Sri G.gopichand

1 II AMSJ COURT, VSP

SC. No.189/2011.

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE-

CUM-IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, VISAKHAPATNAM.

Present: Sri G. Gopichand, B.Sc., M.A., L.L.M.,

I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, FAC: II Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge- cum-IV Additional Dist. And Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam.

Friday, the 21st day of June' 2013

SESSIONS CASE No.189/2011

(P.R.C.No. 10/2008 of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam in Crime No.507/2007 of IV Town Police station, Visakhapatnam City)

Between:

State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, IV Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam City. …COMPLAINANT. And:

Palanki Bala Suryanarayana @ Boby, S/o Durgha Venkata Subramanya Sharma, aged 57 years, Brahmin, D.No.5-79, Uppada Village, East Godavari District.

…ACCUSED

1. Charge:Under sections 489-B & 489-C of IPC

2. Plea of the accused:Not guilty

3. Finding of Court:The Accused found not guilty.

4. Sentence of order:The accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable under sections 489-B & 489-C of IPC and so the accused is acquitted under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C of the offence punishable under sections 489-B & 489-C of IPC. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of the appeal time. MO.1 shall be handed over to the concerned Police, after expiry of appeal time, for forwarded the same to the Issue Department of the Reserve Bank of India as per the provisions of Rule 234(3) of Criminal Rules of Practice and circular orders 1990.

5. Prosecution conducted by: Smt. P. Padmaja, Addl. Public Prosecutor.

6. Accused defended by: Sri. P.A.K. Kishore, Advocate for the Accused.

2 II AMSJ COURT, VSP

SC. No.189/2011.

This Case is committed by the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

Visakhapatnam in P.R.C.No.10/08 in Crime No.507/2007 of IV Town Police

Station, Visakhapatnam City and the same having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, IV Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam City filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences under sections 489-B & 489-C of IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:

The accused is native of Uppada Village of East Godavari District.

On 18.06.2007 at about 6.05 hrs., while PW.2 – I. Prasada Rao who is working as Senior Goods Clerk in East Coast Railway, Visakhapatnam was at counter No.6 of the General Booking of Visakhapatnam Railway

Station, the accused submitted the counterfeit Rs.100 note for purchasing train ticket for two persons from Visakhapatnam to

Pitapuram for a sum of Rs.88/- with an intention to travel in Simhadri

Express. Then PW.2 suspected the said Rs.100/- note tendered by the accused as fake, then he obtained another Rs.100/- note from the accused and issued train ticket and thereafter he gave the said fake note to PW.1 – R. Chidamabara Rao, Booking Supervisor at General

Booking counter of Visakhapatnam Railway Station along with the train ticket and showed the accused to him. Then PW.1 verified the fake note

No. 2GD 830695 and found it is not having water marks and security thread and paper quality is less and then he confirmed that it is a fake note and collected the fake note and train ticket No. W40165281 and took the accused to Government Railway Police Station with the assistance of PW.3 T. Simhachalam PC 452, Government Railway Police 3 II AMSJ COURT, VSP

SC. No.189/2011.

Station and gave report to PW.6 A. Uma Maheswara Rao HC 213

Government Railway Police Station, Visakhapatnam.

Basing on the report given by the PW.1, a case in Cr.No.140/2007 for the offence punishable under sections 489-B & 489-C of IPC was registered by PW.6 at Government Railway Police Station,

Visakhapatnam. PW.9 V. Suresh Babu, Inspector of Police, Government

Railway Police Station, Visakhapatnam took up the investigation and during the course of investigation he arrested the accused on 18.06.2007 at about 8.00 hrs., at Government Railway Police Station in the presence of PW.5 – Ch. Srinivasa Rao and K. Kiran Kumar and seized the counterfeit/fake note and also train ticket from the possession of the accused. Subsequently the PW.9 transferred the case to IV Town Police

Station, Visakhapatnam since the offence is local in nature. On 28.07.2007 at 19.00 hrs., PW.8 S. Sanjeeva Rao, Sub Inspector of Police,

IV Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam registered the transfer FIR in

Cr.No.507/2007 under sections 489-B & 489-C and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation PW.8 sent the seized counterfeit note of Rs.100/- to the Currency Note Press, Nasik Road.

Then PW.7 V.N. Zadbuke, Assistant Works Manager in Currency note

Press, Nasik Road examined the said Rs.100/- note and he gave his opinion that the said Rs.100/- note is counterfeit note. After completion of the investigation, PW.8 filed the charge sheet before the I Additional

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

3. The Learned I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam took cognizance of the offence against the accused under sections 489-

B & 489-C of IPC vide PRC. No. 10/2008.

4. After appearance of the Accused before the Learned I Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam the accused was furnished with 4 II AMSJ COURT, VSP

SC. No.189/2011.

copies of documents relied by prosecution in compliance of section 207

Cr.P.C.

5. As the case is exclusively triable by Court of sessions, the Learned I

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam has committed

the case to the Learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge's Court,

Visakhapatnam vide committal order dated 17.03.2009.

6. After receipt of the record from the Learned I Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, the Learned Metropolitan

Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam registered the case as SC No. 189/2011

and the same was made over to this court for disposal according to law.

7. After receipt of the record from the Learned Metropolitan Sessions

Judge, this court issued summons to the accused and the accused

appeared before this court, after receiving summons and he engaged an advocate of his choice. The accused was examined and after consideration, the charges under sections 489-B & 489-C of IPC were framed against the accused and the same was read over and explained to him in Telugu. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 9 and exhibited Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 and MO. 1.

9. After closing of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C and the incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses was explained to the accused and the accused denied the same. The accused stated that he is working as

Ayurvedic Doctor at Uppada Village near Pitapuram and before he came to Visakhapatnam he received some amount from his patients and he withdrew some amount from post office and out of the said amount he tendered Rs.100/- note for purchasing railway tickets and he is having 5 II AMSJ COURT, VSP

SC. No.189/2011.

no capacity to identify the counterfeit currency. The accused did not choose to examine any witness on his behalf.

10.Heard arguments of Learned Additional Public Prosecutor and Learned

Counsel for the accused.

11.Now the Points for consideration are:

1. Whether the MO.1 i.e., Rs.100/- currency note is a counterfeit currency note?

2. Whether the accused was having any knowledge or having reason to believe that the MO.1 is counterfeit currency and possessed the same with an intention to use the same as genuine and with that intention he used the same as genuine by tendering the same in the railway booking counter at

Visakhapatnam on 18.06.2007?

3. Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for the offences under sections 489-B & 489-C of IPC beyond any reasonable doubt?

4. What is the result of the case?

12.POINT NO.1: -

The specific case of the prosecution is that MO.1 i.e., 100/- rupees note tendered by the accused at Railway Booking counter of

Visakhapatnam on 18.06.2007 is a counterfeit Rs.100/- note and it is not a genuine one. The prosecution in order to establish the said contention examined PW.7 V.N.Zadbuke who worked as Assistant Works Manager,

Currency note Press, Nasik Road. PW.7 deposed that on 23.11.2007, from the court of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

Visakhapatnam, he received Rs.100/- fake note for examination and on 02.01.2008 he examined the said Rs.100/- note and it is found to be forged one and accordingly he prepared a report. The letter received by him is marked as Ex.P7 and the acknowledgment showing the receipt of the said letter is marked as Ex.P8 and report dated 02.01.2008 furnished by him is marked as Ex.P9. He further submitted that MO.1 is 6 II AMSJ COURT, VSP

SC. No.189/2011.

the said note bearing No. 2GD830695 and MO.1 contains his seal and signature. In the cross examination, he deposed that he was specially trained to examine the genuineness of the currency notes.

13.PW.7 is an expert who is working at Currency note press, Nasik

Road and he carefully examined the MO.1 currency note and he gave the report to the effect that it is a counterfeit currency. A suggestion is given to PW.7 in his cross examination to the effect that the findings given by him relating to MO.1 in Ex.P9 are not correct. PW.7 denied the said suggestion. A perusal of Ex.P9 report furnished by the PW.7 makes clear that he has carefully examined MO.1 and he has noticed that the main water mark and security thread were absent and then he furnished the report to the effect that the MO.1 is a counterfeit currency. In the circumstances, I see no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW.7 regarding the fact that MO.1 is a counterfeit currency. So, I hold that

MO.1 is a counterfeit currency. So, this point is answered accordingly.

14.POINT NO.2:As per the statement given by the accused, while he was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C, it is clear that the accused is not disputing the fact that he tendered MO.1 to the PW.2 for purchasing train tickets from Visakhapatnam to Pitapuram on 18.06.2007 between 6.00 A.M., and 6.30 A.M. But the specific contention of the accused is that he is having no capacity to identify the fake currency notes and he had no knowledge about the genuineness or otherwise of the MO.1.

15.The prosecution has examined 9 witnesses in order to substantiate its case. The evidence of PW.1 R. Chidambara Rao is to the effect that he is working as a Booking Supervisor in Waltair Railway

Station. On 18.06.2007 between 6.00 A.M., and 6.30 A.M., PW.2 who was working in counter No.6 came to him and produced a Rs.100/- note 7 II AMSJ COURT, VSP

SC. No.189/2011.

and expresses his suspicion that it appears to be like a counterfeit note and on seeing the same he also suspected it to be like a counterfeit note and that PW.2 produced the concerned passenger before him along with said Rs.100/- note and he handed over the passenger in Government

Railway Police Station and he gave report at Government Railway Police

Station which is marked as Ex.P1.

16.The evidence of PW.2 - I. Prasada Rao is to the effect that on 18.06.2007 while he was working in counter No.6 of the Visakhapatnam

Railway Station one Bala Suryanarayana i.e., the accused came to his counter and asked 2 train tickets from Visakhapatnam to Pitapuram and produced Rs.100/- note and he got suspicion about the said note as he could not find water mark and security thread and guage of the note was thin. So he produced the said note along with the Ex.P2 ticket to the PW.1 and that MO.1 is the said counterfeit note. He further deposed that PW.1 took the said note along with the accused to the Government

Railway Police Station and that Ex.P3 is the report given by him to PW.1.

17.The evidence of PW.3 - T. Simhachalam who is working as a

Railway Constable in Government Railway Police Station,

Visakhapatnam is to the effect that on 18.06.2007 while he was discharging his duties at General Booking Counter of Visakhapatnam

Railway Station PW.1 called him and informed that the accused has tendered a counterfeit Rs.100/- note for purchasing two tickets from

Visakhapatnam to Pitapuram and further asked him to escort with the

Shift Supervisor to the Government Railway Police Station. So, he along with PW.1 went to Government Railway Police Station and handed over the counterfeit Rs.100/- note which is marked as MO.1.

18.PW.4 A. Sesha Sai deposed that he did not know anything about the case. He was declared as hostile and Additional Public Prosecutor 8 II AMSJ COURT, VSP

SC. No.189/2011.

sought permission to cross examine the PW.4 and in the cross examination conducted by A.P.P., he denied the suggestion that he stated before the police as in Ex.P4.

19.PW.5 Ch. Srinivasa Rao, who is projected as a mediator before whom the accused was arrested, has not supported the case of the prosecution. So he was also declared as hostile, but his signature on the mediators report is marked as Ex.P5.

20.PW.6 - A. Uma Maheswara Rao, who worked as Head Constable in

Government Railway Police Station, Visakhapatnam at the relevant time deposed about the registration of crime, basing on the Ex.P1 report given by the PW.1. He further deposed that MO.1 and the accused were handed over to him by PW.1 & 3. The original FIR is marked as Ex.P6.

21.PW.7 - Vijay Narayan Zadbuke is an expert who examined the

MO.1 and gave report.

22.PW.8 - S. Sanjeeva Rao who worked as Sub Inspector of Police deposed about the fact that after receiving the transfer FIR from

Government Railway Police Station, Visakhapatnam, he registered the same as Cr.No.507/07 under sections 489-B & 489-C of IPC. Thereafter he forwarded the MO.1 to the Government Printing Press, Nasik and he re-examined PWs.1 to 4 and recorded their statements. After receipt of

Ex.P9 report and after completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet. Re-registered FIR is marked as Ex.P10.

23.PW.9 - V. Suresh Babu deposed that he worked as Inspector of

Police in Government Railway Police Station, Visakhapatnam at the relevant time and on 18.06.2007 he received information from PW.6 about the registration of crime and thereafter he took up the investigation and examined PW.1 & 2 and recorded their statements at about 10.30 A.M., in the presence of PW.5. He examined the accused 9 II AMSJ COURT, VSP

SC. No.189/2011.

and the accused revealed his identity and he examined MO.1 and also

Ex.P2 ticket and he also found Rs.5,070/- in the possession of the accused and he arrested accused and seized MO.1 and Ex.P2 and he addressed a letter to the Superintendent of Police Railways at

Vijayawada for transfer of the case to IV Town Police Station,

Visakhapatnam on the point of jurisdiction. The admissible portion of the mediators report is marked as Ex.P11.

24.The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor argued that the prosecution has clearly established that the MO.1 is a fake Rs.100/- note and the same was tendered by the accused to PW.2 while he was in the railway booking counter in Visakhapatnam. So the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused under sections 489-B & 489-C of

IPC.

25.The Learned Counsel for the accused vehemently argued that the accused had no knowledge that MO.1 is a fake currency note and he had no intention to use any fake currency note as genuine one and as a bonafide passenger for purchasing tickets at Railway Booking counter he tendered Rs.100/- note to the PW.2 and when the PW.2 asked for giving another Rs.100/- note the accused gave another Rs.100/- note but the accused was unnecessarily harassed by the Government

Railway Police by registering the case against him. He further argued that even as per the evidence of the expert who examined the MO.1, it appears to be like a genuine one and the accused is having no capacity to identify the fake currency notes. He further argued that as per the evidence of PW.9 at the time of arrest the accused was having cash of

Rs.5,070/- in his possession and all the notes except MO.1 are found to be genuine currency notes. He further argued that as the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the necessary ingredients for 10 II AMSJ COURT, VSP

SC. No.189/2011.

establishing the guilt of the accused for the offence under sections 489-

B & 489-C, the accused is entitled to be acquitted of the said offence.

26.The Counsel for the accused in support of his contention relied on a Judgment of our Hon'ble High Court in

Veera Swamy Shanmugam Sundaram Vs State of A.P.

reported in 2001 (2) ALT (Crl.) 148 (A.P)

Wherein it is held in Paras 16 to 20 as follows:

Para 16: “In the instant case it is clear from the evidence on record that the accused had no knowledge that MO.1 was counterfeit nor he had the intention to make use of it. This is evidence from the conduct of the accused himself as was spoken to by PW.3. Though PW.3 suspected the genuineness of the note, he did not inform or ask the accused as to whether MO.1 was a genuine note or not, which implies that the accused was never informed about the quality of MO.1 on the contrary he was simply called him into his cabin and made him to wait there and upon his report PWs. 1 and 2 came. Even at that time also the accused was holding MO.1 in his hands. This conduct probablises that the accused did not really have the knowledge that it was a fake note nor he had the intention to use it for a gain. If really he had the knowledge that it was a fake note, when it was asked by PW.2 to come to his cabin, he would not have entered into his cabin at all . Even if he enters into his cabin, when he is made to wait there, he 11 II AMSJ COURT, VSP

SC. No.189/2011.

could have immediately suspected that PW.3 was doubting not only MO.1 but also his conduct. But he was simply waiting in the cabin of PW.3. This in my view is a strong circumstance in favour of the accused in order to say that neither he was informed about the genuineness of MO.1 nor he had the knowledge that MO.1 was a fake note nor he had any intention to use it for a gain.”

Para 17: “It can further be seen that in this

Section 313 Cr.P.C statement the accused had categorically stated that he had given a genuine note, but unnecessarily PW.3 called him into his cabin and made him to wait there and issuing tickets to others without issuing ticket to him. That means the accused had a strong feeling not only

before PW.3, the police officers, but also before the

Court that the note presented by him was genuine.

When his belief was so strong, it cannot be implied that he had the intention to make use of MO.1 with the knowledge that it was a fake note.”

Para 18: “Therefore, in my view the accused had no knowledge or reason to believe that MO.1 which was presented by him for purchase of a ticket was forged one in which event he could not have the intention also to use it with the knowledge that it is a fake note.”

Para 19: “Under these circumstances, I am of the considered view that in the instant case the 12 II AMSJ COURT, VSP

SC. No.189/2011.

essential ingredients of Sections 489-B 489-C of IPC with regard to the knowledge and intention are totally lacking which is explicit from the very conduct of the accused.”

Para 20: “Further, there was no evidence in order to show that MO.1 was of such a nature or description that a mere look at it would convince any person of average intelligence that it was a counterfeit note and any presumption that the accused knew that the note in his possession was a counterfeit cannot be drawn. In this context, the

Supreme Court had categorically observed in the decision cited 2 supra that a question to the accused should have been put in order to find out whether the accused knew that the notes were of such a nature.”

27.In order to appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the accused, it is necessary to refer the sections 489-B & 489-C which read as follows:

489-B: Using as genuine, forged or counterfeit currency-notes or

bank-notes:

“Whoever sells to, or buys or receives from, any other person, or otherwise traffics in or uses as genuine, any forged or counterfeit currency-note or bank-note, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged or counterfeit, shall be punished with (imprisonment of life) or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.” 13 II AMSJ COURT, VSP

SC. No.189/2011.

489-C: Possession of forged or counterfeit currency-notes or bank-note :

“Whoever has in his possession any forged or counterfeit currency-note or bank-note, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged or counterfeit, and intending to use the same as genuine or that it may be used as genuine, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extent to seven years, or with fine, or with both.”

A careful perusal of Sections 489-B & 489-C of IPC makes clear that the necessary ingredients for establishing the offence under sections 489-B of IPC are that “a person has to sell, or buy or receive from any other person, or otherwise traffics in or uses the counterfeit currency as genuine one and the same was done with the knowledge that it was a counterfeit currency or otherwise he must be having a reason to believe that the said currency was a counterfeit currency”.

The necessary ingredients for establishing the offence under sections 489-C of IPC are that “a person must be in possession of counterfeit currency with the knowledge that it is a counterfeit currency or otherwise he must be having a reason to believe that the said note is counterfeit currency and he must have an

intention to use the counterfeit currency as genuine one.”

Section 26 of IPC defines “Reason to believe” which reads as follows:

Section 26 of IPC: “A person is said to have “reason to believe” a thing, if he has sufficient cause to believe that thing but not otherwise”.

14 II AMSJ COURT, VSP

SC. No.189/2011.

28.So as per the contents of Section 489-B & 489-C of IPC, it is clear that mere possession of counterfeit currency by a person or mere tendering the counterfeit currency by any particular person to any other person itself cannot be considered as an offence. The culprit must have specific knowledge about the fact that the particular note tendered by him or possessed by him is a counterfeit currency. So the evidence of the prosecution witnesses has to be carefully scanned for determining whether the accused had any knowledge that MO.1 is a fake currency note or atleast he was having any reason to believe that MO.1 is a fake currency note.

29.PW.2 in his cross examination deposed that when he suspected

Rs.100/- note tendered by the accused as counterfeit note, he asked the accused for another Rs.100/- note and he tendered another Rs.100/- note and second Rs.100/- note tendered by the accused is genuine note.

He further deposed that he suspected the note as counterfeit note but he did not inform the same to anybody except PW.1. He further deposed that there are no detectors provided by the Department and there is a security thread on MO.1 and there is Ashoka emblam on the left side of the MO.1 and MO.1 bears the signature of Governor of RBI in

English and Hindi. He further deposed that he asked the accused to come to his chamber after he suspected MO.1 as a counterfeit currency and accused came to his chamber on his own accord. According to him all the counters are facing east and there is a vacant place big in size on the eastern side of the counters out side the cabin for enabling the passengers to stand in queue for purchasing the tickets and if a passenger want to enter into his cabin he has to leave the premises earmarked for the passengers to purchase the tickets and proceed from 15 II AMSJ COURT, VSP

SC. No.189/2011.

another place situated in northern side. Then he can enter inside the cabin.

30.PW.7, the expert who examined MO.1 gave a report that MO.1 is a counterfeit currency. In his cross examination, he deposed that basing on the testing material and equipments available with him, he decided the genuineness of MO.1 and then he gave a report in Ex.P9. He specifically deposed that a common man cannot identify unless the forgery is apparent on the face of the currency note. He admitted that ordinary common man cannot identify the MO.1 as a fake currency note or original note on the face of it. He admitted that the fake notes are being circulated through ATMs and that if the triangle with intanglo print is found on any currency note one can take the particular currency note as genuine one.

31.PW.9, who conducted the investigation in this case, in his cross examination deposed that when the accused was having 5,000/- in his pant pocket and Rs.270/- in his shirt pocket, he picked up Rs.100/- note and tendered the same to the Booking clerk for purchasing ticket. Ex.P3 discloses that another Rs.100/- note which was received from the accused on suspicion that MO.1 is a counterfeit note and the rest of the amount of Rs.5,070/- was found in the possession of the accused are genuine notes.

32.A careful examination of Ex.P9 report submitted by the expert -

PW.7, makes clear that in the said report he has mentioned that water marks is absent and the security thread is absent but he specifically mentioned that the thickness of the paper is same as that of genuine note. So when the thickness of the MO.1 is similar to the genuine note the common man cannot identify the MO.1 as a fake note. PW.7 has clearly admitted in his cross examination that a common man cannot 16 II AMSJ COURT, VSP

SC. No.189/2011.

identify the MO.1 as a fake note. It is pertinent to note that the accused was in possession of Rs.5,270/- when he was arrested by the police including MO.1 and another Rs.100/- note tendered by the accused to

PW.2, when he asked for the same after he suspected the MO.1 as a counterfeit currency. But all the other currency notes possessed by the accused while he was arrested by the police are genuine. If the MO.1 on its very face appears to be a fake currency note then the knowledge can be attributed to the accused about the fact that MO.1 is a fake currency.

Even as per the version of the expert the common man cannot identify the MO.1 as a fake currency note.

33.The conduct of the accused has also to be assessed for determining whether he is having any knowledge about the fact that

MO.1 is a fake currency note or he is having any reason to believe that

MO.1 is a fake currency note. As per the record, it is very clear that the accused belongs to Uppada Village of East Godavari District and due to his personal work he came to Visakhapatnam and on 18.06.2007 he and another person wanted to go back to the village of the accused. So he wanted to purchase train tickets from Visakhapatnam to Pitapuram.

Thus he tendered Rs.100/- note while he was in the booking counter.

When PW.2 suspected that MO.1 is fake currency note, he asked the accused to give another note and then the accused tendered another

Rs.100/- note without questioning the PW.2 as to why he has to tender another Rs.100/- note. When the PW.2 asked the accused to come to his chamber without any hesitation accused went to the chamber of the

PW.2 then only the PW.2 informed to PW.1 and discussed the matter then they gave a report in the Government Railway Police Station,

Visakhapatnam. If really the accused was having any slightest idea about the fact that MO.1 is a counterfeit currency, he would not have 17 II AMSJ COURT, VSP

SC. No.189/2011.

ventured to enter into the cabin of the PW.2 and certainly he would have vanished from that place. So the very conduct of the accused in entering into the cabin of the PW.2 after he was asked to do so creates an impression that he had no knowledge about the fact that MO.1 is a fake currency.

34.In the cross examination of PW.2 it is elicited that there is no way to the cabin of the PW.2 from the place where the passengers were standing for obtaining tickets from the counter and in order to reach the counter accused has to go another place and then he has to enter into the cabin of the PW.2. So, in the circumstances it is clear that the accused was having ample opportunity to escape from the area of the booking counter. But the accused opted to enter into the cabin of the

PW.2.

35.The facts and circumstances of the case in the decision of our

Hon'ble High Court in Veera Swamy Shanmugam Sundaram Vs

State of A.P. Reported in 2001 (2) ALT (Crl.) 148 (A.P) relied by the learned Counsel for the accused, referred supra, are similar to the facts of the case on hand. In the similar circumstances our Hon'ble High

Court categorically held that no knowledge can be attributed to the accused therein about the genuineness or otherwise of the currency note tendered by him. So considering all the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish that the accused has knowledge that MO.1 is a counterfeit currency or the accused was having any reason to believe that MO.1 is a counterfeit currency. So due to the non establishing of the fact that the accused is having knowledge or reason to believe that MO.1 is a counterfeit currency, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed 18 II AMSJ COURT, VSP

SC. No.189/2011.

to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under sections 489-B and 489-C. So this point is answered accordingly.

36.POINT NO.3:In view of my findings in Point No.2, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish that the accused had any knowledge or having any reason to believe that MO.1 is a counterfeit currency. So, due to failure of the prosecution in establishing any knowledge of the accused about the genuineness or otherwise the MO.1, I am of the opinion that the guilt of the accused for the offences under sections 489-B and 489-C cannot be established.

Considering all the circumstances, I hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offences under section 489-B and 489-C and the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt. So this point is answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

37.POINT NO.4:In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable under sections 489-B & 489-C of IPC and so the accused is acquitted under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C of the offence punishable under sections 489-B & 489-C of IPC. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of the appeal time. MO.1 shall be handed over to the concerned Police, after expiry of appeal time, for forwarded the same to the Issue Department of the Reserve

Bank of India as per the provisions of Rule 234(3) of Criminal Rules of

Practice and circular orders 1990.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 21st day of June, 2013.

I ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE,

FAC: II ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

19 II AMSJ COURT, VSP

SC. No.189/2011.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No. of witnesses examined for:

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

P.W.1 : R. Chidambara Rao -NONE- P.W.2 : I. Prasad Rao P.W.3 : T. Simhachalam P.W.4 : A. Sesha Sai P.W.5 : Ch. Srinivasa Rao P.W.6 : A. Uma Maheswara Rao P.W.7 : Vijay Narayan Zadbuke P.W.8 : S. Sanjeeva Rao P.W.9 : V. Suresh Babu

No. of Exhibits marked for:

PROSECUTION:

EX.P1 : Report given to the Government Railway Police by the PW.1. Ex.P2 : Railway ticket issued to the Accused. Ex.P3 : Report given by PW.2 to PW.1. Ex.P4 : Relevant portion marked in the statement of PW.4 Ex.P5 : Signature of PW.5 in the mediators report. Ex.P6 : Registered FIR by PW.6. Ex.P7: letter issued to the PW.7. Ex.P8: Acknowledgment of Ex.P7. Ex.P9: Report dated 02.01.2008 given by PW.7 Ex.P10: Re-registered FIR. Ex.P11: The admissible portion of the mediators report.

DEFENCE: NIL

Material Objects Marked

M.O.1:Counterfeit currency of Rs.100/-

I ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE,

FAC: II ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

Copies to:

1. The Registrar (Judl.,)High Court of A.P.,Hyderabad.

2. The Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam City.

3. The Addl. Public prosecutor (Smt. P. Padmaja).

20 II AMSJ COURT, VSP

SC. No.189/2011.

C A L E N D A R

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE-

CUM-IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, VISAKHAPATNAM.

Present: Sri G. Gopichand, B.Sc., M.A., L.L.M.,

I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, FAC: II Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge- cum-IV Additional Dist. And Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam.

Friday, the 21st day of June' 2013

SESSIONS CASE No.189/2011

(P.R.C.No. 10/2008 of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam in Crime No.507/2007 of IV Town Police station, Visakhapatnam City)

Between:

State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, IV Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam City. …COMPLAINANT. And:

Palanki Bala Suryanarayana @ Boby, S/o Durgha Venkata Subramanya Sharma, aged 57 years, Brahmin, D.No.5-79, Uppada Village, East Godavari District.

…ACCUSED

DATE OF: Offence:18.06.2007 Complaint:21.04.2008 Commitment:17.03.2009 Apprehension:15.02.2012 Commencement of trial:21.01.2013 Close of trial:06.06.2013 Judgment:21.06.2013 Whether accused are on bail/ in Jail : Accused is on bail.

EXPLANATION FOR DELAY IN SESSIONS COURT: This Sessions case is made over from the Metropolitan Sessions Judge,

Visakhapatnam to this Court for disposal according to law on 12.12.2011. On 10.10.2012 charges Under Sections 498-B & 498-C of IPC are framed against the accused. He denied the said charge and claimed to be tried. From 21.01.2013 to 06.06.2013, PW-1 to PW-9 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-11 21 II AMSJ COURT, VSP

SC. No.189/2011.

and M.O. 1 were marked. On 06.06.2013 prosecution evidence was closed and matter posted to 14.06.2013 for examination of accused under section 313 of

Cr.P.C. On 14.06.2013 the accused were examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C and reported no defence evidence and matter posted to 17.06.2013 for arguments. On 17.06.2013 heard the arguments and posted the matter for

Judgment to 21.06.2013. On 21.06.2013 Judgment pronounced in open court, holding that the accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable under sections 489-B & 489-C of IPC and so the accused is acquitted under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C of the offence punishable under sections 489-B & 489-C of

IPC. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of the appeal time. MO.1 shall be handed over to the concerned Police, after expiry of appeal time, for being forwarded to the Issue Department of the Reserve

Bank of India as per the provisions of Rule 234(3) of Criminal Rules of Practice and circular orders 1990. Hence, there is no avoidable delay in this court.

I ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE,

FAC: II ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

22 II AMSJ COURT, VSP

SC. No.189/2011.

21.06.2013

Judgment Pronounced (vide separate Judgment).

In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable under sections 489-B & 489-C of IPC and so the accused is acquitted under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C of the offence punishable under sections 489-B & 489-C of

IPC. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of the appeal time. MO.1 shall be handed over to the concerned

Police, after expiry of appeal time, for forwarded the same to the

Issue Department of the Reserve

Bank of India as per the provisions of Rule 234(3) of Criminal Rules of

Practice and circular orders 1990.

I AMSJ, VSP.

FAC: II AMSJ, VSP.

MOP 960/2010 1IV ADJ, VSP.

IN THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-

IV ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE :: VISAKHAPATNAM.

Present : Sri G. Gopichand,B.Sc., M.A., LL.M., Chairman: MACT-Cum- II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, FAC of IV Additional District & Sessions

Judge, Visakhapatnam.

Friday, this the 21 st day of June, 2013

M.O.P.NO.960/2010

Between : Vanapalli Narendra, S/o Satti Babu, Hindu, aged 30 years, Tailor, Vehicle Supervisor, M/s Vijay Nirman Company, residing at near Saptagiri Cinema Hall, Tagarapuvalasa, Visakhapatnam District. …Petitioner. And:

1. Karri Appa Rao, S/o Appala Naidu, Hindu, aged 27 years, residing at Asakapalli Village, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

2. The New India Assurance Company Limited, represented by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, D.No.58-16-8, PAR Complex, NAD Cross Road, Opp: Petrol Bunk, Visakhapatnam. …Respondents.

This petition is coming on 17.06.2013 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri D. Subrahmanyam, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri.

S.P. Naidu, Advocate for the 1st Respondent and Smt. T.V.R. Rajya Lakshmi,

Advocate for the 2nd Respondent, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :

O R D E R

1.This is a petition filed under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand only) on account of the injuries received by the petitioner in a motor accident occurred on 25.03.2008 at about 8.30 hrs., near Kurmannapalem Check Point on Steel

Plant Main Road, Visakhapatnam.

2.The averments made in the petition in brief are as follows:

The petitioner is hale and healthy aged about 30 years and working as a

Vehicle Supervisor in M/s Vijay Nirman Company, Visakhapatnam and used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month. On 25.03.2008 at about 8.30 A.M., the petitioner boarded an auto bearing No. AP 31 X 3118 at Kurmannapalem in order to go to

MOP 960/2010 2IV ADJ, VSP.

his work spot and when the said auto reached near Kurmannapalem Check

Post on Steel Plant Main Road, the driver of the auto drove the auto in rash and negligent manner in high speed and unable to control the same, he dashed against a tree and as a result, the petitioner fell down and sustained grievous head injury and fracture injuries to his left leg. Immediately, the petitioner was shifted to King George Hospital, Visakhapatnam and later he was shifted to Abhaya Critical Care, Visakhapatnam for better treatment.

3. A case in Cr.No. 53/2008 was registered by the S.H.O., Steel Plant Police

Station, Visakhapatnam City against the 1st respondent who is the driver cum owner of the auto for the offence punishable under section 338 of IPC. As the petitioner received grievous injuries, he underwent operation to his left leg.

Iron plates and rods were inserted in his left leg. The 1st respondent is the owner cum driver and the 2nd respondent is the insurer of the offending auto, so both of them are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation of

Rs.1,50,000/- to the petitioner.

4.The 1st respondent filed counter denying all the allegations made in the petition and stating that at the time of accident, he was having valid driving license and the offending auto was insured with the 2nd respondent, so the 2nd respondent is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner and that the compensation claimed by the petitioner is excessive. He averred that he drove the auto by following traffic rules, but the petitioner unfortunately fell down on the road and sustained injuries.

5.The 2nd respondent filed counter denying all the allegations made in the counter and stating that the petitioner is put to strict proof of the averments made in the petition. The 2nd respondent averred that the accident took place only due to the gross negligence on the part of the petitioner, as he had not seated properly in the back seat of the auto and so he himself fell down from the running auto and sustained injuries.

6.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are settled for trial:

MOP 960/2010 3IV ADJ, VSP.

1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto bearing Registration No. AP 31 X 3118 at 8.30 hrs., on 25.03.2008 at Kurmannapalem Check Post, Visakhapatnam?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?

3. To what relief?

7.During the course of trial, the petitioner examined himself as PW.1 and he got examined PW.2 & PW.3 and Exs.A.1 to A.6 are marked on behalf of the petitioner. On behalf of the 2nd respondent RW.1 & RW.2 are examined and

Ex.B1 & B2 are marked. Ex.X1 & Ex.X2 are marked through RW.2.

8.Heard arguments of both sides.

9. ISSUE NO.1: There is no dispute regarding the fact that the 1st respondent is the driver cum owner of the offending auto bearing No. AP 31 X 3118 and on 25.03.2008 at about 8.30 hrs., the petitioner was travelling in the said auto and when the said auto reached near Kurmannapalem Check Post, the accident in dispute took place, so the petitioner received injuries. But the contention of the respondents is that the petitioner sat negligently in the auto and so he fell down on the road and received injuries.

10. The petitioner examined himself as P.W.1 and he filed his affidavit in lieu of his chief examination, reiterating the contents of the petition. Exs.A.1 to A.6 are marked on behalf of the petitioner. Ex. A1 is the certified copy of FIR in

Cr.No.53/2008 of Steelplant Police Station, Visakhapatnam for the offence punishable under section 338 of IPC. As per the Ex.A1 FIR, it is very clear that after the accident, the petitioner herein gave a report in Steel Plant Police

Station. In the said report, he clearly mentioned about the nature of the accident and rash and negligent driving of the auto by its driver. Ex.A2 is the certified copy of the wound certificate of the petitioner issued by Abhaya

Critical Care, Visakhapatnam. In the wound certificate, it is clearly shown that the petitioner received fracture injury to the fibula of his left leg and as per the

MOP 960/2010 4IV ADJ, VSP.

C.T. Scan of the brain, the petitioner sustained multiple haemorrhaegic contusion in frontal lobe. The petitioner also received lacerated injury to left eye lid. Ex.A3 is the certified copy of MVI Report which clearly indicate that after the accident the offending auto was inspected by the concerned Motor

Vehicle Inspector. It is pertinent to note that in Ex.A3, Motor Vehicle Inspector has clearly mentioned about the damage caused to the auto on its front side.

It is also noted that the front wind screen of the auto was broken. The concerned Motor Vehicle Inspector gave his opinion to the effect that there are no mechanical defects in the crime vehicle. Ex.A4 is the certified copy of the charge sheet filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, Steel Plant Traffic Police

Station against the 1st respondent before the III Additional Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate, Gajuwaka for the offence under section 338 of IPC. As per Ex.A4,

concerned police after thorough investigation came to the conclusion that the accident in dispute took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto. Ex.A5 is a copy of the discharge summary issued by

Abhaya Critical Care, Visakhapatnam. As per the said discharge summary the petitioner was admitted on 25.03.2008 and discharged on 11.04.2008. Ex.A6 is copy of bunch of medical bills for Rs.65,633.97 Ps. In the cross examination he denied the suggestion that as he did not sit properly in the auto, so he was fallen from the running auto and received injuries.

11.PW.2 Dr. K. Raja Sagar, who is working as Medical Officer, Abhaya

Critical Care, Visakhapatnam deposed about the fact that on 25.03.2008 he examined PW.1 who was having head injury and also fracture of fibula of left leg and that he issued Ex.A2 wound certificate and Ex.A5 bills are relating to the treatment given to PW.1.

12.The evidence of PW.3 K. Somaraju Accountant in Abhaya Critical Care,

Visakhapatnam is to the effect that the petitioner was treated in the said hospital for the injuries received by him and as the medical bills are lost, the petitioner approached them seeking issuance of attested copies and basing on

MOP 960/2010 5IV ADJ, VSP.

records they have attested the photo copies of the bills produced by the PW.1.

13.As against the evidences of PW.1 to PW.3, the 2nd respondent has adduced the evidence of RW.1 & 2. RW.1 is working as Administration Officer in the office of 2nd respondent and that the driver of the auto was not having valid driving license as he did not possess light motor vehicle transport license. Ex.B1 & B2 are marked through RW.1. Ex.B1 is the copy of insurance policy. Ex.B2 is the driving license extract of the driver of the auto. In the cross examination, he deposed that auto rickshaw is a light motor vehicle which is a transport vehicle but the driver is holding light motor vehicle non transport license. RW.2 K. Nagamani who is working as Senior Assistant, RTA

Office, Anakapalli was authorized by the RTO, Anakapalli to give evidence.

Ex.X1 and X2 are marked through RW.2. Ex.X1 is the authorization letter. She further deposed that she was asked to produce the driving license particulars of the 1st respondent and by 25.03.2008 he was having motorcycle and light motor vehicle non transport license. In the year 2009, he obtained light motor vehicle transport license and for driving an auto an endorsement is required in the driving license and one must possess light motor vehicle transport license.

Ex.X2 is the driving license extract of the 1st respondent.

14.The 1st respondent, having taken a specific plea that the accident in dispute took place only due to the negligence of the petitioner, has not come forward to give evidence. For the reasons best known to the 1st respondent he shunned the witness box. So the evidence of PW. 1 is not rebutted by the respondents by placing any cogent evidence. So considering the evidence of

PW.1 and the documents filed by the petitioner particularly Ex.A1 to A4, I am of the opinion that the petitioner established that the accident in dispute took place only due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto by the 1st respondent and in the said accident the petitioner received injuries. This issue is answered accordingly.

15.ISSUE NO. 2: There is no dispute regarding the fact that the 1st

MOP 960/2010 6IV ADJ, VSP.

respondent is the driver-cum-owner of the offending auto and the 2nd respondent is the insurer of the offending auto. Ex.B1 policy issued by the 2nd respondent in respect of the offending vehicle was in force as on the date of accident. So both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner.

16.The Counsel for the petitioner argued that admittedly the 1st respondent was holding license to drive light motor vehicle and the auto is treated as light motor vehicle and so it is immaterial whether the 1st respondent is holding transport or non transport license. He further argued that the contention of the 2nd respondent that the 1st respondent was not holding valid license cannot be considered. In support of his contention he relied on a Judgment of our

Hon'ble High Court in

E. Rajeswari and others Vs T.S. Sekhar and another

reported in 2011 (1) ALD 48

wherein it is held that in paras 10 & 11 as follows:

Para 10: “ So far as the second aspect is concerned,

the Tribunal held that the driving licence Ex.B1 was

only for light motor vehicles and that the driver was

not permitted to drive a transport vehicle. The view

taken by the Tribunal cannot be sustained. The reason

is that the connotation “light motor vehicle” is

relevant, in the context of the size and make of the

vehicle, and not the use, to which it is put. The

expression “transport vehicle”, on the other hand,

deals with the use and not the size of the vehicle. For

instance, even a small vehicle, like, Auto rickshaw can

be treated as a transport vehicle, because of its use,

whereas a big sedan or car can be used as private

vehicle”.

MOP 960/2010 7IV ADJ, VSP.

Para 11: “The LMV licence issued to a driver enables

him to drive the vehicle of that category. It is

immaterial whether such vehicle is being used as

purely for private purposes, or as a transport vehicle.

Admittedly, the vehicle involved in the accident was a

light motor vehicle, and Ex.B1 is a LMV licence.

Therefore, both the reasons assigned by the Tribunal

cannot be sustained.”

17.The Counsel for the 2nd respondent argued that to drive the auto rickshaw, light motor vehicle transport license is required, but the 1st respondent was not holding light motor vehicle transport license as on the date of accident. So the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. The Counsel for the 2nd respondent in support of her contention relied on a unreported Judgment of our Hon'ble High Court in

National Insurance Company Limited represented by its Manager Vs

Kaki Venkata Ramana and another (MACMA 5482/2008)

wherein it is held that in para 18 as follows:

Para 18: “RW.2 is an Administrative Officer of

the appellant-Insurance Company, through who

Ex.B3 a copy of the insurance policy, was marked.

According to his evidence, the driver did not have

driving license to drive transport vehicles. The

evidence of RWs.1 and 2 and Ex.B1 make it clear

that the driver of the auto had no license to drive

transport vehicles. There was no evidence

adduced by the 2 nd respondent to prove that the

driver, in fact, has such license and authorized to

drive the transport vehicles. On a consideration

of the aforesaid facts and law, it is manifest that

MOP 960/2010 8IV ADJ, VSP.

the driver of the auto had no valid driving license,

as such, Insurance Company is not liable to pay

any compensation. In fact, it is held to be so by

the Tribunal.”

The Counsel for the 2nd respondent also relied on another Judgment of Hon'ble

APEX Court in

National Insurance Company Limited Vs Vidhyadhar Mahariwala and

others

reported in 2008 ACJ 2860

wherein it is held that when the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding effective license as on the date of accident, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation.

18.There is no dispute regarding the fact that the offending auto is light motor vehicle. As per Ex.X2 which is driving license extract of the 1st respondent produced by the RW.2, it is clear that as on the date of accident i.e., on 25.03.2008, the 1st respondent is holding license to drive non transport light motor vehicle and he obtained license to drive transport light motor vehicle with effect from 04.05.2009. So as on the date of accident, the 1st respondent was competent to drive light motor vehicle as he was holding a valid license to drive the light motor vehicles. As per the ratio laid down by our Hon'ble High Court in E. Rajeswari and others Vs T.S.Sekhar and another relied by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it is clear that the light motor vehicle license issued to the driver enables him to drive the vehicle of that category and it is immaterial whether such vehicle is being used as purely for private purposes, or as a transport vehicle. So in view of the specific ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court regarding the competency of the driver who possessed light motor vehicle license to drive both the transport and non transport light motor vehicles, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High

Court in unreported decision relied by the learned Counsel for the 2nd

MOP 960/2010 9IV ADJ, VSP.

respondent in National Insurance Company Limited represented by its

Manager, Vs Kaki Venkata Ramana and another is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand.

19.The Hon'ble APEX Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs

Vidhyadhar Mahariwala and others was dealing with the fact of non renewal of the license of the driver of the offending vehicle as on the date of the accident. So the ratio laid down in the above said decision is also not applicable to the facts of the case.

20.So, considering all the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the 1st respondent was holding valid license to drive light motor vehicle as on the date of accident. So, the contention of the 2nd respondent that the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner cannot be considered. So considering all the circumstances, I hold that both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner.

21.The evidence of PW.1 to 3 is clear and consistent to the effect that the petitioner received injuries to his head and also a fracture injury to his left leg, as fibula in the left leg was fractured and he underwent treatment in Abhaya

Critical Care Hospital, he spent an amount of Rs.65,633.97 Ps., towards treatment. So in the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to claim a sum of Rs.66,000/- (Rupees Sixty Six Thousand only).

The petitioner is also claiming a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards pain and sufferings. So, in view the nature of the injuries received by the petitioner, an amount of Rs.9,000/- (Rupees Nine Thousand only) can be awarded to the petitioner under this head. The petitioner is also claiming some other amounts towards loss of earnings, transportation to the hospital, compensation for continuing permanent disability and damages to clothes and articles. But no material is placed by the petitioner in order to establish that he is entitled to claim any amount under these heads. So, in the circumstances, I am of the

MOP 960/2010 10IV ADJ, VSP.

opinion that the petitioner is entitled to claim only a sum of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand only) and both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. So this issue is answered accordingly.

22. ISSUE NO.3: In the result, the petition is partly allowed with proportionate costs, granting compensation of Rs.75,000/- (Seventy Five

Thousand only) to the petitioner against the respondents 1 & 2 with subsequent interest thereon at the rate of 7.5% p.a., from the date of the petition till the date of deposit. The respondents 1 & 2 are directed to deposit the said amount within one month from the date of this order. On such deposit, the petitioner is entitle to withdraw an amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) and thebalance amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) shall be deposited in any

Nationalized Bank for a period of one year. The rest of the claim of the petitioner is dismissed without costs. Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,500/- (Rupees Fifteen hundred only).

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 21st day of June, 2013.

Chairman, MACT-cum- II Addl., District Judge, Visakhapatnam. FAC: IV Addl. District Judge,Visakhapatnam.

Appendix of Evidence

No. of witnesses Examined on behalf of

Petitioner Respondents

P.W.1 : Vanapalli NarendraR.W.1 : G. Rama Krishna P.W.2 : Dr. K. Raja SagarR.W.2 : K. Nagamani P.W.3 : K. Somaraju

No. of Documents Marked on behalf of Petitioner:

Ex. A1 is the certified copy of FIR in Cr.No.53/2008 of Steel plant Police Station, Visakhapatnam for the offence punishable under section 338 of IPC.

Ex.A2 is the certified copy of the wound certificate of the petitioner issued by Abhaya Critical Care, Visakhapatnam.

MOP 960/2010 11IV ADJ, VSP.

Ex.A3 is the certified copy of MVI Report.

Ex.A4 is the certified copy of the charge sheet filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, Steel Plant Traffic Police Station against the 1st respondent before the III

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka for the offence under

section 338 of IPC.

Ex.A5 is a copy of the discharge summary issued by Abhaya Critical Care, Visakhapatnam.

Ex.A6 copy of bunch of medical bills for Rs.65,633.97 Ps.

Respondents

Ex.B1 is the copy of insurance policy.

Ex.B2 is the driving license extract of the driver of the auto.

Ex.X1 is the authorization letter.

Ex.X2 is the driving license extract of the 1st respondent produced by RW.2.

II ADJ/VSP. FAC: IV ADJ/VSP.

MOP 960/2010 12IV ADJ, VSP.

21.06.2013

Orderpronounced(vide separate Order).

In the result, the petition is partly allowed with proportionate costs, granting compensation of

Rs.75,000/- (Seventy Five Thousand only) to the petitioner against the respondents 1 & 2 with subsequent interest thereon at the rate of 7.5% p.a., from the date of the petition till the date of deposit. The respondents 1 & 2 are directed to deposit the said amount within one month from the date of this order.

On such deposit, the petitioner is entitle to withdraw an amount of

Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) and the balance amount of

Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five

Thousand only) shall be deposited in any Nationalized Bank for a period of one year. The rest of the claim of the petitioner is dismissed without costs. Advocate's fee is fixed at

Rs.1,500/-(Rupees Fifteen hundred only).

II ADJ, VSP.

FAC: IV ADJ, VSP.

1

CRL. APL. NO.26/2014

II ADSJ/VSP

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

Present : Sri G.Gopichand, B.Sc.,M.A.,LL.M., II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam.

Thursday, this the 7th day of May, 2015.

CRL. APPEAL NO.26/2014

From which Court the appeal is : IV Metropolitan Magistrate, preferred Bheemunipatnam.

No. of the case in that Court:C.C.508/2013

No. of the Appeal:Crl. Appeal No.26/2014

Name & Description of the : Appellant/Accused no.1 Pampana Kanakaraju, S/o Sanyasi Rao, Hindu, aged 23 years, r/o D.No.14- 10, Dhobi colony, Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam.

Name & Description of the Respondent/Complainant: State rep. by Public Prosecutor, Visakhapatnam.

Sentence and law under which : Under sec. 411 of IPC it was imposed in the lower courtAccused no.1 is found guilty of the offence punishable under section 411 of IPC and sentenced to under go Rigorous Imprisonment for a period one year.

Whether confirmed, modified or reversed. If modified, the modification :Modified. Confirming the conviction of the appellant herein for the offence under section 411 IPC as awarded by the learnedIVMetropolitan

Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam vide

his Judgment, dated 13-03-2014 in C.C.508/2013. But thesentence of one year rigorous imprisonment awarded against the appellant herein in the impugned Judgment is reduced to the period which the appellant already undergone (the appellant was in remand from 12- 11-2013 to 13-03-2014).

2

CRL. APL. NO.26/2014

II ADSJ/VSP Date of presentation : 28-03-2014

Date of filing : 01-04-2014

Notice issued by Court to appear: : 01-04-2014

Bail bonds if he has been let out on bail : On bail

Appellant ordered to appear :21.05.2014

Hearing :04.05.2015

Order :07.05.2015

This appeal is coming on 04.05.2015 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri U.Hemalatha, Advocate for the accused and of Sri Ch. Rambabu, Addl. Public Prosecutor for Respondent-State and after perusing the record this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This appeal is filed by the accused in C.C.No.508/2013 on the file of IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam challenging the

Calender & Judgment, dated 13-03-2014 whereby and where under the appellant herein was convicted of the offence under section 411 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.

2.For the sake of convenience, the appellant herein is referred to as accused/accused no.1 as he is arrayed in C.C. 508/2013.

3.The brief facts which are leading to the filing of the present appeal are as follows: The Inspector of police, PM Palem police station filed charge sheet against A.1 to A.3 for the offences under section 457, 380, 411 IPC relating to cr.nos.421/2013, 450/2013 & 528/2013 of PM

Palem police station.

The case of the prosecution is that on 23-08-2013 at 1500 hours, P.W.1

N.Usha Kumar along with his family members went to Hyderabad by

3

CRL. APL. NO.26/2014

II ADSJ/VSP locking his house and returned on 31-08-2013 at 0700 hours and found the window grills of the puja room were broken and then he searched the said room and found missing of two pairs of ear rings, 7 laxmi devi idols, one pair hangings, 1/2 tola gold, 6 children gold rings, three pairs ear studs, venkateswaraswami idol, puligoru silver items, silver plate big-1, silver plates small - 2, deepam kundhulu - 2, harathi, guttiginni, uddandam, spoon, astalaxmi chembu, ganta, key chain, anklets, flowers - 10, Sony handy camera and cash Rs.10,000/- all worth Rs.35,000/-. Basing on the report given by P.W.1, a case in cr.no.421/2013 was registered by P.W.5

G.D.V.Yadav , SI of police, PM palem police station and he took up investigation and he visited the scene of offence and examined P.W.1 and his wife.

On 31-08-2013 at 0700 hours, P.W.2 K.Koteswara Rao along with his family members went to Hyderabad and on 11-09-2013 at 0730 hours one N.Manga went to his house and found that the window grills were broken and he informed the same to P.W.2. Then P.W.2 came to his house and found missing of gold chain, gold ear studs 2 pairs, Sony car

DVD player set, digital camera, handy camera were committed theft.

Basing on the report given by P.W.2, a case in cr.no.450/2013 was registered at PM palem police station by P.W.5 on 20-10-2013 and P.W.5 took up investigation and visited the scene of offence and recorded the statement of P.W.2 and others.

On 17-10-2013 at 0430 hours, K.Venkata Subba Reddy, resident of Pilakavanipalem along with his family members went to his native place Guragavolu village of Guntur district by locking his house and on 20-10-2013 he returned to his house and found that the door locks were

4

CRL. APL. NO.26/2014

II ADSJ/VSP broken and also found missing of 3 pairs of ear studs, one gold chain, gold bottu, cash Rs.29,000/- all worth Rs.48,000/-. Basing on the report given by P.W.3 G.V.Subba Reddy at PM palem police station, a case in cr.no.528/2013 was registered by P.W.5 on 20-10-2013 and he took up investigation and inspected the scene of offence and examined P.W.3 and others and recorded their statements.

On 11-11-2013 at 1300 hours, on information, P.W.6

K.Venkata Rao, Inspector of Police, PM Palem police station arrested the accused at Kommadi junction, Madhurawada in the presence of P.W.4

N.Krishna and P.Sandheep in cr.no.566/2013 of PM Palem police station and seized LCD TV in the presence of mediators and the accused confessed that they committed the offence in all the crimes. Basing on their confession, P.W.6 seized the stolen property i.e. handy camera, children rings, one pair ear studs, gold laxmi devi rupulu-2, silver goblet, silver kundulu-2, silver plates-2, relating to cr.no.421/2013 and one camera, one pair ear studs, 1/4 tola gold chain relating to cr.no.450/2013 and two pairs ear studs, 1/4 tola gold chain relating to cr.no.528/2013 from A.3 in the presence of the said mediators. After completion of investigation, P.W.6 filed charge sheet.

4.The learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam took cognizance of the offence against all the accused which is punishable under section 457, 380, 411 IPC and he registered the same as

C.C.508/2013.

5.After the appearance of the accused before the learned IV

Metropolitan Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam, they were furnished with the copies of the documents relied by the prosecution in compliance of

5

CRL. APL. NO.26/2014

II ADSJ/VSP section 207 cr.p.c. A charge under section 411 IPC was framed against all the accused and the same was explained to the accused and they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and exhibited Exs.P.1 to P.14 and M.Os.1 to 13.

7.The accused denied the incriminating material available in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6 when they were examined under section 313 cr.p.c. But however, they did not choose to examine any witness on their behalf.

8.The learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam after evaluating the material placed before him, passed the impugned

Judgment, dated 13-03-2014 wherein he held that A.1 to A.3 are found guilty of the offence under section 411 IPC. But however, basing on the report given by District Probation Officer about the antecedents of the accused, the accused no.3 was released on personal bond as per the provisions of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act 1958. So far as A.1 &

A.2 are concerned, they are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. M.Os.1 to 8 are ordered to be returned to P.W.1,

M.Os.9 to 11 are ordered to be returned to P.W.2. Whereas M.Os.12 & 13 are ordered to be returned to P.W.3.

9.Challenging the impugned conviction and sentence awarded against the accused no.1, he preferred the present appeal contending that the learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam did not observe that there is no corroboration between P.Ws.1 to 6 and that the learned

IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam unnecessarily convicted the appellant.

6

CRL. APL. NO.26/2014

II ADSJ/VSP

10.Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor.

11.Now the points for consideration are:

1. Whether the impugned conviction and sentence awarded against

the appellant herein for the offence under section 411 IPC vide

Judgment, dated 13-03-2014 in C.C.508/2013 on the file of IV

Metropolitan Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam is sustainable or not?

2. What is the result of this appeal?

12.POINT NO.1: The prosecution in order to establish the guilt of the appellant herein for the offence under section 411 IPC has to prove that the police seized the stolen property relating to cr.nos.421/2013, 450/2013 & 528/2013 of PM Palem police station from the custody of the appellant herein and he is having knowledge that the said property is a stolen property.

13.The prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 6 in order to substantiate its case. P.W.1 N.Usha Kumar is the informant in cr.no.421/2013 and he deposed about the fact that on 23-08-2013 he went to Hyderabad along with his family and returned to Visakhapatnam on 31- 08-2013 and he found missing of two pairs of gold ear rings, 3 pairs of gold ear studs, gold children rings-2, gold coins of lakshmi idol, half tula gold, silver articles i.e. one big plate, 2 small plates, key chain, panchapatra- udharini, spoon, harathi and venkateswara swamy gold coins, one silver ganta and one silver guthi and cash of Rs.10,000/- and one Sony handy camera and so, he gave Ex.P.1 report to the police and thereafter, he received information from the police about the recovery of some of articles those are M.O.1 Sony handy cam, M.O.2 silver ashtalakshmi

7

CRL. APL. NO.26/2014

II ADSJ/VSP chembu, M.O.3 silver big plate, M.O.4 small silver plate, M.O.5 two silver kundulu, M.O.6 one pair of gold ear studs, M.O.7 two gold coins with goddess lakshmi, M.O.8 small gold ring.

P.W.2 K.Koteswara Rao, who is the informant in cr.no.450/2013 deposed that on 31-08-2013 he went to Hyderabad along with his family and returned on 12-09-2013 and during that time, theft took place in his house and he found missing of gold chain, gold ear studs 2 pairs, handicamera, Sony car DVD player set and digital camera and so, he gave Ex.P.2 report to the police on 12-09-2013. He further deposed that thereafter, he received information about the recovery of M.O.9 digital camera, M.O.10 gold chain, M.O.11 one pair of ear studs.

P.W.3 G.Venkata Subba Reddy, who is the informant in cr.no.528/2013 deposed about the fact that during their absence, they found missing of three pairs of ear studs, one gold chain, one gold bottu and cash of Rs.20,000/- from their house and so, he gave Ex.P.3 report on 20-10-2013 and thereafter, he received information from the police that

M.O.12 gold chain, M.O.13 two pairs of ear studs are recovered by the police.

P.W.4 M.Krishna is acted as a mediator in this case and he categorically deposed that on 11-11-2013 about 12 noon he and Sandeep at the request of PM Palem police, acted as mediators and in their presence, police conducted vehicular checking at Kommadi junction and during that time, A.1 & A.2 were proceeding on a motor bike along with

LCD TV and police intercepted them and on verifying their pockets, police found gold coins and silver coins and also silver sai baba idol and gold articles and on interrogation, they confessed about the commission of

8

CRL. APL. NO.26/2014

II ADSJ/VSP theft of the said articles and so, mediators report was drafted at that place which is Ex.P.4 and A.1 & A.2 stated that remaining property was kept with A.3 and they lead the police and mediators to the house of A.3, situated at Ganesh nagar. In the house of A.3, some stolen articles are recovered under the cover of mediators report which is Ex.P.5. He further deposed that thereafter he proceeded to Manappuram gold finance bank, where certain gold articles were pledged by A.3 and some are recovered in their presence under the mediators report which is

Ex.P.6 and thereafter, they proceeded to IIFL bank, near car shed area and recovered certain pledged gold articles under the cover of mediators report which is Ex.P.7 and again they proceeded to Kurpam Market to the house of U.Chinna, where they recovered a TV under the cover of mediators report which is Ex.P.8. P.W.4 clearly identified the M.Os.1 to 13 as the items recovered from the accused.

P.W.5 G.D.V.Yadav, who registered three different crimes basing on the reports given by P.Ws.1 to 3 deposed about the said fact and he also deposed about the investigation conducted by him. The original FIRs are marked as Exs.P.9, P.11 and P.13 and whereas rough sketches prepared by him are marked as Ex.P.10, P.12 & P.14.

P.W.6 K.Venkata Rao, who worked as Inspector of Police, PM

Palem police station at the relevant time deposed about the fact that on 11-11-2013 in the presence of mediators, he arrested A.1 & A.2 and recovered LCD TV and some gold and silver article and at their instance, they proceeded to the house of A.3 and recovered certain gold and silver articles and again they proceeded to IIFL bank and Manappuram gold finance and recovered certain gold and silver articles pledged by A.3.

9

CRL. APL. NO.26/2014

II ADSJ/VSP

14.P.Ws.1 to 3 who are the informants in three different crimes clearly identified the M.Os.1 to 13 as the property stolen from their houses. P.W.4, who is an independent mediator has clearly deposed about the fact that M.Os.1 to 13 are recovered from A.3 and some persons to whom the said articles are pledged at the instance of A.1 & A.2. The appellant herein has failed to establish his right, if any, in respect of

M.Os.1 to 13. The appellant herein is not claiming M.Os.1 to 13. So, it can be inferred that the appellant herein is having knowledge that M.Os.1 to 13 are stolen property. The recovery of M.Os.1 to 13 from the accused is clearly established by the prosecution by examining P.Ws.4 & 6. So, in the circumstances, I hold that the prosecution has clearly established that the appellant herein is guilty of the offence under section 411 IPC. The learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam has rightly convicted the appellant herein for the offence under section 411 IPC by believing the version of the prosecution about the recovery of M.Os.1 to 13 from the custody of the accused. So, I see no ground warranting interference of this court with the impugned conviction awarded against the appellant herein for the offence under section 411 IPC.

15.The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant is the sole bread winner of his entire family and he is in remand from 12-11-2013 to 13-03-2014. So, the sentence may be reduced to the said period.

16.A perusal of the impugned Judgment makes clear that the learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam has called the report from the concerned District Probation Officer regarding the antecedents of the accused. Infact basing on the report of District

10

CRL. APL. NO.26/2014

II ADSJ/VSP Probation Officer, the learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate,

Bheemunipatnam has released the accused no.3 on execution of personal bond for Rs.10,000/- with a condition that she has to maintain good behaviour for a period of one year. So far as the appellant herein and another accused are concerned, the learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate,

Bheemunipatnam was not inclined to invoke the provisions of Probation of

Offenders Act, even though the District Probation Officer has recommended that it is a fit case to invoke the said Act, on the premise that the appellant herein and another accused are involved in several crimes.

17.The offence under section 411 IPC shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both. As per the report of the District Probation

Officer, the appellant herein deserve to be released on executing a bond in view of his earlier conduct. So, in the circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that as the appellant herein was already in remand for a period of nearly four months, the sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment can be reduced to the period which he already undergone as a remand prisoner.

18.So, considering all the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the impugned conviction awarded against the appellant herein for the offence under section 411 IPC is sustainable. But the sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment as awarded by the learned IV Metropolitan

Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam is liable to be reduced to the period which is

already undergone by the appellant herein. So, this point is answered accordingly.

11

CRL. APL. NO.26/2014

II ADSJ/VSP

19.POINT NO.2: In the result, the appeal is partly allowed confirming the conviction of the appellant herein for the offence under section 411 IPC as awarded by the learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam vide his Judgment, dated 13-03-2014 in C.C.508/2013. But the sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment awarded against the appellant herein in the impugned Judgment is reduced to the period which the appellant already undergone (the appellant was in remand from 12-11-2013 to 13- 03-2014). The order passed by the learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate,

Bheemunipatnam regarding the return of M.Os.1 to 13 is confirmed.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade - II, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 7th day of May, 2015.

Sd/- G.Gopichand

II ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For Appellant For Respondent

No additional oral or documentary evidence was adduced on either side.

Sd/- G.Gopichand

II ADSJ/VSP. Copy to:

1. The learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam.

2. The Accused.

12

CRL. APL. NO.26/2014

II ADSJ/VSP

13

CRL. APL. NO.26/2014

II ADSJ/VSP

1

CRL. APL. NO.29/2014

II ADSJ/VSP

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

Present : Sri G.Gopichand, B.Sc.,M.A.,LL.M., II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam.

Thursday, this the 7th day of May, 2015.

CRL. APPEAL NO.29/2014

From which Court the appeal is : IV Metropolitan Magistrate, preferred Bheemunipatnam.

No. of the case in that Court:C.C.515/2013

No. of the Appeal:Crl. Appeal No.29/2014

Name & Description of the : Appellant/Accused no.1 Pampana Kanakaraju, S/o Sanyasi Rao, Hindu, aged 23 years, r/o D.No.14- 10, Dhobi colony, Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam.

Name & Description of the Respondent/Complainant: State rep. by Public Prosecutor, Visakhapatnam.

Sentence and law under which : Under sec. 411 of IPC it was imposed in the lower courtAccused no.1 is found guilty of the offence punishable under section 411 of IPC and sentenced to under go Rigorous Imprisonment for a period one year.

Whether confirmed, modified or reversed. If modified, the modification :Modified. Confirming the conviction of the appellant herein for the offence under section 411 IPC as awarded by the learnedIVMetropolitan

Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam vide

his Judgment, dated 13-03-2014 in C.C.515/2013. But thesentence of one year rigorous imprisonment awarded against the appellant herein in the impugned Judgment is reduced to the period which the appellant already undergone (the appellant was in remand from 12- 11-2013 to 13-03-2014).

2

CRL. APL. NO.29/2014

II ADSJ/VSP Date of presentation : 28-03-2014

Date of filing : 01-04-2014

Notice issued by Court to appear: : 01-04-2014

Bail bonds if he has been let out on bail : On bail

Appellant ordered to appear :21.05.2014

Hearing :04.05.2015

Order :07.05.2015

This appeal is coming on 04.05.2015 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri U.Hemalatha, Advocate for the accused and of Sri Ch. Rambabu, Addl. Public Prosecutor for Respondent-State and after perusing the record this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This appeal is filed by the accused in C.C.No.515/2013 on the file of IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam challenging the

Calender & Judgment, dated 13-03-2014 whereby and where under the appellant herein was convicted of the offence under section 411 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.

2.For the sake of convenience, the appellant herein is referred to as accused as he is arrayed in C.C. 515/2013.

3.The brief facts which are leading to the filing of the present appeal are as follows: The Inspector of police, PM Palem police station filed charge sheet against A.1 to A.3 for the offences under section 457, 380, 411 IPC relating to cr.nos.411 & 561/2013 of PM Palem police station.

The case of the prosecution is that P.W.1 G.Srinivasa Nagamani is the resident of Nagaramalem road, Madhurawada and on 23-08-2013 at about 1030 hours she went to her office by locking her house and thereafter, she

3

CRL. APL. NO.29/2014

II ADSJ/VSP attended her nephew's marriage at Anakapalli and returned to her home on 26-08-2013 at 0715 hours and found that the grills and locks were broken and the doors were opened and thereafter, she checked her house and found missing of two pairs ear studs, one gold bangle, two gold laxmi devi dasulu, one silver kancham, one kukum barina, two silver kundeelu, one small silver nyvedyam plate, one silver pancha patra, one udhabanthi stand, and one silver ganta and one ONIDA DVD player. So, P.W.1 gave report in PM Palem police station and the same was registered as a case in cr.no.411/2013 on 26-08-2013 by P.W.5 G.D.V.Yadav, SI of police, PM

Palem police station and thereafter, P.W.5 took up investigation and he examined P.W.1 and others and recorded their statements and he inspected the scene of offence.

On 30-10-2013 at 1200 hours, P.W.2 M.Praveen Kumar, resident of Srinivasanagar, Kommadi junction along with family members went to his sister's house at Harbor park, RK beach, Visakhapatnam and returned to his house on 06-11-213 at 1800 hours and found the rear doors of his house were opened through the window and noticed one tula gold chain, 1/4 tola gold ring, 1/4 tula ear studs, one tula silver cup, one tula silver glass, one NOKIA, FLY mobile all worth Rs.22,000/- were committed theft. Basing on the report given by P.W.2, a case in cr.no.561/2013 was registered on 06-11-2013 at PM Palem police station by P.W.5 and thereafter, P.W.5 took up investigation and he visited the scene of offence and recorded the statement of P.W.2.

On 11-11-2013 at 1300 hours, P.W.6 K.Venkata Rao, Inspector of Police, PM Palem police station on information, arrested the accused at

Kommadi junction, Madhurawada in the presence of mediators P.W.4

4

CRL. APL. NO.29/2014

II ADSJ/VSP M.Krishna and E.Sandheep in cr.no.561/2013 of PM Palem police station and seized LCD TV 32 inches in the presence of mediators and also seized some other stolen property from A.3 in the presence of said mediators.

The stolen property which was pledged with Manappuram gold finance by

P.W.3 was recovered in the presence of mediators. After completion of investigation, P.W.6 filed charge sheet.

4.The learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam took cognizance of the offence against all the accused which is punishable under section 457, 380, 411 IPC and he registered the same as

C.C.515/2013.

5.After the appearance of the accused before the learned IV

Metropolitan Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam, they were furnished with the copies of the documents relied by the prosecution in compliance of section 207 cr.p.c. A charge under section 411 IPC was framed against all the accused and the same was explained to the accused and they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and exhibited Exs.P.1 to P.11 and M.Os .1 to 9.

7.The accused denied the incriminating material available in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6 when they were examined under section 313 cr.p.c. But however, they did not choose to examine any witness on their behalf.

8.The learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam after evaluating the material placed before him, passed the impugned

Judgment, dated 13-03-2014 wherein he held that A.1 to A.3 are found guilty of the offence under section 411 IPC. But however, basing on the

5

CRL. APL. NO.29/2014

II ADSJ/VSP report given by District Probation Officer about the antecedents of the accused, the accused no.3 was released on personal bond as per the provisions of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act 1958. So far as A.1 &

A.2 are concerned, they are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. M.Os.1 to 9 are ordered to be returned to P.Ws.1 & 2.

9.Challenging the impugned conviction and sentence awarded against the accused no.1, he preferred the present appeal contending that the learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam did not observe that there is no corroboration between P.Ws.1 to 6 and that the learned

IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam unnecessarily convicted the appellant.

10.Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor.

11.Now the points for consideration are:

1. Whether the impugned conviction and sentence awarded against

the appellant herein for the offence under section 411 IPC vide

Judgment, dated 13-03-2014 in C.C.515/2013 on the file of IV

Metropolitan Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam is sustainable or not?

2. What is the result of this appeal?

12.POINT NO.1: The prosecution in order to establish the guilt of the appellant herein for the offence under section 411 IPC has to prove that the police seized the stolen property relating to cr.nos.411 & 561 /2013 of

PM Palem police station from the custody of the appellant herein and he is having knowledge that the said property is a stolen property.

13.The prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 6 in order to

6

CRL. APL. NO.29/2014

II ADSJ/VSP substantiate its case. P.W.1 G.Sreenivasa Nagamani is the informant in cr.no.411/2013 of PM Palem police station and she deposed about the fact that on 23-08-2013 she went to Anakapalli to attend the marriage of her nephew and returned to her home on 6-08-2013 and found that the doors of her house were opened and she checked the house and noticed that two pairs of gold ear rings, two gold coins with goddess lakshmi, panchapathra-ddharini, silver kumkuma bharine, one gold bangle, one

DVD player, one silver kancham, and other articles were committed theft and so, she gave Ex.P.1 report to the police on 26-08-2013. Thereafter, she received information about the recovery of some of the stolen property by the police those are M.O.1DVD player, M.O.2 kumkum bharine, M.O.3 silver gandhapu ginne,M.O.4 one pair of silver anklet,

M.O.5 two pairs of gold ear studs.

P.W.2 M.Praveen Kumar, who is the informant in cr.no.561/2013 deposed about the fact that in the month of October 2013, he went to his sister's house at RK beach and returned to his house on 06-11-2013 and found missing of one tula gold chain, one gold ear rings set, one finger ring, silver glass, silver bowl and FLY and NOKIA mobiles and so, on 06-11-2013 he gave Ex.P.2 report to the police and thereafter, he received information that some of the stolen property those are M.O.6

NOKIA cell, M.O.7 FLY cell, M.O.8 one pair of ear studs, M.O.9 gold finger ring are recovered by the police.

P.W.3 K.Jagadeeswara Rao, who is working as a Manager in

Manappuram bank, PM Palem deposed that on 11-11-2013 SI of police, constables and accused no.3 came to their branch along with mediators and they requested them to hand over two pairs of ear studs and one gold

7

CRL. APL. NO.29/2014

II ADSJ/VSP ring which were pledged in their branch by A.3 and police seized the said articles.

P.W.4 M.Krishna, who acted as a mediator in this case deposed about the fact that on 11-11-2013 at 12 noon he and Sandheep were acted as mediators at request of the PM Palem police and the police conducted vehicular checking in their presence at Kommadi junction and while conducting said vehicular checking, A.1 & A.2 were coming on a motor bike along with LCD TV and police interrogated them and recovered the said TV and some other stolen property from them under the cover of mediators report which is Ex.P.3 and thereafter, A.1 & A.2 stated that the remaining property is kept with A.3 and they lead them to the house of

A.3, situated in Ganesh nagar where police recovered certain gold and silver article and digital camera and LCD TV and that A.3 revealed that some other gold articles were pledged with Manappuram gold finance bank, PM Palem and at the house of the A.3, mediators report was drafted which is Ex.P.4 and another mediators report was drafted at the time of seizure of certain gold article at Manappuram gold finance which is Ex.P.5 and at IIFL bank, Car Shed area, another mediators report was drafted which is Ex.P.6 and in the house of U.Chinna, where TV was recovered, another mediators report was prepared which is Ex.P.7.

P.W.5 G.D.V.Yadav, who registered the crimes basing on

Exs.P.1, P.2 reports given by P.Ws.1 & 2 deposed about the said fact and also about the investigation conducted by him. The original FIRs are marked as Exs.P.8 & P.10 and the rough sketches prepared by him are marked as Exs.P.9 & P.11.

P.W.6 K.Venkata Rao, the then Inspector of Police, PM

8

CRL. APL. NO.29/2014

II ADSJ/VSP Palem police station deposed about the fact that on 11-11-2013 in the presence of P.W.4 and another mediator while conducting vehicular checking, he arrested A.1 & A.2 and recovered LCD TV and some gold and silver articles and at their instance, they proceeded to the house of A.3 and recovered certain gold and silver articles and thereafter, they proceeded to Manappuram gold finance bank, PM Palem and also IIFL bank at Car Shed junction and recovered certain gold and silver articles which are pledged by A.3.

14.P.W.1 is the informant in cr.no.411/2013 and he is the owner of M.Os.1 to 5. Whereas P.W.2 is the informant in cr.no.561/2013 and he is the owner of M.Os.6 to 9. The fact that P.Ws.1 & 2 are the owners of

M.Os.1 to 9 is not in dispute. The evidence of P.W.3 is clear and consistent to the effect that P.W.3 pledged certain gold stolen property in his bank for availing loan. P.W.4 is an independent mediator and he categorically deposed about the fact that on 11-11-2013 certain stolen property was recovered from A.1 & A.2 and at their instance, they proceeded to the house of A.3 and recovered certain stolen property and some other stolen property was also recovered at Manappuram gold finance bank where the said items were pledged by A.3. So, the recovery of M.Os.1 to 9 from the custody of the appellant is clearly established by the prosecution. Whereas the accused have failed to establish as to how they got custody of M.Os.1 to 9. So, it can be inferred that the accused are having knowledge that M.O.s 1 to 9 are the stolen property. So, in the circumstances, I hold that the prosecution has clearly established that the appellant herein is guilty of the offence under section 411 IPC. The learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam has rightly

9

CRL. APL. NO.29/2014

II ADSJ/VSP convicted the appellant herein for the offence under section 411 IPC by believing the version of the prosecution about the recovery of M.Os.1 to 9 from the custody of the accused. So, I see no ground warranting interference of this court with the impugned conviction awarded against the appellant herein for the offence under section 411 IPC.

15.The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant is the sole bread winner of his entire family and he is in remand from 12-11-2013 to 13-03-2014. So, the sentence may be reduced to the said period.

16.A perusal of the impugned Judgment makes clear that the learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam has called the report from the concerned District Probation Officer regarding the antecedents of the accused. Infact basing on the report of District

Probation Officer, the learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate,

Bheemunipatnam has released the accused no.3 on execution of personal bond for Rs.10,000/- with a condition that she has to maintain good behaviour for a period of one year. So far as the appellant herein and another accused are concerned, the learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate,

Bheemunipatnam was not inclined to invoke the provisions of Probation of

Offenders Act, even though the District Probation Officer has recommended that it is a fit case to invoke the said Act, on the premise that the appellant herein and another accused are involved in several crimes.

17.The offence under section 411 IPC shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both. As per the report of the District Probation

10

CRL. APL. NO.29/2014

II ADSJ/VSP Officer, the appellant herein deserve to be released on executing a bond in view of his earlier conduct. So, in the circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that as the appellant herein was already in remand for a period of nearly four months, the sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment can be reduced to the period which he already undergone as a remand prisoner.

18.So, considering all the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the impugned conviction awarded against the appellant herein for the offence under section 411 IPC is sustainable. But the sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment as awarded by the learned IV Metropolitan

Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam is liable to be reduced to the period which is

already undergone by the appellant herein. So, this point is answered accordingly.

19.POINT NO.2: In the result, the appeal is partly allowed confirming the conviction of the appellant herein for the offence under section 411 IPC as awarded by the learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam vide his Judgment, dated 13-03-2014 in C.C.515/2013. But the sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment awarded against the appellant herein in the impugned Judgment is reduced to the period which the appellant already undergone (the appellant was in remand from 12-11-2013 to 13- 03-2014). The order passed by the learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate,

Bheemunipatnam regarding the return of M.Os.1 to 9 is confirmed.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade - II, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 7th day of May, 2015.

Sd/- G.Gopichand

II ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

11

CRL. APL. NO.29/2014

II ADSJ/VSP

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For Appellant For Respondent

No additional oral or documentary evidence was adduced on either side.

Sd/- G.Gopichand

II ADSJ/VSP. Copy to:

1. The learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam.

2. The Accused.

12

CRL. APL. NO.29/2014

II ADSJ/VSP

1

SC 94/2014

I AMSJ/VSP

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: Sri G.Gopichand, B.Sc., M.A.LL.M., I Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam. Friday, this the 8th day of May, 2015

S.C.94/2014

(P.R.C.No.7/2014 on the file of I Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam in Cr.No.1/2014 of New Port Police station,Visakhapatnam.)

NAME OF THE COMPLAINANTState represented by the Inspector of Police, New Port police station.

NAME OF THE ACCUSED1. Tippala Reddy, S/o late Gurundha Rao, 22 yers, Reddy, R/o D.No.21-63-8,Siddeswaram, PedagantyadaMandal, Visakhapatnam.

2. Vangalapudi China Srinivasa Rao, S/o late Prasad, 22 years, SC Madiga,R/oD.No.20-9-19, Nellimukku, Pedagantyada Mandal, Visakhapatnam.

Date of Complaint/Report:01-01-2014

Date of apprehension04-01-2014

Date of commitment26-06-2014

Date of Commencement of Trial04.05.2015

Date of closing of Trial 06.05.2015

Date of Judgment08/05/2015

Whether the accused is/are in bail On bail. or in Jail

Explanation for delay in committal Vide Docket Extract Court

Explanation for delay in trial Court:

This case is filed by the Inspector of Police, New Port police station, Visakhapatnam, against the accused nos.1 & 2 for the offences under section 509, 506, 341, 323 r/w 34 IPC and Section 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and it was taken on file as P.R.C.No.7/2014 on the file of I Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, for the offence under section 509, 506, 341, 323 r/w 34 IPC and Section 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,

2

SC 94/2014

I AMSJ/VSP 2012 and committed the same to the Metropolitan Sessions Judge's Court, Visakhapatnam. After receiving the record, the case is numbered as S.C.94/2014 and made over to this court for disposal according to law. Accused engaged Sri Ch.Venkatesh to defend their case. Case is posted from time to time and on 09.04.2015 charges under sec. 509, 506, 323 IPC are framed against the accused no.2 and charges under section 509, 506, 323 IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act are framed against the accused no.1, read over and explainedto them in vernacular language and they pleaded not guilty to the said charges and claimed to be tried and schedule is fixed for trial. Case is posted from time to time. On 04.05.2015 prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.4. And on 05-05-2015 prosecution examined P.Ws.4 to 6 and got marked Ex.P.5 to P.8 and on 06-05-2015 P.Ws.7 & 8 are examined and the prosecution side evidence is closed. After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused were examined under sec.313 Cr.P.C. on 07.05.2015 with regard to the incriminating evidence adduced against them by the prosecution witnesses and they denied the truth in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and reported that they have no defence witnesses to be examined on their behalf and on the same day i.e. on 07-05-2015 heard arguments and posted for judgment to 08.05.2015. Judgment pronounced (Vide separate Judgment). In the result, the accused are found not guilty of the offences under section 323, 506 & 509 IPC. Accordingly, the accused are acquitted under section 235 (1) Cr.p.c. of the offences under section 323, 506 & 509 IPC. The accused no.1 is found not guilty of the offence under section 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and accordingly, he is acquitted of the offence under section 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after the expiry of appeal time.

I ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

3

SC 94/2014

I AMSJ/VSP

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS

JUDGE VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: Sri G.Gopichand, B.Sc., M.A.LL.M.,

I Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge,

Visakhapatnam.

Friday, this the 8th day of May, 2015

S.C.94/2014

(P.R.C.No.7/2014 on the file of I Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam in Cr.No.1/2014 of New Port Police station,Visakhapatnam.) NAME OF THE COMPLAINANTState represented by the Inspector of Police, New Port police station, Visakhapatnam.

NAME OF THE ACCUSED1. Tippala Reddy, S/o late Gurundha Rao, 22 yers, Reddy, R/o D.No.21-63- 8,Siddeswaram,Pedagantyada Mandal, Visakhapatnam.

2. Vangalapudi China Srinivasa Rao, S/o late Prasad, 22 years, SC Madiga, R/oD.No.20-9-19,Nellimukku, PedagantyadaMandal, Visakhapatnam.

Date, time and place of On01-01-2014at Occurrence Durgavanipalem,Pedagantyada, Visakhapatnam.

Charge323, 506 & 509 IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act.

Plea of the AccusedAccused pleaded not guilty

Finding of the CourtAccused found not guilty

Sentence or OrderIn the result, the accused are found not guilty of the offences under section 323, 506 & 509 IPC. Accordingly, the accused are acquitted under section 235 (1) Cr.p.c. of the offences under section 323, 506 & 509 IPC. The accused no.1 is found not guilty of the offence under section 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and accordingly, he is acquitted of the offence under section 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after the expiry of appeal time.

4

SC 94/2014

I AMSJ/VSP Prosecution conducted bySri Ch.Rambabu, Addl. Public Prosecutor, VSP.

Accused are defended bySri Ch.Venkatesh, Advocate for the accused.

This Sessions case is coming on 07.05.2015 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Ch.Rambabu, Addl. Public Prosecutor for State-Complainant and Sri Ch.Venkatesh, Advocate for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:--

J U D G M E N T

1.The Inspector of Police, New Port police station,

Visakhapatnam filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences under section 509, 506, 341, 323 r/w 34 IPC and Section 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act relating to cr.no.1/2014 of New Port police station, Visakhapatnam.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is that P.W.1 is the victim girl, P.W.2 J.Satyavathi, P.W.3 J.Chanti are the parents of the P.W.1 and they are residents of Durgavanipalem,

Pedagantyada. P.W.1 is aged about 17 years and she is studying 2nd year intermediate at Chaitanya Mahila College, Gajuwaka and

A.1 used to follow P.W.1 daily while she was going to college and while she was returning back to home and used to demand her to love him and he also threatened her that he would kill her parents and coming to know about the same, P.Ws.2 & 3 admonished and warned A.1. But he did not change his attitude and continued the same tendency. So, P.W.1 stopped attending college and on 31- 12-2013 at about 2330 hours, while P.Ws.1 & 2 are decorating in front of their house, both the accused came there and A.1 expressed his love towards P.W.1 and informed P.W.2 if she does

5

SC 94/2014

I AMSJ/VSP not like him, he would elope with P.W.1. On that P.W.2 challenged him and so, A.1 & A.2 attacked P.W.2 and in the meanwhile P.W.3 came out and A.1 & A.2 attacked him and A.2 twisted the hands of

P.W.3 and abused P.W.2 in filthy language. Basing on the report given by the victim girl in New Port police station, a case in cr.no.

1/2014 under section 509, 506, 341, 323 r/w 34 IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act was registered by P.W.7G.S.Prakasa Rao, ASI of police, New Port police station and he took up investigation and he visited the scene of offence and he examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and recorded their statements. P.W.7 arrested the accused on 04-01- 2014 at 0700 hours and produced him in the court for remand. On completion of investigation, P.W.6 G.Srinivasu, Inspector of Police,

New Port police station filed charge sheet.

3.The learned I Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

Visakhapatnam took cognizance of the offence against both the accused which is punishable under section 509, 506, 341, 232 r/w 34 IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act vide PRC No.7/2014.

4.After the appearance of the accused before the learned

I Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, the copies of the documents were furnished to the accused in compliance of section 207 cr.p.c.

5.As the case is exclusively triable by Court of Sessions, the learned I Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam has committed the case to Metropolitan Sessions Judge's Court,

Visakhapatnam vide his committal order, dated 26-06-2014.

6.After receipt of the record by the learned Metropolitan

Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, he registered the same as SC

6

SC 94/2014

I AMSJ/VSP No.94/2014 and made over the same to this court for disposal according to law.

7.After appearance of the accused before this court and after considering the material available on record, charges under section 509, 506 & 323 are framed against both the accused and a charge under section 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act was framed against the accused no.1 and the same are read over and explained to them in telugu and the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8.In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and exhibited Exs.P.1 to P.8.

9.After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under section 313 cr.p.c. and they denied the incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. But they did not choose to examine any witness on their behalf.

10.Heard arguments of the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the accused.

11.Now the points for consideration are:

1. Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of

the accused for the offences under section 509, 506,

323 IPC and also Section 12 of Protection of Children

from Sexual Offences Act beyond reasonable doubt?

2. What is the result of this case?

12.POINT NO.1: The prosecution in order to establish the guilt of the accused for the offences with which they are charged has to prove that the accused no.1 used to harass the victim girl by

7

SC 94/2014

I AMSJ/VSP demanding her to love him and that on 31-12-2013, both the accused went to the house of P.Ws.1 & 2 and they threatened

P.Ws.1 & 2 with dire consequences and they insulted them and they also beat P.Ws.2 & 3.

The prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 8 in order to substantiate its case. P.W.1 is the victim girl and she deposed that her marriage was performed on 04-03-2015 and she is residing with her husband and prior to her marriage, she used to reside at her parents house at Pedagantyada. She further deposed that she know the accused and they never harassed or ill treated or threatened her and she is having no disputes with the accused and at the instance of the police, she gave report to the police which is

Ex.P.1. But she does not know the contents of Ex.P.1 and the accused never beat her parents and no incident took place on 31- 12-2013.

P.W.2 J.Satyavathi and P.W.3 J.Chanti, who are the parents of P.W.1 categorically deposed that they do not know the accused and accused never harassed or ill treated or threatened them and they are having no disputes with the accused and only at the instance of police, P.W.1 gave report and the accused never beat them and no incident took place at their house on 31-12- 2013.

13.As the P.Ws.1 to 3, who are the crucial witnesses did not support the version of the prosecution, they are declared as hostile witnesses by the prosecution and the learned Addl. Public

Prosecutor cross examined them and in their cross examination,

8

SC 94/2014

I AMSJ/VSP they denied the suggestion that they stated before the police as per Exs.P.2 to P.4 respectively.

P.W.4 D.Laxmi and P.W.5 A.Kamakshi, who are the neighbours of P.Ws.1 to 3 categorically deposed that they do not know the accused and they do not know anything about this case.

So, they are also declared as hostile witnesses and in the cross examination conducted by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, they denied the suggestion that they stated before the police as per Exs.P.5 & P.6 respectively.

P.W.6 G.Sreenivas, who is working as Inspector of

Police, New Port police station and who filed charge sheet in this case deposed about the said fact.

P.W.7 G.S.Prakash Rao, who worked as ASI of police at the relevant time deposed about the fact that basing on the report given by P.W.1, he registered a case in cr.no.1/2014 and thereafter, he inspected the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence and he examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and recorded their statements and they stated before him as per

Exs.P.2 to P.6 respectively. The original FIR is marked as Ex.P.7 and the rough sketch prepared by him is marked as Ex.P.8.

P.W.8 M.Appa Rao, the then Inspector of Police, New

Port police station deposed about the fact that on 09-01-2014, he filed a memo before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

Visakhapatnam for recording 164 cr.p.c. statement of P.W.1 and in view of his transfer, his successor filed charge sheet.

14.The evidence of P.W.7 who conducted investigation and the evidence of P.W.8 who took steps for recording statement

9

SC 94/2014

I AMSJ/VSP of P.W.1 under section 164 cr.p.c. and the evidence of P.W.6, who filed charge sheet is only formal and basing on their evidence, the guilt or otherwise of the accused cannot be determined. P.Ws.1 to 3 are the crucial witnesses. But for the reasons best known to them they did not support the version of the prosecution. Even

P.W.1 has gone to the extent of stating that only at the instance of police, she gave Ex.P.1 report and she does not know the contents of Ex.P.1 report. Even the parents of P.W.1 also did not support the case of the prosecution. P.Ws.1 to 3 totally denied the alleged incident took place on 31-12-2013 at their house. So, there is no material placed by the prosecution for establishing that A.1 has sexually harassed the victim girl and on 31-12-2013, both the accused went to the house of the victim girl and they threatened the victim girl and her parents and they also insulted them and they caused injuries to the parents of the victim girl.

15.So, considering all the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the guilt of both the accused for the offences under section 506, 509, 323 IPC. So, I hold that both the accused are not guilty of the offences under section 506, 509, 323 IPC. The prosecution also failed to establish the guilt of the accused no1. under section 12 of

POCSO Act. So, I hold that A.1 is not guilty of the offence under section 12 of POCSO Act and so, the accused are entitle to be acquitted of the offences with which they are charged. So, this point is answered against the prosecution.

16.POINT NO.2: In the result, both the accused are found not guilty of the offences under section 506, 509, 323 IPC and they

10

SC 94/2014

I AMSJ/VSP are acquitted under section 235 (1) cr.p.c. for the offences under section 506, 509, 323 IPC. The accused no.1 is found not guilty of the offence under section 12 of Protection of Children from

Sexual Offences Act and accordingly, he is acquitted under section 235 (1) cr.p.c. of the offence under section 12 of Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after the expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in open court on this the 8th day of May, 2015.

I ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined on behalf of Prosecution Defence P.W.1 : Victim girl- NIL - P.W.2 : J.Satyavathi P.W.3 : J.Chanti P.W.4 : D.Lakshmi P.W.5 : A.Kamakshi P.W.6 : G.Srinivasu P.W.7 : G.S.Prakasha Rao P.W.8 : M.Appa Rao

Documentary Evidence

For Prosecution Ex.P.1: Report given by P.W.1 Ex.P.2:161 cr.p.c. statement of P.W.1 Ex.P.3: 161 cr.p.c. statement of P.W.2 Ex.P.4: 161 cr.p.c. statement of P.W.3 Ex.P.5: 161 cr.p.c. statement of P.W.4 Ex.P.6:161 cr.p.c. statement of P.W.5 Ex.P.7:Original FIR Ex.P.8:Rough sketch of scene of offence

For Defence: - Nil -

Material Objects marked

- NIL -

I AMSJ/VSP. Copy to: The Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam.

11

SC 94/2014

I AMSJ/VSP