Smt.G.Kavitha Devi,L.L.B

1

IN THE COURT OF II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD AT LB. NAGAR

Present: Smt. G.Kavitha Devi

II Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad At L. B. Nagar

Dated this the 05th day of November, 2020

C.C.No.6199 of 2018

[Cr.No. 16 of 2018 of P.S.Meerpet]

Between:

The State, Through Sub-Inspector of Police

P.S. Meerpet …...Complainant

And

A1.Paramour Rama Badhiya, S/o. Badhiya, aged about 47 years, Occ: Agriculture, Caste: Parmar Religion : Indian, Hindu, R/o. Sahada village, Garbada Mandal Dahod District, Gujarath State .

A2.Kishan Badhiya @ Kishan , S/o. Badhiya, aged about 35 years, Occ: Agriculture, Caste: Parmar Religion : Indian, Hindu, R/o. Sahada village, Garbada Mandal Dahod District, Gujarath State .

A3.Ravpko Badhiya, S/o. Badhiya, aged about 25years, Occ: Agriculture, Caste: Parmar Religion : Indian, Hindu, R/o. Sahada village, Garbada Mandal Dahod District, Gujarath State .

A4.Khaju Mavoji Bhamaniya, S/o. Mavoji, aged about 32 years, Occ: Farmer, Caste: Parmar Religion : Indian, Hindu, R/o. Sahada village, Garbada Mandal Dahod District, Gujarath State .

A5.Ganava Bharatha Singh, S/o. Jai Singh, aged about 45 years, Occ: Agriculture, Caste: Gadava Religion : Indian, Hindu, R/o. Sahada village, Garbada Mandal Dahod District, Gujarath State .(Died, abated)

...Accused Nos. 1 to 5

2

This case came before me for fnal hearing and disposal in the presence of Learned A.P.P.O for the state and Sri. K.Meenakshi, Advocate for the Accused, upon hearing on both sides, 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, Meerpet, Police Station laid charge sheet in Cr.No. 16 of 2018 against the accused Nos. 1 to 5 for the ofences punishable under sections 457, 380 of IPC.

02. The brief averments of the charge sheet are as follows: - On 11-01-2018 at 09.30 hours Lw15/ M.Madhusudhan, Detective Inspector of Police received a complaint from the Complainant / Smt.B.Maheswari in which he stated that on 10-01-2018 at about 1000 hours she locked her house and went to New life

Line Hospital at ECIL for visiting her husband who admitted in that hospital and on 11-01-2018 at about 0800 hours she returned to home and noticed that the lock of the door was broken by some unknown ofender and entered into the house and open the almarah and committed theft of gold and silver ornaments and net cash of Rs. 40,000/- . Total worth of Rs. 2,70,000/- in the absence of inmates. Hence, the complainant requested to take necessary legal action against the Accused.

03.Basing on the above said complaint, LW15/ M.Madhusudhan, Detective

Inspector of police registered a case in Cr.No. 16 of 2018 for the ofence pun- ishable under sections 457, 380 of IPC and took up the fle for further investi- gation. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of Lw1/ B.Maheswari and LW2/ B.Ganesh Kumar. Later he along with Lws 1 and 2 visited the scene of ofence and caused enquires, examined

LW3/ B.Vijay Kumar and also he secured the presence two panchas I.e Lw4/

Dhatchina Kamal and LW5/ Busaramoni Jangaiah, conducted scene of ofence panchanama and also drawn rough sketch of the scene of ofence.

Later LW12/ B.Anil, Sub-Inspector of Police, visited the scene of ofence and 3 collected the chance prints from scene . Later LW15 had collected the fnger prints of the inmates viz., Lws 1 and 2 and submitted the same to LW12 for comparison. On 16-01-2018 LW15 received fnger Print Expert report from

LW12. On 01-08-2018 the Accused Nos. 2, 3 and 5 were arrested in Cr.No.

492/2017 under section 457 and 380 of IPC of P.S. Meerpet. During the course of interrogation, the Accused persons confessed to have committed the present ofence with the assistance of Accused Nos. 1 and 4 and other

Accused. In pursuance of confessional statement of accused No.5, seized sil- ver chembu, suilver Deepam Kundulu and Pooja articles from the possession of Accused No.5 in the presence of two panchas I.e LW6/ Vinjamuri Eshwar and LW7/ Bangaru Srikanth under cover of confessional cum seizure panchanama. After completion of all legal formalities, LW15 produced the ac- cused before the court in main case vide Crime No. 492 of 2017. Lw15 fled requisition before the court with a prayer to regularize the arrest of the ac- cused Nos. 2, 3 and 5 in this case. As per the instructions of superior ofcers, the LW15 along with his team proceeded to Gujarat State for apprehended the absconding Accused and arrested the Accused Nos. 1 and 4 in Cr.No. 492 of 2017 under section 457 and 380 of IPC. During the course of interrogation, the Accused Nos.1 and 4 committed to have this ofence in Crime No. 16 of 2018 under section 457 and 380 of IPC. In pursuance of the confessional statement of the Accused No.1, seized one Muthyala Haram wga bout 20 grams, 3 pairs ear tops wg about 20 grams, 10 fnger rings wg about 30 grams pertaining to this case from the possession of the Accused No.1 in the pres- ence of two mediators I.e LW8/ Pratap Singh Rama Bhai and LW9/ Ram Singh

Naval Singh. After completion of all legal formalities he produced the arrested accused before the court, Garbada District along with a requisition with a prayer to issue Transit Warrant and the court against the accused Nos.1 4 and 4 with directions to produce the accused before this court. LW15 pro- duced the Accused Nos.1 and 4 before this court in crime No. 492 of 2017 un- der section 457 and 380 ofIPC of P.S.Meerpet.

LW15 fled requisition before this court with a prayer to regularize the arrest of Accused Nos.1 and 4 regularize the arrest of the accused Nos. 1 and 4 and this court regularized the arrest of the accused.

On transfer of LW15, LW16/ K.Satyanarayana, Inspector of police took up the CD fle for further investigation into this case and verifed the CD fle which is in proper line.

04. Cognizance was taken for the ofence punishable under sections 457 and 380 of IPC.

05. On appearance of accused, copies were furnished and they were examined Under Section 239 of Cr.P.C . On consideration, the charges have been framed under sections 457 and 380 of IPC read over and explained to them in Telugu to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

06. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined Pws 1 to 9 and got marked Exs. P1 to P9.

07. Accused were examined U/sec. 313 Cr.P.C. and incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against them, explained to accused to enable them to give any explanation or answers for such adverse circumstances in the evidence. The accused denied the same and stated that they have no defence evidence.

08. Heard the arguments on both sides.

The learned APPO argued that based on the case of the prosecution and the evidence of prosecution witnesses, coupled with documents exhibited through witnesses the accused have committed the ofence U/sec.

5 457, 380 of IPC as such the accused is liable for punishment for the said ofences .

The learned counsel for the accused argued that the accused are falsely implicated in the above case and they are innocent. It is further submitted that prosecution utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and as such the accused are entitle for acquittal.

09.Now the point for consideration is :

“Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the

offence punishable under Sections 457, 380 of IPC beyond all reasonable

doubt”?.

P O I N T:

10.As stated supra the defence not chosen to adduce any evidence, thus the evidence of prosecution alone is on record. In order to support its case, the prosecution has examined Nine witnesses and Nine documents got marked as Exhibits P1 to P9. The defence of the accused is one of the denial.

Hence, the evidence of Pws 1 to 9 stands for scrutiny.

11.It is a case fled by the prosecution against the Accused Nos. 1 to 5 for the ofence under sections under sections 457, 380 of IPC. Hence, let us analyze whether the prosecution satisfed the ingredients of section alleged against the accused or not with the above said sections.

Before going to discussion with regard to evidence, this court

would like to mention the ingredients of Sections under sections 457, 380

of IPC to establish the case of the prosecution as per the ingredients of

above mentioned sections are extracted here under:-

Section 457 of IPC speaks that :- Whoever commits lurking house- trespass by night, or house-breaking by night, in order to the committing of any ofence punishable with imprisonment, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to fve 6 years, and shall also be liable to fnee and, if the ofence intended to be committed is theft, the term of the imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years.

Section 380 of IPC speaks that :- Whoever commits theft in any building, tent or vessel, which building, tent or vessel is used as a human dwelling, or used for the custody of property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fne.

12.The prosecution case is that that on 11-01-2018 at about 0800 hours in the absence of inmates, the Accused entered into the house of the complainant by broke opened the main door, open the almarah and committed theft of gold and silver ornaments and net cash of Rs. 40,000/- .

Total worth of Rs. 2,70,000/- in the absence of inmates.

13. As seen from the record, the investigation agency has cited as many as (16) witnesses in the charge sheet. However, out of those witnesses, nine witnesses were produced before this court by the prosecution. Pw1 is the

Defacto complainant, PW2 is the son of PW1, Pw3 is panch witness to the alleged scene of ofence panchanama and PW4 is panch witness for confession cum seizure panchanama of Accused Nos. 2, 3 and 5 and PW5 is panch witness for confession cum seizure panchanama of Accused No.1.

PW6 is panch witness for confession cum seizure panchanama of Accused No.

4 and Pws 7 to 9 are the investigation ofcers.

14.Evidence available on record: As per the version of PW1/

B.Maheshwari, who is the Defacto complainant, deposed in her evidence that on 10-01-2018 at about 1000 hours she locked her house and went to

New life Line Hospital at ECIL for visiting her husband who admitted in that hospital and on 11-01-2018 at about 0800 hours she returned to home and 7 noticed that the lock of the door was broken by some unknown ofender and entered into the house and open the almarah and committed theft of gold and silver ornaments and net cash of Rs. 40,000/- . Total worth of Rs.

2,70,000/- in the absence of inmates. Immediately she went to the police station and reported the matter with the police under Ex.P1. After some period from the date of Ex.P1, the police informed her that her gold and silver ornaments were recovered.

PW2/B.Ganesh Kumar who is the son of PW1, deposed in his evidence that on 10-01-2018 at about 1000 hours his mother locked their house and went to New life Line Hospital at ECIL for visiting his father who admitted in that hospital and on 11-01-2018 at about 0800 hours PW1 returned to home and noticed that the lock of the door was broken by some unknown ofender and entered into the house and open the almarah and committed theft of gold and silver ornaments and net cash of Rs. 40,000/- . Total worth of Rs.

2,70,000/- in the absence of inmates.

PW3/D.Kamal who is the panch witness to the alleged scene of ofence panchanama, deposed in his evidence that on 11-01-2018 the police,

Meerpet called him and LW5 to the house of PW1 esituated at CMR colony,

Almasguda and conducted conducted scene of ofence panchanama in their presence. They observed that scene and noticed that the almarah lock was opened and the things, clothes were scattered on the foor. Police recorded scene of ofence panchanama in their presence and read over the contents of the panchanama to them . After knowing the contents , they signed on the panchanama under Ex.P2.

PW4/ V.Eshwar who is the panch witness to the concession cum seizure panchanama of Accused Nos. 2 , 3 and 5, deposed in his evidence that on 01- 08-2018 their MRO telephoned him and instructed that to go over to police 8 station Meerpet. Upon which he along with LW6/ B.Srikanth porceeded to police station, where they found three accused. On their enquiry, accused were confessed about the commission of ofences. They voluntarily confessed about the commission of ofences committed by them in diferent areas in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh states total comes to (28) ofences In pursuance of their confession, the police recovered one iron rod, gold black beads chain, gold chain, ear tops, silver anklets, silver plates (2), bowls (4) , silver lakshmi Idol etc. Police recorded confession statements of the individual accused in separate sheets. All the accused confessed about the commission of ofence in Hindi language and panchanama recorded in Telugu language. They both well aware about the Hindi and Telugu languages. Police read over the panchanama to them and they understood the contents of the panchanama and signed on the panchanama under Exs. 3 to 5.

During the course of cross examination, he deposed that he is very fuent in Hindi language and he can understand Hindi. Further the learned counsel for the accused gave few suggestions to the witness, but PW3 denied those suggestions.

PW5/ Pratap Singh Rama Bhai who is the panch witness to the concession cum seizure panchanama of Accused No.1 deposed in his evidence that on 10-08-2018 at 0615 hours the police called him and

LW8/Ram Singh Naval Singh and requested them to act as panch witnesses to the confession cum seizure panchanama. Upon which he along with LW8 proceeded to the police station, where they found accused No.1 in the custody of police. On their enquiry accused No.1 was confessed about the commission of ofences. He voluntarily confessed about the commission of ofences committed by the accused in diferent areas situated in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh states total comes to (28) ofences. In pursuance of his 9 confession , police recovered long chain wg about 40 grams, black beads chain wg about 25 grams, one chain wg about 10 grams , one ring wg about 3 grams, ear rings wg about 4 grams. Police recorded confession statements of the Accused No.1 in separate sheets. The Accused No.1 confessed about the commission of ofence in Hindi language and panchanama recorded in

English language. They both well aware about the Hindi language. Police read over the panchanama to them and they understood the contents of the panchanama and singed on the panchanama under Ex.P6.

During the course of cross examination, he deposed that he is very fuent in Hindi language and he can understand Hindi. Further the learned counsel for the accused gave few suggestions to the witness, but PW6 denied those suggestions.

PW6/ Yashwanth Singh Sursingh Rathod who is the panch witness to the concession cum seizure panchanama of Accused No.4 deposed in his evidence that on 10-08-2018 at 0615 hours the police called him and

LW8/Ram Singh Naval Singh and requested them to act as panch witnesses to the confession cum seizure panchanama. Upon which he along with LW8 proceeded to the police station, where they found accused No.4 in the custody of police. On their enquiry accused No.4 was confessed about the commission of ofences. He voluntarily confessed about the commission of ofences committed by the accused in diferent areas situated in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh states total comes to (28) ofences. Police recorded confession statements of the Accused No.1 in separate sheets. The Accused

No.4 confession about the commission of ofence in Hindi language and panchanama recorded in English language. They both well aware about the

Hindi language. Police read over the panchanama to them and they understood the contents of the panchanama and singed on the panchanama 10 under Ex.P7.

During the course of cross examination, he deposed that he is very fuent in Hindi language and he can understand Hindi. Further the learned counsel for the accused gave few suggestions to the witness, but PW6 denied those suggestions.

Pw7/ M.Madhusudhan, Sub-Inspector of police who is the investigation ofcer, deposed in his examination about the chronological events of the investigation done by him.

During the course of cross examination of Pw7, learned counsel for the accused gave few suggestions to the witness with regard to his due course of investigation, but Pw7 denied those suggestions.

PW8/ B.Anil, Sub-Inspector of police, fnger Print unit, deposed in his evidence that on 11-01-2018 he received call from PW7 , on which he along with his team visited the scene of ofene and observed the articles at the scene and developed two chance prints on almarah marked as A and B. On comparison chance print B is unft for comparison. Chance print A is submitted to Telangana State fnger print data base for verifcation. On verifcation chance print A is identifed with right index fnger impression of accused No.4.

PW9/ K.Satyanarayana, Sub-Inspector of police who fled charge sheet agiasnt the accused deposed in his evidence that on 28-09-2018 he received

CD fle from Pw7 for further investigation. During the course of his investigation, he collected the certifed copies in Cr.No. 624 of 2014 of P.S.

Medipally for matching fnger prints of the Accused and verifed investigation done by PW7 as on proper lines and after completion of investigation he fled charge sheet against the Accused.

11

15. This is the evidence placed by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Let us see how far the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused and how far the prosecution succeeded to establish the guilt of the accused for the above said sections.

16.However, as seen from the material available on record, in order to establish that defacto complainant is the owner of the property, who has reiterated the averments stated in the complaint under Ex.P1 and she also deposed about the commission of theft. Pw1 clearly stated about the commission of ofence and stolen of property by unknown ofender and after some period she got information from the police that her property was recovered. Pw2 who is the son of Pw1 also stated the same line that of Pw1 as such his evidence corroborated with the evidence of Pw1. PW3 is one of the panch witnesses for the scene of ofence panchanama under Ex.P2 and PW3 has supported the version of prosecution he deposed in his evidence that the police conducted scene of ofence panchanama and after read over the contents of the panchanama, police obtained his signatures on the panchanama. Hence the scene of ofence panchanama under Ex.P2 is proved.

17.Pws 4 to 6 who are the panch witness for confession cum seizure panchanama of the Accused Nos. 1 to 5 individually, they too corroborated with the version of prosecution and also supported the case of the prosecution. Moreover they clearly deposed in one voice that the accused persons voluntarily confessed in their presence about the commission of ofene committed by them before them in diferent areas in Telangana and

Andhra Pradesh States total come to (28) ofences.

18.Pw7 and Pw9 who are the Investigating Ofcers who deposed about the chronological events of the investigation done by them. PW8 who marked 12 chance prints in scene of ofence for comparison, he clearly deposed that on verifcation chance print – A is identifed with right index fnger impression of

Accused No.4. As seen from opinion of Finger Print Expert which is marked as

Ex.P9, it is clearly appearing that “The chance print marked ‘A’ is verifed on

the Central data base and it is found identical with right Index fnger

impression of Khaju Mavji bamadiya , S/o. Marji, aged aobut 24 of 2011,

Occ: Labour, R/o. Chanda Village, Garbadi (TQ) Dohad District, Gujarath

Stage”. So, the evidence of PW8 helpful to the case of the prosecution and which established that the participation of Accused No.4 in the commission of ofence.

19.On the other hand the learned counsel for the accused argued that the police falsely implicated the accused in this case though they are innocents.

As a matter of fact, we cannot say police implicated the accused in this case falsely when the recovery of the the property pertaining to this case clearly visible to naked eye.

20.So, by analyzing the evidence of of PWs 1 to 9, it is clearly established the guilt of the Accused, wherein the evidence of PWs 1 to 9 is corroborated with each other. Though the learned counsel for the Accused has tried to cross examine the prosecution witnesses, nothing was elicited to discard their evidence, except giving formal suggestions. It is pertinent to note that the Accused was already involved in many similar type of ofences which is not being denied by the Accused. Hence, it is crystal clear that the

Accused are habitual ofenders more particularly it is also further relevant to note that the Accused herein is also involved in series of similar cases pertaining to various police stations viz., Narsingi, Deuvvada, Dundigal,

Meerpet, Keesara, Bowinpally, Dundigal, MV Palem Bheemili, Gajuwaka , 13

Ghatkesar, MR Palli, CCS Thirupathik,, Tiruchanur, Alipiri etc.

21.In these circumstances, this court cannot consider that the police implicated the accused with false allegations in the present case though they were not involved why because police cannot plant the property without seized from the possession of the accused and it is not a possible task to the police to bring valuable property on record without seizure. The panch witnesses for confession cum seizure panchanama clearly deposed the process of panchanama before this court.

22.The counsel argued that the police evidence and Government witness evidence not trust worthy as such accused are entitled for beneft of doubt.

At this juncture, in this case I would like to relied on Supreme court

decision reported in AIR 2013 SC 3344 between Pramod Kumar Vs. State

(GNCT) of Delhi which reads as follows:

"The witnesses from the department of police cannot per se be said to be untruthful or unreliable. It would depend upon the veracity, credibility and unimpeachability of their testimony. There is no absolute command of law that the police ofcers cannot be cited as witnesses and their testimony should always be treated with suspicion. Ordinarily, the public at large show their disinclination to come forward to become witnesses. If the testimony of the police ofcer is found to be reliable and trust worthy, the Court can defnitely act upon the same. If, in the course of scrutinizing the evidence, the court fnds the evidence of the police ofcer as unreliable and untrustworthy, the court may disbelieve him but it should not do so solely on the 14 presumption that a witness from the department of police should be viewed with distrust. This is also based on the principle that quality of the evidence weighs over the quantity of evidence." Basing on this decision, the

evidence of Investigation Ofcer has been believed by

this Court.

Further I would like to relied on another decision reported in

the case of Govindaraju @ Govinda Vs. State by Sriramapuram Police

Station and Another. The relevant portion of judgment is at

paragraphs 15 and 16, wherein it is said that - "It cannot be stated as a rule that a Police Ofcer can or cannot be a sole eye- witness in a criminal case. It will always depend upon the facts of a given case. if the testi- mony of such a witness is reliable, trustworthy, cogent and duly corroborated by other witnesses or admissible evidences, then the statement of such witness cannot be discarded only on the ground that he is a Police Ofcer and may have some interest in success of the case. It is only when his interest in the success of the case is moti- vated by overzealousness to an extent of his involving in- nocent peoplee in that event, no credibility can be at- tached to the statement of such witness."

23.In the present case and also other case, identifcation of the property of the Defacto complainant is the material fact and the said property seized from the possession of the accused before the panch witnesses is also clearly established. Pws. 3 to 6 are the panch witnesses for scene of ofence 15 panchanama and confession cum seizure panchanama are supported the case of the prosecution. Further, in pursuance of confession of the Accused, the investigation agency seized gold and silver ornaments and cash pertaining to various crimes. Further more the evidence of investigation ofcers corroborated by other witnesses. Hence, this court came to a conclusion that the evidence of Investigation Ofcer is trustworthy why because during the course of investigation, the police have arrested accused and recorded their voluntary statements and proceeded with the investigation. So the evidence available on record is trustworthy and there is no lacuna as alleged by the defence counsel in inconsistence between the witnesses.

24.I have perused the evidence of witnesses and it appears that though the learned counsel for the accused pointed out some inconsistency in between the witnesses, yet viewed in a wide angle, further I intend to discuss a case law in this aspect, Court must weigh the evidence carefully in each case and not adopt arbitrary formula of yardstick in measuring its worth or worthlessness.

At this juncture , this court relied on Supreme court decision in the

case of State of Punjab Vs. Harisingh and Another and S.G.P. Committed

Vs. MP. Desai, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the maxi "Falsus in

uno faalsus in omnibus" is not acted upon by Indian Courts. In Ugar Ahir &

others Vs. State of Bihar the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the

maxim is neither a sound rule of law nor a rule of practice. It may be

difcult to come across a witness whose evidence does not contain a

grain of untruth or at any rate exaggeration, embroidery or

embellishment. It is the duty of the court to scrutinize the evidence

carefully and separate the grain from the chaff. But the court cannot

selectively pick and choose and reconstruct a story of its own. If a part of

16

evidence of a witness is found unreliable, the rest of his evidence must be

scrutinized with caution and care. If the substratum of the prosecution

case remains unaffected and remaining part of the evidence is

trustworthy, the prosecution case should be accepted to the extent it is

considered safe and trustworthy. The court must disengage truth from

falsehood and accept what it fnds to be true. If truth and falsehood and

accept what is fnds to be true. If true and falsehood are so intermingled

to make it impossible to separate them, the entire evidence may be

rejected. The court can reject a part of evidence of a witness and accept

the remaining part. If the (maxim) is followed, administration of criminal

justice would come to a stop. Witnesses cannot keep from embroidering a

story, however true in the main. In each case, court has to judge to what

extent evidence is worthy of accept. The maxim is not a mandatory rule

of evidence. It is only a rule of caution. This rule is not generally accepted

as a sound rule. Even if a major part of evidence is found defcient, in

case the residue is sufcient to prove the guilt of the accused, the

accused can be convicted.

25.Further I observed where some up and down made by the witnesses with regard to their evidence omission does not give a wider meaning though the facts deposed by the witnesses are untrusted and their evidence would be rejected. I think grain must be separated from the chaff in the

light of other evidence, coupling its simultaneous circumstances and

probabilities, if I failed to separate the grain from the chaff the entire

evidence of the witnesses must be eschewed.

26. Hence this court has no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for the ofence punishable U/s. 454 and 380 of IPC.

17

27.In the result, the Accused Nos. 1 to 4 are found guilty for the ofences punishable U/s. 457 and 380 of IPC and accordingly they are convicted as per Sec. 248(2) Cr.P.C. for the ofence punishable under section 457 and 380 of IPC.

Typed to my dictation directly by stenographer on my laptop,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 05 th day of

November, 2020.

II Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined for

For prosecution: For Defence:

P.W.1 Smt. B.Maheswari Nil

P.W.2 B.Ganesh Kumar

P.W.3 D. Kamal

P.W.4 V. Eshwar

P.W.5 Pratap singh Rama bhai

P.W.6 Yashwanth Singh Sursingh Rathod

P.W.7 M.Madhusudhan

P.W.8 B.Anil

P.W.9 K.Satyanarayana

Documents marked:

For prosecution: ForDefence

Ex.P.1 Report Nil

Ex.P2 is the scene of ofence panchanama

Exs. P3 to P5 are the confession cum seizure panchanamas of Accused Nos. 2, 3 and 5

Ex.P6: is the the confession cum seizure panchanam of Accused No.4

Ex.P7 is the the confession cum seizure panchanam of Accused No. 1

Ex.P8 is the First Information Report

Ex.P9 is the chance prints Report 18

Material Objects marked

-Nil-

II Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar

When convict accused Nos. 1 to 4 are questioned about the quantum of sentence to be imposed against them, they submitted that they are having family and children and also they are sole bread winner to their respective family members, and sentence of imprisonment would cause much hardship to their children and family members and also pleading mercy in quantum of sentence. On perusal of the evidence this court not inclined to take a lenient view and not considering the above representation of the Accused facts and circumstances of the case, Accused are sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of (03) years and also sentenced to pay a fne of

Rs.5,000/- each (Rupees Five thousand only) for the ofence punishable

Under Section 457 of IPC and in default of payment of fne, to sufer Simple imprisonment for a period of (6) months. Further the accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of (03) years and also sentenced to pay a fne of Rs. 5,000/- eache (Rupees Five thousand only) for the ofence punishable Under Section 380 of IPC and in default of payment of fne, to sufer Simple imprisonment for a period of (6) months. The sentence of the accused along with C.C.No. 6206 of 2018 shall run concurrently. The seized property in this case which was given to interim custody to its owner, shall be made absolute. The accused No.1 has been in jail since 10-08-2018 and

Accused Nos. 2 to 4 has been in jail since 01-08-2018 shall be given set of U/s.

428 Cr.P.C accord (Total fne of Rs.40,000/-).

II Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar 19

1

IN THE COURT OF II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD AT LB. NAGAR

Present: Smt. G.Kavitha Devi

II Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad At L. B. Nagar

Dated this the 26th day of November, 2020.

C.C.No. 6137 of 2019

[Cr.No. 605 of 2017 of P.S.Meerpet]

Between:

The State, Through Sub-Inspector of Police

P.S. Ghatkesar …...Complainant

And

A1.Paramour Rama Badhiya, S/o. Badhiya, aged about 47 years, Occ: Agriculture, Caste: Parmar Religion : Indian, Hindu, R/o. Sahada village, Garbada Mandal Dahod District, Gujarath State .

A2.Kishan Badhiya @ Kishan , S/o. Badhiya, aged about 35 years, Occ: Agriculture, Caste: Parmar Religion : Indian, Hindu, R/o. Sahada village, Garbada Mandal Dahod District, Gujarath State .

A3.Ravoji Badhiya, S/o. Badhiya, aged about 25years, Occ: Agriculture, Caste: Parmar Religion : Indian, Hindu, R/o. Sahada village, Garbada Mandal Dahod District, Gujarath State .

A4.Khaju Mavoji Bhamaniya, S/o. Mavoji, aged about 32 years, Occ: Farmer, Caste: Parmar Religion : Indian, Hindu, R/o. Sahada village, Garbada Mandal Dahod District, Gujarath State .

A5.Ganava Bharatha Singh, S/o. Jai Singh, aged about 45 years, Occ: Agriculture, Caste: Gadava Religion : Indian, Hindu, R/o. Sahada village, Garbada Mandal Dahod District, Gujarath State .(Died, abated)

...Accused Nos. 1 to 5

2

This case came before me for fnal hearing and disposal in the presence of Learned A.P.P.O for the state and Sri. G.Vidyakar Rao, Advocate for the Accused, upon hearing on both sides, 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, Meerpet, Police Station laid charge sheet in Cr.No. 605 of 2017 against the accused Nos. 1 to 5 for the ofences punishable under sections 457, 380 r/w. 511 of IPC.

02. The brief averments of the charge sheet are as follows: - On 11-12-2017 at 1900 hours Lw11/ B.Prakash, Inspector of police, Ghatkesar Police station received a complaint from the Complainant / Sri Md Liyakath Ali Layak in which he stated that on 11-12-2017 he received a phone call from their security and informed that mid night of 10-12-2017 and 11-12-2017 some unknown ofenders gained entry in to the Villa No. 102A, 103A, 83 in

Phase – 1 of Emerald park of Ammojiguda village. On that the complainant informed the same to respective owners and they said that there are no valuables items in the villas. Hence, the complainant requested to take necessary legal action against the Accused.

03.Basing on the above said complaint, LW11/ B.Prakash, Inspector of police P.S.ghatkesar registered a case in Cr.No. 605 of 2017 for the ofence punishable under sections 457, 380 r/w. 511 of IPC and the fle entrusted to

LW12/ D.Anil, DSI of police, P.S.Ghatkesar for further investigation. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of Lw1/

Md.Liyakath ali Layak. Later he visited the scene of ofence , caused enquires and there he secured the presence two panchas I.e LW2/ Vishnu Singh and

LW3/ Ravi Deb Varma and conducted scene of ofence panchanama and also drawn rough sketch of the scene of ofence. On 01-08-2018 the Accused

Nos. 2, 3 and 5 were arrested in Cr.No. 492/2017 under section 457 and 380 of

IPC of P.S. Meerpet. During the course of interrogation, the Accused persons 3 confessed to have committed the present ofence with the assistance of

Accused Nos. 1 and 4 and other Accused. He recorded the confessional statement of the Accused Nos. 2, 3 and 5 in the presence of two mediators i.e. LW4/Vinjamuri Eshwar and LW5/ Bangaru Srikanth. LW12 fled requisition

before the court with a prayer to regularize the arrest of the accused Nos. 2,

3 and 5 in this case. While the investigation is in progress, on 10-08-2018

Accused No.1 was arrested by Lw10/ M.Madhusudhan, Inspector of police,

P.S.Meerpet and during the course of interrogation the Accused No.1 was confessed in this case in the presence of LW6/ Pratap Singh Ram Bhai and

LW7/ Ram Singh naval Singh. On 20-09-2018 Accused No.4 was arrested by

Lw10/ M.Madhusudhan, Inspector of police, P.S.Meerpet and during the course of interrogation, the Accused No.4 was confessed in this case in the presence of LW8/ Yashwanth Singh Sursingh Rathod and Lw9/ Jashwanth

Singh Ramanabhai Rathod. Further PT warrants were fled against them and regularized the Accused Nos. 1 and 4 were regularized in this case.

04. Cognizance was taken for the ofence punishable under sections 457 and 380 r/w. 511 of IPC.

05. On appearance of accused, copies were furnished and they were examined Under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. On consideration, the charges have been framed under sections 457, 380 r/w. 511 of IPCread over and explained to them in Telugu to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

06. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined Pws 1 to 8 and got marked Exs. P1 to P8.

07. Accused were examined U/sec. 313 Cr.P.C. and incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against them, explained to accused 4 to enable them to give any explanation or answers for such adverse circumstances in the evidence. The accused denied the same and stated that they have no defence evidence.

08. Heard the arguments on both sides.

The learned APPO argued that based on the case of the prosecution and the evidence of prosecution witnesses, coupled with documents exhibited through witnesses the accused have committed the ofence U/sec.

457, 380 r/w. 511 of IPC as such the Accused are liable for punishment for the said ofences .

The learned counsel for the accused argued that the accused are falsely implicated in the above case and they are innocent. It is further submitted that prosecution utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and as such the accused are entitled for acquittal.

09.Now the point for consideration is :

“Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the

offence punishable under Sections 457, 380 r/w. 511 of IPC beyond all

reasonable doubt”?.

P O I N T:

10.As stated supra the defence not chosen to adduce any evidence, thus the evidence of prosecution alone is on record. In order to support its case, the prosecution has examined Eight witnesses and Eight documents got marked as Exhibits P1 to P8. The defence of the accused is one of the denial.

Hence, the evidence of Pws 1 to 8 stands for scrutiny.

11.It is a case fled by the prosecution against the Accused Nos. 1 to 5 for the ofence under sections under sections 457, 380 r/w. 511 of IPC. Hence, let us analyze whether the prosecution satisfed the ingredients of section alleged against the accused or not with the above said sections.

5

Before going to discussion with regard to evidence, this court

would like to mention the ingredients of Sections under sections 457, 380

r/w. 511 of IPC to establish the case of the prosecution as per the

ingredients of above mentioned sections are extracted here under:-

Section 457 of IPC speaks that :- Whoever commits lurking house- trespass by night, or house-breaking by night, in order to the committing of any offence punishable with imprisonment, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to fve years, and shall also be liable to fne; and, if the offence intended to be committed is theft, the term of the imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years.

Section 380 of IPC speaks that :- Whoever commits theft in any building, tent or vessel, which building, tent or vessel is used as a human dwelling, or used for the custody of property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fne.

Section 511 of IPC Speaks that : - Whoever attempts to commit an offence punishable by this Code with imprisonment for life or imprisonment, or to cause such an offence to be committed, and in such attempt does any act towards the commission of the offence, shall, where no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such attempt, be punished with imprisonment of any description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-half of the imprisonment for life or, as the case may be, one-half of the longest term of imprisonment provided for that offence], or with such fne as is provided for the offence, or with both.

12.The prosecution case is that that on 11-12-2017 he received a phone call from their security and informed that mid night of 10-12-2017 and 11-12- 2017 some unknown ofenders gained entry in to the Villa No. 102A, 103A, 83 in Phase – 1 of Emerald park of Ammojiguda village. On that the 6 complainant informed the same to respective owners and they said that there are no valuables items in the villas.

13. As seen from the record, the investigation agency has cited as many as (13) witnesses in the charge sheet. However, out of those witnesses, Eight witnesses were produced before this court by the prosecution. Pw1 is the panch witness for confession cum seizure panchanama of Accused Nos. 2, 3 and 5 and Pw2 is the Defacto complainant, Pw3 is panch witness for confession cum seizure panchanama of Accused No.1. PW4 is panch witness for confession cum seizure panchanama of Accused No. 4 , PW6 is the Panch witness for scene of ofence panchanama and PW5, Pws 7 and 8 are the investigation ofcers.

14.Evidence available on record:

PW1/ V.Eshwar who is the panch witness to the concession cum seizure panchanama of Accused Nos. 2 , 3 and 5, deposed in his evidence that on 01- 08-2018 their MRO telephoned him and instructed that to go over to police station Meerpet. Upon which he along with LW6/ B.Srikanth porceeded to police station, where they found three accused. On their enquiry, accused were confessed about the commission of ofences. They voluntarily confessed about the commission of ofences committed by them in diferent areas in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh states total comes to (28) ofences In pursuance of their confession, the police recovered one iron rod, gold black beads chain, gold chain, ear tops, silver anklets, silver plates (2), bowls (4) , silver lakshmi Idol etc. Police recorded confession statements of the individual accused in separate sheets. All the accused confessed about the commission of ofence in Hindi language and panchanama recorded in Telugu 7 language. They both well aware about the Hindi and Telugu languages. Police read over the panchanama to them and they understood the contents of the panchanama and signed on the panchanama under Exs. 1 to 3.

During the course of cross examination, he deposed that he is very fluent in Hindi language and he can understand Hindi. Further the learned counsel for the accused gave few suggestions to the witness, but PW1 denied those suggestions.

PW2/ Mohammed Liyakat Ali Layak, who is the Defacto complainant deposed in his evidence that on 11-12-2017 he received a phone call from their security and informed that mid night of 10-12-2017 and 11-12-2017 some unknown ofenders gained entry in to the Villa No. 102A, 103A, 83 in

Phase – 1 of Emerald park of Ammojiguda village. On immediately he contacted the owners of the respective flats and informed about the incident. But the owners informed him that there were no valuable items in the said villas. He informed the same to police and lodged report under

Ex.P4.

PW3/ Pratap Singh Rama Bhai who is the panch witness to the concession cum seizure panchanama of Accused No.1 deposed in his evidence that on 10-08-2018 at 0615 hours the police called him and

LW8/Ram Singh Naval Singh and requested them to act as panch witnesses to the confession cum seizure panchanama. Upon which he along with LW8 proceeded to the police station, where they found accused No.1 in the custody of police. On their enquiry accused No.1 was confessed about the commission of ofences. He voluntarily confessed about the commission of ofences committed by the accused in diferent areas situated in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh states total comes to (28) ofences. In pursuance of his 8 confession , police recovered long chain wg about 40 grams, black beads chain wg about 25 grams, one chain wg about 10 grams , one ring wg about 3 grams, ear rings wg about 4 grams. Police recorded confession statements of the Accused No.1 in separate sheets. The Accused No.1 confessed about the commission of ofence in Hindi language and panchanama recorded in

English language. They both well aware about the Hindi language. Police read over the panchanama to them and they understood the contents of the panchanama and singed on the panchanama under Ex.P5.

During the course of cross examination, he deposed that he is very fluent in Hindi language and he can understand Hindi. Further the learned counsel for the accused gave few suggestions to the witness, but PW3 denied those suggestions.

PW4/ Yashwanth Singh Sursingh Rathod who is the panch witness to the concession cum seizure panchanama of Accused No.4 deposed in his evidence that on 10-08-2018 at 0615 hours the police called him and

LW8/Ram Singh Naval Singh and requested them to act as panch witnesses to the confession cum seizure panchanama. Upon which he along with LW8 proceeded to the police station, where they found accused No.4 in the custody of police. On their enquiry accused No.4 was confessed about the commission of ofences. He voluntarily confessed about the commission of ofences committed by the accused in diferent areas situated in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh states total comes to (28) ofences. Police recorded confession statements of the Accused No.1 in separate sheets. The Accused

No.4 confession about the commission of ofence in Hindi language and panchanama recorded in English language. They both well aware about the 9

Hindi language. Police read over the panchanama to them and they understood the contents of the panchanama and singed on the panchanama under Ex.P6.

During the course of cross examination, he deposed that he is very fluent in Hindi language and he can understand Hindi. Further the learned counsel for the accused gave few suggestions to the witness, but PW4 denied those suggestions.

PW5/ K.Shankar, Sub-Inspector of police who fled charge sheet against the accused deposed in his evidence that he received CD fle from PW7 for further investigation and verifed the CD fle and so also the investigation done by him and he found that the investigation is on proper line after verifying the record, he fled charge sheet against the Accused.

During the course of cross examination, the learned counsel for the accused gave few suggestions to the witness, but PW5 denied those suggestions.

PW6/ Ravi Deeb Varma who is the panch witness to the alleged scene of ofence panchanama, deposed in his evidence that on 11-01-2018 the police, Meerpet called him and LW2/ Vishnu Singh to Emrald park,

Annojiguda and there the police conducted scene of ofence panchanama in plot No 83, 102, 103 They observed that scene and noticed that the things in the home scattered on the floor. Police recorded scene of ofence panchanama in their presence and read over the contents of the panchanama to them. After knowing the contents , they signed on the panchanama under

Ex.P7.

10

PW7/ D.Anil, Sub-Inspector of police and Pw8/ M.Madhusudhan, Sub-

Inspector of police who are the investigation ofcers, deposed in their examination about the chronological events of the investigation done by them.

During the course of Cross examination of PW7 he stated that he has collected the CC camera footage and he did not fle the same before this court. Further stated that he did not fle custody petition before this court to interrogate the accused Nos. 1 to 5 as there is no property loss, he could not take the custody of accused for further interrogation. Further learned counsel for the accused gave few suggestions to the witness with regard to his due course of investigation, but Pw7 denied those suggestions.

During the course of cross examination of Pw8, learned counsel for the accused gave few suggestions to the witness with regard to his due course of investigation, but Pw8 denied those suggestions.

15. This is the evidence placed by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Let us see how far the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused and how far the prosecution succeeded to establish the guilt of the accused for the above said sections.

16.However, as seen from the material available on record, in order to establish that PW2 who is the defacto complainant has reiterated the averments stated in the complaint under Ex.P4 and she also deposed about the commission of ofence. PW2 clearly stated about the commission of ofence.

17.Pws 1, 3 and 4 who are the panch witness for confession cum seizure panchanama of the Accused Nos. 1 to 5 individually, they too corroborated 11 with the version of prosecution and also supported the case of the prosecution. Moreover they clearly deposed in one voice that the accused persons voluntarily confessed in their presence about the commission of ofene committed by them before them in diferent areas in Telangana and

Andhra Pradesh States total come to (28) ofences. PW6 is one of the panch witness for the scene of ofence panchanama under Ex.P7 and PW6 has supported the version of prosecution he deposed in his evidence that the police conducted scene of ofence panchanama and after read over the contents of the panchanama, police obtained his signatures on the panchanama. Hence the scene of ofence panchanama under Ex.P7 is proved.

Pws 7 and 8 who are the Investigating Ofcers who deposed about the chronological events of the investigation done by them and their evidence is corroborated with the other witnesses evidence.

19.On the other hand the learned counsel for the accused argued that the police falsely implicated the accused in this case though they are innocents.

As a matter of fact, we cannot say police implicated the accused in this case falsely when the Accused are involved in more similar crimes pertaining to diferent police stations as such this case clearly visible to naked eye. Though the accused were not successfully committed the ofence in the present crime mere attempt to commit an ofence itself is a crime and the intention of the accused is commit an ofence in the house of the Defacto complainant clearly proved by witnesses, but they failed to get succeeded through their attempt. As per section 511 of IPC, the Accused who ever attempt to commit an ofence shall be punished one-half of the punishment. The further contention of the learned counsel for the Accused is that the investigation ofcer failed to fle CC Camera footage which were collected by him before this court the reasons best known to him. It is pertinent to note here that 12 though the investigation ofcer failed to fle the CC camera footage before this court, the evidence of other witnesses are very much available on record and the same too corroborated with each and very well established the guilt of the accused more particularly, the panch witnesses for confession cum seizure panchaana are the crucial witnesses and who are reliable witnesses to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, because they are the eye witnesses for confession panchanama of the accused. Hence, the evidence of panch witnesses are sufcient to lead the accused for conviction.

Therefore, the none flling of CC camera footage is not fatal to the case of the prosecution.

20.So, by analyzing the evidence of of PWs 1 to 8, it is clearly established the guilt of the Accused, wherein the evidence of PWs 1 to 8 is corroborated with each other. Though the learned counsel for the Accused has tried to cross examine the prosecution witnesses, nothing was elicited to discard their evidence, except giving formal suggestions. It is pertinent to note that the Accused was already involved in many similar type of ofences which is not being denied by the Accused. Hence, it is crystal clear that the

Accused are habitual ofenders more particularly it is also further relevant to note that the Accused herein is also involved in series of similar cases pertaining to various police stations viz., Narsingi, Deuvvada, Dundigal,

Meerpet, Keesara, Bowinpally, Dundigal, MV Palem Bheemili, Gajuwaka ,

Ghatkesar, MR Palli, CCS Thirupathik,, Tiruchanur, Alipiri etc.

21.In these circumstances, this court cannot consider that the police implicated the accused with false allegations in the present case though they were not involved why because police cannot plant the property without seized from the possession of the accused in other crimes and it is not a possible task to the police to bring valuable property on record without 13 seizure. The panch witnesses for confession panchanama clearly deposed the process of panchanama before this court.

22.Further the counsel argued that the police evidence and Government witness evidence not trust worthy as such accused are entitled for beneft of doubt.

At this juncture, in this case I would like to relied on Supreme court

decision reported in AIR 2013 SC 3344 between Pramod Kumar Vs. State

(GNCT) of Delhi which reads as follows:

"The witnesses from the department of police cannot per se be said to be untruthful or unreliable. It would depend upon the veracity, credibility and unimpeachability of their testimony. There is no absolute command of law that the police ofcers cannot be cited as witnesses and their testimony should always be treated with suspicion. Ordinarily, the public at large show their disinclination to come forward to become witnesses. If the testimony of the police ofcer is found to be reliable and trust worthy, the Court can defnitely act upon the same. If, in the course of scrutinizing the evidence, the court fnds the evidence of the police ofcer as unreliable and untrustworthy, the court may disbelieve him but it should not do so solely on the presumption that a witness from the department of police should be viewed with distrust. This is also based on the principle that quality of the evidence weighs over 14 the quantity of evidence." Basing on this decision, the

evidence of Investigation Ofcer has been believed by

this Court.

Further I would like to relied on another decision reported in

the case of Govindaraju @ Govinda Vs. State by Sriramapuram Police

Station and Another. The relevant portion of judgment is at

paragraphs 15 and 16, wherein it is said that - "It cannot be stated as a rule that a Police Ofcer can or cannot be a sole eye- witness in a criminal case. It will always depend upon the facts of a given case. if the testimony of such a witness is reliable, trustworthy, co- gent and duly corroborated by other witnesses or admis- sible evidences, then the statement of such witness can- not be discarded only on the ground that he is a Police

Ofcer and may have some interest in success of the case.

It is only when his interest in the success of the case is motivated by over zealousness to an extent of his involv- ing innocent people; in that event, no credibility can be attached to the statement of such witness."

23.In the present case and also other case, identifcation of the property of the Defacto complainant is the material fact and the said property seized from the possession of the accused before the panch witnesses is also clearly established. Pws. 1, 3, 4 and 6 are the panch witnesses for scene of ofence 15 panchanama and confession cum seizure panchanama are supported the case of the prosecution. Further the investigation agency established that the

Accused persons involved in many theft ofences pertaining to various crimes in various police stations. Further more the evidence of investigation ofcers corroborated by other witnesses. Hence, this court came to a conclusion that the evidence of Investigation Ofcer is trustworthy why because during the course of investigation, the police have arrested accused and recorded their voluntary statements and proceeded with the investigation. So the evidence available on record is trustworthy and there is no lacuna as alleged by the defence counsel in inconsistence between the witnesses.

24.I have perused the evidence of witnesses and it appears that though the learned counsel for the accused pointed out some inconsistency in between the witnesses, yet viewed in a wide angle, further I intend to discuss a case law in this aspect, Court must weigh the evidence carefully in each case and not adopt arbitrary formula of yardstick in measuring its worth or worthlessness.

At this juncture , this court relied on Supreme court decision in the

case of State of Punjab Vs. Harisingh and Another and S.G.P. Committed

Vs. MP. Desai, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the maxi "Falsus in

uno faalsus in omnibus" is not acted upon by Indian Courts. In Ugar Ahir &

others Vs. State of Bihar the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the

maxim is neither a sound rule of law nor a rule of practice. It may be

difcult to come across a witness whose evidence does not contain a

grain of untruth or at any rate exaggeration, embroidery or

embellishment. It is the duty of the court to scrutinize the evidence

carefully and separate the grain from the chaff. But the court cannot

selectively pick and choose and reconstruct a story of its own. If a part of

16

evidence of a witness is found unreliable, the rest of his evidence must be

scrutinized with caution and care. If the substratum of the prosecution

case remains unaffected and remaining part of the evidence is

trustworthy, the prosecution case should be accepted to the extent it is

considered safe and trustworthy. The court must disengage truth from

falsehood and accept what it fnds to be true. If truth and falsehood and

accept what is fnds to be true. If true and falsehood are so intermingled

to make it impossible to separate them, the entire evidence may be

rejected. The court can reject a part of evidence of a witness and accept

the remaining part. If the (maxim) is followed, administration of criminal

justice would come to a stop. Witnesses cannot keep from embroidering a

story, however true in the main. In each case, court has to judge to what

extent evidence is worthy of accept. The maxim is not a mandatory rule

of evidence. It is only a rule of caution. This rule is not generally accepted

as a sound rule. Even if a major part of evidence is found defcient, in

case the residue is sufcient to prove the guilt of the accused, the

accused can be convicted.

25.Further I observed where some up and down made by the witnesses with regard to their evidence omission does not give a wider meaning though the facts deposed by the witnesses are untrusted and their evidence would be rejected. I think grain must be separated from the chaff in the

light of other evidence, coupling its simultaneous circumstances and

probabilities, if I failed to separate the grain from the chaff the entire

evidence of the witnesses must be eschewed.

26. Hence this court has no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for the ofence punishable U/s. 457 and 380 r/w. 511 of IPC .

17

27.In the result, the Accused Nos. 1 to 4 are found guilty for the ofences punishable U/s. 457 , 380 r/w. 511 of IPC and accordingly they are convicted as per Sec. 248(2) Cr.P.C. for the ofence punishable under section 457 , 380 r/w. 511 of IPC.

Typed to my dictation directly by stenographer on my laptop,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 26 th day of

November, 2020.

II Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For prosecution: For Defence:

P.W.1 V.Eshwar Nil

P.W.2 Md. Liyakath Ali Layak

P.W.3 Pratap Singh Rama Bhai

P.W.4 Yashwanth Singh Sursingh Rathod

P.W.5 K.Shankar

P.W.6 Ravi Deb Varma

P.W.7 D.Anil

P.W.8 M.Madhusudhan

Documents marked:

For prosecution: For Defence

Ex.P.1 to P3 are the confession panchanamas of Accused Nos. 2, 3 and 5.

Ex.P4: Report

Ex.P5: is the the confession cum seizure panchanam of Accused No. 1

Ex.P6: is the the confession cum seizure panchanam of Accused No.4

Ex.P7 : is scene of ofence panchanama

Ex.P8 is the First Information Report

Material Objects marked

-Nil-

II Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar 18

When convict accused Nos. 1 to 4 are questioned about the quantum of sentence to be imposed against them, they submitted that they are having family and children and also they are sole bread winner to their respective family members, and sentence of imprisonment would cause much hardship to their children and family members and also pleading mercy in quantum of sentence. On perusal of the evidence this court not inclined to take a lenient view and not considering the above representation of the Accused facts and circumstances of the case, Accused are sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of (02) years and also sentenced to pay a fne of

Rs.5,000/- each (Rupees Five thousand only) for the ofence punishable Under

Section 457 of IPC and in default of payment of fne, to sufer Simple imprisonment for a period of (6) months. Further the accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of (02) years and also sentenced to pay a fne of Rs. 5,000/- each; (Rupees Five thousand only) for the ofence punishable Under Section 380 r/w. 511 of IPC and in default of payment of fne, to sufer Simple imprisonment for a period of (6) months. The sentence of the accused along with C.C.No. 6206 of 2018 and C.C.No. 6199 of 2018 shall run concurrently. There is no case property found in this case, hence no property orders passed specifcally. The accused Nos. 1 to 4 have been in jail since 23-08-2018 shall be given set of U/s. 428 Cr.P.C (Total fne of

Rs.40,000/-). Further the jail authorities are directed to release the Accused forthwith if they are not required in any other cases.

II Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar 19

1

IN THE COURT OF II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD AT LB. NAGAR

Present: Smt. G.Kavitha Devi

II Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad At L. B. Nagar

Dated this the 05th day of November, 2020

C.C.No. 6206 of 2018

[Cr.No. 601 of 2017 of P.S.Meerpet]

Between:

The State, Through Sub-Inspector of Police

P.S. Meerpet …...Complainant

And

A1.Paramour Rama Badhiya, S/o. Badhiya, aged about 47 years, Occ: Agriculture, Caste: Parmar Religion : Indian, Hindu, R/o. Sahada village, Garbada Mandal Dahod District, Gujarath State .

A2.Kishan Badhiya @ Kishan , S/o. Badhiya, aged about 35 years, Occ: Agriculture, Caste: Parmar Religion : Indian, Hindu, R/o. Sahada village, Garbada Mandal Dahod District, Gujarath State .

A3.Ravpko Badhiya, S/o. Badhiya, aged about 25years, Occ: Agriculture, Caste: Parmar Religion : Indian, Hindu, R/o. Sahada village, Garbada Mandal Dahod District, Gujarath State .

A4.Khaju Mavoji Bhamaniya, S/o. Mavoji, aged about 32 years, Occ: Farmer, Caste: Parmar Religion : Indian, Hindu, R/o. Sahada village, Garbada Mandal Dahod District, Gujarath State .

A5.Ganava Bharatha Singh, S/o. Jai Singh, aged about 45 years, Occ: Agriculture, Caste: Gadava Religion : Indian, Hindu, R/o. Sahada village, Garbada Mandal Dahod District, Gujarath State .(Died, abated)

...Accused Nos. 1 to 5

2

This case came before me for fnal hearing and disposal in the presence of Learned A.P.P.O for the state and Sri. K.Meenakshi, Advocate for the Accused, upon hearing on both sides, 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, Meerpet, Police Station laid charge sheet in Cr.No. 601 of 2018 against the accused Nos. 1 to 5 for the ofences punishable under sections 457, 380 of IPC.

02. The brief averments of the charge sheet are as follows: - On 10-11-2017 at 20.30 hours Lw11/ N.Ch. Ranga Swamy, Inspector of Police received a complaint from the Complainant / Smt.Islavath Kamala /LW1 in which he stated that on 09-11-2017 at 22.00 hours the complainant locked her house and went to Malakpet Yashoda Hospital for visiting her father and next day on 10-11-2017 at 16.00 hours she returned back to her house and found his house main door lock hook was broken open and also open the Almarah with available keys on their searching the gold ornaments were found missing. In their absence, some some unknown ofender entered into the house and open the almarah and committed theft of gold ornaments. Hence, the com- plainant requested to take necessary legal action against the Accused.

03.Basing on the above said complaint, LW11/ Ch. Ranga Swamy, Inspector of police registered a case in Cr.No. 601 of 2017 for the ofence punishable under sections 457, 380 of IPC and took up the fle for further investigation.

During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of Lw1/ Smt. Islavath Kamala and Lw2/ Rathlavath Arun Kumar. Later he along with Lws 1 and 2 visited the scene of ofence and caused enquires and he secured the presence two panchas I.e LW3/ Nanavath Ravi Kumar and LW4/

Vallabdas Narsiah, conducted scene of ofence panchanama and also drawn rough sketch of the scene of ofence. Later LW12/ B.Anil, Sub-Inspector of

Police in C.C.No. 6199 of 2018 visited the scene of ofence and collected the 3 chance prints from scene and later he had collected the fnger prints of the inmates viz., Lws 1 and 2 and submitted the same to LW12 for comparison On 16-01-2018 LW15 received fnger Print Expert report from LW12 in C.C.No.

6199 of 2018. On 01-08-2018 the Accused Nos. 2, 3 and 5 were arrested in

Cr.No. 492/2017 under section 457 and 380 of IPC of P.S. Meerpet. During the course of interrogation, the Accused persons confessed to have committed the present ofence with the assistance of Accused Nos. 1 and 4 and other

Accused. In pursuance of confessional statement of accused No.3, seized gold neckless pertaining to this case from the possession of Accused No.3 in the presence of two panchas I.e Lw5/ Vinjamuri Eshwar and LW6/ Bangaru

Srikanth under cover of confessional cum seizure panchanama. After completion of all legal formalities, LW11 produced the accused before the court in main case vide Crime No. 492 of 2017. Lw15 fled requisition before the court with a prayer to regularize the arrest of the accused Nos. 2, 3 and 5 in this case. As per the instructions of superior ofcers, the LW11 along with his team proceeded to Gujarat State for apprehended the absconding

Accused and arrested the Accused Nos. 1 and 4 in Cr.No. 492 of 2017 under section 457 and 380 of IPC. During the course of interrogation, the Accused

Nos.1 and 4 committed to have this ofence in Crime No. 607 of 2018 under section 457 and 380 of IPC. In pursuance of the confessional statement of the

Accused Nos. 1 and 4, seized one long chain wg about 40 grams, black beads chain wg about 25 grams, one chain wg about 10 grams, one ring wga bout 03 grams, one vanku wg about 04 grams, 2 pairs ear tops wg about 08 grams, ear ring wg about 04 grams pertaining to this case from the possession of the

Accused No.1 in the presence of two mediators I.e LW7/ Pratap Singh Rama

Bhai and LW8/ Ram Singh Naval Singh. After completion of all legal formalities he produced the arrested accused before the court, Garbada District along 4 with a requisition with a prayer to issue Transit Warrant and the court against the accused Nos.1 and 4 with directions to produce the accused before this court. LW11 produced the Accused Nos.1 and 4 before this court in crime No.

492 of 2017 under section 457 and 380 ofIPC of P.S.Meerpet.

LW11 fled requisition before this court with a prayer to regularize the arrest of Accused Nos.1 and 4 regularize the arrest of the accused Nos. 1 and 4 and this court regularized the arrest of the accused.

04. Cognizance was taken for the ofence punishable under sections 457 and 380 of IPC.

05. On appearance of accused, copies were furnished and they were examined Under Section 239 of Cr.P.C . On consideration, the charges have been framed under sections 457 and 380 of IPC read over and explained to them in Telugu to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

06. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined Pws 1 to 7 and got marked Exs. P1 to P8.

07. Accused were examined U/sec. 313 Cr.P.C. and incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against them, explained to accused to enable them to give any explanation or answers for such adverse circumstances in the evidence. The accused denied the same and stated that they have no defence evidence.

08. Heard the arguments on both sides.

The learned APPO argued that based on the case of the prosecution and the evidence of prosecution witnesses, coupled with documents exhibited through witnesses the accused have committed the ofence U/sec.

457, 380 of IPC as such the accused is liable for punishment for the said ofences .

5

The learned counsel for the accused argued that the accused are falsely implicated in the above case and they are innocent. It is further submitted that prosecution utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and as such the accused are entitle for acquittal.

09.Now the point for consideration is :

“Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the

offence punishable under Sections 457, 380 of IPC beyond all reasonable

doubt”?.

P O I N T:

10.As stated supra the defence not chosen to adduce any evidence, thus the evidence of prosecution alone is on record. In order to support its case, the prosecution has examined seven witnesses and eight documents got marked as Exhibits P1 to P7. The defence of the accused is one of the denial.

Hence, the evidence of Pws 1 to 7 stands for scrutiny.

11.It is a case fled by the prosecution against the Accused Nos. 1 to 5 for the ofence under sections under sections 457, 380 of IPC. Hence, let us analyze whether the prosecution satisfed the ingredients of section alleged against the accused or not with the above said sections.

Before going to discussion with regard to evidence, this court

would like to mention the ingredients of Sections under sections 457, 380

of IPC to establish the case of the prosecution as per the ingredients of

above mentioned sections are extracted here under:-

Section 457 of IPC speaks that :- Whoever commits lurking house- trespass by night, or house-breaking by night, in order to the committing of any ofence punishable with imprisonment, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to fve years, and shall also be liable to fnee and, if the ofence intended to be committed is theft, the term of the imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years.

6

Section 380 of IPC speaks that :- Whoever commits theft in any building, tent or vessel, which building, tent or vessel is used as a human dwelling, or used for the custody of property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fne.

12.The prosecution case is that on 09-11-2017 at 22.00 hours the complainant locked her house and went to Malakpet Yashoda Hospital for visiting her father and next day on 10-11-2017 at 16.00 hours she returned back to her house and found his house main door lock hook was broken open and also open the Almarah with available keys on their searching the gold ornaments were found missing. In their absence, some some unknown ofender entered into the house and open the almarah and committed theft of gold ornaments.

13. As seen from the record, the investigation agency has cited as many as (13) witnesses in the charge sheet. However, out of those witnesses, seven witnesses were produced before this court by the prosecution. Pw1 is the

Defacto complainant, PW2 is panch witness to the alleged scene of ofence panchanama and PW3 is panch witness for confession cum seizure panchanama of Accused Nos. 2, 3 and 5 and PW4 is panch witness for confession cum seizure panchanama of Accused No.1. PW5 is panch witness for confession cum seizure panchanama of Accused No. 4 and Pws 6 and 7 are the investigation ofcers.

14.Evidence available on record: As per the version of PW1/ Smt.

Kamala who is the Defacto complainant, deposed in her evidence that the complainant locked her house and went to Malakpet Yashoda Hospital for visiting her father and next day on 10-11-2017 at 16.00 hours she returned back to her house and found his house main door lock hook was broken open 7 and also open the Almarah with available keys on their searching the gold ornaments were found missing. In their some some unknown ofender entered into the house and open the almarah and committed theft of gold ornaments. Immediately, she went to police station and reported the matter with the police under Ex.P1 After some period from the date of Ex.P1, the police informed her that her gold ornaments were recovered. Immediately she went to the police station and identifed her gold ornaments and thereafter received the gold ornaments from the court towards her interim custody under Mos 1 to 8.

PW2/Ravi Kumar who is the panch witness to the alleged scene of ofence panchanama, deposed in his evidence that on 10-11-2017 the police,

Meerpet called him and LW4/ Vallabdas Narsiah to the house of PW1 situated

Nandi hills, Meerpet and conducted scene of ofence panchanama in their presence. They observed that scene and noticed that the almarah lock was opened and the things, clothes were scattered on the foor. Police recorded scene of ofence panchanama in their presence and read over the contents of the panchanama to them . After knowing the contents , they signed on the panchanama under Ex.P2.

PW3/ V.Eshwar who is the panch witness to the concession cum seizure panchanama of Accused Nos. 2 , 3 and 5, deposed in his evidence that on 01-08-2018 their MRO telephoned him and instructed that to go over to police station Meerpet. Upon which he along with LW6/ B.Srikanth proceeded to police station, where they found three accused. On their enquiry, accused were confessed about the commission of ofences. They voluntarily confessed about the commission of ofences committed by them in diferent areas in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh states total comes to (28) ofences. In pursuance of their confession, the police recovered one iron rod, 8 gold black beads chain, gold chain, ear tops, silver anklets, silver plates (2), bowls (4) , silver lakshmi Idol etc. Police recorded confession statements of the individual accused in separate sheets. All the accused confessed about the commission of ofence in Hindi language and panchanama recorded in

Telugu language. They both well aware about the Hindi and Telugu languages. Police read over the panchanama to them and they understood the contents of the panchanama and signed on the panchanama under Exs. 3 to 5.

During the course of cross examination, he deposed that he is very fuent in Hindi language and he can understand Hindi. Further the learned counsel for the accused gave few suggestions to the witness, but PW3 denied those suggestions.

PW4/ Pratap Singh Rama Bhai who is the panch witness to the concession cum seizure panchanama of Accused No.1 deposed in his evidence that on 10-08-2018 at 0615 hours the police called him and

LW8/Ram Singh Naval Singh and requested them to act as panch witnesses to the confession cum seizure panchanama. Upon which he along with LW8 proceeded to the police station, where they found accused No.1 in the custody of police. On their enquiry accused No.1 was confessed about the commission of ofences. He voluntarily confessed about the commission of ofences committed by the accused in diferent areas situated in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh states total comes to (28) ofences. In pursuance of his confession , police recovered long chain wg about 40 grams, black beads chain wg about 25 grams, one chain wg about 10 grams , one ring wg about 3 grams, ear rings wg about 4 grams. Police recorded confession statements of the Accused No.1 in separate sheets. The Accused No.1 confession about the commission of ofence in Hindi language and panchanama recorded in 9

English language. They both well aware about the Hindi language. Police read over the panchanama to them and they understood the contents of the panchanama and singed on the panchanama under Ex.P6.

During the course of cross examination, he deposed that he is very fuent in Hindi language and he can understand Hindi. Further the learned counsel for the accused gave few suggestions to the witness, but PW4 denied those suggestions.

PW5/ Yashwanth Singh Sursingh Rathod who is the panch witness to the concession cum seizure panchanama of Accused No.4 deposed in his evidence that on 10-08-2018 at 0615 hours the police called him and

LW8/Ram Singh Naval Singh and requested them to act as panch witnesses to the confession cum seizure panchanama. Upon which he along with LW8 proceeded to the police station, where they found accused No.4 in the custody of police. On their enquiry accused No.4 was confessed about the commission of ofences. He voluntarily confessed about the commission of ofences committed by the accused in diferent areas situated in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh states total comes to (28) ofences. Police recorded confession statements of the Accused No.1 in separate sheets. The Accused

No.4 confession about the commission of ofence in Hindi language and panchanama recorded in English language. They both well aware about the

Hindi language. Police read over the panchanama to them and they understood the contents of the panchanama and singed on the panchanama under Ex.P7.

During the course of cross examination, he deposed that he is very fuent in Hindi language and he can understand Hindi. Further the learned counsel for the accused gave few suggestions to the witness, but PW5 denied those suggestions.

10

PW6/ M.Madhusudhan, Sub-Inspector of police who is the investigation ofcer, deposed in his examination about the chronological events of the investigation done by him.

During the course of cross examination of Pw6, learned counsel for the accused gave few suggestions to the witness with regard to his due course of investigation, but PW6 denied those suggestions.

PW7/ K.Satyanarayana, Sub-Inspector of police who fled charge sheet against the accused deposed in his evidence that on 28-09-2018 he received

CD fle from PW6 for further investigation. During the course of his investigation, he verifed investigation done by PW6 as on proper lines and after completion of investigation he fled charge sheet against the Accused.

The Accused Nos. 1 to 5 are involved in (29) cases in the limits of Rachakonda, cyberabad, Hyderabad, vizag and Tirupathi.

15. This is the evidence placed by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Let us see how far the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused and how far the prosecution succeeded to establish the guilt of the accused for the above said sections.

16.However, as seen from the material available on record, in order to establish that defacto complainant is the owner of the property, who has reiterated the averments stated in the complaint under Ex.P1 and she also deposed about the commission of theft. Pw1 clearly stated about the commission of ofence and stolen of property by unknown ofender and after some period she got information from the police that her property was recovered and received the same under MOs. 1 to 8 as interim custody. PW2 is one of the panch witnesses for the scene of ofence panchanama under

Ex.P2 and PW2 has supported the version of prosecution he deposed in his 11 evidence that the police conducted scene of ofence panchanama and after read over the contents of the panchanama, police obtained his signatures on the panchanama. Hence the scene of ofence panchanama under Ex.P2 is proved.

17.Pws 3 to 5 who are the panch witness for confession cum seizure panchanama of the Accused Nos. 1 to 5 individually, they too corroborated with the version of prosecution and also supported the case of the prosecution. Moreover they clearly deposed in one voice that the accused persons voluntarily confessed in their presence about the commission of ofene committed by them before them in diferent areas in Telangana and

Andhra Pradesh States total come to (28) ofences.

18.PW6 and PW7 who are the Investigating Ofcers who deposed about the chronological events of the investigation done by them.

19.On the other hand the learned counsel for the accused argued that the police falsely implicated the accused in this case though they are innocents.

As a matter of fact, we cannot say police implicated the accused in this case falsely when the recovery of the the property pertaining to this case clearly visible to naked eye.

20.So, by analyzing the evidence of of PWs 1 to 7, it is clearly established the guilt of the Accused, wherein the evidence of PWs 1 to 9 is corroborated with each other. Though the learned counsel for the Accused has tried to cross examine the prosecution witnesses, nothing was elicited to discard their evidence, except giving formal suggestions. It is pertinent to note that the Accused was already involved in many similar type of ofences which is not being denied by the Accused. Hence, it is crystal clear that the

Accused are habitual ofenders more particularly it is also further relevant to 12 note that the Accused herein is also involved in series of similar cases pertaining to various police stations viz., Narsingi, Deuvvada, Dundigal,

Meerpet, Keesara, Bowinpally, Dundigal, MV Palem Bheemili, Gajuwaka ,

Ghatkesar, MR Palli, CCS Thirupathik,, Tiruchanur, Alipiri etc.

21.In these circumstances, this court cannot consider that the police implicated the accused with false allegations in the present case though they were not involved why because police cannot plant the property without seized from the possession of the accused and it is not a possible task to the police to bring valuable property on record without seizure. The panch witnesses for confession cum seizure panchanama clearly deposed the process of panchanama before this court.

22.The counsel argued that the police evidence and Government witness evidence not trust worthy as such accused are entitled for beneft of doubt.

At this juncture, in this case I would like to relied on Supreme court

decision reported in AIR 2013 SC 3344 between Pramod Kumar Vs. State

(GNCT) of Delhi which reads as follows:

"The witnesses from the department of police cannot per se be said to be untruthful or unreliable. It would depend upon the veracity, credibility and unimpeachability of their testimony. There is no absolute command of law that the police ofcers cannot be cited as witnesses and their testimony should always be treated with suspicion. Ordinarily, the public at large show their disinclination to come forward to become witnesses. If the testimony of the police ofcer is found to be reliable and trust worthy, the Court can defnitely act upon the same. If, in the course of scrutinizing the 13 evidence, the court fnds the evidence of the police ofcer as unreliable and untrustworthy, the court may disbelieve him but it should not do so solely on the presumption that a witness from the department of police should be viewed with distrust. This is also based on the principle that quality of the evidence weighs over the quantity of evidence." Basing on this decision, the

evidence of Investigation Ofcer has been believed by

this Court.

Further I would like to relied on another decision reported in

the case of Govindaraju @ Govinda Vs. State by Sriramapuram Police

Station and Another. The relevant portion of judgment is at

paragraphs 15 and 16, wherein it is said that - "It cannot be stated as a rule that a Police Ofcer can or cannot be a sole eye- witness in a criminal case. It will always depend upon the facts of a given case. if the testi- mony of such a witness is reliable, trustworthy, cogent and duly corroborated by other witnesses or admissible evidences, then the statement of such witness cannot be discarded only on the ground that he is a Police Ofcer and may have some interest in success of the case. It is only when his interest in the success of the case is moti- vated by overzealousness to an extent of his involving in- nocent peoplee in that event, no credibility can be at- tached to the statement of such witness." 14

23.In the present case and also other case, identifcation of the property of the Defacto complainant is the material fact and the said property seized from the possession of the accused before the panch witnesses is also clearly established. Pws. 2 to 5 are the panch witnesses for scene of ofence panchanama and confession cum seizure panchanama are supported the case of the prosecution. Further, in pursuance of confession of the Accused, the investigation agency seized gold and silver ornaments and cash pertaining to various crimes. Further more the evidence of investigation ofcers corroborated by other witnesses. Hence, this court came to a conclusion that the evidence of Investigation Ofcer is trustworthy why because during the course of investigation, the police have arrested accused and recorded their voluntary statements and proceeded with the investigation. So the evidence available on record is trustworthy and there is no lacuna as alleged by the defence counsel in inconsistence between the witnesses.

24.I have perused the evidence of witnesses and it appears that though the learned counsel for the accused pointed out some inconsistency in between the witnesses, yet viewed in a wide angle, further I intend to discuss a case law in this aspect, Court must weigh the evidence carefully in each case and not adopt arbitrary formula of yardstick in measuring its worth or worthlessness.

At this juncture , this court relied on Supreme court decision in the

case of State of Punjab Vs. Harisingh and Another and S.G.P. Committed

Vs. MP. Desai, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the maxi "Falsus in

uno faalsus in omnibus" is not acted upon by Indian Courts. In Ugar Ahir &

others Vs. State of Bihar the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the

maxim is neither a sound rule of law nor a rule of practice. It may be

15

difcult to come across a witness whose evidence does not contain a

grain of untruth or at any rate exaggeration, embroidery or

embellishment. It is the duty of the court to scrutinize the evidence

carefully and separate the grain from the chaff. But the court cannot

selectively pick and choose and reconstruct a story of its own. If a part of

evidence of a witness is found unreliable, the rest of his evidence must be

scrutinized with caution and care. If the substratum of the prosecution

case remains unaffected and remaining part of the evidence is

trustworthy, the prosecution case should be accepted to the extent it is

considered safe and trustworthy. The court must disengage truth from

falsehood and accept what it fnds to be true. If truth and falsehood and

accept what is fnds to be true. If true and falsehood are so intermingled

to make it impossible to separate them, the entire evidence may be

rejected. The court can reject a part of evidence of a witness and accept

the remaining part. If the (maxim) is followed, administration of criminal

justice would come to a stop. Witnesses cannot keep from embroidering a

story, however true in the main. In each case, court has to judge to what

extent evidence is worthy of accept. The maxim is not a mandatory rule

of evidence. It is only a rule of caution. This rule is not generally accepted

as a sound rule. Even if a major part of evidence is found defcient, in

case the residue is sufcient to prove the guilt of the accused, the

accused can be convicted.

25.Further I observed where some up and down made by the witnesses with regard to their evidence omission does not give a wider meaning though the facts deposed by the witnesses are untrusted and their evidence would be rejected. I think grain must be separated from the chaff in the

light of other evidence, coupling its simultaneous circumstances and

16

probabilities, if I failed to separate the grain from the chaff the entire

evidence of the witnesses must be eschewed.

26. Hence this court has no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for the ofence punishable U/s. 457 and 380 of IPC.

27. In the result, the Accused Nos. 1 to 4 are found guilty for the ofences punishable U/s. 457 and 380 of IPC and accordingly they are convicted as per

Sec. 248(2) Cr.P.C. for the ofence punishable under section 457 and 380 of

IPC.

Typed to my dictation directly by stenographer on my laptop,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 05 th day of

November, 2020.

II Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined for

For prosecution: For Defence:

P.W.1 Smt. Islavath Kamala Nil

P.W.2 Nenavath Ravi Kumar

P.W.3 V. Eshwar

P.W.4 Pratap singh Rama bhai

P.W.5 Yashwanth Singh Sursingh Rathod

P.W.6 M.Madhusudhan

P.W.7 K.Satyanarayana

Documents marked:

For prosecution: ForDefence

Ex.P.1 Report Nil

Ex.P2 is the scene of ofence panchanama

Exs. P3 to P5 are the confession cum seizure panchanamas of Accused Nos. 2, 3 and 5

Ex.P6: is the the confession cum seizure panchanam of Accused No.4

Ex.P7 is the the confession cum seizure panchanam of Accused No. 1 17

Ex.P8 is the First Information Report

Material Objects marked

MO:1 Gold Necklace MO:2 Long chain MO:3 black beads chain MO:4 One chain MO:5 one ring MO:6 one vanku MO:7 2 pairs ear tops MO:8 ear ring 01 pair

II Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar

When convict accused Nos. 1 to 4 are questioned about the quantum of sentence to be imposed against them, they submitted that they are having family and children and also they are sole bread winner to their respective family members, and sentence of imprisonment would cause much hardship to their children and family members and also pleading mercy in quantum of sentence. On perusal of the evidence this court not inclined to take a lenient view and not considering the above representation of the Accused facts and circumstances of the case, Accused are sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of (03) years and also sentenced to pay a fne of

Rs.5,000/- each (Rupees Five thousand only) for the ofence punishable

Under Section 457 of IPC and in default of payment of fne, to sufer Simple imprisonment for a period of (6) months. Further the accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of (03) years and also sentenced to pay a fne of Rs. 5,000/- eache (Rupees Five thousand only) for the ofence punishable Under Section 380 of IPC and in default of payment of fne, to sufer Simple imprisonment for a period of (6) months. The sentence of the accused along with C.C.No. 6199 of 2018 shall run concurrently. The seized property in this case which was given to interim custody to its owner, shall be 18 made absolute. The accused No.1 has been in jail since 10-08-2018 and

Accused Nos. 2 to 4 has been in jail since 01-08-2018 shall be given set of U/s.

428 Cr.P.C accord (Total fne of Rs.40,000/-).

II Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar

1

IN THE COURT OF II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD AT LB NAGAR

Present: Smt. G.Kavitha Devi

II Metropolitan Magistrate

Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar

Dated this the 30 th day of September, 2020

CC.No. 3455 of 2019

{Cr.No. 1596 of 2015 of P.S.L.B.Nagar}

Between : The State through

P.S.L.B.Nagar …..Complainant

And

Durgaraju Jogesh, S/o. Late Pandu Ranga Vithal aged bout 55 years, Occ: Business Loudya Sampath, S/o. Ramulu aged about 25 years, Occ: Student, R/o. H.No. 8-3-174/22, Hanumannagar, Meerpet Ranga Reddy District ….Accused.

This case came before me for fnal hearing in the presence of the Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri. E.Srinivas Reddy, for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The is a case wherein the Defacto Complainant fled Private Complaint

Under section 200 of Cr.P.C against the accused for the ofence punishable Under

Section 420 of IPC before this court to refer the case to SHO. L.B.Nagar for investigation. Subsequently, refer the matter to SHO L.B.Nagar. After conducting investigation, the Sub-Inspector of police, L.B.Nagar fled charge sheet.

02.The brief averments of the charge sheet are as follows: - On 30-12-2015 at 17.00 hours Lw7/n K.Praveen Kumar Sub-Inspector of Police received a complaint from the complainant / Pachipulusu Ramanadham / LW1 stating that the Accused proposed to sell one house to the complainant on behalf of one Lakshmi Narsinga

Rao, taken an amount of RS. 84,00,000/- towards part of sale consideration out of Rs.

1.5 crores and executed an agreement to this efect. The said Lakshmi Narasimha

Rao made talks with the complainant from USA over phone and sent authorization letter to Accused to make agreement on behalf of him and assured him that he would register the house in favour of him after he will reach Hyderabad from USA.

2

Later Accused called on the complainant to their house at Suryodaya colony on 26- 09-2015 and informed him that they agreed to make agreement the property with third party and assured him to return his money if Rs. 84,00,000/- together with an interest of Rs. 5,00,000/- . But both the accused did not arrange any amount to the complainant as promised and vacated his house with an intention to avoid from payment of the money to the complainant and cheated him to gain wrongful profts.

Hence, the complainant requested to take necessary legal action against the accused.

03.Based on the above said complaint, Lw7/ K.Praveen Kulmar, Sub-Inspector of police registered a case in crime No. 1596 of 2015 for the ofence punishable under sections 420, 406 of IPC and section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and entrusted the fle to

LW8/ D. Vijay, Sub-Inspector of police for further investigation. Later Lw8 transferred to Vanasthalipuram Police station, due to which on oral instructions of

Station House Ofcer, the LW9/ V.Ravi Kumar, Sub- Inspector of police for further investigation. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statement of Lw1/ Pachipulusu Ramanadham. Later he visited the scene of ofence and thorough enquiries were also caused at the place of occurrence to get to the complete facts and circumstances related to this case. Further he also examined and recorded the statements of Lw2/ Madan Mohan, Lw3/ Kammula Narayana Reddy,

Lw4/ Vinith and LW5/ Shegu Chandrashekar. Later LW9 issued notice to Lw1 under section 91 Cr.P.C. and requested to produce supporting I.e primary or secondary evidence for further investigation. Accordingly he complied with the notice and submitted the documents. As per the examination of the statements of the witnesses, the prima facie has been established against the Accused No.1 and some more documentary evidence are yet to be collected to prove the allegation against the accused No.2. On 09-05-2019 the Accused was apprehended by the deputed ID party and brought him to police station and produced before the LW9. On interrogation, the Accused voluntarily confessed to have committed this ofence and 3 pleased his guilt. Later the accused was produced before the court for judicial custody.

04.Cognizance of the case was taken for the ofence punishable Under

Sections 420, 406 of IPC.

05. On appearance of accused, copies were furnished and he was examined under Sections 420, 406 of IPC. On consideration, the substance of charge Under

Sections 420, 406 of IPC has been framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed tobe tried.

06. The prosecution to prove its case, examined PWs 1 to 5 and got marked Exs. P1 to P12.

07. After completion of prosecution evidence accused were examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C by explaining the available incriminating material against him for which he denied the same. The defence not chosen to adduce any evidence on its behalf except availing the opportunity of cross examination of prosecution witnesses.

08.Heard the arguments of both sides.

The learned APPO argued that based on the case of the prosecution and the evidence of prosecution witnesses, coupled with documents exhibited through witnesses the accused have committed the ofence Under Sections 420, 406 of IPC.

as such he is liable for punishment for the said ofence.

The learned counsel for the accused argued that the accused is falsely implicated in the above case and he is innocent. It is further submitted that prosecution utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and as such he is entitle for acquittal.

09. Now the point for consideration is :

“Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the ofence

punishable Under Sections 420, 406 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt”?

10. P O I N T: As stated supra there is no defence evidence opted by the accused, 4 thus the evidence of prosecution alone is on record. On behalf of prosecution, Five witnesses were examined and twelve documents were marked.

12.Evidence available on record:- It is the version of Pw1/ Kammula Narayana

Reddy, Pw2/ Vinith Jain, Pw3/ S.Chandrasekhar and PW4/ A.Ramakrishna who are the witnesses to the alleged ofence. However these witnesses resiled to their statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. they deposed their evidence that they do not know anything about this case and they never stood as a witness in the present case. They do not know how the police implicated their names in the present case. Police neither examined them nor recorded their statements.

Pw5/ V.Ravi Kumar, Sub-Inspector of police who is the investigation ofcer deposed in his chief examination about the chronological events of the investigation done by him.

During the course of his cross examination, he admitted that he did not examined sub-registrar in the present case. Further he admitted that he has examined only one attester in the present case and he did not examine

Fareeduddin and Chalam Babu who were the attesters to the Agreement of Sale and payment receipts. Further he admitted that he has examined LW1 on 21-05-2018 and other witnesses are examined on 03-12-2018. Further admitted that there is a correction at the date of statements of Lws 4 and 5. Further admitted that it is a unregistered agreement of sale and he did not issue Section 41 – A Cr.P.C notice.

Further the learned counsel for the accused gave few suggestions to the PW5 with regard to the commission of ofence and also due course of his investigation but

PW5 denied those suggestions.

13. This is the evidence placed before this court on behalf of the prosecution. Let us seen whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused for the alleged ofence through its evidence all reasonable doubt. As seen from the record, the investigation agency has cited as many as (09) witnesses in the charge sheet.

However, only fve witnesses were produced before the court and out of those Five 5 witness, Pws 1 to 4 who are the Witnesses to the alleged ofence, turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. Hence, their evidence is not helpful to the case of the prosecution. Further it is observed that LW1/ Pachipulusu

Ramanadham who moved into motion by fling complaint against the accused, did not produced by the prosecution. Further it is observed that as could be seen from the docket of this court dated 20-01-2020, initially this court closed the evidence of

Lws 1 to 4 as inspite of giving several opportunities to the prosecution also, failed to produce the Lws 1 to 4. Further it is observed that the learned APPO fled petition under section 311 Cr.P.C. on 23-01-2020 to recall the evidence of Lws 1 to 4.

Considering the submissions made by the learned APPO, this court allowed the above said petition with a direction to produce the LW1 by the next date of adjournment without fail otherwise, the prosecution evidence will be closed. But even after serving of summons on LW1 number of times and even after passing conditional orders also, the Lw1 failed to appear before the court to give his evidence. Hence this court again closed the evidence of Lw1 as the Lw1 did not show any interest to proceed with the present case. It is further observed that, the

Learned APPO again fled this present petition on hand with a prayed to recall the

Lw1 on 13-03-2020 as his evidence is very essential to the prosecution case.

However after gone through the entire circumstances of the case, this court opined that Lw1 who alleged to have been sufered with the hands of the Accused, has not shown any interest to proceed with the present case, if really the Lw1 having interest to proceed with the case, why he did not appear before this court after receiving court summons also. As such this court came to the conclusion that the

Lw1 have no interest to proceed with the case against the Accused as such dismissed the petition.

08. The only witness who spoke against the accused is the investigating ofcer who is examined as PW5. But merely based on the sole testimony of Pw5, the

Accused cannot be convicted more particularly when the Defacto Complainant 6 witness have not produced by the prosecution. Further as could be seen from the evidence of Lw5 who is the investigation ofcer, he admitted in his evidence that he examined one attester in the present case, but as seen from the charge sheet averments, he failed to cited the above said attester as witness. Therefore, it is not safe to convict the accused based on the evidence of investigating ofcer whose evidence is not corroborated by any other witnesses. Therefore, this court feels that the evidence of PW5 is not sufcient to decide the guilt of the accused in the absence of corroboration from independent testimony. Hence the accused is entitled for acquittal.

14. In view of the above, the evidence of Pws 1to 5 did not carry any value.

Whatever may be the reason, there is, absolutely, no legal evidence available on record against the accused. Hence, this court is left with no other option, except to acquit the accused. Further I observed that there was no independent witnesses examined by the prosecution. Moreover the defacto complainant also did not support the prosecution evidence. Due to lack of independent witness evidence caused to loose my confdence to convict the accused. In these circumstances I have no hesitation to say that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

14. In view of the above discussion, this court is of considered view that accused is entitled for beneft of doubt and thereby he can be acquitted.

16.IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the ofence under sections 420 , 406 of IPC. Accordingly he is acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of accused and his sureties shall stands canceled after expiry of appeal time. The Unmarked property if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 30th day of September, 2020.

.

II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD AT L.B.NAGAR.

7

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined for

For prosecution: For defence:

P.W.1: Kammula Narayana Reddy -None- P.W.2: Vinith Jain P.W.3 Shegu Chandrashekar P.W.4 Ayyadevara Ramakrishna P.W>5 V.Ravi Kumar (I.O.).

Documents marked:

For prosecution: For defence

Ex.P.1: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of Pw1 -None- Ex.P.2 : 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of Pw1 Ex.P.3: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of Pw1 Ex.P.4: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of Pw1 Ex.P.5: First Information Report Ex.P.6: endorsement of Private Complaint Ex.P.7: Original Agreement of Sale dated 08-06-2015 Ex.P.8: Mail Copy dated 26-05-2016 (Subject to Objection) Ex.P9 & P10: Original Payments received agreement dated 07-09-2015 Ex.P11: True copy of Sale Deed dated 30-12-2006 Ex.P12: True copy of Agreement of Sale cum Power of Attorney vide Doc No. 6808 of 2016 dated 16-10-2006.

Material objects marked:

Nil

II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD AT L.B.NAGAR.

1

IN THE COURT OF II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD AT LB NAGAR

Present: Smt. G.Kavitha Devi

II Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar

Dated this the 09 th day of October, 2020

CC.No. 3918 of 2020

{Cr.No.163 of 2020 of P.S. Meerpet}

Between : The State through

P.S.Meerpet …..Complainant

And

Narender Kola, S/o. Ramaiah aged about 55 years, Occ: Govt Employee R/o. Plot No. 46, Sri Krishna Nagar Colony L.B.Nagar , Ranga Reddy District. ….Accused.

This case came before me for fnal hearing in the presence of the Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri. M.Ravinder Reddy, for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Meerpet Police Station laid charge sheet in Cr.No. 163 of 2020 against the accused for the ofence punishable Under

Sections 354, 354 (A) of IPC.

02.The brief averments of the charge sheet are as follows:- On 19-02-2020 at 19.00 hours Lw7/ N.Yadaiah, Sub-Inspector of Police received a complaint from the complainant / Vavilala Sirisha / Lw1 in which she stated that she applied for contract engineer in BDL and she asked for police verifcation certifcate, so she paid challan in Neradmnt and one person from local

Police station would visit to her house on 12-02-2020 and he misbehaved with her and putting hands in side her dress. Hence, the complainant requested to take necessary legal action against the Accused.

03.Based on the above said complaint, Lw7/ N.Yadaiah, Sub-Inspector of police registered a case in crime No. 163 of 2020 for the ofence punishable under sections 354, 354-(A) of IPC and entrusted the fle to

Lw8/ V.Maraiah, Sub-Inspector of police for further investigation. During the 2 course of investigation, LW5/ Smt. B.Hymavathi, woman Asst. Sub-Inspctor of Police examined and recorded the statement of Lw1/ Kum.Vavilala

Shirisha. Lw8 also examined and recorded the statement of Lw2/ Kontham

Saikanth Reddy. Later he visited the scene of ofence and tehre he secured the presence of two mediators I,.e LW3/ Nethala Venu yadav and LW4/

Gurram Naresh and conducted scene of ofence panchanama and also drawn rough sketch . Lw8 deputed ID staf to apprehend the Accused But on 28-02-2020 the accused got anticipatory bail vide Cr.L.P. No. 815 of 2020. d.\Later Lw8 addressed a requisition to LW6/ Smt. M.Eunice with a request to record the statement of the victim under section 164 of Cr.P.C on which LW6 recorded the statement of Lw1.

04.Cognizance of the case was taken for the ofence punishable

Under Sections 354, 354 A() of IPC.

05. On appearance of accused, copies were furnished and he was examined under Sections 354, 354 (A) of IPC. On consideration, the substance of charge Under Sections 354, 354 (A) of IPC has been framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed tobe tried.

06. The prosecution to prove its case, examined PWs 1 to 3 and got marked Exs. P1 to P7.

07. After completion of prosecution evidence accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C by explaining the available incriminating material against him for which he denied the same. The defence not chosen to adduce any evidence on its behalf except availing the opportunity of cross examination of prosecution witnesses.

08.Heard the arguments of both sides.

3

The learned APPO argued that based on the case of the prosecution and the evidence of prosecution witnesses, coupled with documents exhibited through witnesses the accused have committed the ofence

Under Sections 354, 354-A of IPC. As such he is liable for punishment for the said ofence.

The learned counsel for the accused argued that the accused is falsely implicated in the above case and he is innocent. It is further submitted that prosecution utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and as such he is entitle for acquittal.

09. Now the point for consideration is :

“Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for

the ofence punishable Under Sections 354, 354-A of IPC beyond all

reasonable doubt”?

10. P O I N T: As stated supra there is no defence evidence opted by the accused, thus the evidence of prosecution alone is on record. On behalf of prosecution, three witnesses were examined and seven documents were marked.

11.Evidence on record: As per the version of PW1 is the Defacto complainant who moved law into motion by flling complaint. But surprisingly, she turned to the prosecution case and did not depose anything against the accused. Pw1 deposed that she never gave any complaint against the accused at any point of time and in due process, the police obtained her signatures on a blank paper. She do not know the contents of the complaint.

PW2/ K.Srikanth Reddy, who is the friend of PW1 deposed in his evidence that he do not know anything about this case. He never stood as a witness in the present case and he also do not know how the police implicated his name as a witness in the present case. However this witness 4 resiled to his statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C.

Pw3 / V.Maraiah, Sub-Inspector of police who is the investigation ofcer deposed in his chief examination about the chronological events of the investigation done by him.

During the course of his cross examination, he admitted that there is a delay of one week giving the complaint against the accused and PW2 examined one month after the incident has taken place. Further the learned counsel for the accused gave few suggestions to the PW3 with regard to the commission of ofence and also due course of his investigation but PW3 denied those suggestions.

12.This is the evidence placed before this court on behalf of the prosecution. Let us seen whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused for the alleged ofence through its evidence all reasonable doubt. As seen from the record, the investigation agency has cited as many as (08) witnesses in the charge sheet. However, only three witnesses were produced before this court and out of those three witness, Pw1 who is alleged to have been victim in the hands of the accused, turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. At the time of enquiry, she disclosed that she lodged report at the instance of her elders and there is no fault on the part of the Accused more particularly the report was lodged by the victim with the police belatedly by 19-02-2020 but the incident was took place on 12-02-2020. There is abnormal delay in lodging the report with the police. Police also did not mention the reasons in column No.8 of

F.I.R i.e. Ex.P6. Further as could be seen from her statement, it is observed that when the accused misbehaved with her, she did not raise any cries. If really, any incident took place, defenetly she raised cries to protect herself, but there is no such instant. PW2 who is show as witness to the alleged incident, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. He 5 deposed in his evidence that he do not know anything about the present case and he do not know how the police implicated his name.

13. The only witness who spoke against the accused is the investigating ofcer who is examined as PW3. But merely based on the sole testimony of Pw3,the Accused cannot be convicted more particularly more particularly when the Defacto complainant including circumstantial witnesses have turned hostile. Therefore, it is not safe to convict the accused based on the evidence of investigating ofcer whose evidence is not corroborated by any other witnesses. Therefore, this court feels that the evidence of PW3 is not sufcient to decide the guilt of the accused in the absence of corroboration from independent testimony. Hence the accused is entitled for acquittal.

14. In view of the above, the evidence of Pws 1 to 3 did not carry any value. Whatever may be the reason, there is, absolutely, no legal evidence available on record against the accused. Hence, this court is left with no other option, except to acquit the accused. Further I observed that there was no independent witnesses examined or even cited in the list of the prosecution. Due to lack of independent witness evidence caused to loose my confdence to convict the accused. In these circumstances I have no hesitation to say that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

15. In view of the above discussion, this court is of considered view that accused is entitled for beneft of doubt and thereby he can be acquitted.

16.IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the ofence under sections 354, 354-A of IPC. Accordingly he is acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused and his sureties shall 6 stands canceled after expiry of appeal time. The Unmarked property if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by stenographer on my personal lapto, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 09th day of October, 2020.

.

II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD AT L.B.NAGAR.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined for

For prosecution: For defence:

P.W.1: V.Shirisha -None- P.W.2: K.Srikanth Reddy P.W.2: V.Maraiah (O.I).

Documents marked:

For prosecution: For defence

Ex.P.1: Signature of the complainant on report -None- Ex.P.2 : Report Ex.P.3: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of Pw1 Ex.P.4: 164 statement of Pw1 Ex.P.5: 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw2 Ex.P.6: First information report Ex.P.7: Scene of ofence Panchanama.

Material objects marked:

Nil

II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD AT L.B.NAGAR.