Sri G.yagna Narayana

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: JANGAREDDIGUDEM.

PRESENT: Sri G. Yagna Narayana, Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangareddigudem. Tuesday , this the 28th day of September, 2021.

C.C.No. 515/2021

Between:

The State – Represented by its Sub-Inspector of Police, Lakkavaram P.S.

... Complainant

And

Animilli Kishore, S/o. Rama Rao, age 42, caste: SC mala, Aurangabad Village, Kovvur Mandal, West Godavari District, now at Jangareddigudem village and Mandal. … Accused

This case coming before me for final hearing on 23.09.2021 in the presence of Kum. N. Pragathi, Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant, and of Sri A.Srinivasa Rao, Legal Aid Counsel for the accused, having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The charges stands against the accused accused for the offence under Section 461, 380 or 411 of I.P.C.

2.The Sub-Inspector of police, Lakkavaram P.S. filed charge-sheet against the accused for the offence under section 461, 380 or 411 of I.P.C. in

Cr.No. 72/2021.

3.The brief facts of the case of prosecution is as follows:

a. The accused Animilli Kishore is resident of Aurangabad Village,

Kovvur Mandal. This offence took place at Maddi Anjaneya temple,

Guravaigudem Village of Jangareddigudem Mandal which comes under the jurisdiction of this court.

b. On 16.04.2021 LW1M.Gangadhara Rao and LW2. M.Aruina Kumari who are wife and husband visited Maddi Anjaneya Swamy Temple at

Guravaigudem Village at about 10.00 am, parked their car bearing No.AP 16 FJ 6378 at parking place, visited the temple, after Dharshanam they came to the car at about 11.30 a.m, found the car rear glass was broke open and committed theft of cell phone from the car. Then LW1 M.Gangadhara Rao and his wife

M.Aruna Kumari searched for the culprit and cell phone nearby but in vain.

Therefore, on 17.4.2021 they visited Lakkavaram P.S. gave report to police for necessary action.

On the report of LW1.M.gangadhara Rao, the S.H.O. Lakkavaram

P.S. registered this case in Cr.No.72/2021 for the offence under section 461, 380 or 411 of I.P.C., took up investigation, examined witnesses LWs.1 to 5 namely

M.Gangadara Raop, M.Aruna Kumari, E.Suresh, S.Venkateswara Rao and

K.Hanumantha Rao, recorded their statements. The S.H.O. also visited the scene of offence prepared sketch. During course of investigation on credible information the S.H.O. secured presence of mediators LW6 VRO B.Harinadha

Babu and LW7 VRA K.Subba Rao, went to Ayyappa Swamy Temple in

Guravaigudem village, arrested the accused, seized this case property under cover of mediators report, later sent the accused for judicial remand. After completion of investigation the SHO filed charge sheet against the accused.

4.This case was taken on file for the offence under section 461, 380 or 411 of IPC.

5.On appearance of accused copies of case documents were furnished as required under Sec.207 Cr.P.C, later the accused was examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C., charges framed under section 461, 380 or 411 of IPC , read over and explained to the accused, for which he pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried.

6.In order to prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 6, got marked Exs. P1 to P4 and MO1.

7.PW1 is defacto complainant, PW2 is his wife, PWs.3 and 4 are eye witnesses, PW5 arrest mediators and PW6 is investigating officer of this case.

Ex.P1 report of PW1, Ex.P2 mediator report, Ex.P3 FIR, Ex.P4 sketch and MO1 is cell phone. PWs.1 and 2 are wife and husband deposed before the court on 16.04.2021, they visited Maddi Anjaneyaswamy Temple, Guravaigudem Village by keeping their car at parking place, after Dharshanam they came to the parking place and found rear glass of their car was broke open, committed theft of MO1 cell phone from the car. Therefore, they gave report to the police on the next day and they were examined by the police. PWs.3 and 4 are eye witnesses corroborated the the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 in all material aspects.

PW5 mediator deposed about arrest of accused on 18.04.2021 at Ayyappa

Swamy Temple, Guravaigudem village by S.I. of Police Lakkavaram P.S., prepared mediators report and seized MO1 in his presence and in the presence of another mediator. PW6 Investigation Officer deposed about his receiving report from PW1 on 17-04-2021, registering of said report as case in Cr.No.72/2021 for the offence under section 461, 380 or 411 of IPC, investigated into, during course of investigation arrest of the accused and seizure of this case property later sent him to judicial remand, and after completion of investigation filing of charge sheet against the accused.

8.After closure of case of prosecution, the accused was examined

Us. 313 of Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating evidence, for which he denied the evidence of PWs. 1 to 6 as false, reported no defence evidence.

9.Heard arguments from both sides.

10.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 461, 380 or 411 of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt or not?

11.The learned A.P.P. contended that prosecution could prove this case against the accused for the offence under section 461, 380 or 411 of IPC from the evidence of PWs.1 to 6 and from the material on record. She nextly contended the evidence of PW1 to PW6 on records is cogent and clinching , their evidence is very much corresponding with material on record and also corroborating to each other, hence their evidence is sufficient to prove this case against the accused for the offence under section 461, 380 or 411 of IPC.

Therefore, the case against the accused has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence under section 461, 380 or 411 of IPC, pray the court to convict the accused according to law.

12.Whereas the counsel for the accused contended that the prosecution failed to prove this case against the accused for the offence under section 461, 380 or 411 of IPC either from the evidence of PW1 to PW6 or from the material on record. He nextly contended that there is no evidence of eye witnesses on record to say that the accused was the person committed theft of

MO1 cell phone from the car of PWs.1 and 2. Further, there is no evidence of mediator to say that MO1 alleged to have been seized from the possession of accused and the cell phone lost by PW1 and PW2 are one and the same.

Further, the investigation officer failed to affix any panch slips on the seized property and also failed to secure local mediators for the arrest of accused and seizure of property. Both the mediators are stock mediators with their help the

SHO fabricated false case record, filed false case against the accused. The case against accused has not been proved beyond all reasonable doubt, pray the court to acquit the accused in the interest of justice.

13.Adverting to the above said contentions of both parties, on careful scrutiny the material on record and the evidence of P.Ws.1 to PW6, this court found the following.

As rightly contended by the learned A.P.P., the evidence of PWs.1 to 6 on record is found very much corresponding with material on record and also corroborating to each other.

14.However, basing on the above said contentions of the counsel for accused on further scrutiny the material on record and evidence of PW1 to PW6, this court found the following:-

a)As rightly contended by the counsel for accused, though prosecution examined PWs.1 to 4 as if eye witnesses to the alleged offence took place on 16.04.2021 at Maddi Anjaneyaswamy Temple, Guravaigudem Village, but not witnesses identified accused that he was the person who committed theft of cell phone on the date of offence.

b)It is also nextly found by this court as rightly contended by the counsel for accused though prosecution got marked MO1 cell phone as if it is cell phone of PWs.1 and 2 and the same was committed theft from their possession and same was seized from the possession of accused on 18.04.2021 in the presence of mediators. But admittedly there is no panch slips on MO1 cell phone to say that MO1 was seized from the possession of accused on the date of alleged arrest at Ayyappa Swamy Temple, Guravaigudem Village and also there is no materiel on record the said cell phone belongs to PW1.

c)It is also nextly found by this court, admittedly the investigating officer failed to secure any local mediators for the arrest of accused and seizure of property except VRO and VRA of Gurvaigudem village who are found stock mediators. Moreover as per admission of mediators the said arrest and seizure report prepared by the police by themselves wherein they simply signed.

15.All the above said infirmities appearing in the case of prosecution are found fatal. Thereby, the prosecution failed to prove the very arrest of accused and seizure of case property from the possession of accused, thereby failed to bring home the guilt of accused for the offence under section 461, 380 or 411 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt as alleged. Therefore, the accused is found entitled for benefit of doubt.

16.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the charged offence under section 461, 380 or 411 of IPC , hence, he is acquitted U/s.248 (1) Cr.P.C.

The accused who is in Judicial Remand shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not requited in any other case. MO1 Moto Android cell phone which was returned to PW1 as per orders dated 13.09.2021 in Crl.M.P.No.475/2021 is found stands good. Intimate the same to the Superintendent, District Jail, Eluru through S.H.O.

Lakkavaram P.S. immediately.

Dictated to the Stenographer, Grade-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 28th day of September , 2021.

Sd/-G.YAGNA NARAYANA,

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

JANGAREDDIGUDEM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW1: M.Gangadhara Rao– None-- PW2: M.Aruna Kumari PW3: E.Suresh PW4: S.Venkateswara Rao PW5: B.Harinadh Babu, VRO PW6: K.Prasad, Investigation Officer

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE: Nil

Ex.P1: Report of PW1 Ex.P2: Mediator report Ex.P3: F.I.R. Ex.P4: Rough Sketch

MATERIAL OBJECTS:

MO1:Moto Android Cell phone

Sd/-G.YAGNA NARAYANA,

J.C.J.-CUM-JFCM.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT OF WEST GODAVARI

Calendar of cases tried by Sri G. Yagna Narayana, Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Jangareddigudem.

C.C.No.515/2021

Date of offence:16.04.2021 Complaint:17.04.2021 Apprehension of accused:18.04.2021 Accused is in judicial remand from 18.04.2021 till Remand Period if any : date Released on bail:-- Commencement of trial:13.09.2021 Closing of trial :23.09.2021 Sentence or order:28.09.2021 Reasons for delay:--No delay-- Name of the complainant:The State – Represented by its Sub-Inspector of Police, Lakkavaram P.S. in Cr.No.72/2021. Name of the accused :Animilli Kishore, S/o. Rama Rao, age 42, caste: SC mala, Aurangabad Village, Kovvur Mandal, West Godavari District, now at Jangareddigudem village and Mandal. Offence:U/Secs.461, 380 or 411 of IPC Plea of the Accused :Not guilty Finding:Not guilty

O R D E R:

In the result, accused is found not guilty for the charged offence under section 461, 380 or 411 of IPC , hence, he is acquitted U/s.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The accused who is in Judicial Remand shall be set at liberty forthwith if he is not requited in any other case. MO1 Moto Android cell phone which was returned to PW1 as per order dated 13.09.2021 in Crl.M.P.No.475/2021 is found stands good. Intimate the same to the Superintendent, District Jail, Eluru through S.H.O.

Lakkavaram P.S. immediately.

Sd/-G.YAGNA NARAYANA,

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

JANGAREDDIGUDEM.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble I Additional District & Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru through C.D.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF

I CLASS :: JANGAREDDIGUDEM

PRESENT:- Sri G.Yagnanarayana,

Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Jangareddigudem

Wednesday, this the 29th day of September, 2021

E.P.No.28/2017 in O.S.No.36/2017

Between:

Dharavathu Veeranna. … D.Hr

And

Banothu Srinivas.

… J.Dr.

This is a petition filed by the petitioner/DHr praying this court may be pleased to issue notice under Order 21 Rule 11 CPC against the JDr to pass to necessary order for realization of decree amount and realize the EP amount.

This petition is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri N.Rambabu, Advocate for D.Hr and after having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

Heard counsel, perused case record as seen from case record E.P amount ie, attached through Garnishee was received hence office is directed to issue the EP amount to the petitioner /DHr on receipt of FS memo, hence EP is closed.

Pronounced by me in open Court, this the 29th day of September, 2021.

Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Jangareddigudem

No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side.

JCJ-cum-

JFCM, JRG.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF

I CLASS :: JANGAREDDIGUDEM

PRESENT:- Sri G.Yagna Narayana,

Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judl. Magistrate of I Class

Friday, this the 1st day of October, 2021

E.P.No.17/2021 in AACF.No.172/2017

Between:

M/s Shriram Chits (P) Ltd, Jangareddigudem rep by its GPA holder Md.Rafi … D.Hr

And

Malli Durgamma and others … J.Drs.

This is a petition filed by the petitioner/DHr praying this court may be pleased to attach the salary of JDr2 under order 21 rule 48 CPC against the JDr to pass to necessary order for to realization of decree amount and realize the EP amount.

This petition is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri N.V.B.L.Achary, Advocate for D.Hr and after having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

Both called absent, counsel for DHr filed F.S memo. F.S memo recorded. Hence

E.P is terminated.

Pronounced by me in open Court, this the 1st day of October, 2021.

Sd/- Sri G.Yagna Narayana,

Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Jangareddigudem

No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side.

Sd/- JCJ-cum-

JFCM, JRG.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF

I CLASS :: JANGAREDDIGUDEM

PRESENT:- Sri G.Yagna Narayana,

Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judl. Magistrate of I Class

Friday, this the 1st day of October, 2021

E.P.No.18/2021 in AACF.No.35/2018

Between:

M/s Shriram Chits (P) Ltd, Jangareddigudem branch … D.Hr

And

Pathan Nagina Begam and others … J.Drs.

This is a petition filed by the petitioner/DHr praying this court may be pleased to attach the salary of JDr2, JDr3 & JDr5 under order 21 rule 48 CPC against the JDrs2,3 &5 to pass to necessary order for to realization of decree amount and realize the EP amount.

This petition is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri N.V.B.L.Achary, Advocate for D.Hr and after having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

Both called absent, counsel for DHr filed F.S memo. F.S memo recorded. Hence

E.P is terminated.

Pronounced by me in open Court, this the 1st day of October, 2021.

Sd/- Sri G.Yagna Narayana,

Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Jangareddigudem

No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side.

Sd/- JCJ-cum-

JFCM, JRG.