Smt.Jettim Nandini

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS, KADAPA.

Present: Smt: Jettim Nandini,

I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa.

Friday, this the 10th day January, 2025.

Calendar Case No.1370 of 2021

State:Sub Inspector of Police, Kadapa I Town U/G P.S.

...Complainant

Vs.

Kattubadi Rathnam, S/o Jarimiya, 29 years, D.No.74/113, Patha Rayachoty, Rayachoty Town.

…Accused.

This case is coming on 5.12.2024 for final hearing before me in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of

M.Santha, Deputy Legal Aid Counsel (L.A.D.C.S), for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

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

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kadapa I Town U/G Police Station, has filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime Nos.185/2021, 186/2021 and 187/2021 for the offence punishable u/Sec.379 of IPC.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution as leveled in the charge sheet is as follows in Crime No.185/2021.

LW.1/Shaik Dastagiri, R/a D.No.7/191, Ravindra Nagar, Kadapa City

LW.1 is working as C.T Scan Technician at Shakthi Diagnostic Center, Kadapa and LW.1 owns one red color pulsar motor cycle bearing No.AP04-BE-6207 which is registered in the name of his mother i.e., LW.2/Hussain Bee. On 13.8.2021 at 10.00 am., LW.1 went to Shakthi Diagnostic Center, Kadapa to attend his regular duties by his motor cycle and parked the same in front

Shakthi Diagnostic Center, Kadapa. After completion of his duties at about 8.00 2 pm., when LW.1 came out from the Shakthi Diagnostic Center, Kadapa center he notice that his motor cycle has been theft and worth of Rs.50,000/-. Later on 28.8.2021 LW.1 lodged a complaint against accused. Hence, the charge.

The brief facts of the prosecution as leveled in the charge sheet is as follows in Crime No.186/2021.

LW.6/Koppolu Bandi Reddy Gari Mallikarjuna Reddy, R/o Vellaturu

Village, Pendlimarri Mandal, Kadapa District, since last 3 years LW.6 has been working as Science Teacher in Sri Chaitanya School, Co-Operative Colony,

Kadapa City every day he used to go to school at 8.00 am., and returns by 4.00 pm., LW.6 had a black and red colour motor cycle bearing No.AP04-BT-0762.

The said motor cycle registered in the name of his elder sister i.e., M.Prasanna.

On 21.8.2021 at 8.30 am., LW.6 went to Sri Chaitanya School, Co-Operative

Colony, Kadapa by his motor cycle and parked in front of his school. After completion of his duty LW.6 returned at 11.30 am., and found his motor cycle was theft and the worth of said motor cycle Rs.60,000/-. Later on 28.8.2021

LW.6 lodged a complaint against the accused. Hence, the charge.

The brief facts of the prosecution as leveled in the charge sheet is as follows in Crime No.187/2021.

LW.10/P.Venkata Ramana, R/o D.No.2/401, Balaji Nagar, Kadapa

City. LW.10 had a bajaj pulsar motor cycle bearing No.AP04-BF-7496. On 14.8.2021 at 2.00 pm., he went to Gajjala Ramakrishna Reddy Hospital,

Co-Operative Colony, Kadapa City on his personal work and parked his motor cycle at parking place and went on his work. After some time i.e., at about 3.30 pm., when he returned to parking place he found that his motor cycle has been theft by some unknown offenders and the worth of said motor cycle Rs.50,000/-.

Later on 28.8.2021 he came to Kadapa I Town U/G P.S and lodged a complaint against the accused. Hence, the charge.

3

3.Basing on the complaint of LW.1. LW.16/K.Dasthagiri H.C of Kadapa

I Town U/G P.S registered a case in Crime No.185/2021 for the offence punishable u/Sec.379 of IPC and took up investigation. Basing on the complaint of LW.6 in Crime No.186/2021, LW.17/T.Prasad, A.S.I, Kadapa I Town U/G P.S registered a case in Crime No.186/2021 for the offence punishable u/Sec.379 of

IPC and took up up investigation. Basing on the complaint of LW.10 in Crime

No.187/2021, LW.18/P.V.Seshaiah, Naik, H.C of Kadapa I Town U/G P.S registered a case in Crime No.187/2021 for the offence punishable u/Sec.379 of

IPC and took up investigation.

4. After perusal of charge sheet and other material available on record, this case was taken on file for the offences punishable u/Sec.379 of IPC against the accused.

5.On appearance of accused copies of documents was furnished to them as contemplated u/Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

6.The accused is examined u/Sec.239 Cr.P.C. Charges for offence u/Sec.379 or 411 of IPC were framed and the same are read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he denied and claimed to be tried.

7.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to PW.9 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.10 and M.O.1 to M.O.3 are marked. The evidence of LW.2 to LW.5, LW.7 to LW.9, LW.11 to LW.13 and LW.20 are given up by the learned S.A.P.P as most of the witnesses turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution.

8.The accused is examined u/Sec.313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating material appearing against him, for he denied the offence and reported no defence evidence.

9.Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the material available on record.

4

10. Now the point for determination is:

1. “Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the offences punishable u/Sec.379 of IPC”?

2. “Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the offences punishable u/Sec.411 of IPC”?

Point:

11.PW.1/Shaik Dasthagiri, deposed in his evidence that, on 13.8.2021 at 10.00 am., he parked his pulsar vehicle bearing No.AP04-BF-6207 in the parking place beside their scanning center. Then at about 8.00 pm., he has going to his house he went to his parking place and he found his vehicle is missing. The worth of said vehicle Rs.50,000/- then he went to Kadapa I Town

U/G P.S and gave report, Ex.P.1 is report police examined him. On 28.8.2021

Kadapa I Town U/G P.S informed him that they recovered his motor cycle then he went to police station and saw his vehicle. M.O.1 is vehicle and he has not seen who has committed the theft of his vehicle police examined him.

12.PW.2/K.B.Mallikarjuna Reddy, deposed in his evidence that, on 21.8.2021 at 8.30 am., he parked his pulsar motor cycle bearing No.AP04-BT- 0762 before their school and went into the school. Then at about 11.30 am., when he came out and he found his vehicle is missing and worth of Rs.50,000/-.

Then he went to Kadapa I Town U/G P.S gave report. Ex.P.2 is report police examined him. On 28.8.2021 Kadapa I Town U/G P.S informed him that they recovered his motor cycle then he went to police station and saw his vehicle.

Thereafter he received the vehicle under interim custody through the orders of this Hon’ble Court. He brought the vehicle on 24.11.2021 to this Hon’ble Court.

M.O.2 is motor cycle bearing No.AP04-BT-0762, he has not seen who has committed the theft of his vehicle. Police examined him.

13.PW.3/P.Venkata Ramana, deposed in his evidence that, on 14.8.2021 at about 11.00 am., he went to Gajjala Ramakrishna Reddy Hospital, 5 on his personal work and his vehicle bearing No.AP04-BF-7496 parked before apartment beside the said hospital. After two hours he came outside and found that his bike is missing and the costs of the said bike is Rs.50,000/-. Then he went to Kadapa I Town U/G P.S and gave a report, Ex.P.3 is report police examined him. On 28.8.2021 the police informed him that they recovered his motor cycle and he has took over his vehicle before this Hon’ble Court. M.O.3 is motor cycle bearing No.AP04-BF-7496. He has not seen who has committed the theft of his vehicle.

14.PW.4/P.Anjaneyulu, V.R.O, deposed in his evidence that, on 30.8.2021 at about 8.15 am., while he was present along with LW.13/E.Naveen

Kumar, V.R.O, in their Tahsildar Officer, LW.15/G.Raju, Inspector of Police,

Rayachoty U/G P.S called him over phone and stated them to act as mediators.

On that himself and LW.13 went to police station they reached police station at 8.30 am., then they along with the Inspector, Two Sub Inspector of Police and some constables started from police station at 8.45 am., on two jeeps and went to Podalapalli Cross Road, there the police started conducting vehicle checking after sometime the police found two persons coming from Rayachoty side on two different vehicles. On seeing police they stopped the vehicles and tried to skulk away the police apprehended them and brought them before LW.15. Then

LW.15 enquired them why they are fleeing away on that they had not shown the papers of motor cycles. On further enquiry they confessed that they committed theft of those vehicles on that one Rathnam, has stated that he committed theft at Pileru, Tirupathi, Kadapa, Rayachoty, Sambepalli, T.Sundupalli and

Vayalapadu. On that LW.15 recorded the panchanama in their presence. He stated that 30 to 40 vehicles were committed theft by him in that one vehicle was committed theft at Rayachoty along with another person. Ex.P.4 is panchanama prepared from 9.00 am., to 6.00 pm., the accused further stated that he will lead 6 to Gowramma Bugga, where he hidden the motor cycles, there they found 32 motor cycles then he lead them to that place and there they went to one

Dilapidated house there they found 32 motor cycles LW.15 noted all the chassis numbers and they are mentioned in Ex.P.4 at 5.45 pm., later LW.15 arrested the accused and other. He along with LW.13 and police and the accused and other signed on it. He can identify the accused the person standing in the dock is the person by name Rathnam.

15.PW.5/K.Dasthagiri, deposed in his evidence that, on 28.8.2021 at about 10.00 am., while he was present in police station PW.1 came to police cation and gave Ex.P.1 report. Basing on which he registered a case in Crime

No.185/2021 for the offence punishable u/Sec.379 of IPC. He sent original F.I.R to Court and copies to all concerned. Ex.P.5 is original F.I.R, later he examined

PW.1 and recorded his statement then he visited the scene of offence i.e.,

Shakthi Scanning Center, Opposite to District Court, Kadapa and examined

LW.2 to LW.5 and recorded their statements. He observed the scene of offence he prepared rough sketch. Ex.P.6 is rough sketch, then he handed over the case file to LW.19 who conducted further investigation in this case.

16.PW.6/P.V.Seshaiah, Head Constable, on 28.8.2021 at 3.00 pm., while he was present in police station PW.2 came to police station and presented a written report. Basing on which he registered a case in Crime

No.187/2021 for the offence punishable u/Sec.379 of IPC he sent the original

F.I.R to Court and copies to all concerned. Ex.P.7 is F.I.R he examined PW.2 and recorded his statement. Thereafter he went to scene of offence observed the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch. Ex.P.8 is rough sketch on the same day he examined LW.7 to LW.9 and recorded their statements. Thereafter he handed over the case file to LW.19 for further investigation in this case.

17.PW.7/T.Prasad, A.S.I, deposed in his evidence that, on 28.8.2021 at 7 1.30 pm., while he was present in police station PW.2 came to police station and presented typed complaint. Basing on the complaint he registered a case in

Crime No.186/2021 for the offence punishable u/Sec.379 of IPC issue F.I.R and submitted its copies to all concerned. There he examined PW.2 and recorded his statement there after he visited the scene of offence situated at Sri Chaitanya

School, Kadapa. He observed the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch, he secured the presence of LW.7 to LW.9 examine them and recorded their statements. Later he handed over the C.D file to the LW.9 for further investigation, Ex.P.9 is F.I.R and Ex.P.10 is rough sketch in Crime No.186/2021.

18.PW.8/V.Sudhakar, Sub Inspector of Police, deposed in his evidence that, on 29.8.021 PW.5 appeared before him and produced C.D file in Crime

No.186/2021 he took up further investigation in this case. He found investigation done on correct lines. On 29.8.2021 PW.5 appeared before him and produced

C.D file in Crime No.187/2021 he took up further investigation in this case. He found investigation done on correct lines. PW.8 further deposed in his evidence that, he came to know that Rayachoty police arrested the accused in Crime

No.330/2021 and seized the stolen properties in these cases. Then he secured the presence of accused in this case under P.T warrant before this Court. Then he secured the presence of accused in this case under P.T warrant and sent into judicial remand then he handed over the case file to LW.20 who after completion of investigation and filed charge sheet in this case.

19.PW.9/G.Raju, Inspector of Police, deposed in his evidence that, on 30.8.2021 at about 8.20 am., himself his Sub Inspector of Police and his staff along with LW.9, PW.3 went to Galiveedu Rayachoty Road, Kodalapalli Cross

Road and there conducted vehicle checking at that time 2 persons came there on a bike and tried to flee away. They chased them and apprehended them on enquiry they revealed their identity one person revealed his identity as accused 8 in this case. He confessed that he committed 32 offence out of which 3 are these cases i.e., 181/2021 and 184/2021 of Kadapa I Town U/G P.S he also confessed Crime Nos.185/2021, 186/2021 and 187/2021. Then he seized the bike at old Rayachoty as he took them there they seized 34 bikes in 32 cases.

Then he apprehended them and sent them to Judicial remand, after completion of investigation LW.15 filed charge sheet in this case. He arrested the accused under Ex.P.4 panchanama.

20.On perusal of record, the prosecution case is PW.1 parked his pulsar vehicle bearing No.AP04-BF-6207 in the parking place on 13.8.2021 later found his vehicle missing and lodged Ex.P.1 report. On 25.8.2021 he informed by the police that his motor cycle i.e., M.O.1 was recovered and he went to police station and saw his vehicle.

21.As PW.1, PW.2 also parked his motor cycle i.e., Bajaj Pulsar bearing No.AP04-BT-0762 before his school on 21.8.2021 and when he came he found his bike was missing and lodged Ex.P.2. Again on 28.8.2021 police informed him that his motor cycle i.e., M.O.2 was recovered and he received the same through this Court.

22.PW.3 parked his motor cycle bearing No.AP04-BF-7496, at Gajjala

Ramakrishna Hospital, Co-Operative Colony, Kadapa on 14.8.2021 after his work he came outside and found that his motor cycle was missing on that Ex.P.3 report was given. On 28.8.2021 he informed by the police that his motor cycle was i.e., Ex.P.3 was recovered and he went to police station and saw his vehicle.

23.PW.3 also parked his motor cycle on 14.8.2021 at about 11.00 am., he went to Gajjala Ramakrishna Reddy Hospital, on his personal work and his vehicle bearing No.AP04-BF-7496 parked before apartment beside the said hospital. After two hours he came outside and found that his bike is missing and the costs of the said bike Rs.50,000/-. Then he went to Kadapa I Town U/G P.S 9 and gave a report, Ex.P.3 is report. Police examined him. On 28.8.2021 the police informed him that they recovered his motor cycle he has took over his vehicle before this Hon’ble Court. M.O.3 is motor cycle bearing No.AP04-BF- 7496. He has not seen who has committed the theft of his vehicle.

24.To support the version of PW.1 to PW.3 prosecution has examined

PW.5 to PW.9 where PW.4 deposes about apprehension of the accused and seized of vehicles on 30.8.2021. PW.5 to PW.9 are the official witnesses who register F.I.R, conducted investigation and filed charge sheet.

25.On thorough perusal of the deposition of PW.1 to PW.6 it is found that PW.1 deposes that on 13.8.2021 his motor cycle was missing and committed for theft on that he lodged Ex.P.1 report. But, on perusal of Ex.P.1 it is found that on 28.8.2021 PW.1 has lodged complaint in police station and it was corroborated by PW.5 where he stated that on 28.8.2021 at about 10.00 pm., while he was in police station PW.1 came to police station and lodged

Ex.P.1 report. Further there is no explanation from the prosecution in the entire evidence of PW.1 about the delay in lodging Ex.P.1 in police station. Further he deposes that on 28.8.2021 the police informed to PW.1 that they recovered his motor cycle. On that he went to police station and saw his vehicle. But, on perusal of Ex.P.1 as above discussed, Ex.P.1 itself was lodged on 28.8.2021 but

PW.1 deposes that on 28.8.2021 i.e., on the same day of lodging Ex.P.1 report police informed that they recorded his motor cycle. As there is clear contradiction between the PW.1 deposition and Ex.P.1, about occurrence of offence. Hence, his evidence cannot be relied upon by this Court.

26.On perusal of evidence of PW.2 he deposes that on 21.8.2021 at about 8.30 am., his motor cycle bearing No.AP04-BT-0762 was missing and lodged Ex.P.2 report. But, on perusal of Ex.P.2 it is found that Ex.P.2 was lodged on 28.8.2021 and it was supported by the evidence of PW.6 who deposed that 10 on 28.8.2021 at about 3.00 pm., while he was in police station PW.2 came to police station and lodged Ex.P.2. Further he deposed that on 28.8.2021 the police informed him that they recovered his motor cycle and he went to police station and found his bike and obtained the vehicle under interim custody through this Court. On perusal of Ex.P.2 the date was mentioned as 28.1.2021 and the evidence of PW.2 that police informed him on 28.8.2021 that they recovered his vehicle and he went to police station to see his vehicle is to be utterly false. Hence, the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 is not at all reliable and trust worthy as there is no corroboration between the PW.1, PW.2, PW.4 to PW.5 regarding the material details which are very important to prove the version of the prosecution.

27.Further on perusal of evidence of PW.4 he deposes that on 30.8.2021 he along with LW.13 and police officials went to Podalapalli Cross

Road while conducting vehicle checking the police found two persons coming from Rayachoty side on two different vehicles and on seeing the police they stopped the vehicles and tried to skulk away. But, the police officials apprehended them and on enquiry they confessed they committed theft of vehicles at Pileru, Thirupathi, Kadapa, Rayachoty, Sambepalli, T.Sundupalli and

Vayalapadu. To prove the same Ex.P.4 was marked.

28.On keen observation of minute details in the evidence of PW.1 to

PW.3 they deposes that on 13.8.2021, 21.8.2021 and 14.8.2021 respectively their vehicles was committed for theft and on 28.8.2021 all of them deposed that their vehicles was recovered. But, on perusal of evidence of PW.4 it is evident that on 30.8.2021 the police apprehended the accused and recorded his confession and recovered stolen vehicles under Ex.P.4.

29.When the police officials themselves has seized vehicles from the accused on 30.8.2021 the evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 that on 28.8.2021 the 11 police informed them about the vehicles of PW.1 to PW.3 is seems to be utterly false. Generally the information regarding the recovery of vehicles should be only after seizure of vehicles from the accused. But, in the present case at hand

PW.1 to PW.3 has been informed about the recovery of vehicles even prior to the seizure by the police officials which is quite unnatural.

30.As above discussed as there is no corroboration between PW.1 to

PW.6 and there are so many contradictions between PW.1 to PW.3 and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3 the evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 is not at all reliable to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution utterly failed to prove their version as there are clear contradictions in the evidence of PW.1 to

PW.3 who are the material witnesses in this case. Hence, this court feels that the prosecution utterly failed in proving its case against the accused, beyond all reasonable doubt.

31.In view of contradictions in the evidence of material witnesses and confession before the police officials is not at all reliable to prove the version of the prosecution. Further, no other evidence/material is placed before the Court to establish the allegations made against the accused. So, there is no iota of evidence placed before the Court on behalf the State against the accused to prove the offence leveled against him beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused is entitled for an acquittal. Accordingly, the point is answered against the State and in favour of the accused.

32.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/Sec.379 or 411 of IPC. Accordingly, he is acquitted u/Sec.255 (1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be remained in force for a period of six months as required u/Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. M.O.1 is given to PW.1 in Criminal

MP No.931/2021, dt.15.12.2021, M.O.2 is given to PW.2 in Criminal M.P

No.910/2021, dt.22.10.2021 and M.O.3 is given to PW.3 in Criminal 12

M.P No.932/2021, dt.15.12.2021 shall be made absolute after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr-III (O.S), corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 10th day of January, 2025.

Sd/-Jettim Nandini,

I Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class Kadapa. Appendix Of Evidence

Witnesses examined for prosecution: For Defence: Nil

PW.1: Shaik Dasthagiri PW.2: K.Bangireddigari Mallikarjuna Reddy PW.3: P.Venkata Ramana PW.4: P.Anjaneyulu PW.5: K.Dasthagiri, Head Constable PW.6: P.V.Seshaiah, Head Constable PW.7: T.Prasad, A.S.I PW.8: V.Sudhakar, Sub Inspector of Police PW.9: G.Raja, Inspector of Police Exhibits marked for prosecution: For Defence:Nil

Ex.P.1: Report of PW.1 in Crime No.185/2021 Ex.P.2: Report of PW.2 in Crime No.186/2021 Ex.P.3: Report of PW.3 in Crime No.187/2021 Ex.P.4: Panchanama Ex.P.5: Original F.I.R in Crime No.185/2021 Ex.P.6: Rough sketch in Crime No.185/2021 Ex.P.7: F.I.R in Crime No.187/2021 Ex.P.8: Rough sketch in Crime No.187/2021 Ex.P.9: F.I.R in Crime No.186/2021 Ex.P.10: Rough sketch in Crime No.186/2021 Material Objects Marked:

M.O.1: Motor cycle bearing No.AP04-BE-6207. M.O.2: Motor cycle bearing No.AP04-BT-0762 M.O.3: Motor cycle bearing No.AP04-BF-7496

Sd/-J.Nandini,

I A.J.F.C.M,

Kdp.

13

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar and Judgment tried by the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa.

DATE OF

Offence ReportApprehenReleaseCommencClose ofJudgment sion ofon bailement oftrial accusedtrial 13.8.21 in28.8.21 in28.8.2021 16.12.2124.11.215.12.2410.1.25 CrimeCrime No.185/21,No.185/21, 21.8.21 in28.8.21 in CrimeCrime No.186/21 &No.186/21 14.8.2021 in& 28.8.21 Crimein Crime No.1872021No.187/21

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No. 1370/2021 on the file of the Court of

I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa,

Kattubadi Rathnam, S/o Jarimiya, 29 years, D.No.74/113, Patha Rayachoty, Rayachoty Town.

Offence :u/Sec.379 or 411 of IPC.

Finding :Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/Sec.379 or 411 of IPC.

Sentence: In the result, the accused isfound not guilty for the offence punishable u/Sec.379 or 411 of IPC. Accordingly, he is acquitted u/Sec.255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be remained in force for a period of six months as required u/Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. M.O.1 is given to PW.1 in Criminal MP

No.931/2021, dt.15.12.2021, M.O.2 is given to PW.2 in Criminal

M.P No.910/2021, dt.22.10.2021 and M.O.3 is given to PW.3 in

Criminal M.P No.932/2021, dt.15.12.2021shall be made absolute after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/-Jettim Nandini,

I Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS, KADAPA.

Present: Smt: Jettim Nandini,

I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa.

Friday, this the 10th day January, 2025.

Calendar Case No. 1369 of 2021

State:Sub Inspector of Police, Kadapa I Town U/G P.S.

...Complainant

Vs.

Kattubadi Rathnam, S/o Jarimiya, 29 years, D.No.74/113, Patha Rayachoty, Rayachoty Town.

…Accused.

This case is coming on 5.12.2024 for final hearing before me in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of

M.Santha, Deputy Legal Aid Counsel (L.A.D.C.S), for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

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

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kadapa I Town U/G Police Station, has filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime Nos.181/2021 and 184/2021 for the offence punishable u/Sec.379 of IPC.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution as leveled in the charge sheet is as follows in Crime No.181/2021.

LW.1/Y.Azaruddin is native of D.No.4/69, C.K Dinne Mandal,

Kadapa District about 10 years back LW.1 shifted his family to Kadapa City and residing D.No.1/307-7, beside JCN Cable Office Line, Maruthi Nagar, LW.1 working as a bike mechanic in Vigneswara Honda Auto Works at Municipal

Stadium, Kadapa City, LW.1 owns a motor cycle bearing No.AP39-AZ-9602, on 14.7.2021 at around 1.30 pm., LW.1 went to his house for lunch and parked his motor cycle in front of his house. After completion of lunch at 2.30 pm., LW.1 2 came out of his house and he noticed that some unknown offenders have theft his motor cycle bearing No.AP39-AZ-9602 since he was indulged in providing treatment to his sister he was unable to file complaint the said motor cycle worth of Rs.60,000/-. Later on 25.8.2021 LW.1 lodged a complaint against the accused. Hence, the charge.

The brief facts of the prosecution as leveled in the charge sheet is as follows in Crime No.184/2021.

LW.5/Shaik Firdose, is R/a D.No.4/682, Guntha Bazar, Kadapa City.

LW.5 is living by running water plant with title of A.1 Firdose water plant on 17.8.2021 at 12.10 pm., LW.5 parked his motor cycle bearing No.AP04-BP-5515, near his water plant and indulged in his regular works at his water plaint. Later at about 12.40 pm., LW.5 noticed that some unknown offenders have theft his motor cycle and the worth of said motor cycle Rs.60,000/-. Later on 28.8.2021

LW.5 lodged a complaint against the accused. Hence, the charge.

3.Basing on the complaint of LW.1. LW.12/B.Anji Naik, H.C of Kadapa

I Town U/G P.S registered a case in Crime No.181/2021 for the offence punishable u/Sec.379 of IPC and took up investigation. Basing on the complaint of LW.5/ in Crime No.184/2021. LW.13/S.Khadar Basha, A.S.I of Kadapa I Town

U/G P.S registered a case in Crime No.184/2021 for the offence punishable u/Sc.379 of IPC and took up investigation.

4. After perusal of charge sheet and other material available on record, this case was taken on file for the offences punishable u/Sec.379 of IPC against the accused.

5.On appearance of accused copies of documents was furnished to them as contemplated u/Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

6.The accused is examined u/Sec.239 Cr.P.C. Charges for offence u/Sec.379 or 411 of I.P.C were framed and the same are read over and 3 explained to him in Telugu, for which he denied and claimed to be tried.

7.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to PW.7 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.7 and M.O.1 and M.O.2 are marked. The evidence of LW.2 to LW.4, LW.6 to LW.9, are given up by the learned S.A.P.P as most of the witnesses turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution.

8.The accused is examined u/Sec.313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating material appearing against him, for which he denied the offence and reported no defence evidence.

9.Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the material available on record.

10. Now the point for determination is:

1. “Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the offences punishable u/Sec.379 of IPC”?

2. “Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the offences punishable u/Sec.411 of IPC”?

Point:

11.PW.1/Y.Azaraddin,deposed in his evidence that, on 14.7.2021 he parked his pulsar vehicle bearing No.AP39-AZ-9602 before his house at C.K

Dinne in the afternoon. Later he went into his house for lunch, then after lunch at 2.30 pm., he came outside and found that his pulsar vehicle is missing. Then he went to Kadapa I Town Police Station and gave Ex.P.1 report police examined him. The vehicle bearing No.AP39-AZ-9602. After one and half month i.e., 25.8.2021 the police informed him that they recovered his motor cycle then he went to police station and saw his motor cycle. Thereafter he received his vehicle under interim custody through the order of the Hon’ble Court M.O.1 is vehicle. Further he deposed that he did not see the accused. But, again in re-examination by the learned Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor, PW.1 4 deposed that he can identify the accused and the person in the dock is the accused by name Rathnam.

12.PW.2/Shaik Firdose, deposed in his evidence that, on 17.8.2021 at about 11.30 am., he came to his water plant and parked his motor cycle i.e.,

Bajaj Pulsar motor cycle bearing No.AP04-BP-5515 and went into his water plant. Then at 12.40 pm., he came outside and found that his bike is missing worth of Rs.60,000/-. He enquired in the surrounding places but he could not found the same. Then he went to Kadapa I Town U/G P.S and gave Ex.P.2 report on 18.8.2021 police examined him. On 27.8.2021 the police informed him that they recovered his motor cycle on 28.8.2021 he went to police station and found his bike. He has not took over his vehicle it was before this Hon’ble Court.

M.O.2 is vehicle he has not seen who had committed the theft of his vehicle.

13.PW.3/P.Anjaneyulu, V.R.O, deposed in his evidence that on 30.8.2021 at about 8.15 am., while he was present along with LW.9/E.Naveen

Kumar, V.R.O, in their Tahsildar’s Office, the Inspector of Police, Rayachoty U/G

P.S., called him over phone and stated them to act as mediators on that himself and LW.9 went to police station and they reached police station at 8.30 am., then they along with the Inspector of Police, two Sub Inspector of Police and some constables started from police station at 8.45 am., on two jeeps and went to

Podalapalli Cross Road there the police started conducting vehicle checking.

After some time the police found two persons coming from Rayachoty side on two different vehicles, on seeing police they stopped the vehicles and tried to skulk away but the police apprehended them and brought them before LW.11.

Then LW.11 enquired why they are fleeing away, on that they had not shown the papers of motor cycles on further enquiry they confessed that they committed theft of those vehicles. On that one accused/Rathnam has stated that he committed thefts at Pileru, Tirupathi, Kadapa, Rayachoty, Sambepalli, 5

T.Sundupalli and Vayalapadu. Later LW.11 recorded the panchanama in their presence then he stated that 30 to 40 vehicles were committed theft by him. In that one vehicle was committed theft at Rayachoty along with another person.

Ex.P.3 is the panchanama prepared from 9.00 am., to 6.00 pm., the accused further stated that he will lead to Gowramma Bugga, where he hidden the motor cycles then he lead them to that place and there they went to one dilapidated house they found 32 motor cycles. LW.12 noted all the chassis numbers of said vehicles and they are mentioned in Ex.P.3. At 5.45 pm., LW.11 arrested the accused and other and he along with LW.9 and police and the accused other signed on it.

14.PW.4/B.Anji Naik, Head Constable, deposed in his evidence that, on 25.8.2021 at about 4.00 pm., while he was present in police station PW.1 came to police station and gave Ex.P.1 report. Basing on which he registered a case in Crime No.181/2021 for the offences punishable u/Sec.379 of IPC. Later he sent original F.I.R to Court and copies to all concerned. Ex.P.4 is F.I.R, he examined PW.1 and recorded his statement, then he visited the scene of offence i.e., in front of D.No.1/307-7 and examined LW.2 to LW.4 and recorded their statements. Later he observed the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch

Ex.P.5 is rough sketch. Then he handed over the case file to LW.14 who conducted further investigation in this case.

15.PW.5/S.Khadar Basha, A.S.I, deposed in his evidence that, on 28.8.2021 at about 9.00 am., while he was present in police station PW.2 came to police station and gave Ex.P.2 report. Basing on which he registered a case in Crime No.184/2021 for the offence punishable u/Sec.379 of IPC. He sent original F.I.R to Court and copies to all concerned Ex.P.6 is F.I.R. Later he examined PW.2 and recorded his statement then he visited the scene of offence i.e., Guntha Bazaar and examined LW.6 to LW.8 and recorded their statements 6 and he observed the scene of offence. He prepared rough sketch. Ex.P.7 is rough sketch then he handed over the case file to LW.14 who conducted further investigation in this case.

16.PW.6/V.Sudhakar, Sub Inspector of Police, deposed in his evidence that, on 30.8.2021 PW.4 appeared before him and produced C.D file in Crime

No.181/2021 he took up further investigation in this case and he found investigation done on correct lines. On 29.8.2021 PW.5 appeared before him and produced C.D file in Crime No.184/2021 he took up further investigation in this case and he found investigation done on correct lines. PW.6 further deposed in his evidence that, he came to know that Rayachoty Police arrested the accused in Crime No.330/2021 and seized the stolen properties in this cases.

Then he obtained the panchanama and filed P.T warrant before this Hon’ble

Court. Then he secured the presence of accused in this case under P.T warrant and sent into judicial remand. Then he handed over the case file to LW.15 who after completion of investigation and filed charge sheet in this case.

17.PW.7/G.Raju, Inspector of Police, deposed in his evidence that, on 30.8.2021 at about 8.20 pm., himself, his Sub Inspector of Police and his staff along with LW.9 and PW.3 went to Galiveedu Rayachoty Road, Kondapalli Cross

Road and there he conducted vehicle checking at that time 2 persons came there on a bike and tried to flee away. They chased them and apprehended them on enquiry they revealed their identity as accused in this case. He confessed that he committed 32 offences out of which 2 are these cases i.e., in

Crime Nos.181/2021 and 184/2021 of Kadapa I Town U/G P.S he also confessed in Crime Nos.185/2021, 186/2021 and 187/2021. Then he seized the bike at old

Rayachoty, as he took there they seized 34 bikes in 32 cases. Then he apprehended them and sent them to judicial remand. After completion of investigation LW.15 filed charge sheet in this case. He arrested the accused 7 under Ex.P.4 panchanama.

18.On perusal of record, the prosecution case is that PW.1 parked his pulsar vehicle bearing No.AP39-AZ-9602 before his house on 14.7.2021 and went in to his house for lunch but after lunch came outside and found that his pulsar vehicle is missing on that Ex.P.1 report was given. On 25.8.2021 I.e, after 1 ½ half month he informed by the police that his motor cycle was recovered and he received the same to the Court.

19.As PW.1, PW.2 also parked his motor cycle i.e., Bajaj Pulsar bearing No.AP04-BP-5515 before his water plant at about 11.30 am. When he came out side at 12.40 pm., he found his bike was missing and lodged Ex.P.3 on 18.8.2021. Again on 27.1.2021 police informed him that his motor cycle was recovered and on 28.8.2021 he went to police station and found his bike but not taken his vehicle. Hence, M.O.2 i.e., Bajaj Pulsar bearing No.AP04-BP-5515.

20.To support the version of PW.1 and PW.2 prosecution has examined

PW.3 to PW.7 where PW.3 deposes about apprehension of the accused and seized of vehicles on 30.8.2021. PW.4 to PW.7 are the official witnesses who register F.I.R, conducted investigation and filed charge sheet.

21.On thorough perusal of the deposition of PW.1 to PW.5 it is found that PW.1 deposed that on 14.7.2021 his motor cycle was missing and committed for theft on that he lodged Ex.P.1 report. On perusal of Ex.P.1 it is found that on 25.8.2021 PW.1 has lodged complaint in police station and it was corroborated by PW.4 where he stated that on 25.8.2021 at about 4.00 pm., while he was in police station PW.1 came to police station and lodged Ex.P.1 report. Further there is no explanation from the prosecution in the entire evidence of PW.1 about the delay in lodging Ex.P.1 in police station. Further

PW.1 deposes that after one month of lodging Ex.P.1 report i.e., 25.8.2021 police informed PW.1 that they recovered his motor cycle. On that he went to 8 police station and saw his vehicle and he received his motor cycle under interim custody through Court. But, on perusal of Ex.P.1 as above discussed, Ex.P.1 itself was lodged on 25.8.2021 but PW.1 deposes that on 25.8.2021 I.e, after 1 ½ months of lodging Ex.P.1 report police informed that they recorded his motor cycle. As there is clear contradiction between the PW.1 deposition about occurrence of offence, his evidence cannot be relied upon by this Court. Further in chief examination he deposed that he had not seen who committed the theft of his vehicle but in re-examination by the learned Senior A.P.P PW.1 again deposes that can he identify the accused and the person standing in the dock is the accused. One who deposed in his chief examination that he had not seen the accused at the scene of offence he cannot say in re-examination that he can identify the accused. If PW.1 as really witnessed the offence he would deposed at first instance itself i.e., in his chief examination and as such no one cannot change his stand.

22.On perusal of evidence of PW.2 he deposes that on 17.8.2021 at about 11.00 am., his motor cycle bearing No.AP04-BP-5515 was missing which was parked at his water plant and lodged Ex.P.2 report on 18.8.2021. But, on perusal of Ex.P.2 it is found that Ex.P.2 was lodged on 28.8.2021 and it was supported by the evidence of PW.5 who deposed that on 28.8.2021 at about 9.00 am., while he was in police station PW.2 came to police station and lodged

Ex.P.2. Further he deposed that on 27.8.2021 the police informed him that they recovered his motor cycle and on 28.8.2021 he went to police station and found his bike but not took his vehicle to his custody. On perusal of Ex.P.2 the date was mentioned as 28.1.2021 and the evidence of PW.2 that police informed him on 27.8.2021 that they recovered his vehicle and he went on 28.8.2021 to police station to see his vehicle is seems to be utterly false. Hence, the evidence of

PW.1 and PW.2 is not at all reliable and trust worthy as there is no corroboration 9 between the PW.1, PW.2, PW.4 and PW.5 regarding the material details which are very important to prove the version of the prosecution.

23.Further on perusal of evidence of PW.2 he deposes that on 30.8.2021 he along with LW.9 and police officials went to Podalapalli Cross

Road while conducting vehicle checking the police found two persons coming from Rayachoty side on two difference vehicles and on seeing the police they stopped the vehicles and tried to skulk away. But, the police officials apprehended them and on enquiry they confessed they committed theft of vehicles at Pileru, Thirupathi, Kadapa, Rayachoty, Sambepalli, T.Sundupalli and

Vayalapadu. To prove the same Ex.P.3 was marked.

24.On keen observation of minute details in the evidence of both PW.1 and PW.2 they deposes that on 14.7.2021 and on 17.8.2021 respectively their vehicles was committed for theft and on 25.8.2021 and 27.8.2021 they both respectively deposed that their vehicles was recovered. But, on perusal of evidence of PW.3, it is evident that on 30.8.2021 the police apprehended the accused and recorded his confession and recovered stolen vehicles under

Ex.P.3.

25.When the police officials themselves has seized vehicles from the accused on 30.8.2021 the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 that on 25.8.2021 and on 27.8.2021 the police informed about the vehicles of PW.1 and PW.2 is seems to be utterly false. Generally the information regarding the recovery of vehicles should be only after seizure of vehicles from the accused. But, in the present case at hand PW.1 and PW.2 has been informed about the recovery of vehicles even prior to the seizure by the police officials which is quite unnatural.

26.As above discussed as there is no corroboration between PW.1 to

PW.5 and there are so many contradictions between PW.1 and PW.2 and Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 is not at all reliable to prove the case 10 against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution utterly failed to prove their version as there are clear contradictions in the evidence of PW.1 and

PW.2 who are the material witnesses in this case. Hence, this court feels that the prosecution utterly failed in proving its case against the accused, beyond all reasonable doubt.

27.In view of contradictions in the evidence of material witnesses and confession before the police officials is not at all reliable to prove the version of the prosecution. Further, no other evidence/material is placed before the Court to establish the allegations made against the accused. So, there is no iota of evidence placed before the Court on behalf the State against the accused to prove the offence leveled against him beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused is entitled for an acquittal. Accordingly, the point is answered against the State and in favour of the accused.

28.In the result, the accused isfound not guilty for the offence punishable u/Sec.379 or 411 of IPC. Accordingly, he is acquitted u/Sec.255 (1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be remained in force for a period of six months as required u/Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. M.O.1 is given to PW.1 in

Criminal M.P No.904/2021, dt.22.10.2021 and M.O.2 is given to PW.2 in

Criminal M.P No.916/2021, dt.5.11.2021 shall be made absolute after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr-III (O.S), corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 10th day of January, 2025.

Sd/-Jettim Nandini,

I Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class Kadapa. Appendix Of Evidence

Witnesses examined for prosecution: For Defence: Nil PW.1: Y.Azaruddin

PW.2: Shaik Firdose

PW.3: P.Anjaneyulu

PW.4: B.Anji Naik, Head Constable 11

PW.5: S.Khadar Basha, A.S.I

PW.6: V.Sudhakar, Sub Inspector of Police

PW.7: G.Raju, Inspector of Police

Exhibits marked for prosecution: For Defence:Nil

Ex.P.1: Report of PW.1 in Crime No.181/2021

Ex.P.2: Report of PW.1 in Crime No.184/2021

Ex.P.3: Panchanama

Ex.P.4: Original F.I.R in Crime No.181/2021

Ex.P.5: Rough sketch

Ex.P.6: Original F.I.R in Crime No.184/2021

Ex.P.7: Rough sketch

Material Objects Marked:

M.O.1: Motor cycle bearing No.AP39-AZ-9602.

M.O.2: Motor cycle bearing No.AP04-BP-5515.

Sd/-J.Nandini,

I A.J.F.C.M,

Kdp.

12

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar and Judgment tried by the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa.

DATE OF

Offence ReportApprehensReleaseCommenceClose ofJudgment ion ofon bailment oftrial accusedtrial 14.7.21 in25.8.2021 in24.9.2119.1.2224.11.215.12.2410.1.25 CrimeCrime No.181/21 andNo.181/21 17.8.21 inand Crime28.8.2021 No.184/21

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No. 1369/2021 on the file of the Court of

I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa,

Kattubadi Rathnam, S/o Jarimiya, 29 years, D.No.74/113, Patha Rayachoty, Rayachoty Town.

Offence :u/Sec.379 or 411 of IPC.

Finding :Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/Sec.379 or 411 of IPC.

Sentence: In the result, the accused isfound not guilty for the offence punishable u/Sec.379 or 411 of IPC. Accordingly, he is acquitted u/Sec.255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be remained in force for a period of six months as required u/Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. M.O.1 is given to PW.1 in Criminal M.P

No.904/2021, dt.22.10.2021 and M.O.2 is given to PW.2 in

Criminal M.P No.916/2021, dt.5.11.2021 shall be made absolute after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/-Jettim Nandini,

I Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS, KADAPA.

Present: Smt: Jettim Nandini,

I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa.

Friday, this the 10th day January, 2025.

Calendar Case No. 189 of 2019

State:Sub Inspector of Police, Kadapa I Town U/G P.S.

...Complainant

Vs.

1. S.Sivakoti Redy, 40 years, S/o Krishna Reddy, Occ:Corporator, D.No.4/129-D, Pakkirpalli, Kadapa City.

2. S.Sreenadhareddy, 37 years, S/o Rathnasekhar Reddy, Occ:Cultivation, D.No.4/B-1369, Pakkirpalli, Kadapa City.

3. P.Mavireddy, S/o Venkata Subbareddy, 38 years, D.No.43/52-8-18, Prakash Nagar, Kadapa City.

…Accused No.1, 3 and 4.

This case is coming on 27.12.2024 for final hearing before me in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of

Sri M.Nagireddy, advocate for A.1, A.3 and A.4 and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

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

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kadapa I Town U/G Police Station, has filed a charge sheet against the A.1, A.3 and A.4 in Crime No.137/2018 for the offence punishable u/Secs.448, 323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution as leveled in the charge sheet is as follows:

LW.1/S.Kondareddy, previously worked as a employee in R.T.C

Department and took voluntarily retirement. LW.1 is in possession of site an extent of Ac.0.60 cents situated in Sy.No.908 at Prakash Nagar, Kadapa City.

On one occasion the above accused A.1, A.3 and alleged A.2 none other than the grandsons of LW.1 and who were no right over the afore mentioned site, sold 2 away the same to other persons and executed a registered deed. On coming to know the same LW.1 approached his advocate and sent a legal notices to the purchasers and as well as to the registering authorities mentioning that even though the A.1 to A.3 has no right to sell or to possess the sight, they sold away the site and requested the concerned authorities to stop further transactions over the said site. On coming to know the same the A.1, A.3 and A.4 who were unable to digest the same grew wild upon LW.1 criminally trespassed into the house of LW.1 questioned LW.1 as to why sent legal notices and tried to accost their attitudes, so saying abused LW.1 in a filthy languages also beat him with hands and legs noticing the same LW.2 wife of LW.1 intervened and tried to admonish the attitudes of A.1, A.3 and A.4 for which the A.1, A.3 and A.4 also beat her with hands and legs and caused swelling injuries on their persons. On that LW.1 and LW.2 raised hues and cries on hearing the same, LW.3 to LW.5 intervened and admonished attitudes of A.1, A.3 and A.4 and sent them away from the spot. Later LW.1 lodged a complaint against the A.1, A.3 and A.4.

Hence, the charge.

3.Basing on the complaint of LW.1. LW.6/S.K.M.Hussain, Sub of

Police, Kadapa I Town U/G P.S registered a case in Crime No.137/2018 for the offence punishable u/Secs.448, 323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and took up investigation.

4. After perusal of charge sheet and other material available on record, this case was taken on file for the offences punishable u/Secs.448, 323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC against the A.1, A.3 and A.4.

5.On appearance of A.1, A.3 and A.4 copies of documents was furnished to them as contemplated u/Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

6.The A.1, A.3 and A.4 are examined u/Sec.251 of Cr.P.C. They denied the offence. The substance of accusation u/Secs.448, 323, 506 r/w 34 of 3

IPC were got read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they denied and claimed to be tried.

7.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to PW.3 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.5. The evidence of LW.3 to LW.5 was given up by the learned A.P.P as most of the witnesses turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution.

8.The A.1, A.3 and A.4 are examined u/Sec.313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating material appearing against them, for which they denied the offence and reported no defence evidence.

9.Heard arguments from both sides. Perused the material available on record.

10. Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved the

guilt of accused for the offences punishable

u/Secs.448, 323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC”?

Point:

11.PW.1/S.Konda Reddy, who is retired R.T.C employee, deposed in his evidence that he acquired house vacant site an extent of Ac.0.60 cents in

Sy.No.908 at Prakash Nagar in Chinnachowk Village fields from his ancestors, the said site was originally acquired by his grandfather and himself and other family members are alone having right and title over the said site. Later 2 months prior to the date of this incident A.1, A.3 and A.4 sold the said Ac.0.60 cents along with their site total for an extent of Ac.1.20 cents and by excluding the pathway, it is Ac.1.08 or Ac.1.06 cents to one P.Ravindra Reddy, through the registered sale deed. Later 15 or 20 days thereafter, he came to know the same and on that in writing he issued a registered post notice to the sellers and as well as the purchasers i.e., A.1, A.3, A.4 and said P.Ravindra Reddy informing that he is the rightful owner of the said Ac.0.60 cents vacant site and he is alone having 4 right to sell the same and no one except himself has right over the said property and if anyone sells or purchases it will not valid. On 18.7.2018 between 7.40 and 7.50 am., while he was watching T.V in his house and he was alone at his house A.1, A.3 and A.4 entered into his house, scolded him in filthy language, attacked him and beat him with hands and kicked him with legs indiscriminately.

On that he raised cries and on hearing the same his wife while returning to the home from Temple, rushed there and she too was beaten the A.1, A.3 and A.4 with hands, legs and foisted her on the abdomen, on hearing their cries 3 neighboring women including LW.3/Manjula, LW.5/Sujatha and another woman whose name now he cannot recollect rushed to his house, interfered and rescued them from their clutches. However, while the A.1, A.3 and A.4 leaving his house threatened him that they came to his house to kill him and he was escaped but in future they will definitely see his end and challenged him to report the matter to whomsoever he like and then went away from his house, immediately he call 100 twice but there was no response. Then he went in an auto to Kadapa I Town U/G P.S and reported the matter but police asked him to come to the police station on the next day morning to lodge a report.

Accordingly, he went to the police station next day morning to lodge a report,

Ex.P.1 is the report which bears his signature, police examined him later he came to know through known person that the A.1, A.3 and A.4 purchased two cars bearing Nos.333 and 567 of A.P registration 10 days prior to the said incident in order to kill him, he handed over his copy of notice sent to the purchasers and sellers of his side to the police during the investigation which is shown to him and it is marked under Ex.P.2.

12.PW.2/S.Lakshmi Devi, deposed in her evidence that, on 18.7.2018 at 7.45 pm., while herself and LW.3 were returning to their house on the way she heard cries of her husband, she went into her house she found the A.1, A.3 and 5

A.4 beat of her husband (PW.1) with hands and legs, when she intervened they also beat her and threatened her, by the time the neighbors came to there then

A.1, A.3 and A.4 went away. Then they went to the police station and gave a report, police examined her.

13.PW.3/S.K.M Hussain, Sub Inspector of Police, deposed in his evidence that, on 19.7.2018 at 2.00 pm., while he was present in police station

PW.1 came to the police station and presented Ex.P.1 report. Basing on the report he registered a case in Crime No.137/2018 for the offences punishable u/Secs.448, 323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. Ex.P.3 FI.R, he secure the presence of

PW.1 in the police station and recorded his Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement, he seized legal notice from PW.1 under cover of police proceedings Ex.P.4. Then he left police station and visited the scene of offence situated at A.P Housing Board

Colony, Kadapa and prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence Ex.P.5 rough sketch, then he secured the presence of PW.2, LW.3 to LW.5 recorded their

Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements, on 27.9.2018 he arrested the A.1, A.3 and A.4 and released them on bail after obtaining sureties. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the A.1, A.3 and A.4 as no prima-facie is made out against the A.2.

14.On perusal of the depositions of PW.1 and PW.2 the defence counsel has cross examined PW.1 and PW.2 in very lengthy but the entire cross examination is based on civil dispute between the PW.1, PW.2 and A.1, A.3 and

A.4. The prosecution case is that there are some civil disputes between PW.1 and A.1, A.3 and A.4 and on 18.7.2018 between 7.40 and 7.50 pm., while PW.1 was watching T.V in is house alone A.1, A.3 and A.4 entered into his house, scolded him in filthy language and attacked with hands and kicked with legs indiscriminately. On hearing his cries PW.2 while returning from temple rushed the scene of offence and she too was beaten by A.1, A.3 and A.4 with hands and 6 legs fisted her on the abdomen. On hearing their crises LW.3, LW.5 and other has went to scene of offence and rescued them from the hands of the A.1, A.3 and A.4. While leaving there house A.1, A.3 and A.4 threatened PW.1 that they will see PW.1 end in future.

15.On perusal of cross examination of PW.1, most of the suggestions and admissions are regarding the civil disputes and about omissions and contradictions between Ex.P.1, Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1 and chief examination of PW.1. As this is a criminal case this Court is not concern about civil disputes between the PW.1 and A.1, A.3 and A.4 and coming to omissions by PW.1 in the cross examination of PW.1 he himself admitted that “it is true that I did not mentioned in complaint about the accused beat me with legs”. On perusal of Ex.P.1 it is found to be correct. No where in Ex.P.1, PW.1 stated that

A.1, A.3 and A.4 has beat PW.1 and PW.2 with legs along with hands. Further

PW.1 deposes in his chief examination that A.1, A.3 and A.4 has beat PW.2 with their hands and legs and also fisted PW.2 on her abdomen. On entire perusal of evidence of PW.2, it is found that no where PW.2 mentioned in her chief examination that A.1, A.3 and A.4 has fisted PW.2 on her abdomen. Hence, there is no corroboration between evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 regarding the evidence of beating of PW.1 and PW.2 by A.1, A.3 and A.4 with hands and legs.

16.Except, PW.1 and PW.2 who is husband and wife the prosecution has not examined any other independent witnesses to support the version of prosecution. Hence, this Court feels that the prosecution utterly failed in proving its case against the A.1, A.3 and A.4, beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence “u/Sec.323 of IPC”. Hence, the A.1, A.3 and A.4 is acquitted for the offence u/Sec.323 of IPC as the essential ingredient of causing of bodily pain, deceased or infirmity to any person is not proved by the prosecution as per

Sec.319 of IPC which defines “Hurt”.

7

17.Though PW.1 and PW.2 has categorically deposed in their evidence that, while PW.1 was alone in his house A.1, A.3 and A.4 has entered in to the house of PW.1 and beat PW.1 with hands and legs and on hearing the cries,

PW.2 who is return from the temple went to rescue PW.1 from the hands of A.1,

A.3 and A.4 and PW.2 also stated in her evidence on hearing the cries she went into the house and found A.1, A.3 and A.4 was beat PW.1 with hands and legs.

But, at the time of arguments defence counsel has argued that, in Ex.P.1, PW.1 stated that on 18.7.2018 at about 7.45 pm., the accused persons entered into his house and beat PW.1 and PW.2 with hands on that they sustained dumb injuries. On perusal of Ex.P.1 it is found to be true as stated by defence counsel.

No where in the Ex.P.1 the PW.1 has stated that while PW.2 is returning from temple on hearing the cries of PW.1, PW.2 went to rescue PW.1. Hence, there is clear contradiction between PW.1 and PW.2 deposition and Ex.P.1. Hence, the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 in the absence of any independent witnesses cannot be relied upon by this Court for the offence “u/Sec.448 of IPC” where the essential ingredients of criminal trespass is not proved by the prosecution against the A.1, A.3 and A.4 beyond reasonable doubt.

18.Further on perusal of evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 they deposed that on the date of alleged offence A.1, A.3 and A.4 has threatened by stating that they will see the end of PW.1 in future and it was supported by PW.2 evidence who deposed before this Court that when she intervening A.1, A.3 and A.4 also beat her and threatened her. Except, this mere statement she did not deposed

before this Court the manner of threat by A.1, A.3 and A.4. In the absence of

specific allegations by PW.2 and in the absence of evidence of any other independent witnesses this Court cannot rely on evidence of PW.1 solely to convict A.1, A.3 and A.4 “u/Sec.506 of IPC” where the essential ingredient of criminal intimidation i.e., threatening of a person with a injury who is person, 8 reputation or property etc., is not proved by the prosecution against the A.1, A.3 and A.4 beyond reasonable doubt for the offence u/Sec.506 of IPC.

19.Further, no other evidence/material is placed before the Court to establish the allegations made against the A.1, A.3 and A.4. So, there is no iota of evidence placed before the Court on behalf the State against the A.1, A.3 and

A.4 to prove the offence leveled against them beyond all reasonable doubt.

Hence, the A.1, A.3 and A.4 are entitled for an acquittal. Accordingly, the point is answered against the State and in favour of the A.1, A.3 and A.4.

20.In the result, the A.1, A.3 and A.4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable u/Secs.448, 323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. Accordingly, they are acquitted u/Sec.255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the A.1, A.3 and A.4 shall be remained in force for a period of six months as required u/Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. As no property was seized and produced before this Court, no property order could be passed.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr-III (O.S), corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 10th day of January, 2025.

Sd/-Jettim Nandini,

I Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class Kadapa. Appendix Of Evidence

Witnesses examined for prosecution: For Defence: Nil

PW.1: S.Konda Reddy PW.2: S.Lakshmi Devi PW.3: S.K.M.Hussain, Sub Inspector of Police Exhibits marked for prosecution: For Defence:Nil

Ex.P.1: Report of PW.1 Ex.P.2: Legal notice Ex.P.3: F.I.R in Crime No.137/2018 Ex.P.4: Police proceedings Ex.P.5: Rough sketch of scene of offence

Material Objects Marked: -Nil-

Sd/-J.Nandini,

I A.J.F.C.M,

Kdp.

9

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar and Judgment tried by the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa.

DATE OF

Offence ReportApprehensiRelease onCommencClose ofJudgment on ofbailement oftrial accusedtrial 18.7.2018 19.7.2018--13.2.202027.12.2024 10.1.2025

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No. 189/2019 on the file of the Court of

I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa.

1. S.Sivakoti Redy, 40 years, S/o Krishna Reddy, Occ:Corporator, D.No.4/129-D, Pakkirpalli, Kadapa City.

2. S.Sreenadhareddy, 37 years, S/o Rathnasekhar Reddy, Occ:Cultivation, D.No.4/B-1369, Pakkirpalli, Kadapa City.

3. P.Mavireddy, S/o Venkata Subbareddy, 38 years, D.No.43/52-8-18, Prakash Nagar, Kadapa City.

Offence : -u/Secs.448, 323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

Finding : -A.1, A.3 and A.4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable u/Secs.448, 323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

Sentence: - In the result, the A.1, A.3 and A.4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable u/Secs.448, 323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

Accordingly, they are acquitted u/Sec.255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the A.1, A.3 and A.4 shall be remained in force for a period of six months as required u/Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. As no property was seized and produced before this Court, no property order could be passed.

Sd/-Jettim Nandini,

I Addl. Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa.

1

THE JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD, KADAPA.

Present :Smt. Jettim Nandini,

Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board-cum-I Additional Judicial

Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa.

Member:1. Smt. D.Varamma,

Member:2. Smt. J.Sumitra,

Tuesday, this the 6th day of August, 2024.

J.C.C.No.7 of 2022

State Rep., by the Child Welfare Officer, Kalamalla Police Station. …. Complainant.

Vs.

XXXXXXXX

….Child in Conflict with Law.

This case is coming on 30.7.2024 for hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and

Sri Nagabhushanam, advocate for Child in Conflict with Law and after hearing and upon perusing the record, this Board delivered the following:-

: : F I N A L O R D E R : :

This is a case filed by the State represented by the Child Welfare

Police Officer, Kalamalla P.S in Crime No.64/2020, against the Child in Conflict with Law for the offences punishable u/Secs.326, 506, 509 r/w 34 of IPC.

2.The brief facts of the case of the State as per the contents of the final report are that this is a counter case to Crime No.68/2020 for the offence u/Secs.326, 506, 509 r/w 34 of IPC. LW.1/G.Venkata Shasindha Reddy, who is the defacto complainant and A.1 to A.3 and the CICL are resident of R.T.P.P,

Kalamalla Village, Kadapa District. Previously there was misunderstanding in using the empty space situated on rear side of their quarters for which A.1 and 2

A.2 and LW.2 and LW.3 quarrel with each other. On 6.5.2020 at 8.30 am., A.2 went rear side of the said quarters in order to collect the clips and cloths fell down and after collecting them and proceeding towards LW.1 quarters and noticing the same LW.2 who is keeping the previous grudge started to abuse

LW.1 in filthy language. On hearing the same A.1, A.3 and CICL came from their house, A.1 took stick and beat LW.1 over his left hand due to which he received injuries. When LW.2 to LW.4 came there A.1 kicked LW.3 with hands and legs and abused in filthy language. A.2 caught hold hair of LW.3 dragged her and kicked her with hands and legs, later A.3 and CICL caught hold the hair of LW.4 pushed him and kicked with legs and punched with their hands. Later LW.1 to

LW.4 took stone and beat A.2 over her right hand wrist and on forehead due to which she received bleeding injury and also dragged her by caught hold of her hair. When LW.5 to LW.7 came there and on seeing them the accused threatened LW.5 to LW.7 if they interfere in this regard they will kill them and went away. Hence, the report.

Basing on the complaint of LW.1. The LW.9/Sub Inspector of Police, registered a case in Crime No.64/2020 for the offences punishable u/Secs.326, 506, 509 r/w 34 of IPC against the Child in Conflict with Law.

3.Cognizance has been taken against the Child in Conflict with Law for the offences punishable u/Secs.326, 506, 509 r/w 34 of IPC.

4.On appearance of the child in Conflict with Law, copies of relevant documents were furnished to him as contemplated u/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. When the child in Conflict with Law and he is examined u/Sec.251 of Cr.P.C, explaining the substance of accusation appearing against him for the offence punishable 3 u/Secs.326, 506, 509 r/w 34 of IPC, he denied, pleaded not committed the offence and claimed to be tried.

5.During the inquiry, the State has examined PWs.1 to 9 and got

Exs.P.1 to P.7 and M.O.1 are marked.

6.The Child in Conflict with Law is examined u/Sec.313 Cr.P.C examination by explaining the incriminating the material made against him from the evidence of the prosecution got read over and explained him in Telugu to which he denied and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard arguments of both sides.

8.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the State is able to prove offence leveled against the child in conflict with law beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences punishable u/Secs.326, 506, 509 r/w 34 of IPC ?

9.Point:

In order to prove the case of the State, learned Senior Assistant

Public Prosecutor has chosen to examine 9 witnesses as PWs.1 to 9 out of 9 witnesses cited in the final summary report.

10.PW.1/G.V.Sasinatha Reddy, Private Employee deposed in his evidence that on 6.5.2020 at about 7.30 am., while he was sitting in front of his house at that time Prabhavathamma who is mother of the CICL came from upstairs and walked in front of his house, on that he went aside on that the said

Prabhavathamma abused in filthy language, on hearing the cries of

Prabhavathamma her husband Venkata Subbaiah and their children namely

Sudheep, Dilip and CICL came there and abused him in filthy language and 4

Venkata Subbaiah, Sudheep and CICL caught hold him with their hands and

Venkata Subbaiah, Sudheep and CICL beat him with iron rods on his left hand arm caused fracture injury, he shouted loudly his parents and his elder brother i.e., LW.3 to LW.4 came there and tried to rescue him from the clutches of the family of CICL. On that one Subbaiah kicked his mother on her stomach and sustained pain on the stomach the CICL, Sudheep fisted his elder brother on his body, LW.5 to LW.7 came there and rescued them, Venkata Subbaiah, threatened them with dire consequences if they live in that quarters, himself and his family members were shifted to Government Hospital, Proddatur through

R.T.P.P ambulance, between 1 pm to 2 pm on the same day he went to

Kalamala P.S and gave report, witness identified his signature on the report.

Ex.P.1 certified copy of report and police examined him.

11.PW.2/Y.Ravi Sekhar Reddy, deposed in his evidence that he do not know anything about the facts of the case. Police never examined him.

12.PW.3/G.Tirupati Reddy, Plant Assistant deposed in his evidence that on 6.2.2020 at about 7.30 am., PW.1 was operating his mobile phone at that time the mother of CICL came there on that PW.1 gave side to mother of CICL then the mother of CICL abused the PW.1 in filthy language due to old grudges, then the CICL, father and elder brother of CICL came there and caught hold

PW.1 and fisted with the hands, then the father of CICL beat with a stick on his left hand and caused bleeding injury, PW.1 raised cries then himself,

LW.3/G.Venkata Lakshmi, LW.4/Meghanathareddy, went there to rescue of PW.1 then the father of CICL kicked his wife on her stomach on that she fell down on the ground, then the CICL and his brother beat LW.4 with hands and legs, then

PW.2, LW.6 and LW.7 came there and pacified the matter. Later PW.1 was 5 shifted to Proddatur Government General Hospital in a ambulance, police examined him.

13.PW.4/G.Venkata Lakshmi, deposed in her evidence that on 6.5.2020 at about 7.30 am., PW.1 was operating his mobile phone at that time the mother of CICL came there on that PW.1 gave side to mother of CICL then the mother of CICL abused PW.1 in filthy language due to old grudges the father of CICL came beat PW.1 with hands and sticks on his left hand and caused fracture injury. She went there to rescue PW.1 then the father of CICL dragged her by caught hold her tuft and kicked her on stomach on that she fell down on the ground and also abused her in filthy langue. Then the mother of CICL caught hold her tuft and dragged her and beat her with their hands, then LW.4 came to there to rescue her, then the CICL and his brother beat LW.4 with rods, later PW.2, LW.6 and LW.7 came there and pacified the matter. PW.1 was shifted to Proddatur Government General Hospital in ambulance and police examined him.

14.PW.5/G.Meghanatha Reddy, Software, deposed in his evidence that on 6.5.2020 at about 7.20 to 7.30 am., PW.1 was operating his mobile phone at that time the mother of CICL came there on that PW.1 gave side to mother of

CICL then the mother of CICL abused PW.1 in filthy language due to old grudges, later the father and brother of CICL came there and abused PW.1 in filthy language, on hearing sounds himself PW.3 and PW.4 went there meanwhile the father of CICL beat PW.1 with a stick on his left hand and caused swelling injury, then the father of CICL dragged his mother by caught hold her tuft and kicked on her stomach on that she fell down on the ground, on that he went to rescue PW.4 later the CICL and his brother fisted him on her body, then 6

PW.2, LW.6 and LW.7 and other came there and pacified the matter, later the father of CICL threatened them that he will see their end if they reside in the quarters. PW.1 was shifted to Proddatur Government General Hospital in ambulance his brother PW.1 sustained fracture injury, police examined him.

15.PW.6/O.Venkata Ramana Reddy, Electronic Instrumentation

R.R.P.P, deposed in his evidence that about 4 years back on one day at about 7.30 to 8.00 am., he was present at his house, his wife informed him that some unknown persons were altercating each and other and he went there and he noticed PW.1 and PW.3 to PW.5 and family members of CICL were altercating each other, police did not examined him.

16.PW.7/P.Chandra Obul Reddy, Foreman deposed in his evidence that about 4 years back on one day at about 7.30 to 8.00 am., he was present in his house, he heard crises at the house of PW.1 and there he came to outside of his house and there are altercating between the family members of PW.1 and

CICL and he pacified the matter between the both families. Police did not examined him.

17.PW.8/ Dr M.Pradeep, C.A.S, deposed in his evidence that on 6.5.2020 at about 9.15 am., he examined PW.1 at Government District Hospital,

Proddatur and found swelling and pain over the left fore arm. The patient was referred to X-ray and as per X-Ray report there is a fracture on promixal shaft radius and alna. PW.8 further deposed that the injury on PW.1 in grievous nature, then he issued wound certificate under Ex.P.5

18.PW.9/ P.Chandra Mohan, Sub Inspector of Police, deposed in his evidence that on 6.5.2020 at about 1.30 pm., while he has present in police station PW.1 came to police station and gave Ex.P.1 report. Basing on the 7 report he registered a case in Crime No.64/2020 for the offence punishable u/Secs.324, 506, 509 r/w 34 of IPC and sent original F.I.R to Court and copies to all concerned, he examined PW.1 and PW.3 at police station and recorded their statements. Later he went to scene of offence which is house of PW.1 at

R.T.P.P Colony, Kalamalla, he has drafted rough sketch, Ex.P.7 rough sketch, there he has recorded the statements of PW.2 to PW.6 and PW.7 and he has seized one stick. M.O.1 is stick. Further PW.9 deposed in his evidence that on 14.5.2020 he has received credible information about the adult accused and

CICL was present at their house, he has served Sec.41-A Cr.P.C notice to them and altered the section from 324 to 326 of IPC. After investigation he has filed

Final Report against the CICL.

19.On perusal of the record the prosecution case states that while

PW.1 sat across the way in chair by stretching his legs, on seeing the same A.2 keeping the previous issues in mind abused PW.1 in filthy language on hearing

A.1, A.3 and CICL came there and A.1 immediately took up a stick and beat

PW.1 over his left hand due to which he sustained severe swelling injury. On hearing of crises of PW.1, PW.2 to PW.4 came and A.1 kicked PW.4 with legs and abused in filthy language. A.2 caught hold hair of PW.4 dragged her and kicked her with hands and legs. The CICL caught hold the hair of PW.5 and beat with hands and legs.

20.On perusal of depositions of PWs.1 to PW.5, PW.1 who is the injured person has stated that the CICL along with his brother and father caught hold him with their hands and the father of CICL beat PW.1 with iron rods on his left hand arm and he sustained facture injury. But, PW.3 to PW.5 has stated that the father of CICL beat PW.1 with stick on his left hand. PW.4 has stated that 8 when she went to rescue PW.1 the father of CICL dragged her by caught holding her tuft and kicked her on stomach on that she fell down on the ground and also he abused her in filthy language. Further she stated that the mother of CICL caught hold her tuft and dragged her and beat with hands and legs. Except

PW.4 no one stated that the mother of CICL has caught hold the tuft of PW.4 and dragged and beat her with hands. Further PW.4 stated that the CICL and his brother beat PW.5 with rods but except PW.4 all the remaining witnesses stated that the CICL and his brother beat LW.4 with a hands. Hence, there is no corroboration of evidence between PW.1, PW.3 to PW.5.

21.Further the material witnesses i.e., PW.1, PW.3 to PW.5 has stated in their cross examination stated that there is counter cases against family of

PW.1 and CICL family and also they have compromised both the cases before lok adalath Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class Court, Kamalapuram.

As it is not a disputed fact that the counter cases against each family was compromised before lok adalath Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class

Court, Kamalapuram and the case against the CICL in the present case which arises from the same cause of action was not compromised as it is a juvenile case. Being the main case was settled at lok adalath no purpose would serve if

CICL was punished. Hence, the CICL is given benefit of doubt as the prosecution is not able to prove the case against the CICL beyond all reasonable doubt.

22.In the result, the Child in conflict with law is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/Secs.326, 506, 509 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted u/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of parent or guardian of the child in conflict with law shall stands cancelled after the appeal time is over. M.O.1, 9 has to be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III (O.S), corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 6th day of August, 2024.

Sd/-Jettim Nandini

Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice

Board, -Cum-I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa. Member: 1. Smt. D.Varamma,

Member: 2. Smt. J.Sumitra

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for prosecution

PW.1: G.V.Sashinadha Reddy

PW.2: Y.Ravi Sekhar Reddy

PW.3: G.Thirupathi Reddy

PW.4: G.Venkata Lakshmi

PW.5: G.Meghanatha Reddy

PW.6: O.Venkata Ramana Reddy

PW.7: A.Chandra Obul Reddy

PW.8: Dr M.Praddep, C.A.S

PW.9: P.Chandra Mohan, Sub Inspector of Police.

Exhibits marked on behalf of prosecution

Ex.P.1: Complainant of the PW.1

Ex.P.2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2

Ex.P.3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.6

Ex.P.4: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.7

Ex.P.5: Wound certificate of PW.1

Ex.P.6: F.I.R in Crime No.64/2020 10

Ex.P.7: Rough sketch

Material objects are marked:

M.O.1: One stick.

Witness examined on behalf of the Child in Conflict with Law

-Nil-

Exhibits marked for Defence

-Nil-

Sd/-Jettim Nandini

Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice

Board, -Cum-I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa.

11

CALENDER AND FINAL ORDER

Calendar and Judgment tried by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board-cum-I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa.

DATE OF

Offence ReportApprehensiReleaseCommencemClose ofFinal on of CICLon bailent of trial trial Order 14.5.2020 6.5.20206.5.202014.5.20206.2.202430.7.20246.8.2024

Calendar and Final Order in J.C.C.No.7 of 2022 on the file of Principal

Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board-cum-I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I

Class, Kadapa.

Complainant: C.W.O, Kalamalla Crime No.64/2020.

Name of the CICL Age Calling Religion Residence With father’s name

XXXXXXXXX 16 -- -R/o Quarter No.F-496 V.V Reddy Nagar, R.T.P.P Kalamalla Village, Yerraguntla, Kadapa District. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence:u/Secs.326, 506, 509 r/w 34 of IPC.

Finding:The child in Conflict with Law is found not guilty.

Sentence:In the result, the Child in conflict with law is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/Secs.326, 506, 509 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted u/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of parent or guardian of the child in conflict with law shall stands cancelled after the appeal time is over. M.O.1, has to be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time.

Sd/-Jettim Nandini

Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice

Board, -Cum-I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa.

1

THE JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD, KADAPA.

Present :Smt. Jettim Nandini,

Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board-cum-I Additional Judicial

Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa.

Member:1. Smt. D.Varamma,

Member:2. Smt. J.Sumitra,

Tuesday, this the 6th day of August, 2024.

J.C.C.No.6 of 2023

State Rep., by the Child Welfare Officer, Kalamalla Police Station. …. Complainant.

Vs.

XXXXXXXX

….Child in Conflict with Law.

This case is coming on 3.8.2024 for hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and

Sri G.Eswar Reddy, for Child in Conflict with Law and after hearing and upon perusing the record, this Board delivered the following:-

: : F I N A L O R D E R : :

This is a case filed by the State represented by the Child Welfare

Police Officer, Kalamalla P.S in Crime No.39 of 2021, against the Child in

Conflict with Law for the offences punishable u/Sec.379 of IPC.

2.The brief facts of the case of the State as per the contents of the final report are that on 26.2.2021 at about 5.00 pm., LW.1/D.Subbarayudu, parked trailer bearing No.AP04-AZ-7774 in the hayrick yard of

LW.2/D.Venkateswarlu and took away the tractor to Proddatur along with him.,

Later on 5.3.2021 at 8.00 am., LW.1 returned to back Kalamalla for the work and noticed the parked trailer was not present, then LW.1 enquired about the missing 2 tractor trailer at LW.2 to LW.4 and also in surrounding, but no whereabouts of it not known. Then LW.1 searched for the trailer in the surrounding villages, but not traced. Then LW.1 came to known that some unknown offenders committed the theft of his trailer. Hence, the report.

Basing on the complaint of LW.1. The LW.16/Pramana Reddy, Head

Constable, Kalamalla P.S, registered a case in Crime No.39/2021 for the offences punishable u/Sec.379 of IPC against the Child in Conflict with Law.

3.Cognizance has been taken against the Child in Conflict with Law for the offences punishable u/Sec.379 of IPC.

4.On appearance of the child in Conflict with Law, copies of relevant documents were furnished to him as contemplated u/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. When the child in Conflict with Law and he is examined u/Sec.251 of Cr.P.C, explaining the substance of accusation appearing against him for the offence punishable u/Sec.379 of IPC, he denied, pleaded not committed the offence and claimed to be tried.

5.During the inquiry, the State has examined PWs.1 to 8 and got

Exs.P.1 to P.7 are marked. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of LW.2 to LW.4, LW.6, LW.9 to LW.11, LW.13 and LW.14 as most of the witness had not supported the prosecution case.

6.The Child in Conflict with Law is examined u/Sec.313 Cr.P.C examination by explaining the incriminating the material made against him from the evidence of the prosecution got read over and explained him in Telugu to which he denied and reported no defence evidence.

3

7.Heard arguments of both sides.

8.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the State is able to prove offence leveled against the child in conflict with law beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences punishable u/Sec.379 of IPC 380 of IPC ”?

9.Point:

In order to prove the case of the State, learned Senior Assistant

Public Prosecutor has chosen to examine 8 witnesses as PWs.1 to 8 out of 17 witnesses cited in the final summary report.

10.PW.1/D.Subbarayudu, deposed in his evidence that prior to 2 years back of offence on one day he kept his tractor along with trolley in the compound of house of LW.2/D.Venkateswarlu at Kalamalla Village, when he came to the house of LW.2/D.Venkateswarlu, next day he found his tractor along with trolley missing, they searched for his tractor and trolley but in vain, later he went to the police station and gave report to the police. Ex.P.1 certified copy of report. Later the police informed him that his tractor and trolley were recovered, he obtained interim custody of his tractor and trolley from Hon’ble Court, Kamalapuram, police examined and recorded his statement.

11.PW.2/R.Ramanjaneyulu, V.R.O deposed in his evidence that on 20.3.2021 at about 10.30 am., himself and LW.6/Narayana present in

Sunnapurallapalli Village the police of Kalamalla Police Station came to them and asked to come with him, on that they have accompanied him to railway bridge near Sunnapurallapalli Village, there Sub Inspector of Police, Kalamalla

Police Station was present and he stated that he apprehended one person in their presence he enquired the said person. The CICL present in the open 4 board was the person who was enquired on that day in their presence, on enquiry the CICL voluntarily confessed that he along with his friends committed the theft of one trailer bearing No.AP04-AZ-7774 and that they hide it in Mudpit on the way to Muddanur village, he also confessed that the police seized the said trailer from his friend the entire procedure was drafted under cover of panchanama, Ex.P.2 panchanama, dt.20.3.2021 witness identified his signature in Ex.P.2 panchanama.

12.PW.3/M.Kyllayappa, deposed in his evidence that he do not know

CICL and he do not know anything facts of this case. He never acted as mediator for any panchanama, when he went to the police station on his personal work. There the police obtained his signature on some papers the contents of which he is not aware witness identified his signature in certified copy of panchanama, dt.18.3.2021. Ex.P.3 is signature of PW.3 in certified copy of panchanama.

13.PW.4/A.Ankal Reddy, deposed in his evidence that about 3 years back one one day he went to Pulivendula police station on his personal work the police officials obtained his signature on a written paper. Ex.P.4 is signature of

PW.2.

14.PW.5/P.Subramanyam, Police Constable, deposed in his evidence that on 18.3.2021 the Sub Inspector of Police, Pulivendula received information and he secured PW.3 and PW.4 along with himself i.e., LW.9 to LW.11, LW.13 and LW.14 proceeded in their police jeep bearing registration No.AP9-PB-2240 and reached Rayalapuram turning situated at Muddanur Road, then their Sub

Inspector of Police, conducting vehicle checking after some time one tractor along with trolley came from Thondur side towards Pulivendula the tractor is 5 driven by one person and another person was sitting beside the driver. On seeing the police the said 2 persons get down from the said tractor and tried to run away from that place, as per directions of their Sub Inspector of Police, they caught hold both persons and produced before LW.15/Sub Inspector of Police, then the Sub Inspector of Police, enquired the one person in the presence of

PW.3 and PW.4 on that the said persons disclosed his name as Ajay Kumar

Reddy and the another person disclosed his name Vansidhar. Then the both persons confessed that theft at Kalamalla Village and also committed theft at 3 other places, the said persons stated that they hide one trolley at NSL factory at

Mud Pits their Sub Inspector of Police seized the tractor and trailer and arrested the said two persons in the presence of PW.3 and PW.4 under cover of confession and arrest and seized mahazarnama, then the said persons lead them to mud pits near NSL factory of Muddanur Road and they produced ne trolley then their Sub Inspector of Police seized the same under cover of seizure mahazarnama, dt.18.3.2021 at 1.00 pm., then their Sub Inspector of Police brought the two persons and one tractor two trailers to the Pulivendula U/G P.S.

15.PW.6/C.Gopinath Reddy, Inspector of Police, deposed in his evidence that on 8.3.2021 at about 9.30 am., while he was present in

Pulivendula Police he received information about the adult accused in Crime

No.56/2021 for the offence punishable u/Sec.379 of IPC of Pulivendula U/G P.S.

Then he secured PW.3 and PW.4 and proceeded in their jeep along with his staff and reached Rayalapuram turning, Muddanur Road of Pulivendula there they conducted vehicle checking at that time 2 persons coming on a tractor along with trailer, on seeing the police they stopped the tractor and tried to ran away from that place, he caught hold them with the help of his staff, then he 6 interrogated the person in the presence of PW.4 and PW.5 and they confessed the offence that they committed the offence at Pulivendula limits with the adult accused and the CICL were committed the theft of trailer at Kalamalla P.S limits, then he seized the tractor and 2 adult accused in involved in Pulivendula P.S limits, then the adult accused confessed that they hide the trailer at mud pits near NSL factor Pulivendula and they took them to mud pits NSL factory and they produced one trailer bearing No.AP04-BY-6691 then he informed the same to Sub Inspector of Police, Kalamalla P.S and seized the trailer under cover of seizure panchanama in the presence of PW.4 and Ex.P.5 certified copy is seizure mahazarnama, dt.18.3.2021 certified copy, later he handed over to Sub

Inspector of Police, Kalamalla P.S.

16.PW.7/ P.Ramana Reddy, Head Constable, deposed in his evidence that on 14.3.2021 at about 6.30 pm., while he was present in S.H.O of Kalamalla

P.S. PW.1 came to police station and presented Ex.P.1. Basing on the Ex.P.1 he registered the case in Crime No.39/2021 for the offence punishable u/Sec.379 of

IPC and submitted the F.I.R’s to all concerned. Ex.P.6 F.I.R in Crime No.39/2021, late he examined PW.1 and LW.2/D.Venkateswarlu in the police station and recorded their Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements. On 15.3.2021 he visited the scene of offence which is hayrick yard belongs to LW.2, there he secure LW.3 LW.4 examined them and recorded their Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements, he also drawn rough sketch of scene of offenc, Ex.P.7 is rough sketch of scene of offence.

Further investigation took up by their Sub Inspector of Police.

17.PW.8/P.Chandra Mohan, Sub Inspector of Police, P.Chandra

Mohan, Sub Inspector of Police, deposed in his evidence that on 16.3.2021 he has taken further investigation from PW.7/P.Ramana Reddy, Head Constable, 7

LW.1 and LW.3 he has went the scene of offence, later he has received credible information about the CICL he has went to place of apprehension situated at

Sunnapurallapalli Village, Railway Bridge, Yerraguntla Mandal, there the CICL is coming from Muddanur to Kalamalla side the CICL was tried to skulk away on seeing him. Later he has secured mediators PW.2 and LW.6 the CICL has confessed his name is Boomireddy Mokshith Kumar Reddy and confessed about the offence along with one adult accused. Later he has produced the

CICL before this Board for remand, after proper investigation he has filed final report before this Board on 27.3.2021, against the CICL.

18.On perusal of record PW.2 states that in his presence the CICL confessed that he along with his friends committed theft of one trailer bearing

No.AP04-AZ-7774, and that they hide it in mud pit on the way to Muddanur

Village. Further he stated that he also confessed that the police seized the trailer from his friends. On observation of evidence of PW.2 no where he stated that neither police seized any vehicles from the mud pit where the stolen property hided nor stated that in his presence the police seized any vehicles from the mud pit where the stolen property was hided. Hence, the confession part relating to commission of offence is not reliable.

19.Further PW.5 stated that the Sub Inspector of Police, has enquired the two persons who was caught hold the presence of PW.2 and PW.3 on that they confessed about the theft at Kalamalla theft and also committed theft at 3 other places. Further he stated that they hide one trailer at N.S.L Factory, at mud pits and the Sub Inspector of Police seized the tractor and trailer in the presence of PW.3 and PW.4. Further the above said persons lead t them to mud pits near N.S.L Factory of Muddanur Road and produced one trailey and 8 then they seized. On perusal of the entire record PW.3 and PW.4 has turned hostile and did not speak even a single line to support the prosecution version for the reasons best known to them. Hence, the version of PW.5 is not trust worthy.

20.Further PW.6 has stated in his chief examination that the adult accused has confessed that they hide the trailer at mud pits near N.S.L Factory,

Pulivendula and they took them to mud pits at N.S.L Factory and produced one trailer bearing No.AP04-BY-6691. But, on perusal of the record the present case at hand is about missing of one tractor and trailer bearing registrations No.AP04-

AZ-7773 and No.AP04-AZ-7774 respectively. Hence, the vehicle seized in mud pits at N.S.L Factory Pulivendula is not relating to present case at hand.

21.In view of the evidence of material witnesses turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, given up the evidence of remaining cited witnesses, as no useful purpose would be served. Further, no other evidence/material is placed before the Board to establish the allegations made against the child in Conflict with Law. So, there is no iota of evidence placed before the Board on behalf the State against the child in Conflict with Law to prove the offence leveled against them beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the child in Conflict with Law is entitled for an order acquittal. Accordingly, the point is answered against the State and in favour of the child in conflict with law.

22.In the result, the Child in conflict with law is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/Sec.379 of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted u/Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of parent or guardian of the child in conflict with law shall stands cancelled after the appeal time is over.

9

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III (O.S), corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 6th day of August, 2024.

Sd/-Jettim Nandini

Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice

Board, -Cum-I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa.

Member: 1. Smt. D.Varamma,

Member: 2. Smt. J.Sumitra

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for prosecution

PW.1: D.Subbarayudu

PW.2: R.Ramanjaneyulu

PW.3: M.Kullayappa

PW.4: A.Ankal Reddy

PW.5: P.Subramanyam, Police Constable

PW.6: C.Gopinath Reddy

PW.7: P.Ramana Reddy, Head Constable

PW.8: P.Chandra Mohan, Sub Inspector of Police

Exhibits marked on behalf of prosecution

Ex.P.1: Certified copy of the police report.

Ex.P.2: Panchanama, dt.20.3.2021

Ex.P.3: Signature of PW.3 in certified copy of panchanama, dt.18.3.2021

Ex.P.4: Signature of PW.4

Ex.P.5: Certified copy of seizure mahazarnama, dt.18.3.2021

Ex.P.6: F.I.R in Crime No.39/2021

Ex.P.7: Rough sketch

Material objects are marked of prosecution

-Nil -

Witness examined on behalf of the Child in Conflict with Law

-Nil-

Exhibits marked for Defence

-Nil-

Sd/-Jettim Nandini

Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice

Board, -Cum-I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa.

10

CALENDER AND FINAL ORDER

Calendar and Final Order tried by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board-cum-I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa.

DATE OF

Offence ReportApprehensiRelease onCommenceClose ofFinal on of CICLbailment of trial trial Order 20.3.2021 26.2.2021 14.3.202120.3.202123.5.20233.8.20246.8.2024

Calendar and Final Order in J.C.C.No.6 of 2023 on the file of Principal

Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board-cum-I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I

Class, Kadapa.

Complainant: C.W.O, Kalamalla Police Station in Crime No.39/2021

Name of the CICL Age Calling Religion Residence With father’s name

XXXXXXXXX 17 -- -R/o Nagulakatta Street, Pulivendula Town. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence:u/Sec.379 of IPC.

Finding:The child in Conflict with Law is found not guilty.

Sentence:In the result, the Child in conflict with law is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/Sec.379 of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted u/Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of parent or guardian of the child in conflict with law shall stands cancelled after the appeal time is over.

Sd/-Jettim Nandini

Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice

Board, -Cum-I Addl. Judl.Magistrate of 1st Class, Kadapa.