Sri G Suresh Babu

O.S.No.228/2019, Dt.27.04.2024

PCJ Court (JD), Bhimavaram, Fair Copy 1

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: BHIMAVARAM.

Present: Sri Pavan Kumar Aka

Principal Civil Judge(JD)-cum-JFCM, Bhimavaram.

Saturday, this the 27th day of April, 2024

O.S.No.228/2019

Between:

Sarella Chanti Raju, S/o. Subba Rao, Aged 46 years, Business, D.No.13-23-10/2, Ambedkar Nagar, Gunupudi, Bhimavaram. … Plaintiff

And

Putta Nagamani, W/o.Panduranga Gurunadh, Aged 35 years, House Wife, D.No.13-2-60, Chigideela Vari Street, Gunupudi, Bhimavaram. … Defendant

This suit is coming before me on 25-03-2024 for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.S.S.Prasad, the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff, and Sri U. Vara Prasad, advocate for defendant, and having been stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01.The plaintiff filed the suit seeking for recovery of arrears of rent and vacate the defendant from the plaint schedule property and deliver its vacant possession to him within stipulated time, failing which permit him to evict the defendant and to take delivery of the schedule property by following through process of law and to grant damages for unauthorized occupation of defendant and for costs of the suit.

02. The averments of the plaint in brief are as follows :

a)The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property.

Originally, the plaint schedule property belongs to the defendant which she got

O.S.No.228/2019, Dt.27.04.2024

PCJ Court (JD), Bhimavaram, Fair Copy 2 the same under a registered partition deed dated 24.01.2011 among herself and her sister Putta Savitramma and that she mortgaged the same to one

Veera Venkata Chandra Sekhar and two others and executed a registered mortgage deed dt. 05.08.2014 for Rs.6 lakhs and that during pendency of the said registered mortgage deed, the defendant executed a registered Sale agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney, dated 21.04.2015 in favour of

Addanki Leela Rani, by receiving consideration of Rs. 4,66,000/- and delivered the physical possession on the same day and that on the same day i.e., 21.04.2015 the said three mortgagors executed a registered discharge receipt in the name of the defendant and that later the said GPA holder proposed to sell the plaint schedule property for which the plaintiff agreed to purchase the same for Rs.7,21,000/- and that the plaintiff paid the entire sale consideration to the said agent and obtained registered sale deed dt.22.03.2016 and possession was delivered to the plaintiff and since then the plaintiff became absolute owner of the schedule property and is in possession and enjoyment of the same and that he made an application to the

Municipality for mutation of his name and the same is pending and as such he is paying taxes and electricity charges in the name of the defendant.

b)It is further submitted that on knowing the same, the defendant filed a caveat petition on 18.04.2016 against the plaintiff claiming that still she is in possession of the schedule property as its owner and that the plaintiff got issued reply notice dt.26.04.2016 to the defendant for the said caveat petition and in the last week of April, 2016 the defendant approached the plaintiff and asked him to let out the schedule property to her on monthly rental basis for which the plaintiff initially not interested to let out the schedule property to the defendant, but on repeated requests of the defendant, the plaintiff allowed the defendant as tenant to the plaint schedule property and she entered into plaint schedule property on 01.05.2016 as a tenant to the plaintiff and agreed monthly rental of Rs.3,000/- which is payable by the defendant by 5th day of

O.S.No.228/2019, Dt.27.04.2024

PCJ Court (JD), Bhimavaram, Fair Copy 3 each and every succeeding month against a proper receipt, failing which for a continuous period of 2 months, the defendant shall no longer be entitled to continue her tenancy in the plaint schedule property and liable to vacate the same and deliver its vacant possession and that right from the date of entering into the schedule property, the defendant never paid the rent and committed default in paying of rents and that since the date of default of first month, the plaintiff has been demanding the defendant to pay the arrears of rent, but in vain and that on 29.10.2016 the plaintiff got issued legal notice to the defendant demanding to pay the arrears of rent and vacate the schedule property within 15 days for which the defendant got issued reply notice dt.25.11.2016 contending that the said GPA and sale deed of the plaintiff are not valid and she is in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property and as such the plaintiff filed RCC No.1/2016 on the file of Hon’ble Rent

Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Bhimavaram for eviction of the defendant and later the plaintiff herein as petitioner therein filed a memo dt.31.12.2018 not pressing the said RCC with a right to file the suit on hand. Hence, the suit.

03. After receipt of summons, the defendant made appearance through her advocate and filed her detailed written statement denying the contentions of the plaintiff and further contended that she is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and except her none else have got any manner of rights and that she constructed a small building in an extent of

Ac.0.01 ½ cents which was given by her parents. She further contended that as she is in dire need of money, on 21.04.2015 two persons by name

K. Srinivasa Rao and Prakasha Rao master took one Addanki Leela Rani came to her and gave Rs.4,66,000/- to her and at that time the said Leela

Rani obtained mortgaged deed for 30 months, two empty promissory notes,

Rs.100/- NJ stamp and also took two empty signed conquest papers of herself and her husband and on the same day the said Leela Rani registered

O.S.No.228/2019, Dt.27.04.2024

PCJ Court (JD), Bhimavaram, Fair Copy 4 the mortgage deed by playing fraud and misrepresentation and that after 10 days, the plaintiff, who is henchman of the said Leegal Rani illegally and highhandedly trying to attack the defendant and trying to trespass into the schedule property and on 30.10.2015 the said Leela Rani illegally and highhandedly trespassed into her house with six persons and and threatened that they would take away her life and her family members, and obtained her signature on Rs.100/- NJ Stamp by confining her and her husband in a room and that the defendant is not a tenant to the plaintiff and there is no rent agreement between them at any point of time and prayed to dismiss the suit.

04.This court made attempts u/S. 89 CPC and as it is not settled, basing on the counter contentions of both the parties, this Court framed the following issues for determination :

1. Whether there is jural relation of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for eviction of defendant from the plaint schedule property?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages from the defendant?

4. To what relief?

05.Heard both sides.

06.Now, to determine the issues so famed by this court, when the evidence adduced by the plaintiff as PW.1, through the evidence of PW. 2 and

Exs. A1 to A6, coupled with the oral evidence adduced by the defendant through DW.1 and also through DW.2 is perused.

I S S U E No.1 :

07.Now it is the case of plaintiff that in the last week of April, 2016, the defendant, who initially is the owner of the plaint schedule property and

O.S.No.228/2019, Dt.27.04.2024

PCJ Court (JD), Bhimavaram, Fair Copy 5 who subsequently sold away the property to others, from whom he purchased the same, approached the plaintiff and asked him to let out the plaint schedule property to her on monthly rental basis and accordingly it was given for a monthly rent of Rs.3,000/- on 1.5.2016 on oral agreement of paying the rent on or before 05.06.2016, but she did not pay the said rent right from the first month and thereby she defaulted in payment of rent and as such, initially he filed one RCC No.1/2017 and during the course of trial, as he found that

RCC is not maintainable keeping in view of the quantum of rent, he not pressed the said proceedings and filed the present suit. Per contra, it is the contention of the defendant that she does not know this plaintiff and in fact, when she is in need of certain money, she mortgaged the plaint schedule property, being the absolute owner of the said property and at that time, taking advantage of the necessity and innocence and illiteracy of the defendant, the mortgagor by name Addanki Leela Rani and by that time, the said Leela Rani and her husband obtained two empty promissory notes, Rs.100/- N.J. Stampn and two empty signed conquest papers and by playing fraud got registered the mortgage deed and after 10 days of the registration, the mortgagor committed the acts of threatening and by fabricating all these documents and by playing fraud obtained all these documents and with the assistance of this plaintiff, trying to dispossess her from the plaint schedule property.

08.To say and show that the plaintiff is the rightful owner of the plaint schedule property, the plaintiff got exhibited the certified copy of one

Registered Partition Deed dt.24.02.2011 under Doc.No.596/2011 / Ex.A1, wherein the defendant along with her sister got partitioned certain their properties of which the plaint schedule property fell to the share of this defendant. To say that the defendant got mortgaged the property to Veera

Venkata Chandra Sekhar and others on 05.08.2014 under

Doc.No.3151/2014 / Ex.A2, later which was released under mortgage release receipt dt.21.04.2015 / Ex.A3. To further substantiate his pleadings, he also

O.S.No.228/2019, Dt.27.04.2024

PCJ Court (JD), Bhimavaram, Fair Copy 6 got exhibited the certified copy of registered possessory sale agreement cum

General Power of Attorney executed by the defendant in favour of Addanki

Leela Rani on 21.04.2015 under Doc.No.1762/2015 / Ex.A4 and to say that he purchased the property and took possession of the same from the said

Addanki Leela Rani, got exhibited the certified copy of sale deed dt.22.03.2026, under Doc.No.1408/2016 / Ex.A5. Apart from the above, to further substantiate his contentions as to his filing of one case under RCC

No.1/2017 and as to its not pressing the same, he also got filed the office copy of memo dt.31.12.2018 / Ex.A6.

09.From the so exhibited documents, the initial title of the plaint schedule property as that of the defendant is not in dispute. The recitals under Exs.A2 and A3 shows that it is a mortgaged property, which is subsequently said to be released and on the same day, said to have been sold to Addanki Leela Rani. In each and every recital of such documentary evidence more particularly under Ex.A2, A4 and Ex.A5, the delivery of property appears to be physically effected to the respective persons in whose favour the property is transferred. But the defendant took another plea of playing fraud by the said Addanki Leela Rani and others, for which the defendant filed a suit for cancellation of the said Ex.A4. But no proof of document to substantiate the contentions is brought on record. But from the admitted evidences of both parties including the admitted RCC proceedings, the possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property by the defendant is not in dispute. From the recitals of such documentary evidences exhibited by the plaintiff, though shows the delivery of possession, the possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property by the defendant even since 2016 is to be believed. Keeping in view of the recitals specifically under Ex.A3 and A4, the contentions of the defendant appears to be true to a common prudent man. Ex.A3, the mortgage release receipt, shows that as the defendant discharged the debt of Rs.6,00,000/- the mortgage is released.

O.S.No.228/2019, Dt.27.04.2024

PCJ Court (JD), Bhimavaram, Fair Copy 7

When such is so, the financial capacity need not be suspected for such discharge. When the defendant appears to discharge the entire debt of

Rs.6,00,000/- to the mortgager and got released her mortgage property, again selling of the same property on the same day for Rs.4,66,000/- to the said

Leela Rani, clearly stating that she is in need of money for discharge of her family expenses and for family welfare, appears to be strange. Ex.A3 is with

Doc.No.1761/2015 and the Ex.A4 is with Doc.No.1762/2015. Even to presume that to discharge the debt of Ex.A2 under Ex.A3, the property is said to have been sold, non making of such recitals in Ex.A5 raises the preponderance of probabilities of the defendant. But as the dispute before this court is not that of the validity of transactions, this court is not confined to go through in deep of such transactions. As the preponderance of probabilities appears, the possession of the defendant in the plaint schedule property can be believed.

10.When such is so, the jural relationship, as it is denied by the defendant, it is to be scrutinized in a proper way. To say that the defendant is the tenant of the plaint schedule property, except the oral evidence of plaintiff, no other witness is examined. Though P.W.2 is examined, his role is confined to his act of acting as a witness to the transactions covered under Exs.A4 and

A5. The said P.W.2 is no other than the husband of the said Addanki Leela

Rani. Hence, his evidence is of no way helpful to determine the jural relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant. As the plaintiff is saying that the defendant is the tenant and when the defendant is denying the same with her specific plea by creating the circumstances of her possession by interpreting the transactions under Exs.A4 and A5, it is the burden of the plaintiff to substantiate his contentions. Undoubtedly and even otherwise, the plaintiff and defendant admits as to filing of one RCC 1/2017, as it is not pressed for one reason or the other, in the absence of any other cogent material of evidence, this court cannot come to a safe conclusion that the

O.S.No.228/2019, Dt.27.04.2024

PCJ Court (JD), Bhimavaram, Fair Copy 8 plaintiff is able to prove that the defendant is the tenant in the said property.

Though the defendant also adduced the evidence of her husband as D.W.2, as it is the admitted evidence that his is the 2nd attestor of every transaction more particularly under Exs.A2 to A4, his evidence is not sufficient to believe the contentions of the defendant.

11.Thus basing on the above observations and discussions, the

Issue No.1 is answered accordingly, as to finding that the plaintiff failed to prove the possession of the plaint schedule property by the defendant as tenant and thereby the jural relationship is not cogently proved.

ISSUE No.2:

12.As the title of the plaint schedule property is undoubtedly found and belongs to the plaintiff from the exhibited documents under which the plaintiff got every right of having his property for his possession and enjoyment, the plaintiff can be said to be entitled for the relief of eviction of the defendant from the suit schedule property. Though the plaintiff says that the eviction on the ground of default of rents and though the jural relationship is not cogently proved, even considering that the defendant is an encroacher of the plaint schedule property, as the plaintiff is able to establish his title and filed the present suit for the relief of eviction and even sought for the relief of eviction by filing the not pressed RCC, the intention of the plaintiff is made clear to the defendant well in advance even in the year 2017 itself. If at all, the contentions of the defendant are to be believed as true and correct, even for awhile, it appears no steps have been either taken or considered by any competent court so far. Under these circumstances, this court opines that it is just and proper and the plaintiff is entitled to get the recovery of possession of his property, by ejecting the defendant from the plaint schedule property.

Thus basing on the above observations and discussions, the

Issue No.2 is also answered accordingly.

O.S.No.228/2019, Dt.27.04.2024

PCJ Court (JD), Bhimavaram, Fair Copy 9

ISSUE No.3:

13.Admittedly and evidently, the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. Assuming even for awhile that the defendant is a tenant at sufferance, it is for the plaintiff to adduce cogent material of evidence to assess the quantum of damages. As the jural relationship itself is not cogently proved and believed by this court, this court cannot grant the damages, as prayed for. Thereby, the Issue No.3 is also answered accordingly.

ISSUE No.4:

14.Though this court finds that the plaintiff failed to prove the jural relationship and not adduced sufficient evidence to assess the quantum of damages, the plaintiff is able to establish his right and title over the plaint schedule property and thereby, the plaintiff is entitled for eviction only and accordingly, the Issue No.4 is also answered accordingly.

15.In the result, the suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed with costs, granting the relief of eviction and dismissing the relief of recovery of arrears of rent and granting of damages. Accordingly, the defendant is directed to get vacate the plaint schedule property within 3 months from the date of this order, failing which, the plaintiff is at liberty to take necessary steps accordingly, by following the due process of Law.

Typed, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 27 th day of April, 2024. Digitally signed by PAVAN KUMAR AKA

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

BHIMAVARAM

O.S.No.228/2019, Dt.27.04.2024

PCJ Court (JD), Bhimavaram, Fair Copy 10

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF :

P.W.1::Sarella Chanti Raju P.W.2::M.V.S.Jyothi Babu

FOR DEFENDANT :

D.W.1::P.Naga Mani D.W.2::P. Pander Ranga Rao

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF :

Ex.A.1/Dt.24.02.2011: Certified copy of the registered partition deed executed in between the defendant and her sister Savithramma.

Ex.A.2/Dt.05.08.2014: Certified copy of the registered mortgage deed executed by the defendant in favour of Veera Venkata Chandra Sekhar and two others, in respect to the plaint schedule property.

Ex.A.3/Dt.21.04.2015: Certified copy of the registered discharge receipt, executed by Veera Venkata Chandra Sekhar and two others, in respect to the plaint schedule property, in favour of defendant.

Ex.A.4/Dt.21.04.2015: Certified copy of the registered sale agreement- cum-GPA executed by the defendant in favour of Addanki Leela Rani, in respect to the plaint schedule property.

Ex.A.5/Dt.22.03.2016: Certified copy of the registered sale deed executed by the defendant represented by her GPA holder, in respect to the plaint schedule property.

Ex.A.6/Dt.31.12.2018: Office copy of not press memo filed in RCC No.01/2017 to file this suit.

FOR DEFENDANT : Digitally Nilsigned by

PAVAN KUMAR

AKA

P.C.J. (JD), BVRM

1 C.C. 133/2023

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) – CUM –

I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, BHIMAVARAM

Present: Sri G Suresh Babu,

I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) – Cum –

I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram

Wednesday, this the 01st day of May, 2024.

C C . . C C . . N N o o . . 1 1 3 3 3 3 / / 2 2 0 0 2 2 3 3

C C r r . . N N o o . . 4 4 9 9 / / 2 2 0 0 2 2 3 3 o o f f V V e e e e r r a a v v a a s s a a r r a a m m P P . . S S . .

Between:

State : Represented by its Sub - Inspector of Police,

Veeravasaram Police Station....Complainant

And

Katta Subba Rao, S/o Venkateswara Rao, 60 years,

R/o Bobbanapalli village of Veeravasaram Mandal. ...Accused

This case is presented before me on 29.04.2024 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor (FAC) for the Complainant and of Sri B.

Suresh Kumar, Legal Aid Counsel for accused upon hearing arguments, upon perusing the material available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Veeravasaram police station, has filed

Charge sheet against the accused in Cr. No.49/2023 for the offences punishable

U/Sec. 457, 380 or 411 of IPC.

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

Prior to 02.03.2023 at about 11.30 a.m. some unknown offenders gained ingress into house of the LW1/PW1 which is situated at Perikipalem village, Veeravasaram Mandal, by break open house main door locks in absence of the inmates and committed theft of 1) cash of Rs.15,000/- 2) One gold chain 3) one gold necklace 4) one pair of gold ear studs 5) one pair of gold mateelu 6) one gold papidi billa which gold weighs 5 sovgns 7) one silver waist thread 8) one silver kumkuma Bharini and 9) one silver sandal bowl and skulked away with the valuables which worth Rs.97,000/-. On 03.03.2023 morning the

LW1/PW1 returned to his house and verified valuables were stolen by unknown offenders and he turned up to Veeravasaram police station and lodged a written complaint about the occurrence. LW9/PW4 registered a case in Cr. No. 49/2023 2 C.C. 133/2023 under sections 457, 380 or 411 of IPC in Veeravasaram police station on 03.03.2023 at 12.00 noon and investigated the case.

3. During the course of investigation the PW4 examined PW1 and recorded her statement. After that PW4 visited the scene and inspected it minutely and prepared rough sketch and secured the presence of wife, brother-in-law of PW1 and neighbours to the scene and examined them as LWs 2 to 5 and recorded their statements and conducted enquiries for probable offenders and for detection of the case. On 06.05.2023 at 06.00 a.m. the accused was arrested by

LW8/PW3 SI of Malkipuram police station before the LWs 6 & 7 near market yard check post at Dindi village by side of NH-216 in Cr. No. 47/2023 under section 457, 380 of IPC of Malikipuram police station on credible information.

The accused further confessed about commission of occurrence in Cr.

No.49/2023 under section 457, 380 of IPC of Veeravasaram police station. In pursuant of confession made by the accused, the PW3 has recovered one gold chain weighing about 08 grams, 2) one gold necklace weighing about 20.510 gms, 3) one pair of gold ear studs weighing 4.340 grams, 4) one gold Mateelu weighing about 4.010 grams, 5) one gold Papidi Billa weighing about 4.090 tgrams, all weighing about 40.95 grams from the rent house of the accused vide

D.No.4-38 situated at Water tank, Poolapalli village, Palakollu Mandal and sent for judicial custody.

4. On 19.05.2023 as per PT Warrant granted by the Hon’ble I Addl. Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram the accused name above was taken from

central prison, Rajahmundry and produced before the court and granted 15 days judicial custody to the accused in this case. After completion of investigation PW5 laid charge sheet. Hence, the charge.

5. Cognizance was taken for the offences U/Sec.457, 380 or 411 of IPC against the accused basing on the material on record.

6. On appearance of the accused, the copies of the case documents were furnished to accused in compliance of Section 207 of Code of Criminal

Procedure (in short hereinafter referred as “Cr.P.C.”).

7. Accused was examined U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C charges framed U/Sec.

457, 380 or 411 of IPC are framed against accused, the charges are read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8. In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined

P.Ws.1 to P.W.4 and marked Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.5 and M.Os.1 to 5.

3 C.C. 133/2023

9. On completion of prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. for incriminating evidence appearing against accused explained him in Telugu for which accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence and no documents were marked.

10. Heard both the sides.

11. Now, the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the guilt of

the accused for the offences U/Sec. 457, 380 or 411 of IPC beyond

reasonable doubt?

12. POINT:-

To prove its case prosecution examined LWs 1, 6, 8 & 9 as PWs.1 to 4 respectively. Exhibits P1 to P5, and M.Os.1 to 5 were marked, Ex.P1is the original report of PW1, Ex.P2 is attested copy of mediators report drafted at Dindi check post, Ex.P3 is attested copy of mediators report dt. 06.05.2023 drafted at

Poolapalli village, Ex.P4 is FIR, Ex.P5 is rough sketch and M.O.1 is gold chain.

M.O.2 is gold Necklace. M.O.3 is one pair of gold ear studs. M.O.4 is one pair of gold Mateelu and M.O.5 is one gold Papidi Billa.

13. It is the contention of learned APP that prosecution witnesses have deposed evidence which proved the offence committed by accused as such accused is liable for conviction. Per contra, learned Legal Aid counsel for accused contended that accused did not commit any offence as charged against him and this case is foisted against him by the police. Further contends that there are inconsistencies in the evidence of the VRO who accompanied the then S I of

Malikipuram police station towards said to arrest the accused at Dindi check post and have recovered properties from the possession of accused at Poolapalli.

Further contends that had the police really have prepared Exs. P2 & P3 and have recovered the property said to be involved in this crime, the police should have obtained signature of PC 2760 of Malikipuram police station and the signatures of gold appraiser by name Narasimhachari of Malikipuram on both Exs. P2 & P3. As no offence has taken place to say that the police have recovered property involved in this crime from the accused, the police did not obtain signatures of the above said PC 2760 of Malikipuram police station and the signature of

Narasimhachari, who was said to be the gold appraiser of Malikipuram on Exs.

P2 & P3. He also contends that this as case is foisted one against the accused, it can be said that the police have not proved their case against accused. Further 4 C.C. 133/2023 contends that there is no identity of the accused by the witness/PW1. Hence, prays to acquit the accused.

14. Upon considering the contentions on both sides besides perusing material available on record, this court found that PW1 gave report to police for missing of valuable property on 03.03.2023 to PW4 during his absence in his house. Further the said fact was came to his knowledge through his cousin by name Sita Ram when he came to his house to withdraw pension amount of his mother and noticed the doors were opened. During his evidence he identified this property

M.Os 1 to 5. Basing on the report of PW1, PW4 have registered a case in Cr. No.

49/2023 for offence under sections 457, 380 of IPC and issued FIR under Ex.P4 and recorded statement of PW1. Further on the same day he visited scene of offence Perikipalem village and prepared rough sketch under Ex.P5. There at the scene of offence he secured LWs 2 to 5/P. Durga, B. Seetha Ram, P. Venkata

Srinivasa Rao and P. Krishna Rao and recorded their 161 Cr.P.C statements.

During the investigation he received information from PW3 about arrest of accused, seizure of crime property and remanded the accused on 19.05.2023 and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet. Further PW4 was informed by the PW3 that the crime property of this case was seized by PW3 at

Poolapalli village of Palakollu Mandal.

15. PW3 who during his investigation in Cr. No. 47/2023 of Malikipuram police station of Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District, received credible information about the movement of the accused on 06.05.2023 at about 06.00 a.m. and immediately he secured two mediators along with his staff and proceeded near to

Dindi check post and found the accused in suspicious manner and on his apprehension by police they found some gold articles in the possession of accused relating to Cr. No. 47/2023 of Malikipuram police station. Then the above police have deputed his staff to secure gold appraiser by name

Narasimhachari of Malikipuram. At the place of arrest of accused, on questioning of the accused he confessed about his offences at different places in and around

Veeravasaram, Palakollu etc., and the police have seized the property and motorcycle in Cr. No. 47/2023 of Malikipuram village.

16. From there to Poolapalli village police along with mediators went to the house of the accused and found the properties in the possession of accused in different crimes said to be committed by accused and recovered the same in the possession of accused. There at the place of arrest at Dindi check post they have drafted scene observation report and at Poolapalli village mediators report 5 C.C. 133/2023 was drafted. None of the scene observation report or mediators report contains the signatures of the said PC 2760 of Malikipuram police station and the signature of gold appraiser of Malikipuram.

17. Basing on the information of the then SI of Malikipuram police station the present investigation officer in this crime has obtained PT Warrant and produced the accused in this case before the court for remand.

18. Further the evidence of the then SI of Malikipuram police station was corroborated mostly by the VRO who was said to be acted as mediator with him.

19. From the above it was the contention of learned APP that they proved the offence against accused as such accused is liable for conviction.

20. However, as seen from the contentions of learned legal aid counsel for accused there are inconsistencies between the evidence of mediator/VRO who was said to be accompanied with the then SI of Malikipuram Police station who traced out the offence. More particularly the then SI of Malikipuram police station has stated that he received information at about 06.00 a.m. but the VRO who acted as mediator with the above SI has stated that at about 05.45 a.m. they reached Dindi check post. Further the said VRO during his cross examination stated that they have started from police station at 05.00 a.m. Further from the cross examination of VRO it can be seen that he has acted as mediators in about 30 cases as such it was the contention of learned legal aid counsel for accused that he is a stock witness which cannot be ruled out. Further, though the mediator has stated that he received notice from the police, the same notice was not produced before this court to say that he along with VRA accompanied police and submitted his presence to the police to act as mediator.

21. When the police have charged against accused, in which crimes have produced accused on PT Warrant to remand him, and the accusation leveled against him should be proved with standard of proof with higher degree which should be beyond reasonable doubt.

22. As seen from the evidence of witnesses, when there is doubt created by the legal aid counsel about the presence of the PC 2760 and gold appraiser/Narasimhachari, this court cannot give credence beyond reasonable doubt the presence of PC 2760 who was said to have prepared mediators report for arrest and seizure of properties and the gold appraiser for testing the ornaments which were said to be seized from the possession of accused. Further from the contention of learned legal aid counsel it can also be seen that had the police really issued notices to mediators, copy of notice should have been 6 C.C. 133/2023 submitted to this court to say that mediators were accompanied police for the alleged arrest and seizure of property.

23. From the above discussion this court inclines to the contentions of learned legal aid counsel that the police have not proved their case against accused beyond reasonable doubt, which follows that the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

24. In the result, accused is found not guilty for offence U/Secs. 457, 380 or 411 of IPC Accordingly, the accused is acquitted under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C for the above offences.

Superintendent, Sub-Jail, Narasapuram is hereby directed to release the accused forthwith if he is not required in any case (cases).

The property M.Os.1 to 5 which were returned to PW1 vide Crl. M.P 1920/2023 dt.21.07.2023 shall holds good/ absolute after lapse of appeal time.

Office is directed to obtain bail bonds from accused under section 437-A of

Cr.P.C which shall remain in force for 6 months from the date of this judgment.

Typed to my dictation directly to the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 01 st day of May, 2024.

Sd/- G. Suresh Babu

I Additional Civil Judge(Junior Division) – Cum -

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Bhimavaram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF :

PROSECUTION:

P.W.1:P. Yesu (Defacto complainant)

P.W.2:A.Sitaramu (VRO who acted as mediator with the then SI of police, Malikipuram Police Station)

P.W.3:G. Surendra Babu (The then SI of Police, Malikipuram

Police Station)

P.W.4:P. Ramesh (Investigation Officer in this case).

7 C.C. 133/2023

DEFENCE: -None-

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF:

PROSECUTION :

Ex.P.1:Original report of PW1

Ex.P.2:Attested copy of mediators report (drafted at Dindi check post)

Ex.P.3:Attested copy of mediators report dt. 06.05.2023 (drafted at

Poolapalli village)

Ex.P.4:FIR

Ex.P.5 : Rough sketch

DEFENCE : NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1:Gold chain

M.O.2:Gold Necklace

M.O.3:One pair of gold ear studs

M.O.4:One pair of gold Mateelu

M.O.5:One gold Papidi Billa.

Sd/- G. Suresh Babu

I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) – Cum -

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Bhimavaram.

8 C.C. 133/2023

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

Calendar of case tried by Sri G.Suresh Babu, I Additional Civil Judge (Junior

Division) – Cum– I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram..

CC.No.133/2023

Date of offence :02.03.2023

Complaint:03.03.2023

Apprehension of accused:19.02.2024

Commencement of trial :21.07.2023

Closing of trial :29.04.2024

Sentence or order:01.05.2024

Reasons for delay :No Delay

Name of the complainant:State : Represented by its Sub-Inspector of Police, Veeravasaram police station. Name of the accused :Katta Subba Rao, S/o Venkateswara Rao, 60 years, R/o Bobbanapalli village of Veeravasaram Mandal. Offence:U/Secs. 457, 380 or 411 of IPC

Plea of the Accused :Not guilty

Finding:Found not guilty

Sentence of Order:

In the result, accused is found not guilty for offence U/Secs. 457, 380 or 411 of IPC Accordingly, the accused is acquitted under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C for the above offences.

Superintendent, Sub-Jail, Narasapuram is hereby directed to release the accused forthwith if he is not required in any case (cases).

The property M.Os.1 to 5 which were returned to PW1 vide Crl. M.P 1920/2023 dt.21.07.2023 shall holds good/ absolute after lapse of appeal time.

Office is directed to obtain bail bonds from accused under section 437-A of

Cr.P.C which shall remain in force for 6 months from the date of this judgment.

Sd/- G. Suresh Babu

I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) – Cum -

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Bhimavaram.

Copy submitted to:

The Hon’ble I Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru (Through Compact

Disc

1 C.C. 135/2023

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) – CUM –

I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, BHIMAVARAM

Present: Sri G Suresh Babu,

I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) – Cum –

I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram

Wednesday, this the 01st day of May, 2024.

C C . . C C . . N N o o . . 1 1 3 3 5 5 / / 2 2 0 0 2 2 3 3

C C r r . . N N o o . . 7 7 6 6 / / 2 2 0 0 2 2 3 3 o o f f V V e e e e r r a a v v a a s s a a r r a a m m P P . . S S . .

Between:

State : Represented by its Sub - Inspector of Police,

Veeravasaram Police Station....Complainant

And

Katta Subba Rao, S/o Venkateswara Rao, 60 years,

R/o Bobbanapalli village of Veeravasaram Mandal. ...Accused

This case is presented before me on 29.04.2024 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor (FAC) for the Complainant and of Sri B.

Suresh Kumar, Legal Aid Counsel for accused upon hearing arguments, upon perusing the material available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Veeravasaram police station, has filed

Charge sheet against the accused in Cr. No.76/2023 for the offences punishable

U/Sec. 457, 380 or 411 of IPC.

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

On 14.04.2023 some unknown offenders gained ingress into the house of the LW1/PW1 which is situated inRayakuduru village of Veeravsaram

Mandal, by break open house locks and entered into bed room and opened iron safe forcibly in absence of inmates and committed theft of 1) One gold item weighing about 1 sovgns @0 20 Tulas of Silver articles, 3) 10 tulas of Silver anklets and 4) 10 Tulas of waist thread and skulked away with the valuables worth of Rs.30,000/-. On 14.04.2023 morning the LW1/PW1 who went to

Machilipatnam has returned to her house and noticed the burglary and she turned up to Veeravasaram police station and lodged a written complaint about the occurrence. LW10/PW4 registered a case in Cr. No. 76/2023 under sections 380 of IPC in Veeravasaram police station on 14.04.2023 at 09.30 p.m. and 2 C.C. 135/2023 investigated the case.

3. During the course of investigation the PW4 examined PW1 and recorded her statement. On 15.04.2023 morning PW4 visited the scene and inspected it minutely and prepared rough sketch and secured the presence of son of PW1 and witnesses and examined them as LWs 2 to 5 and recorded their statements and conducted enquiries for probable offenders and for detection of the case.

On 06.05.2023 at 06.00 a.m. the accused was arrested by LW8/PW3 SI of

Malkipuram police station before the LWs 6 & 7 near market yard check post at

Dindi village by side of NH-216 in Cr. No. 47/2023 under section 457, 380 of IPC of Malikipuram police station on credible information. The accused further confessed about commission of occurrence in Cr. No.76/2023 under section 380 of IPC of Veeravasaram police station. In pursuant of confession made by the accused, the PW3 has recovered one gold chain weighing about 20 grams from the rent house of the accused vide D.No.4-38 situated at Water tank, Poolapalli village, Palakollu Mandal and sent for judicial custody.

4. On 19.05.2023 as per PT Warrant granted by the Hon’ble I Addl. Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram the accused name above was taken from

central prison, Rajahmundry and produced before the court and granted 15 days judicial custody to the accused in this case. After completion of investigation PW5 laid charge sheet. Hence, the charge.

5. Cognizance was taken for the offences U/Sec.380 or 411 of IPC against the accused.

6. On appearance of the accused, the copies of the case documents were furnished to accused in compliance of Section 207 of Code of Criminal

Procedure (in short hereinafter referred as “Cr.P.C.”).

7. Accused was examined U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C charges framed U/Secs.

457, 380 or 411 of IPC are framed against accused, the charges are read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8. In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined

P.Ws.1 to P.W.5 and marked Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.5 and M.Os.1 to 4.

9. On completion of prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. for incriminating evidence appearing against accused explained him in Telugu for which accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence and no documents were marked.

10. Heard both the sides.

3 C.C. 135/2023

11. Now, the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the guilt of

the accused for the offences U/Sec. 457, 380 or 411 of IPC beyond

reasonable doubt?

12. POINT:-

To prove its case prosecution examined LWs 1, 7, 9 to 11 as PWs.1 to 5 respectively. Exhibits P1 to P5, and M.Os.1 to 4 were marked, Ex.P1is the original report of PW1, Ex.P2 is attested copy of mediators report drafted at Dindi check post , Ex.P3 is attested copy of mediators report drafted at Poolapalli

Village dt. 06.05.2023, Ex.P4 is FIR, Ex.P5 is rough sketch and M.O.1 is gold sutras. M.O.2 is gold Ear studs pair. M.O.3 is two silver waist threads and M.O.4 is one pair of silver anklets.

13. It is the contention of learned APP that prosecution witnesses have deposed evidence which proved the offence committed by accused as such accused is liable for conviction. Per contra, learned Legal Aid counsel for accused contended that accused did not commit any offence as charged against him and this case is foisted against him by the police. Further contends that there are inconsistencies in the evidence of the VRO who accompanied the then S I of

Malikipuram police station towards said to arrest the accused at Dindi check post and have recovered properties from the possession of accused at Poolapalli.

Further contends that had the police really have prepared Exs. P2 & P3 and have recovered the property said to be involved in this crime, the police should have obtained signature of PC 2760 of Malikipuram police station and the signatures of gold appraiser by name Narasimhachari of Malikipuram on both Exs. P2 & P3. As no offence has taken place to say that the police have recovered property involved in this crime from the accused, the police did not obtain signatures of the above said PC 2760 of Malikipuram police station and the signature of

Narasimhachari, who was said to be the gold appraiser of Malikipuram on Exs.

P2 & P3. He also contends that as this case is foisted one against the accused, it can be said that the police have not proved their case against accused. Further contends that there is no identity of the accused by the witness/PW1. Hence, prays to acquit the accused.

14. Upon considering the contentions on both sides besides perusing material available on record, this court found that during the absence of PW1 prior to 14.04.2023 when he went to Machilipatnam for coolie works after locking of his house, and when he returned to his house on 14.04.2023 he found the house 4 C.C. 135/2023 doors were broke opened and house hold articles were in pelmel condition. For which when he verified, he found missing gold ear studs, gold Sutras, 2 Silver waist threads and one pair of Silver anklets, on which he given report to PW4 who registered a case in Cr. No. 76/2023 for offences under sections 457, 380 of

IPC and issued Ex.P4 FIR accordingly. Further PW4 examined PW1 and recorded his 161 Cr.P.C statement and on the next day he secured LWs 3 to 6/N.

Jyothi, K. Subba Raju, P. Atchiyya and V. Bodiyya and recorded their 161 Cr.P.C statements. On the same day he has taken photos of the scene of offence and prepared Ex.P5 rough sketch.

15. Subsequent investigation was taken over by PW5 who on 06.05.2023 received information from PW3 that accused was arrested and recovered crime property. Basing on the information from PW4, PW5 obtained PT Warrant and remanded the accused to judicial custody on 19.05.2023. During cross examination of PW4 it was elicited that Ex.P1 does not contains the date of report for which learned Legal Aid counsel has contended that had the offence took place as stated by police on the alleged date, the report under Ex.P1 would have contains the date of report.

16. Further PW3 who during his investigation in Cr. No. 47/2023 of

Malikipuram police station of Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District, received credible information about the movement of the accused on 06.05.2023 at about 06.00 a.m. and immediately he secured two mediators along with his staff and proceeded near to Dindi check post and found the accused in suspicious manner and on his apprehension by police they found some gold articles in the possession of accused relating to Cr. No. 47/2023 of Malikipuram police station.

Then the above police have deputed his staff to secure gold appraiser by name

Narasimhachari of Malikipuram. At the place of arrest of accused, on questioning of the accused he confessed about his offences at different places in and around

Veeravasaram, Palakollu etc., and the police have seized the property and motorcycle in Cr. No. 47/2023 of Malikipuram village.

17. From there to Poolapalli village police along with mediators went to the house of the accused and found the properties in the possession of accused in different crimes said to be committed by accused and recovered the same in the possession of accused. There at the place of arrest at Dindi check post they have drafted scene observation report and at Poolapalli village mediators report was drafted. None of the scene observation report or mediators report contains the signatures of the said PC 2760 of Malikipuram police station and the 5 C.C. 135/2023 signature of gold appraiser of Malikipuram.

18. Basing on the information of the then SI of Malikipuram police station the present investigation officer in this crime has obtained PT Warrant and produced the accused in this case before the Court for remand.

19. Further the evidence of the then SI of Malikipuram police station was corroborated mostly by the VRO who was said to be acted as mediator with him.

20. From the above it was the contention of learned APP that they proved the offence against accused as such accused is liable for conviction.

21. However, as seen from the contentions of learned legal aid counsel for accused there are inconsistencies between the evidence of mediator/VRO who was said to be accompanied with the then SI of Malikipuram Police station who traced out the offence. More particularly the then SI of Malikipuram police station has stated that he received information at about 06.00 a.m. but the VRO who acted as mediator with the above SI has stated that at about 05.45 a.m. they reached Dindi check post. Further the said VRO during his cross examination stated that they have started from police station at 05.00 a.m. Further from the cross examination of VRO it can be seen that he has acted as mediators in about 30 cases as such it was the contention of learned legal aid counsel for accused that he is a stock witness which cannot be ruled out. Further, though the mediator has stated that he received notice from the police, the same notice was not produced before this court to say that he along with VRA accompanied police and submitted his presence to the police to act as mediator.

22. When the police have charged against accused, in which crimes have produced accused on PT Warrant to remand him, and the accusation leveled against him should be proved with standard of proof with higher degree which should be beyond reasonable doubt.

23. As seen from the evidence of witnesses, when there is doubt created by the legal aid counsel about the presence of the PC 2760 and gold appraiser/Narasimhachari, this court cannot give credence beyond reasonable doubt the presence of PC 2760 who was said to have prepared mediators report for arrest and seizure of properties and the gold appraiser for testing the ornaments which were said to be seized from the possession of accused. Further from the contention of learned legal aid counsel it can also be seen that had the police really issued notices to mediators, copy of notice should have been submitted to this court to say that mediators were accompanied police for the alleged arrest and seizure of property.

6 C.C. 135/2023

24. From the above discussion this court inclines to the contentions of learned legal aid counsel that the police have not proved their case against accused beyond reasonable doubt, which follows that the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

25. In the result, accused is found not guilty for offence U/Secs. 457, 380 or 411 of IPC Accordingly, the accused is acquitted under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C for the above offence.

Superintendent, Sub-Jail, Narasapuram is hereby directed to release the accused forthwith if he is not required in any case (cases).

The property which is shown in M.Os.1 to 4 which were returned to PW1 vide Crl. M.P. 1997/2023 dt.28.07.2023 shall holds good/ absolute after lapse of appeal time.

Office is directed to obtain bail bonds from accused under section 437-A of

Cr.P.C which shall remain in force for 6 months from the date of this judgment.

Typed to my dictation directly to the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 01 st day of May, 2024.

Sd/- G. Suresh Babu

I Additional Civil Judge(Junior Division) – Cum -

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Bhimavaram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF :

PROSECUTION:

P.W.1:A.Yesamma (Defacto Complainant)

P.W.2:A.Sitaramu (VRO who acted as mediator with the then SI of

Police, Malikipuram Police Station)

P.W.3:G. Surendra Babu (The Then SI of Police, Malikipuram Police

Station)

P.W.4:D. Ranga Rao (Investigation Officer)

P.W.5 : P. Ramesh (Investigation Officer in this case)

DEFENCE: -None- 7 C.C. 135/2023

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF:

PROSECUTION :

Ex.P.1:Original report of PW1

Ex.P.2:Attested copy of mediators report (drafted at Dindi check post)

Ex.P.3:Attested copy of mediators report dt. 06.05.2023 (drafted at

Poolapalli Village)

Ex.P.4:FIR

Ex.P.5 : Rough sketch

DEFENCE : NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1:Gold sutras

M.O.2 : Gold earstuds pair

M.O.3 : Two silver waist threads

M.O.4 : One pair of silver anklets

Sd/- G. Suresh Babu

I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) – Cum -

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Bhimavaram.

8 C.C. 135/2023

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

Calendar of case tried by Sri G.Suresh Babu, I Additional Civil Judge (Junior

Division) – Cum– I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram..

CC.No.135/2023

Date of offence :14.04.2023

Complaint:14.04.2023

Apprehension of accused:19.05.2024

Commencement of trial :28.07.2023

Closing of trial :29.04.2024

Sentence or order:01.05.2024

Reasons for delay :No Delay

Name of the complainant:State : Represented by its Sub-Inspector of Police, Veeravasaram police station. Name of the accused :Katta Subba Rao, S/o Venkateswara Rao, 60 years, R/o Bobbanapalli village of Veeravasaram Mandal. Offence:U/Secs. 457, 380 or 411 of IPC

Plea of the Accused :Not guilty

Finding:Found not guilty

Sentence of Order:

In the result, accused is found not guilty for offence U/Secs. 457, 380 or 411 of IPC Accordingly, the accused is acquitted under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C for the above offence.

Superintendent, Sub-Jail, Narasapuram is hereby directed to release the accused forthwith if he is not required in any case (cases).

The property which is shown in M.Os.1 to 4 which were returned to PW1 vide Crl. M.P. 1997/2023 dt.28.07.2023 shall holds good/ absolute after lapse of appeal time.

Office is directed to obtain bail bonds from accused under section 437-A of

Cr.P.C which shall remain in force for 6 months from the date of this judgment.

Sd/- G. Suresh Babu

I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) – Cum -

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Bhimavaram.

Copy submitted to:

The Hon’ble I Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru (Through Compact

Disc

1 C.C. 134/2023

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) – CUM –

I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, BHIMAVARAM

Present: Sri G Suresh Babu,

I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) – Cum –

I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram

Wednesday, this the 01st day of May, 2024.

C C . . C C . . N N o o . . 1 1 3 3 4 4 / / 2 2 0 0 2 2 3 3

C C r r . . N N o o . . 5 5 7 7 / / 2 2 0 0 2 2 3 3 o o f f V V e e e e r r a a v v a a s s a a r r a a m m P P . . S S . .

Between:

State : Represented by its Sub - Inspector of Police,

Veeravasaram Police Station....Complainant

And

Katta Subba Rao, S/o Venkateswara Rao, 60 years,

R/o Bobbanapalli village of Veeravasaram Mandal. ...Accused

This case is presented before me on 29.04.2024 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor (FAC) for the Complainant and of Sri B.

Suresh Kumar, Legal Aid Counsel for accused upon hearing arguments, upon perusing the material available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Veeravasaram police station, has filed

Charge sheet against the accused in Cr. No.57/2023 for the offences punishable

U/Sec.457, 380 or 411 of IPC.

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

On the night of 19.03.2023 some unknown offenders gained ingress into Sri Valli Deva Sena Sametha Subrahmanyeswara Swamy Temple at

Nadapanavaripalem, H/o Chintala koti Garuvu village, Veeravasaram Mandal, by break open temple locks and committed theft of 1) Two Sata Gopuram (Padukulu) 2) Two Pancha Patralu and 3) Two Uddarini and skulked away with the items which worth Rs.45,000/-. On 20.03.2023 morning the LW1/PW1 learnt about the occurrence and on 20.03.2023 evening turned up to Veeravasaram police station and lodged a written complaint about the occurrence. PW4 registered a case in Cr. No. 57/2023 under sections 457, 380 of IPC in

Veeravasaram police station on 20.03.2023 at 06.00 p.m. and investigated the 2 C.C. 134/2023 case.

3. During the course of investigation the PW4 examined PW1 and recorded his statement. After that LW9/PW4 visited the scene and inspected it minutely and prepared rough sketch and secured the presence of witnesses and examined them as LWs 2 to 5 and recorded their statements and conducted enquiries for probable offenders and for detection of the case. PW5 verified the investigation done by PW4 and continued further probe in this case. On 06.05.2023 at 06.00 a.m. the accused was arrested by LW8/PW3 SI of

Malkipuram police station before the LWs 6 & 7 near market yard check post at

Dindi village by side of NH-216 in Cr. No. 47/2023 under section 457, 380 of IPC of Malikipuram police station on credible information. The accused further confessed about commission of occurrence in Cr. No.57/2023 under sections 457 & 380 of IPC of Veeravasaram police station. In pursuant of confession made by the accused, the PW3 has recovered 1) one Silver big Satakopam weighing about 296.5 grams, 2) one Silver small Satakopam weighing about 352.5 grams, 3) One silver Pancha Patralu weighing about 64.5 grams, 4) One silver Uddarini weighing about 82.5 grams, 5) One silver Uddarini wighing about 22.0 grams, 6) One silver Uddarini weighing about 22.5 grams from the rent house of the accused vide D.No.4-38 situated at Water tank, Poolapalli village,

Palakollu Mandal and sent for judicial custody.

4. On 19.05.2023 as per PT Warrant granted by the Hon’ble I Addl. Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram the accused name above was taken from

central prison, Rajahmundry and produced before the court and granted 15 days judicial custody to the accused in this case. After completion of investigation PW5 laid charge sheet. Hence, the charge.

5. Cognizance was taken for the offences U/Secs. 457, 380 or 411 of IPC against the accused.

6. On appearance of the accused, the copies of the case documents were furnished to accused in compliance of Section 207 of Code of Criminal

Procedure (in short hereinafter referred as “Cr.P.C.”).

7. Accused was examined U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C charges framed U/Secs.

457, 380 of IPC are framed against accused, the charges are read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8. In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined

P.Ws.1 to P.W.5 and marked Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.5 and M.Os.1 to 3.

3 C.C. 134/2023

9. On completion of prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. for incriminating evidence appearing against accused explained him in Telugu for which accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence and no documents were marked.

10. Heard both the sides.

11. Now, the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the guilt of

the accused for the offences U/Sec. 457, 380 or 411 of IPC beyond

reasonable doubt?

12. POINT:-

To prove its case prosecution examined LWs 1, 6, 8, 9 & 10 as PWs.1 to 5 respectively. Exhibits P1 to P5, and M.Os.1 to 3 were marked, Ex.P1is the original report of PW1, Ex.P2 is attested copy of mediators report drafted at Dindi check post, Ex.P3 is attested copy of mediators report dt. 06.05.2023 drafted at

Poolapalli village, Ex.P4 is FIR, Ex.P5 is rough sketch and M.O.1 is 2 Silver satakpoams. M.O.2 is two silver panchapatra and M.O.3 is Silver Uddarinis.

13. It is the contention of learned APP that prosecution witnesses have deposed evidence which proved the offence committed by accused as such accused is liable for conviction. Per contra, learned Legal Aid counsel for accused contended that accused did not commit any offence as charged against him and this case is foisted against him by the police. Further contends that there are inconsistencies in the evidence of the VRO who accompanied the then S I of

Malikipuram police station towards said to arrest the accused at Dindi check post and have recovered properties from the possession of accused at Poolapalli.

Further contends that had the police really have prepared Exs. P2 & P3 and have recovered the property said to be involved in this crime, the police should have obtained signature of PC 2760 of Malikipuram police station and the signatures of gold appraiser by name Narasimhachari of Malikipuram on both Exs. P2 & P3. As no offence has taken place to say that the police have recovered property involved in this crime from the accused, the police did not obtain signatures of the above said PC 2760 of Malikipuram police station and the signature of

Narasimhachari, who was said to be the gold appraiser of Malikipuram on Exs.

P2 & P3. He also contends that as this case is foisted one against the accused, it can be said that the police have not proved their case against accused. Further contends that there is no identity of the accused by the witness/PW1. Hence, 4 C.C. 134/2023 prays to acquit the accused.

14. Upon considering the contentions on both sides besides perusing material available on record, this court found that on 19.03.2023 after locking of the doors of Sri Valli Deva Sena Sametha Subrahmanyeswara Swamy Temple at

Nadapanavaripalem at about 03.00 p.m. on 20.03.2023 one Nandaga Pothu Raju who is residing besides the temple heard some sounds and on knowing the same PW1, he along with others went to above temple and found broke open of locks and doors are opened, further on verification they found missing of M.Os 1 to 3 on which he gave Ex.P1 report to PW4 who registered a case in Cr. No.

57/2023 for offence under sections 457, 380 of IPC and issued Ex.P4 FIR and recorded the statement of PW1. Further on the same day he examined LWs 2 to 5/S. Venkata Swamy, Kothapalli Bhaskara Ayyappa, Vaskuri Veeranjaneyulu and

Dasari Vijaya Manikanta and recorded their statements and prepared rough sketch under Ex.P5 at the scene of offence. Subsequent investigation was conducted by PW5 and on 06.05.2023 PW5 received information from PW3/SI of

Police, Malikipuram about the arrest of accused and basing on the said information PW5 obtained PT Warrant and remanded the accused to judicial custody on 19.05.2023. Further PW4 admitted that Ex.P1 report does not contain the date and place of report. From which learned Legal Aid counsel contended that had the offence was taken on 20.03.2023 the report would have contain the date of giving report but it is not so in this case.

15. PW3 who during his investigation in Cr. No. 47/2023 of Malikipuram police station of Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District, received credible information about the movement of the accused on 06.05.2023 at about 06.00 a.m. and immediately he secured two mediators along with his staff and proceeded near to

Dindi check post and found the accused in suspicious manner and on his apprehension by police they found some gold articles in the possession of accused relating to Cr. No. 47/2023 of Malikipuram police station. Then the above police have deputed his staff to secure gold appraiser by name

Narasimhachari of Malikipuram. At the place of arrest of accused, on questioning of the accused he confessed about his offences at different places in and around

Veeravasaram, Palakollu etc., and the police have seized the property and motorcycle in Cr. No. 47/2023 of Malikipuram village.

16. From there to Poolapalli village police along with mediators went to the house of the accused and found the properties in the possession of accused in different crimes said to be committed by accused and recovered the same in the 5 C.C. 134/2023 possession of accused. There at the place of arrest at Dindi check post they have drafted scene observation report and at Poolapalli village mediators report was drafted. None of the scene observation report or mediators report contains the signatures of the said PC 2760 of Malikipuram police station and the signature of gold appraiser of Malikipuram.

17. Basing on the information of the then SI of Malikipuram police station the present investigation officer in this crime has obtained PT Warrant and produced the accused in this case before the Court for remand.

18. Further the evidence of the then SI of Malikipuram police station was corroborated mostly by the VRO who was said to be acted as mediator with him.

19. From the above it was the contention of learned APP that they proved the offence against accused as such accused is liable for conviction.

20. However, as seen from the contentions of learned legal aid counsel for accused there are inconsistencies between the evidence of mediator/VRO who was said to be accompanied with the then SI of Malikipuram Police station who traced out the offence. More particularly the then SI of Malikipuram police station has stated that he received information at about 06.00 a.m. but the VRO who acted as mediator with the above SI has stated that at about 05.45 a.m. they reached Dindi check post. Further the said VRO during his cross examination stated that they have started from police station at 05.00 a.m. Further from the cross examination of VRO it can be seen that he has acted as mediators in about 30 cases as such it was the contention of learned legal aid counsel for accused that he is a stock witness which cannot be ruled out. Further, though the mediator has stated that he received notice from the police, the same notice was not produced before this court to say that he along with VRA accompanied police and submitted his presence to the police to act as mediator.

21. When the police have charged against accused in which crimes have produced accused on PT Warrant to remand him, and the accusation leveled against him should be proved with standard of proof with higher degree which should be beyond reasonable doubt.

22. As seen from the evidence of witnesses, when there is doubt created by the legal aid counsel about the presence of the PC 2760 and gold appraiser/Narasimhachari, this court cannot give credence beyond reasonable doubt the presence of PC 2760 who was said to have prepared mediators report for arrest and seizure of properties and the gold appraiser for testing the ornaments which were said to be seized from the possession of accused. Further 6 C.C. 134/2023 from the contention of learned legal aid counsel it can also be seen that had the police really issued notices to mediators, copy of notice should have been submitted to this court to say that mediators were accompanied police for the alleged arrest and seizure of property.

23. From the above discussion this court inclines to the contentions of learned legal aid counsel that the police have not proved their case against accused beyond reasonable doubt, which follows that the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

24. In the result, accused is found not guilty for offence U/Secs. 457, 380 or 411 of IPC Accordingly, the accused is acquitted under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C for the above offence.

Superintendent, Sub-Jail, Narasapuram is hereby directed to release the accused forthwith if he is not required in any case (cases).

The property M.Os.1 to 3 which were returned to PW1 vide Crl. M.P 1921/2023 dt.21.07.2023 shall holds good/ absolute after lapse of appeal time.

Office is directed to obtain bail bonds from accused under section 437-A of

Cr.P.C which shall remain in force for 6 months from the date of this judgment.

Typed to my dictation directly to the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 01 st day of May, 2024.

Sd/- G. Suresh Babu

I Additional Civil Judge(Junior Division) – Cum -

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Bhimavaram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF :

PROSECUTION:

P.W.1:D. Yesubabu (Defacto Complainant)

P.W.2:A.Sitaramu (VRO who acted as mediator with the then SI of

Police, Malikipuram Police Station)

P.W.3:G. Surendra Babu (The Then SI of Police, Malikipuram Police

Station)

P.W.4:D. Ranga Rao

P.W.5 : P. Ramesh (Investigation Officer in this case) 7 C.C. 134/2023

DEFENCE: -None-

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF:

PROSECUTION :

Ex.P.1:Original report of PW1

Ex.P.2:Attested copy of mediators report (drafted at Dindi check post)

Ex.P.3:Attested copy of mediators report dt. 06.05.2023 (drafted at

Poolapalli Village)

Ex.P.4:FIR

Ex.P.5 : Rough sketch

DEFENCE : NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1:2 Silver satakpoams

M.O.2:Two silver panchapatra

M.O.3:2 Silver Uddarinis

Sd/- G. Suresh Babu

I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) – Cum -

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Bhimavaram.

8 C.C. 134/2023

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

Calendar of case tried by Sri G.Suresh Babu, I Additional Civil Judge (Junior

Division) – Cum– I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram..

CC.No.134/2023

Date of offence :19.03.2023

Complaint:20.03.2023

Apprehension of accused:19.02.2024

Commencement of trial :21.07.2023

Closing of trial :29.04.2024

Sentence or order:01.05.2024

Reasons for delay :No Delay

Name of the complainant:State : Represented by its Sub-Inspector of Police, Veeravasaram police station. Name of the accused :Katta Subba Rao, S/o Venkateswara Rao, 60 years, R/o Bobbanapalli village of Veeravasaram Mandal. Offence:U/Secs. 457,380 or 411 of IPC

Plea of the Accused :Not guilty

Finding:Found not guilty

Sentence of Order:

In the result, accused is found not guilty for offence U/Secs. 457, 380 of

IPC Accordingly, the accused is acquitted under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C for the above offences.

Superintendent, Sub-Jail, Narasapuram is hereby directed to release accused forthwith if he is not required in any case (cases).

The property M.Os.1to 3 which were returned to PW1 vide Crl. M.P 1921/2023 dt.21.07.2023 shall holds good/ absolute after lapse of appeal time.

Office is directed to obtain bail bonds from accused under section 437-A of

Cr.P.C which shall remain in force for 6 months from the date of this judgment.

Sd/- G. Suresh Babu

I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) – Cum -

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Bhimavaram.

Copy submitted to:

The Hon’ble I Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru (Through Compact

Disc

1 C.C. 132/2023

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) – CUM –

I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, BHIMAVARAM

Present: Sri G Suresh Babu,

I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) – Cum –

I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram

Wednesday, this the 01st day of May, 2024.

C C . . C C . . N N o o . . 1 1 3 3 2 2 / / 2 2 0 0 2 2 3 3

C C r r . . N N o o . . 3 3 5 5 / / 2 2 0 0 2 2 3 3 o o f f V V e e e e r r a a v v a a s s a a r r a a m m P P . . S S . .

Between:

State : Represented by its Sub - Inspector of Police,

Veeravasaram Police Station....Complainant

And

Katta Subba Rao, S/o Venkateswara Rao, 60 years,

R/o Bobbanapalli village of Veeravasaram Mandal. ...Accused

This case is presented before me on 29.04.2024 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor (FAC) for the Complainant and of Sri B.

Suresh Kumar, Legal Aid Counsel for accused upon hearing arguments, upon perusing the material available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Veeravasaram police station, has filed

Charge sheet against the accused in Cr. No.35/2023 for the offences punishable

U/Sec. 380 or 411 of IPC.

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

On 04.02.2023 at about 03.00 a.m. some unknown offenders gained ingress into kitchen shed of the LW1/PW1 which is situated at rear side of house of the PW1 and committed theft of mixie, mixie jar, sewing machine head, thread reel box, one copper pitcher, one copper tumbler and steel items were committed theft and skulked away with the items. On 06.02.2023 morning the offender gained ingress into the house of PW1’s mother-in-law/LW2 found committed theft of gold tradu weighing about 2 ½ sovgs and cash of Rs.1400/- and skulked away with them and total worth Rs.56,400/- On 06.02.2023 night the LW1/PW1 turned up to Veeravasaram police station and lodged a written complaint about the occurrence. LW9/PW4 registered a case in Cr. No. 35/2023 under sections 380 or 411 of IPC in Veeravasaram police station on 06.02.2023 2 C.C. 132/2023 at 07.15 p.m. and investigated the case.

3. During the course of investigation the PW4 examined PW1 and recorded her statement. On 07.02.2023 morning PW4 visited the scene and inspected it minutely and prepared rough sketch and secured the presence of mother-in-law of PW1 and neighbours to the scene and examined them as LWs 2 to 5 and recorded their statements and conducted enquiries for probable offenders and for detection of the case. On 06.05.2023 at 06.00 a.m. the accused was arrested by LW8/PW3 SI of Malkipuram police station before the LWs 6 & 7 near market yard check post at Dindi village by side of NH-216 in Cr. No. 47/2023 under section 457, 380 of IPC of Malikipuram police station on credible information. The accused further confessed about commission of occurrence in

Cr. No.35/2023 under section 380 of IPC of Veeravasaram police station. In pursuant of confession made by the accused, the PW3 has recovered one gold chain weighing about 20 grams from the rent house of the accused vide D.No.4- 38 situated at Water tank, Poolapalli village, Palakollu Mandal and sent for judicial custody.

4. On 19.05.2023 as per PT Warrant granted by the Hon’ble I Addl. Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram the accused named above was taken

from central prison, Rajahmundry and produced before the court and granted 15 days judicial custody to the accused in this case. After completion of investigation PW4 laid charge sheet. Hence, the charge.

5. Cognizance was taken for the offences U/Sec.380 or 411 of IPC against the accused basing on the material on record.

6. On appearance of the accused, the copies of the case documents were furnished to accused in compliance of Section 207 of Code of Criminal

Procedure (in short hereinafter referred as “Cr.P.C.”).

7. Accused was examined U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C charges framed U/Sec. 380 or 411 of IPC are framed against accused, the charges are read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8. In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined

P.Ws.1 to P.W.4 and marked Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.5 and M.O.1.

9. On completion of prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. for incriminating evidence appearing against accused explained him in Telugu for which accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence and no documents were marked.

3 C.C. 132/2023

10. Heard both the sides.

11. Now, the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the guilt of

the accused for the offences U/Sec. 380 or 411 of IPC beyond

reasonable doubt?

12. POINT:-

To prove its case prosecution examined LWs 1, 6, 8 & 9 as PWs.1 to 4 respectively. Exhibits P1 to P5, and M.O.1 was marked, Ex.P1is the original report of PW1, Ex.P2 is attested copy of mediators report drafted at Dindi check post, Ex.P3 is attested copy of mediators report dt. 06.05.2023 drafted at

Poolapalli village, Ex.P4 is FIR, Ex.P5 is rough sketch and M.O.1 is gold chain.

13. It is the contention of learned APP that prosecution witnesses have deposed evidence which proved the offence committed by accused as such accused is liable for conviction. Per contra, learned Legal Aid counsel for accused contended that accused did not commit any offence as charged against him and this case is foisted against him by the police. Further contends that there are inconsistencies in the evidence of the VRO who accompanied the then S I of

Malikipuram police station towards said to arrest the accused at Dindi check post and have recovered properties from the possession of accused at Poolapalli.

Further contends that had the police really have prepared Exs. P2 & P3 and have recovered the property said to be involved in this crime, the police should have obtained signature of PC 2760 of Malikipuram police station and the signatures of gold appraiser by name Narasimhachari of Malikipuram on both Exs. P2 & P3. As no offence has taken place to say that the police have recovered property involved in this crime from the accused, the police did not obtain signatures of the above said PC 2760 of Malikipuram police station and the signature of

Narasimhachari, who was said to be the gold appraiser of Malikipuram on Exs.

P2 & P3. He also contends that as this case is foisted one against the accused, it can be said that the police have not proved their case against accused. Further contends that there is no identity of the accused by the witness/PW1. Hence, prays to acquit the accused.

14. Upon considering the contentions on both sides besides perusing material available on record, this court found that on 04.02.2023 after locking of the house of PW1 and on the early hours of the next day PW1 found her house doors were break open and she noticed theft of sewing machine head, mixie with jars, copper vessels and dinner set. Further PW1 noticed on 06.02.2023 that one gold 4 C.C. 132/2023 sacred thread of 2 ½ sovereign of her mother-in-law was also committed theft.

On which she has given report to Veeravasaram police, basing on which PW4 registered a case in Cr. No.35/2023 for offence under section 380 of IPC. On 06.02.2023 at about 07.15 p.m. and issued Ex.P4 FIR. On the same day he recorded the statement of PW1. On the next day i.e., 07.02.2023 he visited the scene of offence at Peddaveedhi, Veeravasaram and prepared rough sketch and secured other witnesses, examined them and recorded their 161 Cr.P.C statements.

15. During the course of investigation on 06.05.2023 he received information from the then SI of Malikipuram police station who informed that the property in this crime was seized by them from the accused at Poolapalli of Palakollu

Mandal.

16. PW3 who during his investigation in Cr. No. 47/2023 of Malikipuram police station of Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District, received credible information about the movement of the accused on 06.05.2023 at about 06.00 a.m. and immediately he secured two mediators along with his staff and proceeded near to

Dindi check post and found the accused in suspicious manner and on his apprehension by police they found some gold articles in the possession of accused relating to Cr. No. 47/2023 of Malikipuram police station. Then the above police have deputed his staff to secure gold appraiser by name

Narasimhachari of Malikipuram. At the place of arrest of accused, on questioning of the accused he confessed about his offences at different places in and around

Veeravasaram, Palakollu etc., and the police have seized the property and motorcycle in Cr. No. 47/2023 of Malikipuram village.

17. From there to Poolapalli village police along with mediators went to the house of the accused and found the properties in the possession of accused in different crimes said to be committed by accused and recovered the same in the possession of accused. There at the place of arrest at Dindi check post they have drafted scene observation report and at Poolapalli village mediators report was drafted. None of the scene observation report or mediators report contains the signatures of the said PC 2760 of Malikipuram police station and the signature of gold appraiser of Malikipuram.

18. Basing on the information of the then SI of Malikipuram police station the present investigation officer in this crime has obtained PT Warrant and produced the accused in this case before the Court for remand.

5 C.C. 132/2023

19. Further the evidence of the then SI of Malikipuram police station was corroborated mostly by the VRO who was said to be acted as mediator with him.

20. From the above it was the contention of learned APP that they proved the offence against accused as such accused is liable for conviction.

21. However, as seen from the contentions of learned legal aid counsel for accused there are inconsistencies between the evidence of mediator/VRO who was said to be accompanied with the then SI of Malikipuram Police station who traced out the offence. More particularly the then SI of Malikipuram police station has stated that he received information at about 06.00 a.m. but the VRO who acted as mediator with the above SI has stated that at about 05.45 a.m. they reached Dindi check post. Further the said VRO during his cross examination stated that they have started from police station at 05.00 a.m. Further from the cross examination of VRO it can be seen that he has acted as mediators in about 30 cases as such it was the contention of learned legal aid counsel for accused that he is a stock witness which cannot be ruled out. Further, though the mediator has stated that he received notice from the police, the same notice was not produced before this court to say that he along with VRA accompanied police and submitted his presence to the police to act as mediator.

22. When the police have charged against accused, in which crimes have produced accused on PT Warrant to remand him, and the accusation leveled against him should be proved with standard of proof with higher degree which should be beyond reasonable doubt.

23. As seen from the evidence of witnesses, when there is doubt created by the legal aid counsel about the presence of the PC 2760 and gold appraiser/Narasimhachari, this court cannot give credence beyond reasonable doubt the presence of PC 2760 who was said to have prepared mediators report for arrest and seizure of properties and the gold appraiser for testing the ornaments which were said to be seized from the possession of accused. Further from the contention of learned legal aid counsel it can also be seen that had the police really issued notices to mediators, copy of notice should have been submitted to this court to say that mediators were accompanied police for the alleged arrest and seizure of property.

24. From the above discussion this court inclines to the contentions of learned legal aid counsel that the police have not proved their case against accused beyond reasonable doubt, which follows that the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

6 C.C. 132/2023

25. In the result, accused is found not guilty for offence U/Secs. 380 or 411 of

IPC Accordingly, the accused is acquitted under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C for the above offence.

Superintendent, Sub-Jail, Narasapuram is hereby directed to release the accused forthwith if he is not required in any case (cases).

The property M.O.1 gold chain which was returned to PW1 vide Crl. M.P 2118/2023 dt.10.08.2023 shall holds good/ absolute after lapse of appeal time.

Office is directed to obtain bail bonds from accused under section 437-A of

Cr.P.C which shall remain in force for 6 months from the date of this judgment.

Typed to my dictation directly to the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 01 st day of May, 2024.

Sd/- G. Suresh Babu

I Additional Civil Judge(Junior Division) – Cum -

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Bhimavaram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF :

PROSECUTION:

P.W.1:R. Durga Adi Lakshmi (Defacto Complainant)

P.W.2:A.Sitaram Chitta Prasad (VRO who acted as mediator with the then SI of Police, Malikipuram Police Station)

P.W.3:G. Surendra Babu (The then SI of Police, Malikipuram

Police Station)

P.W.4:P. Ramesh (Investigation Officer in this case)

DEFENCE: -None- 7 C.C. 132/2023

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF:

PROSECUTION :

Ex.P.1:Original report of PW1

Ex.P.2:Attested copy of mediators report (drafted at Dindi check post)

Ex.P.3:Attested copy of mediators report dt. 06.05.2023 (drafted at

Poolapalli village)

Ex.P.4:FIR

Ex.P.5 : Rough sketch

DEFENCE : NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1:Gold chain

Sd/- G. Suresh Babu

I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) – Cum -

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Bhimavaram.

8 C.C. 132/2023

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

Calendar of case tried by Sri G.Suresh Babu, I Additional Civil Judge (Junior

Division) – Cum– I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram..

CC.No.132/2023

Date of offence :04.02.2023

Complaint:06.02.2023

Apprehension of accused:19.02.2024

Commencement of trial :10.08.2023

Closing of trial :29.04.2024

Sentence or order:01.05.2024

Reasons for delay :No Delay

Name of the complainant:State : Represented by its Sub-Inspector of Police, Veeravasaram police station. Name of the accused :Katta Subba Rao, S/o Venkateswara Rao, 60 years, R/o Bobbanapalli village of Veeravasaram Mandal. Offence:U/Secs. 380 or 411 of IPC

Plea of the Accused :Not guilty

Finding:Found not guilty

Sentence of Order:

In the result, accused is found not guilty for offence U/Secs. 380 or 411 of

IPC Accordingly, the accused is acquitted under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C for the above offence.

Superintendent, Sub-Jail, Narasapuram is hereby directed to release the accused forthwith if he is not required in any case (cases).

The property M.O.1 gold chain which was returned to PW1 vide Crl. M.P 2118/2023 dt.10.08.2023 shall holds good/ absolute after lapse of appeal time.

Office is directed to obtain bail bonds from accused under section 437-A of

Cr.P.C which shall remain in force for 6 months from the date of this judgment.

Sd/- G. Suresh Babu

I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) – Cum -

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Bhimavaram.

Copy submitted to:

The Hon’ble I Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru (Through Compact

Disc