1
IN THE COURT OF THE ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,
MAHABUBNAGAR.
1. Serial No. (One) : S.C. No.411 of 2013
2. Name of the P.S. : Kalwakurthy
3. Description of the Accused:
A-1: Kondreddi Saidulu S/o Ramulu, aged about 27 years, Caste: Yerukala, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Bairapur, Veldanda Mandal.
A-2: Gudlanaram Santhosh @ Chakali Santhosh @ Sathish S/o Sailu, aged about 28 years, Caste: Rajaka, Occ: Welder at Hyderabad, N/o Bairapur, Veldanda Mandal, C/o B.N.Reddy Colony, Hyderabad.
A-3: Koppunavoni Jangaiah S/o Laxmaiah, aged about 30 years, Caste: Telugu, Occ: Lorry Driver, R/o Choudarpally, Vangoor Mandal.
A-4: Suppari Anantha Ramulu S/o Narsimha, aged about 35 years, Caste: Telugu, Occ: Labour, R/o Bollampally, Veldanda Mandal.
A-5: Kumbham Yadaiah S/o Ramulu, aged about 20 years, Caste: Yerukala, Occ: Degree Student, R/o Gundur, Kalwkurthy Mandal.
A-6: Bashamoni Gopal S/o Ramulu, aged about 23 years, Caste: Telugu, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Gundur, Kalwakurthy Mandal.
4. Date of :
i)Occurrence13-03-2012 ii)Complaint14-03-2012 5 iii)Apprehension01-08-2012 (A1 & A2) 24-07-2012 (A3 to A6) iv)Release on bail02-11-2012 (A1 to A4) 09-10-2012 (A5 & A6)
v)Commitment16-07-2013 vi)Commencement of trial04-02-2019 vii)Close of trial17-07-2019 viii)Sentence or Order02-08-2019 ix)Explanation of delayNo delay
Asst. Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.
Copy Submitted to:
2
The Hon’ble Registrar (Judicial) High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad through the District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar through C.D.
3
IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE
AT MAHABUBNAGAR
Friday, the 2nd day of August, 2019
Present:- Smt.K.Aruna Kumari,
Asst.Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.
S.C. No.411 of 2013
Preliminarily Registered Case No.35 of 2013 committed by the
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kalwakurthy in Cr.No.38/2012 of P.S.
Kalwakurthy, for the offences punishable U/Sec.395 of IPC and Sec.25(1A) of Indian Arms Act.
Prosecution. Sri E.Padma Reddy, Addl.Public Prosecutor. Accused
A-1: Kondreddi Saidulu S/o. Ramulu, aged about 27 years, Caste: Yerukala, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: Bairapur, Veldanda Mandal.
A-2: Gudlanaram Santhosh @ Chakali Santhosh @ Sathish S/o. Sailu, aged about 28 years, Caste: Rajaka, Occ: Welder at Hyderabad, N/o: Bairapur, Veldanda mandal, C/o:B.N.Reddy Colony, Hyderabad.
A-3: Koppunavoni Jangaiah S/o. Laxmaiah, aged about 30 years, Caste: Telugu, Occ: Lorry Driver, R/o: Choudarpally, Vangoor Mandal.
A-4: Suppari Anantha Ramulu S/o. Narsimha, aged about 35 years, Caste: Telugu, Occ: Labour, R/o: Bollampally, Veldanda Mandal.
A-5: Kumbham Yadaiah S/o. Ramulu, aged about 20 years, Caste: Yerukala, Occ: Degree Student, R/o:Gundur, Kalwkurthy Mandal.
A-6: Bashamoni Gopal S/o. Ramulu, aged about 23 years, Caste: Telugu, Occ: Agriculture, R/o:Gundur, Kalwakurthy Mandal.
(Sri K. Pratap Kumar, Advocate for accused)
Offence under section395 of IPC and U/Sec.25(1A) of the Arms Act
Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty
FindingFound not guilty
Sentence or orderA1 to A6 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Secs.395ofIPCand
U/Sec.25(1A) of the Arms Act and accordingly they are acquitted U/Sec.235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force 4 for a period of Six (6) months as contemplated
U/Sec.437(A) Cr.P.C.
MOs.1 to 6 shall be given to its owner (PW-1) after expiry of appeal time.
MO-7 barma gun shall be sent to
Armoury to the Superintendent of Police,
Mahabubnagar District , after expiry of appeal time.
MO-8 Hero Honda Motor Cycle (Splender) bearing No.AP 22 S 8960 which was given to Koppunamoni Jangaiah (A3) vide
Crl.M.P.No.492/2013 dt.26.04.2013 for interim
custody shall be made absolute after expiry of appeal time.
MO-9 and MO-10 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.
MO-11 Scooter bearing No.AP16Q-1551 shall be confiscate to state.
*** This case came up for final hearing before me and upon perusing the oral and documentary evidence on record, upon hearing the arguments, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-
JUDGMENT
This charge sheet is filed against A1 to A6 for the offence punishable 395 of IPC and U/Sec.25(1A) of the Arms Act by Kalwakurthy
Police, in Cr.No.38/2012.
2.The brief facts mentioned in the charge sheet about the case are as follows :-
A1, A3 and A4 had worked as Sympathysers of outlawed
Maoists previously. With greed to earn quick money, A1 formed a gang with A2 to A6 and decided to plunder valuables from households.
Accordingly, A5 and A6 villagers of Gundur chose an isolated house of complainant/LW-1 B. Srinivasa Reddy of their village. As such, on 13.03.2012 at about 11:00 a.m., they contacted A1 over phone and 5 informed their plan to loot the house of complainant. Inturn A1 informed to A2 to A4 over phone about plan of striking at the house of complainant. A2 to A4 met A1 at his house situated at Bairapur village of
Veldanda mandal, on the same day at 2:30 p.m., A1 took his three burmar guns, Jungle patch shirt and cap and all of them left Bairapur village on a Scooter bearing No.AP16Q-1551 belong to A1 and a motor cycle bearing No.AP22F-8960 of A3 and at around 6:00 p.m., they reached to the house of A5, contacted A5 and A6, parked their vehicles at the house of A5. A1 carried one gun and other two guns to A3 and A4 and also gave Jungle patch shirt and cap to A4. A4 wore it and all of them went to the house of complainant at around 8:30 p.m., A5 and A6 stood as guard near the gate of the house, A1 to A4 entered into the house.
Among them A1, A3 and A4 threatened the inmates of the house i.e.,
LWs.1 to 4 (G. Srinivasa Reddy, G. Manemma, G. Rami Reddy, G.
Vasantha) at the points of guns, claiming themselves as members of
Thummala Bhagavathu Dalam. A2 snatched cell phones from LWs.1 and 3, meanwhile A1, A3 and A4 switched off lights in the house and A1 to A4 took LWs.1 and 3 out of the house, A2 took LW-2 to the almarah and ransacked it and took gold ornaments (1) one gold black bead chian, weighing about 25.200 grams (2) Small gold children chain, weighing about 1 thula, (3) Two rings each weighing about ½ thula total one thula, (4) One gold Roja Billa weighing about 3 grams, (5) Gold ear rings with matnis i.e., Kammalu weighing about 7.200 grams without dimmelu from the almirah and while returning from the house, A1 snatched gold pustela thadu in two rows weighing about 3 thulas from the neck of LW-2 all worth 2,60,000/- and all of the accused A1 to A6 went to the house of A5.
A5 and A6 remained in Gundur village whereas A1 to A4 decamped with the booty on the above two vehicles and reached Bollampally and handed over the stolen property to A3. A2 kept two cell phones with him.
A1 took burmar gun from A3. A4 kept the burmar gun used by him in 6 commission of offence and they went to their respective houses. After few days A1 went to the house of A5 on his Scooter and left there, A2 broke one cell phone and used remaining one for his own purpose. After this offence again A1 and A2 formed a gang with others and committed another offence at the outskirts of Arkepally of Madgul police station limits pertaining to Cr.No.57/2012 U/Sec.147, 148, 448, 506, 384 r/w 511, 149 of IPC and Sec.25(i)(A) Arms Act of P.S. Madgul. During the commission of offence in Cr.No.57/2012, A1 gave burmar gun used in commission of this offence by A3 to one Donki Ramulu i.e., A1 in
Cr.No.57/2012, is still absconding in that Cr.No.57/2012 of P.S. Madgul and said burmar gun is with him.
2.1. Basing on the petition, S.I of police, Kalwakurthy LW-14 H.
Venkateshwarlu registered a case in Cr.No.38/2012 for the offence
U/Sec.392 of IPC. Since the case is grave in nature, C.I of police
Kalwakurthy LW-15 T. Amrutha Reddy rushed to the scene of offence i.e., house of LW-1 at the outskirts of Gundur village, examined and recorded the statements of LWs.1 to 4, drafted panchanama in the presence of LW- 5 N. Lingamaiah and LW-6 K Lingaiah. On 24.07.2012 S.I of police,
Madgul LW-13 K. Satyanarayana Reddy apprehended A1 to A6at Bairapur
Guttalu of Veldanda Mandal and on interrogation, A1 and A2 confessed this case and Cr.No.57/2012, while A3 to A6 confessed to this case only upon which LW-13 recorded the confessional statements of A1 and A2 in
Cr.No.57/2012 of Madgul P.S., and A3 to A6 in the presence of LW-7 K.
Laxmaiah and LW-8 M. Manneiah and seized above said gold ornaments, scooter, motor cycle and burmar guns, Jungle patch shirt and cap. After recovery of above all properties A3 to A6 were handed over to LW-15 C.I of police Kalwakurthy as they solely involved in this case. On 25.07.2012
LW-15 altered section of law from 392 of IPC to 395 of IPC and added
Section of law 25(1) (A) IA Act. In this case, 01.08.2012 PT Warrants were 7 executed against A1 and A2 who were arrested by LW-13 in
Cr.No.57/2012 of Madgul P.S.
2.2 On 02.08.2012, on requisition, JFCM, Kalwakurthy LW-11 Smt. B.
Aparna Devi conducted Test Identification Parade of A1 to A4 on 07.08.2012 with LWs.1 and 2. During the said proceedings, LW-1 identified A1, A2 and A4 whereas LW-2 identified A2 only.
2.3. On 09.08.2012, on requisition, LW-12 K. Gopiram, Tahsildar,
Kalwakurthy conducted Test Identification Parade of gold property with
LWs.1 and 2 in the presence of LW-9 V. Madhu Sudhan Rao and LW-10 A.
Lakshmaiah, LWs.1 and 2 identified their stolen property. The SBML was seized from the possession of A4 by LW-13, LW-15 forwarded the same
SBML to FSL, Hyderabad for examination as it was used in commission of this offence by A4 and was fired previously. S.I of police, Madgul LW-13 seized a burmar from the possession of A1 as it was used in the commission of offence of this case and also in Cr.No.57/2012 of PS
Madgul and forwarded to FSL, Hyderabad. The Collector and District
Magistrate, Mahabubnagar accorded permission to launch prosecution
against A1 to A6 for using Arms in commission of offence vide
No.HI/5563/2012, dt.20.09.2012. After completion of investigation,
LW-15 C.I of police Kalwakurthy filed charge sheet against A1 to A6 for the offences U/Sec.395 of IPC and U/Sec.25(1A) of the Arms Act.
3.The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kalwakurthy took the cognizance against the accused for the offence U/Sec.395 of IPC and U/Sec.25(1A) of the Arms Act and after following the Committal procedure, committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Mahabubnagar along with case records. The Court of Sessions, Mahabubnagar taken the cognizance for the said offences and made over the case to this Court for 8 disposal according to law and this Court numbered the same as
S.C.No.411/2013.
4.Upon hearing both sides and on perusing the material on record, this Court framed the charge for the offence punishable 395 of
IPC and U/Sec.25(1A) of the Arms Act against accused, read over and explained to them and they pleaded not guilty of the said charge and claimed to be tried.
5.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C and they denied the incriminating evidence adduced against them and reported no defence evidence.
6.Heard arguments of the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused.
7.Now the point for determination is :-
Whether the prosecution able to prove the guilt of the accused A1 to A6 to the offences punishable 395 of IPC and U/Sec.25(1A) of the Arms Act?
8.The brief facts of the case from the averments of the charge sheet is A1, A3 and A4 worked as Sympathysers of outlawed Maoists previously to earn quick money, A1 formed a gang with A2 to A6 and they decided to plunder valuables from households. Accordingly, A5 and A6 villagers of Gundur chose an isolated house building of complainant/LW-1
B. Srinivasa Reddy of their village and they contacted A1. Inturn A1 informed to A2 to A4 about plan of striking at the house of LW-1 then A1 took his three barma guns, jungle patch shirt and cap and all of them left
Bairapur village on a Scooter bearing No.AP16Q-1551 belong to A1 and a motor cycle bearing No.AP22F-8960 of A3 and at around 6:00 p.m., they reached to the house of A5, contacted A5 and A6, parked their vehicles at the house of A5, A1 carried one gun and other two guns to A3 and A4 and 9 also gave jungle patch shirt and cap to A4. A4 wore it and all of them went to the house of LW-1 at around 8:30 p.m., A5 and A6 stood as guard near the gate of the house, A1 to A4 entered into the house. Among them A1, A3 and A4 threatened the inmates of the house i.e., LWs.1 to 4 at the points of guns, claimed themselves as members of Thummala
Bhagavathu Dalam. A2 snatched cell phone of LWs.1 and 3, A1, A3 and
A4 switched of lights in the house and A1 to A4 took LWs.1 and 3 out of the house, A2 took LW-2 to the almarah and ransacked it and took gold ornaments of 6 items about and snatched pustela thadu of LW-2 neck worth 2,60,000/- and all of the accused A1 to A6 went to the house of A5.
A5 and A6 remained in Gundur village whereas A1 to A4 decamped with the booty on the above two vehicles and handed over the booty to A3 at
Bollampally. A2 kept two cell phones with him. A1 took barma gun from
A3. A4 kept the barma gun used by him and they went to their place, after few days A1 went to the house of A5 on his Scooter and left there,
A2 broken one cell phone and used another one for his own purpose.
Again A1 and A2 formed a gang with others and committed another offence at the outskirts of Arkepally of Madgul police station limits.
During the commission of offence in the Madgul crime A1 gave barmagun used in commission of this offence by A3 to one Donki Ramulu i.e., A1 in
Madgul offence. On the apprehension of the accused in the Madgul offence by PW-12 S.I. of Madgul P.S., recorded confession of accused by him and handed over the accused A3 to A6 to PW-13 S.I of Kalwakurthy and basing on accused confession he filed charge sheet against A1 to A6 after doing complete investigation.
9.Now the burden is on the prosecution to prove that A1 to A6 entered into the house of complainant G. Sreenivasa Reddy and threatened at the point of guns and robbed gold ornaments and 10 decamped with booty and also found in possession of the fire arms against the rules and committed the offence under Arms Act.
10.To prove the said case of prosecution PWs.1 to 13 are examined, Exs.P1 to P25 and MOs.1 to 10 are marked.
11.On perusal of the prosecution witness PW-1 the complainant evidence is, on 13.03.2012 at 8:30 p.m., when he is watching T.V. along with family members, four persons entered into the house with two guns and they switched of the lights, forcibly taken their cell phones. One among them taken himself and LW-3 his son to the water tank located outside the house. All the four members covered their faces with masks, after 30 minutes of all the four persons left from the house. Then himself and LW-3 entered into the house and asked LW-2 his wife Manemma as what happened to that she told one among four persons taken her to the room where there is a almyrah and on putting point of gun on her back and on threat she handed over one black beads gold chain, two gold rings, one gold chain, one pair of children ear studs, one gold roja billa and they also snatched two rows of gold chain Mangalasuthras from her neck and then they fled away. PW-1 further deposed he gave complaint
Ex-P1 to the Kalwakurthy police. PW-1 deposed he does not know about the accused. PW-1 identified recovered gold ornaments shown by the police in the open Court are marked as MOs. 1 to 6 are one two rows gold pustelathadu as MO-1, one gold black beads chain with locket as MO-2, one children chain with locket as MO-3, one roja billa as MO-4, one pair of ear studs and maties as MO-5 and two gold rings with Lord Venkateswara emblem as MO-6.
11.1.PW-1 unable to identify the guns carried by the persons entered into his house for robbing. PW-1 further deposed in the Test
Identification Parade he has not seen four persons who came to his house 11 for robbing to the home and third line of the chief examination PW-1 treated as hostile and PW-1 denied to the suggestion of Additional Public
Prosecutor that he identified A1, A2 and A4 in Test Identification Parade.
In the cross examination by defence counsel PW-1 deposed he has not stated to the police the descriptive particulars of four persons who entered into his house.
12.PW-2, wife of PW-1, evidence is 7 years back in the night time four personsentered into their house among them one persons taken
PW-1and LW-3to the outside of the house. The said persons told they are naxalites and taken her and LW-4 Vasantha her daughter-in-law put point of gun at their back and asked to hand over their gold ornaments then she handed over 5 gold items and they snatched two rows of gold chain with mangalasuthram from her neck and they fled away. PW-1 gave report to the police. PW-2 further deposed all the persons entered into the house covering their faces with masks. She unable to identify them are the same persons came to their house for robbing. PW-2 identified MOs.1 to 6 the recovered property that they are belonging to her. PW-2 also deposed she did not identify any of the four persons who robbed at her house in Test Identification Parade.
12.1.In the cross examination of Additional Public Prosecutor
PW-2 denied that she identified A2 before magistrate in the Test
Identification Parade . In the cross examination of defence counsel
PW-2 also deposed she has not stated to the police the descriptive particulars of four persons who entered into house for robbing.
13.PW-3 son of PWs.1 and 2 deposed similarly as stated by
PW-1 that about some years back in the night at 8:30 p.m., when he watching T.V. along with PWs.1 and 2, LW-4 Vasantha his wife, four persons came with masks and threatened them. One among them taken him and PW-1 to the outside of the house to water tank and all the four 12 persons left the house he came to know from PW-2, two persons had threatened on guns robbed from almyrah gold ornaments and snatched two rows gold chain with Mangalasughram from his mother and fled away. PW-3 deposed PW-1 gave complaint to the police. In the cross examination PW-3 deposed he cannot identify the four persons who came to his house for robbing as they covered with masks and switched off the lights. PW-3 also deposed he has not stated to the police the escriptive par and suportioneing ticulars of the four persons who entered into the house.
14.PW-4, wife of PW-3, deposed on 13.03.2012 at 8:30 p.m., while she was watching T.V along with PWs.1 to 3, four persons came to their house, switched off the lights and taken away their cell phones.
fromOne among them taken PWs.1 and 3 to the water tank situated outside the house and remaining persons threatened PW-2 and herself and got opened almyrah and robbed gold ornaments and snatched two rows gold chain with mangalasuthram from her mother-in-law and fled away.
PW-4 further deposed PW-1 gave complaint to the police and all the four persons came to their house covering their faces with masks. So, he cannot identify them.
14.1.In the cross examination PW-4 deposed he do not know the accused and not stated to the police the descriptive particulars of four persons who entered into their house.
15.PW-5 one of the panch witness deposed about five years back he returned to the house from the fields, police obtained his signature.
PW-5 identified only his signature Ex-P2 on Crime Detail Form. PW-5 treated as hostile as he has not supported the case of prosecution.
13
16.PW-6 another panch witness also admitted only his signature on Ex-P3 on Crime Detail Form stating police obtained his signature on papers and he is going to home from his fields. PW-6 also treated as hostile as she deposed against to the prosecution version.
17.PW-7 one of the mediator to the confession panchanamas of
A3 to A6 i.e., Exs.P4 to P9 deposed on 24.07.2012 on the call of S.I. of
Madgul, LW-13 K. Satyanarayana Reddy himself and LW-8 M. Manneiah went to the Bairapur hillocks for the purpose of case investigation there he has seen 9 persons in the custody of police. On the request of police he along with LW-8 enquired each person. One person told his name is
K. Saidulu and he is Ex-militant and later surrendered before the police due to lack of money he gathered five other persons and all of them did theft at Poultry Farm at Arkapally and a T.V in High School at Gudoor and committed theft in the house of Srinivasa Reddy at Gudoor along with five other persons and also narrated the manner of robbery of gold ornaments done by him at Srinivasa Reddy house. The same was drafted by the police after it was disclosed by him to the police and he along with LW-8 signed on it is Ex-P4. PW-7 also deposed at the request of police, he enquired another person he told that his name is Anantha
Ramulu, he also confessed doing offence of this case along with Saidulu and others as stated by Saidulu and he narrated the same to the police and they drafted the confession panchanama of A2 is Ex-P5 and they signed on it.
17.1.PW-7 further deposed then he along with LW-8 enquired
Santhosh and he confessed similar to that of Saidulu and Anantha
Ramulu about doing offence of this case and same was told to police and they drafted confession panchanama of Ex-P6 and they signed on it. PW- 7 deposed he cannot identify the said persons Saidulu, Anantha Ramulu, and Santhosh were present in the Court or not due to long gap of 6 years.
14
PW-7 further deposed he along with LW-8 enquired there another person
K. Jangaiah and he also confessed that he committed offence of this case along with Saidulu, Santhosh, Anantha Ramulu and two others and same was narrated to the police, they drafted confession panchanama of K.
Jangaiah is Ex-P7 nd he signed on it along with
LW-8. After that PW-7 deposed he enquired K. Yadaiah alongwith LW-8 and he also deposed the similar version as stated by Saidulu, Anantha
Ramulu, Santhosh and Jangaih that he committed the offence of this case. The same was told to police they drafted confession panchanama of Yadaiah is Ex-P8 and he signed on it along with LW-8. PW-7 further deposed lastly he enquired B. Gopal and he stated doing the offence of this case along with above five persons Saidulu, Anantha Ramulu,
Santhosh, Jangaiah and Yadaiah and robbed the gold ornaments from PW- 1's house and the same was narrated to the police and it was drafted as confession panchanama is Ex-P9 and he signed on it along with LW-8.
PW-7 further deposed police shown to him and LW-8 two barmaguns and told accused persons threatened with those two guns and they committed robbery. The said two guns are identified by PW-7 in the Court are MOs.7 and 8. PW-7 deposed police not shown to him any gold property or any other property of this case and not seized any property in their presence from A1 to A6. PW-7 identified his signatures on seizure panchanama dt.24.07.2012 at 16:30 hours, 19:00 hours and 14:30 hours the signatures of PW-7 on the said panchanamas are marked as Exs.P10 to P12.
17.2.In the cross examination of PW-7 it was elicited Bairapur hillocksarea not in the jurisdiction of himself and LW-8 but on the request of C.I and S.I of police they participated in the conducting panchanamas as panch witnesses though it is not their duty. PW-7 further deposed all the panchanamas Exs.P4 to P9 are drafted at Bairapur 15 hillocks on 24.07.2012 and police also obtained their signatures on seizure panchanama at Bairapur hillocks by 3:00 p.m., entire process of panchanamas was completed.
18.PW-8 another mediator the V.R.O Madgul village deposed on the request of LW-13 the S.I of Madgul P.S. on 24.07.2012 he went to
Bairapur hillocks for the purpose of investigation there he has been seen 9 persons in the custody of police on request of police he along with
PW-7 enquired each person. The first person by name Saidulu told to them that he is an Ex-Militant and surrendered to the police in the year 2001 and he suffering due to lack of money. He gathered five other persons and all of them did theft of gold ornaments namely one black beads chain, one pair ear studs, one small gold chain, roja billa and snatched two rows of gold chain from the neck of headmaster's wife in the house of retired headmaster Srinivasa Reddy at Gudoor. They kept the gold ornaments with one person among them and not divided, continuing doing other thefts. He told the said confession of Saidulu to police and the same was drafted by police and he signed on it along with
PW-7. PW-8 further deposed he cannot identify the said persons who confessed before him is the accused present in the Court. PW-8 further stated he enquired another person by name K. Jangaiah along with PW-7 and he also confessed doing offence of this case along with five others at the house of Srinivasa Reddy at Gudoor and the same was narrated to the police and they drafted confession panchanama and he signed on it along with PW-7. He cannot identify the said Jangaiah present in the
Court as accused or not due to gap of 6 years. PW-8 told he examined four other persons separately along with PW-7 but he do not remember their names. They also confessed doing offence of this case similarly as stated by Jangaiah and Saidulu and the same was narrated to the police 16 and they drafted the confession panchanama of all four persons. He signed on them.
18.1.PW-8 also further deposed on the same day he accompanied police to one of the accused house by name Jangaiah at Bairapur village, in his presence Jangaiah shown to the police gold ornaments were seized by police, police drafted the seizure panchanama Ex-P13 and he signed on it. PW-8 identified his signature on seizure panchanama held on the same day at 19:00 hours and 14:30 hours marked as Exs.P14 and P15.
18.2.In the cross examination of Additional Public Prosecution,
PW-8 admitted police shown three guns at Bairapur village is Mos.7. The police told to him that with those guns accused committed dacoity. PW-8 also identified the gold ornaments MOs.1 to 6 that they are seized by police in his presence. In the cross examination of the defence counsel
PW-8 deposed he reached Bairapur hillocks on bike at 11:00 a.m. At that time, PW-7 also reached Bairapur hillocks at 11:00 a.m., on bike. There are agricultural fields near Bairapur hillocks and there are some persons presented nearby agricultural fields carrying out their agricultural operations. They reached Madgul police station between 3:00 p.m., to 4:00 p.m.
19.PW-9 one of the panch witnesses for property identification panchanama deposed on 09.08.2012 he along with LW-10 Laxmaiah went to Kalwakurthy Tahsildar Office on the call of LW-12 K. Gopiram Tahsildar of Kalwakurthy. There C.I of police Kalwakurthy arranged identification parade for identifying the case property of this case and exhibited case property before them are one black beads chain, one pair of ear studs, one small gold chain, roja billa and two pairs of pustela gold chain and two gold rings and also kept other gold ornaments. Then
LW-12 called PW-1 to identify the case property among them, then PW-1 17 identified one black beads chain, one pair ear studs, one small gold chain, roja billa and two pairs pustela gold chain, two gold rings. After that LW-12 called PW-2 to identify their gold ornaments and PW-2 also identified the same property which are identified by PW-1 stating that property is their recovered stolen property. Property identification panchanama was drafted by LW-12, is Ex-P16 on identification of recovered gold ornaments by PWs.1 and 2 and he signed on it.
19.1.In the cross examination PW-9 deposed C.I of Kalwakurthy police station brought the case property and given to LW-12 and same was displayed before them. After 10 to 15 minutes LW-12 called PW-1 to identify the gold ornaments. In addition to MOs. 1 to 6 the C.I had added other gold ring and gold chain for identification. He has not observed any identification marks or names on the displayed gold ornaments and also not measured the weight of each gold ornaments. After going through the contents of Ex-P16 witness says it was not mentioned in Ex-P16 about display of two other gold ornaments along with MOs.1 to 6
20.PW-11 the then Tahsildar of Kalwakurthy deposed on the requisition of C.I of police Kalwakurthy he conducted identification of stolen property of this case on 09.08.2012 in the presence of two panch witnesses PW-9 and LW-10 A. Laxmaiah at Tahsildar Office, Kalwakurthy at 11:00 a.m. C.I of police Kalwakurthy handed over to him case propertly namely one gold black beads chain, one small gold chain, two rings, one gold roja billa, gold ear studs with matis, gold pustela thadu of two pairs. He secured from Kalwakurthy jewelers similar items of gold property, kept the same on table along with stolen property and called
PW-1 to identify case property. PW-1 identified 1 to 6 items stolen property are belong to him. Later he called PW-2 she also identified the case property 1 to 6 among gold items. R.I has drafted panchanama about the identification of case property by PWs.1 and 2 and after 18 reading the contents, he signed on it and also obtained the signatures of
PW-9 and LW-10 on the panchanama Ex-P16 which was already marked.
20.1.Whereas in the cross examination PW-11 deposed the C.I of police, Kalwakurthy brought the similar 5 gold items of MOs.1 to 6 from the Jewellers of Kalwakurthy and he cannot say among MOs.1 to 6 to which item of that property similar gold item was not brought by C.I. PW- 11 admitted MOs.1 to 6 does not contain his initial or signature. He further stated he did not mention the description or number of similar case properties brought from Kalwakurthy jewellers. PW-11 also admitted he do not know rule position for conducting property identification panchanama that similar 5 items for each stolen property should be brought and identification has to be done for each gold item separately.
PW-11 denied to the suggestion that he has not done test identification of stolen property panchanama in this case but at the instance of police he signed on Ex-P16.
21.PW-10 Junior Civil Judge, Kalwakurthy, who conducted test identification parade of A1 to A4 on the requisition of S.H.O. P.S.,
Kalwakurthy, deposed after she obtained permission from I Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar conducted Test Identification
Parade on 07.08.2012 at Mahabubnagar District Jail commencing proceedings at 12:55 p.m. PW-10 initially recorded the statement of
PWs.1 and 2 and they stated that they can identify the accused and given specification marks of the accused. After that PW-10 conducted
Test Identification Parade of A1 by selecting five non-suspects of similar features of A1 and asked them to stand in a row along with A1 called PW- 1 Srinivasa Reddy to identify the accused. On verifying them Srinivasa
Reddy identified A1 who stood in the forth row. PW-10 changed the place of the A1 and along with non suspects and called
PW-1 to identify the accused on verifying them PW-1 identified the 19 suspect (A1) who stood first in the row. Then she called second witness
PW-2 to identify the suspect A1 but PW-2 failed to identify the suspect (A1) who stood forth in the row.
21.1.After that PW-10 secured five another non-suspects similar features to that of A2, conducted Test Identification Parade by calling PW- 1 to identify A2 who stood along with five non-suspects. On seeing them
PW-1 identified suspect A2 who is in third place in the row. Even after changing the place and dress of A2, PW-1 identified second time suspect
A2 who stood last in the row. PW-2 also identified the suspect (A2) who stood second in the row. After that PW-10 secured the five non-suspects having similar features suspect No.3 K. Jangaiah and conducted Test
Identification Parade of suspect No.3 who stood in the row along with five non-suspects, called PW-1 for identification then PW-1 failed to identify suspect No.3 who stood second in the row even after changing the dress andplacesecondtimealso
PW-1 failed to identify suspect No.3 who stood forth in the row. PW-2 also failed to identify the suspect No.3 who stood 5th in the row first time and show stood 6th in the row second time. Later PW-10 secured another five suspects having similar features to that of suspect No.4 S. Anantha
Ramulu conducted Test Identification Parade of suspect No.4 by arranging them to stand in the row, called Srinivasa Reddy (PW-1) to identify suspect No.4. Then Srinivasa Reddy identified suspect No.4 who stood 5th in the row first time and also identified second time who stood second in the row. Second witness PW-2 Manemma failed to identify suspect No.4 two times even after change of the dress and row who stood first time fourth in the row and second time third in the row.
21.2.PW-10 further deposed she enquired suspects 1 to 4 wether they had any objections to submit, to that they told police took their photographs at Kalwakurthy P.S and then she has taken signatures of 20 suspects A1 to A4 and non-suspects, completed the proceedings at 1:50 p.m. The requisition of C.I of police, Kalwakurthy is Ex-P17, the proceedings of PW-10 about Test Identification Parade conducted for A1 to A4 is Ex-P18.
21.3.In the cross examination it was elicited that PW-10 got permission to conduct Test Identification Parade on 06.08.2012 through telephone. Then she intimated immediately in writing to District Jail
Authorities, Mahabubnagar for making necessary arrangements for conducting Test Identification Parade. PW-10 admitted the details pertaining to this case are not furnished to the Jail Authorities in advance and also she did not mention in Ex-P18 that she informed to the Jail
Authorities through telephone. PW-10 also admitted that she has not mentioned in Ex-P18 proceedings that she selected the non-suspects of
A1 to A4 and also not mentioned age and physical features of A1 to A4 in
Ex-P18. PW-10 further admitted the non-suspects selected by her for A1 to A4 are not exact age of suspects.
22.PW-12 the S.I of police, Madgul P.S., deposed on 24.07.2012 at 9:00 hours he accorded the accused at Bairapur village called PWs.7 and 8 and recorded the confession of A1 Saidulu at Bairapur hillocks and prepared confession panchanama Ex-P4, signed on it along with PWs.7 and 8. At 10:00 a.m., recorded confession of A2 Santhosh on the same day at same place and recovered one cell phone under confession and recovery panchanama Ex-P6 signed on it along with mediators. At 11:30 a.m., on the same day recorded confession of A3 Jangaiah drafted confession panchanama Ex-P7 signed on it along with mediators. At 12:30 p.m., on the same day and same place before the mediators A4 confessed doing the offence of this case was recorded by mediators and he signed on it along with mediators is Ex-P5. At 1:00 p.m., on the same day A5 K. Yadaiah confessed doing the offence of this case before the 21 same mediators and the same was recorded by mediators and he signed on it is Ex-P8. At 1:30 p.m., A6 B. Gopal confessed doing the offence of this case and the same was recorded by mediators and he signed on it along with mediators is Ex-P9. PW-12 further deposed in pursuance of confession given by A1, he along with staff and mediators and mediators and A1 went to A1's house of Bairapur village from his house, A1 brought two barmaguns and same are seized before the mediators under cover of recovery panchanama Ex-P19.
22.1.In pursuance of confession given by A3 he went along with staff and mediators to A3 house situated at Chowderpally village. A3 brought from his house gold ornaments of 6 items which are case property and the same are seized before the mediators under panchanama Ex-P13 and also recovered from A3 one motor cycle by name splendor plus bearing No.AP22F-8960 is marked as MO-8. PW-12 further deposed, in pursuance of confession given by A4, he along with staff and mediators and A4 went to A4's house situated at Bollampally village. A4 brought from his house one barma gun, one green colour shirt and a hat and the same are seized before the mediators under the cover of recovery panchanama Ex-P20. MO-9 is seized one green colour patches shirt, MO-10 is a hat.
22.2.In pursuance of confession given by A5, he along with staff mediators and A5 went to A5's house situated at Goodur village, A5 brought from his house one Bajaj Chethak Scooter bearing No.AP16Q- 1551 and the same was seized before the mediators under recovery panchanama Ex-P21. PW-12 further deposed he handed over A3 to A6 along with attested copies of confession and seizure panchanamas to the
C.I., of police Kalwakurthy as they are involved in case of Kawlakurthy police station.
22 22.3.PW-12 denied to the suggestion that he has not apprehended
A1 to A6 at Bairapur hillocks and accused never confessed before the mediators doing offence of this case and he has not recovered MOs.1 to 10 before the mediators and obtained the signatures of mediators of panchanamas of confession and recovery panchanamas in the police station.
23.PW-13, the C.I.of police, Kalwakurthy, evidence is, on 14.03.2012 LW-14 Mr. Venkateshwarlu received complaint from PW-1 and basing on it he registered case and issued F.I.R., Ex-P22 as it is grave offence. Took up investigation of the case by PW-13 from LW-14 visited scene of offence situated at Goodur village at the house of PW-1, secured
PWs.5 and 6 and in their presence prepared Crime Detail Form Ex-P23, recorded the statements of PWs.1 to 4. On 24.07.2012 at 9:00 hours the
S.I of police P.S. Madgul handed over A3 to A6 along with confession statements. Then he arrested A3 to A6 as they are offenders of this case and altered section of law from 392 of IPC to 395 of IPC and Sec.25(1)(a) of Indian Arms Act as they are six offenders involved in this case. Ex-P24 is the alteration memo. PW-13 executed P.T.warrants against A1 and A2 on 01.08.2012 and issued requisition to J.M.F.C., Kalwakurthy to conduct
Test Identification Parade of A1 to A4 with PWs.1 and 2. During the Test
Identification Parade PW-1 identified A1, A2 and A4 and PW-2 identified
A2only.On09.08.2012requisitiongivento
PW-12 to conduct property identification of the case property. In those proceedings PWs.1 and 2 identified MOs.1 to 6. PW-13 also stated
PW-12 handed over to him one seized gun was sent to F.S.L., got the report from F.S.L., is Ex-P25, he collected report from F.S.L., with regard to remaining two guns seized by PW-12 obtained permission Ex-P26 from
District Collector Mahabubnagar to proceed with the case and after completing the investigation he filed charge sheet.
23 23.1.In the cross examination PW-13 admitted PWs.1 to 4 not stated to him about the descriptive particulars of the suspects. PW-12 handed over to him only one gun along with A3 to A6 and remaining case property was taken by him from the Court of Kalwakurthy which was deposited by PW-12 and he produced the same in this case. PW-13 denied to the suggestion after taking photos of the accused A1 to A4 and showing the same to PWs.1 and 2, got identified A1, A2 and A4 in Test
Identification Parade by PWs.1 and 2.
24.On perusal of the prosecution evidence as discussed above,
PW-1 the complainant, PW-2 wife, PW-3 son and PW-4 daughter-in-law who are residing in the same house at Goodur deposed on 13.03.2012 at 8:30 p.m., four persons entered into their house with two guns, switched off the lights, taken the cell hones of PWs.1 and 3 and took PWs.1 and 3 to the outside of the house. With the point of gun at the back of PWs.2 and 4 they robbed five gold items from the almyrah and snatched away two rows of pusthelatadu from the neck of PW-2 and fled away. PWs.1 to 4 deposed the four persons entered into the house covered their faces with masks and switched off the lights, so they could not identify the four persons who robbed MOs.1 to 6 gold items from PWs.1 and 2. PWs.1 to 4 also not stated the descriptive particulars of four persons who entered into their house. PWs.1 and 2 also deposed in the Test Identification
Parade they have not seen four persons who came to their house for robbing and not identified any of the four persons in Test Identification
Parade. Therefore from the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 there is no incriminating material to prove that A1 to A4 are the persons entered into their house on 13.03.2012 and robbed MO.1 to 6. PW-1 identified A5 and
A6 are residents of their village but not stated their involvement in this case in doing offence of this case. PWs.1 to 4 stated about only four persons among six offenders and further not identified those four persons 24 who entered into the house are the accused present in the Court. So, undoubtedly, absolutely there is no evidence from PWs.1 to 4 against A1 to A6 in support of prosecution case that they committed dacoity with guns in their house.
25.Coming to the evidence of remaining witnesses the investigation officers and mediators, PW-13 the investigation officer after receiving complaint from PW-1, registered F.I.R., Ex-P22 U/Sec.392 of IPC and visited scene of offence and observed it in the presence of PWs.5 and 6 prepared Ex-P23 Crime Detail Form and recorded the statements of
PWs.1 to 4. Whereas PWs.5 and 6 the mediators for Ex-P23 Crime Detail
Form not supported prosecution case because they deposed scene of offence panchanama was not conducted in their presence and only admitted their signatures on Ex-P23 Crime Detail Form. Hence, PWs.5 and 6 the mediators for Crime Detail Form not supported the case of prosecution, their evidence along with Exs.P2 and P3 not helpful to the prosecution case to prove the guilt of the accused.
26.In this case the crucial witness is PW-12 the S.I. of Madgul
P.S., because he apprehended the accused of this case along with A1 and
A2 who are also involved in the offence of Madgul P.S., at Bairapur hillocks on 24.07.2012 and got recorded the confession of A1 to A6 i.e.,
Exs.P4 to P15 before the mediators PWs.7 and 8 and also seized the case property MOs.1 to 11 from A1, A3, A4 and A5 under recovery panchanamas Exs.P13, P19, P20, P21 and handed over A3 to A6 to the C.I of police Kalwakurthy along with attested copies of their confession and seizure panchanamas.
27.PWs.7 and 8 are the mediators to the Ex.P4 to P9, P13, P19 to
P21. Their evidence had contradictions to the evidence of PW-12 and also to the contents of said Exs.P4 to P9, P13, P19 to P21. PWs.7 and 8 25 not identified the accused who confessed about doing the offence of this case are same offenders of this case present in the Court. PW-7 one of the mediator to the confession panchanamas of A1 to A6 i.e., Exs.P4 to
P9 stated the names of the accused correctly that they confessed before him and PWs.8 and the said confession panchanamas are prepared at
Bairapur hillocks and he signed on it along with PW-8. PW-8 also deposed the names of A1 and A2 as Saidulu and Jangaiah and they confessed
before him about doing offence of this case and four other persons also
confessed doing the offence of this case but he do not remember their names and the confession of these persons was reduced into writing and he signed on it on Exs.P4 to P9. Unfortunately PWs.7 and 8 unable to identify the confession given to them as in Exs.P4 to P9 are the accused involved in the offence of this case and unable to identify A1 to A6 are the same persons confessed to them as in Exs.P4 to P9. Therefore, the mediators PWs.7 and 8 to the confession panchanamas of accused A1 to
A6 i.e., Exs.P4 to P9 unable to identify the accused persons that they have confessed before them in doing the offence of this case. Hence, confession panchanamas of Exs.P4 to P9 are not proved by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused A1 to A6 that they committed the offence of this case.
28.Coming to Ex-P13 the recovery panchanama of MOs.1 to 6 gold ornaments from A3 which were handed over by A3 from his house to
PW-12 before the mediators PWs.7 and 8 and the same are seized under
Ex-P13 panchanama along with one motor cycle Splendor Plus bearing
No.AP22F-8960 from A3 is the case of prosecution.
29.Whereas contrary to that PW-7 one of the mediator of
Ex-P13 deposed police not seized any property in his presence from A1 to
A6 and only identified his signature Ex-P10 on Ex-P13. Another mediator
PW-8 deposed police seized, from Jangaiah, gold ornaments under 26 panchanama
Ex-P13. PW-8 deposed at 12:00 noon he went to Jangaiah's house at
Bairapur village. Whereas PW-12 deposed at 16:30 hours he prepared panchanama Ex-P13. PW-8 not stated about the seizure of motor cycle by name Splendor Plus recovered under the same panchanama which is contrary to the evidence of PW-12. PW-8 unable to identify the person 3
Jangaiah from whom MOs.1 to 6 are seized due to long gap of 6 years.
Therefore, Ex-P13 is also not proved by the prosecution because one of the mediator PW-7 totally denied about the seizure of MOs.1 to 6 under
Ex-P13 in his presence from A3 and another mediator PW-8 though stated seizure of MOs.1 to 6 from A3 Jangaiah not stated about the seizure of motor cycle Splendor Plus under the same panchanama
Ex-P13 and unable to identify the said Jangaiah is A3 as offender of this case.
30.With regard to the seizure of case property barma gun MOs.7 under recovery panchanama Ex-P19 from A1 by PW-12 at A1's house of
Bairapu village. PW-7 deposed police shown to him and PW-8 two barma guns at Bairapur hillock that they are used by the accused persons in this case. PW-7 only identified his signature Ex-P12 on Ex-P19 panchanama.
Whereas PW-8 also stated similar as that of PW-7 that police shown to him two guns of Bairapur hillocks and they are used by the accused for committing the offence of this case dacoity and not stated about the seizure of those guns A1 before him under seizure panchanama Ex-P19 at
A1's house Bairapur. PW-8 only identified his signature on the seizure panchanama Ex-P15. So, PWs.7 and 8 deposed against to the evidence of PW-12 and contents of Ex-P19 and identified only their signatures on
Ex-P19 arosing doubt whether guns seized from A1 under Ex-P19 in the presence of mediators PWs.7 and 8. Therefore the said panchanama
Ex-P19 is also not proved by the prosecution that MOs.7 is seized from A1.
27
31.Coming to the seizure of one green colour shirt MO-9 and hat
MO-10 from A4 at A4's house at Bollampally village before mediators
PWs.7 and 8 under recovery panchanama Ex-P20. Whereas, PWs.7 and 8 mediators to Ex-P20 not whispered in the evidence about the seizure of
Mos.9 and 10 from A4 in his presence under cover of recovery panchanama Ex-P20. So the mediators PWs.7 and 8 also not supported the investigation done by PW-12 about the seizure of MOs.9 and 10 from
A4 in their presence under Ex-P20. Therefore, Ex-P20 recovery panchanama is also not proved by the prosecution.
32.PW-12 further deposed on the confession given by A5, from
A5 at A5's house at Gundur village he seized one Bajaj Chetak Scooter bearing No.AP16Q-1551 is MO-11 before the mediators PWs.7 and 8 under recovery panchanama Ex-P21 on 24.07.2012. Whereas PW-7 one of the mediator to the said panchanama not stated anything about the seizure of MO-11 in his presence from A5 under Ex-P21 and only identified his signature Ex-P11 on the said panchanama Ex-P21. PW-8 also not whisper in his presence about the seizure of MO-11 in his presencefromA5by
PW-12 under Ex-P21 and only identified his signature Ex-P14 on said panchanama. Therefore, PWs.7 and 8 not supported the investigation of
PW-12 about the seizure of MO-11 in their presence under Ex-P21, the prosecution failed to prove Ex-P21 and also seizure of MO-11 from A5.
33.In view of the above discrepancies in the evidence of PWs.7 and 8 to the evidence of PW-12 about the confession of A1 to A6 and recovered MOs.1 to 11 from A1 to A6 there are number of contradictions in their evidence because PWs.7 and 8 deposed they came to Bairapur hillocks on the call of PW-12 at 11:00 a.m., whereas PW-12 deposed at 9:00 hours onwards before the mediators PWs.7 and 8 he got recorded 28 the confession of A1 to A6 and after 3 O'Clock they went to A1's house at
Bairapur village for recovery of case property in pursuance of the confession of A1 and later went to A3 house at Chowdarpally village and
A4 house at Bollampally village and A5 house at Gundur village on the same day seized case property MOs.1 to 11. contrary to that PW-7 deposed at 3:00 p.m., from Bairapur hillocks he returned on that day by 3:00 p.m., after completing entire process of all panchanamas. Whereas,
PW-8 deposed all the panchanamas are drafted at Bairapur hillocks and no panchanama was drafted at any other place and later they went to
Madgul P.S., between 3:00 to 4:00 p.m., and from there they disbursed.
PW-8 also deposed there are persons near Bairapur hillocks in the agricultural fields doing their agricultural operations but PW-12 not called any one of them, the inhabitants of that area to act as mediator to the panchanamas recorded at Bairapur hillocks. Due to above said material contradictions and variations in the evidence of PWs.7 and 8 to the evidence of PW-12 about the recovery of MOs.1 to 11 from A1 to A6 giving doubt on the credibility of PW-12 evidence to rely upon. So, as there is no corroboration to PW-12 evidence from the evidence of mediators PWs.7 and 8 prosecution failed to prove under Exs.P4 to P9,
P13, P19 to P21 PW-12 seized case property from said accused on their confession. Moreover as already discussed PWs.7 and 8 unable to identify
A1 to A6 are the same persons who confessed before them in doing offence of this case, the evidence of PWs.7 and 8 along with Exs.P4 to P9,
P13, P19 to P21 along with MOs.1 to 11 not helpful to the case or prosecution to prove that the accused committed offences charged against them.
34.Coming to the evidence of PW-10 J.M.F.C., Kalwakurthy who conducted Test Identification Parade of A1 to A4, with PWs.1 and 2 on the requisition of S.H.O., Kalwakurthy and as per the Ex-P18 the 29 proceedings of Test Identification Parade conducted by PW-10 for A1 to
A4, PW-1 identified A1, A2 and A4 and PW-2 identified only A2. Whereas contrary to that PWs.1 and 2 deposed in their evidence that they have not identified any of the suspects in the Test Identification Parade who entered into their house for committing robbery on 13.03.2012. In addition to that controversy PW-10 not mentioned in Ex-P18 that she informed to Jail Authorities through telephone about the conducting of
Test Identification Parade on 07.08.2012 at District Jail, Mahabubnagar and details of this case are not furnished to Jail Authorities in advance.
There …..................... and not mentioned Ex-P18 that PW-10 selected non-suspects for A1 to A4 of same the age and physical features of A1 to
A4 and also not selected non-suspects who are same age of suspects of
A1 to A4 clearly established that PW-10 not followed the procedure prescribed U/Sec.32 of A.P., Criminal Rules of Practice.
35.PWs.1 and 2 the eye witnesses not identified the accused A1 to A4 in the Court while giving evidence and also not stated the descriptive particulars to the police in their statements but given the descriptive particulars of A1 to A4 to PW-10 before conducting Test
Identification Parade giving doubt on the testimony of PWs.1 and 2 how can they give descriptive particulars of A1, A2 and A4 without knowing any of their descriptive particulars prior to that. Moreover, PWs.1 and 2 categorically deposed only four persons entered into their house covering their faces with masks and switched off the lights. So, there is no scope for PWs.1 and 2 to witness the persons entered into their house. So, their statements given to PW-10 that they can identify the suspects in the Test
Identification Parade and given their descriptive particulars are contrary to the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, Ex-P1 and to their 161 Cr.P.C., statements. A1 to A4 stated that their photos are taken by police when they are in Kalwakurthy police station. So, the said photos might have 30 been shown to PWs.1 and 2 before Test Identification Parade by the police and due to that PWs.1 and 2 might have identified A1, A2 and A4 and PW- 2 identified A2 as per Ex-P18. After that in the evidence given by PWs.1 and 2 they have not identified any of the accused A1 to A6 that they are the same persons committed robbery in their house. On this aspect the learned counsel for defence relied on the citation reported in (2015) 6
Supreme Court Cases 623 in between Iqbal and another Vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh where it was held that “Evidence of identification in TIP is not substantive evidence, conviction cannot be based solely on identification of accused by witnesses in TIP. Prosecution has to adduce reliable substantive evidence connecting accused with crime to prove offence beyond reasonable doubt. Furthermore, in present case, incident happened on new moon night (amavasya), when it was pitch dark, it is unbelievable that witnesses, who were in panicky state and standing at a distance of 3½ yd and 5-6 yd, hiding themselves behind walls in order to save themselves, could have seen actual faces of accused persons just by flash of torchlights on their faces and in light of lantern. It is doubtful whether witnesses would have gained an enduring impression of identity of accused. Hence, identification of appellants by the witnesses has to be viewed with caution and the Court is to look for corroboration strengthening the identification, which is absent in present case. Hence, conviction of both appellant-accused under Sec.396 of IPC, reversed.”
In another citation reported in (2017) 11 Supreme Court Cases 150 in between Md. Sajjad Alias Raju Alias Salim Vs. State of West Bengal where it was held that “Delay of 25 days after arrest, in holding, none of witnesses disclosing any features for identification which would lend some corroboration. Witnesses chance meeting with accused persons (including appellant-accused) was also in the night without there being any special occasion for them to notice the features of any of the accused which would then register in their minds so as to enable them to identify the accused on a future date. Chance meeting was also for 31 few minutes. Suspicion expressed by wife of deceased, also not enough to record finding of guilt against appellant, benefit of doubt granted to appellant and conviction reversed.”
The another citation reported in (2016) 11 Supreme Court Cases 265 in between Sheikh Sintha Madhar Alias Jaffer Alias Sintha and others Vs.
State represented by Inspector of Police (in Criminal Appeals Nos.2118- 19 of 2009)
AND
Shahjahan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (in Criminal Appeal No.2117 of 2009) where it was held that “Held, purpose of TIP is to ensure that investigation is going on right track and it is merely a corroborative evidence. Actual identification must be done in Court and that is substantive evidence and also, there is no invariable rule that two accused persons cannot be made part of same TIP. Joint TIP would thus, in no manner, affect validity of TIP. If accused is already known to witness, TIP does not hold much value and it is identification in Court, which is of utmost importance. In the instant case of conspiracy resulting in murder of doctor, herein, evidently, there is no inordinate delay in conducting TIP. As and when accused were arrested, within reasonable time they were produced for TIP.”
36.In view of the proposition given in above case laws in the case on hand though PW-1 identified A1, A2 and A4 and PW-2 identified
A2 in Test Identification Parade proceedings as in Ex-P18 but they have not identified the same accused in the Court, it shows the identification of the accused in the Test Identification Parade had no corroboration from the same witnesses. Moreover, the evidence of identification in Test
Identification Parade is not substantial evidence and conviction cannot be given based solely on identification of the accused by witness in Test
Identification Parade and prosecution has to adduce substantial evidence connecting the accused with crime to prove offence beyond reasonable doubt. The actual identification must be done in the Court and that is the 32 substantiative evidence in view of the above rulings and PWs.1 and 2 not identified the accused in the Court and the identification of accused in
Test Identification Parade without knowing their descriptive particulars of the accused and without corroboration to their evidence in Test
Identification Parade and without having substantive evidence of prosecution connecting the accused with crime offence alleged against the accused, the statements of PWs.1 and 2 as per
Ex-P18 had no strength to take into consideration in support to the prosecution case.
37.Here, PWs.1 and 2 identified their stolen property MOs.1 to 6 in the Test Identification Parade conducted by PW-11 in the presence of
PW-9 and LW-10 Laxmaiah under Ex-P16. But from the evidence of PWs.9 and 11 it is clear that they have not followed the procedure prescribed under Criminal Rules of Practice because five items for each recovered property is not displayed in the identification to the recovery of MOs.1 to 6 gold ornaments. Therefore, in view of the forgoing discussion, though
PWs.1 and 2 identified the recovery property MOs.1 to 6 that they are the same property robbed from their house by four unknown persons but prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt from the evidence on record that A1 to A4 along with A5 and A6 committed dacoity in the house of PW-1 with the help of barma guns (MO-7) and using motor bike two wheelers motor bikes MOs.8 and 11 and using MOs.9 and 10 robbed
MOs.1 to 6. Because PWs.1 to 4 the inmates of the scene of offence not identified A1 to A6 are the culprits robbed MOs.1 to 6 from their house and mediators PWs.5 and 6 not supported the investigation of PW-13,
PWs.7 and 8 not identified A1 to A6 confessed before them in doing the offence of this case and also not deposed corroborating the evidence of
PW-12 that MOs.1 to 11 are seized from A1, A3 to A5 under cover of panchanamas Exs.P13, P19 to P21. So, only evidence of PW-12 without 33 the support of independent witnesses and no corroboration from any other evidence prosecution failed to prove the confession of accused
Exs.P4 to P9 and recovery panchanamas Exs.P13, P19 to P21 about the recovery of MOs.1 to 11 from the accused. Therefore, prosecution from any angle failed to prove that A1 to A6 committed the offence of dacoity in the house of PW-1 by using barma gun and they are in the possession of accused. Hence, prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of A1 to A6 beyond reasonable doubt that they have committed the offences charged against them U/Sec.395 of IPC and Sec.25 (1A) of the Arms Act, A1 to A6 are not found guilty for the said offences and they are acquitted by giving benefit of doubt.
38.In the result, A1 to A6 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Secs.395 of IPC and U/Sec.25(1A) of the Arms Act and accordingly they are acquitted U/Sec.235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of Six (6) months as contemplated U/Sec.437(A) Cr.P.C.
MOs.1 to 6 shall be given to its owner (PW-1) after expiry of appeal time.
MO-7 barma gun shall be sent to Armoury to the Superintendent of
Police, Mahabubnagar District , after expiry of appeal time.
MO-8 Hero Honda Motor Cycle (Splender) bearing No.AP 22 S 8960 which was given to Koppunamoni Jangaiah (A3) vide Crl.M.P.No.492/2013 dt.26.04.2013 for interim custody shall be made absolute after expiry of appeal time.
MO-9 and MO-10 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.
MO-11 Scooter bearing No.AP16Q-1551 shall be confiscate to state.
Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed, typed by her, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 2nd day of August, 2019.
Asst.Sessions Judge, 34
Mahabubnagar.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
PROSECUTION : DEFENCE :
PW-1: G. Srinivasa Reddy - NIL-
PW-2: G. Manemma
PW-3: G. Ram Reddy
PW-4: G. Vasantha
PW-5: N. Lingamaiah
PW-6: K. Lingaiah
PW-7: Kavali Laxmaiah
PW-8: M. Mannaiah
PW-9: V. Madhusudan Rao
PW-10: B. Aparna Devi
PW-11: K. Gopiram
PW-12: K. Satyanarayana Reddy
PW-13: T. Amrutha Reddy
EXHIBITS MARKED
PROSECUTION :
Ex-P1: Report by PW-1
Ex-P2: Signature of PW-5 on Crime Detail Form
Ex-P3: Signature of PW-6 on Crime Detail Form
Ex-P4: Confessional panchanama of A1
Ex-P5: Confessional panchanama of A4
Ex-P6: Confessional panchanama of A2
Ex-P7: Confessional panchanama of A3
Ex-P8: Confessional panchanama of A5
Ex-P9: Confessional panchanama of A6
Ex-P10: Signature of PW-7 on seizure panchanama, at 16:30 hours, dt.24.07.2012
Ex-P11: Signature of PW-7 on seizure panchanama, at 19:00 hours, dt.24.07.2012
Ex-P12: Signature of PW-7 on seizure panchanama, at 14:30 hours, dt.24.07.2012
Ex-P13: Seizure Panchanama
Ex-P14: Signature of PW-8 on seizure panchanama, at 19:00 hours, dt.24.07.2012
Ex-P15: Signature of PW-8 on seizure panchanama, at 14:30 hours, dt.24.07.2012
Ex-P16: Property Identification Panchanama of gold ornaments
Ex-P17: Requisition issued by C.I of police, Kalwakurthy 35
Ex-P18: Proceedings of Test Identification Parade
Ex-P19: Recovery panchanama
Ex-P20: Recovery panchanama at 17:30 hours
Ex-P21: Recovery panchanama at 19:00 hours
Ex-P22: First Information Report in Cr.No.38/2012
Ex-P23: Crime Detail Form
Ex-P24: Section Alteration Memo
Ex-P25: F.S.L. Report
Ex-P26: Permission of District Collector, Mahabubnagar
DEFENCE : NIL
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
MO-1: Two rows gold pusthela thadu
MO-2: One gold black beads chain with locket
MO-3: One children chain with locket
MO-4: One roja billa
MO-5: One pair of ear studs
MO-6: Two gold rings with Lord Venkateshwara emblem
MO-7: Barma gun
MO-8: Splendor Plus bearing No.AP22F-8960
MO-9: Green colour patches shirt
MO-10: Hat
MO-11: Bajaj Chetak Scooter bearing No.AP16Q-1551
Asst.Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.
36
IN THE COURT OF THE ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,
MAHABUBNAGAR.
1. Serial No. (One) : S.C. No.411 of 2013
2. Name of the P.S. : Kalwakurthy
3. Description of the Accused:
A-1: Kondreddi Saidulu S/o Ramulu, aged about 27 years, Caste: Yerukala, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Bairapur, Veldanda Mandal.
A-2: Gudlanaram Santhosh @ Chakali Santhosh @ Sathish S/o Sailu, aged about 28 years, Caste: Rajaka, Occ: Welder at Hyderabad, N/o Bairapur, Veldanda Mandal, C/o B.N.Reddy Colony, Hyderabad.
A-3: Koppunavoni Jangaiah S/o Laxmaiah, aged about 30 years, Caste: Telugu, Occ: Lorry Driver, R/o Choudarpally, Vangoor Mandal.
A-4: Suppari Anantha Ramulu S/o Narsimha, aged about 35 years, Caste: Telugu, Occ: Labour, R/o Bollampally, Veldanda Mandal.
A-5: Kumbham Yadaiah S/o Ramulu, aged about 20 years, Caste: Yerukala, Occ: Degree Student, R/o Gundur, Kalwkurthy Mandal.
A-6: Bashamoni Gopal S/o Ramulu, aged about 23 years, Caste: Telugu, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Gundur, Kalwakurthy Mandal.
4. Date of :
i)Occurrence13-03-2012 ii)Complaint14-03-2012 5 iii)Apprehension01-08-2012 (A1 & A2) 24-07-2012 (A3 to A6) iv)Release on bail02-11-2012 (A1 to A4) 09-10-2012 (A5 & A6)
v)Commitment16-07-2013 vi)Commencement of trial04-02-2019 vii)Close of trial17-07-2019 viii)Sentence or Order02-08-2019 ix)Explanation of delayNo delay
Asst. Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.
Copy Submitted to:
37
The Hon’ble Registrar (Judicial) High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad through the District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar through C.D.
38