/A2 arranged it

APNE000016432015 10 APTS CC.41/2015 Dt.29.04.2026 I ADJ/Nlr by receiving amount. Thereafter, PW.1 prepared assessment calculation sheets/Ex.P4 and Ex.P.8 by entering into Monitoring and Tracking System/MATS and on that he gave Ex.P3 and Ex.P.7– Complaints to Vigilance and APTS Sub

Inspector of Police, Nellore. Thereafter, police examined him.

15. The prosecution has got examined the Assistant Engineer,

APSPDCL, Vakadu as PW.2. He supported the evidence of PW1 about inspecting the meters of A1 under Ex.P1 and Ex.P.5 and supported the evidence of PW1 that seals of meters and its wire were cut and fixed, it is in tampering condition.

16. The prosecution has got examined the Assistant Divisional

Engineer, CT meters wing, APSPDCL, Nellore as PW.3. He supported the evidence of PW.1 about inspecting the meters of A1 under Ex.P1 and Ex.P.5 and supported the evidence of PW1 that seals of meters and its wire were cut and fixed, it is in tampering condition.

17.Further, the prosecution examined the mediators for the inspection under Ex.P2 and Ex.P.6 – Mediatornama at the time of inspection of the meter by PW.1 as P.W.4 and PW.5. PW.4 and PW.5 deposed in their evidence that they does not know PW1 and PW2 and they never called to act as mediators at the time of inspection of meter. But, they simply deposed that about 10 years back on one day while they were present in their village at Andalamala village, the Electricity officials came to the said village and on their request they put their signatures on some written papers. Then, they identified their signatures in

Ex.P2 and Ex.P.6 as Ex.P.9 and Ex.P.10. So, they did not support the case of the prosecution and evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 about inspection and seizure of meters under Exs.P1 and Ex.P.5 and Ex.P2 and Ex.P.6 by PW1. Even in their cross examination by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor nothing was elicited in favour of the prosecution.

APNE000016432015 11 APTS CC.41/2015 Dt.29.04.2026 I ADJ/Nlr

18. Further, the prosecution got examined mediators for the scene observation mahazarnama as PW.6 and PW.7. PW.6 and PW.7 deposed in their evidence that about 10 years back on one day while they were present in their village, Police came to their village and asked them to sign on white papers and accordingly they signed, but they do not know the contents of the same.

Further, in their presence, no scene of offence was observed. So, they did not support the case of the prosecution except admitting their signatures on Ex.P14 and Ex P.22 – Scene observation mahazarnamas, prepared by one of the

Investigating Officer/PW.8.

19. Further the prosecution has got examined mediator for the arrest of

A3 as PW.9, But P.W.9 deposed that he is working as watchman in Vidhyuth

Bhavan, Nellore on contract basis. While so, about 8 to 10 years back on the request of their Deputy Engineer Technical by name Venkateswara Rao, he signed on some written papers, but he does not know the contents of the same and the reason for obtaining his signatures on it. Further, he also deposed that in his presence, no one was arrested and no property was seized. So, he did not support the case of the prosecution about arrest of A3 and about seizure of property from A3 in connection of Crime No.3897/2014 except admitting his signature on Ex.P.16. Moreover, in his cross examination by the learned defense counsel, he categorically admitted that he is temporary employee in the

Electricity Department, as such, due to fear on the higher officials, on his request he signed in the above said paper. Even in the cross examination of P.W.8 by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor nothing was elicited in favour of the prosecution. Moreover, he categorically denied that on 24.09.2014 at 3.00 P.M., in his presence, the Inspector of Police/PW.8 arrested A3 and one Venkata

Subbaiah under the cover of Ex.P.16 and denied that A3 and one Venkata

Subbaiah confessed before them and denied that PW8 seized one slip from A3 under the cover of Ex.P.16 in connection of Crime No.3897/2014 and denied that during that time, A3 and one Venkata Subbaiah also confessed about

APNE000016432015 12 APTS CC.41/2015 Dt.29.04.2026 I ADJ/Nlr commission of tampering in this case.

20. Further, the prosecution examined mediators for the arrest of A2 as

P.W.10 and PW.11/Watchmen of training centre of APSPDCL, Nellore and

Guesthouse, APSPDCL, Nellore. But P.Ws.10 and P.W.11 deposed that they are working as Watchmen in Training Centre of Electricity Office, Nellore and in

Guesthouse, APSPDCL, Nellore respectively. While so, about 10 years back on the request of their Deputy Engineer Technical by name Venkateswara Rao, they signed on some written papers, but they do not know the contents of the same and the reason for obtaining their signatures on it. Further, they deposed that they did not know A2 by the date of obtaining their signatures on the said mahazarnama, but subsequently, they came to know that A2 is an employee in

Electricity Department. Further, they also deposed that in their presence, no one was arrested and no property was seized. So, they did not support the case of the prosecution about arrest of A2 and about seizure of property from A2 in connection of Crime No.3897/2014 except admitting their signatures on

Exs.P.18 and Ex.P19 as Exs.P.26 to Ex.P.29. Moreover, in their cross examination by the learned defense counsel, they categorically admitted that they are temporary employees in the Electricity Department. As such, due to fear on the higher officials, on their request they signed in the above said papers. Even in the cross examination of P.W.10 and P.W.11 by the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor nothing was elicited in favour of the prosecution.

Moreover, they categorically denied that on 07.10.2014 at 6.00 A.M., in their presence, the Inspector of Police/PW8 arrested A2 under the cover of Ex.P18 and denied that A2 confessed before them and denied that PW7 seized some articles from A2 under the cover of Ex.P19 in connection of Crime No.3897/2014 and denied that during that time, A2 also confessed about commission of tampering in this case.

APNE000016432015 13 APTS CC.41/2015 Dt.29.04.2026 I ADJ/Nlr

21. Further, the prosecution examined the then Sub Inspector of Police,

APTS Police Station, Nellore as PW.8/Ansari Basha of this case. He deposed in his evidence that on 23.09.2014 at 21.30 hours PW1 came to the Police Station and presented Ex.P3– Report before him along with Exs.P1, Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.4 and MO.1 – Meter. Then, he registered the present case by issuing Ex.P.13 –

F.I.R. He examined P.W.1 and PW.2 and recorded their 161 Cr.P.C statements.

On the next day I.e on 24.09.2014 morning hours, he visited the scene of offence at Thupilipalem village, Vakadu mandal along with mediators namely

Akkamgari Munuswamy(LW3) and Valasamgari Jayapal (LW.7) and inspected the scene and prepared Ex.P.14– Scene observation mahazarnama and

Ex.P.15 – Rough sketch of the scene of offence. Then, he examined

Benerji/PW.3, M.Rathnaiah/LW.4 and D.Lakshmaiah/LW.5 and recorded their 161 Cr.P.C statements. Thereafter, he came to know about arrest of A3/Neelam

Sankaraiah and one Kanna Venkata Subbaiah in connection of Crime

No.3897/2014 by PW.8 and arrest of A2/Goturu Mohan Rao on 07.10.2014 in connection of Cr.No.3897/2014 of their Station. Later, he added Section 150 of the Electricity Act, 2003 by issuing Ex.P.17 – Adding memo against A2 and A3.

On that on 09.10.2014 PW8 has filed requisition before the Hon’ble Court to issue P.T. Warrant against A2 and A3, on that produced A2 and A3 and A2 was produced on 17.10.2014 before the learned Magistrate Court on execution of

P.T. Warrant for judicial custody.

22. Further, PW.8/Ansari Basha deposed in hisevidence that on 24.09.2014 at 09.00 a.m PW1 came to the Police Station and presented Ex.P7–

Report before him along with Exs.P5, Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.8 and MO.2 – Meter

Then, he registered the present case by issuing Ex.P.21 – F.I.R. He examined

P.W.1 and PW.2 and recorded their 161 Cr.P.C statements. On the same day i.e on 24.09.2014 morning hours, he visited the scene of offence at Thupilipalem village, Vakadu mandal along with PW.1 and mediators namely P.Suresh/PW.4 and P.Venkataiah/PW.5 and inspected the scene and prepared Ex.P.22– Scene

APNE000016432015 14 APTS CC.41/2015 Dt.29.04.2026 I ADJ/Nlr observation mahazarnama and Ex.P.23 – Rough sketch of the scene of offence.Then, he examined Benerji/PW.3, M.Rathnaiah/LW.4 and

D.Lakshmaiah/LW.5 and recorded their 161 Cr.P.C statements. Thereafter, basing on the confession of Sankaraiah/A3 and one Venkataiah on 26.09.2014.

Later, he added Section 150 of the Electricity Act, 2003 by issuing Ex.P.24 –

Adding memo against A2 and A3. On that on 09.10.2014 PW8 has filed requisition before the Hon’ble Court to issue P.T. Warrant against A2 and A3, on that produced A2 and A3 and A2 was produced on 17.10.2014 before the learned Magistrate Court on execution of P.T. Warrant for judicial custody.

Thereafter his successor M.Nageswaramma(LW.19) took up investigation, obtained Ex.P.20 certified copy of sanction orders against A2 and A3 and filed the charge sheet against A1 to A3.

23. Further, PW8/Ansari Basha, who deposed in his evidence about arrest of Neelam Sankaraiah/A3 and one Venkata Subbaiah on 24.09.2014. The relevant portion of confessional mahazarnama/Ex.P16 about arrest of A3 and one Venkata Subbaiah on 24.09.2014 in respect of Crime No.3897/2014.

24. Further, he/PW8/Ansari Basha deposed in his evidence that during the course of investigation in Crime No.3897/2014 on 07.10.2014 he arrested

A2, who is working in Electricity Board in the presence of P.W.10/Sk.Shahul and

P.W.11/Yerramala Nikhil Babji and by that time, he confessed commission of the offence in Crime No.3897/2014 and also present case and some other cases and by that time he also seized Crimping tool by Jhonson Company, soldering

Iron, cutting plier, Seals wire, Led Wire approximately 36 inches, torch light, Lugs by No.27, Looping wire, Quick fix soldering paste and black colour hand bag under the cover of Ex.P19 in connection of Crime No.3897/2014. On the next day, he produced A2 before the Court in connection of Crime No.3897/2014.

25. Further, the prosecution has got examined another Investigating

Officer of this case as PW.12/Smt M.Nageswaramma. She deposed in her

APNE000016432015 15 APTS CC.41/2015 Dt.29.04.2026 I ADJ/Nlr evidence that she took up investigation in this case. Since A2 and A3 are government employees as such she obtained Ex.P.20 sanction orders against

A2 and A3 and filed the charge sheet against A1 to A3.

Discussion:-

26. Now, the burden of the prosecution is that whether A2 and another(A3), who are working as Junior Assistant and Linemen in Utukuru

Section Electricity Department abetted A1 to commit theft of Electricity or dishonestly utilizing the power by tampering the seal of the meter supplied to

Aqua culture of A1, thereby committed offence under section 135(1)(b) r/w 150(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003.

27. Here, the categorical evidence of P.W.1 is that on 22.09.2014 PW1 along with PW2 and PW.3 inspected the prawn ponds premises of A1 and inspected the Electricity Service connection No.164 and 133 of A1 and opened the C.T. meter box and found that the meters/M.O.1 and M.O.2 were tampered and on that prepared assessment calculation of pilferage electricity under Ex.P4 and Ex.P.8 and on that he gave Ex.P3 and Ex.P.7 reports to the police. The said inspections were not supported by the independent mediators/P.W.4 and PW.5.

28. More over as admitted by PW.1 the names of A2 and A3 were not found in Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.5.But as admitted by PW.8/Main Investigating

Officer/Sk.Ansari Basha in the statements of P.Ws.1 to P.W.3 under section 161

Cr.P.C did not state the surnames of A2 and A3. PW.8/Investigating Officer did not enquire the electricity officials about number of the persons working in the said office with the names of A2 and A3. Moreover, he/PW.8 did not conduct any

Test Identification Parade in respect of A2 and A3 through A1.

29. Further here, as admitted by PW.1 he did not file any piece of record to show that the Service Connection No.164 and 133 pertaining to M.O.1 and M.O.2 meters standing in the name of Mekala Chandraiah/A1 or he is the

APNE000016432015 16 APTS CC.41/2015 Dt.29.04.2026 I ADJ/Nlr beneficiary of the said connections. But, as admitted by him he did not examine and record the statement of Mekala Chandraiah, even the same was not shown in Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.5. More over as admitted by PW.1 meters numbers and

Service Numbers were not mentioned in Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.6 and even not mentioned the length and width of the wire, which was used for loop in Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.5. Further as admitted by PW.2 there is a separate column in Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.5 to incorporate the statement of consumer or his representative, but columns 9,11 and 12 of Ex.P.1 were kept blank. Even in the cross examination of

PW.1 he deposed that statement of A1 was not recorded in Ex P.1 and Ex.P.5.

30. Further as admitted by investigating officer/PW.8 he did not examine the owner of land pertaining to M.O.1 and M.O.2, even he did not examine lineman of the said connection. Even PW.8 did not enquire on whose name the said land is standing and did not secure previous electricity bills of said connection and did not examine persons, whose names mentioned in rough sketch at the scene of offence. Even PW.8 has not taken photographs of the scene of offence in proof of inspecting the scene of offence under Ex.P.14 and

Ex.P.22. Even PW.8 did not collect periodical reading of the said service connection.

31. Even PW.8 did not note the condition of M.O.1 and M.O.2 meters at the time of receiving the same from PW.1 and even not prepared any mahazarnama to that effect and even he did not obtain signature of PW.1 on

M.O.1 and M.O.2.

32.Further, as per the case of the prosecution and evidence of

PW.8/Ansari Basha, he arrested A3 and one Venkata Subbaiah in the presence of one Pamula Venkateswarlu/LW.14 and Parri Venkaiah/PW.9 at Mypadu centre, Nellore under Ex.P16 in respect of Crime No.3897/2014 and thereafter on P.T.Warrant he produced A3 and one Venkata Subbaiah before the Court in respect of Crime No.3897/2014. But the said evidence of PW.8 is not supported

APNE000016432015 17 APTS CC.41/2015 Dt.29.04.2026 I ADJ/Nlr by the mediator for the arrest of A3 and one Venkata Subbaiah, who was examined as PW.8. Moreover, as admitted by PW.8 in his cross examination no property was seized from the possession of A3 and one Venkata Subbaiah in respect of present crime. Even PW.8 did not try to secure any mediators at the place of arrest of A3 and one Venkata Subbaiah and admittedly there are no signatures of accused and mediators on Ex.P.16 except on the last page of it.

33. Further, here, as per the case of the prosecution and evidence of

PW.8/Ansari Basha is that he arrested A2 in the presence of P.Ws.10 and

P.W.11 in connection of Crime No.3897/2014 and by that time he confessed about commission of offence that he tampered the meter involved in Crime

No.3897/2014 and some other crimes including the present Crime under Ex.P.18 and leading to the said confession he seized Crimping tool by Jonson Company,

Soldering iron, cutting plier, seals wire, Led wire approximately 36 inches, Torch light, Lugs by No.27, Looping wire, Quick fix soldering paste and Black colour hand bag under the cover of Ex.P.19.

34. But the said evidence of PW.8 is not supported by the mediators for the arrest of A2, who were examined as P.Ws.10 and 11, because P.Ws.10 and 11 categorically deposed that they are temporary employees in the

Electricity Department and on the request of their Deputy Engineer Technical by name Venkata Rao, they signed on white papers and they do not know the contents of Exs.P18 and ExP.19 and even they do not know A2 Mohan Rao by the date of obtaining their signatures on the said mahazarnamas. Moreover, in their presence no one was arrested and no property was seized.

35. So, PW.10 and 11 did not support the case of the prosecution about arrest of A2 and about seizure of property from A2 in connection of Crime

No.3897/2014 and present crime, except admitting their signatures on Ex.P18 and Ex.P19. Moreover, in their cross examination by the learned defense counsel, they categorically admitted that they are temporary employees in the

APNE000016432015 18 APTS CC.41/2015 Dt.29.04.2026 I ADJ/Nlr

Electricity Department, as such, due to fear on the higher officials, on their request they signed in the above said papers. Even in the cross examination of

P.W.10 and P.W.11 by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor nothing was elicited in favour of the prosecution. Moreover, they categorically denied that on 07.10.2014 at 6.00 A.M., in their presence, the Inspector of Police/PW.8/Ansari

Basha arrested A2 and he confessed commission of the offence under the cover of Ex.P.18 and denied that PW.8 seized some articles from A2 under the cover of Ex.P19 in connection of Crime No.3897/2014 and denied that during that time, A2 also confessed about commission of tampering in this case

36. Moreover, in the cross examination of PW.8, who alleged as arrested

A2, he categorically deposed that A2 was arrested under the bridge, but in

Ex.P18, it was mentioned that A2 was arrested near Atmakur bus-stand, which is at a distance of 200 meters from Atmakur bus-stand. Further, as admitted by him he did not try to secure any of the independent mediators at the place of arrest.

Moreover, as admitted by him, the signature of A2 and mediators are found only in the last page of Exs.P18 and Ex.P19, but not in all pages and admitted that their Police Station is situated in Vidhyuth Bhavan and mediators are temporary employees in Vidhyuth Bhavan. Further, as admitted by him, the above said articles seized in the house bearing Door No.28-03-1783, but as admitted by him, he cannot say the name of the owner of the said house and he did not verify any municipal records to know the Door number and he did not enquire the owner of the house and the signatures of the accused and mediators are not found in the first page of Ex.P18 and Ex.P.19. Moreover, as admitted by him, name of Mohan Rao was inserted in Ex.P19 – Mahazarnama and it was not initialed by the mediators or not by himself and Ex.P19 does not contain how the said articles are seized. So, here, as admitted by him, name of Mohan Rao was inserted in the said mahazarnama and it was not initialed by him or mediators.

So, it itself not inspires PW.8 in his evidence that he arrested A2/Goturu Mohan

Rao under Ex.P18 at that place as deposed by him. Moreover, his evidence is

APNE000016432015 19 APTS CC.41/2015 Dt.29.04.2026 I ADJ/Nlr no way supported by PWs.10 and 11.

37. So, here, the insufficient evidence of PW8, which is not supported by P.Ws.9 to P.W.11, is not inspires that he arrested A3 and one Venkata

Subbaiah under Ex.P18 and arrested A2 and he confessed about commission of the present offence also under Ex.P18 and Ex.P.19.

38. Further, as per the case of the prosecution and the evidence of PW8 is that another Investigating Officer/PW.12 is obtained sanction orders /Ex.P.20 against A2 and A3, since they are an employees in Electricity Department and filed charge sheet against them. But, here, on perusal of the evidence of PW.12, she admitted in her cross examination at present she does not remember what material sent to the Superintendent Engineer seeking sanction against A2 and

A3. But she deposed that particulars of the said materials supplied is mentioned in Ex.P.20 – Sanction Orders. But on perusal of Ex.P.20 i.e., Sanction orders it was simply mentioned that during the course of investigation, A2 and A3 were arrested in Crime No.3897/2014 and they admitted their guilt at the time of their arrest. But here, already as discussed above, the prosecution failed to prove

Exs.P14 and Ex.P.22 – Mahazarnamas.

39. Further, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the accused

No.2 that the reading of electricity meters pertaining to the aqua fields should be taken by the concerned Assistant Engineer of that area for every month and it has to be inspected by the Assistant Divisional Engineer or Divisional Engineer randomly once in every 3 months. So, he contended that the prosecution failed to examine the said concerned Assistant Engineer and Divisional Engineer.

Further, he argued that how the accused would have been pilferage the energy for 8 months, if really there would be inspected the meters by the Divisional

Engineer or Assistant Divisional Engineer once in 3 months. Further, he argued that as admitted by the Investigating Officers, they did not receive any report from the concerned Assistant Engineers or Divisional Engineers for pilferage of

APNE000016432015 20 APTS CC.41/2015 Dt.29.04.2026 I ADJ/Nlr energy prior to the alleged present incident.

40. No doubt, as admitted by PW.2 that reading of Electricity meters pertaining to aqua fields should be taken by the above cadre of Line Inspector and he did not make any complaint about tampering of M.O.1 and M.O.2 meters prior to the inspection. Further as admitted by PW.2 he is the concerned

Assistant Engineer of that area and used to record consumption on or before 5th of every month and he was recorded consumption even in the month of

September of that year. But he did not raise any complaint to his higher officials for tampering of meter though A1 informed him that the meter was tampered about 8 months back.

41. But here the said cross examination of PW.2 shows that no complaint given by him to his higher officials and no tampering of his seal on M.O.1 and

M.O.2 meters were happened. Even the evidence of PW.2 is silent, who tampered his seals and how A2 and A3 are responsible for that, if really M.O.1 and M.O.2 meters were tampered about 6 months back as informed A1 to him.

So, here, there is no any reasonable explanation from PW.1 that why PW.2, who is the concerned Assistant Engineer of Electricity Department is not responsible or why the concerned Assistant Engineer not made any report to them that his seals on the meters were tampered. On the other hand, as admitted by

Investigating Officer, he did not prepare any mahazarnama at the time of handing over MO1 and M.O.2 -Meters to him by PW.1. Even he did not note the condition of meter at the time of handing over the same to him. Moreover, as admitted by the Investigating Officer, they did not send the meter to Laboratory to get the Expert opinion and not send the same for analysis. Even either PW1 or the persons of MRT Laboratory did not take any photographs of MO.1 and

M.O.2 – Meters to show the condition of the said meter at the time of seizure by

PW1 or at the time of assessment of pilferage of energy. Even, here either PW1 or the Investigating Officer did not seize and produce the loop wires or resistor

APNE000016432015 21 APTS CC.41/2015 Dt.29.04.2026 I ADJ/Nlr with which the meter was tampered to record low consumption.

42. Further as admitted by PW.1 and Investigating officer, in column No.8 of Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.5 inspection notes dt 22.09.2014 shows that M.O.1 and

M.O.2 meters were handed over to the police on that date, but as per the categorical evidence of PW.1 and the investigating officer/PW.8 the meter was handed over to the investigating officer at the time of giving Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.7 reports by PW.1 i.e on 23.09.2014 and 24.09.2014 respectively. So, it is material contradiction in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, which falsifies case of the prosecution and handing over M.O.1 and M.O.2 meters to

PW.8/Investigating officer. Even there is no proper explanation from PW.1 for the delay in giving the report and column No.8 of FIR is silent in this regard. So it is also one of the circumstances to suspect the case of the prosecution.

43. So, here, on perusal of the entire evidence on record except the insufficient evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 and PW.8 there is no evidence that A1 tampered the meters with active support of A2 and A3 by providing a loop wire as well as connector resistor and facilitated A1 to commit theft of electricity. So, here, in the absence of cogent evidence, the testimony of PW.8/Investigating

Officer is not inspires the confidence of the Court to proceed against A2 for the offence charged against him. Hence, benefit of doubt goes in favour of the A2.

Hence, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused No.2 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under section 135(1)(b) r/w 150(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003.

44. Hence, point is answered against the prosecution and infavour of

Accused No.2.

45. IN THE RESULT, the Accused No.2 is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 135(1)(b) r/w 150(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003. Accordingly Accused No.2 is acquitted for the same under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C.

APNE000016432015 22 APTS CC.41/2015 Dt.29.04.2026 I ADJ/Nlr

The bail bonds of accused No. 2 and his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months as per Section 437(A) of Cr.P.C. M.O.1 Electricity meter bearing No.APS08822 and M.O.2 Electricity meter bearing

No.16692839 vide CPR No.15/2026 of this Court shall be returned to the nominated officer by the A.P.S.P.D.C.L, Nellore after expiry of appeal time.

Case against Accused No.1 was abated on 17-09-2022.

Case against Accused No.3 was abated on 21.10.2021.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 29th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- G.Geetha,

I Additional Sessions Judge, Nellore.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined for prosecution

P.W.1:M. Sreenivasulu

P.W.2:Gokarnam Muneendra

P.W.3:K.S.Benerjee

P.W.4:Pamanji Suresh

P.W.5:Putchalapalli Venkataiah

P.W.6:Mekala Yedukondalu

P.W.7:Allari Vijaya Kumar

P.W.8:Sk.Ansari Basha, the then Sub Inspector of Police, APTS Police Station, Nellore.

P.W.9:Parri Venkaiah

P.W.10:SK. Shahul

P.W.11:Yerramala Nikhil Babji

P.W.12:M.Nageswaramma, the then Inspector of Police, Vigilance and APTS Police Station, Nellore.

Witnesses examined for Defence

- NONE-

APNE000016432015 23 APTS CC.41/2015 Dt.29.04.2026 I ADJ/Nlr

Exhibits marked for Prosecution

Ex.P.1 :Inspection Report, dated.22-09-2014

Ex.P.2 :Mediator's Report, dated.22-09-2014.

Ex.P3:Complaint, dated. 23-09-2014.

Ex.P.4:Assessment Calculation sheet, dated 23-09-2014.

Ex.P.5:Inspection Report, dated.22-09-2014

Ex.P.6:Mediator's Report, dated.22-09-2014.

Ex.P.7:Complaint, dated. 23-09-2014

Ex.P.8:Assessment Calculation sheet, dated 23-09-2014.

Ex.P.9:Signature portion of PW.4 on the Inspection mediatornama,

dated 22-09-2014 at 16.30 hours in Cr.No.3909/2014.

Ex.P.10:Signature portion of PW.5 on the Inspection mediatornama,

dated 22-09-2014 at 16.30 hours in Cr.No.3909/2014.

Ex.P.11:Signature portion of PW.6 on the scene observation mahazarnama, dated 24-09-2014 at 07.10 A.M in Cr.No.3898/2014.

Ex.P.12:Signature portion of PW.7 on the scene observation mahazarnama, dated 25-09-2014 at 12.00 noon in Cr.No.3909/2014.

Ex.P.13:FIR in Cr.No.3898/2014

Ex.P.14:Scene observation mahazarnama.

Ex.P.15:Rough sketch of scene of offence.

Ex.P.16:Relevant portion in certified copy of arrest and confessional mahazarnama of Neelam Sankaraiah(A3) and one Venkata Subbaiah dated 24-09-2014 at 3.00 P.M.

Ex.P.17:Adding Memo.

Ex.P.18:Relevant portion in certified copy of arrest and confessional mahazarnama of A2/Goturu Mohan Rao dated 07-10-2014 at 6.00 A.M.

APNE000016432015 24 APTS CC.41/2015 Dt.29.04.2026 I ADJ/Nlr

Ex.P.19:Certified copy of seizure mahazarnama from A2/Goturu Mohan Rao dated 07-10-2014 at 8.30 A.M for two crimes.

Ex.P.20:Certified copy of sanction proceedings.

Ex.P.21:FIR in Cr.No.3909/2014

Ex.P.22:Scene observation mahazarnama in Cr.No.3909/2014

Ex.P.23:Rough sketch of scene of offence in Cr.No.3909/2014

Ex.P.24:Adding memo in Cr.No. 3909/2014.

Ex.P.25:Signature portion of the PW.9 on the attested copy of Arrest mahazarnama dated 24-09-2014 at about 3.00 P.M related to the crime No.3897/2014.

Ex.P.26:Signature portion of the PW.10 on the certified copy of confession mahazarnama dated 07-10-2014 at 6.00 A.M. for two crimes.

Ex.P.27:Signature portion of the PW.10 on the certified copy of confession mahazarnama dated 07-10-2014 at 8.30 A.M. for two crimes.

Ex.P.28:Signature portion of the PW.11 on the certified copy of confession mahazarnama dated 07-10-2014 at 6.00 A.M.

Ex.P.29:Signature portion of the PW.11 on the certified copy of confession mahazarnama dated 07-10-2014 at 8.30 A.M.

Exhibits marked for defence

- NIL-

Material object marked

M.O.1Electricity meter bearing No.APS08822

M.O.2Electricity meter bearing No.16692839

Sd/- G.Geetha,

I A.S.J, Nellore. Copy submitted to the Hon'ble Registrar, Judicial, High Court of A.P, Amaravati.

//True Copy//

APNE000016562015 1 APTSCC.49/2015 Dt.28.04.2026 I ADJ/Nlr

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE :: NELLORE.

Present:- Smt.G.Geetha, I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore.

Tuesday, this the 28th day of April, 2026.

A.P.T.S.C.C No.49 of 2015

(Crime No.3897/2014 of Anti Power Theft Squad Police Station, Nellore)

1.Name of the Complainant State: Inspector of Police, Vigilance and APTS Police Station, Nellore.

2.Name of the Accused 1. Vatamgari Venkata Ramanaiah S/o. Govindaiah, resident of Tupilipalem village, Vakadu Mandal, S.P.S.R.Nellore District. (A1)

2. Goturu Mohan Rao, S/o Navaneetham, aged 35 years (as on the date of filing charge sheet), Junior Assistant working at Utukuru Section R/o Door No.28-3- 1783, Kisan Nagar, Mypadu Road, Nellore town. (A2)

3. Neelam Sankaraiah S/o. Eswaraiah, aged 29 years, Junior Assistant working at Sub Electricity Revenue Office, Kota, resident of Opp. to Viswabharathi School, Teachers Colony, near Pichireddy Thopu, Naidupet town, SPSR Nellore District. (A3). (Case against A3 was abated on

21.10.2021).

4. Kanna Venkata Subbaiah, S/o.Ramanaiah, aged 39 years (as on the date of filing charge sheet), Assistant Lineman, Konduru village, Vadadu Section, resident of 1st Street, NCR Nagar, Kota village and mandal, SPSR Nellore District(A4)

APNE000016562015 2 APTSCC.49/2015 Dt.28.04.2026 I ADJ/Nlr

3.Charges Under Section 135(b), 138(a)(b) and 150 of Electricity Act, 2003.

4.Plea of accusedPleaded not guilty.

5.Finding of the JudgeFound not guilty.

6.Sentence or orderIN THE RESULT, the Accused No.1 is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 135(1)(a)(b) of the Electricity

Act, 2003 and Accused No.2 and Accused

No.4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 135(1)(b) r/w 150(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003.

Accordingly Accused No.1, Accused No.2 and Accused No.4 are acquitted for the same under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 and their sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months as per

Section 437(A) of Cr.P.C. M.O.1 Electricity meter bearing No.3652393 vide CPR

No.12/2026 of this Court shall be returned to the nominated officer by the

A.P.S.P.D.C.L, Nellore after expiry of appeal time.

Case against A3 was abated on

21.10.2021.

7.Prosecution conducted bySri Sk. Rafi Malik, Addl. Public Prosecutor, I ADJ Court, Nellore

APNE000016562015 3 APTSCC.49/2015 Dt.28.04.2026 I ADJ/Nlr

8.Name of the advocate for Sri V.Upendra Rao, accused. Advocate for Accused No.1.

Sri R.Roja Reddy, Advocate for Accused Nos.2 and 4.

This case is coming on 27-04-2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Sk. Rafi Malik, Additional Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and Sri V.Upendra Rao, Advocate for the Accused No.1 and Sri R.Roja Reddy, Advocate for the Accused Nos.2 and 4 and case against A3 was abated on 21.10.2021 andupon perusing the records, having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

Filing of charge sheet:-

The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and APTS Police Station, Nellore, filed the charge sheet in Cr.No.3897 of 2014 for the offence under Section 135(b), 138(a)(b) and 150 of Electricity Act, 2003, against the accused Nos.1 to 4 alleging that:

2. The Accused No.1 is resident of Thupilipalem village, Vakadu

Mandal of SPSR Nellore District, who is the present beneficiary of Aqua ponds in this case. Accused No.2 is resident of Nellore town. Accused No.3 is resident of opp. Viswabharathi School, Teachers Colony, near Pichireddy Thopu, Naidupet town, S.P.S.R.Nellore District. Accused No.4 is resident of Kota village. Accused

Nos. 2 to 4 are the APSPDCL Departmental staff.

Jurisdiction of the Court:-

The scene of offence is situated at Thupilipalem village, Vakadu Mandal of

Nellore District and the exact scene of offence is at S.C.No.526 electrical meter, which comes under the local limits of Vigilance and A.P.T.S. Police Station,

Nellore and within the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Court.

APNE000016562015 4 APTSCC.49/2015 Dt.28.04.2026 I ADJ/Nlr

Gist of the Charge sheet:-

3. (i)The Assistant Engineer, DPE Wing, APSPDCL,Nellore

Circle(L.W.1) is authorized to inspect the premises of the accused along with

K.S.Benerge, ADE/CT meters/ Nellore, G.Muneendra, Assistant Engineer,

Operations, Vakadu prior to 22.09.2014 at 13.30 hours near A1 cultivating ponds at Tupilipalem village, Vakadu of Nellore District at S.C.No.526 and found that the consumer Vatamgari Venkata Ramanaiah/A1 utilizing power dishonestly by tampering seal of the meter, which belongs to the company and provided an unauthorized loop as well as connected a resister and thereby caused theft of energy valued Rs.3,17,331/-. Basing on the inspection notes, Sub Inspector of

Police, Vigilance and APTS PS, APSPDCL, Nellore Circle(L.W.12) registered the case in Crime No.3897/2014 under Section 135(b), 138(a)(b) and 150 of the

Electricity Act, 2003 against the accused and took up investigation.

(ii) The Sub Inspector of police, Vigilance & APTS PS, APSPDCL,

Nellore Circle(L.W.12) visited the scene of offence and inspected the same in the presence of Alahari Vijaya Kumar(LW.6) and Thupakula Srinivasulu(LW.7) respectively and got prepared scene observation report duly attested by them and prepared rough sketch.

(iii) During the course of investigation, The Sub Inspector of police,

Vigilance & APTS PS, APSPDCL, Nellore Circle(LW.12) arrested the Accused

No.3 and Accused No.4 on 24.09.2014 at Mypadu gate centre, Nellore and on 07.10.2014 Sub Inspector of Police(LW.12) arrested Accused No.2 at Atmakur

Bus Stand Centre, Nellore connected in this case and produced them before the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class Court, Kota for judicial remand.

Later, Sub Inspector of Police(LW.12) seized property from the possession of

Accused No.2 along with club charge sheet in Cr No.3899/2014, Cr

No.3900/2014 and 3901/2014 and obtained C.C.No.11/2015. Meanwhile A1 got obtained anticipatory bail from this Court. Accordingly he appeared before the

APNE000016562015 5 APTSCC.49/2015 Dt.28.04.2026 I ADJ/Nlr

SHO, APTS P.S. Nellore and enlarged on bail after producing sufficient sureties.

(iv) During the course of investigation, it was established that the SC

No.526 relating to Crime No.3897/2014 in the name of A1 with the connivance of the Accused No.2 to 4 came to clandestine understanding to ensure the record of low consumption of the meters and due to which, accused tampered the MRT seals and company seals of the meters, meddled the internal mechanism of the meters to record less consumption duly suppressing the actual consumption of the electrical power in the said meter.

(v) In the course of further investigation, obtained sanction orders under

Section 197 Cr.P.C against A2 to A4 from the authorities concerned to prosecute them accordingly.

(vi) After completion of investigation, basing on the evidence of witnesses, the prima facie case is made out against A1 to A4. The Inspector of

Police (LW.13) Vigilance & APTS Police Station, APSPDCL, Nellore Circle filed charge sheet against A1 under Section 135(b), 138(a) (b) and A2 to A4 u/s 138(a)(b) and 150 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Hence, the charge sheet.

4. Taking of cognizance of the case:-

Cognizance of this case was taken under Section 135(b) against A1 and 138(b) r/w 150 of the Electricity Act, 2003 against A2 to A4 by my predecessor.

On theirappearance, copies of the documents were furnished to them as required under Section 207of Cr.P.C.

5. Appearance of the accused and opening the case:-

After receipt of the summons, the accused Nos.1 to 4 appeared before this

Court. Accused No.1 engaged Sri V. Upendra Rao, Advocate to defend him.

Accused Nos.2 and 4 engaged Sri R.Roja Reddy, Advocate to defend them.

Case against Accused No.3 is abated on 21.10.2021. Thereafter, Sri Sk. Rafi

APNE000016562015 6 APTSCC.49/2015 Dt.28.04.2026 I ADJ/Nlr

Malik, Learned Additional Public Prosecutor as envisaged under Section 226 of

Cr.P.C, opened the case, by describing the charge brought against them/A1 to

A3 and also the evidence going to be adduced to prove their guilt.

6 . Framing of charge:-

After hearing both sides and considering the entire material available on record, my predecessor examined the accused No.1 to Accused No.4 and charge under Section 135(1)(a) (b) of the Electricity Act, 2003 against Accused

No.1 and charge under section 135(1) (b) r/w 150(2) of Electricity Act, 2003 against Accused No.2 to Accused No.4, were framed, read over and explained to them in their vernacular language, for which the accused No.1 to accused

No.4 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, this case was stood posted for prosecution evidence, after fixing the schedule for trial.

7. Prosecution evidence:-

To prove the prosecution case, the prosecution got examined P.W.1 to

P.W.10 and got marked Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.18 and M.O.1. But, the evidence of

Thupakula Srinivasulu(LW.2), Manikala Amasa(LW.5) and Thupakula Srinivasulu (LW.7) were given up by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. After completion of the prosecution side evidence, bonds as required under Section 437-A Cr.P.C were obtained from the accused No.1, 2 and 4 and their sureties.

8.After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, by explaining the incriminating evidence appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, but, they denied the same and reported that no defence evidence on their behalf, as such defence evidence is closed.

9 . Heard on both sides and perused the material available on record.

APNE000016562015 7 APTSCC.49/2015 Dt.28.04.2026 I ADJ/Nlr

10. The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, argued that the evidence of P.W.1,PW.6 and P.W.9 are sufficient to proceed against the accused. So, requested the Court to convict the accused.

11. The learned counsels for the accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 argued that there are material contradictions in the evidence of PW.1 about the names of employees of Electricity department and his evidence is also inconsistent with the evidence of Investigating Officer. Further as admitted by Investigation officer

PW.1 did not state the surnames of the accused Nos.2 to 4 in his 161 Cr.P.C.

statement and as admitted by the Investigating officer he did not enquire in the electricity department about the persons with the names of A2 to A4 and even not conducted any test identification parade of A2 to A4 through A1. Further as admitted by Investigating officer he did not file any piece of record to show that

A1 is the beneficiary of M.O.1 meter and he was doing aqua culture in the said lands and there is no record to show that relationship between A1 and owner of the land and meter. On the other hand as admitted by PW.1 he did not mention name of the consumer/owner of M.O.1 meter in Exs. P.1 to Ex.P.4 and also he kept blank the relevant columns in the inspection reports about the name of consumer. Further as admitted by PW.1 he did not file any piece of record to show that he is competent to give report as DPE/ detective pilferage of energy.

Further as admitted by PW.1 the monthly reading of electricity meters pertaining to aqua culture should be taken by Assistant Engineer of that area and as admitted by him no report received by them from the concerned Assistant

Engineer about tampering of M.O.1. More over as admitted by PW.1 the

Additional Divisional Engineer should be check the meters pertaining to Aqua

culture once in 3 months. So they argued that how it is possible to tamper M.O.1 meter by A1 with the help of A2 to A4. More over there is no any complaint from the concerned Assistant Engineer of that area that his seals on the M.O.1 and its synthetic box were tampered. So, they argued that to save the higher officials a

APNE000016562015 8 APTSCC.49/2015 Dt.28.04.2026 I ADJ/Nlr false case was registered against accused. Further they argued that as admitted by PW1 and Investigating officer in column No.8 of Ex.P1 inspection notes shows that M.O.1 meter was handed over to the police, but it was alleged as prepared on the date of the offence, but as per the categorical evidence of PW.1 and the investigating officer the meter was handed over to the investigating officer at the time of giving report by P.W.1. So, it is material contradiction in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, which falsifies case of the prosecution.

Further they argued that as admitted by investigating officer he did not examine the meter and not noted the condition of the meter by the time of receiving the same from PW.1 and even not sent to the Laboratory for examination of alleged tampering. Further they argued that as per the sanction orders and evidence of investigating officer basing on the confession of A2 to A4, the said sanction orders were issued, but they argued that except the said material there is no any cogent evidence against the accused to get sanction orders. More over the said confession mahazarnamas were not supported by the mediators. So, they argued that the said sanction orders is also not valid. So they argued that the prosecution miserably failed to prove that A1 tampered the meter with the help of A2 to A4 and they abetted A1 to commit theft of electricity by tampering seals of meter. So requested the Court to acquit the accused Nos.1, 2 and 4.

12. Now the point for determination is:

1. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused No.1 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence charged under section 135(1)(a)(b) of the Electricity Act, 2003 against the accused No.1 or not?

2. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused Nos.2 and 4 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence charged under section 135(1)(b) r/w 150(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 against the accused Nos.2 and 4 or not?

APNE000016562015 9 APTSCC.49/2015 Dt.28.04.2026 I ADJ/Nlr

POINTS 1 AND 2:-

13. On perusal of the charge sheet and evidence on the record, the case of the prosecution is that the accused No.1 utilized the electricity power dishonestly by illegally tampering the seal of meter by providing unauthorized loop with the help of A2 to A4, that A2 to A4 being the employees of electricity board abetted A1 to commit an offence of theft of electricity by tampering the meter. Then on the report of PW.1 the present case was registered against the accused.

14. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has got examined Assistant Engineer, DPE Wing, APSPDCL, Nellore as P.W.1. He deposed in his evidence that on 22.09.2014 he along with K.S.Benerjee,

Additional Divisional Engineer, CT Meters, Nellore, G.Muneendra, Operations

Engineer went to Thupilipalem village, Vakadu Mandal, SPSR Nellore District and inspected Service Connection No.526 at the aqua fields of Vatamgari

Venkata Ramanaiah/A1 in the presence of mediators/Alahari Amasa(L.W.4) and

Manikala Ramesh(L.W.5) and found that there was tampering of the seal and a loop was arranged to record low consumption. Further, he deposed that

Vatamgari Venkata Ramanaiah/A1 being the consumer of the said Service

Connection was also present. Then, he prepared Ex.P3 – Inspection notes, which contains the signatures of himself. Further he deposed that he seized

M.O.1 meter under Ex.P.2 – Mediatornama, which contains the signatures of himself, A1 and mediators. Thereafter on the next day he prepared Assessment calculation sheet/Ex.P.4 with the help of MATS application. Later, on 23.09.2014 he gave Ex.P.1 – Report to APTS Police. Then, he was examined by the police.

15. Further, the prosecution examined the villager of consumer/A1 as

PW.2. He deposed in his evidence that he did not support the case of the prosecution and deposed that the police did not examine him. Even in his cross examination by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor nothing was elicited in

APNE000016562015 10 APTSCC.49/2015 Dt.28.04.2026 I ADJ/Nlr favour of the prosecution and denied that he gave Ex.P.5, by PW.6 under section 161 Cr.P.C.statement.

16. Further, the prosecution examined the mediator for Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 as PW.3. He deposed that about 8 or 9 years back police obtained his signatures on some papers. But he does not know the contents of the same. No inspection was conducted by APTS Vigilance officials in his presence. He does not know the case facts. Even in his cross examination by the learned Additional

Public Prosecutor nothing was elicited in favour of the prosecution and denied that APTS vigilance officials inspected the scene of offence lands and seized the tampered electrical meter in his presence. So in his evidence nothing was elicited infavour of the prosecution.

17. Further the prosecution has got examined the mediator for scene observation mahazarnama as PW.4. He deposed in his evidence that in the year 2014 police came to Thupilipalem for raid. At that time he was in

Thupilipalem and police asked him to sign on some papers. But he refused to put his signature. Then they stated that only to show that they have come to

Thupilipalem asked him to put his signature. Accordingly he put his signature, but he does not know the other persons present at that time. Even in his cross examination by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor nothing was elicited in favour of the prosecution and he denied about inspecting the scene of offence by the police on 24.09.2014 in connection of service connection No.526. So in his evidence nothing was elicited infavour of the prosecution.

18. Further the prosecution has got examined mediators for the arrest of A3 and A4 as PW.5 and PW.10. But they deposed that they are working as watchman in Vidhyuth Bhavan, Nellore on contract basis. While so, about 8 to 10 years back on the request of their Deputy Engineer Technical by name

Venkateswara Rao, they signed on some written papers, but they do not know the contents of the same and the reason for obtaining their signatures on it.

APNE000016562015 11 APTSCC.49/2015 Dt.28.04.2026 I ADJ/Nlr

Further, they also deposed that in their presence, no one was arrested and no property was seized. So, they did not support the case of the prosecution about arrest of A3 and A4 and about seizure of property from A3 and A4 in connection of Crime No.3897/2014 except admitting their signatures on Ex.P.9. Moreover, in his cross examination by the learned defense counsel, he categorically admitted that he is temporary employee in the Electricity Department, as such, due to fear on the higher officials, on his request he signed in the above said paper. Even in the cross examination of P.W.5 and P.W.10 by the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor nothing was elicited in favour of the prosecution.

Moreover, he categorically denied that on 24.09.2014 at 3.00 P.M., in their presence, the Inspector of Police/PW.6 arrested A3 and A4 under the cover of

Ex.P9 and denied that A3 and A4 confessed before him and denied that PW.6 seized one slip from A3 and A4 under the cover of Ex.P.9 in connection of Crime

No.3897/2014 and denied that during that time, A3 and A4 confessed about commission of tampering in this case.

19. Further, the prosecution examined mediators for the arrest of

Accused No.2 as P.W.8 and P.W.9. But P.W.8 and P.W.9 deposed that they are working as Watchmen in Guest House, APSPDCL, Nellore and in Training

Centre of Electricity Office, Nellore respectively. While so, about 10 years back on the request of their Deputy Engineer Technical by name Venkateswara Rao, they signed on some written papers, but they do not know the contents of the same and the reason for obtaining their signatures on it. Further, they deposed that they did not know Accused No.2/Goturu Mohan Rao by the date of obtaining their signatures on the said mahazarnama, but subsequently, they came to know that Accused is an employee in Electricity Department. Further, they also deposed that in their presence, no one was arrested and no property was seized. So, they did not support the case of the prosecution about arrest of

Accused No.2 and about seizure of property from Accused No.2 in connection of

Crime No.3897/2014 except admitting their signatures on Ex.P10 and ExP.11 as

APNE000016562015 12 APTSCC.49/2015 Dt.28.04.2026 I ADJ/Nlr

Ex.P.13 to Ex.P.16. Moreover, in their cross examination by the learned defense counsel, they categorically admitted that they are temporary employees in the

Electricity Department. As such, due to fear on the higher officials, on their request they signed in the above said papers. Even in the cross examination of

P.W.8 and P.W.9 by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor nothing was elicited in favour of the prosecution. Moreover, they categorically denied that on 07.10.2014 at 6.00 A.M., in their presence, the Sub Inspector of Police/PW6 arrested Accused No.2 under the cover of Ex.P.10 and denied that Accused

No.2 confessed before them and denied that PW.6 seized some articles from

Accused No.2 under the cover of Ex.P.11 in connection of Crime No.3897/2014 and denied that during that time, Accused No.2 also confessed about commission of tampering in this case.

20. Further, the prosecution examined the then Sub Inspector of Police,

APTS Police Station, Nellore as PW.6/Ansari Basha. He deposed in his evidence that on 23.09.2014 at 21.00 hours PW.1 came to the Police Station and presented Ex.P1 – Report before him along with Exs.P2 to Ex.P4 and MO.1 – Meter. Then, he registered the present case by issuing Ex.P.7 – F.I.R. Then he examined P.W.1 and recorded his 161 Cr.P.C statement. On the same day, he visited the Aqua fields of Vatamgari Venkata Ramanaiah/A1 along with mediators/Alahari Vijaya Kumar/PW.4 and Tupakula Srinivas(LW.7) and inspected the scene of offence and prepared Ex.P.8 – Rough sketch of the scene of offence. Further he deposed that on 24.09.2014 in the afternoon hours during the course of investigation he arrested Neelam Sankaraiah/A3 and

Kanna Venkata Subbaiah/A4 in the presence of Pamula Venkateswarlu/PW.5 and Parri Venkaiah/PW.10 at Mypadu Gate centre, Nellore and by that time he also seized one slip containing the names of beneficiary of electricity meters from A3 and A4 under the cover of Ex.P.9 Mahazarnama and arrested them and on the same day he produced them before the learned Magistrate Court, Kota.

APNE000016562015 13 APTSCC.49/2015 Dt.28.04.2026 I ADJ/Nlr

21. Further, PW.6/Ansari Basha deposed in his evidence that on 07.10.2014 he arrested one Goturu Mohan Rao/A2, who is working in Electricity

Board in the presence of P.W.8/Sk.Shahul and P.W.9/Yerramala Nikhil Babji and by that time, A2 confessed commission of the offence in this case and also some other cases under the cover of Ex.P.10 and by that time he also seized

Crimping tool by Jhonson Company, soldering Iron, cutting plier, Seals wire, Led

Wire approximately 36 inches, torch light, Lugs by No.27, Looping wire, Quick fix soldering paste and black colour hand bag under the cover of Ex.P.11 in connection of this case. On the next day, he produced A2 before the Court in connection of this case. Later, he added Section 150 of the Electricity Act, 2003 by issuing Ex.P18 – Adding memo against A2. Further PW.6 deposed that

Vatamgari Venkata Ramanaiah/A1 obtained anticipatory bail from this Court.

22. Further, the prosecution examined the then Inspector of Police, APTS

Police Station, Nellore as PW.7/Smt M.Nageswaramma. She deposed in her evidence that she obtained sanction orders/Ex.P.12 from Superintending

Engineer, Operation, Nellore against A2 to A4 and after completion of investigation she filed charge sheet in this case.

Discussion:-

23. Here, the case of the prosecution and the categorical evidence of

P.W.1 is that on 22.09.2014 he along with K.S.Benerjee, Additional Divisional

Engineer, CT meters Nellore and G.Muneedra, Operations Engineer and mediators inspected the prawn ponds of Vatamgari Venkata Ramanaiah/A1 and inspected the Electricity Service connection No.526 and found that M.O.1 meter was tampered by inserting a loop wire to record low consumption. Further he deposed that at the time A1 stated before him that A2 to A4 helped him to tamper the meter by taking amounts from them.

APNE000016562015 14 APTSCC.49/2015 Dt.28.04.2026 I ADJ/Nlr 24 But, here, as admitted by PW.1 he did not file any piece of record to show that Service Connection No.526 pertaining to M.O.1 meter standing in the name of Vatamgari Venkata Ramanaiah of Thupilipalem village or he is the beneficiary of the said connection. Further he did not examine the said

Vatamgari Venkata Ramanaiah, even the same was not shown in Ex.P1 and

Ex.P.2. Further as admitted by PW.1 he does not know the owner of the land.

More over as admitted by him meter number and Service Number were not mentioned in Ex.P.2 and even not mentioned the length and width of the wire, which was used for loop in Ex.P.1. Further as admitted by him there is a separate column in Ex.P.1 to incorporate the statement of consumer or his representative, but columns 9,11 and 12 of Ex.P.1 were kept blank. Even his evidence of inspection is not supported by villager/ PW.2 and mediator/PW.3.

25. Further as admitted by investigating officer/PW.6 he did not file any proof of document to show that the said Service Connection standing in the name of A1 and even he did not examine lineman of the said connection and did not secure any record to show that Vatamgari Venkata Ramanaiah/A1 is the owner of the said lands or pond. Even he did not enquire on whose name the said land is standing and did not secure previous electricity bills of said connection and did not examine persons, whose names mentioned in rough sketch at the scene of offence. Even he has not taken photographs of the scene of offence in proof of inspecting the scene of offence. Even PW.6 did not collect periodical reading of the said service connection.

26. Even PW.6 did not note the condition of M.O.1 meter at the time of receiving the same from PW.1 and even not prepared any mahazarnama to that effect and even he did not obtain signature of PW.1 on M.O.1.

27. On the other hand as admitted by PW.6/Investigating Officer even

P.W.1 did not state in his 161 Cr.P.C statement about the surname of accused

Nos.2 to 4. PW6/Investigating Officer did not enquire the electricity officials

APNE000016562015 15 APTSCC.49/2015 Dt.28.04.2026 I ADJ/Nlr about number of the persons working in the said office with the names of A2 to

A4. Further, admittedly PW6/Investigating Officer did not conduct any Test

Identification Parade in respect of A2 to A4 through Vatamgari Venkata

Ramanaiah/A1.

28. Further, as per the case of the prosecution and evidence of

PW8/Ansari Basha, he arrested Neelam Sankaraiah and Kanna Venkata

Subbaiah/A4 in the presence of one Pamula Venkateswarlu/PW.5 and Parri

Venkaiah/PW.10 at Mypadu centre, Nellore under Ex.P.9 in this Crime and thereafter he produced Neelam Sankaraiah/A3 and Kanna Venkata

Subbaiah/A4 before the Court in respect of the present case. But the prosecution failed to examine the alleged mediators for the arrest of Neelam

Sankaraiah/A3 and Kanna Venkata Subbaiah/A4. Moreover, as admitted by

PW6 in his cross examination no property was seized from the possession of

Neelam Sankaraiah/A3 in respect of present crime. Even he did not try to secure any mediators at the place of arrest of A3 and admittedly there are no signatures of accused and mediators on Ex.P9 except on the last page of it.

29. Further, here, as per the case of the prosecution and evidence of

PW.6/Ansari Basha is that he arrested A2 in the presence of P.W.8 and P.W.9 in connection of this Crime and by that time he confessed about commission of offence that he tampered the meter involved in this Crime and some other crimes under Ex.P.10 and leading to the said confession he seized Crimping tool by Jonson Company, Soldering iron, cutting plier, seals wire, Led wire approximately 36 inches, Torch light, Lugs by No.27, Looping wire, Quick fix soldering paste and Black colour hand bag under the cover of Ex.P11.

30. But the said evidence of PW6 is not supported by the mediators for the arrest of A2, who were examined as P.Ws.8 and 9, because P.Ws.8 and 9 categorically deposed that they are temporary employees in the Electricity

Department and on the request of their Deputy Engineer Technical by name

APNE000016562015 16 APTSCC.49/2015 Dt.28.04.2026 I ADJ/Nlr

Venkata Rao, they signed on white papers and they do not know the contents of

Exs.P10 and Ex.P11 and even they do not know A2/ Mohan Rao by the date of obtaining their signatures on the said mahazarnamas. Moreover, in their presence no one was arrested and no property was seized.

31. So, they did not support the case of the prosecution about arrest of A2 and about seizure of property from A2 in connection of present Crime

No.3897/2014, except admitting their signatures on Exs.P10 and P11 as

Exs.P.13 to Ex.P.16. Moreover, in their cross examination by the learned defense counsel, they categorically admitted that they are temporary employees in the Electricity Department, as such, due to fear on the higher officials, on their request they signed in the above said papers. Even in the cross examination of

P.W.8 and P.W.9 by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor nothing was elicited in favour of the prosecution. Moreover, they categorically denied that on 07.10.2014 at 6.00 A.M., in their presence, the Sub Inspector of

Police/PW.6/Ansari Basha arrested A2 and he confessed commission of the offence under the cover of Ex.P10 and denied that PW.6 seized some articles from A2 under the cover of Ex.P11 in connection of this Crime No.3897/2014 and denied that during that time, A2 also confessed about commission of tampering in this case.

32. Moreover, in the cross examination of PW6, who alleged as arrested

A2, he categorically deposed that A2 was arrested under the bridge, but in

Ex.P10, it was mentioned that A2 was arrested near Atmakur bus-stand, which is at a distance of 200 meters from Atmakur bus-stand. Further, as admitted by him he did not try to secure any of the independent mediators at the place of arrest. Moreover, as admitted by him, the signature of A2 and mediators are found only in the last page of Exs.P10 and P11, but not in all pages and admitted that their Police Station is situated in Vidhyuth Bhavan and mediators are temporary employees in Vidhyuth Bhavan. Further, as admitted by him, the

APNE000016562015 17 APTSCC.49/2015 Dt.28.04.2026 I ADJ/Nlr above said articles seized in the house bearing Door No.28-03-1783, but as admitted by him, he cannot say the name of the owner of the said house and he did not verify any municipal records to know the Door number and he did not enquire the owner of the house and the signatures of the accused and mediators are not found in the first page of Ex.P10 and Ex.P.11. Moreover, as admitted by him, name of Mohan Rao was inserted in Ex.P11 – Mahazarnama and it was not initialed by the mediators or not by himself and Ex.P11 does not contain how the said articles are seized. So, here, as admitted by him, name of Mohan Rao was inserted in the said mahazarnama and it was not initialed by him or mediators.

So, it itself not inspires PW.7in his evidence that he arrested A2/Goturu Mohan

Rao under Ex.P10 at that place as deposed by him. Moreover, his evidence is no way supported by PW.8 and P.W.9. So, here, the insufficient evidence of

PW8, which is not supported by P.W.8 and P.W.9 is not inspires that he arrested

A2 under Ex.P10 and P11 and A2 confessed about commission of the present offence also.

33. Further, as per the case of the prosecution and the evidence of

PW.9 is that she obtained sanction orders/Ex.P.12 against A2 to A4 since they are an employees in Electricity Department and filed charge sheet against them.

But, here, on perusal of the evidence of PW.9, she admitted in her cross examination at present she does not remember what material sent to the

Superintendent Engineer seeking sanction against A2 to A4. But she deposed that particulars of the said materials supplied is mentioned in Ex.P12 – Sanction

Orders. But on perusal of Ex.P12 i.e., Sanction orders it was simply mentioned that during the course of investigation, A2 to A4 were arrested in this present

Crime No.3897/2014 and they admitted their guilt at the time of their arrest. But here, already as discussed above, the prosecution failed to prove Exs.P.9 to

Ex.P.11 – Mahazarnamas.

APNE000016562015 18 APTSCC.49/2015 Dt.28.04.2026 I ADJ/Nlr

34. Further as admitted by P.W.6, PW.1 did not mention the name of registered consumer of Electricity service connection pertaining to MO1 – Meter in Ex.P1 – Inspection report and even not mentioned his name in Exs.P1 to P4.

It is also laches on the part of the prosecution how they connected A1 as alleged beneficiary to electricity service connection pertaining to MO1 – Meter.

35. Further, it is the contention of the learned counsels for the accused

Nos.1, 2 and 4 that the reading of electricity meters pertaining to the aqua fields should be taken by the concerned Assistant Engineer of that area for every month and it has to be inspected by the Assistant Divisional Engineer or

Divisional Engineer randomly once in every 3 months. So, he contended that the prosecution failed to examine the said concerned Assistant Engineer and

Divisional Engineer. Further, he argued that how the accused would have been pilferage the energy for 5 to 6 months, if really there would be inspected the meters by the Divisional Engineer or Assistant Divisional Engineer once in 3 months. Further, he argued that as admitted by the Investigating Officers, they did not receive any report from the concerned Assistant Engineers or Divisional

Engineers for pilferage of energy prior to the alleged present incident.

36. No doubt, as admitted by PW.1 that reading of Electricity meters pertaining to aqua fields should be taken by the Assistant Engineer of that area for every month. Further, the said meters should have inspected by the

Assistant Divisional Engineer or Divisional Engineer randomly once in every 3 months. But, here, as admitted by Investigating Officer, PW.6 did not examine concerned Assistant Engineer of that area, who used to record the reading of meter for every month. Further, as admitted by PW1 they did not receive any complaint from the Assistant Engineer of that area about pilferage of electricity prior to the months of present incident. So, here, there is no any reasonable explanation from PW1 that why the concerned Assistant Engineer of Electricity

Department is not responsible or why the concerned Assistant Engineer not

APNE000016562015 19 APTSCC.49/2015 Dt.28.04.2026 I ADJ/Nlr made any report to them that his seals on the meter were tampered. Moreover, as admitted by PW.1 he did not handover meter and wires to the police on the date of Ex P.2 and about the seizure of the same were also not mentioned in

Ex.P.2. Further as admitted by PW.1 Ex.P.2 is a printed proforma and as admitted by him the meter number was not mentioned in Ex.P.2. Further as admitted by PW.1 Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 are silent that the said proceedings were taken place in the presence of mediators. More over the loop wire was not seized and not handed over to the police. So, there is no any reason or explanation from PW.1 how the meter kept in the Synthetic box was tampered without opening the seals of Synthetic box. On the other hand, as admitted by

Investigating Officer, he did not prepare any mahazarnama at the time of handing over MO1-Meter to him by PW.1. Even he did not note the condition of meter at the time of handing over the same to him. Moreover, as admitted by the Investigating Officer, they did not send the meter to Laboratory to get the

Expert opinion and not send the same for analysis. Even either PW.1 or the persons of MRT Laboratory did not take any photographs of MO.1 – Meter to show the condition of the said meter at the time of seizure by PW.1 or at the time of assessment of pilferage of energy. Even, here either PW.1 or the

Investigating Officer did not seize and produce the loop wires or resistor with which the meter was tampered to record low consumption.

37 Further as admitted by PW1 and Investigating officer, in column No.8 of Ex.P1 inspection notes dt 22.09.2014 shows that M.O.1 meter was handed over to the police on that date, but as per the categorical evidence of PW.1 and the investigating officer/PW.6 the meter was handed over to the investigating officer at the time of giving report by PW.1 i.e on 23.09.2014. So, it is material contradiction in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, which falsifies case of the prosecution and handing over M.O.1 meter to PW.9/Investigating officer.

APNE000016562015 20 APTSCC.49/2015 Dt.28.04.2026 I ADJ/Nlr 38. Further, as admitted by PW.6/Main Investigating Officer, he did not examine the registered owner of Service Connection No.526 and even not filed any piece of record to show that the said Service Connection pertaining to MO.1 standing in the name of Vatamgari Venkata Ramanaiah/A1. Further, as deposed by PW1, he did not see any document that Vatamgari Venkata

Ramanaiah/A1 is beneficiary of MO1/Meter by the time of the said incident.

39. So, here, on perusal of the entire evidence on record except the insufficient evidence of PW. 1 and P.W.6, there is no any evidence against A1 that he is the consumer of Service Connection No.526 pertaining to M.O.1 meter and he tampered the meter with active support of A2/Goturu Mohan Rao, A3

Sankaraiah and Kanna Venkata Subbaiah/A4 by providing a loop wire as well as connector resistor and thereby they abetted A1 to commit theft of Electricity by tampering the electricity meter/M.O.1. So, here, in the absence of cogent evidence, the testimony of PW.6/Investigating Officer is not inspires the confidence of the Court to proceed against A1, A2 and A4 for the offence charged against them. Hence, benefit of doubt goes in favour of the A1,A2 and

A4. Hence, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused No.1 for the offence punishable under section 135(1)(a)(b) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and A2 and A4 for the offence punishable under section 135(1)(b) r/w 150(2) of the

Electricity Act, 2003 beyond all reasonable doubt.

40. Hence, point is answered against the prosecution and infavour of

Accused Nos.1, 2 and 4.

41. IN THE RESULT, the Accused No.1 is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 135(1)(a)(b) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and

Accused No.2 and Accused No.4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 135(1)(b) r/w 150(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003. Accordingly

Accused No.1, Accused No.2 and Accused No.4 are acquitted for the same under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C.

APNE000016562015 21 APTSCC.49/2015 Dt.28.04.2026 I ADJ/Nlr

The bail bonds of accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 and their sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months as per Section 437(A) of Cr.P.C. M.O.1

Electricity meter bearing No.3652393 vide CPR No.12/2026 of this Court shall be returned to the nominated officer by the A.P.S.P.D.C.L, Nellore after expiry of appeal time.

Case against A3 was abated on 21.10.2021.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 28th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- G.Geetha,

I Additional Sessions Judge, Nellore.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined for prosecution

P.W.1 :Bhaskaran Gopi.

P.W.2 :Bandi Mani.

P.W.3 :Alahari Amasa.

P.W.4 :Alahari Vijaya Kumar

P.W.5:Pamula Venkateswarlu

P.W.6 :Shaik Ansari Basha.

P.W.7 :Smt M.Nageswaramma.

PW.8:Sk.Shahul

PW.9:Yerramala Nikhil Babji.

PW.10:Parri Venkaiah.

Witnesses examined for defence

- NIL -

Exhibits marked for Prosecution

Ex.P.1:Complaint, dated 23.09.2014

Ex.P.2: Mediatornama, dated 22.09.2014.

Ex.P.3:Inspection report, dated 22.09.2014.

Ex.P.4:Assessment Calculation sheet dated 23.09.2014.

APNE000016562015 22 APTSCC.49/2015 Dt.28.04.2026 I ADJ/Nlr

Ex.P.5:Portion of 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2.

Ex.P.6: Signature portion of PW.5 on the Arrest Mahazarnama dated 24.09.2014 of A3

Ex.P.7:FIR in Cr No.3897/2014.

Ex.P.8:Rough sketch of the scene of offence

Ex.P.9:Relevant portion of certified copy of arrest and confessional mahazarnama of Neelam Sankaraiah(A3) and Venkata Subbaiah(A4) dated 24.09.2014 at 3.00 p.m.

Ex.P.10:Relevant portion of certified copy of arrest and confessional mahazarnama of Goturu Mohan Rao/A2 dated 07.10.2014 at 6.00 a.m.

Ex.P.11:Certified copy of seizure mahazarnama of A2/Goturu Mohan Rao dated 07.10.2014 at 08.30 a.m.

Ex.P.12:Sanction proceedings.

Ex.P.13: Signature portion of PW.8 on the certified copy of confession Mahazarnama dated 07.10.2014 at 06.00 a.m.

Ex.P.14:Signature portion of PW.8 on the certified copy of seizure Mahazarnama dated 07.10.2014 at 08.30 a.m.

Ex.P.15:Signature portion of PW.9 on the certified copy of confession Mahazarnama dated 07.10.2014 at 06.00 a.m.

Ex.P.16:Signature portion of PW.9 on the certified copy of seizure Mahazarnama dated 07.10.2014 at 08.30 a.m.

Ex.P.17:Signature portion of PW.10 on the attested copy of Arrest Mahazarnama dated 24.09.2014 at 3.00 p.m. related to the crime No.3897/2014.

Ex.P.18:Adding memo of section 150 of Electricity Act, 2003.

Exhibits marked for defence

- NIL-

APNE000016562015 23 APTSCC.49/2015 Dt.28.04.2026 I ADJ/Nlr

Material object marked

M.O.1 Electricity meter bearing No. 3652393.

Sd/- G.Geetha,

I A.S.J.,Nellore.

Copy submitted to the Hon'ble Registrar, Judicial, High Court of A.P, Amaravati.

//True Copy//

APNE000016562015 24 APTSCC.49/2015 Dt.28.04.2026 I ADJ/Nlr

APNE000016492015 1 APTS CC.44/2015 Dt.30.04.2026 I ADJ/Nlr

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE :: NELLORE.

Present:- Smt.G.Geetha, I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore.

Thursday, this the 30th day of April, 2026.

APTS C.C No.44 of 2015

(Crime No.3914/2014 of Anti Power Theft Squad Police Station, Nellore)

1. Name of the Complainant State: Inspector of Police, Vigilance and APTS Police Station, Nellore.

1. Kollapudi Gangadhar S/o. Penchalaiah,

2. Name of the Accused Srinivasa Satram, Kota village and mandal, S.P.S.R.Nellore District. (A1)

2. Goturu Mohan Rao, S/o Navaneetham, aged 35 years (as on the date of filing charge sheet), Junior Assistant working at Utukuru Section R/o Door No.28-3-1783, Kisan Nagar, Mypadu Road, Nellore town. (A2)

3. Neelam Sankaraiah S/o. Eswaraiah, aged 29 years, Junior Assistant working at Sub Electricity Revenue Office, Kota, resident of Opp. to Viswabharathi School, Teachers Colony, near Pichireddy Thopu, Naidupet town, SPSR Nellore District. (A3). (Case against A3 was abated on 21.10.2021).

3. Charges Under Section 135(b), 138(a)(b) and 150 of Electricity Act, 2003.

4. Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty.

5. Finding of the Judge Found not guilty.

APNE000016492015 2 APTS CC.44/2015 Dt.30.04.2026 I ADJ/Nlr

6. Sentence or order In the result, the Accused No.1 is found not found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 135(1)(a)(b) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and Accused No.2 is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 135(1)(b) r/w 150(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003. Accordingly Accused No.1 and Accused No.2 are acquitted for the same under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of accused Nos. 1 and 2 and their sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months as per Section 437(A) of Cr.P.C. M.O.1 Electricity meter vide CPR No.2/2023 of this Court shall be returned to the nominated officer by the A.P.S.P.D.C.L, Nellore after expiry of appeal time.

Case against A3 was abated on 21.10.2021.

7. Prosecution conducted by Sri Sk. Rafi Malik, Addl. Public Prosecutor, I ADJ Court, Nellore

8. Name of the advocate for Sri Ch.Venkata Vasulu, accused. Advocate for Accused No.1.

Sri R.Roja Reddy, Advocate for Accused No.2.

This case is coming on 28-04-2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Sk. Rafi Malik, Additional Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and Sri Ch.Venkata Vasulu, Advocate for the Accused No.1 and Sri R.Roja Reddy, Advocate

for the Accused No.2 and case against Accused No.3 was abated on 21.10.2021 and

upon perusing the records, having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

Filing of charge sheet:-

The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and APTS Police Station, Nellore, filed the charge sheet in Cr.No.3914 of 2014 for the offence under Section 135(b), 138(a)(b) and 150 of Electricity Act, 2003, against the accused Nos.1 to 3 alleging that:

2. The Accused No.1 is resident of Srinivasa Satram village, Kota Mandal of

S.P.S.R.Nellore District, who is the present beneficiary of Aqua ponds in this case.

APNE000016492015 3 APTS CC.44/2015 Dt.30.04.2026 I ADJ/Nlr

Accused No.2 is resident of Nellore town and also staff in A.P.S.P.D.C.L., Nellore Circle.

Accused No.3 is working as Junior Assistant at Sub Electricity Revenue office, Kota, resident of opp. Viswabharathi School, Teachers Colony, near Pichireddy Thopu,

Naidupet town, S.P.S.R.Nellore District.

Jurisdiction of Case:-

The scene of offence is situated at Srinivasa satram village, Kota Mandal of

Nellore District and the exact scene of offence is at SC No.3121143000023 electrical meter, which comes under the local limits of Vigilance and A.P.T.S. Police Station,

Nellore and within the jurisdiction of this Court.

Gist of the Charge sheet:-

(ii) The Divisional Engineer, DPE- Wing, APSPDCL, Nellore Circle(LW.1) is authorized to inspect the premises of the accused and institute prosecution against the offenders under Electricity Act, 2003. Assistant Divisional Engineer, HT meters,

Gudur(LW.2) who assisted DE(LW.1) during the course of inspection of the premises of the accused on 22.09.2014 at 20-05 hours near A1- M/s Technomin Aqua Exports

Limited, Srinivasasatram village, Kota Mandal of Nellore District at

S.C.No.3121143000023 Category-LT3 (a) Industrial Normal and found that the accused/A1 utilizing power dishonestly by tampering seal of the meter, which belongs to the company and provided an unauthorized loop as well as connected a resister and thereby caused theft of energy valued Rs.9,70,091/-. Basing on the inspection notes,

Sub Inspector of Police, Vigilance and APTS PS, APSPDCL, Nellore Circle (L.W.12) registered the case in Crime No.3914/2014 under Section 135(b), 138(a)(b) and 150 of the Electricity Act, 2003 against the accused and took up investigation.

(iii) The Sub Inspector of police, Vigilance & APTS PS, APSPDCL, Nellore

Circle(L.W.12) visited the scene of offences and inspected the same in the presence of

Kalthireddy Devendra(LW.6) and Pondicherry Siva Kumar(LW.7) respectively and got prepared scene observation reports duly attested by them and prepared rough sketch.

(iv) During the course of investigation, Sub Inspector of Police(L.W.12) arrested the Accused No.2 on 07.10.2014 at Atmakur Bus Stand Centre, Nellore and Accused

APNE000016492015 4 APTS CC.44/2015 Dt.30.04.2026 I ADJ/Nlr

No.3 was arrested on 24.09.2014 at Kissan Nagar, Nellore in connection of Crime

No.3897/14 and produced them before the Hon’ble Additional Judicial Magistrate of I

Class Court, Kota for judicial remand. Later, on 08.10.2014 and 09.10.2014 produced

A2 and A3 respectively before this Hon’ble Court on P.T. Warrant in this case for judicial remand. Meanwhile, A1 got anticipatory bail from this Court.

(v) During the course of investigation, it was established that the SC

No.3121143000023 relating to Crime No.3914/2014 which is in the name of A1 with the connivance of the Accused No.2 and 3 came to clandestine understanding to ensure the record of low consumption of the meters and due to which, accused tampered the MRT seals and company seals of the meters, meddled the internal mechanism of the meters to record less consumption duly suppressing the actual consumption of the electrical power in the said meter.

(vi) In the course of further investigation, obtained sanction orders under Section 197 Cr.P.C against A2 and A3 from the authorities concerned to prosecute them accordingly.

(vii) After completion of investigation, basing on the evidence of witnesses, the prima facie case is made out against A1 to A3. The Inspector of Police(L.W.13)

Vigilance & APTS Police Station, APSPDCL, Nellore Circle filed charge sheet against

A1 under Section 135(b), 138(a) (b) and A2 and A3 u/s 138(a)(b) and 150 of the

Electricity Act, 2003. Hence, the charge sheet.

3. Taking of cognizance of the case:-

Cognizance of this case was taken under section 135(b) against A1 and 135(b) r/w 150 of the Electricity Act, 2003 against A2 and A3 by my predecessor. On their appearance, copies of the documents were furnished to them as required under

Section 207of Cr.P.C.

4. Appearance of the accused and opening the case:-

After receipt of the summons, the accused Nos.1 and 2 appeared before this

Court. Accused No.1 engaged Sri Ch.Venkata Vasulu, Advocate to defend him.

APNE000016492015 5 APTS CC.44/2015 Dt.30.04.2026 I ADJ/Nlr

Accused No.2 engaged Sri R.Roja Reddy, Advocate to defend him. Case against

Accused No.3 is abated on 21.10.2021. Thereafter, Sri Sk. Rafi Malik, Learned

Additional Public Prosecutor as envisaged under Section 226 of Cr.P.C, opened the

case, by describing the charge brought against them/A1 to A3 and also the evidence going to be adduced to prove their guilt.

5. Framing of charge:-

After hearing both sides and considering the entire material available on record, my predecessor examined the accused No.1 and Accused No.2 and charge under

Section 135(1)(b) r/w 150(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 is framed against Accused No.1 and 2, read over and explained to them in their vernacular language, for which the accused No.1 and 2 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, this case was stood posted for prosecution evidence, after fixing the schedule for trial.

6. Prosecution evidence:-

To prove the prosecution case, the prosecution got examined P.W.1 to P.W.9 and got marked Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.20 and M.O.1. But, the evidence of Koda Mallikswara

Rao(LW.5), pamula Venkateswarlu(LW.8), Yerramala Nikhil Babji (LW.11) and Smt

M.Nageswaramma, the then Inspector of Police, Vigilance and APTS Police Station,

Nellore (LW.13) were given up by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. After completion of the prosecution side evidence, bonds as required under Section 437-A

Cr.P.C were obtained from the accused No.1 and 2 and their sureties.

7.After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused No.1 and 2 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, by explaining the incriminating evidence appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, but, they denied the same and reported that no defence evidence on their behalf, as such defence evidence is closed, except marking Ex.D.1 in the cross examination of PW.8.

8 . Heard on both sides and perused the material available on record.

9. The Learned Special Public Prosecutor, argued that the evidence of

P.Ws.1, 2 and 9 are sufficient to proceed against the accused. So, requested the Court to convict the accused.

APNE000016492015 6 APTS CC.44/2015 Dt.30.04.2026 I ADJ/Nlr

10. The learned counsels for the accused Nos.1 and 2 argued that there are material contradictions in the evidence of P.W.1 about the name of employees of

Electricity department and his evidence is also inconsistent with the evidence of PW.2 and Investigating Officer. Further as admitted by Investigation officer P.W.1 and PW.2 did not state the surname of the accused No.2 in their 161 Cr.P.C. statements and as admitted by the Investigating officer he did not enquire in the electricity department about the persons with the name of Mohan Rao and even not conducted any test identification parade of A2 through A1.Further as admitted by Investigating officer he did not file any piece of record to show that A1 is the beneficiary of M.O.1 meter and he is running M/s Technomin Aqua Exports Limited in the said lands and there is no record to show that the relationship between A1 and owner of the land and meter. On the other hand as admitted by P.W.1 he did not mention name of the consumer/owner of

M.O.1 meter in Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.4 and also he kept blank the relevant columns in the inspection reports about the name of consumer. Further as admitted by P.W.1 he did not file any piece of record to show that he is competent to give report as DPE/ detective pilferage of energy. Further as admitted by P.W.1 the monthly reading of electricity meters pertaining to aqua culture should be taken by Assistant Engineer of that area if it is below 50 HP and by the Additional Divisional Engineer it is above 50

HP, but here as admitted by him no report received by them from the concerned

Assistant Engineer about tampering of M.O.1. More over as admitted by PW.1 the

Additional Divisional Engineer should be checked the meters pertaining to Aqua culture

once in 3 months. So they argued that how it is possible to tamper M.O.1 meter by A1 with the help of A2 and A3. More over there is no any complaint from the concerned

Assistant Engineer of that area that his seals on the M.O.1 and its synthetic box were tampered. So, they argued that to save the higher officials a false case was registered against accused. Further they argued that as admitted by PW1 and Investigating officer in column No.8 of Ex.P1 inspection notes shows that M.O.1 meter was handed over to the police, but it was alleged as prepared on the date of the offence, but as per the categorical evidence of PW.1 and the investigating officer the meter was handed over to the investigating officer at the time of giving report by PW.1. So, it is material contradiction in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, which falsifies case of the

APNE000016492015 7 APTS CC.44/2015 Dt.30.04.2026 I ADJ/Nlr prosecution. Further they argued that as admitted by investigating officer he did not examine the meter and not noted the condition of the meter by the time of receiving the same from PW.1 and even not sent to the Laboratory for examination of alleged tampering. Further they argued that as per the sanction orders and evidence of investigating officer basing on the confession of A2 and A3, the said sanction orders were issued, but they argued that except the said material there is no any cogent evidence against the accused to get sanction orders. More over the said confession mahazarnamas were not supported by the mediators. So, they argued that the said sanction orders is also not valid. So they argued that the prosecution miserably failed to prove that A1 tampered the meter with the help of A2 and A3 and they abetted A1 to commit theft of electricity by tampering seals of meter. So requested the Court to acquit the accused Nos.1 and 2

11. Now the point for determination is:

1. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused No.1 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence charged under section 135(1)(a)(b) of the Electricity Act, 2003 against the accused No.1 or not?

2. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused No.2 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence charged under section 135(1)(b) r/w 150(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 against the accused No.2 or not?

POINTS 1 AND 2:-

12. On perusal of the charge sheet and evidence on the record, the case of the prosecution is that the accused No.1 utilized the electricity power dishonestly by illegally tampering the seal of meter by providing unauthorized loop with the help of A2 and A3, that A2 and A3 being the employees of electricity board abetted A1 to commit an offence of theft of electricity by tampering the meter. Then on the report of PW.1 the present case was registered against the accused.

13. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has got examined Divisional Engineer, DPE, APSPDCL, Nellore Division as PW.1. He

APNE000016492015 8 APTS CC.44/2015 Dt.30.04.2026 I ADJ/Nlr deposed in his evidence that on 22.09.2014 at 6.00 p.m he along with Assistant

Divisional Engineer/PW.2 meters and Vara Prasad Reddy, Assistant Engineer, Kota went to M/s Technomine Hatcheries Limited and inspected Service Connection No.23 at the aqua fields of A1 in the presence of mediators/PW.4 and Koda Malleswara

Rao(L.W.5) and found that there was tampering of meter. Thereafter on the next day meter was opened in the MRT office(meter relay testing unit) in the presence of A1 and they found 2 inches grey colour wire used for shortening of incoming and outgoing terminals of Current Transformer coils(CT coils) in all three phases. Due to the same the current flowing to the meter will come down and consumption will be shown less.

Further, he deposed that on enquiry A1 stated two of staff of APSPDCL who are Mohan

Rao and other went to A1 and collected money to make this arrangement. Then, he prepared Ex.P1 – Inspection notes and seized M.O.1 meter under Ex.P2 –

Mediatornama, which contains the signatures of himself, A1, P.W.4, Koda Malliswara

Rao(LW.5) and Penubarthy Sankaraiah/PW.2. Thereafter on the next day he prepared

Assessment calculation sheet/Ex.P4 with the help of MATS application. Later, on 23.09.2014 he gave Ex.P3 – Report to APTS Police.

14. The prosecution has got examined the Assistant Divisional Engineer, HP meters, APSPDCL, Gudur Division as P.W.2. He supported the evidence of PW.1 about inspecting the meter of A1 under Ex.P.1 and found meter was tampered. Further he deposed that one Mohan/A2 and Sankar/A3 helped A1 in making arrangement for tampering and pilferage of energy. A1 paid About Rs.30,000/- and Rs.20,000/- to A2 and A3. This pilferage was being done since 8 months.

15. Further, the prosecution examined the mediator for the inspection under

Ex.P1 and Ex.P.2 – Inspection report and Mediatornama and another mediator of

Ex.P.2 as P.W.3 and PW.4. But they did not the support of the case of the prosecution and evidence of PW.1 and 2 except admitting their signatures on Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2.

Even in their cross examination of by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor nothing was elicited in favour of the prosecution.

16. Further, the prosecution got examined mediators for the scene observation mahazarnama as P.W.5 and P.W.6. But they did not support of prosecution and

APNE000016492015 9 APTS CC.44/2015 Dt.30.04.2026 I ADJ/Nlr evidence of investigation officer, except admitting their signature on Ex.P15 – Scene observation mahazarnama, prepared by one of the Investigating Officers/PW.9. Even in their cross examination of by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor nothing was elicited in favour of the prosecution.

17. Further the prosecution has got examined mediator for the arrest of A3 as

P.W.7, But P.W.7 deposed that he is working as watchman in Vidhyuth Bhavan,

Nellore on contract basis. On 24.09.2014 the Sub Inspector of Police called him to the police station to act as mediator in this case. Accordingly himself and Sub Inspector of police along with his staff went to Mypade gate centre, Nellore. On seeing the police personnel two person tried to run away, but the police caught hold of them. On enquiry they revealed their names as 1.Neelam Sankaraiah and 2. Venkata Subbaiah. They stated before the police that they committed tampering of seals of the meters in several other meters at Allampadu Ravindra Reddy connections 178,179,169,168 and seized one paper slip was taken out from the pocket of Sankaraiah and given the same to the Sub Inspector of Police. The said paper slip was not shown to him. Scene of offence observation was prepared by one Ashok, Home guard on the dictation of Sub

Inspector of Police. But P.W.7 identified his signature on Scene of offence observation.

Himself and Venkateswarlu (L.W.8) signed on the scene of offence observation. But in his cross examination he signed only on the last page and scene of offence is busy locality and there are 4 or 5 persons were present and surprisingly deposed that he does not know the contents of scene of offence observation. So, the evidence of PW.7 is self contradictory.

18. Further, the prosecution examined mediator for the arrest of A2 as P.W.8.

He deposed that he was working as Watchmen in Guest House, SPDCL, Nellore and in

Training Centre of Electricity Office, Nellore and on 07.10.2014 Sub Inspector of police called him to his office and obtained his signatures, but he did not visit any scene of offence, nor any material was seized in his presence. He does not know anything about the case. About some years back the electricity police obtained his signature on some of the papers. He does not know the contents of the said papers because they are white papers. So, he did not support the case of the prosecution about arrest of A2 and about seizure of property from A2 in connection of Crime No.3897/2014. except

APNE000016492015 10 APTS CC.44/2015 Dt.30.04.2026 I ADJ/Nlr admitting his signature on Ex.P16 and Ex.P17 as Ex.P11 and Ex.P.12. More over in his cross examination it reveals that previously he gave evidence in C.C.No.25/2015 that he does not the facts of the said case and his evidence in C.C.No.25/2015 i.e

Certified copy of deposition in APTSCC No.25/2014 was marked as Ex.D.1 in the cross examination of PW.8.

19. Further the prosecution examined the then Sub Inspector of Police,

Vigilance and APTS Police Station, Nellore as P.W9/Sk.Ansari Basha. He deposed in his evidence that on 24.09.2014 at about 09.50 hours, on receiving Ex.P.3 complaint along with Exs.P1, Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.4 and MO1 – Meter from PW.1. He registered the present case by issuing Ex.P13 – F.I.R and he examined P.W.1 and PW.2 and recorded their statements under section 161 Cr.P.C. On the next day, he visited the

Aqua fields of A1 along with mediators/PW5 and PW.6 and inspected the scene and prepared Ex.P15 – Scene observation mahazarnama and Ex.P14 – Rough sketch of the scene of offence. Further he deposed that on 29.09.2014 he added Section 150 of Electricity Act, 2003 against A2/ Goturu Mohan Rao and A3/ Neelam Sankaraiah under Ex.P20 Alteration memo and thereafter on 07.10.2014 he arrested A2 in the presence of PW.8 and he confessed under the certified copy of arrest cum confession mahazaranama of A2 under Ex.P.16 and recovered the electrical articles from the house of A2 as per his confession under cover of Ex.P.17-Seizure panchanama and he arrest A2 and produced before the Court, Kota and A1 obtained anticipatory bail from this Court. Later on 24.09.2014 during the course of investigation in Crime No.3897/2014 he arrested one Neelam Sankaraiah/A3 and one

Venkata Subbaiah in the presence of Parri Venkaiah/PW.7 at Mypadu Gate centre,

Nellore and by that time he also seized one slip containing the names of beneficiary of electricity meter from A3 and by that time they confessed the offence of this case also and then he/PW.9 arrested them under the original of Ex.P.18. Further he deposed that later produced A2 and A3 before this Court on P.T. warrant and also added section 150 of Electricity Act, 2003 by issuing Ex.P20 – Adding memo against A2 and A3.

20. Further P.W.9 deposed that the Inspector of Police(LW.13) obtained Ex.P.19/

Sanction proceedings against Accused No.2/Goturu Mohan Rao and Sankaraiah/A3 and filed the charge sheet against the accused.

APNE000016492015 11 APTS CC.44/2015 Dt.30.04.2026 I ADJ/Nlr

Discussion:-

21. Here, the case of the prosecution and the categorical evidence of P.W.1 is that on 22.09.2014 he along with PW.2 and Vara Prasad Reddy, Assistant Engineer inspected the prawn ponds of A1 and inspected the Electricity Service connection

No.23 and found that M.O.1 meter was tampered by inserting a loop wire to record low consumption. Further he deposed that at the time A1 stated before him that A2 and A3 helped him to tamper the meter by taking amounts from them.

22. But, here, as admitted by PW.1 Service Connection No.23 pertaining to

M.O.1 meter standing in the name of M/s Technomin Aqua Exports Limited, but as admitted by him he did not file any piece of record to show that A1 is the lease holder of the said premises. The same was also admitted by the Investigating officer/PW.9.

Further as deposed by PW.1 the said company paid Rs.4,85,000/- for restoration of electricity supply. But as admitted by PW.1 there is no mention of lease of the premises in the said payment receipt and they have also not informed anything to the said company and as per him that company is the beneficiary, but admittedly one

K.Ravichandra Raju signed in the place of consumer in Ex.P.1. But there is no evidence to show that A1 signed in the place of consumer. Further the investigating officer/PW.9 also did not file any piece of record to show that A1 is lease holder of the said company and how A1 is connected with the said company and admitted that he did not file any piece of record to show the ownership of the said land and not examined him.

23. Further as admitted by investigating officer/PW.9 he did not examine the owner of the service connection pertaining to M.O.1 and admittedly it is not standing in the name of A1, even he did not examine lineman of the said connection and did not secure any record to show that A1 is the owner of the said lands or pond. Even he did not enquire on whose name the said land is standing and did not secure previous electricity bills of said connection and did not examine persons which was mentioned in rough sketch on the eastern side of scene of offence. Even he has not taken photographs of the scene of offence in proof of inspecting the scene of offence under

Ex.P.15. Even PW.9 did not collect periodical reading of the said service connection.

APNE000016492015 12 APTS CC.44/2015 Dt.30.04.2026 I ADJ/Nlr

More over the said scene of offence was not supported by the mediators/PW.5 and

PW.6. So here except the insufficient evidence of PW.1 and investigating officer/PW.9 there is no any cogent evidence to show that A1 is the lease holder of the said company and he tampered the meter/M.O.1 with the help of Accused Nos. 2 and 3.

24. Even PW.9 did not note the condition of M.O.1 meter at the time of receiving the same from PW.1 and even not prepared any mahazarnama to that effect and even he did not obtain signature of PW.1 on M.O.1.

25. On the other hand as deposed by PW.1 in his cross examination he did not mention the name of Mohan Rao/A2 in Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3 and Ex P.5 in column No.10 of Ex.P.1. Further his evidence is silent about the name of A3 and role of A3. On the other hand his evidence is contradictory with the evidence of PW.2 as he stated the names of one Mohan Rao and one Sankar. But as admitted by PW9/Investigating

Officer even P.W.1 and PW.2 did not state in their statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C about the surname of accused Nos.2 and 3. PW9/Investigating Officer did not enquire the electricity officials about number of the persons working in the said office with the names of A2 and A3. Further, admittedly PW9/Investigating Officer did not conduct any

Test Identification Parade in respect of A2 and A3 through A1.

26. Further, as per the case of the prosecution and evidence of PW.9/Ansari

Basha, he arrested A3/Neelam Sankaraiah in the presence of one Pamula

Venkateswarlu and Parri Venkaiah/PW.7 at Mypadu centre, Nellore under Ex.P.18 in respect of Crime No.3897/2014. But the saied evidence is not supported by

PW.7/mediator. Moreover, as admitted by PW8 in his cross examination no property was seized from the possession of A3/Neelam Sankaraiah in respect of present crime.

Even he did not try to secure any mediators at the place of arrest of A3 and admittedly there are no signatures of accused and mediators on Ex.P18 except on the last page of it.

27. Further, here, as per the case of the prosecution and evidence of

PW.9/Ansari Basha is that he arrested A2/ Mohan Rao in the presence of P.W.8 and

Nikhil Babji in connection of Crime No.3897/2014 and by that time he confessed about commission of offence that he tampered the meter involved in Crime No.3897/2014 and

APNE000016492015 13 APTS CC.44/2015 Dt.30.04.2026 I ADJ/Nlr some other crimes including the present Crime under Ex.P16 and leading to the said confession he seized Crimping tool by Jonson Company, Soldering iron, cutting plier, seals wire, Led wire approximately 36 inches, Torch light, Lugs by No.27, Looping wire,

Quick fix soldering paste and Black colour hand bag under the cover of Ex.P17.

28. But the said evidence of PW.9 is not supported by the mediators for the arrest of A2, who was examined as P.W.8, because P.W.8 categorically deposed that he was temporary employee in the Electricity Department and on the request of their

Deputy Engineer Technical by name Venkata Rao, they signed on white papers and they do not know the contents of Exs.P16 and Ex.P17 and even they do not know A2

Mohan Rao by the date of obtaining their signatures on the said mahazarnamas.

Moreover, in their presence no one was arrested and no property was seized.

29. So, he did not support the case of the prosecution about arrest of A2 and about seizure of property from A2 in connection of Crime No.3897/2014 and present crime, except admitting their signatures on Exs.P16 and P17 as Ex.P11 and Ex.P12.

Moreover, in his cross examination by the learned defense counsel, he categorically admitted that he was temporary employee in the Electricity Department, as such, due to fear on the higher officials, on his request he signed in the above said papers. Even in the cross examination of P.W.8 by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor nothing was elicited in favour of the prosecution. Moreover, they categorically denied that on 07.10.2014 at 6.00 A.M., in their presence, the Inspector of Police/PW.9/Ansari Basha arrested A2 and he confessed commission of the offence under the cover of Ex.P16 and denied that PW.9 seized some articles from A2 under the cover of Ex.P17 in connection of Crime No.3897/2014 and denied that during that time, A2 also confessed about commission of tampering in this case

30. Moreover, in the cross examination of PW.9, who alleged as arrested A2, he categorically deposed that A2 was arrested under the bridge, but in Ex.P16, it was mentioned that A2 was arrested near Atmakur bus-stand, which is at a distance of 200 meters from Atmakur bus-stand. Further, as admitted by him he did not try to secure any of the independent mediators at the place of arrest. Moreover, as admitted by him, the signature of A2 and mediators are found only in the last page of Exs.P16 and P17,

APNE000016492015 14 APTS CC.44/2015 Dt.30.04.2026 I ADJ/Nlr but not in all pages and admitted that their Police Station is situated in Vidhyuth Bhavan and mediators are temporary employees in Vidhyuth Bhavan. Further, as admitted by him, the above said articles seized in the house bearing Door No.28-03-1783, but as admitted by him, he cannot say the name of the owner of the said house and he did not verify any municipal records to know the Door number and he did not enquire the owner of the house and the signatures of the accused and mediators are not found in the first page of Ex.P16 and Ex.P.17. Moreover, as admitted by him, name of Mohan

Rao was inserted in Ex.P17 – Mahazarnama and it was not initialed by the mediators or not by himself and Ex.P17 does not contain how the said articles are seized. So, here, as admitted by him, name of Mohan Rao was inserted in the said mahazarnama and it was not initialed by him or mediators. So, it itself not inspires PW.7in his evidence that he arrested A2/Goturu Mohan Rao nder Ex.P16 at that place as deposed by him. Moreover, his evidence is no way supported by PW.8. So, here, the insufficient evidence of PW9, which is not supported by P.W.8 is not inspires that he arrested A2 under Ex.P16 and Ex.P17 and A2 confessed about commission of the present offence also.

31. Further, as per the case of the prosecution and the evidence of PW9 is that another Investigating Officer(LW13) is obtained sanction orders/Ex.P.19 against

A2 and A3 since they are an employees in Electricity Department and filed charge sheet against them. But, here, on perusal of the evidence of PW9, he admitted in his cross examination at present he does not remember what material sent to the

Superintendent Engineer seeking sanction against A2 and A3. But he deposed that particulars of the said materials supplied is mentioned in Ex.P19 – Sanction Orders.

But on perusal of Ex.P19 i.e., Sanction orders it was simply mentioned that during the course of investigation, A2 and A3 were arrested in Crime No.3897/2014 and they admitted their guilt at the time of their arrest. But here, already as discussed above, the prosecution failed to prove Exs.P.16 to Ex.P.18 – Mahazarnamas.

32. No doubt, as admitted by PW.9/Sk.Ansari Basha andanother

Investigating Officer/M.Nageswaramma did not examine the owner/consumer of

APNE000016492015 15 APTS CC.44/2015 Dt.30.04.2026 I ADJ/Nlr

Electricity Service connection pertaining to MO1- Meter and even as admitted by P.W.9,

So It is also laches on the part of the prosecution how they connected A1 as alleged beneficiary to electricity service connection pertaining to MO1 – Meter.

33. Further, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the accused No.1 and 2 that the reading of electricity meters pertaining to the aqua fields should be taken by the concerned Assistant Engineer of that area for every month and it has to be inspected by the Assistant Divisional Engineer or Divisional Engineer randomly once in every 3 months. So, he contended that the prosecution failed to examine the said concerned Assistant Engineer and Divisional Engineer. Further, he argued that how the accused would have been pilferage the energy for 5 to 6 months, if really there would be inspected the meters by the Divisional Engineer or Assistant Divisional Engineer once in 3 months. Further, he argued that as admitted by the Investigating Officers, they did not receive any report from the concerned Assistant Engineers or Divisional

Engineers for pilferage of energy prior to the alleged present incident.

34. No doubt, as admitted by PW.1 that reading of Electricity meters pertaining to aqua fields should be taken by the Assistant Engineer of that area for every month. Further, the said meters should have inspected by the Assistant

Divisional Engineer or Divisional Engineer randomly once in every 3 months. But, here, as admitted by Investigating Officer, PW.9 did not examine concerned Assistant

Engineer of that area, who used to record the reading of meter for every month.

Further, as admitted by PW1 they did not receive any complaint from the Assistant

Engineer of that area about pilferage of electricity prior to the months of present incident. So, here, there is no any reasonable explanation from PW1 that why the concerned Assistant Engineer of Electricity Department is not responsible or why the concerned Assistant Engineer not made any report to them that his seals on the meter were tampered. Moreover, as admitted by PW.1 seals of Synthetic Box of M.O.1 was intact by the time of inspection and as deposed by him in Ex.P.1 they did not mention with regard to Synthetic Box. So, there is no any reason or explanation from PW1 how the meter kept in the Synthetic box was tampered without opening the seals of

Synthetic box. On the other hand, as admitted by Investigating Officer, he did not prepare any mahazarnama at the time of handing over MO1-Meter to him by PW1.

APNE000016492015 16 APTS CC.44/2015 Dt.30.04.2026 I ADJ/Nlr

Even he did not note the condition of meter at the time of handing over the same to him. Moreover, as admitted by the Investigating Officer, they did not send the meter to

Laboratory to get the Expert opinion and not send the same for analysis. Even either

PW1 or the persons of MRT Laboratory did not take any photographs of MO1 – Meter to show the condition of the said meter at the time of seizure by PW1 or at the time of assessment of pilferage of energy. Even, here either PW1 or the Investigating Officer did not seize and produce the loop wires or resistor with which the meter was tampered to record low consumption.

35. Further as admitted by PW1 and Investigating officer, in column No.8 of

Ex.P1 inspection notes dt 22.09.2014 shows that M.O.1 meter was handed over to the police on that date, but as per the categorical evidence of PW1 and the investigating officer/PW.9 the meter was handed over to the investigating officer at the time of giving report by PW.1 i.e on 24.09.2014. So, it is material contradiction in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, which falsifies case of the prosecution and handing over M.O.1 meter to PW.9/Investigating officer.

36. Further, as admitted by PW.9/Main Investigating Officer, he did not examine the registered owner of Service connection No.023 and even not filed any piece of record to show that the said Service Connection pertaining to MO1 standing in the name of Ravichandra Raju and its beneficiary is M/s Technomin Aqua Exports

Limited. Further, as deposed by PW1, he did not see any document that A1/Kollapudi

Gangadhar is lease holder of the said company at the inspection of MO1/Meter and the said meter is standing in the said company.

37. So, here, on perusal of the entire evidence on record except the insufficient evidence of PW.1, PW.2 and PW.9/Investigating Officer, there is no any evidence against A1 that he is the lease holder of M/s Technomin Aqua Exports Limited and it is the beneficiary of Service connection No.023 in respect of M.O.1 meter and A1 tampered the meter with active support of A2/Goturu Mohan Rao and A3/Sankaraiah by providing a loop wire as well as connector resistor and thereby they abetted A1 to commit theft of Electricity. So, here, in the absence of cogent evidence, the contradictory and insufficient evidence of PW.1,PW.2 and PW.9/Investigating Officer is

APNE000016492015 17 APTS CC.44/2015 Dt.30.04.2026 I ADJ/Nlr not inspires the confidence of the Court to proceed against A1 and A2 for the offence charged against them respectively. Hence, benefit of doubt goes in favour of the A1 and A2. Hence, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused No.1 for the offence punishable under section 135(1)(a)(b) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and A2 is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 135(1)(b) r/w 150(2) of the

Electricity Act, 2003 beyond all reasonable doubt.

38. Hence, point is answered against the prosecution and infavour of

Accused Nos.1 and 2.

39. IN THE RESULT, In the result, the Accused No.1 is found not found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 135(1)(a)(b) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and accused No.2 is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 135(1)(b) r/w 150(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003. Accordingly A1 and A2 are acquitted for the same under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of accused Nos. 1 and 2 and their sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months as per Section 437(A) of Cr.P.C. M.O.1 Electricity meter vide

CPR No.2/2023 of this Court shall be returned to the nominated officer by the

A.P.S.P.D.C.L, Nellore after expiry of appeal time.

Case against A3 was abated on 21.10.2021.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 30th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- G.Geetha,

I Additional Sessions Judge, Nellore.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined for prosecution

P.W.1 : Jonna Krishna Prasad. P.W.2 : Penubarthi Sankaraiah. P.W.3 : K.Ravi Chandra Raju. P.W.4 : Uppala Audi Narayana. P.W.5 : P.Siva Kumar. P.W.6 : Kalthireddy Devendra.

APNE000016492015 18 APTS CC.44/2015 Dt.30.04.2026 I ADJ/Nlr

P.W.7 : Parri Venkaiah. P.W.8 : Shaik Shahool. PW.9: Shaik Ansari Basha.

Witnesses examined for defence

- NONE -

Exhibits marked for Prosecution

Ex.P.1: Inspection notes, dated 22.09.2014.

Ex.P.2: Mediators report dated 22.09.2014.

Ex.P.3: Complaint, dated 23.09.2014.

Ex.P.4: Assessment calculation sheet, dated 23.09.2014.

Ex.P.5: Mediators report for opening meter, dated 23.09.2014.

Ex.P.6: Signature portion of PW.3 on the Inspection report.

Ex.P.7: Signature portion of PW.3 on the Mediator report dated, 22.09.2014.

Ex.P.8: Signature portion of PW.4 on the mediatornama, dated 22.09.2014.

Ex.P.9: Signature portion of PW5 on the scene of offence observation panchanama dated 26.09.2014.

Ex.P.10: Signature portion of P.W.6 on the Scene of offence observation panchanama.

Ex.P.11: Signature portion of P.W.8 in the certified copy of arrest mahazar.

Ex.P.12: Signature portion of PW.8 in the certified copy of seizure mahazar.

Ex.P.13: FIR.

Ex.P.14: Rough sketch.

Ex.P.15: Observation report of the scene of offence.

Ex.P.16: Certified copy of arrest cum confession mahazar of A2.

Ex.P.17: Certified copy of seizure panchanama.

Ex.P.18: Certified copy of arrest cum confession mahazarnama of A3 and K.Venkata Subbaiah.

Ex.P.19: Certified copy of sanction proceedings issued by SE Operations, Nellore dated 30.04.2015.

EX.P.20: Alteration memo of adding section 150 of Electricity Act, 2003.

APNE000016492015 19 APTS CC.44/2015 Dt.30.04.2026 I ADJ/Nlr

Exhibits marked for defence

Ex.D1 : Certified copy of deposition in APTSCC No.25/2015.

Material object marked

M.O.1 Electricity meter.

Sd/- G.Geetha,

I A.S.J, Nellore.

Copy submitted to the Hon'ble Registrar, Judicial, High Court of A.P, Amaravathi.

//True Copy//