Sri.G.S.Ramesh Kumar

1 CC.No. 458 of 2015

IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE;

HYDERABAD.

Present:- Sri. G.S.RAMESH KUMAR, XIV Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, FAC VII Addl.Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate,Hyderabad.

Dated this Monday the 2nd day of January,2017.

C.C.No.458 /2015. Between:- The State through the Sub-Inspector of police, Malakpet, Police Station, Hyderabad. . . Complainant.

And

N. Jaya Kumar, S/o Late K.N.Rajan, age: 57 years, Occ: Business, R/o Plot No. 72, Rail Enclave, Opp. Bowenpally Vegetable Market, Secunderabad.

... Accused.

***

This case is coming on 19.12.2016 for final hearing before me in the presence of Asst,PPO and of Durg Prasad Kotamraju, Counsel for the accused and having stood over the matter for consideration till this day the Court made the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub -Inspector of police, Malakpet Police Station Hyderabad filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence Under Sections 354 and 506

IPC in Cr.No. 324/2014 of Malakpet, Police Station.

The brief facts of the prosecution case are that; the complainant/victim

Dr. Amrutha Patangay, Retd. Doctor and the accused is tenant in her house bearing H.No. 16-11-1/5, Saleem nagar, Malakpet, Hyderabad and running franchisee of DTDC couriers in the above said premises on rental basis and the accused litigation with her and accused has gone to court, according to

Judgment dt. 13-4-2014 accused was asked to vacate the premises but the accused has gone for further appeal, since then accused is harassing them limitlessly, he shouts at them in a very bad, dirty, filthy language, whenever they 2 CC.No. 458 of 2015 are seen and accused urinates in front of their door, cuts lime in front of their door, throws lime outside the house, he throws nails, he flouts Bhilwa ( black fruit) in front of her door, accused puts garland to tree next to her door and puts coconut with haldi, kum kum on it next to my door etc.,

On 25-6-2014 it reached its limits, when she and her sister were stand in front of their house for auto at about 7.15 P.M, he saw them through the glass came out shouting with top of his voice very badly, when they asked him why he is behaving so eccentrically he pushed them down, they were about to fall the rickshaw person standing there stopped them from falling down, this behaviour is extremely unbearable, he also threatened them with dire consequences and basing on the complaint given by victim, the Sub-Inspector of police Malkpet police station registered the case, examined the victim and others, arrested the accused and investigated the case etc., and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet .

2Cognizance of case was taken for the offence Under Sections 354 and 506

IPC against Accused.

3.On appearance of the accused, case copies were furnished to the Accused as required U/S.207 Cr.P.C.

4.The accused was examined U/S.239 Cr.P.C. Charges Under 354 and 506

IPC are framed against the accused, for which he pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.

5.At the trial, prosecution has examined Pws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6. During the cross examination of PW.1 Ex.D1 is marked.

6. After completion of the evidence of prosecution, the accused was examined U/S 313 Cr.P.C when the accused was called upon to enter in to 3 CC.No. 458 of 2015 defence, he reported no defence evidence.

7Heard the arguments.

8Now the points that arise for the determination is :

1. “ Whether the prosecution established and proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the charges Under Section 354 and 506 IPC . ?”

2. “ Whether the accused used criminal force on PW.1 intending to outrage her modesty by abusing her in filthy language and pushed her away and also committed criminal intimidation by threatening her with dire consequences?.”

9.Point Nos.1 and 2 :

Pws.1 and 2 examined on behalf of prosecution. According to PW.1 accused is tenant in her house and there are civil disputes between them in vacating the house by the accused inspite of decree of the court and then the accused started harassing her and he shout at her in a bad, dirty, filthy language, whenever he saw the PW.1 and accused puts flouts Bhilwa ( black fruit) and also used to cuts lime in front of doors of her house and used to puts the nails in her house and also puts coconut with haldi, kum kum on it next to her door of her house and also puts garlic to the tree which is next to her door of her house and on one day in the year 2014 when herself and her sister by name Sharada were waiting in front of their house for auto, accused saw them through the glass came out and shouting with high voice and when she questioned him about shouting and he came and pushed her and her sister and while they are about to fall down rescued by auto driver and threatened her and her sister, she gave complaint to police which is Ex.P1 and she also filed lease agreement which is Ex.P2, Tax Payment receipt which is Ex.P3, CC of Decre and

Judgment OS 519/2011 which is Ex.P4 and CC of Judgment in AS 122/14 which is

Ex.P5.

4 CC.No. 458 of 2015

10.Except the above evidence of Pws.1 to 3 there is no other evidence from prosecution side I already stated above that the evidence of Pws.1 to 3 is corroborating with each other and supporting the case of prosecution.

11.The learned A.P.P relied on a citation reported in; 2005 SCC (Crl) 225 in between State of M.P. Appellant Vs. Dharkile alias

Govind Singh and others respondent and it contended that; “Non-examination of any particular person as witness would not affect the prosecution case when the witnesses examined by the prosecution with stood the cross-examination and pointed to the guilt of the accused “, “ Minor points or discrepancies should not be taken into account so as to doubt the prosecution case” and also relied on a citation reported in; 2003 Law Suit (SC) 1007 and its contended that; “Evidence has to be weighed and not counted” and also relied on a citation reported in; 2003 Cri.L.J. 3548 (SC) in between Doraiswamy Raju and Arijit Pasayat. JJ.

and its contended that; “Conviction can be based on sole witness”.

12.On perusal of the evidence of PW.1 in chief and cross the admitted fact is that the PW.1 and accused are land lord and tenant and there is disputes between them since long back and Civil cases also there between them, if really shows that there is a animosity between them, hence the evidence and testimony of PW.1 has to weighed or scrutinized carefully, keeping in view of the same an don perusal of the cross-examination of PW.1 she clearly admitted that she do not know whether accused caught hold by the police and brought to the

Task force police station on 25-6-2014 and she know it at evening, the DCP office is located at Puranihawali where she lodged the complaint, the DDP heard both herself and accused and instructed the accused to vacate the house, the accused accepted to vacate the house but he did not vacate, the DCP also 5 CC.No. 458 of 2015 undertaking from the accused to vacate the house and she also denied as it is not true that the accused detained in DCP office till 9.00 P.M and his wife and children are moving from one station to another station by searching the accused and finally lodged a complaint before Commissioner of Police then the accused let off to go. I cannot say the exact timing but it is before sunset on 25-6-2014.

13.The above portion of evidence of PW.1 clearly shows that she lodged complaint in DCP office on 25-6-2016 and accused also brought to the DCP office and thereafter the DCP instructed the accused to vacate the house and he was let off to go before or after sunrise on 25-6-2014, on perusal of the complaint of

PW.1 as she did not state the date and month of her complaint in her chief examination and cross-examination, and found that she lodged complaint on 25- 6-2014. The complaint is also submitted to Circle Inspector cum SHO at

Malakpet police station and the endorsement of the LW.2 on the Ex.P1 complaint shows that he received it at 8.10 P.M I,e 2010 hours, prosecution also not examine the LW.2 – SI of police who received the above Ex.P1 complaint from

PW.1, registered the case to the reasons best known to them, however when it is admitted by PW.1 that on 25-6-2014 she lodged the complaint in DCP office and accused also brought there and detained there and he was let off from DCP office at evening hours, whether it may be before sunset and after sunset, hence the question of taken place of the alleged incident at about 7.15 P.M on 25-6-2014 as stated by PW.1 in her evidence or in Ex.P1 is doubtful as she neither stated in

Ex.P1 nor in chief evidence doubt about complaint in DCP office and the discussion of DCP with her and accused and the let off of the accused from the

DCP office at evening hours everything is surprised, the said suppression of facts and material omissions costs any amount of doubt on her testimony. The evidence of LW.2 is very much require in this regard to know at what time the

PW.1 came to police station and submitted the complaint etc., facts as I already discussed above but the prosecution has failed to examine the said LW.2.

6 CC.No. 458 of 2015

14.According to PW.1, accused shouted on her and pushed her and her sister and while they are about to fell down, rescued by the auto driver and accused threatened her and her sister. Sister of PW.1 and auto driver are not examine by the investigating officer and moreover the PW.3 who examine and recorded the statement of PW.1 and visited the scene of offence clearly stated that he visited the scene of offence and enquired the numbers but no one came forward to say anything in support of the complaint of the PW1. Similarly PW.2 second investigating officer who enquired the PW.1 and visited the scene ofoffence with reference to the complaint and 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1 clearly deposed in chief examination itself that he also enquired with PW.1 about the availability of any other witnesses and she replied that there are no witnesses at that time, accordingly the above evidence of Pws.1 to 3 is contradictory and hence the testimony of PW.1 is doubtful in this regard.

15.I already discussed above that the prosecution has failed to examine the

LW.2 who received the complaint from pW.1 and he is the correct person to say by what time PW.1 came to police station and when she lodged the complaint etc., in view of the said backgrounded, facts of complaint of PW1 in DCP office and the talks between DCP, PW1 and accused and let off of the accused from

DCP office at evening hours on 25-6-2014, hence the LW2 is the material witness even based on the above said evidence of PW.1 but the prosecution inspite of knowing above evidence of PW1 not examine the LW2, accordingly it is fatal to the case of prosecution, hence the citation no.1 relied on by the A.P.P has no application to the facts and circumstances of this case.

16.Further I already elaborately discussed the evidence of Pws.1 to 3 and scrutinized their evidence and found as doubtful and hence the facts and circumstances of the second citation relied on by the A.PP has no application to the facts and circumstances of this case. Further the conviction can be based 7 CC.No. 458 of 2015 on the testimony of sole witness when the said testimony is found as reliable but in the case on hand I already discussed above that there is a stained blurred relationship between PW.1 and accused as land lord and tenant and the civil disputes also pending between them for more than 10 years, accordingly there is an anemity between them even as on the date of this Ex.P1 complaint.

17.Further except the evidence of the PW.1 there are no any other witnesses in support of her version and the sister of PW.1 and auto driver were also not at all examined by the investigating agency to the reasons best known to them and

I already discussed above that the evidence of Pws.1 to 3 is contradictory in this regard and I also discussed about suppressing the facts of complaint lodged in

DCP office by PW.1 on 25-6-2014 and subsequent events taken place at DCP office and let off of accused at evening hours at DCP office on 25-6-2014 etc.,.

18.In view of the afore mentioned and backgrounded facts and circumstances, it is not at all reasonable to rely on the unsupported and uncorroborated and contradictory evidence of PW1, no reliance can be placed on the testimony of PW1. Hence the 3rd citation relied on by the A.P.P has no application to the case on hand.

19.The learned counsel for defense also relied on a citation reported in 2002 (1) ALD (Crl.) 500 (AP ), wherein in is held that; “ Penal Code 1860-Section 354- Outraging modesty of woman- Evidence of prosecution witnesses found interested and also inconsistent – The said witnesses are also enimical and there are improvements in their evidence – In the circumstances, the acquittal cannot be interfered.”

I already discussed above that the pW.1 and accused are enemical and also found interpolation in the evidence of PW.1 which is suppressed in her chief examination as well as in Ex.P1 complaint and Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement.

Accordingly, PW.1 entrusted towards case of prosecution, hence above citation 8 CC.No. 458 of 2015 relied on the learned defence counsel has clearly applicable to the facts and circumstances to the case on hand, accordingly the prosecution has failed to establish and prove that the accused used criminal force on PW.1 intending to outrage her modesty by abusing her in filthy language and pushed her away and also committed criminal intimidation by threatening her with dire consequences, hence above points are answered.

20.In view of the above evidence of Pws.1 to 3, facts and circumstances and reasons thereon it is clear that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence under sections 354 and 506 IPC and I found the accused is not guilty for the above said offence and he is acquitted.

21.In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the charges

U/Section 354 and 506 IPC and the accused is acquitted U/S 248(1) Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of Accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months. No property is deposited in this case, hence no property order.

Dictated to the Personal Asst,transcribed and typed by

her,corrected,pronounced and signed by me in the open Court on this the 2nd day of January,2016.

FACXIV Addl.,Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

Appendix of evidence. Witnesses examined for. Prosecution. Defence.

PW1: Dr. Amrutha Patangay- complainant PW2: K. Venkatram Reddy -Sub-Inspector of police, Investigating Officer -Nil- PW3: Ch. P. Thirumalesh- Sub-Inspector of police, 1st investigating officer 9 CC.No. 458 of 2015

Exhibits marked.

EXP1: Complaint given by PW1. ExP2: CC of Lease Agreement EXP3: Tax payment receipt issued by Municipal Corporation EXP4: CC of Decree and Judgment in OS 519/2011 on the file of XIX JCJ City Civil Court EXP5: CC of Judgment in AS 122/2014 on the file of X Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court EXP6: Original First Information Report

Defence:

EXD1: The CC of the judgment shown to the witness and she admitted.

Material objects marked. -Nil-

XIV Addl.,Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

10 CC.No. 458 of 2015

FORM NO.71 OF CRIMINAL RULES OF PRACTICE

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT: HYDERABAD. Calender case tried by The VII Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, HYDERABAD. _______________________________________________________________________ Date of Offence : 25­06­2014 Date of Report : 25­06­2014 Date of apprehension of accused : 41 Cr.P.C notice Date of Release of accused : ­ Date of filing of charge sheet : 13­03­2014 Date of Taking cognizance : 13­03­2015 Date of Furnishing of copies to accused: 07­10­2016 Date of Recording the plea of accused : 17­10­2016 Date of commencement of trial : 03­11­2016 Date of closure of trial : 14­12­2016 Date of Examination of accused U/S.313: Cr.P.C: 15­12­2016 Date of Sentence or order : 02.01.2017 Reason for delay : No delay. Judgment of Calender Case No. 458 /2015 on the file of VII ACMM;Hyderabad. Name of the complainant : The Sub Inspector of police, P.S Malakpet,Hyderabad. Particulars of the accused : N. Jaya Kumar, S/o Late K.N.Rajan,age: 57 years, Occ: Business,R/o Plot No. 72, Rail Enclave,Opp. Bowenpally Vegetable Market,Secudnerabad. : Offence U/Sections. : 354 and 506 IPC Finding of the Court : The accused is found not guilty for the Charges under Sections 354 and 506 IPC and he is acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. No property deposited. Hence no order From FAC The XIV Addl.,Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Hyderabad.

FAC XIV Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 

HYDERABAD.

To The Hon'ble I Addl.,Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

CC.No. 458/2015 Date of Judgment: 02 .1.2017.

Dis.No: /XIV ACMM/Hyd/2017 Dt. .1.2017.

11 CC.No. 458 of 2015 12 CC.No. 458 of 2015 13 CC.No. 458 of 2015 14 CC.No. 458 of 2015 15 CC.No. 458 of 2015 16 CC.No. 458 of 2015 17 CC.No. 458 of 2015 18 CC.No. 458 of 2015 19 CC.No. 458 of 2015 20 CC.No. 458 of 2015 21 CC.No. 458 of 2015 22 CC.No. 458 of 2015 23 CC.No. 458 of 2015 24 CC.No. 458 of 2015 25 CC.No. 458 of 2015 26 CC.No. 458 of 2015 27 CC.No. 458 of 2015 28 CC.No. 458 of 2015 29 CC.No. 458 of 2015 30 CC.No. 458 of 2015 31 CC.No. 458 of 2015 32 CC.No. 458 of 2015

1 CC.No. 987 of 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE XIV ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE :: HYDERABAD.

Present:- Sri.G.S. Ramesh Kumar, XIV Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

Monday, the 09th day of July, 2018.

C.C.No. 987 of 2016.

Between:- The State through the Sub-Inspector of Police, Panjagutta Police Station, Hyderabad. . . . Complainant. A N D

A1) Mamidi Mallikarjun, S/o. Mallaiah, Aged: 45 years, Occ: Centering work, R/o H.No. 6-3-164/3/A, Prem Nagar, Khairatabad, Hyderabad

A2) Bandaru Mohan Rao, S/o. B.K. Rao, Aged: 47 years, Occ: Painting work, R/o H.No. 6-3-14/3, Prem Nagar, Khairatabad, Hyderabad

A3) M. Vinod Kumar, S/o M. Ram Murthy, Aged: 31 years, Occ: Driver, R/o H.No. 6-2-599, Chintal Basti, Hyderabad

A4) Dandugula Srinivas, S/o. Yellaiah, Aged: 35 years, Occ: Labour Contractor, R/o H.No. 8-2-682/32/40, NB Nagar Kaman, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad

A5) Koppula Arun Kumar, S/o Babu Rao, Aged: 32 years, Occ: Auto Driver, R/o H.No. 8-2-682/32/104, NB Nagar Kaman, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad

A6) G. Sudharshan, S/o Vishwanatham, Aged: 38 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o H.No. 6-3-159/10, Prem Nagar, Khairatabad, Hyderabad ….Accused.

This case is coming on 18.06.2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of PPO and Sri. N.S. Prabhakar Rao, Sri A. Ganesh, Sri Prabhakar, Sri K.N. Rao, Counsels for the accused and after perusing the case records and upon hearing the arguments on both sides, this Court made the following:-

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Panjagutta Police Station,

Hyderabad filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence 2 CC.No. 987 of 2016

Under Sections 3 and 4 of A.P. Gaming Act in Crime No. 271/2016 of Panjagutta Police Station.

2.Brief facts of the Prosecution case:-

(i)On 07.04.2016 at about 23:00 hours [Lw.1]-P. Mallikarjun,

Sub-Inspector of Police, Commissioner’s Task Force, West Zone

Team, Hyderabad filed complaint stating that on the same day at about 17:30 hours while he along with his staff were on patrolling duty in the limits of Panjagutta police station, he received information about conducting of gaming by playing three cards gambling at Premises No. 6-3-164/3/A, Prem Nagar, Khairatabad,

Hyderabad. As such Lw.1 obtained Authorization Memo from his superiors to raid the above said premises, secured the presence of two mediators and proceeded to scene of offence along with staff.

At about 19:30 hours he reached scene of offence and found six persons in a room of the above said building/premises. He served search memo and during search, he found A1 to A6 playing three cards by betting money and on interrogation in the presence of two mediators, all the accused voluntarily confessed playing of three cards by betting money. In pursuance of his confession, he seized (52) playing cards, six cell phones and cash of Rs. 12,500/- from the possession of the accused persons under the cover of panchanama. Later, he brought all the accused persons to the police station and filed complaint.

(ii)Basing on the above complaint, [Lw.8]-B. Man Singh, Sub-

Inspector of Police registered a case in crime No. 271/2016 under 3 CC.No. 987 of 2016 sections 3 and 4 of A.P. Gaming Act and issued First Information

Report and handed over the case file to [Lw.9]-K. Brahmamurari,

Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Panjagutta. During investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of [Lws.1 to 5]-

P.Mallikarjun, S.A. Qadri, G. Murtuza Ali, G. Madhusudhan,

B.Naveen, arrested all the accused and released them on bail since the offence alleged being bailable. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed.

3.Cognizance of case was taken for the offence under section 3 and 4 of A.P. Gaming Act against Accused.

4.On appearance of the accused, case copies were furnished to the Accused as required U/S.207 Cr.P.C.

5.The accused were examined U/S.251 Cr.P.C. The substance of accusation U/Section 3 and 4 of A.P. Gaming Act is read over and explained to the accused, for which the Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.To prove the allegations made against the accused, prosecution examined Pws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6 and

M.Os.1 to 8.

7.After closure of the above prosecution evidence, the accused

No.1 to 6 were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused No.1 to 6 denied the incriminating material put to them and they did not propose to examine any defence witness.

4 CC.No. 987 of 2016

8.Heard the arguments.

9.Now the point that arises for determination is:- “Whether the prosecution could bring home

the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable

doubt for the offence U/secs. 3 and 4 of A.P.

Gaming Act?”

10.POINT:

PWs1 to 3 examined on behalf of prosecution. The Pw.1 is the complainant, Pws.2 and 3 are Investigating Officers. According to Pw.1, he is the Sub-Inspectorof Police, Task Force office and on 07.04.2016 at about 05:30 P.M. while he himself along with Lws.2 to 5 were in petrolling duty, he received information about playing of three cards gaming at H.No. 6-3-164/3/A, Prem Nagar,

Khairatabad. He informed the same to higher officials and obtained permission to raid on the said premises and after receipt of permission from DCP, he secured Lws.6 and 7 panch witnesses and prepared search proceedings and conducted raids. He found

A1 to A6 at scene of offence along with playing cards, money and cell phones. He served search proceedings on the accused, apprehended them, who confessed the offence. He recorded the confession of all accused and seized M.Os.1 to 8 from their possession under the cover of confession-cum-seizure panchanama. Thereafter, he brought the accused and M.Os.1 to 8 and also the other material i.e. search proceedings, confession- cum-seizure panchanama etc. at Panjagutta Police Station and handed over to S.H.O. along with complaint. Ex.P1 is the 5 CC.No. 987 of 2016 complaint, Ex.P2- Intimation sent to D.C.P., Ex.P3- Memo issued by D.C.P., Ex.P4 is the confession-cum-seizure panchanama,

Ex.P5- Copy of search proceedings and M.O.1- cash of receipt of

Rs. 12,500/-, M.O.2- 52 playing cards, M.Os.3 and 4-Samsung cell phones, M.O.5- I-phone and M.O.6-Sony cell phone, M.O.7-

Samsung cell phone and M.O.8- Nokia cell phone. Pw.2 the first

Investigating Officer also stated that he received complaint from

Pw.1 and registered the case and issued F.I.R. which is Ex.P6 and thereafter, he handed over the file to Pw.3 for investigation. The

Pw.3 stated that he conducted investigation in this case and during investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of Pw.1 and Lws.2 to 5, he also verified the Ex.P4 and the property and then he arrested the accused and released them on bail as the offences are bailable one and he deposited the property in the

Court and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

11.Nothing is elicited by the defence from cross-examination of

Pws.2 and 3 and on perusal of the evidence of Pw.1 in cross- examination he is not at all examined in cross in respect of preparation of Ex.P4-Confession-cum-seizure panchanama and also confession of the accused and seizure of M.Os.1 to 8 except suggesting the Pw.1 as he has not seized any of the M.Os.1 to 8 and prepared all exhibits in police station and planted the property for the purpose of this case etc. Accordingly, the evidence of Pw.1 remained undoubted on the aspect of raids at scene of offence, recording of confession of accused and seizure of M.Os.1 to 8 in the 6 CC.No. 987 of 2016 presence of Lws.6 and 7. The evidence of Lws.6 and 7 is closed as the prosecution failed to produce and examine them. However, the above available evidence of Pw.1, Ex.P4 and M.Os.1 to 8 are sufficient to establish the case of the prosecution on this aspect.

12.The learned Counsel for defence contended that the office of

Commissioner of Task Force is designated as police station and there is G.O. also in that regard and the same is admitted by Pw.1 and the Task Force police can register the cases like other regular police station. But in the case on hand in spite of registering the case in Commissioner of Task Force office, the Pw.1 lodged complaint with Panjagutta police. However the above contention of the Counsel for the defence is not at all proper as no material is placed before the Court regarding the authorization of the Task

Force police to register the cases in the office of Commissioner of

Task Force. Except a xerox copy of the G.O. issued by the government declaring that office of the Commissioner's Task Force shall be a police station and the officers in-charge of the said office shall be the officer of incharge of the police station so declared and it does not show whether they can register the cases or not.

Moreover, the said xerox copy also not at all marked as exhibit.

The Pw.1 also stated that he has no idea whether any G.O. is there authorizing Task Force police to register the cases. Hence the acceptability of the above contention of the Counsel for the defence is lack of relevant material. Accordingly the said contention is not at all acceptable.

7 CC.No. 987 of 2016

13.In view of the above discussed evidence of Pws.1 to 3, facts and circumstances, it is clear that the prosecution an explicitly established and proved that A1 organizing the gaming house at scene of offence and the other accused are participants in playing the three cards game. Accordingly, the prosecution bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences under sections 3 and 4 of the

A.P. Gaming Act beyond all reasonable doubt and I found the

Accused No.1 is guilty for the offence under sections 3 and 4 of

A.P.Gaming Act and found guilty of Accused No.2 to 6 for the offences under section 4 of A.P. Gaming Act.

14.In the result, accused No.1 is found guilty for the offence u/section 3 and 4 of A.P. Gaming Act and A2 to A6 are found guilty for the offence under section 4 of A.P. Gaming Act and accordingly, they are convicted under section 255(2) Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him,

corrected, pronounced and signed by me in the open Court on this the 09th day of July, 2018.

XIV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

15. Accused are questioned regarding the quantum of sentence imposed upon them and they plead mercy of the Court. Keeping in view of the same, A1 is sentenced to undergo Simple

Imprisonment for a period of ONE MONTH and shall also pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default Simple Imprisonment for One week for the offence under sections 3 and 4 of A.P. Gaming Act. A2 to A6 are 8 CC.No. 987 of 2016 sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default Simple

Imprisonment for One week for the offence under section 4 of

A.P.Gaming Act. The remand period, if any, undergone by the accused No.1 shall be given set off u/Sec. 428 Cr.P.C.

M.O.1 - Cash of Rs. 12,500/- deposited vide fixed deposit,

M.Os.3 to 8 (cell phones) shall be confiscated to State while M.O.2 (52 playing cards) shall be destroyed after expiry of the appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him,

corrected,pronounced and signed by me in the open Court on this the 09th day of July, 2018.

XIV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for.

Prosecution. Defence.

PW1- P. Mallikarjun, (Complainant/S.I. of Police) - Nil - PW2- Man Singh, (S.I. of Police who issued FIR) PW3:K. Brahmamurari, (SI of Police/ Investigating Officer)

Exhibits marked.

Ex.P1: Complaint of Pw.1 dated 07.04.2016 - Nil - Ex.P2: Intimation Letter addressed to the Deputy Commissioner of Police by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Panjagutta, dated 07.04.2016 Ex.P3 - Memo issued by DCP dated 07.04.2016 Ex.P4 - Confession-cum-seizure Panchanama dated 07.04.2016 Ex.P5 - Search proceedings dated 07.04.2016 Ex.P6: First Information Report dated 07.04.2016

Material objects marked.

M.O.1: Cash of Rs. 12,500/- deposited under FDR M.O.2 – 52 Playing cards M.O.3 – Samsung Cell phone M.O.4 – Samsung cell phone M.O.5 – I-phone 9 CC.No. 987 of 2016

M.O.6 – Sony cell phone M.O.7 – Samsung cell phone M.O.8 – Nokia cell phone

XIV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

1 C.C.No. 1210 of 2015 

IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE;

HYDERABAD.

Present:- Sri. G.S.RAMESH KUMAR, XIV Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, FAC VIIAddl.Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate,Hyderabad.

Dated this Tuesday the 7th day of February,2017.

C.C.No 1210 /2015.

Between:- The State through the Sub- Inspector of police,

Kanchanbagh Police Station,Hyderabad. ..... Complainant.

And

Syed Khaja Faheemuddin @ Faheemuddin, S/o Nayeemuddin, age: 29 years, Occ: Auto driver, R/o Block-51, Singareni colony, Saidabad, Hyderabad.

... Accused.

This case is coming on 02.02.2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Asst,PPO and having stood over the matter for consideration till this day the Court made the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub- Inspector of police, Kanchanbagh Police Station Hyderabad filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/S 379 IPC in

Cr.No.176/2015 of Kanchanbagh Police Station.

The brief facts of the prosecution case are that, on 08-08-2015 at 20.30 hours, LW1/complainant- Mohd. Aslam Khan parked his vehicle bearing No. AP- 09-CB-4126, Activa Honda in Bharath garden Function Hall parking place and after attending function he returned to parking place to take his vehicle, he noticed that his vehicle was missing from parking place, some unknown persons might have stolen his vehicle, they searched all possible places to trace his vehicle but could not trace, he lodged complaint. Basing on the report given by

LW.1, Sub-Inspector of police Kanchanbagh registered the case and took up investigation. During the course of investigation the Sub-Inspector of police examined the witnesses, visited the scene of offence, seized bike Activa Honda vehicle No. AP09-CB-4126, Chasis No. ME4JC449KA8067021, Engine No.

2 C.C.No. 1210 of 2015 

JC44E0943679, colour black, model 2010, arrested the accused and sent him for remand etc., and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

2Cognizance of case was taken for the offence U/Ss 379 IPC against the accused, case copies were furnished to them as required U/S.207 Cr.P.C.

3.The accused was examined U/S.239 Cr.P.C. Basing on the prima facie material available on record, charges U/Section 379 IPC are framed against the accused, for which the Accused pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried .

4.To prove the allegations made against the accused, prosecution examined

Pws.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5 and M.O.1.

5 After completion of the evidence of prosecution, the accused was examined U/S 313 Cr.P.C. When the accused was called upon to enter in to defence, he reported no defence evidence.

6Heard the arguments of learned APP and learned defence counsel.

7Now the point that arises for the determination is :

“ Whether the accused committed theft of M.O.1 motorcycle?.” 8Point :

Pws.1 to 6 examined on behalf of prosecution. According to PW.1 on 08- 08-2015 he parked his two wheeler at Bharath Funcation Hall at about 10.35 P.M and he noticed it missed at 12.55 mid night on 14-08-2015, he went to police station and lodged complaint. Ex.p1 is complaint, he was examined by the police subsequently property was recovered by the police and and he has taken the same as interim custody and he produced the motorcycle before the court and is marked as M.O.1. According to PW.4 he stated that in the month of June-2015 he

3 C.C.No. 1210 of 2015 

sold away his motorcycle to PW.1 but the vehicle is not transferred in the name of PW.1 and after two months the PW.1 informed that the vehicle was stolen away, subsequently the said vehicle took the interim custody from the court and which is marked as M.O.1.

9.According to the above evidence of Pws.1 and 4 it is clear that the PW.4 is the owner of the property and sold away the same to PW.1 and deliver the motorcycle to PW.1 for the ownership of the vehicle is not transferred and subsequently the said vehicle was stolen away, the PW.1 lodged the complaint to the police and he also took the said property to the interim custody. Further there is a delay of 6 days in lodging the complaint and no explanation given by

PW.1 or PW.4 or by PW.6 investigating officer though the PW.1 and 6 investigating officer admitted the same.

10.PW.2 is the panch witness. According to him he himself along with LW5-

Firoz Ali Khan summoned tot he police station of Kanchanbagh on 10-09-2015, the accused was present in the police station and he enquired that the accused and he confessed the offence int his case. Police also seized two wheeler vehicle from the possession of the accused under the cover of panchanama he signed in th Panchanama which is Ex.P2.

11.PW.3 another panch witness also deposed that on 8-9-2015 while he was going on road he found mob at DMRL Cross roads, he went there and the police was present there and one black colour two wheeler was also there, the police prepared rough sketch and other documents and obtained his signature, the said vehicle seized in his presence. Ex.P3 is the seizure panchanama. Ex.P4 is the rough sketch.

12.PW.5 is the constable he deposed that on 10-09-2015 at about 6.00 A.M, he himself and LW.7-Krishal-PC are in petrolling duty at Champapet and found

4 C.C.No. 1210 of 2015 

one person by bike under suspicious circumstances and when he was questioned and failed to produce the RC of the two wheeler, they apprehended the said person and produced before the PW.6-Sub-Inspector of police and he admitted the accused as the above said person.

13.PW.6 is the investigating officer he deposed that he received complaint from PW.1, registered the case, issued first information report under Ex.P4, examined and recorded the statement of PW1, visited the scene of offence and during the course of investigation on 8-9-2015 he found the stolen bike near

DMRL X roads I,e M.O.1, then he secured the presence of PW.4 and LW.4 and seized the said motorcycle, he also prepared rough sketch of said case and also panchanama for seizure of the motorcycle and during the course of investigation on 10-09-2015 PW.5 and LW.6 apprehended the accused and on interrogation the accused confessed the offences in this case and other cases, then he secured the presence of PW.2 and LW.4 and prepared confession of the accused and seized the motorcycle in Cr.No. 195/2015 under cover of confession cum seizure panchanama.

14.The above said evidence of PW.6 and PW.3 are contradictory in respect of presence of accused along with bike on 8-9-2015 at the time of seizure of the motorcycle under cover of Exs.P2 and P4 as the PW.1 stated that the thief was present at the spot and the evidence of Pws.6 and 2 also contradictory to each other as the PW.6 stated that the accused confessed the offence in this case and other cases to harass the PW.2 stated that he cannot say how many cases and when the accused has committed the offence, the only one vehicle seized from the possession of the accused which was kept inside in the boundary of the police station and he also deposed that no other vehicles seized in his presence and he read the panchanama etc., Accordingly the above evidence of Pws.2,3 and 6 are uncorroborated and inconsistent with the confession cum seizure panchanamas under Exs.P2 to 4 and hence doubtful.

5 C.C.No. 1210 of 2015 

15.In view of the above discussed evidence of Pws.1 to 6, facts and circumstances and reasons thereon it is clear that th prosecution has failed to prove and establish that the accused committed the theft of M.O.1, hence above point is answered.

16.In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the charge

U/Sections 379 IPC and is acquitted U/S 248(1) Cr.P.C. Accused shall be set at liberty forthwith if he is not required to detain in any other case.

MO.1: Honda Activa, Bearing No. AP09CB4126 already given to complainant/PW.1 Mohd. Aslam Khan as interim custody and the accused is not claiming the same as his property. There are no rival claimants to claim the same. Therefore, the possession of M.O.1 shall be continued with

PW.1/complainant after appeal time is over.

Dictated to the personal Asst.,transcribed and typed by

her,corrected,pronounced and signed by me on this the 7th day of February,2017.

FAC XIV Addl.,Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

Appendix of evidence. Witnesses examined for . Prosecution. Defence. -Nil- PW1: Mohd. Aslam Khan- Complainant PW2: Md. Ikram Rukmuddin- panch witness PW3: Shaik Zuber- Panch witness PW4: Syed Jamaluddin Ummar- Owner of the vehicle/witness PW5: G. Srinivas- PC PW6- G. Yugander Reddy -SI of police, Kanchanbagh

6 C.C.No. 1210 of 2015 

Exhibits marked. Prosecution.

EXP1: Complaint given by PW.1 EXP2:Attested copy of PW.2 on confessional cum seizure panchanama of accused EXP3: Seizure panchanama EXP4: Rough sketch EXP5: First Information Report -Nil-

Material objects marked.

MO.1: Honda Activa, Bearing No. AP09CB4126

FAC XIV Addl.,Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

7 C.C.No. 1210 of 2015 

FORM NO.72 OF CRIMINAL RULES OF PRACTICE

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT: HYDERABAD. Calender case tried by The VII Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

HYDERABAD.

_____________________________________________________________________ Date of Offence : 08.08.2015 Date of Report : 14.08.2015 Date of apprehension of accused : 10.09.2015 Date of Release of accused : jail Date of filing of charge sheet : 22.09.2015 Date of Taking cognizance : 26.09.2015 Date of Furnishing of copies to accused: 29.10.2015 Date of Recording the plea of accused :02.12.2015 Date of commencement of trial : 17.12.2015 Date of closure of trial : 07.09.2016 Date of Examination of accused U/S.313: Cr.P.C: 19.10.2016. Date of Sentence or order : 07.02.2017 Reason for delay :no delay Judgment of Calender Case No. 1210 /2015 on the file of VII ACMM;Hyderabad. Name of the complainant : The Sub-Inspector of police, P.S Kanchanbagh,Hyd Particulars of the accused : Syed Khaja Faheemuddin @ Faheemuddin,S/o Nayeemuddin, age: 29 years, Occ: Auto driver, R/o Block-51, Singareni colony,Saidabad, Hyderabad.

Offence U/S. : 379 IPC Finding of the Court : Accused is found not guilty of the charge U/Sections 379 IPC and is acquitted U/S 248(1) Cr.P.C. Accused shall be set at liberty forthwith if he is not required to detain in any other case. MO.1: Honda Activa, Bearing No. AP09CB4126 already given to complainant/PW.1 Mohd. Aslam Khan as interim custody and the accused is not claiming the same as his property. There are no rival claimants to claim the same. Therefore, the possession of M.O.1 shall be continued with PW.1/complainant after appeal time is over.

From The FAC XIV Addl.,Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

FAC XIV Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

HYDERABAD.

To The Hon'ble I Addl.,Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

CC.No. 1210/2015 Date of Judgment: 07.02.2017.

Dis.No: /XIV ACMM/Hyd/2017 Dt. .3.2017.

8 C.C.No. 1210 of 2015 

1 C.C.No. 1208 of 2015 

IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE;

HYDERABAD.

Present:- Sri. G.S.RAMESH KUMAR, XIV Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, FAC VIIAddl.Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate,Hyderabad.

Dated this Tuesday the 21st day of February,2017.

C.C.No 1208 /2015.

Between:- The State through the Sub- Inspector of police,

Kanchanbagh Police Station,Hyderabad. ..... Complainant.

And

Syed Khaja Faheemuddin @ Faheemuddin, S/o Nayeemuddin, age: 29 years, Occ: Auto driver, R/o Block-51, Singareni colony, Saidabad, Hyderabad.

... Accused.

This case is coming on 07.02.2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Asst,PPO and having stood over the matter for consideration till this day the Court made the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub- Inspector of police, Kanchanbagh Police Station Hyderabad filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/S 379 IPC in

Cr.No.164/2015 of Kanchanbagh Police Station.

The brief facts of the prosecution case are that, on 23-07-2015 night at 12.00 A.M, LW1/complainant namely S. Santosh Kumar brother LW.2 -S. Sravan

Kumar parked his Honda Shine vehicle bearing No. AP 29 AK 9409 in front of his house and next day morning noticed that vehicle was missing from parked place, he suspects that some unknown person might be committed theft of his vehicle.

Basing on the report given by LW.1, Sub-Inspector of police Kanchanbagh registered the case, examined the witnesses, visited the scene of offence and during the course of investigation seized the motorcycle, prepared rough sketch, on 10-9-2015 found the acucsed and produced before him an don interrogation he confessed the offence and also offences in other cases, seized the property

I.e motorcycle in Cr.No. 195/15, arrested the accused and sent him for remand

2 C.C.No. 1208 of 2015 

and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

2Cognizance of case was taken for the offence U/Ss 379 IPC against the accused, case copies were furnished to them as required U/S.207 Cr.P.C.

3.The accused was examined U/S.239 Cr.P.C. Basing on the prima facie material available on record, charges U/Section 379 IPC are framed against the accused, for which the Accused pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried .

4.To prove the allegations made against the accused, prosecution examined

Pws.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5 and M.O.1.

5 After completion of the evidence of prosecution, the accused was examined U/S 313 Cr.P.C. When the accused was called upon to enter in to defence, he reported no defence evidence.

6Heard the arguments of learned APP and learned defence counsel.

7Now the point that arises for the determination is :

“ Whether the accused committed theft of M.O.1 motorcycle?.” 8Point :

Pws.1 to 6 examined on behalf of prosecution. PW.1 is the complainant.

According to him on 23-07-2015 he kept his two wheeler with PW.2 and on nxt day morning it was found missing and they went to police station and lodged complaint which is Ex.P1 and subsequently the said motor vehicle was recovered by the police and took the same for interim custody which is M.O.1 but the date of incident is 23-7-2015 and the date of complaint is 28-7-2015, the PW.1 adds and he waited two to four days for searching the vehicle, the said adding of the

PW.1 is not at all satisfactory if really the searched two to four days he has to

3 C.C.No. 1208 of 2015 

furnish the details where he searched but in the absence of such details is adding in the evidence that he searching the vehicle is out of trust.

9.The evidence of Pw.2 is similarly to PW1, further the evidence of PW6 is that he received complaint from PW.1 on 28-7-2015 and registered and issued first information report which is Ex.P5, he examined and recorded the statement of PW1, he also visited the scene of offence and examined and recorded the statement of PW.2 and during the course of investigation on 28-8-2015 the stolen bike was found near RTC bus stop, then he secured the presence of PW.2 and

LW.4 and seized the said motorcycle and he also prepared rough sketch of the place where he seized the motorcycle under the cover of panchanama, whereas, the PW.3 said to be panch witness deposed that on 20-08-2015 Kanchanbagh police has conducted seizure panchanama and seized two wheeler motorcycle at

RCI bus stand Kanchanbagh. Ex.P2 is the scene of offence panchanama.

10.Th above evidence of Pws.3 and 6 is contrary inrespect of the date on which the above seizure of M.O.1 was taken place, the PW6 stated that it is on 28-8-2015 and PW.3 panch witness stated that it is on 20-08-2015 and also it is not the evidence of PW.3 that he summons or called by police to act as panch witness his evidence is like a casual manner but has not the panch witness of the seizure of the motorcycle was taken place by the police at RCI bus stop while he was going from Kanchabagh to Balapoor, accordingly the above evidence of

PW.3 and 6 is contrary in this regard.

11.The PW.5 constable stated that while he himself and LW.7 were in petrolling duty at Kakatiya School on 10-09-2015 found one person moving in bike under suspicious circumstances they stopped him and asked to produce the

RC of two wheeler but he failed to produce and also failed to explain the reason, then they taken him into custody and produced the said person along with motorcycle before PW6, the said person is the accused herein witness also

4 C.C.No. 1208 of 2015 

identified him.

12.The above evidence of PW.5 corroborated by PW.6 and PW.6 further deposed that he interrogated the accused who was produced before him by

PW.5 and LW7-Krishna-Police constable and the accused confessed the offennces in this case and also in other cases, then he secured PW.4 and LW.6-

Mir Feroz Ali Khan, panch witnesses and prepared confession and also seized the property I,e motorcycle in Cr.No. 195/2015. PW.4 and LW.6 attested in the said confession seizure panchanama which is Ex.P4.

13.According to PW.4 he was summoned by Kanchanbagh police along with

PW.5 they went to police station and enquired the accused and accused confessed the offences and the police seized two wheeler motorcycle from the possession of the accused and then police prepared panchanama and he attested the said confession cum seizure panchanama, whereas in cross- examination he stated that he cannot say in how many cases and when the accused committed the offences, the seized vehicle also inside the boundary of the police station, the police took him to the vehicle and seized it.

14.The above evidence of PW. Is not at all believable as he failed to say in how many cases and when the acucsed committed the offence if really he enquired the accused and he confessed the offences before him, he has to furnish the correct particulars and moreover this PW.4 is not known the language of Telugu and not known to read and write the English but the contents of panchanama was handed over to him by police, if really he reveal the contents of

Ex.P4 panchanama which includes the confession, he has to say in how many cases the accused confessed before him.

15.In view of the above discussed evidence of Pws.1 to 6 and the facts and circumstances and reasons thereon it is clear that the prosecution has failed to

5 C.C.No. 1208 of 2015 

establish and prove that the accused committed theft of M.O.1, hence above point is answered.

16.In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the charge

U/Sections 379 IPC and is acquitted U/S 248(1) Cr.P.C. Accused shall be set at liberty forthwith if he is not required to detain in any other case.

MO.1: Honda Shine, Bearing No. AP29AK 9409 already given to complainant/PW.1 S. Santosh Kumar as interim custody and the accused is not claiming the same as his property. There are no rival claimants to claim the same. Therefore, the possession of M.O.1 shall be continued with

PW.1/complainant after appeal time is over.

Dictated to the personal Asst.,transcribed and typed by

her,corrected,pronounced and signed by me on this the 21st day of February,2016.

FAC XIV Addl.,Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

Appendix of evidence. Witnesses examined for . Prosecution. Defence. -Nil- PW1: S. Santosh Kumar- Complainant PW2: S. Sravan Kumar- Brother of PW1/witness PW3: C. Rajasheker- Panch witness PW4: Md. Ikram Rukmuddin- panch witness PW5: G. Srinivas- PC PW6- G. Yugander Reddy -SI of police, Kanchanbagh Exhibits marked. Prosecution.

EXP1: Complaint given by PW.1 EXP2:Scene of offence panchanama EXP3: Rough sketch of scene of offence panchanama EXP4: Attested the confession cum seizure panchanama of accused EXP5: First Information Report -Nil-

Material objects marked.

MO.1: Honda Shine, Bearing No. AP29AK 9409

FAC XIV Addl.,Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

6 C.C.No. 1208 of 2015 

FORM NO.72 OF CRIMINAL RULES OF PRACTICE

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT: HYDERABAD. Calender case tried by The VII Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

HYDERABAD.

_____________________________________________________________________ Date of Offence : 23.07.2015 Date of Report : 28.07.2015 Date of apprehension of accused : 10.09.2015 Date of Release of accused : jail Date of filing of charge sheet : 22.09.2015 Date of Taking cognizance : 26.09.2015 Date of Furnishing of copies to accused: 29.10.2015 Date of Recording the plea of accused :17.11.2015 Date of commencement of trial : 10.12.2015 Date of closure of trial : 23.11.2016 Date of Examination of accused U/S.313: Cr.P.C: 23.11.2016. Date of Sentence or order : 21.02.2017 Reason for delay :no delay Judgment of Calender Case No. 1208 /2015 on the file of VII ACMM;Hyderabad. Name of the complainant : The Sub-Inspector of police, P.S Kanchanbagh Particulars of the accused : Syed Khaja Faheemuddin @ Faheemuddin,S/o Nayeemuddin, age: 29 years, Occ: Auto driver, R/o Block-51, Singareni colony,Saidabad, Hyderabad.

Offence U/S. : 379 IPC Finding of the Court : Accused is found not guilty of the charge U/Sections 379 IPC and is acquitted U/S 248(1) Cr.P.C. Accused shall be set at liberty forthwith if he is not required to detain in any other case. MO.1: Honda Shine, Bearing No. AP29AK 9409 already given to complainant/PW.1 S. Santosh Kumar as interim custody and the accused is not claiming the same as his property. There are no rival claimants to claim the same. Therefore, the possession of M.O.1 shall be continued with PW.1/complainant after appeal time is over

From The FAC XIV Addl.,Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

FAC XIV Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

HYDERABAD.

To The Hon'ble I Addl.,Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

CC.No. 1208/2015 Date of Judgment: 21.02.2017.

Dis.No: /XIV ACMM/Hyd/2017 Dt. .3.2017.

7 C.C.No. 1208 of 2015 

1C.C.No. 1720 of 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE XIV ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE :: AT HYDERABAD.

Present:-Sri. G.S. Ramesh Kumar, XIV Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

Wednesday, the 18th day of July, 2018

C.C.No. 1720 of 2016

Between:- The State through the Inspector of Police, Charminar P.S./S.I.T., Hyderabad.

..... Complainant.

And

A1) Ritish Tiwari @ Bunty, S/o Late Ram Charan, Aged: 30 years, Occ: Mobile Business, R/o H.No. 21-4-452, Gurudwar Charmahal, Charminar, Hyderabad

A2) Gadulu Mahesh Reddy @ Reddy, So Maruthi Reddy, Aged: 23 years, Occ: Student, R/o H.No. 21-4-1137, Moosabowli, High Court, Hyderabad

A3) Vijay Singh, S/o Papalal, Aged: 32 years, Occ: Dhobi, R/o H.No. 21-3-530, Panchiburak, Golagalli, Hyderabad

A4) Ashish Tiwari, S/o Pradeep Tiwari, Aged: 21 years, Occ: Private Supervisor, R/o H.No. 21-4-452, Charmahal, Charminar, Hyderabad

….. Accused

This case is coming on 16.07.2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Asst,PPO and of Sri. Rajesh Tiwari, Sri S.Harjeet Singh, Counsels for the Accused and after perusing the case records and upon hearing the arguments on both sides, this Court made the following:-

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

1.The Inspector of Police, Special Investigation Team,

Hyderabad filed charge sheet against the Accused 1 to 4 for the offence U/Sections 147, 148, 323, 435, 153-A read with 149 of IPC and section 7(1)(a) of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932 in Crime

No. 314/2012 of P.S. Charminar/SIT, Hyderabad.

2C.C.No. 1720 of 2016

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

(i)On 17-11-2012 at 1500 hours, [LW.1]-Mohammed Ghouse lodged a complaint to the police stating that on 16.11.2012 at about 14:00 hours while he was proceeding to his house on his

Honda Shine motor cycle bearing No. AP-12M-7334 from his work

place at Kashish Wedding Mall, Pattargatti, Hyderabad and when he reached the Mitti-ka-sher, near Pahelwan Mirchi centre, Gulzar

House, Hyderabad, meanwhile some unknown mob gathered on the stretch of Mitti-ka-sher and Urdugally and stopped him and set fire to his motor cycle and burnt it and after few seconds, the same mob stopped another person who was going on the said route and burnt his Hero Honda Splendor motor cycle bearing No. AP-12C- 3988 and hence he requested to take necessary action against the culprits.

(ii)Basing on the above said complaint, [Lw.12]-G. Janardhan,

Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Charminar registered a case in crime

No. 314/2012 under sections 147, 148, 323, 435 read with 149 of

IPC and sec. 7(1)(a) of Criminal Law Amendment Act, issued F.I.R.

and thereafter, handed over the file to [Lw.13]-K. Muralidhar, Sub-

Inspector of Police for investigation who recorded the statements of witnesses, visited the scene of offence, drafted rough sketch of the scene and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of mediators. Thereafter, the case was transferred to Special

Investigation Team, Hyderabad and during the course of further investigation, the accused persons were apprehended and on interrogation, the accused persons admitted their guilt and 3C.C.No. 1720 of 2016 recorded their confessional statements and sent them for judicial remand. During investigation, it was elicited that due to the attacking of Muslim community people on the properties of Hindu community people with regard to the issue to extension of

Bhavyalaxmi temple structure which was objected by the Muslim leaders, the accused persons decided to take revenge against the

Muslim community people and as such on 16.11.2012 A1 to A4 formed themselves into unlawful assembly at Mitti-ka-Sher, near

Gulzar House, Hyderabad and while [Lws.1 and 2]-Mohd. Ghouse and Mohd. Ayub were proceeding through the above said place, A1 to A4 stopped them, beat them and set fire their motor cycles.

After completion of investigation and after collecting necessary documents, charge sheet was filed against A1 to A4.

3.Cognizance of case was taken for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 323, 435, 153-A read with 149 of IPC against the

Accused No.1 to 4.

4.On appearance of the Accused No.1 to 4, case copies were furnished to them as required under Section.207 of Cr.P.C.

5.The Accused No.1 to 4 were examined under section 239 of

Cr.P.C., and after hearing both parties, a charge under sections 147, 148, 323, 435, 153-A read with 149 of IPC against the accused No.1 to 4 has been framed, read over and explained to them, for which they denied the accusation levelled against them and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4C.C.No. 1720 of 2016

6.To prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution examined

Pws 1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1.

7. After closure of the above prosecution evidence, A1 to A4 were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused No.1 to 4 denied the incriminating material put to them and they did not propose to examine any defence witness.

8.Heard the arguments.

9.Now the point that arises for the determination is:- “Whether the prosecution established and proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 323, 435, 153-A read with 149 of IPC?”

10.POINT: Pws.1 to 3 only examined on behalf of prosecution and these Pws.1 to 3 are only the eye witnesses for the alleged offence and on perusal of the evidence of Pw.1, he stated that he is the constable and he do not know Lws.1 and 2 and on 16.11.2012 while he was in Blue Colts duty, at about 01:30 noon he was informed by the public that two bikes are burning at Mitti-ka-sher, he along with another constable rushed there and found firing of the motor cycles and they enquired the public and nearby people and came to know that one Mohd. Ghouse and Mirchi Pahilwan and others set fire the said motor cycles and they informed the same in police station. Pw.2 (Shiva Naresh), the Head Constable 5C.C.No. 1720 of 2016 deposed that on one day in the year 2012 while he was in Gulzar

House in mobile duty and informed by the public that somebody set fire some of the vehicles after completion of prayers in Macca

Masjid, but this Pw.2 not visited and saw the burning vehicles and he did not make any enquiry on it and he did not see any accused are there in the mob and he became hostile towards the case of the prosecution. The Pw.3 (Shaik Ali) is also Head Constable. He stated that on 16.11.2012 while he was in petrolling duty along with other constables, public came from Makka Masjid after prayer, informed about burning of the vehicles, he reached there and found two vehicles are burning and the mob were already disbursed. He gave intimation to police and he made enquiry, but could not get any information about burning of any vehicles. Except the evidence of above Pws.1 to 3, there is no other evidence from the prosecution side and moreover no incriminating material is found in the above evidence of Pws.1 to 3 against the accused except the burning of vehicles.

11.The police returned the summons of Lws.1 and 2-owners of the burnt vehicles-cum-complainant by stating that their whereabouts are not known. They also returned the summons of

Lws.8 and 9 who are the panch witnesses for observation of scene of offence by stating that their whereabouts are also not known and accordingly, their evidence is closed. Further the police failed to serve the summons to Lws.6, 7 and 10 since 03.10.2017 and finally their evidence was closed on 21.03.2018. They also failed to 6C.C.No. 1720 of 2016 produce and examine Lws.11 to 15 and returned the summons and closed and finally the evidence of Lw.16 and 17 was also closed in view of the above evidence of Pws.1 to 3 and also non-examination of other Lws., and also in view of the conditional order dated 09.07.2018 and the case is posted to 16.07.2018 for 313 Cr.P.C.

examination. Thereafter today for judgment, but the police not at all taken any steps even till today to produce and examine at least the available witnesses. Accordingly, the non-examination of Lws.1 and 2 and 6 to 17 is fatal to the case of prosecution due to their non-examination, but complaint itself is not marked and no property also marked and there is no evidence about the registration of the case and F.I.R. is also not marked and the permission for prosecution of the accused for the offence under section 153-A of IPC is also not at all marked.

12.In view of the above discussed evidence of Pws.1 to 3, the facts and circumstances and the reasons thereon, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under sections 147, 148, 323, 435, 153-A read with 149 of

IPC against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and I found the accused are not found guilty of the above said offences and are acquitted.

13. (i) In the result, accused No.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the charge under Sections 147, 148, 323, 435, 153-A read with 149 of

IPC and accordingly they are acquitted under Section 248(1) 7C.C.No. 1720 of 2016

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of Accused shall be in force for a period of six months.

(ii)No property is deposited in this case.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him,

corrected, pronounced and signed by me on this the 18th day of July, 2018.

XIV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for.

Prosecution. Defence.

PW1- K. Tirupathaiah, (witness/PC-7398) - None - PW2- Shiva Naresh, (witness/HC-6876) PW3- Shaik Ali, (witness/HC-6587)

Exhibits marked. Ex.P1 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.2 dated 05.12.2012 - Nil -

Material objects marked.

- Nil -

XIV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD