Sri G.Srinivas

I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa

District Court Complex Kadapa · Kadapa · Andhra Pradesh

Sri G.Srinivas, I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa, is posted at District Court Complex Kadapa, Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh, India. 2,914 court orders on record since 2017. 15 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles SC, MVOP, EP cases.

2,914

Total Orders

Judgments

117

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

CRLA/244/2019 Acquitted

G.Srinivasulu vs S.H.O.Porumamilla P.S.

26 Jun 2020

Crl.A.No. 244/2019

PSJ Court, Kdp.

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE:: KADAPA.

Present: Sri G. Srinivas, B.A.B.L.,

Principal Sessions Judge, Kadapa.

Friday on this the 26th day of June, 2020.

Crl. Appeal No. 244 of 2019.

1Name of the Court from which Additional Junior Civil Judge, Badvel. the Crl. Appeal is received 2No. of the case in that courtC.C.No. 636/2018. 3Name and Description of the Galam Srinivasulu S/o. Late Pedda Parties in that court.Subbarayudu, aged about 45 years, Hindu, Resident of V. Rajupalem Village, Chapadu Mandal, Kadapa District.

. . . Appellant/ Accused No.2.

Vs.

The State: S.I of Police, Porumamilla Police Station. . . . Respondent/Complainant.

4 The sentence and law under In the result, the Accused No.1 and 2 which it was imposed in the are found guilty for the offence under lower court. Section 411 of Indian Penal Code. The MO1 was handed over to PW1 for safe custody through orders in Crl.M.P.No. 4648 of 2018 dated 26-11-2018, same holds good. Accordingly, the Accused No.1 and 2 are convicted under Section 248(2) of Criminal Procedure Code and Accused No.1 and 2 each are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of Three Years. The remand period of Accused No.1 from 29.09.2018 to 30.10.2019 shall be set off as per Section 428 of Criminal Procedure Code. The remand period of Accused No.2 from 29.09.2018 to 13.12.2018 shall be set off as per Section 428 of Criminal Procedure Code. The Accused herein were also tried by this court in Calendar Case No. 479 of 2018 for the offences under Sections 379 alternative charge under 411 of Indian Penal Code. In the said Calendar Case the Accused No.1 and 2 were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years punishment for the offence under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code. The punishment awarded in this case shall run concurrently to the 2

Crl.A.No. 244/2019

PSJ Court, Kdp. punishment awarded in the said calender case No.479 of 2018 as per Section 427 of Criminal Procedure Code.

5Whether the sentence is IN THE RESULT, the Criminal Appeal is confirmed/modified/reversed allowed by setting aside the Judgment andifmodified,the passed in C.C.No. 636/ 2018 dated: modification. 30.10.2019 on the file of learned

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Badvel

against the Appellant/ Accused No.2 alone.

DATE OF

PresentationFilingNotice Bail bond if Appellant is HearingJudgment/ issued by the the appellant ordered to Order. courtto is let out on appear appearbail

11-11-2019 15-11-2019 15-11-2019 -- 26-11-2019 22-06-2020 26-06-2020

This Criminal Appeal has come upon 22.6.2020 for hearing before me, upon perusing the grounds of appeal, records, and the evidence available, upon considering the same and after hearing the arguments of

Sri V. Rama Mohan Advocate for the Appellant/ Accused No.2 and the learned Public Prosecutor for the Respondent/ Complainant , I do adjudge and pass the following :

J U D G M E N T.

1. This is an Appeal preferred by the Appellant/ Accused No.2 U/Sec.

374(3) of Cr.P.C to allow the appeal by setting aside the Judgment and conviction passed in C.C.No. 636/2018 passed by the learned Additional

Junior Civil Judge, Badvel dated: 30.10.2019 and acquit the appellant.

2. In brief the case of the prosecution is as follows : On 13.06.2018, Poluru Subbarayudu (LW1) parked his two wheeler

AP04BU0502 out side S.V.Prasad hospital and went for coolie work at about 10:00 AM. At about 04:00 PM when he came back he found the said two wheeler is missing, searched the locality and could not find the same. Hence came to the conclusion that some unknown offender 3

Crl.A.No. 244/2019

PSJ Court, Kdp. committed theft of the same and gave report at Police Station. Based on report of Poluru Subbarayudu (LW1) crime is registered by B.Pedda

Obanna (LW9). During course of investigation B.Pedda Obanna (LW9) recorded the statements of witnesses, visited the alleged scene of offence and prepared rough sketch. On 18-09-2018, A.Madhu

Malleshwara Reddy (LW8) Sub Inspector of Police of Proddutur II Town

Police Station arrested Accused in the presence of Panch witnesses i.e.

Komirisetty Madhu (LW5) & Avula Dasthagiraiah (LW6) and recovered 18 two wheelers that include the two wheeler related to this case. The

Accused were produced before this Court by executing P.T. Warrant.

After completion of investigation filed charge sheet before Court.

3. The case was taken on to file against the accused for the offence

U/Sec. 379 or 411 of IPC. On appearance of accused, copies of relevant documents were furnished to them as contemplated U/Sec. 207 of

Cr.P.C. The accused were examined U/Sec.239 of Code of Criminal

Procedure, charges U/Sec. 379 and alternatively U/Sec. 411 of IPC against accused were framed, read over and explained the contents to them in Telugu, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution P.Ws. 1 to 4 were examined and got marked Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-5 documents and M.O.1 was marked. On behalf of defence no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked.

Crl.A.No. 244/2019

PSJ Court, Kdp.

5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, Accused 1 and 2 were examined Under Section. 313 of Cr.P.C, Accused denied the incriminating evidence adduced against them by the prosecution.

6. At the culmination of the trial, after considering the evidence on record, the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Badvel found the

Accused guilty for the offence under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code.

The MO1 was handed over to PW1 for safe custody through orders in

Crl.M.P.No. 4648 of 2018 dated 26-11-2018, same holds good.

Accordingly, the Accused No.1 and 2 are convicted under Section 248(2) of Criminal Procedure Code and Accused No.1 and 2 each are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of Three Years. The remand period of Accused No.1 from 29.09.2018 to 30.10.2019 shall be set off as per Section 428 of Criminal Procedure Code. The remand period of Accused No.2 from 29.09.2018 to 13.12.2018 shall be set off as per Section 428 of Criminal Procedure Code. The Accused herein were also tried by this court in Calendar Case No. 479 of 2018 for the offences under Sections 379 alternative charge under 411 of Indian Penal Code.

In the said Calendar Case the Accused No.1 and 2 were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years punishment for the offence under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code. The punishment awarded in this case shall run concurrently to the punishment awarded in the said calender case No.479 of 2018 as per Section 427 of Criminal

Procedure Code.

Crl.A.No. 244/2019

PSJ Court, Kdp.

7. Aggrieved by the said Judgment of conviction, the present appeal is preferred by the Appellant/ Accused No.2 questioning the legality and the validity of the impugned Judgment of conviction.

8. Contentions of the Appellant/ Accused No.2 in the

Memorandum of Appeal filed by him, are that :

a). The judgment of trial court is contrary to law weight of evidence, probabilities of the case.

b). The trial court ought to have acquitted the accused instead of convicting the accused. The trial court ought to have seen there is no evidence on records to conclude the case in conviction.

c). The trial court ought to have found the accused not guilty of the offence U/Sec. 411 of IPC.

d). The trial court convicted the appellant though there is discrepancy among the evidence of witnesses.

e). The lower court miserably failed to appreciate the evidence available on record which favourable to the appellant. There is lot of major contradictions in between the witnesses. The trial court did not appreciate the above case.

f). The trial court did not appreciate the evidence on record and convicted the accused without giving reasons in the judgment.

g). The trial court failed to observe established law that the prosecution has to prove case beyond all reasonable doubts.

Crl.A.No. 244/2019

PSJ Court, Kdp. considered the chief examination on the witnesses and not considered the cross-examination of the defence counsel.

i). The sentence imposed by the lower court is excessive and arbitrary.

With the the above grounds the appellant prayed to allow the appeal.

9. When the appeal came up for hearing before this Court, this Court have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the Appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor.

The Court of First appeal is the last Court of fact finding. Hence, it is necessary to advert to the pleadings and the parties herein are referred to as 'complainant' and 'Accused' for the sake of convenience and clarity.

10. Now the points that would emerge for determination in this Appeal are :

1. Whether the Judgment of conviction of the trial Court is sustainable under law and it warrants interference by this Court or whether it is liable to be set aside ?

2. To what relief ?

11. POINT NO. 1 AND 2 :

On re-appraisal of the rival contentions of prosecution as well as the defence it is the contention of the prosecution that on 13.6.2018 the 7

Crl.A.No. 244/2019

PSJ Court, Kdp. M.O.1 was committed theft by some unknown offenders followed by a crime registered on 18.9.2018. The P.W.3 i.e. Sub-Inspector of Police,

Proddatur after securing the P.W.2 (L.W.5) and P.W.4 and during their site checking accused Nos. 1 and 2 were caught with stolen two wheelers each. On interrogation they revealed about the commission of the 18 TVS XL two wheelers in Kadapa District and the police took them to their custody in the presence of punch witnesses and also went to the place where the accused hidden the vehicles and seized all the vehicles in the presence of panchas. Hence, both the accused are liable to be prosecution U/Sec. 379 or 411 of IPC. The trial court elaborately conducted the trial and sentenced the accused for a period of 3 years for the offence U/Sec. 411 of IPC.

12. Aggrieved with the same the 2nd accused carried the present appeal. The contention of the Appellant is that the first accused is used to work under him in his vegetable business for a period of one week and the relationship in between the Appellant and the first accused is master and servant. The first accused used to work as a boy in his shop for one week only and the Appellant herein do not know as to the character and conduct of the accused. When he came to know about the character and conduct of the first accused immediately Appellant/ A-2 asked the Accused No.1 to quit from his shop. Meanwhile the police came to his shop and also took him to custody by making attribution that Appellant/ A-2 also committed the theft along with Accused No.1 and he never made any theft of any articles/ vehicles and he is aged about 55 years and he is doing vegetable business and leading his life 8

Crl.A.No. 244/2019

PSJ Court, Kdp. respectfully with his children and there is no necessity for him to make theft of any goods.

13. It is the further contention of the defence i.e. Appellant is that the police personnel never seized any vehicles from his possession at any point of time and simply the police personnel obtained the signatures of the appellant on some written papers. When the Appellant refused to make his signatures on the said written papers the police personnel beat him indiscriminately and obtained his signatures forcibly and the

Appellant has not made his signatures voluntarily on the alleged confessional statement under cover of Ex. P-4 as well as the seizure report of the vehicles under cover of Ex. P-5.

14. On perusal of Ex. P-5 the police personnel have seized so many vehicles alleging that all the vehicles are seized from the possession of

Accused No.1 and 2. Except the Ex. P-5 seizure report there is no iota of evidence is found by this court that the Appellant/ Accused No.2 is the retainer of the stolen property. Even though the prosecution filed confessional statement under cover of Ex. P-4, the confessional statement is recorded by the police personnel while accused is in the custody of police. Hence, it is hit by Sec. 25 and 26 of Indian Evidence

Act. Hence, this court is not believing the contentions of Ex. P-4 confessional statement of the Appellant/ Accused No.2.

15. The basis for the offence U/Sec.411 of IPC is that the accused is in possession of stolen property. Therefore, it is the bounden duty of the 9

Crl.A.No. 244/2019

PSJ Court, Kdp. prosecution to establish that the property in question is stolen property and that too it is in the possession of the accused before it can ask for a conviction. As the prosecution utterly failed to produce any piece of evidence, the accused cannot be convicted safely.

16. The prosecution has not produced any direct evidence that the

Appellant is the retainer of the stolen property. Where there was no direct evidence to fasten the liability on Appellant/ Accused No.2 for the offence of theft, it is nothing but fatal to the case of prosecution. The court can refuse to raise a presumption U/Sec. 114(a) of Indian Evidence

Act in respect of possession or ornaments of common description likely to pass from hand to hand, six months after the theft.

17. In order to raise a presumption that a person found in possession of the stolen goods is a thief, his possession must be recent one i.e. he must be found in possession of the stolen good soon after the commission of the offence. When there is a gap of six months, the accused cannot be presumed to be the culprit.

18. It is the contention of the prosecution that they have seized 18 vehicles from the possession of the Appellant/ A-2 as well as the

Accused No.1. In order to raise presumption U/Sec. 114(a) against the accused, he must be in exclusive possession of stolen property.

Therefore, the recovery of the stolen goods from the possession of both the accused in joint occupation is not sufficient to show that the

Appellant/ Accused No.2 is the member of the said offence.

Crl.A.No. 244/2019

PSJ Court, Kdp.

19. Mere recovery of the stolen property certainly is not enough for the conviction U/Sec. 411 of IPC. The recovery of the stolen property was supported with other prosecution evidence and material.

20. The presumption U/Sec. 114 of Indian Evidence Act can be drawn provided the recovery is soon after the commission of the crime of theft or dacoity. The proximity in point of time is an important factor to be considered while drawing that presumption. By no stretch of imagination it could be said that recovery allegedly made after 20 days was soon after the commission of crime. For which this court is relying upon the observations which is reported in 2005 Allahabad L.J 1450 (DB) in between BALBIR SINGH V/S STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH.

21. Admittedly, there were no eye-witness at the time of occurrence of the alleged offence and the defacto complainant also admitted that he never saw the accused at any point of time. Therefore, except the police evidence there is no other cogent and reliable evidence to convict the accused.

Crl.A.No. 244/2019

PSJ Court, Kdp. is unsafe to convict the accused when the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and failed to bring home the guilt of the accused. Therefore, interference in the impugned judgment of the trial court is warranted. As there are convincing reasons in the contentions of learned counsel for the Appellant, as this court has not find any merits in the judgment of the trial court, regarding Appellant/

Accused No.2 is concerned the appeal is liable to be allowed. Ultimately the conviction passed by the trial court against the Appellant/ Accused

No.2 is liable to be set aside.

23. IN THE RESULT, the Criminal Appeal is allowed by setting aside the Judgment passed in C.C.No. 636/ 2018 dated: 30.10.2019 on the file of learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Badvel against the Appellant/

Accused No.2 alone.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open

Court, on this the 26 th day of June, 2020.

Sd/- G. Srinivas,

Principal Sessions Judge,

Kadapa.

CRLA/243/2019 Acquitted

G.Srinivasulu vs S.H.O.Porumamilla P.S.

26 Jun 2020

Crl.A.No. 243/2019

PSJ Court, Kdp.

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE:: KADAPA.

Present: Sri G. Srinivas, B.A.B.L.,

Principal Sessions Judge, Kadapa.

Friday on this the 26th day of June, 2020.

Crl. Appeal No. 243 of 2019.

1Name of the Court from which Additional Junior Civil Judge, Badvel. the Crl. Appeal is received 2No. of the case in that courtC.C.No. 630/2018.

3Name and Description of the Galam Srinivasulu S/o. Late Pedda Parties in that court.Subbarayudu, aged about 45 years, Hindu, Resident of V. Rajupalem village, Chapadu mandal, kadapa district.

….. Appellant/ Accused No.2.

Vs.

The State: S.I of Police, Porumamilla Police Station. …Respondent/Complainant.

dated 20.12.2018, same holds good.

Accordingly, the Accused No.1 and 2 are convicted under Section 248(2) of Criminal Procedure Code and they are sentencedtoundergorigorous imprisonment for a period of Three Years. The remand period of Accused No.1 from 29.09.2018 to 30.10.2019 shall be set off as per Section 428 of Criminal Procedure Code. The remand period of Accused No.2 from 29.09.2018 to 13.12.2018 shall be set off as per Section 428 of Criminal Procedure Code. The Accused herein were also tried by this court in Calendar Case No. 479 of 2018 for the offences under Sections. 379 alternative charge under 411 of Indian Penal Code. In the said Calendar Case the Accused No.1 and 2 were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years punishment for the offence under Section 411 of Indian Penal 2

Crl.A.No. 243/2019

PSJ Court, Kdp. Code. The punishment awarded in this case shall run concurrently to the punishment awarded in the said calender case No.479 of 2018 as per Section 427 of Criminal Procedure Code.

5Whether the sentence is IN THE RESULT, the Criminal Appeal confirmed/modified/reversed is allowed by setting aside the andifmodified,the modification. Judgment passed in C.C.No. 630/ 2018

dated: 30.10.2019 on the file of

learned Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Badvel against the Appellant/ Accused

No.2 alone.

DATE OF

PresentationFilingNotice Bail bond if Appellant is HearingJudgment/ issued by the appellant ordered to Order. the court to is let out on appear appearbail

11.11.2019 15.11.2019 15.11.2019 -- 26.11.2019 22.6.2020 26.6.2020

This Criminal Appeal has come upon 22.6.2020 for hearing

before me, upon perusing the grounds of appeal, records, and the

evidence available, upon considering the same and after hearing the arguments of Sri V. Rama Mohan Advocate for the Appellant/ Accused

No.2 and the learned Public Prosecutor for the for the Respondent/

Complainant , I do adjudge and pass the following :

J U D G M E N T.

1. This is an Appeal preferred by the Appellant/ Accused No.2

U/Sec. 374(3) of Cr.P.C to allow the appeal by setting aside the

Judgment and conviction passed in C.C.No. 630/2018 passed by the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Badvel dated: 30.10.2019 and acquit the appellant.

Crl.A.No. 243/2019

PSJ Court, Kdp.

2. In brief the case of the prosecution is as follows : On 08.09.2018, Bathula Mallikarjuna (LW1) parked his two wheeler

AP04BU2566 out side Hotel near YSR statue in front of Porumamilla

Government Hospital and went inside the hotel. After lunch when he came back he found the said two wheeler is missing, searched the locality and could not find the same. Hence came to the conclusion that some unknown offender committed theft of the same and gave report at Police Station. Based on report of Bathula Mallikarjuna (LW1) crime is registered by B.Pedda Obanna (LW8). During course of investigation B.Pedda Obanna (LW8) recorded the statements of witnesses, visited the alleged scene of offence and prepared rough sketch. On 18-09-2018, A.Madhu Malleshwara Reddy (LW7) Sub

Inspector of Police of Proddutur II Town Police Station arrested Accused in the presence of Panch witnesses i.e. Komirisetty Madhu (LW5) &

Avula Dasthagiraiah (LW6) and recovered 18 two wheelers that include the two wheeler related to this case. The Accused were produced

before this Court by executing P.T. Warrant. After completion of

investigation filed charge sheet before Court.

3. The case was taken on to file against the accused for the offence U/Sec. 379 or 411 of IPC. On appearance of accused, copies of relevant documents were furnished to them as contemplated U/Sec.

207 of Cr.P.C. The accused were examined U/Sec.239 of Code of

Criminal Procedure, charges U/Sec. 379 and alternatively U/Sec. 411 of

IPC against accused were framed, read over and explained the contents to them in Telugu, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Crl.A.No. 243/2019

PSJ Court, Kdp.

4. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution P.Ws. 1 to 4 were examined and got marked Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-5 documents and

M.O.1 was marked. On behalf of defence no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked.

5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, Accused 1 and 2 were examined Under Section. 313 of Cr.P.C, Accused denied the incriminating evidence adduced against them by the prosecution.

6. At the culmination of the trial, after considering the evidence on record, the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Badvel found the

Accused guilty for the offence under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code.

The MO1 was handed to PW1 for safe custody through orders in

Crl.M.P.No.4914 of 2018 dated 20.12.2018, same holds good.

Accordingly, the Accused No.1 and 2 are convicted under Section 248(2) of Criminal Procedure Code and they are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of Three Years. The remand period of Accused No.1 from 29.09.2018 to 30.10.2019 shall be set off as per

Section 428 of Criminal Procedure Code. The remand period of Accused

No.2 from 29.09.2018 to 13.12.2018 shall be set off as per Section 428 of Criminal Procedure Code. The Accused herein were also tried by this court in Calendar Case No. 479 of 2018 for the offences under

Sections. 379 alternative charge under 411 of Indian Penal Code. In the said Calendar Case the Accused No.1 and 2 were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years punishment for the offence under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code. The 5

Crl.A.No. 243/2019

PSJ Court, Kdp. punishment awarded in this case shall run concurrently to the punishment awarded in the said calender case No.479 of 2018 as per

Section 427 of Criminal Procedure Code.

7. Aggrieved by the said Judgment of conviction, the present appeal is preferred by the Appellant/ Accused No.2 questioning the legality and the validity of the impugned Judgment of conviction.

8. Contentions of the Appellant/ Accused No.2 in the

Memorandum of Appeal filed by him, are that :

a). The judgment of trial court is contrary to law weight of evidence, probabilities of the case.

b). The trial court ought to have acquitted the accused instead of convicting the accused. The trial court ought to have seen there is no evidence on records to conclude the case in conviction.

c). The trial court ought to have found the accused not guilty of the offence U/Sec. 411 of IPC.

d). The trial court convicted the appellant though there is discrepancy among the evidence of witnesses.

f). The trial court did not appreciate the evidence on record and convicted the accused without giving reasons in the judgment.

Crl.A.No. 243/2019

PSJ Court, Kdp.

g). The trial court failed to observe established law that the prosecution has to prove case beyond all reasonable doubts.

h). The trial court failed to observe the contradictions and omissions and improvements in the evidence of witnesses of the prosecution. The trial court only considered the chief examination on the witnesses and not considered the chief examination on the witnesses and not considered the cross-examination of the defence counsel.

i). The sentence imposed by the lower court is excessive and arbitrary.

With the the above grounds the appellant prayed to allow the appeal.

9. When the appeal came up for hearing before this Court, this

Court have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the

Appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor.

10. Now the points that would emerge for determination in this Appeal are :

1. Whether the Judgment of conviction of the trial Court is sustainable under law and it warrants interference by this Court or whether it is liable to be set aside ?

2. To what relief ?

Crl.A.No. 243/2019

PSJ Court, Kdp.

11. POINT NO. 1 AND 2 :

On re-appraisal of the rival contentions of prosecution as well as the defence, it is the contention of the prosecution that on 8.9.2018 the M.O.1 was committed theft by some unknown offenders followed by a crime registered on 18.9.2018. The P.W.3 i.e. Sub-Inspector of

Police, Proddatur after securing the P.W.2 ( L.W.6) and P.W.4 and during their site checking accused Nos. 1 and 2 were caught with stolen two wheelers each. On interrogation they revealed about the commission of the 18 TVS XL two wheelers in Kadapa District and the police took them to their custody in the presence of punch witnesses and also went to the place where the accused hidden the vehicles and seized all the vehicles in the presence of panchas. Hence, both the accused are liable to be prosecution U/Sec. 379 or 411 of IPC. The trial court elaborately conducted the trial and sentenced the accused for a period of 3 years for the offence U/Sec. 411 of IPC.

A-2 asked the Accused No.1 to quit from his shop. Meanwhile the police came to his shop and also took him to custody by making 8

Crl.A.No. 243/2019

PSJ Court, Kdp. attribution that Appellant/ A-2 also committed the theft along with

Accused No.1 and he never made any theft of any articles/ vehicles and he is aged about 55 years and he is doing vegetable business and leading his life respectfully with his children and there is no necessity for him to make theft of any goods.

Appellant refused to make his signatures on the said written papers the police personnel beat him indiscriminately and obtained his signatures forcibly and the Appellant has not made his signatures voluntarily on the alleged confessional statement under cover of Ex. P- 2 as well as the seizure report of the vehicles under cover of Ex. P-3.

14. On perusal of Ex. P-3 the police personnel have seized so many vehicles alleging that all the vehicles are seized from the possession of

Accused No.1 and 2. Except the Ex. P-3 seizure report there is no iota of evidence is found by this court that the Appellant/ Accused No.2 is the retainer of the stolen property. Even though the prosecution filed confessional statement under cover of Ex. P-2, the confessional statement is recorded by the police personnel while accused is in the custody of police. Hence, it is hit by Sec. 25 and 26 of Indian Evidence

Act. Hence, this court is not believing the contentions of Ex. P-2 confessional statement of the Appellant/ Accused No.2.

Crl.A.No. 243/2019

PSJ Court, Kdp.

15. The basis for the offence U/Sec.411 of IPC is that the accused is in possession of stolen property. Therefore, it is the bounden duty of the prosecution to establish that the property in question is stolen property and that too it is in the possession of the accused before it can ask for a conviction. As the prosecution utterly failed to produce any piece of evidence, the accused cannot be convicted safely.

16. The prosecution has not produced any direct evidence that the

The court can refuse to raise a presumption U/Sec. 114(a) of Indian

Evidence Act in respect of possession or ornaments of common description likely to pass from hand to hand, six months after the theft.

18. It is the contention of the prosecution that they have seized 18 vehicles from the possession of the Appellant/ A-2 as well as the

Accused No.1. In order to raise presumption U/Sec. 114(a) against the accused, he must be in exclusive possession of stolen property.

Therefore, the recovery of the stolen goods from the possession of 10

Crl.A.No. 243/2019

PSJ Court, Kdp. both the accused in joint occupation is not sufficient to show that the

Appellant/ Accused No.2 is the member of the said offence.

Crl.A.No. 243/2019

PSJ Court, Kdp. guilty as retainer of the stolen property and convicted him U/Sec. 411 of IPC. It is unsafe to convict the accused when the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and failed to bring home the guilt of the accused. Therefore, interference in the impugned judgment of the trial court is warranted. As there are convincing reasons in the contentions of learned counsel for the Appellant, as this court has not find any merits in the judgment of the trial court, regarding Appellant/ Accused No.2 is concerned the appeal is liable to be allowed. Ultimately the conviction passed by the trial court against the Appellant/ Accused No.2 is liable to be set aside.

23. IN THE RESULT, the Criminal Appeal is allowed by setting aside the Judgment passed in C.C.No. 630/ 2018 dated: 30.10.2019 on the file of learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Badvel against the

Appellant/ Accused No.2 alone.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open

Court, on this the 26 th day of June, 2020.

Sd/- G. Srinivas,

Principal Sessions Judge,

Kadapa.

CRLA/242/2019 Acquitted

G.Srinivasulu vs S.H.O.Badvel (U) P.S.

26 Jun 2020

Crl.A.No. 242/2019

PSJ Court, Kdp.

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE:: KADAPA.

Present: Sri G. Srinivas, B.A.B.L.,

Principal Sessions Judge, Kadapa.

Friday on this the 26th day of June, 2020.

Crl. Appeal No. 242 of 2019.

1Name of the Court from which Additional Junior Civil Judge, Badvel. the Crl. Appeal is received 2No. of the case in that courtC.C.No. 480/2018. 3Name and Description of the Galam Srinivasulu S/o. Late Pedda Parties in that court.Subbarayudu, aged about 45 years, Hindu, Resident of V.Rajupalem Village, Chapadu Mandal, Kadapa District.

. . . Appellant/ Accused No.2.

Vs.

The State: S.I of Police, Badvel Urban Police Station. . . . Respondent/Complainant.

4 The sentence and law under In the result, the Accused No.1 and 2 which it was imposed in the are found guilty for the offence under lower court. Section 411 of Indian Penal Code. The MO1 was handed to Defacto Complainant for safe custody through orders in Crl.M.P.No.4743 of 2019 dated 17.12.2018,sameholdsgood. Accordingly, the Accused No.1 and 2 are convicted under Section 248(2) of Criminal Procedure Code and Accused No.1 and 2 each are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of Three Years. The remand period of Accused No.1 from 26.09.2018 to 30.10.2019 shall be set off as per Section 428 of Criminal Procedure Code. The remand period of Accused No.2 from 26.09.2018 to 13.12.2018 shall be set off as per Section 428 of Criminal Procedure Code. The Accused herein were also tried by this court in Calendar Case No. 479 of 2018 for the offences under Sections 379 alternative charge under 411 of Indian Penal Code. In the said Calendar Case the Accused No.1 and 2 were sentencedtoundergorigorous imprisonment for a period of three years punishment for the offence under 2

Crl.A.No. 242/2019

PSJ Court, Kdp. Section 411 of Indian Penal Code. The punishment awarded in this case shall run concurrently to the punishment awarded in the said calender case No.479 of 2018 as per Section 427 of Criminal Procedure Code. 5Whether the sentence is IN THE RESULT, the Criminal Appeal is confirmed/modified/reversed allowed by setting aside the Judgment andifmodified,the passed in C.C.No. 480/ 2018 dated: modification. 30.10.2019 on the file of learned

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Badvel

against the Appellant/ Accused No.2 alone.

DATE OF

PresentationFilingNotice Bail bond if Appellant is HearingJudgment/ issuedby the appellant ordered to Order. the court to is let out on appear appearbail

11-11-2019 15-11-2019 15-11-2019 -- 26-11-2019 22-06-2020 26-06-2020

Sri V. Rama Mohan Advocate for the Appellant/ Accused No.2 and the learned Public Prosecutor for the Respondent/ Complainant, I do adjudge and pass the following :

J U D G M E N T.

1. This is an Appeal preferred by the Appellant/ Accused No.2 U/Sec.

374(3) of Cr.P.C to allow the appeal by setting aside the Judgment and conviction passed in C.C.No. 480/2018 passed by the learned Additional

Junior Civil Judge, Badvel dated: 30.10.2019 and acquit the appellant.

2. In brief the case of the prosecution is as follows : On 20.07.2018, Maruboyana Gurrappa (LW1) parked his two wheeler

AP04AT7190 infront of Bakery opposite RTC bus stand and went inside bus stand. After his work he found the said two wheeler is missing, 3

Crl.A.No. 242/2019

PSJ Court, Kdp. searched the locality and could not find the same. Hence came to the conclusion that some unknown offender committed theft of the same and gave report at Police Station. Based on report of Maruboyana

Gurrappa (LW1) crime is registered by C.Chalapathi (LW8). C.Chalapathi (LW8) recorded the statements of witnesses, visited the alleged scene of offence and prepared rough sketch. On 18-09-2018, A.Madhu

Malleshwara Reddy (LW8) Sub Inspector of Police of Proddutur II Town

Police Station arrested Accused in the presence of Panch witnesses i.e.

Komirisetty Madhu (LW5) & Avula Dasthagiraiah (LW6) and recovered 18 two wheelers that include the two wheeler related to this case. Later the

Accused were produced before this Court by executing P.T. Warrant.

After completion of investigation filed charge sheet before Court.

3. The case was taken on to file against the accused for the offence

U/Sec. 379 or 411 of IPC. On appearance of accused, copies of relevant documents were furnished to them as contemplated U/Sec. 207 of

Cr.P.C. The accused were examined U/Sec.239 of Code of Criminal

Crl.A.No. 242/2019

PSJ Court, Kdp.

5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, Accused 1 and 2 were examined Under Section. 313 of Cr.P.C, Accused denied the incriminating evidence adduced against them by the prosecution.

6. At the culmination of the trial, after considering the evidence on record, the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Badvel found the

Accused guilty for the offence under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code.

The MO1 was handed to Defacto Complainant for safe custody through orders in Crl.M.P.No.4743 of 2019 dated 17.12.2018, same holds good.

Accused No.1 and 2 each are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of Three Years. The remand period of Accused

No.1 from 26.09.2018 to 30.10.2019 shall be set off as per Section 428 of Criminal Procedure Code. The remand period of Accused No.2 from 26.09.2018 to 13.12.2018 shall be set off as per Section 428 of Criminal

Procedure Code. The Accused herein were also tried by this court in

Calendar Case No. 479 of 2018 for the offences under Sections 379 alternative charge under 411 of Indian Penal Code. In the said Calendar

Case the Accused No.1 and 2 were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years punishment for the offence under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code. The punishment awarded in this case shall run concurrently to the punishment awarded in the said calender case No.479 of 2018 as per Section 427 of Criminal Procedure

Code.

7. Aggrieved by the said Judgment of conviction, the present appeal is preferred by the Appellant/ Accused No.2 questioning the legality and the validity of the impugned Judgment of conviction.

Crl.A.No. 242/2019

PSJ Court, Kdp. 8. Contentions of the Appellant/ Accused No.2 in the