Smt. K. Krishna Satya Latha

1

BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : VIJAYAWADA

Present: Smt. K.Krishna Satya Latha, II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada

Tuesday, this the 17th day of November, 2022

Calendar Case No. 47 of 2022

Between:

The State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Krishna Lanka

Police Station, Vijayawada City..... Complainant

And:

Kondeti Naga Venkata Sai, S/o Srinivasa Rao, aged about 20 years, caste by Gowda, R/of D. No. 61-9/4-13, Ramalayam Street, Poornachandra Rao Nagar, Vijayawada City, (Working in Donkand Monkey

shop).. .... Accused

This case came up on 16.11.2022 before me for final hearing in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutorfor the complainant and Sri Ch. Vishnu Vardhana Rao, learned Advocate for the Accused, upon hearing of both sides and upon perusal of the material on record, having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Krishna Lanka Police Station laid charge sheet against the Accused in Crime No. 595 of 2020 for the offence punishable under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(A) of NDPS Act.

2. The substratum of the case is that:

(I)03.08.2021, at about 02:00 PM., on receipt of reliable information about the illegal possession of Ganja, near Cement Godown at

Ranigarithota, P.W.4/Sri T Krishna Sai, the Sub-inspector of Police, Krishna

Lanka police station rushed there by securing mediators by names

P.W.1/Smt., N. Lakshmi Muneeswaramma and L.W.7/Sri Neerukatta Darga

Prasad and the appraiser by name P.W.2/Sri Ponamala Suresh and his staff, by the time they reached there the Accused was standing over there along with one bag, on seeing the police the accused tried to flee away from that place, but, he stopped him with the help of his staff members, on enquiry he confessed that he was addicted to Ganja, he purchased one

Kilogram Ganja at Tadepalli and he was there to consume the same and voluntarily showed Ganja Packet by taking it out from the cover, as such, he got weighed the same, in the presence of above mediators and the 2 weight of the same was one Kilogram, as such, he seized it under the cover of mediator’s report.

(ii)During the course of investigation P.W.4/Sri T. Krishna Sai, the Sub- inspector of Krishna Lanka police station, got conducted the inventory and the sample was drawn from the Ganja packet seized from the possession the Accused while conducting the inventory and sent for the chemical analysis under the cover of letter of advise and received the report opining that the sample packet contained Ganja. After conclusion of the investigation L.W.9/Smt., B. Anusha, the then Sub-inspector of

Krishnalanka Police Station laid the police report.

3.Cognizance is taken under Section 190(1) (b) of Code of Criminal

Procedure for the offence punishable under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(A) of

NDPS Act and summons were issued to the accused.

4.On appearance of the Accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

5. Heard. The Accused was examined under section 251 of Code of

Criminal Procedure. The accusation made against him is explained to him in Telugu, having understood the same, he denied the offence and claimed to be tried.

6. During the course of trial, in substantiation of the case of the prosecution, it got examined P.Ws.1 to P.Ws. 4 out of 9 cited witnesses, exhibited Exts.P.1 to Exts.P.9 and M.Os.1 and 2. The Assistant Public

Prosecutor has given up the evidences of L.W.1/Sri Bade Radha Krishna,

L.W.2/Peddi Sai Ram, L.W.3/Sri Karra Ramesh, Police Constables of

Krishna Lanka Police Station and L.W.7/Sri Neerukatta Durga Prasad and

L.W.9/Smt., B. Anusha, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Krishnalanka

Police Station.

6(i) P.W.1 is one of the mediator in whose presence the contraband packet was said to have seized from the possession of Accused by P.W.4 who is an investigation officer in this case, P.W.2 is said to be the appraiser who is said to have weighed the ganja which was said to have seized from the possession of the accused, P.W.3 is said to be the eye witness at the time of seizure of contraband from the possession of the Accused.

6(i).No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on behalf of the defence.

3

7. After completion of prosecution side evidence, the Accused was examined under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure. All the incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses is explained to him in Telugu, having understood the same he denied the offence and reported no defence evidence.

7(i).The statement of the Accused is total denial and stated that he has not committed any offence.

8. Heard the both sides. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor reiterated the case of the prosecution and contended that minor contradictions cannot be taken into consideration to scot-free the accused, as they bound to occur due to passage of time. The learned defence counsel vehemently contended that P.W.1 who is said to be mediator at the time of apprehension of Accused is the stock witnesses of Krishna Lanka

Police Station and she identified the accused, as she was tutored by the

Police, P.W.2, who is said to be appraiser did not support the case of the prosecution, which speaks volumes about the bonafidies of the investigation conducted by P.W.4. There are contradictions about the receipt of the alleged information in the testimonies of P.W.1 and P.W.4, which renders the case of the prosecution doubtful, hence, based on vague testimony of P.W.1 and self serving testimony of P.W.4, the Accused cannot be convicted, hence, he is entitled to be acquitted.

9. In view of the rival contentions now the point that requires determination is:-

(i) Whether the prosecution is able to establish that the Accused was found in possession of packet which contained Ganja weighing about one kilogram for the purpose of selling the same?

(ii) Whether the prosecution is able to prove the case against the Accused for the offence punishable under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b) (ii) (A) of NDPS Act beyond reasonable doubt?

10. Point No.(i):-

(i) The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that on 03.08.2021, at about 12:00 Noon., on receipt of reliable information P.W.4/Sri Krishna Sai, the

Sub-Inspector of Police, Krishnalanka Police Station along with his staff,

P.W.1/Smt., N. Lakshmi Muneeswaramma, L.W.7/Sri Neerukatta

Durgaprasad and P.W.2/Ponamala Suresh (appraiser) rushed to the

Cement Godown, Ranigarithota, by the time they reached there Accused, 4 who was in possession M.O.1 which contained Ganja weighing about one kilogram was standing over there, he confessed that he was indulged in illegal sale and consumption of Ganja and that he purchased the Ganja, as such, he seized the same under the cover of Ext.P.2/ mediator’s report. In order to determine the culpability of the Accused, the testimonies of P.Ws.1, to P.Ws.4, needs examination with reference to Exts. P. 1 to 9 and M.Os. 1 and 2.

(ii)P.W.2 who is said to be the appraiser did not support the case of the prosecution in any aspect and simply denied that Ext.P.1 does not bears his signature. As such, his testimony is no way helpful to the prosecution.

P.W.3 who is an independent witness also did not support the case of the prosecution, since, hostility is not unknown to criminal law, it is not having much bearing.

(iii)Coming to the testimony of P.W.1 who is said to be mediator at the time of apprehension of Accused she deposed about the seizure of the contraband by the police in her presence under the cover of Ext.P.2 with absolute certainty. .P.W.4 deposed about the investigation done by him and stood corroborated with the testimony of P.W.1. The learned counsel for the

Accused cross examined them at length, but, nothing significant could be elicited to disbelieve their testimonies. On careful scrutiny of the cross examination of P.W.1 and P.W.4, it demonstrates that there is no dispute as regards to nature of the property, since, they were not disputing that the seized material was not Ganja and non examination of the issuing authority of Exts. P.9. is not fatal. On careful perusal of the evidence on record, though, there are some contradiction in the evidence of prosecution witnesses as regards to the time of getting information, as P.W.1 deposed that she received phone call from the police at 12:00 Noon and the P.W.4 deposed that he got information at 12:15 PM., and mentioned the time of receipt of information by P.W.4 in the letter addressed to the Assistant

Commissioner of Police, South Division as 1:00 PM., in another letter as 02:00 PM., those contradictions are not major, which cannot cut the root of the prosecution. Minor contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses are very much natural in a criminal case, hence for minor discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the testimonies of

P.W.1 and P.W.4, Ext.P. 1, Ext. P.2 and Ext.P.9 cannot be brushed out.

Hence, there can be no hesitation to hold that the prosecution could able to 5 establish that Accused was in possession of packet contained Ganja weighing about one Kilogram. This point is answered accordingly.

11. Point No.(ii):-.

(I) In view of the finding under point No.(i), this court holds that the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the Accused for the offence punishable under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b) (ii) (A) of NDPS Act beyond reasonable doubt. This point is answered accordingly.

In the result, the Accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b) (ii) (A) of NDPS Act, as such, he is convicted under Section 255 (2) Code of Criminal Procedure. M.O.1 Sealed Carton

which contained the Ganja Packet and M.O.2 sample packet which

contained unspent portion of the Ganja which were deposited vide

C.P.No.54/2022 shall be returned to the officer in charge of the Krishnalanka

Police Station, Vijayawada after the expiry of appeal time, for producing the same before the Drug Disposal Committee for disposal of the same as contemplated under section 52(A) of NDPS, Act, 1985, in view of the guide lines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a case between Union of

India ''vs'' Mohan Lal and another reported in 2016 (3) SCC 379. The Accused executed bond for an amount of Rs.5,000/- by undertaking to appear

before the Appellate Court, if any appeal is preferred against him in

compliance with Section 437(A) of Code of Criminal Procedure.

Partly typed in my Laptop, copied to pen drive and partly typed to dictation directly by the Stenographer (out sourcing), Prints are taken by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court, this the 17th day of November, 2022.

Sd/-Smt.,K.Krishna Satya Latha

II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Vijayawada.

Accused was heard on the quantum of sentence, he stated that he is having old age parents and one elder sister. They are completely dependent upon him, hence, sought to take lenient approach.

He has no mandatory right provided under section 6 and Sec.33 of

Probation of Offenders Act, though he is below 20 years age.

Considering the nature of the offence committed by the accused, he is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months for the offence punishable under section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(A) of

NDPS Act.

6 The remand period of Accused i.e., from 03.08.2021 to 13.08.2021, shall be set off under section 428 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

Accused is appraised of his right to prefer an appeal against the conviction and sentence he stated that he has got means to engage an advocate to prefer an appeal.

Sd/-Smt.K.Krishna Satya Latha

II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Vijayawada.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution :For Defence: None

P.W.1/29.06.2022 : Smt.,N. Lakshmimuneeswaramma, Village Revenue Officer-3(84 Sachivalayam) Ranigarithota;

P.W.2/21.09.2022 : Sri Ponamala Suresh;

P.W.3/19.10.2022 : Sri Somi Nagireddy;

P.W.4/04.11.2022 : Sri.,T.Krishna Sai, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Krishnalanka Police Station;

Documents Marked

For Prosecution: For Defence: Nil

Ex.P-1/ 29.06.2022: Personal Search proceedings of P.W.2/(Sri Ponamala Suresh ) dated 03.08.2021;

Ex.P-2/29.06.2022 : Mediator’s report dated 03.08.2021;

Ex.P-3/19.20.2022 : Relevant portion in the Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.3 // Sri Somireddy Nagireddy

Ex.P-4/04.11.2022 : First Information Report dated 03.08.2021;

Ex.P-5/04.11.2022 : Rough Sketch of the scene of offence dated. 03.08.2021;

Ex.P-6/04.11.2022 : Inventory Certificate dated 17.09.2021;

Ex.P-7/04.11.2022 : 4 photographs of the inventory along with CD

Ex.P-8/04.11.2022 : Letter of Advice dated. 21.09.2021 ;

Ex.P-9/04.11.2022 : Analysis report dated 22.09.2021, issued by the Regional Prohibition and Excise Laboratory, Kakinada.

7

Material objects

For Prosecution: For Defence: Nil

M.O.1/04.11.2022 Sealed Carton with Ganja Packet which contained the identification slips.

M.O.2/04.11.2022Sample packet which contained unspent portion of Ganja (M.Os.1 and 2 are deposited vide C.P.No. 54/2021)

Sd/Smt.K.Krishna Satya Latha

II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate

Vijayawada.

-// True Copy //-

II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

8 FORM NO.72 Calendar & Judgment (for use in cases where there are more accused persons than one)

DISTRICT OF KRISHNA

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : VIJAYAWADA

DATE OF OFFENCE:03.08.2021REPORT OR 03.08.2021 COMPLAINT: APPREHENSION OF03.08.2021RELEASE ON BAIL13.08.2021

ACCUSEDACCUSED

COMMENCEMENT OF30.03.2022CLOSE OF TRIAL:05.11.2022 TRIAL: SENTENCEOR19.10.2022 ORDER: EXPLANATIONOFDue to non production of witness

DELAYAND

REMARKS: JUDGMENT IN C.C:47 of 2022 Cr.No. 595/2022 COMPLAINANT:The State represented by the sub-inspector of Police, Krishanlanka Police Station, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

NAME,AGE, Kondeti Naga Venkata Sai, S/o Srinivasa Rao, aged about 20 years, caste by FATHER’SNAME,Gowda, R/of D. No. 61-9/4-13, Ramalayam Street, Poornachandra Rao Nagar, RELIGION, CALLING,Vijayawada City, (Working in Donkand Monkey shop).

RESIDENCEAND

TALUKOFTHE

ACCUSED: OFFENCE:under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(A) of NDPS Act. Prohibition of produce, manufacture, possess, sell purchase, transport, warehouse, use, consume, import inter-State, export inter-State, import into India, export from India or transship any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, punishment for contravention in relation to cannabis plant and cannabis. FINDING: Accused found guilty.

In the result, the Accused is found guilty for the offence punishable SENTENCE: under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b) (ii) (A) of NDPS Act, as such, he is convicted under Section 255 (2) Code of Criminal Procedure. M.O.1 Sealed Carton which contained the Ganja Packet and M.O.2 sample packet which contained unspent portion of the Ganja which were deposited vide C.P.No.54/2022 shall be returned to the officer in charge of the Krishnalanka Police Station, Vijayawada after the expiry of appeal time, for producing the same before the Drug Disposal Committee for disposal of the same as contemplated under section 52(A) of NDPS, Act, 1985, in view of the guide lines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a case between Union of India ''vs'' Mohan Lal and another reported in 2016 (3) SCC

379. The Accused executed bond for an amount of Rs.5,000/- by undertaking to appear before the Appellate Court, if any appeal is preferred against him in compliance with Section 437(A) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Accused was heard on the quantum of sentence, he stated that he is having old age parents and one elder sister. They are completely dependent upon him, hence, sought to take lenient approach He has no mandatory right provided under section 6 and Sec.33 of Probation of Offenders Act, though he is below 20 years age. Considering the nature of the offence committed by the accused, he is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months for the offence punishable under section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(A) of NDPS Act. The remand period of Accused i.e., from 03.08.2021 to 13.08.2021, shall be set off under section 428 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Accused is appraised of his right to prefer an appeal against the conviction and sentence he stated that he has got means to engage an advocate to prefer an appeal. DATE OF RECEIPT17.11.2022.

FROMTHE

MAGISTRATE:

Sd/-Smt.K.Krishna Satya Latha

II ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

VIJAYAWADA

9 To The Hon’ble II Addl. District Judge, cum Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada

Calendar Case No.47 OF 2022. Date of Judgment:17.11.2022. Date of Dispatch of Calendar: Date of Receipt: Remarks of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada:

// True Copy//-

II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

10 Accused No.1 who is produced from District Jail, Vijayawada through blue jeans was heard on the quantum of sentence, he stated that he is having old age maternal grand mother and one younger sister who are completely dependent upon him. His mother was died, his father though alive is not taking care of his family since from his childhood.

Hence, sought to take lenient approach.

Accused No.2 who is produced from Central Prison,

Rajamahendravarm through blue jeans was heard on the quantum of sentence, he stated that he is a student and he is having old age parents who are dependent upon him. Hence, sought to take lenient approach.

As Accused Nos. 3 and 4 were called absent and no representation on their behalf, though matter kept aside till 1:45 PM., issue NBW against Accused No.3 and 4.

Considering the nature of the offence committed by the Accused

Nos. 1 and 2, this court is not inclined to invoke the benevolent provisions of Probation of offenders Act.

Considering the dependency of the Accused Nos. 1 and 2, the

Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months each for the offence punishable under section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(A) of NDPS Act.

The remand period of Accused No.1 i.e., from 14.12.2020 to 08.01.2021, 01.12.2021 to 17.01.2021 and remand period of Accused

No.2 from 14.12.2020 to 08.01.2021, 27.01.2021 to 17.02.2022 shall be set off under section 428 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are appraised of their right to prefer an appeal against the sentence and the conviction and they stated they that they have got means to engage an advocate to prefer an appeal.

11

BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : VIJAYAWADA

Present: Smt. K. Krishna Satya Latha, II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada

Wednesday, this the 16th day of November, 2022.

Calendar Case No. 777 of 2021

Between:

The State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Krishna Lanka

Police Station, Vijayawada City. ....Complainant

And:

1. Syed Rafi, S/o Khadar Vali Saheb, a/a 45 years, Muslim, D.No.8-27-4, Govindaswamy Street, Ramagopalasatram, Winchpet, Vijayawada.

2. Sayyad Abu Baker Sidiq, S/o Rafi, a/a 23 years, Muslim, Muslim, D.No.8- 27-4, Govindaswamy Street, Ramagopalasatram, Winchpet, Vijayawada.

4. Akbar Basha Shaik, a/a 36 years, Muslim, D.No.12-8-52, Vaddurivari Veedhi, Kothapet, Guntgur.…. Accused Nos. 1,2 and 4

This case came up on 04.11.2022 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri Sk. Sardar Basha, Sri P.S. Rajesh Kumar, Sri K. Mani Kumar and Sk. Azkar, learned Advocates for the Accused Nos. 1,2 and 4, upon hearing of both sides and having stood over for consideration till today, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1) The Sub-Inspector of Police, Krishnalanka Police Station laid charge sheet against the Accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 by deleting the Sri Syeed Raheem who is figured as Accused No.3 in the First Information Report, for the offences punishable under sections 323, 341, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal

Code in Cr. No. 195/2021 of Krishnalanka Police Station.

2) The pith and marrow of prosecution theory is that:

i)On 04.05.2021, at about 08:30 AM., when the defacto complainant by name sri Sk Chan Basha was at his shop i.e., shop No.3 in Rajeev Gandhi

Flower Market, Accused Nos. 1, 2 to 4 abused him in a filthy language, picked up quarrel with him and beat him with hands indiscriminately and threatened him and caught hold of his shirt.

3.Cognizance is taken under section 190(1)(b) of Code of Criminal

Procedure, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and summons were issued to Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 by my predecessor in office.

4.On appearance of the Accused Nos.1, 2 and 4, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated under section 207 of Criminal

Procedure Code.

5.The Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 were examined under section 251 of

Code of Criminal Procedure. The sum and substance of the accusation made against them was read over and explained to them in Telugu, having understood the same, they denied the offence and claimed to be tried.

6. In substantiation of the contention of the prosecution, it got examined all the cited witnesses and got summoned Dr., T. Kalyani, Civil Assistant

Surgeon, Government General Hospital, Vijayawada who is said to have treated the defacto complainant as P.Ws.1 to P.Ws.6 and exhibited Exts.P.1 to

Exts.P.6. No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on behalf of the defence.

7. After completion of prosecution side evidence, the Accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 were examined under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure. All the incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses is explained to them in Telugu, having understood the same they denied the offence and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard both sides. The specific contention of the defence is that this case is foisted against the accused by the P.W.1, as he developed eye sore against him in view of the flourishing of the business by Accused No.1. As there is no corroboration among the prosecution witnesses in any aspect and none of the independent witnesses supported the theory of the prosecution, except the self serving testimony of P.W.1 who is the defacto complainant, the Accused Nos.1 , 2 and 4 cannot be convicted for the offence charged.

The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor reiterated the case of the prosecution.

9.In view of the rival contentions now the point that requires determination is:-

Whether the Accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 wrongfully restrained P.W.1 and voluntarily caused hurt to him and threatened him in furtherance of their common intention?

10.P O I N T

(i)In order to establish the culpability of the Accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 for the offences charged, the prosecution must establish that Accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 wrongfully restrained P.W.1 and voluntarily caused hurt to him and threatened him in furtherance of their common intention. In order to determine the guilt of the Accused Nos.1, 2 and 4, the evidence available before this court is the testimonies of P.Ws.1 to P.Ws.6 and Exts.P.1 to Exts.P.6. P.W.1 is the defacto complainant and said to be the victim in the hands of the accused

Nos. 1, 2 and 4, P.Ws.2 to P.Ws.4 are said to be the eye witnesses to the incident, P.W.5 is the doctor who treated the P.W.1 and issued Ext.P.4 wound certificate, P.W.6 is the investigation officer.

(ii) P.W.1 who is said to be the victim in the hands of the Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 testified that two days prior to 04.05.2021, at about 8:00 AM.,, when he opened the shop, Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 abused him, on the next day morning they attacked him along with Syed Abdul Raheem, they attacked him with the stem, sticks and caused injuries all over his body, as they threatened him with dire consequences, they called 100. He was taken to Krishnalanka

Police Station and thereafter they referred him to Government General

Hospital, Vijayawada, he informed about the incident to the police. During the cross examination, he deposed that immediately, after receiving the call, through 100 police went to his shop, his statement was not recorded at his shop, some customers informed to him that the accused No.1 was not allowing them to come to my shop, but, he pleaded ignorance about his source of information. On perusal of the testimony of P.W.1 it is manifest that there is a business rivalry in between the P.W.1 and the Accused No.1, hence, it is not prudent to attach much weight to the testimony of P.W.1 without looking for corroborative evidence. As per the basic theory of the prosecution, P.Ws. 2 to 4 are said to be the eye witnesses to the incident.

P.W.2 deposed that on 04.05.2021 at about 08:30 AM., while he was at his shop, he noticed that P.W.1, Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were quarreling with each other, as such, he went there and enquired P.W.1 about the germane of the dispute, for which he informed to him that Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were not allowing customers to his shop, he also enquired Accused Nos. 1 and 2 who stated that they have not done any thing as complained by P.W.1, in the meanwhile Accused No.4 went there, again dispute arose between them, though he intervened to pacify the dispute, P.W.1, Accused Nos.1 and 2 pushed each other, though he made efforts to pacify the dispute, it is of no avail, as such, he left the scene of offence. On perusal of the testimony of

P.W.2, P.W.1 and Accused Nos.1 and 2 pushed each other, there is no single whisper that they beat the P.W.1 with stems and sticks and caused injuries all over the body. P.W.3 who is said to be another eye witness and own brother of P.W.3 deposed that he heard an altercation while he was at parking place, by the time he reached to the shop P.W.1 sustained graze injuries on his neck and stomach, he has taken the P.W.1 to the police station, which is contrary to the version of the P.W.1 and P.W.6. P.W.4 who is said to be another eye witness did not support the case of the prosecution any aspect. On careful examination of the evidence of P.W. 1 there are improvements, hence, the same cannot be base to connect the Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4. Hence, prudency requires to look for corroboration. The fact that P.W.1 was injured during course of the Incident which occurred in the relevant time has not been duly corroborated by P.W. 4 who is the independent witnesses. I find no absolutely no reason, whatsoever to speak lie by him. Though P.W.4 was declared hostile and was subjected to cross-examination by the learned

Assistant Public 4 Prosecutor, yet nothing of significant could be gathered in so far as incident is concerned. Needless to say, P.W.1 could not stand well corroborated by the version of P.Ws. 2 t0 4 as regards to the incident of assault.

(iii)Another flaw in the case of the prosecution is that the testimony of

P.W.1 is silent about the report said to have lodged by him, as such, the same is not marked.

(iv)It is the well settled principle of law that the conviction cannot be founded on omnibus statements of witnesses and there must be cogent, consistent evidence about specific acts of accused persons. In the instant case also there is no consistent evidence about the specific acts of the accused in the testimonies of P.W.1 and P.W.2. It is not proper on the part of the Courts to ipso facto accept the evidence of an injured witness. It is observed that Courts would do well to remember that injuries only at the best guarantee the presence of a witness; they do not ensure the credibility or truthfulness of a witness : and even in the case of an injured witness, no

Court ever convicts unless it is satisfied that the said injured witness is a truthful witness on aspects which constitute the core of the prosecution case, which is lacking in the case in hand. P.W.5 the doctor who is said to have examined P.W.1 testified about the injuries. Though there is a reference in the Ext.P.6 about the incident and also about the injuries, the possible weapon which may cause the injuries referred in Ext.P.4 is sharp objects like nails, whereas P.W.1 deposed that the accused caused injuries to him all over the body with stick, stem. Hence, the ocular evidence is not corroborated by medical evidence.

(v) On careful marshaling of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is held that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is falling much short to connect the accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 for the offences charged. Hence, it is held that the prosecution is unable to establish that the Accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 wrongfully restrained P.W.1 and voluntarily caused hurt to him and threatened him in furtherance of their common intention. This point is answered accordingly.

In the result, the Accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 323, 341, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal

Code, as such they are acquitted under section 255 (1) of Code of Criminal

Procedure. The Accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 complied section 437-A of Criminal

Procedure Code in order to ensure their presence before the appellate Court, if any appeal is preferred against them.

Typed to dictation directly by the Stenographer (out sourcing), Prints are taken by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court, this the 15th day of November, 2022.

II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Vijayawada

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution :For Defence: None

P.W.1/22.06.2022 : Sri.Shaik Chand Basha.

P.W.2/22.06.2022 : Sri Katta Someswara Rao.

P.W.3/20.07.2022 : Sri Shaik Munna.

P.W.4/20.07.2022 : Sri P.Sova Durga Prakash.

P.W.5/14.09.2022 : Smt.T.Kalayani, CAS in GGH, Vijayawada.

P.W.6/23.09.2022: Sri.S.Nageswara Rao, the then Sub-Inspector of

Krishnalanka Police Station.

Documents Marked

For Prosecution: For Defence: Nil

Ex.P-1/22.06.2022 : Report dated.04.05.2021 ;

Ex.P-2/22.06.2022 : Relavant portion in the Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2 // Sri. Katta Someswara Rao ;

Ex.P-3/20.07.2022 : Relavant portion in the Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.4 // Sri.P.Sova Durga Prakash ;

Ex.P-4/14.09.2022 : Wound Certificate of PW.1//Sri.Shaik Chand Basha, dated. 19.05.2021 ;

Ex.P-5/23.09.2022 : Original FIR dated.04.05.2021.

Ex.P-6/23.09.2022 : Rough Sketch of the scene of offence, dated. Nil.

Material objects

For Prosecution: For Defence: .... Nil ....

II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate

Vijayawada.

FORM NO.71 Calendar & Judgment (for use in cases where there is one accused person than one)

DISTRICT OF KRISHNA

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MGISTRATE ; VIJAYAWADA

DATE OF OFFENCE:17.05.2020REPORT OR 15.04.2020 COMPLAINT: APPREHENSION OF41 - A Cr.P.C, NoticeRELEASE ON BAIL ACCUSED Nos. 1,2 & 4ACCUSED Nos. 1,2 & 4 --

REMANDOF --

ACCUSED Nos. 1,2 & 4 COMMENCEMENT OF02.02.2022CLOSE OF TRIAL:29.10.2022 TRIAL: SENTENCEOR 16.11.2022 ORDER: EXPLANATIONOFDue to non production of prosecution witnesses

DELAYAND

REMARKS: JUDGMENT IN C.C:777 of 2021 Cr.No.195/2021 COMPLAINANT: The State represented by the sub-inspector of Police, Krishanlanka Police Station, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

NAME,AGE,1. Syed Rafi, S/o Khadar Vali Saheb, a/a 45 years, Muslim, D.No.8-27-4, FATHER’SNAME,Govindaswamy Street, Ramagopalasatram, Winchpet, Vijayawada.

RELIGION, CALLING,

RESIDENCEAND2. Sayyad Abu Baker Sidiq, S/o Rafi, a/a 23 years, Muslim, Muslim, TALUKOFTHED.No.8-27-4, Govindaswamy Street, Ramagopalasatram, Winchpet, ACCUSED Nos. 1 to 3:Vijayawada.

4. Akbar Basha Shaik, a/a 36 years, Muslim, D.No.12-8-52, Vaddurivari Veedhi, Kothapet, Guntgur. OFFENCE:under Sections 323, 341, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. U/sec.323 of Indian Penal Code: Voluntarily causing hurt U/sec.341 of Indian Penal Code: Punishment for wrongful restraint; Under Section 506 Punishment for Criminal Intimidation U/sec.r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code : Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.

FINDING:Found not guilty SENTENCE:In the result, the Accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 323, 341, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, as such they are acquitted under section 255 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The Accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 complied section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code in order to ensure their presence before the appellate Court, if any appeal is preferred against them.

DATE OF RECEIPT16.11.2022

FROMTHE

MAGISTRATE:

II ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

VIJAYAWADA

To The Hon’ble II Addl. District Judge, cum Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada

Calendar Case No.777 OF 2021 Date of Judgment:16.11.2022 Date of Dispatch of Calendar: Date of Receipt: Remarks of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada:

BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : VIJAYAWADA

Present: Smt. K. Krishna Satya Latha, II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada

Thursday, this the 17th day of November, 2022.

Calendar Case No. 1604 of 2021

Between:

The State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Krishna Lanka

Police Station, Vijayawada City.....Complainant

And:

1.Mannem Sai, S/o late Rambabu, a/a 27 years, Caste by Toorpukapu, Peddivari Street, D.No.41-20/9-32, Krishna Lanka, Vijayawada.

2.Krishnam Chandra Sekhar, S/o Siva, a/a 24 years, Caste by Toorpukapu, Nearby Chinna High School [VNR], Peddivari Street, D.No.41-

20/9-32, Krishnalanka, Vijayawada. .... Accused Nos. 1 & 2

This case came up on 16.11.2022 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutorfor the complainant and of Sri D.Srikanth,Advocate for the Accused Nos. 1 and 2, upon hearing of both sides and upon perusal of the material on record, having stood over for consideration till today, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1) The then Sub Inspector of Police, Krishna Lanka Police Station laid charge sheet against the Accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offence punishable under section 341, 382 or 411 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code in Cr. No. 734 of 2021 of Krishnalanka Police Station, based on the report lodged by Sri

Pasupuleti Nagaraju, S/o Narasimha Swamy, Tummalapalem village, Opp to

Ramalayam, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Krishna District.

The nub of the prosecution theory is that: 2)

I) On 08.10.2021, when LW.1/Sri Pasupuleti Nagaraju was going to

Thotlavalluru from Nandu Fly Ash situated at Ibrahimpatnam to unload the Fly

Ash loaded in the Lorry Bearing No.AP 23 W 4457, when the said lorry reached to the Fly Over at American Hospital Krishnalanka, one Honda Activa vehicle came across the lorry and stopped it suddenly, he crossed the same but the rider of the said vehicle followed it, when it reached near to

Geethanagar Katta, the said motor cycle was stopped in front of the lorry and asked him to get down from the same and picked up quarrel with him for about one hour in an intoxicated stage and they beat him with hands and forcibly took his Real Me Mobile.

(ii)During the course of investigation on 23.10.2021 at about 7:00PM on receipt of information LW.9//Sri.V.Krishna Babu, Sub-Inspector of police,

Krishnalanka PS, secured LWs. 6 and 7// Sri.Mohammed Shabeer,Neerukattu

Durga Prasad rushed to Nejati Bride and found the accused Nos. 1 and 2 who confessed about the offence and seized the Real Me cell phone from

Accused No.1 under the cover of mediator's report, he also seized cement colour Honda Activa Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.AP 31 TB 3069 from the possession of Accused No.2 under the cover of mediator's report, after completion of investigation charge sheet was laid against the accused

Nos. 1 and 2.

3.Cognizance is taken under section 190(1)(b) of Code of Criminal

Procedure, for the offence punishable under Section 341, 382 or 411 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and summons were issued to the Accused Nos. 1 and 2.

4.On appearance of the Accused Nos. 1 and 2 copies of documents were furnished to them, as contemplated under section 207 of Code of Criminal

Procedure.

5.Heard. The Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were examined under section 239

Code of Criminal Procedure. Charge under section 341, 382 or 411 r/w 34 of

Indian Penal Code against Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu, having understood the same, they denied the offence and claimed to be tried.

6. In substantiation of the contention of the prosecution, it got examined

P.Ws.1 to 5 out of 9 cited witnessess and exhibited Exts.P.1 to Exts.P3 The

Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidences of LW.2/Sri.

Kannamreddy Suresh, LW.3/Sri.Patti Kutumba Rao, LW.4/Sri. Mukkpati

Mahesh Kumar, LW.8/Sri.G.Sambaiah, HC:285 of Krishnalanka PS,

Vijayawada, LW.9/ Sri.V.Krishna Babu, the Sub Inspector of Police,

Krishnalanka Police Station.

7. After completion of prosecution side evidence, as there is no incriminating material available against the Accused Nos. 1 and 2 in the evidence of prosecution witness examination under section 313 of Code of

Criminal Procedure was dispensed with.

8. Heard both sides.

9.Now the point that requires determination is:-

Whether the prosecution is able to establish that the Accused Nos. 1 and 2 wrongfully restrained the PW.1 and committed theft of Real Me phone from his possession, after making preparation for causing death or hurt or restrained and they were in possession of the Real Me Phone knowing it to be stolen property in furtherance of their common intention ?

10.P o i n t

(i)In order to establish the culpability of the Accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offences charged under section 341, 382 or 411 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, the prosecution must establish that the Accused Nos. 1 and 2 wrongfully restrained the PW.1 and committed theft of Real Me phone from his possession, after making preparation for causing death or hurt or restrained and they were in possession of the Real Me Phone knowing it to be stolen property in furtherance of their common intention. In order to determine the culpability of the accused Nos. 1 and 2 the evidence available before this court is the testimonies of PWs.1 to 4. PW.1 who is said to be the victim in the hands of the accused Nos. 1 and 2, PW.2 and PW.5 are said to be the mediator's at the time of apprehension of accused Nos. 1 and 2 and PW.3 is the owner of the Honda Activa Motor Cycle which was said to have used by the accused Nos. 1 and 2, for commission of offence. PW.4 is said to be the witness of the incident, though PW.1 testified about the incident he did not identify the accused Nos. 1 and 2 as they are the persons who took his mobile forcibly under threat, hence, his testimony is of no help to the prosecution to connect Accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offence charged. PWs. 2 and 5 who are said to be the mediators did not support the case of the prosecution in any aspect. PW.3 also deposed that he does not know anything about the facts of this case. PW.4 who is said to be another eye witness did not support the theory of the prosecution. Though they were declared hostile nothing significant could be elicited to connect the accused for the offence charged. On bare perusal of the evidence on record absolutely there is no iota of evidence to connect the accused accused Nos.

1 and 2 for the offence charged. Hence, the Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are entitled to be acquitted for the offence charged. This point is answered accordingly.

In the result, the Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section, 341, 382 or 411 r/w 34 of Indian Penal

Code, as such he is acquitted under section 248 (1) of Code of Criminal

Procedure. M.O.1 i.e., Real Me Phone Black in Colour deposited vide

CP.35/2022 which was given to the PW.1 i.e., Pasupuleti Naga Raju by the police and re entrusted to him as an interim custody shall be retained with him after the expiry of the appeal time. The Accused complied section 437-A of Code of Criminal Procedure in order to ensure his presence before the appellate Court, if any appeal is preferred against him.

Typed to my dictation directly by the Stenographer (Outsourcing), prints are taken by her and corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 17th day of November, 2022. II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Defence: None

P.W.1/ 20.07.2022:Sri Pasupuleti Naga Raju P.W.2/ 10.08.2022:Sri Neerukattu Durga Prasad P.W.3/ 14.09.2022:Sri Durga Ramanjaneyulu P.W.4/ 28.09.2022:Sri Mukkapati Mahesh Kumar P.W.5/ 16.11.2022:Sri Mohammed Shabbir.

Documents Marked

For Prosecution: For Defence: Nil

Ext.P-1/10.08.2022 Signature on the mediator's report dated.23.10.2021

Ext.P-2/14.09.2022 The statement of PW.3 (Sri Durga Ramanjaneyulu) recorded under section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure dt. 14.09.2022.

Ext.P-3/28.09.2022 The statement of PW.4 (Sri Mukkapati Mahesh Kumar) recorded under section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure dt. 28.09.2022.

Material objects

For Prosecution: For Defence: Nil

M.O.1/20.07.2022 Black Colour Real Me Mobile (M.O.1 is deposited vide C.P.No. 35/2022)

II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate,

Vijayawada

1

BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: VIJAYAWADA

Present: Smt. K.Krishna Satya Latha, II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.

Wednesday, this the 16thday of November, 2022.

O.S.No. 189 of 2019.

Between:

Cherukuri Uma, W/o Suresh, Hindu, a/a 49 years, Resident of D.No.4- 169, Pedapulipaka Village, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District. … Plaintiff. And:

1.Eedha Srinivas, Father's name not known, Hindu, a/a 40 years, Home Guard (Traffic) Resident of Vinayaka Nagar, Yanamalakuduru, Vijayawada.

2.Patan Rehamadhulla, S/o Patan Hussain, Muslim, a/a 50 years, resident of Yanamalakuduru, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

… Defendant Nos. 1 and 2.

This suit came up on 04.11.2022 for final hearing before me in the pres- ence of Sri P.Ravindra Babu,learned Advocate for the Plaintiff and the Sri B.Karunendra Rao, learned Advocate for the defendant, upon hearing the learned counsel for the plaintiff and the defendant, upon perusal of the mate- rial on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is the suit instituted by the plaintiff against the defendants, seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining their men, agents, associates, representatives, etc., from ever interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property in any manner whatsover along with the costs of the suit.

2.The pith and marrow of the plaint is that:

(i)The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property by virtue of the sale deed bearing Document No.5444/2017 dated.26.07.2017.

The possessory agreement of sale was executed ten years prior to the date of filing of the suit by one Ayila Mariyamma in her favour, since then she has been in an un interrupted possession and enjoyment of the same, she constructed

ACC sheet shed and raised boundary wall including at the Northern side of the plaint schedule property, her name is mutated in revenue record and she has 2 been paying taxes in her name and she got service connection bearing

NO.6521402003158 and paying the electricity consumption charges.

(ii) The defendants are the Northern boundary owners, who have no manner of right, title or interest. On 20.01.2019 at about 9:00AM the defendants along with their men tried to remove the Northern Side boundary wall and occupy the plaint schedule property, but due to timely intervention of the neighbors they left the plaint schedule property by proclaiming that they would occupy the same, they are having men and material at their beck and call, hence, the plaintiff filed this suit.

3.Having received the summons, the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 made their appearance through their counsel, the defendant No.1 filed written statement denying the material avernments of the plaint apart from raising several other contentions. The written statement filed by the defendant No.1 is adopted by the defendant No.2.

4).The nub of the written statement filed by the defendant No.1 which was adopted by the defendant No.2 is that:-

(i)the plaintiff encroached into the defendant's property, when they questioned the same, she threatened them that she would implicate them in

SC, ST case. There is no cause of action to file the suit, the suit is misconceived ill motivated, hence, sought to dismiss the same.

6).After filing of the written statement, the matter was posted for hearing under section 89 of Code of Civil Procedure, since, there was no likelihood of compromise under any one of the modes mentioned under section 89 of Code of Civil Procedure, the matter was posted for settlement of issues.

7). Based on the above pleadings of both parties, the following issues are settled for trail:-

1. Whether there is a cause of action to institute this suit ?

2.Whether the plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit ?

3.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, associates and representatives etc., from ever disposing the plaintiff from the plaint schedule property ?

4. To what relief?

3 8).In substantiation of the plaintiff's contention, the plaintiff herself is examined as P.W.1, got exhibited Exts.A.1 to Exts.A.5, no oral or documentary evidence is adduced on behalf of the defendant Nos. 1 and 2.

9).Heard the learned Counsel for the plaintiff and the defendant Nos. 1 and

2. I have bestowed my thoughtful consideration for the arguments advanced by the learned counsel and perused the material on record.

10).I ssue No.1:-

In order to substantiate the contention of the plaintiff she deposed through her chief evidence affidavit, which is nothing but replica of the plaint.

The gist is that she is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property by virtue of the Ext.A.1 and she has been in possession and enjoyment of the same with absolute rights and paying house tax, water tax. The defendants having no manner of right were trying to invade into her rights over the plaint schedule property. During the cross-examination, except the bear suggestion that the avernments of her chief evidence affidavit were false, nothing could be elicited to discredit her oral testimony, as regards to her right, title, possession and the attempt of the defendant to invade into her rights. Hence, the contention of the defendants that there is no cause of action to institute this suit is unsubstantiated. As such, this issue is answered affirmatively in favour of the plaintiff.

11).I ssue No.2:-

On perusal of the Exts.A.1 to Exts.A.5, they established her settled possession over the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit.

Hence, this issue is answered positively in favour of the plaintiff.

12).I ssue No.3:-

In view of the finding under Issue Nos. 1 and 2, it can be held that the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as sought for. Hence, this issue is answered positively in favour of the plaintiff.

13).Issue No.4 :

(i)In view of the finding under issue Nos. 1 to 3, it can be held that the plaintiff is entitled for the decree in her favour. Accordingly, this issue is answered positively in favour of the plaintiff.

4

In the result the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 by grating permanent injunction restraining their men, agents, associates, representatives, etc., from ever interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property in any manner whatsoever. In the facts and circumstances of the case, each party do bear their own costs.

Typed in my Laptop, copied to pen drive, prints are taken by stenographer (outsourcing), corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 16th day of November, 2022.

II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:- None-

PW.1 : 30.08.2022: Smt.Cherukuri Uma;.

Documentary Evidence

For Plaintiff: For Defendant : -Nil-

Ext.A.1:30.08.2022 : The extract of sale deed dated.26.07.2017 executed by Ila Mariyamma in favour of the plaintiff //Smt.Cherukuri Uma (marked subject to proof and admissibility).

Ext.A.2: 30.08.2022 : House Tax receipts 4 in number.

Ext.A.3: 30.08.2022 : Water Tax receipt issued in favour of the plaintiff// Smt.Cherukuri Uma for the year 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17.

Ext.A.4: 30.08.2022 : The encumbrance certificate dated.24.01.2019.

Ext.A.5: 30.08.2022 : The Photographs along with CD.

II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.

5

1

IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: VIJAYAWADA

Present: Smt. K.Krishna Satya Latha,

Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada

Thursday, this the 15th day of July, 2021

CC.No. 794 of 2021

Between:

The State Rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police, A.S.Nagar Police Station, Vijayawada. … Complainant

And:

Meda Naga Raju, S/o.Sri Ramulu @ Chinna, 28 Years, Yerukala, Resident of Plot No.TF-6, Block No.14, New R.R.Peta, Ajith Singh Nagar, Vijayawada. Native of Gummadi Pindi, Near Chennai, Tamilnadu. … Accused

This case came up on this day for hearing before me as the accused got forwarded the letter attested by the Welfare Officer, Central Prison, Rajahmahendravaram by admitting his guilt for the offence punishable under Section 411 of India Penal Code in respect of which cognizance is taken, after hearing the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and the Accused in person with regard to the quantum of sentence through the BlueJeans Video Conference Meeting, upon hearing of both sides and having stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following:

J U D G E M E N T

(1)The Sub Inspector of Police, Ajith Singh Nagar Police Station laid charge sheet against the Accused in Crime No. 183/2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 457, 380 or 411 of Indian Penal Code, based on the report lodged by Smt., Mahamkali Krishna Veni W/o. Lakshmi Narayana, resident of

A.S.Nagar, Vijayawada.

(2) The essence of the charge sheet is that:

i) on 30.04.2021, at about 9.30 PM, the defacto complainant by name

Smt., Mahamkali Krishna Veni who was running one electrical shop at

A.S.Nagar, Vijayawada got closed the shop by locking it and went to her house.

On the next day ie., on 01.05.2021 morning at about 7.15 AM, she opened the locks and observed that the articles were in pellmell condition, she also noticed that the cash of Rs.10,000/- kept in the cash counter and some electrical goods were missing, as such, she lodged report before the police.

ii) During the course of investigation on 03.05.2021 at about 11.00 AM., on receipt of the reliable information, LW.8/Sri A.Subba Rao, ASI of Police,

A.S.Nagar Police Station rushed to New Rajarajeswaripet, Railway bridge,, by securing L.W.6/Sri Kondaparla Varun and L.W.7/Sri Rajulapati Srinivasa Rao, 2 arrested the Accused who voluntarily confessed about the offence and recovered the part of stolen property i.e., cash of Rs., 3,000/-under the cover of

Mediator’s report and forwarded him for remand. After completion of the investigation, L.W.9/Smt G.Sowjanya, S.I of Police, A.S.Nagar Police Station, laid the charge sheet against the Accused. Hence, this case.

3.Cognizance is taken under Section 190(1) (b) of Code of Criminal

Procedure for the offence punishable under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code.

4.While the matter is coming up for furnishing the documents as contemplated under section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, Accused got forwarded the letter attested by the Welfare Officer, Central Prison,

Rajamahendravaram by voluntarily admitting his guilt in respect of which the cognizance is taken and sought to set off the remand period. The copies of documents were forwarded to the mail id of Central Prison,

Rajamahendravaram directing to furnish the same to the Accused and obtain the acknowledgment from him as regards to the receipt of the documents.

Accordingly, acknowledgment as regards to the receipt of the documents by the

Accused is forwarded to the mail id of this court by the Central Prison,

Rajamahendravaram.

5. As the Accused got forwarded a letter, dated 14.07.2021 attested by the

Welfare Officer, Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram to the mail id of this court from the mail id of Superintendent, Central prison, Rajamahendravaram, by admitting his guilt for the above said offence, he was enquired by this court about the voluntary nature of the above admission of the guilt during the

Bluejeans App Video Meeting conference, he reported that the admission of the guilt is voluntary. This court is satisfied that the admission of the guilt of the

Accused is voluntary and not due to undue influence or coercion by anyone.

Hence, the admission of guilt of the Accused for the offence punishable under

Section 411 of Indian Penal Code is accepted and the Accused is found guilty for the said offence and convicted Under Section 241 of Code of Criminal

Procedure for the said offence.

6. The Accused is heard on the quantum of sentence through the BlueJeans

App Video Meeting. On enquiry, the Accused stated that he is having wife and daughter aged about 6 years and his wife is suffering with ill health and due to his absence they are suffering with starvation. He is the only person to look after her welfare.

3

7. Considering the nature of offence committed by the Accused this court is not inclined to invoke the beneficial provisions of Probation of Offenders Act.

In the result, the Accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 411 of

Indian Penal Code. The remand period from 04.05.2021 to this day i.e.

15.07.2021 shall be set off under Section 428 of Criminal Procedure Code. The

Un-marked property ie., Cash of Rs.3,000/- which was entrusted to the owner of the property by name Smt., Mahamkali Krishna Veni, W/o Lakshmi Narayana as an interim custody shall be retained with her.

The Accused is appraised of his right to prefer an appeal against the legality sentence, on enquiry he stated that he has no means to engage an

Advocate to prefer an appeal. Section is directed to address a letter of request to the Hon’ble Mandal Legal Services Committee for appoint of legal Aid counsel, if the accused intends to prefer an appeal against the legality of sentence.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer directly, prints are taken by him corrected and pronounced by me on this the day of 15th day of July, 2021 through the Bluejeans App Video Meeting.

Sd/-K.Krishna Satya Latha

Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

Appendix Of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Defence Nil

Documents Marked

For Prosecution For Defence

Nil. Material Objects

Nil

Sd/-K.Krishna Satya Latha

Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

4